Training Chemical Plausibility-Aware Large Language Models for Single-Step Retrosynthesis

What they did

1. Retrosynthesis, working backward from a drug candidate to available starting materials, naturally has multiple valid solutions per molecule, but conventional single-answer evaluation protocols fail to capture this one-to-many nature
2. Instead of asking the model for just one answer (Top-1), the team trained and evaluated models using Top-K prompting, explicitly asking for 15 different plausible answers per molecule
3. They built a huge new dataset called CREED-CCV-2+USPTO-XL with about 3.68 million unique products and roughly 45.6 million verified reactions, trained the C3LM model on it, and further fine-tuned it with reinforcement learning using a chemical-plausibility scoring tool (ChemCensor) plus a novelty reward
4. C3LM beat leading conventional retrosynthesis tools like MHNreact and strong commercial AI models on the challenging out-of-distribution URSA-expert-2026 benchmark, and analysis showed AI models and conventional software tend to find different, complementary reactions -- suggesting combining both approaches could cover more chemical possibilities

Why it matters

Retrosynthesis prediction is a core screening step for checking whether a proposed drug candidate can actually be synthesized in a lab, so improving how diverse and reliable this AI-based prediction is can reduce wasted effort early in drug discovery. The finding that AI models and traditional software explore different reaction spaces also points toward practical ensemble strategies that combine both for broader coverage.

Terms in this paper

• Retrosynthesis · Working backward from a target molecule to figure out what starting materials and reactions could produce it
• Top-K prompting · Asking an AI model to generate multiple distinct candidate answers in one go instead of just one
• ChemCensor · A scoring tool that checks whether a generated chemical reaction is chemically plausible
• GRPO (Group Relative Policy Optimization) · A reinforcement learning method that trains a model by comparing groups of candidate answers against each other
• SMILES · A text-string notation used to represent chemical structures

Figures we cannot republish

• Figure 1: Comparison of representative top-performing models from each model tier, normalized by metric-specific frontier scores.
• Figure 2: Data-generation pipeline for the CREED-CCV-2+USPTO-XL training set.
• Figure 3: Top-1 → Top-K transition on URSA-expert-2026 (Av. PT-Top-10 CC). Hollow = Top-1 task, filled = Top-K task; line length is the gain Δ=Top-K−Top-1 (right column, sorted).
• Figure 4: Intersection between the reactions predicted for the URSA-expert-2026 benchmark set by each LLM and those predicted by MHNreact. Values on the right (Δ) show the average per-target difference between the number of reactions unique to the LLM and those unique to MHNreact; positive values indicate more LLM-unique reactions. C3LM-2: C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV+USPTO; C3LM-3: C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV-2+USPTO-XL; C3LM-5: C3LM-LFM2-RFT-CC-NR. See all results in Figure 5.
• Figure 5: Intersection of reactions predicted by LLMs and the conventional SSRS model MHNreact. Values on the right show the difference between the number of reactions unique to the model and those unique to MHNreact (model − MHNreact). C3LM-1: C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV+USPTO*; C3LM-2: C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV+USPTO; C3LM-3: C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV-2+USPTO-XL; C3LM-4: C3LM-LFM2-RFT-CC; C3LM-5: C3LM-LFM2-RFT-CC-NR.
• Figure 6: Intersection of reactions predicted for X404-1768-5005 by C3LM-LFM2-CREED-CCV-2+USPTO-XL and MHNreact.
• Figure 7: Distribution of the number of reactant sets for products from USPTO-50K-test-mini. For each product, all reference reactant sets were retrieved by matching it against USPTO-full.

Latest papers

• SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?AI coding agents were tested on fixing real scientific software, and even the best one failed more than half the timearXiv:2608.197992026-08-21
• FlashPrefill V2: Block-Sparse Prefill Attention for Long-Context LLM ServingMaking sparse attention fast enough and accurate enough for real LLM serving, not just papersarXiv:2608.197582026-08-21
• PolicyGuide: From Guarding One Action to Guiding the Whole Workflow for Policy-Compliant LLM AgentsMaking customer-service AI agents follow the whole procedure, not just avoid one bad actionarXiv:2608.198612026-08-21
• EXIMO: VLM Guided Exploration of VLA PoliciesTeaching a robot new chores without human teleoperation, by letting a chatty AI supervise itarXiv:2608.198912026-08-21
• EnvHarness: Awakening Static Worlds for Agent LearningInstead of building new training worlds from scratch, this work adds a plug-in layer that reshapes existing ones around each agent's actual weaknessesarXiv:2608.198802026-08-21
• Bounded Sovereignty and the Control Tax: Pricing AI Oversight When the Deployer Does Not Own the ModelCompanies that rent AI instead of owning it can only do half of AI safety oversightarXiv:2608.192162026-08-21
• Beyond Imitation: Filtering On-Policy Distillation by Reasoning ProgressA fix for AI models that get penalized by their teacher even when they're reasoning correctlyarXiv:2608.194082026-08-21
• PersonalBench: Measuring the Authorship Gap in LLM PersonalizationAI can be prompted to write 'like someone,' but its own voice never fully disappearsarXiv:2608.197462026-08-21

Latest from METAL MEDIA

• TUIDE debut with 'SUN KISS,' an Iceland-shot K-pop road movie
• NCT 127 drop BLINGY, their first full album in two years