Source-linked AI summary
MolP2SBench: Do LLMs Really Reason from Molecular Properties to Structure?
Yuhang Xie, Zhiyi Shi, Zeyi Zhang, Zhisheng Qi, Yushun Dong, Yu Wang, Xiongye Xiao
TL;DR
End-to-end reconstruction can produce correct structures without showing whether an LLM used the supplied physical evidence. MolP2SBench tests that relationship with masked-scaffold choices and controlled property changes, finding that property use varies across models and channels. Its results distinguish accuracy from responsiveness to changed evidence.
Problem
End-to-end molecular reconstruction can yield correct structures without revealing whether models relied on supplied properties, leaving property-channel use and response to changed evidence unclear.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
MolP2SBench presents masked scaffolds with fixed candidate choices and uses controlled property interventions to evaluate recovery under source and counterfactual inputs.
Source: §3.2 · p. 4, §3.3.1 · p. 5Results
LLMs can leverage physical properties, but reliance varies across models and channels, and Astra achieves higher accuracy with UV–Vis than with familiar NMR peaks.
Source: §1 · p. 2Takeaways & Limitations
MolP2SBench provides a reusable testbed for diagnosing evidence use and evaluating future training strategies toward more reliable property-grounded molecular inference.
Source: §5 · p. 9The benchmark covers small-molecule completion with computed properties and curated candidates, not experimental spectra or open-ended structure elucidation.
Source: §5 · p. 10
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in molecular discovery and structure elucidation, where decisions depend on physical observations. Existing evaluations primarily focus on end-to-end molecular reconstruction, where correct predictions do not necessarily indicate reliance on the supplied properties. We introduce MolP2SBench, a benchmark for molecular property-to-structure (P2S) reasoning in LLMs. Each task presents a masked molecular scaffold with given properties and asks the model to select the missing structure from plausible candidates. We shuffle or replace properties to test reliance on correct property-structure pairing and responsiveness to counterfactual property changes. A channel-wise leaderboard uses Property-Grounded Recovery (PGR), giving equal weight to source and counterfactual recovery. Evaluating seven models, we find that LLMs can use physical properties for structure prediction, but performance varies substantially across property types. Higher accuracy with a property does not necessarily imply greater responsiveness to it: a model may benefit more from $^1$H NMR than from $^{13}$C NMR, yet be less likely to change its prediction when the $^1$H data is replaced. LLM performance also need not reflect the relative difficulty of these properties for human chemists. Although UV-Vis spectra provide less direct structural information than NMR spectra, Astra achieves higher accuracy with UV-Vis data than with NMR peaks. MolP2SBench supports studying how LLMs extract and use physical-property information, revealing patterns that may differ from conventional chemical intuition and providing a foundation for more reliably property-grounded models for molecular and quantum-chemical inference. Code and dataset: https://github.com/DUAL-Xiao/MolP2SBench.
1 INTRODUCTION
MolP2SBench tests whether LLMs use physical evidence to choose molecular structures, addressing a gap left by end-to-end reconstruction evaluations. The benchmark separates property use from answer accuracy and reveals that property reliance, responsiveness, and model performance vary across channels.
Motivation
- Existing reconstruction evaluations entangle evidence interpretation with structural search and output generation, so correct answers need not reflect property use.Aggregate accuracy also does not show which property channels help or whether predictions change when evidence changes.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
Benchmark approach
- The benchmark masks a scaffold and tests property use through removal, cross-task shuffling, and same-family counterfactual substitution while keeping candidates fixed.These interventions test benefit beyond the scaffold, dependence on correct property-task pairing, and adaptation to replacement evidence.Source: §1 · p. 2, Figure 1 · p. 2
Key findings
- LLMs can leverage physical properties, but reliance varies by model and channel; Astra achieves higher accuracy with UV–Vis than with familiar NMR peaks.Reliance and responsiveness show different patterns, and all evaluated models err when global molecular dipoles contradict local polarity heuristics.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
Contributions
- Reliance Margin measures performance change under shuffled pairing, while Counterfactual Flip Rate measures whether initially correct predictions follow targeted property substitutions.The observed channel rankings differ between these metrics, motivating separate evaluation of reliance and responsiveness.Source: §1 · p. 3
- MolP2SBench comprises 136 task families across 11 property channels, with source tasks, shuffled controls, and candidate-targeted counterfactual variants.Its channel-wise Property-Grounded Recovery leaderboard gives equal weight to source and counterfactual recovery.Source: §1 · p. 3
Key findings
- 11.0–32.4 pp net gains coexist with 40.4%–45.6% of tasks changing outcome across paired comparisons.All four closed-weight models fail more often when dipoles contradict a local carbonyl-based polarity heuristic.Source: §1 · p. 3
2 RELATED WORK
The related-work section compares molecular benchmarks by whether they support resolving structure from input properties and directs readers to a fuller discussion in Appendix A.
