Retro-Expert: Collaborative Reasoning for Interpretable Retrosynthesis
Extracted source text · arXiv 2508.10967
%File: formatting-instructions-latex-2026.tex
%release 2026.0
\documentclass[letterpaper]{article} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{aaai2026} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{times} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{helvet} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{courier} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage[hyphens]{url} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{graphicx} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\urlstyle{rm} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\def\UrlFont{\rm} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\usepackage{natbib} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS AND DO NOT ADD ANY OPTIONS TO IT
\usepackage{caption} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS AND DO NOT ADD ANY OPTIONS TO IT
\frenchspacing % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\setlength{\pdfpagewidth}{8.5in} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\setlength{\pdfpageheight}{11in} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
%
% These are recommended to typeset algorithms but not required. See the subsubsection on algorithms. Remove them if you don't have algorithms in your paper.
% \usepackage{algorithm}
% \usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage[linesnumbered, ruled, vlined, noend]{algorithm2e}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{appendix}
%
% These are are recommended to typeset listings but not required. See the subsubsection on listing. Remove this block if you don't have listings in your paper.
\usepackage{newfloat}
\usepackage{listings}
\DeclareCaptionStyle{ruled}{labelfont=normalfont,labelsep=colon,strut=off} % DO NOT CHANGE THIS
\lstset{%
basicstyle={\footnotesize\ttfamily},% footnotesize acceptable for monospace
numbers=left,numberstyle=\footnotesize,xleftmargin=2em,% show line numbers, remove this entire line if you don't want the numbers.
aboveskip=0pt,belowskip=0pt,%
showstringspaces=false,tabsize=2,breaklines=true}
% \floatstyle{ruled}
% \newfloat{listing}{tb}{lst}{}
% \floatname{listing}{Listing}
%
% Keep the \pdfinfo as shown here. There's no need
% for you to add the /Title and /Author tags.
\pdfinfo{
/TemplateVersion (2026.1)
}
% DISALLOWED PACKAGES
% \usepackage{authblk} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{balance} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{color (if used in text)
% \usepackage{CJK} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{float} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{flushend} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{fontenc} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{fullpage} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{geometry} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{grffile} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{hyperref} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{navigator} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% (or any other package that embeds links such as navigator or hyperref)
% \indentfirst} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \layout} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \multicol} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \nameref} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{savetrees} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{setspace} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{stfloats} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{tabu} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{titlesec} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{tocbibind} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{ulem} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% \usepackage{wrapfig} -- This package is specifically forbidden
% DISALLOWED COMMANDS
% \nocopyright -- Your paper will not be published if you use this command
% \addtolength -- This command may not be used
% \balance -- This command may not be used
% \baselinestretch -- Your paper will not be published if you use this command
% \clearpage -- No page breaks of any kind may be used for the final version of your paper
% \columnsep -- This command may not be used
% \newpage -- No page breaks of any kind may be used for the final version of your paper
% \pagebreak -- No page breaks of any kind may be used for the final version of your paperr
% \pagestyle -- This command may not be used
% \tiny -- This is not an acceptable font size.
% \vspace{- -- No negative value may be used in proximity of a caption, figure, table, section, subsection, subsubsection, or reference
% \vskip{- -- No negative value may be used to alter spacing above or below a caption, figure, table, section, subsection, subsubsection, or reference
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{0} %May be changed to 1 or 2 if section numbers are desired.
% The file aaai2026.sty is the style file for AAAI Press
% proceedings, working notes, and technical reports.
%
% Title
% Your title must be in mixed case, not sentence case.
% That means all verbs (including short verbs like be, is, using,and go),
% nouns, adverbs, adjectives should be capitalized, including both words in hyphenated terms, while
% articles, conjunctions, and prepositions are lower case unless they
% directly follow a colon or long dash
\title{Retro-Expert: Collaborative Reasoning for Interpretable Retrosynthesis}
\author{
%Authors
% All authors must be in the same font size and format.
