跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.11794 · v1

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

首次提交 2026-11-09 10:52
版本更新 2026-11-09 10:52
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

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?

作者备注:16 pages, 6 figures. Changyu Hu, Yiming Zou, and Xin Tang contributed equally. Corresponding authors: Zhenduo Zhang, Wang Ren, and Xiao Li

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-09 10:52 · 最新观测版本

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

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?

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