Related-work discussion
- The paper provides a more detailed discussion of related work in Appendix A.Source: §2 · p. 3
Benchmark comparison
- Table 1 compares related molecular benchmarks on support for resolving structure from input properties.Its marks indicate whether a feature was evaluated, not reported, or outside the task.Source: Table 1 · p. 3
3 BENCHMARK DESIGN
MolP2SBench isolates local structure completion from open-ended generation and tests how models use properties to select among fixed candidate structures. It evaluates source recovery, reliance on correct property pairing, and responsiveness to counterfactual changes across a curated benchmark.
3.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION
- The benchmark masks property-critical fragments while preserving the scaffold and boundary bond orders, focusing inference on localized structural differences.It evaluates electronic, vibrational, and NMR properties through 11 channels, including three representations for each NMR type.Source: §3.1 · p. 4, §3 · p. 4
- 136 task families and 394 candidate structures yield 1,496 source-property instances and 2,766 eligible counterfactual substitutions; subsampling preserves diagnostic rankings in 97.7–99.3% of draws.Channel-wise PGR has mean rank correlations of 0.940–0.999 and mean absolute score deviations of 0.91–1.34 pp across subsamples.Source: §3.1 · p. 4
3.2 TASK CONSTRUCTION
- Each task keeps the scaffold and candidate order fixed while varying one property input; the model returns a candidate index and concise justification.Candidate families contain two to four options, and the source candidate is the molecule from which the task is constructed.Source: §3.2 · p. 4
- Reliance is tested by comparing source-property selection with shuffled properties that break task–property correspondence, alongside a no-properties baseline.Shuffled assignments preserve the property channel and input format; both source and shuffled conditions are evaluated against the source candidate.Source: §3.2 · pp. 4–5
- Counterfactual tasks replace source properties with those of another candidate in the same family and assess whether the prediction switches to that candidate.Source: §3.2 · p. 5
3.3.1 PRIMARY METRIC
- Property-Grounded Recovery equally weights source recovery and family-level counterfactual recovery, averaging substitutions within each family before aggregation.It is reported separately by channel; terminal-invalid outputs count as failures without reducing the denominator.Source: §3.3.1 · p. 5, §3.3 · p. 5
3.3.2 DIAGNOSTIC METRICS
- Reliance Margin measures the accuracy gain from correctly paired versus shuffled properties, while Counterfactual Flip Rate measures successful switches after substitution among initially correct cases.Source: §3.3.2 · p. 5
3.4 IMPLEMENTATION
- The evaluation uses aligned QM9, QM9-NMR, and QM9S records and a closed protocol without tools, retrieval, task-specific training, or solved few-shot examples.Inputs include extracted IR and Raman peak lists, the first ten UV–Vis excitation states, and filtered NMR observations.Source: §3.4 · p. 6
4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Across seven models, recovery varies by property channel, and the benefit of correct property pairing can differ from responsiveness to changed evidence. Combining properties is not uniformly beneficial, and higher recovery does not mean a model solves every task another model solves.