Xinyi Li\textsuperscript{\rm 1}\equalcontrib,
Sai Wang\textsuperscript{\rm 1}\equalcontrib,
Yutian Lin\textsuperscript{\rm 1},
Yu Wu\textsuperscript{\rm 1}\thanks{Corresponding author.},
Yi Yang\textsuperscript{\rm 2}\\
% Written by AAAI Press Staff\textsuperscript{\rm 1}\thanks{With help from the AAAI Publications Committee.}\\
% AAAI Style Contributions by Pater Patel Schneider,
% Sunil Issar,\\
% J. Scott Penberthy,
% George Ferguson,
% Hans Guesgen,
% Francisco Cruz\equalcontrib,
% Marc Pujol-Gonzalez\equalcontrib
}
\affiliations{
%Afiliations
\textsuperscript{\rm 1}School of Computer Science, Wuhan University \quad\quad
\textsuperscript{\rm 2}CCAI, Zhejiang University\\
\texttt{\{xinyil, wangsai23, yutian.lin, wuyucs\}@whu.edu.cn }\\
\texttt{yangyics@zju.edu.cn}
% \textsuperscript{\rm 1}Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence\\
% If you have multiple authors and multiple affiliations
% use superscripts in text and roman font to identify them.
% For example,
% Sunil Issar\textsuperscript{\rm 2},
% J. Scott Penberthy\textsuperscript{\rm 3},
% George Ferguson\textsuperscript{\rm 4},
% Hans Guesgen\textsuperscript{\rm 5}
% Note that the comma should be placed after the superscript
% 1101 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 300\\
% Washington, DC 20004 USA\\
% email address must be in roman text type, not monospace or sans serif
% proceedings-questions@aaai.org
%
% See more examples next
}
%Example, Single Author, ->> remove \iffalse,\fi and place them surrounding AAAI title to use it
\iffalse
\title{My Publication Title --- Single Author}
\author {
Author Name
}
\affiliations{
Affiliation\\
Affiliation Line 2\\
name@example.com
}
\fi
\iffalse
%Example, Multiple Authors, ->> remove \iffalse,\fi and place them surrounding AAAI title to use it
\title{My Publication Title --- Multiple Authors}
\author {
% Authors
First Author Name\textsuperscript{\rm 1,\rm 2},
Second Author Name\textsuperscript{\rm 2},
Third Author Name\textsuperscript{\rm 1}
}
\affiliations {
% Affiliations
\textsuperscript{\rm 1}Affiliation 1\\
\textsuperscript{\rm 2}Affiliation 2\\
firstAuthor@affiliation1.com, secondAuthor@affilation2.com, thirdAuthor@affiliation1.com
}
\fi
% REMOVE THIS: bibentry
% This is only needed to show inline citations in the guidelines document. You should not need it and can safely delete it.
\usepackage{bibentry}
% END REMOVE bibentry
\nocopyright
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Retrosynthesis prediction aims to infer the reactant molecule based on a given product molecule, which is a fundamental task in chemical synthesis.
However, existing models rely on static pattern-matching paradigm, which limits their ability to perform effective logic decision-making, leading to black-box decision-making.
% The development of interpretable retrosynthesis models is crucial for chemist's decision-making by providing meaningful explanation.
Building on this, we propose Retro-Expert, an interpretable retrosynthesis framework that performs collaborative reasoning by combining the complementary reasoning strengths of Large Language Models and specialized models via reinforcement learning. It outputs natural language explanations grounded in chemical logic through three components:
% Building on this, we propose Retro-Expert, an interpretable retrosynthesis reasoning framework that combines domain-specific models with LLMs to generate human-readable reasoning alongside predictions via reinforcement learning.
%While existiong data-driven models have shown promising performance, they fail to explain the chemical rationale behind their predictions, which limits their practical use for chemists. Building on this, we propose Retro-Expert, an interpretable retrosynthesis reasoning framework that combines domain-specific models with large language models (LLMs) to generate human-readable reasoning alongside predictions via reinforcement learning.
