Are large language models superhuman chemists?

Large language models (LLMs) have gained widespread interest due to their ability to process human language and perform tasks on which they have not been explicitly trained. This is relevant for the chemical sciences, which face the problem of small and diverse datasets that are frequently in the form of text. LLMs have shown promise in addressing these issues and are increasingly being harnessed to predict chemical properties, optimize reactions, and even design and conduct experiments autonomously. However, we still have only a very limited systematic understanding of the chemical reasoning capabilities of LLMs, which would be required to improve models and mitigate potential harms. Here, we introduce "ChemBench," an automated framework designed to rigorously evaluate the chemical knowledge and reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art LLMs against the expertise of human chemists. We curated more than 7,000 question-answer pairs for a wide array of subfields of the chemical sciences, evaluated leading open and closed-source LLMs, and found that the best models outperformed the best human chemists in our study on average. The models, however, struggle with some chemical reasoning tasks that are easy for human experts and provide overconfident, misleading predictions, such as about chemicals' safety profiles. These findings underscore the dual reality that, although LLMs demonstrate remarkable proficiency in chemical tasks, further research is critical to enhancing their safety and utility in chemical sciences. Our findings also indicate a need for adaptations to chemistry curricula and highlight the importance of continuing to develop evaluation frameworks to improve safe and useful LLMs.

Critical Behavioral Traits Foster Peer Engagement in Online Mental Health Communities

Online Mental Health Communities (OMHCs), such as Reddit, have witnessed a surge in popularity as go-to platforms for seeking information and support in managing mental health needs. Platforms like Reddit offer immediate interactions with peers, granting users a vital space for seeking mental health assistance. However, the largely unregulated nature of these platforms introduces intricate challenges for both users and society at large. This study explores the factors that drive peer engagement within counseling threads, aiming to enhance our understanding of this critical phenomenon. We introduce BeCOPE, a novel behavior encoded Peer counseling dataset comprising over 10,118 posts and 58,279 comments sourced from 21 mental health-specific subreddits. The dataset is annotated using three major fine-grained behavior labels: (a) intent, (b) criticism, and (c) readability, along with the emotion labels. Our analysis indicates the prominence of ``self-criticism'' as the most prevalent form of criticism expressed by help-seekers, accounting for a significant 43% of interactions. Intriguingly, we observe that individuals who explicitly express their need for help are 18.01% more likely to receive assistance compared to those who present ``surveys'' or engage in ``rants.'' Furthermore, we highlight the pivotal role of well-articulated problem descriptions, showing that superior readability effectively doubles the likelihood of receiving the sought-after support. Our study emphasizes the essential role of OMHCs in offering personalized guidance and unveils behavior-driven engagement patterns.