4.1 EVALUATION SETUP
- The evaluation covers seven models under a closed protocol without tools, retrieval, task-specific training, or solved few-shot examples.PGR, Reliance Margin, and Counterfactual Flip Rate are reported separately by property channel and NMR representation.Source: §4.1 · p. 6
4.2 MAIN RESULTS
- Astra has the highest PGR point estimate in ten of eleven channels, while Opus leads on atomwise 13C NMR at 69.3% versus Astra’s 68.1%.IR gives the highest PGR for all six other models. Reliance and responsiveness can rank channels differently: Sol’s atomwise 1H RM is 25.2 pp versus 12.6 pp for 13C, while its CFR is 53.6% versus 67.3%. Astra’s UV–Vis source recovery is 80.1%, above its 1H and 13C NMR results of 69.9% and 66.2%.Source: Table 2 · p. 6, §4.2 · pp. 6–7
- PGR balances source and counterfactual recovery within each family, and the leaderboard uses common complete-coverage family sets across models.The evaluation distinguishes correct-pairing effects from whether replacing properties redirects an initially correct selection toward the counterfactual candidate; both interventions hold the scaffold and alternatives fixed.Source: Table 2 · p. 6, §4.2 · pp. 6–7
4.3 COMBINED PROPERTY ANALYSIS
- Combining related properties can help, but does not consistently outperform the strongest individual input.For example, Astra’s electronic recovery rises from 80.1% to 88.2% with a bundle, while Luna’s NMR recovery falls from 49.3% to 44.1%. Adding all remaining properties to a strongest vibrational bundle improves Sol and Astra but reduces Luna and Opus; this progression is also nonmonotonic for Qwen and Gemma.Source: §4.3 · pp. 7–8
4.4 DO RECOVERY-RATE DIFFERENCES REFLECT CAPABILITY DIFFERENCES ACROSS MODELS?
- Across four paired NMR comparisons, net gains range from 11.0 to 32.4 pp, yet 40.4% to 45.6% of tasks change outcome between models.For Luna versus Sol, 30.1% of tasks are solved only by Sol and 11.8% only by Luna. Source-recovery rankings can also differ from unconditional counterfactual accuracy rankings.Source: Figure 2 · p. 8, §4.4 · pp. 8–9
4.5 CASE STUDY
- In a 13C shielding case, Astra alone selects the property-providing candidate both before and after the input is replaced.A separate dipole case shows all four models choosing the reduced candidate when the target’s dipole is lower, despite a carbonyl; across matched pairs, errors are more frequent in the ten reversal cases than the 25 nonreversal cases.Source: §4.5 · p. 9
5 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION
MolP2SBench evaluates property-to-structure reasoning beyond answer accuracy, finding that property reliance and responsiveness can rank channels differently across seven models. Its scope is small-molecule completion with computed properties and curated candidates; related-work comparisons distinguish its matched evaluation design.
5 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION
- Across seven models, reliance and responsiveness rank property channels differently, additional properties can reduce recovery, and case studies reveal physical inconsistencies in model explanations.The benchmark combines curated completion tasks, a channel-wise recovery leaderboard, and matched property interventions as a reusable testbed.Source: §5 · p. 9
- MolP2SBench covers small-molecule completion with computed properties and curated candidates, excluding experimental spectra and open-ended structure elucidation.Its coverage is constrained by careful dataset construction and manual validation; future expansion could use LLM assistance with expert review.Source: §5 · p. 10
A RELATED WORK
- Unlike spectrum-to-structure studies, MolP2SBench fixes a masked scaffold and complete candidate molecules, then substitutes aligned physical observations to test evidence-following decisions.Source: A RELATED WORK · p. 14
- Unlike property-conditioned reconstruction approaches, MolP2SBench uses local completion to evaluate general-purpose language models; its contribution is the benchmark and matched evaluation design, not masking itself.Source: A RELATED WORK · p. 14
- MolP2SBench changes properties while preserving structural hypotheses, then links behavioral comparisons to checks of physical compatibility and explanations to separate selection from argument validity.Source: A RELATED WORK · p. 14
B DATASET CONSTRUCTION
The benchmark cohort is assembled through scaffold-based candidate-family construction, property-specific filtering, and validation of molecular identities and aligned property records. The accompanying background explains how the selected quantum-chemical properties are computed and represented for model inputs.