% Unlike black-box data-driven models, Retro-Expert outputs natural language explanations grounded in chemical logic (e.g., reaction rules, principles) through three components:
% It consists of three key components:
(1) specialized models perform shallow reasoning to construct high-quality chemical decision space, (2) LLM-driven critical reasoning to generate predictions and corresponding interpretable reasoning path,
% (1) specialized models ensuring chemically valid candidates for reasoning, (2) LLM-driven reasoning to synthesize a decision-making pathway,
and (3) reinforcement learning optimizing interpretable decision policy.
Experiments show that Retro-Expert not only surpasses both LLM-based and specialized models across different metrics but also provides expert-aligned explanations that bridge the gap between AI predictions and actionable chemical insights.
\end{abstract}
% Uncomment the following to link to your code, datasets, an extended version or similar.
% You must keep this block between (not within) the abstract and the main body of the paper.
% \begin{links}
% \link{Code}{https://aaai.org/example/code}
% \link{Datasets}{https://aaai.org/example/datasets}
% \link{Extended version}{https://aaai.org/example/extended-version}
% \end{links}
\section{Introduction}
Retrosynthesis prediction aims to deduce potential reactants and reaction pathways for synthesizing a target product molecule based on its structural characteristics~\cite{somnath2021learning, segler2017neural, sun2021towards}, holding significant application value in drug discovery and molecular design~\cite{huosda, wang2023retrodiff, wang2018computational}.
However, existing models primarily adopt a pattern-matching paradigm, which learn mappings between product SMILES and reactant SMILES from datasets, framing the task as either classification or auto-regressive sequence generation~\cite{yao2023retroformer, chen2021deep, yao2023retroformer, zheng2019predicting}.
% Existing data-driven models predominantly rely on data memorization mechanisms, which learn mappings between product SMILES and reactant SMILES from datasets, framing the task as either classification or auto-regressive sequence generation~\cite{yao2023retroformer, chen2021deep, yao2023retroformer, zheng2019predicting}.
Under this paradigm, traditional specialized models capture intricate structural features to learn improved mappings, yet their end-to-end nature inherently limits their ability to provide chemically-grounded rationales for their predictions.
% Although traditional machine learning model can achieve competitive accuracy, their end-to-end nature inherently limits their ability to provide chemically-grounded rationales for their predictions.
In contrast, large language models (LLMs) rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to enhance retrosynthetic capabilities, but their performance depends heavily on memorized reaction patterns and typically outputs only reactants or corresponding options~\cite{zhang2024chemllm, zhao2024chemdfm}. This reliance limits their capacity to understand underlying chemical principles and perform logical reasoning.
% In contrast, large language models specialized for chemistry (Chemical LLMs) have demonstrated enhanced retrosynthetic capabilities through supervised fine-tuning (SFT), generating reactants SMILES or selecting from predefined options~\cite{zhang2024chemllm, zhao2024chemdfm}. However, these models remain constrained by their reliance on memorized reaction patterns from training data.
% This reliance limits their capacity to understand underlying chemical principles and perform logical reasoning.
This paradigm faces three key limitations:
(1) The model only generates reactant SMILES strings, with no transparency in its internal reasoning process.
(2) The predictions lack natural language explanations grounded in chemical logic, critically hindering real-world adoption.
(3) The pure pattern-matching mechanism significantly constrains the model's capacity for effective logical decision-making.
% (3) The mere memorization mechanism significantly constrains the model's capacity for effective logical decision-making.
