Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Sreekanth Kunchapu, Martiño Ríos-García, Benedict Emoekabu, Aswanth Krishnan, Tanya Gupta, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Macjonathan Okereke, Anagha Aneesh, Mehrdad Asgari, Juliane Eberhardt, Amir Mohammad Elahi, Hani M. Elbeheiry, María Victoria Gil, Christina Glaubitz, Maximilian Greiner, Caroline T. Holick, Tim Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Lea C. Klepsch, Yannik Köster, Fabian Alexander Kreth, Jakob Meyer, Santiago Miret, Jan Matthias Peschel, Michael Ringleb, Nicole C. Roesner, Johanna Schreiber, Ulrich S. Schubert, Leanne M. Stafast, A. D. Dinga Wonanke, Michael Pieler, Philippe Schwaller, Kevin Maik Jablonka
{"title":"一个框架来评估化学知识和推理能力的大型语言模型对化学家的专业知识","authors":"Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Sreekanth Kunchapu, Martiño Ríos-García, Benedict Emoekabu, Aswanth Krishnan, Tanya Gupta, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Macjonathan Okereke, Anagha Aneesh, Mehrdad Asgari, Juliane Eberhardt, Amir Mohammad Elahi, Hani M. Elbeheiry, María Victoria Gil, Christina Glaubitz, Maximilian Greiner, Caroline T. Holick, Tim Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Lea C. Klepsch, Yannik Köster, Fabian Alexander Kreth, Jakob Meyer, Santiago Miret, Jan Matthias Peschel, Michael Ringleb, Nicole C. Roesner, Johanna Schreiber, Ulrich S. Schubert, Leanne M. Stafast, A. D. Dinga Wonanke, Michael Pieler, Philippe Schwaller, Kevin Maik Jablonka","doi":"10.1038/s41557-025-01815-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large language models (LLMs) have gained widespread interest owing to their ability to process human language and perform tasks on which they have not been explicitly trained. However, we possess only a limited systematic understanding of the chemical capabilities of LLMs, which would be required to improve models and mitigate potential harm. Here we introduce ChemBench, an automated framework for evaluating the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art LLMs against the expertise of chemists. We curated more than 2,700 question–answer pairs, evaluated leading open- and closed-source LLMs and found that the best models, on average, outperformed the best human chemists in our study. However, the models struggle with some basic tasks and provide overconfident predictions. These findings reveal LLMs’ impressive chemical capabilities while emphasizing the need for further research to improve their safety and usefulness. They also suggest adapting chemistry education and show the value of benchmarking frameworks for evaluating LLMs in specific domains.</p><figure></figure>","PeriodicalId":18909,"journal":{"name":"Nature chemistry","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A framework for evaluating the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of large language models against the expertise of chemists\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Sreekanth Kunchapu, Martiño Ríos-García, Benedict Emoekabu, Aswanth Krishnan, Tanya Gupta, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Macjonathan Okereke, Anagha Aneesh, Mehrdad Asgari, Juliane Eberhardt, Amir Mohammad Elahi, Hani M. Elbeheiry, María Victoria Gil, Christina Glaubitz, Maximilian Greiner, Caroline T. Holick, Tim Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Lea C. Klepsch, Yannik Köster, Fabian Alexander Kreth, Jakob Meyer, Santiago Miret, Jan Matthias Peschel, Michael Ringleb, Nicole C. Roesner, Johanna Schreiber, Ulrich S. Schubert, Leanne M. Stafast, A. D. Dinga Wonanke, Michael Pieler, Philippe Schwaller, Kevin Maik Jablonka\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41557-025-01815-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Large language models (LLMs) have gained widespread interest owing to their ability to process human language and perform tasks on which they have not been explicitly trained. However, we possess only a limited systematic understanding of the chemical capabilities of LLMs, which would be required to improve models and mitigate potential harm. Here we introduce ChemBench, an automated framework for evaluating the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art LLMs against the expertise of chemists. We curated more than 2,700 question–answer pairs, evaluated leading open- and closed-source LLMs and found that the best models, on average, outperformed the best human chemists in our study. However, the models struggle with some basic tasks and provide overconfident predictions. These findings reveal LLMs’ impressive chemical capabilities while emphasizing the need for further research to improve their safety and usefulness. They also suggest adapting chemistry education and show the value of benchmarking frameworks for evaluating LLMs in specific domains.</p><figure></figure>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature chemistry\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-025-01815-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-025-01815-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A framework for evaluating the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of large language models against the expertise of chemists
Large language models (LLMs) have gained widespread interest owing to their ability to process human language and perform tasks on which they have not been explicitly trained. However, we possess only a limited systematic understanding of the chemical capabilities of LLMs, which would be required to improve models and mitigate potential harm. Here we introduce ChemBench, an automated framework for evaluating the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art LLMs against the expertise of chemists. We curated more than 2,700 question–answer pairs, evaluated leading open- and closed-source LLMs and found that the best models, on average, outperformed the best human chemists in our study. However, the models struggle with some basic tasks and provide overconfident predictions. These findings reveal LLMs’ impressive chemical capabilities while emphasizing the need for further research to improve their safety and usefulness. They also suggest adapting chemistry education and show the value of benchmarking frameworks for evaluating LLMs in specific domains.
期刊介绍:
Nature Chemistry is a monthly journal that publishes groundbreaking and significant research in all areas of chemistry. It covers traditional subjects such as analytical, inorganic, organic, and physical chemistry, as well as a wide range of other topics including catalysis, computational and theoretical chemistry, and environmental chemistry.
The journal also features interdisciplinary research at the interface of chemistry with biology, materials science, nanotechnology, and physics. Manuscripts detailing such multidisciplinary work are encouraged, as long as the central theme pertains to chemistry.
Aside from primary research, Nature Chemistry publishes review articles, news and views, research highlights from other journals, commentaries, book reviews, correspondence, and analysis of the broader chemical landscape. It also addresses crucial issues related to education, funding, policy, intellectual property, and the societal impact of chemistry.
Nature Chemistry is dedicated to ensuring the highest standards of original research through a fair and rigorous review process. It offers authors maximum visibility for their papers, access to a broad readership, exceptional copy editing and production standards, rapid publication, and independence from academic societies and other vested interests.
Overall, Nature Chemistry aims to be the authoritative voice of the global chemical community.