B.1 CANDIDATE FAMILIES AND SELECTION
- The final cohort contains 136 source tasks and 394 distinct candidate SMILES, grouped by canonical masked scaffold into structurally distinct, molecule-disjoint completion families.Tasks contain one- to three-heavy-atom hidden groups; candidates are validated local completions rather than model-generated structures.Source: §B.1 · p. 14
B.2 PROPERTY-SPECIFIC FILTERING
- Each family is retained only when its source-property inputs are complete and every verifiable candidate pair meets the applicable channel-specific threshold.For NMR, filtering uses computed shieldings and distribution distances; IR and Raman use peak matching, while UV–Vis uses the first ten excitation states.Source: §B.2 · pp. 14–15, Table 5 · p. 15
B.3 MOLECULAR IDENTITY AND SPECTRAL ALIGNMENT; B.4 COVERAGE AND INTERVENTION IDENTITY
- Spectral identity alignment is independently checked, while coverage records track source-property instances and eligible counterfactual substitutions across the evaluated representations.IR and Raman mapping requires agreement on spectral rows and specified similarity and margin thresholds; bundled counterfactuals must refer to the same source and candidate across channels.Source: §B.3 · p. 15, §B.4 · p. 15
B.5 INPUT BOUNDARY AND REPRODUCIBLE ARTIFACTS
- Models receive only the public task projection, while a fixed cohort manifest and validation checks preserve reproducible task, candidate, and property-payload identities.Source labels, counterfactual identities, alignment metadata, and internal validation records remain evaluator-only.Source: §B.5 · p. 15
C.1 ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES UNDER THE DFT FORMULATION
- The reported electronic properties depend on DFT approximations and optimized geometries, so they are not determined by molecular masses and universal constants alone.The functional and basis set are required model choices; electronic properties and derivatives use the relevant source geometry and calculation level.Source: §C.1 · p. 16
C.2 ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT; C.3 HOMO–LUMO GAP
- The permanent dipole constrains overall polarity, substituent arrangement, and conformation, whereas the HOMO–LUMO gap describes frontier electronic structure and responds to conjugation and substituents.The gap is method-dependent and is generally distinct from both the fundamental gap and a neutral excitation energy.Source: §C.2 · p. 16, §C.3 · p. 17
C.4 PROTON AND CARBON-13 NMR; C.5 INFRARED AND RAMAN VIBRATIONAL PROPERTIES
- Retained-scaffold NMR shieldings constrain local nuclear environments, while IR and Raman share vibrational frequencies but provide complementary intensity patterns.IR bands can indicate functional groups and coupled skeletal vibrations; Raman often emphasizes symmetric skeletal and conjugated-bond vibrations.Source: §C.4 · p. 17, §C.5 · p. 18
C.6 UV–VISIBLE ELECTRONIC EXCITATIONS; D PROPERTY REPRESENTATIONS
- UV–Vis excitation energies and strengths jointly reflect chromophores, conjugation, and excitation character; the benchmark supplies these alongside other property representations.Representations include a compact peak list for IR and Raman, retained-scaffold NMR views, and the first ten UV–Vis transitions.Source: §C.6 · p. 19, D PROPERTY REPRESENTATIONS · p. 19
D.1 WITHIN-FAMILY PROPERTY SEPARABILITY
The section defines channel-specific criteria for measuring whether molecular properties distinguish source structures from distractors, then documents the model and scoring protocol used in the analysis.
