Can large language models understand molecules?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Large Language Models (LLMs) like Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) from OpenAI and LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) from Meta AI are increasingly recognized for their potential in the field of cheminformatics, particularly in understanding Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES), a standard method for representing chemical structures. These LLMs also have the ability to decode SMILES strings into vector representations. METHOD: We investigate the performance of GPT and LLaMA compared to pre-trained models on SMILES in embedding SMILES strings on downstream tasks, focusing on two key applications: molecular property prediction and drug-drug interaction prediction. RESULTS: We find that SMILES embeddings generated using LLaMA outperform those from GPT in both molecular property and DDI prediction tasks. Notably, LLaMA-based SMILES embeddings show results comparable to pre-trained models on SMILES in molecular prediction tasks and outperform the pre-trained models for the DDI prediction tasks. CONCLUSION: The performance of LLMs in generating SMILES embeddings shows great potential for further investigation of these models for molecular embedding. We hope our study bridges the gap between LLMs and molecular embedding, motivating additional research into the potential of LLMs in the molecular representation field. GitHub: https://github.com/sshaghayeghs/LLaMA-VS-GPT .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".