These limitations lead to a lack of reliable basis for the predictions in chemical principles, which severely undermines chemists' trust in practical applications.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{pics/intro_expert.pdf}
% \caption{Core Highlights of Retro-Expert: enabling interpretable retrosynthesis by collaborating the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and the specialized capabilities of specialized models.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Retro-Expert: an interpretable retrosynthesis framework capable of generating step-by-step reasoning in natural language, enabled by the collaboration the reasoning capabilities of LLMs with the knowledge grounding capabilities of specialized models.}
\label{fig:intro}
\end{figure}
Given the mentioned challenges, a reasoning-driven paradigm aligns more closely with the intrinsic nature of retrosynthetic analysis than simplistic pattern matching. This approach mirrors the strategy employed by chemical experts, who conceptualize retrosynthesis as an iterative and logical reasoning process.
% Indeed, rather than relying solely on data memorization, retrosynthesis can be more effectively addressed through a reasoning-driven approach.
% This perspective aligns with how expert chemists typically conduct retrosynthetic analysis: beginning with the inspection of the product structure, then hypothesizing plausible reaction types, locating key reaction centers, and ultimately inferring suitable reactants.
Notably, recent breakthroughs in other domains~\cite{wang2025m1, xie2025logic, chen2025pandora} have demonstrated the potential of LLMs to address complex specialized problems through specialized-knowledge-based reasoning, enhanced by reinforcement learning. These findings motivate us to explore how to leverage LLMs' emergent reasoning capabilities to enhance the interpretability of retrosynthesis prediction.
We focus on chemical knowledge-based retrosynthetic reasoning by LLMs to generate reactants along with explainable reasoning process, ensuring interpretable and transparent retrosynthesis prediction.
% However, the choice of learning paradigm critically influences a model's capacity to acquire such capabilities.
To induce reasoning, the selection of an appropriate learning paradigm is crucial.
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) inclines models towards replicating prevalent reaction patterns observed in training data, rather than engaging in reasoning grounded in underlying chemical principles.
In contrast, Reinforcement Learning (RL) approaches, which optimize models' behavioral policy through reward feedback, offer a theoretically viable path for models to learn reasoning within complex decision spaces.
However, directly applying RL to incentivize models for retrosynthetic reasoning faces two critical challenges:
(1) Domain Knowledge Disparity.
Retrosynthesis demands not only logical reasoning but also mastery of specialized chemical knowledge.
Pre-trained LLMs fail to adequately internalize and apply specific chemical principles when reasoning solely based on molecular SMILES.
% (2) Lack of Specialized Capabilities.
% The retrosynthesis workflow inherently requires coordinated execution of interdependent subtasks, including reaction type classification and reaction center localization~\cite{gao2022semiretro, wang2021retroprime, yan2020retroxpert}.
% Vanilla LLMs struggle to execute these specialized subtasks, while dedicated specialized models, each individually optimized for a specific subtask, have achieved expert-level performance with no training costs incurred~\cite{wang2023retrodiff, chen2021deep, somnath2021learning}.
% These specialized models can offer valuable chemical guidance to LLMs during retrosynthesis.
(2) Granularity Mismatch in Specialized Capabilities.
The retrosynthetic reasoning process comprises multiple subtasks with distinct cognitive requirements, including reaction type classification and reaction center localization~\cite{gao2022semiretro, wang2021retroprime, yan2020retroxpert}.
While general LLMs demonstrate profound logical reasoning abilities, they inherently lack precise perception and matching capabilities for fundamental chemical reaction patterns - a critical requirement for certain subtasks. In contrast, dedicated specialized models, each individually optimized for a specific subtask, have achieved expert-level performance~\cite{wang2023retrodiff, chen2021deep, somnath2021learning}.
% with no training costs incurred~\cite{wang2023retrodiff, chen2021deep, somnath2021learning}.
% Therefore, we aim to synergistically integrate the knowledge grounding capabilities of specialized models with the advanced reasoning capability of LLMs through reinforcement learning, establishing a new paradigm where specialized models provide chemical knowledge guidance, upon which LLMs perform explainable decision-making.
To bridge this gap, we propose a novel paradigm that synergistically combines: (1) the experience-based shallow reasoning (pattern recognition) of specialized models with (2) the deep logical reasoning of LLMs. Specifically, specialized models construct high-quality, multi-dimensional chemical decision spaces, upon which LLMs perform interpretable logical reasoning.
