Large Physics Models: Towards a collaborative approach with Large Language Models and Foundation Models
Authors:
Kristian G. Barman,
Sascha Caron,
Emily Sullivan,
Henk W. de Regt,
Roberto Ruiz de Austri,
Mieke Boon,
Michael Färber,
Stefan Fröse,
Faegheh Hasibi,
Andreas Ipp,
Rukshak Kapoor,
Gregor Kasieczka,
Daniel Kostić,
Michael Krämer,
Tobias Golling,
Luis G. Lopez,
Jesus Marco,
Sydney Otten,
Pawel Pawlowski,
Pietro Vischia,
Erik Weber,
Christoph Weniger
Abstract:
This paper explores ideas and provides a potential roadmap for the development and evaluation of physics-specific large-scale AI models, which we call Large Physics Models (LPMs). These models, based on foundation models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) - trained on broad data - are tailored to address the demands of physics research. LPMs can function independently or as part of an integrated…
▽ More
This paper explores ideas and provides a potential roadmap for the development and evaluation of physics-specific large-scale AI models, which we call Large Physics Models (LPMs). These models, based on foundation models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) - trained on broad data - are tailored to address the demands of physics research. LPMs can function independently or as part of an integrated framework. This framework can incorporate specialized tools, including symbolic reasoning modules for mathematical manipulations, frameworks to analyse specific experimental and simulated data, and mechanisms for synthesizing theories and scientific literature. We begin by examining whether the physics community should actively develop and refine dedicated models, rather than relying solely on commercial LLMs. We then outline how LPMs can be realized through interdisciplinary collaboration among experts in physics, computer science, and philosophy of science. To integrate these models effectively, we identify three key pillars: Development, Evaluation, and Philosophical Reflection. Development focuses on constructing models capable of processing physics texts, mathematical formulations, and diverse physical data. Evaluation assesses accuracy and reliability by testing and benchmarking. Finally, Philosophical Reflection encompasses the analysis of broader implications of LLMs in physics, including their potential to generate new scientific understanding and what novel collaboration dynamics might arise in research. Inspired by the organizational structure of experimental collaborations in particle physics, we propose a similarly interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to building and refining Large Physics Models. This roadmap provides specific objectives, defines pathways to achieve them, and identifies challenges that must be addressed to realise physics-specific large scale AI models.
△ Less
Submitted 9 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: Whose Culture, Whose Values, Whose Perspectives?
Authors:
Kristian González Barman,
Simon Lohse,
Henk de Regt
Abstract:
We argue for the epistemic and ethical advantages of pluralism in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in the context of Large Language Models (LLM). Drawing on social epistemology and pluralist philosophy of science, we suggest ways in which RHLF can be made more responsive to human needs and how we can address challenges along the way. The paper concludes with an agenda for change,…
▽ More
We argue for the epistemic and ethical advantages of pluralism in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in the context of Large Language Models (LLM). Drawing on social epistemology and pluralist philosophy of science, we suggest ways in which RHLF can be made more responsive to human needs and how we can address challenges along the way. The paper concludes with an agenda for change, i.e. concrete, actionable steps to improve LLM development.
△ Less
Submitted 17 January, 2025; v1 submitted 2 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
Towards a Benchmark for Scientific Understanding in Humans and Machines
Authors:
Kristian Gonzalez Barman,
Sascha Caron,
Tom Claassen,
Henk de Regt
Abstract:
Scientific understanding is a fundamental goal of science, allowing us to explain the world. There is currently no good way to measure the scientific understanding of agents, whether these be humans or Artificial Intelligence systems. Without a clear benchmark, it is challenging to evaluate and compare different levels of and approaches to scientific understanding. In this Roadmap, we propose a fr…
▽ More
Scientific understanding is a fundamental goal of science, allowing us to explain the world. There is currently no good way to measure the scientific understanding of agents, whether these be humans or Artificial Intelligence systems. Without a clear benchmark, it is challenging to evaluate and compare different levels of and approaches to scientific understanding. In this Roadmap, we propose a framework to create a benchmark for scientific understanding, utilizing tools from philosophy of science. We adopt a behavioral notion according to which genuine understanding should be recognized as an ability to perform certain tasks. We extend this notion by considering a set of questions that can gauge different levels of scientific understanding, covering information retrieval, the capability to arrange information to produce an explanation, and the ability to infer how things would be different under different circumstances. The Scientific Understanding Benchmark (SUB), which is formed by a set of these tests, allows for the evaluation and comparison of different approaches. Benchmarking plays a crucial role in establishing trust, ensuring quality control, and providing a basis for performance evaluation. By aligning machine and human scientific understanding we can improve their utility, ultimately advancing scientific understanding and helping to discover new insights within machines.
△ Less
Submitted 21 April, 2023; v1 submitted 20 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
