Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results
Authors:
Xiaoliang Luo,
Akilles Rechardt,
Guangzhi Sun,
Kevin K. Nejad,
Felipe Yáñez,
Bati Yilmaz,
Kangjoo Lee,
Alexandra O. Cohen,
Valentina Borghesani,
Anton Pashkov,
Daniele Marinazzo,
Jonathan Nicholas,
Alessandro Salatiello,
Ilia Sucholutsky,
Pasquale Minervini,
Sepehr Razavi,
Roberta Rocca,
Elkhan Yusifov,
Tereza Okalova,
Nianlong Gu,
Martin Ferianc,
Mikail Khona,
Kaustubh R. Patil,
Pui-Shee Lee,
Rui Mata
, et al. (14 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created Brain…
▽ More
Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created BrainBench, a forward-looking benchmark for predicting neuroscience results. We find that LLMs surpass experts in predicting experimental outcomes. BrainGPT, an LLM we tuned on the neuroscience literature, performed better yet. Like human experts, when LLMs were confident in their predictions, they were more likely to be correct, which presages a future where humans and LLMs team together to make discoveries. Our approach is not neuroscience-specific and is transferable to other knowledge-intensive endeavors.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2024; v1 submitted 4 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
Microgravity induces overconfidence in perceptual decision-making
Authors:
Leyla Loued-Khenissi,
Christian Pfeiffer,
Rupal Saxena,
Shivam Adarsh,
Davide Scaramuzza
Abstract:
Does gravity affect decision-making? This question comes into sharp focus as plans for interplanetary human space missions solidify. In the framework of Bayesian brain theories, gravity encapsulates a strong prior, anchoring agents to a reference frame via the vestibular system, informing their decisions and possibly their integration of uncertainty. What happens when such a strong prior is altere…
▽ More
Does gravity affect decision-making? This question comes into sharp focus as plans for interplanetary human space missions solidify. In the framework of Bayesian brain theories, gravity encapsulates a strong prior, anchoring agents to a reference frame via the vestibular system, informing their decisions and possibly their integration of uncertainty. What happens when such a strong prior is altered? We address this question using a self-motion estimation task in a space analog environment under conditions of altered gravity. Two participants were cast as remote drone operators orbiting Mars in a virtual reality environment on board a parabolic flight, where both hyper- and microgravity conditions were induced. From a first-person perspective, participants viewed a drone exiting a cave and had to first predict a collision and then provide a confidence estimate of their response. We evoked uncertainty in the task by manipulating the motion's trajectory angle. Post-decision subjective confidence reports were negatively predicted by stimulus uncertainty, as expected. Uncertainty alone did not impact overt behavioral responses (performance, choice) differentially across gravity conditions. However microgravity predicted higher subjective confidence, especially in interaction with stimulus uncertainty. These results suggest that variables relating to uncertainty affect decision-making distinctly in microgravity, highlighting the possible need for automatized, compensatory mechanisms when considering human factors in space research.
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2023; v1 submitted 24 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