D.1 WITHIN-FAMILY PROPERTY SEPARABILITY
- For electronic properties, dipole and gap use absolute-difference cutoffs, while UV–Vis compares the first ten excitation states using a normalized energy-and-dipole distance.The smallest nearest-distractor UV–Vis distance is 1.94 and the median is 6.49.Source: §D.1 · p. 20
- IR and Raman peak-list similarity uses normalized intensities and one-to-one peak matching within 10 cm^-1; a distractor is similar when matched mass is at least 0.9.The reported distance is 1−M, so larger values mean less overlap between supplied peak lists.Source: §D.1 · p. 20
- NMR shielding values are treated as unordered multisets, with channel-specific cutoffs of 0.1 ppm for 1H and 2 ppm for 13C.Peaks-only, count-augmented, and atomwise representations handle supplied counts differently; unequal multiset sizes count as mismatches.Source: §D.1 · p. 20
- Table 6 measures the share of source tasks separated from every available distractor and summarizes distance to each task’s nearest available distractor.The reported percentage uses tasks with at least one available distractor; distance units vary by property channel.Source: Table 6 · p. 20, §D.1 · p. 20
E.1 MODEL IDENTIFIERS AND PROTOCOL
- The protocol records seven model identifiers and obtains zero-based candidate-index predictions with concise justifications, without tools or literature retrieval.Source-property accuracy uses all 136 tasks; paired source–shuffle comparisons use input-validated matched records.Source: §E.1 · p. 21, §E.2 · p. 21
E.2 COVERAGE AND OUTPUT SELECTION
- Scoring keeps the first terminal response for each versioned input; terminal invalid answers count as incorrect rather than being replaced by later responses.Ordinary and unconditional counterfactual accuracy include invalid outputs in their denominators, while CFR requires a correct source prediction and valid eligible counterfactual responses.Source: §E.2 · p. 21
E.3 BOOTSTRAP INTERVALS
- Reported 95% percentile intervals use paired source-task bootstrap resamples, with the 136 source tasks as resampling units in Table 12.That table uses 10,000 paired resamples and seed 20260916.Source: §E.3 · p. 21
F ADDITIONAL SOURCE-RECOVERY AND REPRESENTATION RESULTS
This material adds representation and counterfactual-result context, distinguishing conditional source-macro transitions from unconditional counterfactual accuracy.
F ADDITIONAL SOURCE-RECOVERY AND REPRESENTATION RESULTS
- Table 7 reports source-property accuracy across seven models on the same 136 tasks, while NMR representation changes both retained information and its presentation.The reported NMR values use scaffold shieldings; the additional representation rows were recomputed on the final cohort after exact input replay.Source: Table 7 · p. 21, F ADDITIONAL SOURCE-RECOVERY AND… · p. 21
G.1 CONDITIONAL COHORTS AND SOURCE WEIGHTING
- Table 8 reports conditional source-macro transitions, with CFR calculated on a cohort of initially correct sources that have valid responses to eligible counterfactual substitutions.Valid counterfactual responses are averaged within each source and then across sources after input-replay exclusions.Source: §G.1 · p. 22, Table 8 · p. 22
G.2 UNCONDITIONAL CF ACCURACY
- Table 9 reports unconditional counterfactual accuracy without conditioning on source correctness, counting terminal-invalid counterfactual responses as failures.Eligible, input-validated source–counterfactual pairs receive equal weight.Source: §G.2 · p. 22
G.3 COMPARISON OF PROPERTY RANKINGS
Across the atomwise 1H versus 13C peaks comparison, higher reliance on 1H data coincides with lower counterfactual responsiveness for the evaluated models, including Sol.
G.3 COMPARISON OF PROPERTY RANKINGS
- Across Luna, Sol, and Astra, atomwise 1H has larger RM but lower CFR than 13C peaks.For Sol, the paired RM difference is +12.59 pp (95% interval [−1.50, 27.07] pp), and the CFR difference is −13.76 pp (95% interval [−26.88, −0.56] pp).Source: §G.3 · p. 22
- For Sol, atomwise 1H has higher RM (25.19 vs 12.59 pp) but lower CFR (53.59% vs 67.34%) than 13C peaks.The RM and CFR differences are atomwise 1H minus 13C peaks; the RM interval includes zero, while the CFR interval does not.Source: §G.3 · p. 22
G.4 METRIC DEFINITIONS
The appendix defines source recovery, reliance, and counterfactual responsiveness metrics, then assesses the stability of aggregate and channel-wise model rankings under family subsampling.