Building upon these insights, we present \textbf{\underline{Exp}}lainable and Coop\textbf{\underline{er}}a\textbf{\underline{t}}ive retrosynthesis framework, \textbf{Retro-Expert}, the first explainable retrosynthesis framework that integrates natural language-based expert reasoning with model-agnostic compatibility.
The framework contains three synergistic core components:
% reaction center identifier
(1) \textbf{Chemical Decision Space Construction.} Leveraging specialized models (e.g., reaction type classifiers, reaction center localization and reactant generators) to construct high-quality chemical decision space, which provides ``knowledge anchors'' for LLM's subsequent deep reasoning.
% produce stage-specific candidate predictions for a target product.
(2) \textbf{Collaborative Reasoning Engine.}
% Leveraging the powerful semantic understanding and logical reasoning capabilities,
% As a synergistic reasoning hub,
Leveraging the effective collaboration between shallow pattern recognition and deep logical reasoning, the LLM perform integrated critic analysis and in-depth reasoning upon the chemical decision space. It produces the final reactant prediction along with interpretable, natural language-based reasoning process.
% over the multi-stage candidate results generated by specialized models,
% ultimately producing the final reactant prediction along with interpretable, natural language-based reasoning process.
(3) \textbf{Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization.}
Retro-Expert optimizes the LLM's reasoning strategy via rule-based reinforcement learning.
A multi-stage reward mechanism is designed during training to guide the model toward learning an optimal and trustworthy reasoning path.
Notably, Retro-Expert allows seamless integration of arbitrary specialized models during inference, enabling flexible expansion without retraining.
Our contributions are summarized as follows:
\noindent 1. This work represents the first retrosynthesis model capable of generating natural language interpretable reasoning processes.
% It significantly enhances chemists' trust in the model and its practical applicability in real-world scenarios.
It fills a long-standing interpretability gap in the field, significantly enhancing chemists' trust in the model and its practical applicability in real-world scenarios.
\noindent 2. We propose a collaborative retrosynthesis reasoning framework built upon the synergy between the LLM and specialized models.
% By combining the specialized information extraction capabilities of specialized models with the complex logical reasoning capabilities of LLMs,
It improves prediction accuracy while generates human-understandable step-by-step analysis.
% Notably, Retro-Expert supports seamless integration of specialized models of any type and quantity during inference, enabling flexible expansion without retraining.
% Notably, Retro-Expert allows seamless integration of arbitrary specialized models during inference, enabling flexible expansion without retraining.
\noindent 3. Systematic experiments validate the advantages of the LLM-specialized model collaborative reasoning in Retro-Expert. Furthermore, its performance scales with improvements in specialized model accuracy, demonstrating strong generalization and scalability.
\section{Related Work}
\noindent\textbf{Retrosynthesis Prediction.}
Existing retrosynthesis methods are broadly categorized into two modeling paradigms: specialized machine learning (ML) models and large language model (LLM)-based methods.
ML-based approaches model chemical molecules from different perspectives (e.g., SMILES strings, molecular graphs) to learn the mapping from product to reactant molecules~\cite{sacha2021molecule, zhong2022root, chen2021deep, somnath2021learning}.
Although these methods demonstrate significant potential through precise molecular mappings, their black-box decision-making mechanisms inherently restrict the model's interpretability.
LLM-based approaches aim to enhance the comprehension and memorization capabilities of LLMs for chemical tasks.
Some efforts tailor LLMs to retrosynthesis via SFT~\cite{zhang2024chemllm, zhao2024chemdfm, yang2024batgpt}. Limited by the memorization-centric nature of SFT, these models tend to replicating memorized reaction patterns and only produce predicted reactants or corresponding options.
Other work integrates the LLM with external tools to improve prediction accuracy~\cite{bran2023chemcrow, bran2025chemical, liu2024reactxt}.
