跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1878新增论文
+1565其中 AI 相关
+113已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-10 12:17 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 13:19各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-09 14:11 — 2026-11-10 14:11(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-10 12:17最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 13:19库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-09 16:22

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

20,050 已收录论文17,071 AI 相关5,370 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-10 12:16(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.11794

ChemInsight: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating and Diagnosing Chemistry Understanding and Reasoning in Large Language Models

Changyu Hu, Yiming Zou, Xin Tang, Yiru Pan, Zicheng Huang, Deng Zhao, Qing Cui, Zhenduo Zhang 等 10 位作者

原文摘要

We introduce ChemInsight, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on chemistry tasks that require multi-step reasoning and structured chemical understanding. We propose a two-dimensional scoring system (scope and depth) to assess both task coverage and reasoning completeness. ChemInsight consists of 203 challenging chemistry questions organized into 50 bundles, which support the two-dimensional scoring evaluation scheme. We evaluate ten representative LLMs using ChemInsight and observe consistently low performance across models, with scope scores below 30% and depth scores below 11%, substantially lower than human expert performance. We then proceed to ask (1) What factor limits the advancement of current LLMs in chemistry? (2) To what extent are statistically driven language-model training methods effective at modeling chemistry symbolic language such as SMILES? And (3) Can LLM performance in chemistry be improved through intensive training on large, domain-specific corpora?

cs.CL · cs.LG