G.4 METRIC DEFINITIONS
- Reliance Margin compares source accuracy under correctly paired properties with accuracy after shuffling, retaining properties in both conditions.The comparison uses tasks whose source and shuffled inputs both pass validation, and RM is reported in percentage points.Source: §G.4 · p. 23
- CFR is the source-macro fraction of valid eligible counterfactual responses that select the corresponding counterfactual candidate among initially correct sources.Selecting the source or another candidate is an unsuccessful flip; invalid counterfactual responses are excluded from this conditional metric.Source: §G.4 · p. 23
- Source recovery gain measures improvement over the no-properties baseline P0 on a common source/no-properties cohort.The passage reports that this cohort contains the same 136 tasks here; source-recovery tables use all 136 final-cohort tasks, while RM uses the source–shuffle input-valid intersection.Source: §G.4 · p. 24
G.5 MODEL-RANKING STABILITY UNDER FAMILY SUBSAMPLING
- Aggregate RM and CFR model rankings remain stable under family subsampling: mean rank correlations exceed 0.98 even at the smallest subset size.At n = 100, complete rankings persist in 99.3% of RM draws and 97.7% of CFR draws; both persist in every draw at n = 125.Source: §G.5 · p. 24, Table 10 · p. 24
G.6 CHANNEL-WISE PGR STABILITY UNDER FAMILY SUBSAMPLING
- Channel-wise PGR rank correlations range from 0.940 to 0.999, while complete-ranking agreement ranges from 20.0% to 97.0%.These results use subsamples of 100 families from the final 136-family cohort; PGR results are separate from the aggregate RM/CFR analysis.Source: §G.6 · pp. 24–25, Table 11 · p. 25
H COMBINED PROPERTIES
Combined-property inputs are compared on matched tasks, while case records examine selected residual errors and whether model explanations align with candidate-specific geometry. The geometry analyses distinguish local motif recognition from grounding those interpretations in spatial arrangements.
H COMBINED PROPERTIES
- Astra gains eight tasks and loses one relative to IR alone, while Luna gains 12 and loses 16, Sol gains 12 and loses six, and Opus gains 11 and loses ten.These all-properties-versus-IR contrasts distinguish net score changes from turnover in the error set; Table 12 instead compares all-properties with vibrational input.Source: H COMBINED PROPERTIES · p. 25, Table 12 · p. 25
H.1 MATCHED INPUT CONDITIONS
- Table 7 compares single-property, bundle, and all-properties source accuracy on 136 tasks with constituent values, masked scaffolds, and candidate order matched.The NMR bundle uses integration-augmented 1H and degeneracy-augmented 13C inputs.Source: §H.1 · p. 26
I.1 VERIFIED RESIDUAL-ERROR RECORDS
- In two documented Astra all-properties errors, one task differs across the joint and vibrational configurations, while another is answered incorrectly across all four spectral and joint configurations.The saved-output records identify target indices and model answer indices for both tasks.Source: §I.1 · p. 26
I CASE RECORDS AND PROPERTY INTERPRETATION
- The case records link task references to structures and candidate lists, and featured Astra requests and answers were checked against public inputs and saved responses.The geometry checks used native property sources and candidate SMILES, without new conformer searches or quantum calculations.Source: §I.2 · p. 26, I CASE RECORDS AND PROPERTY… · p. 26
I.2 REFERENCE-GEOMETRY CHECKS FOR ELECTRONIC AND NMR EXPLANATIONS
- Reference geometries show a dipole explanation invoking balanced threefold symmetry despite non-balanced C→O axes, and an NH···O hydrogen-bond explanation unsupported by the selected conformer.In the NMR case, Luna, Sol, and Opus select the target, so that limitation is not shared by every model; the analyses highlight a gap between motif recognition and candidate-specific geometry grounding.Source: §I.2 · pp. 26–27
I.3 GEOMETRY AND HEURISTIC DIAGNOSTICS
The diagnostics test whether geometry contrasts and property heuristics track model errors. Larger scaffold-shape contrast does not consistently coincide with more errors, while selected carbonyl/reduced pairs challenge monotonic dipole expectations.