However, they are limited to directly adopting or scoring based on predefined metrics of specialized model predictions. Such strategies lack engagement in the predictive process and thus fail to provide interpretable reasoning pathways that reveal underlying reaction mechanisms.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.1\columnwidth]{pics/mainfigure.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Overview of the Retro-Expert. (1) Decision Space Construction: Specialized models first analyze the target product to construct a high-dimensional chemical decision space composed of high-quality candidate pathways. (2) LLM-driven Navigation: Then, the LLM, acting as a reasoning engine, strategically navigates this space. This involves a critical-generative process where it can either select the best candidate pathway or generate a novel one if all provided options are deemed inadequate. (3) Policy Optimization: Finally, this navigation policy is trained end-to-end via Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization (KGPO) to ensure the resulting reasoning is both accurate and chemically sound. Please zoom in for a better view of the details.}
\label{fig:dataset overview}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Large Language Model Reasoning.}
In recent years, the profound reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been developed to solve specialized scientific problems~\cite{su2025gmai,tang2025chemagent, putri2025effectiveness, pan2025medvlm}. While employing SFT~\cite{zhou2023lima, huang2025o1}, the model primarily learns to replicate common reasoning patterns from curated datasets, restricting its effectiveness on more complex tasks.
In contrast, reinforcement learning (RL)-based reasoning models recently achieve significant progress~\cite{guo2025deepseek, zhou2024archer, feng2025video}.
In the chemistry field, some studies have assessed the performance of LLMs on chemical reasoning tasks~\cite{guo2023can, feng2024sciknoweval}. These models predominantly focus on enhancing performance through SFT paradigm.
% through improved comprehension and memorization of chemical knowledge.
However, there are few studies that incorporate expert-level reasoning strategies to tackle complex chemical reasoning tasks.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Overview}
Retro-Expert is to enhance prediction accuracy while generating human-understandable reasoning process.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:dataset overview}, Retro-Expert is built upon three core modules.
The process starts with \textbf{Chemical Decision Space Construction}, where specialized models perform experience-based shallow reasoning on a target product to construct an anchored chemical decision space.
This foundation activates the \textbf{Collaborative Reasoning Engine} (CRE), where the LLM performs deep reasoning by critically analyzing candidates, selecting an optimal path, and articulating its multi-step logic into a complete natural language chain.
Finally, \textbf{Knowledge-Constrained Decision Policy Optimization} employs RL to refine the LLM's decision-making strategy, using a multi-stage reward mechanism to guide it towards an optimal and trustworthy reasoning path.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
The objective of the retrosynthesis task $T_{\text{retro}}$ is to predict the set of reactants $\{M_r^i\}_{i=1}^C (C \geq 1)$ corresponding to a target product $M_p$.
% , where $M_p, M_r \in S$, and $S$ represents the valid SMILES space.
% In real-world expert retrosynthesis prediction, this process typically involves solving $n$ logically connected subtasks $T_{\text{retro}} = \{T_0, T_1, \dots, T_n\}$, where collaboration among subtasks enables expert-level accuracy.
According to chemical expert knowledge, the overall task can be decomposed into $n$ logically connected subtasks $T_{\text{retro}} = \{T_0, T_1, \dots, T_n\}$.
Given an environment $\mathcal{E}$ containing $N (N \geq n)$ specialized models $\mathcal{M} = \{m_0, m_1, \dots, m_N\}$, each model $m_i$ performs experience-based domain-specific reasoning to generate Top-$K$ candidate predictions $P_i$ for its corresponding subtask:
% to a retrosynthesis subtask, the input product $M_p$ is processed by each model $m_i$ to generate Top-$K$ candidate predictions $P_i$ for its corresponding subtask:
\begin{equation}
P_i = \{P_i^k\}_{k=1}^K, \quad P_i^k \sim p(m_i \vert M_p; \theta),
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ denotes the parameters of model $m_i$, and $P_i^k$ represents the $k$-th candidate result. The chemical decision space $\mathcal{T}$ is defined as the Cartesian product of candidate results from all subtasks:
% The total inference path space $\mathcal{T}$ is defined as the Cartesian product of candidate results from all subtasks:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T} = (P_0, P_1, \dots, P_n),
\end{equation}
with a space size of $K^n$.
