Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

MatSci-NLP: Evaluating Scientific Language Models on Materials Science Language Tasks Using Text-to-Schema Modeling

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.08264 v1 pith:X72TD6A7 submitted 2023-05-14 cs.CL cond-mat.mtrl-scics.AI

classification cs.CLcond-mat.mtrl-scics.AI
keywords materialssciencetaskstextlanguagematsci-nlpmethodsmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present MatSci-NLP, a natural language benchmark for evaluating the performance of natural language processing (NLP) models on materials science text. We construct the benchmark from publicly available materials science text data to encompass seven different NLP tasks, including conventional NLP tasks like named entity recognition and relation classification, as well as NLP tasks specific to materials science, such as synthesis action retrieval which relates to creating synthesis procedures for materials. We study various BERT-based models pretrained on different scientific text corpora on MatSci-NLP to understand the impact of pretraining strategies on understanding materials science text. Given the scarcity of high-quality annotated data in the materials science domain, we perform our fine-tuning experiments with limited training data to encourage the generalize across MatSci-NLP tasks. Our experiments in this low-resource training setting show that language models pretrained on scientific text outperform BERT trained on general text. MatBERT, a model pretrained specifically on materials science journals, generally performs best for most tasks. Moreover, we propose a unified text-to-schema for multitask learning on \benchmark and compare its performance with traditional fine-tuning methods. In our analysis of different training methods, we find that our proposed text-to-schema methods inspired by question-answering consistently outperform single and multitask NLP fine-tuning methods. The code and datasets are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/BangLab-UdeM-Mila/NLP4MatSci-ACL23}.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MSQA: Benchmarking LLMs on Graduate-Level Materials Science Reasoning and Knowledge

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new LLM benchmark of 1,757 graduate-level materials science questions shows proprietary models outperform open-source and domain-specific models, though the benchmark's LLM-generated gold answers raise validity concerns.

  2. Foundational Large Language Models for Materials Research

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Domain-adapted LLaMA models (LLaMat) outperform commercial LLMs on materials NLP and structured extraction tasks and generate M3GNet-predicted stable crystals, with LLaMA-2-based variants beating LLaMA-3-based ones.

  3. A Survey of AI for Materials Science: Foundation Models, LLM Agents, Datasets, and Tools

    cs.LG 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey organizes foundation models, LLM agents, datasets, and tools in materials science into six task areas.

  4. Exploring the Expertise of Large Language Models in Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering

    physics.comp-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On the MaScQA benchmark, Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o achieve about 84 percent accuracy, while the best open-source models (Llama3-70b, Phi3-14b) reach about 56 and 43 percent.

Pith tools