Exploring the Expertise of Large Language Models in Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering
Christophe Bajan, Guillaume Lambard

TL;DR
This study evaluates 15 large language models on materials science questions, establishing baseline performance and highlighting the potential for open-source models to improve with further tuning and prompt engineering.
Contribution
It provides the first comprehensive benchmark of LLMs in materials science, comparing open-source and closed-source models on domain-specific questions.
Findings
Closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 outperform open-source models.
Open-source models show potential for improvement with prompt engineering.
Baseline accuracy for top models is around 84% for closed-source and 56% for open-source.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence into various domains is rapidly increasing, with Large Language Models (LLMs) becoming more prevalent in numerous applications. This work is included in an overall project which aims to train an LLM specifically in the field of materials science. To assess the impact of this specialized training, it is essential to establish the baseline performance of existing LLMs in materials science. In this study, we evaluated 15 different LLMs using the MaScQA question answering (Q&A) benchmark. This benchmark comprises questions from the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), tailored to test models' capabilities in answering questions related to materials science and metallurgical engineering. Our results indicate that closed-source LLMs, such as Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4, perform the best with an overall accuracy of ~84%, while the open-source…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning in Materials Science