Upon this space, an LLM $M_{\text{LLM}}$ interacts with $\mathcal{E}$, critically analyzes the Top-$K$ candidates from models in $\mathcal{M}$, and sequentially infers the correct answer $P_i'$ for each subtask. This generates a reasoning path $\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}} = (P_0', P_1', \dots, P_n')$ alongside a natural-language explanation $R$.
Retro-Expert has two core objectives: generating the correct set of reactants $\hat{a} = \{M_r^i\}_{i=1}^C$, and identifying the optimal path $T^*$ with the highest reward within $\mathcal{T}$:
% (P_i' \in P_i \cup {\tilde{P}_i})$, where
% \begin{equation}
% \underset{T_{\text{LLM}} \in \mathcal{T}}{\arg\max} \, \text{Reward}(T_{\text{LLM}}) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad M_{\text{LLM}}(M_p, T_{\text{LLM}}) = \hat{a}.
% \end{equation}
\begin{align}
\underset{T_{\text{LLM}} \in \mathcal{T}}{\arg\max} \,
\text{RM}(\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}) \nonumber \\
\quad \text{s.t.} \quad M_{\text{LLM}}(M_p, \mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}) = \hat{a}.
\end{align}
Here, $\text{RM}(\cdot)$ is a reward function evaluating the quality of the reasoning path. This framework improves the accuracy of the explainable reasoning $R$ by simultaneously ensuring correct reactant prediction and maximizing the path reward—a critical enhancement not addressed in prior work.
% By jointly optimizing both path quality and prediction accuracy, this framework enhances interpretability and performance—addressing limitations in prior work.
% \begin{algorithm}
% % \small
% \footnotesize
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
% \caption{Retro-Expert}
% \SetKwInOut{Model}{Model}
% \SetKwProg{Fn}{Function}{}{}
% \SetAlgoLined
% \KwData{Target product $M_p$; External domain knowledge $k$;}
% \KwResult{Predicted reactants $\hat{a}$; Reasoning path $\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}$; Natural language explanation $R$}
% \Model{LLM Reasoner $M_{\text{LLM}}$; Specialized models $\mathcal{M}$}
% \BlankLine
% \SetAlgoLined
% Define retrosynthesis reasoning $T_{\text{retro}} = \{T_0, T_1, \dots, T_n\}$\;
% Define environment $\mathcal{E} = \{M_{LLM}, \mathcal{M}\}$\;
% \textbf{Stage 1: Chemical Decision Space Construction}
% Initialize chemical decision space $\mathcal{T} \leftarrow \emptyset$\;
% \ForEach{subtask $T_i \in T_{\text{retro}}$}{
% $m_i \leftarrow \text{SelectModel}(\mathcal{M}; T_i)$\;
% $m_i$ generate Top-$K$ candidate:
% \Indp
% $P_i \leftarrow \text{TopK}(m_i(M_p), K)$
% \Indm
% % $P_i = \{P_i^k\}_{k=1}^K$, $P_i^k \sim p(m_i \mid M_p; \theta)$\;
% % $\mathcal{T} \leftarrow \mathcal{T} \cup \{P_i\}$\;
% }
% $\mathcal{T} = \{P_0, P_1, \dots, P_n\}$\;
% \BlankLine
% \textbf{Stage 2: Collaborative Reasoning Engine}
% % Construct prompt for LLM using $\mathcal{T}$ and $k$\;
% Initialize $\hat{a}, \mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, R\leftarrow \emptyset$\;
% % Sort subtasks $T_{\text{retro}} = (T_0, T_1, \dots, T_n)$ by logic\;
% $\text{Context} \leftarrow \text{Construct}(M_p, \mathcal{T}, k)$\;
% \While{not $M_\text{LLM}.\text{IsComplete}(T_{\text{retro}})$}{
% current subtask $T_j \leftarrow M_\text{LLM}.\text{reason}(\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, \text{Context})$\;
% $(P_j', R_j) \leftarrow M_\text{LLM}.\text{reason}( T_j, \mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, \text{Context})$\;
% Update $\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, R$ by $(P_i', R_i)$ \;
% }
% $\hat{a} \leftarrow \text{ExtractReactants}(\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}})$\;
% \BlankLine
% \textbf{Stage 3: Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization}