Shape and contact contrasts
- Astra’s lower/upper-half error counts are 18/59 versus 14/58 for dipole, 13/59 versus 11/58 for UV–Vis, 26/66 versus 21/66 for atomwise 1H, and 23/66 versus 21/66 for atomwise 13C, so larger shape contrast does not consistently imply more errors.Median splits are 0.52281 Å for dipole/UV–Vis and 0.50689 Å for NMR.Source: §I.3 · p. 27
- The atomwise-1H contact coefficient is 0.1016 per descriptor standard deviation, with a nominal 95% interval of [0.0212, 0.1827].The analysis adjusts for property distance, candidate count, retained heavy-atom count, and correctness under P0.Source: §I.3 · p. 27
Matched carbonyl/reduced pairs
- Across 35 matched carbonyl/reduced pairs, ten reverse the expectation that the carbonyl-rich candidate has the higher dipole, and every reversal exceeds 0.25 D.Among targets inside these pairs, dipole-input errors are 7/9, 7/9, 2/9, and 8/9 for Luna, Sol, Astra, and Opus, respectively.Source: §I.3 · p. 27
- In Task 49E99A99315E5E96, all four models select the higher-dipole reduced candidate over the carbonyl target under norm input, contrary to Astra’s stated ordering.Only Astra switches to the target under vector input, while computing its magnitude and acknowledging frame dependence.Source: §I.3 · p. 27
Norm/vector diagnostic
- On 136 matched tasks, norm/vector correct counts are 89/85 for Luna, 86/94 for Sol, 94/97 for Astra, and 82/84 for Opus.The corresponding wrong-to-correct/correct-to-wrong counts are 11/15, 12/4, 7/4, and 13/11.Source: §I.3 · p. 27
J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE ANALYSIS
The NMR analysis examines restricted observations, property separation, source recovery, and selected explanations. Results vary by representation and model, and correct choices can coexist with explanations that misread the supplied property information.
NMR property performance
- Astra obtains 80.1% source recovery with UV–Vis versus 69.9% with 1H peaks and 66.2% with 13C peaks, while Opus performs better with 13C peaks than UV–Vis.The ordering is not universal: Astra’s 1H result is similar to its HOMO–LUMO-gap result.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · p. 28
NMR observation scope
- NMR observations include only nuclei retained on the visible scaffold, excluding hidden-group signals, and provide calculated gas-phase isotropic shieldings without experimental multiplets, J-couplings, or atom assignments.Models must infer a completion from its effects on retained nuclei; a masked carbonyl carbon’s own 13C shielding is unavailable.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · p. 28
NMR property separation
- For one carbamate-versus-urea task, all four closed models select the urea when supplied the carbamate’s property information despite a W1 distance of only 0.3562 ppm.The methoxy carbon lies outside the observed scaffold, and the retained-carbonyl shieldings are 28.2095 and 28.0280 ppm.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · p. 28
- Astra’s source accuracy rises from 47.8% to 75.6% to 86.7% across increasing 1H separation groups and from 34.8% to 73.3% to 91.1% for 13C, though these associations are descriptive.Candidate count and chemical composition also differ between groups.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · p. 28
Explanation errors
- In an ester task, all four models choose correctly, but Luna cites a masked-group carbonyl signal absent from the observation and applies a shift interpretation to an absolute shielding.The example shows that source recovery can conceal an incorrect account of the property information.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · pp. 28–29
NMR case analysis
- For selected 1H cases, Astra relates retained-atom shieldings to candidate-specific bonding, switches to the property-providing candidate under substitutions, and has higher 1H peaks-only recovery than Sol.Across models, the overall ranking is nucleus-dependent: Opus exceeds Astra in the 13C peaks-only and atomwise conditions; the additional NMR interval is post-hoc and pointwise.Source: J DETAILED NMR PROPERTIES AND CASE… · pp. 29–30
K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES
This section inventories MolP2SBench task families and instances by documenting source molecules or structures, masked scaffolds, and candidate structures. It also specifies identifiers and notation conventions, with some entries marking the answer with an asterisk.
K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES
- Each task record provides the source-molecule SMILES, masked scaffold as SMILES and a drawing, and the complete candidate list in original order.Source: K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES · p. 30
- Tasks use the paper’s 16-character IDs; candidate indices are zero-based, an asterisk marks the source candidate, and SMILES are reproduced unchanged.In scaffold drawings, an asterisk denotes the masked fragment; SMILES retain stereochemical and charge annotations.Source: K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES · p. 30
- The complete inventory covers 136 source tasks and 394 candidate entries.Table 13 presents the task families, source molecules, masked scaffolds, and candidate SMILES.Source: Table 13 · p. 30, K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES · p. 30
- Task records identify each instance by an ID and give its source molecule alongside a scaffold containing a masked attachment.For example, task 92EF44C16081DC55 pairs a source structure with scaffold [*:1](CO)C(C)(C)C.Source: K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES · p. 38
- Two passages each list four candidate structures: the first marks candidate 1 with a star, while the second marks candidate 2 with a star.Source: K COMPLETE TASK FAMILIES · pp. 38–39