Assessment of Fine-Tuned Large Language Models for Real-World Chemistry and Material Science Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current generation of large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, have limited chemical knowledge. Recently, it has been shown that these LLMs can learn and predict chemical properties through fine-tuning. In this work, we explore the potential and limitations of this approach. We studied the performance of fine-tuning GPT-J-6B, a public-domain version of the GPT family, for a range of different chemical questions. We find that in most, if not all, cases, this approach outperforms the benchmark (random guessing) for a simple classification problem. Depending on the size of the dataset and the type of questions, we can also address more sophisticated problems. The most important conclusions of this work are that, for all datasets considered, their conversion into an LLM fine-tuning training set is straightforward and that fine-tuning with even relatively small datasets leads to predictive models. These results suggest that the systematic use of LLMs to guide experiments and simulations will be a powerful technique in any research study, significantly reducing unnecessary experiments or computations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it