% Define reward function $\text{RM}(\cdot)$\;
% Initialize the policy $\pi_\theta$ of $M_\text{LLM}$\;
% \Repeat{convergence}{
% Sample $q$ from dataset $\mathcal{D}$\;
% \ForEach{query $q_j \in q$}{
% Sample $(\hat{a}, \mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}) \sim \pi_\theta(\cdot \mid q_j; k; \mathcal{E})$\;
% % $r \leftarrow \text{RM}(\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, \hat{a})$\;
% Update policy $\pi_\theta$ by maximizing $\text{RM}(\mathcal{T}_{\text{LLM}}, \hat{a})$\;
% }
% }
% \end{algorithm}
\subsection{Chemical Decision Space Construction Module}
Retro-Expert introduces a paradigm shift in retrosynthesis by reformulating it from a mapping problem into a multi-stage reasoning task, where we use specialized models to construct a well-defined structured chemical decision space.
Specifically, for a given target product $M_p$, we first decompose the retrosynthesis task into a set of distinct chemical sub-tasks such as reaction type prediction and reaction center localization.
We then invoke a suite of specialized models, each dedicated to a sub-task, to generate a corresponding set of plausible candidates. This process transforms the implicit heuristics embedded within the specialized models into explicit, actionable chemical information.
These candidate sets are then integrated, with each dimension of chemical knowledge (e.g., reaction type, reaction center) forming a multi-dimensional decision space.
This space provides well-founded ``knowledge anchors'' that ground the LLM's subsequent reasoning, enabling it to progress from heuristic selection to sophisticated, knowledge-aware strategic planning.
The design of this module is guided by two core principles to ensure its effectiveness.
First, it prioritizes comprehensive candidate coverage by employing specialized models optimized for high recall. The resulting breadth of options creates a chemically grounded and reliable search space for the LLM, significantly reducing the risk of factual hallucination.
Second, the architecture is engineered for modularity and forward compatibility. Being agnostic to the type or number of specialized models, it allows seamless ``plug-and-play'' integration of new or improved expert systems as they emerge.
Moreover, it supports the incorporation of external knowledge ($k$), such as textual descriptions of chemical rules. Consequently, this design ensures the framework's long-term adaptability and obviates the need for costly retraining of the LLM when integrating new components.
\subsection{Collaborative Reasoning Engine}
Building upon the chemical decision space, the Collaborative Reasoning Engine acts as the framework's cognitive hub, bridging the shallow, heuristic-driven inference of specialized models with the deep, logic-based reasoning of the LLMs.
This collaborative process redefines the role of the LLM, transforming it from a mere predictor or tool-caller into an active reasoning agent that navigates the full retrosynthetic path.
Concurrently, specialized models also transition from being passive data providers to active executors of shallow reasoning, tasked with constructing the actionable space.
This profound cognitive collaboration guides the LLM to shift from ``\textit{\textbf{directly predicting reactants}}'' to ``\textit{\textbf{step-by-step logical deduction}}'' upon the constructed chemical reasoning space.
The collaborative mechanism is implemented through two key steps:
(1) Reasoning Context Construction. This initial step builds a structured reasoning environment for the LLM.
Based on the chemical decision space, we organize the candidate set for each sub-task following a logical hierarchy.
In this hierarchy, the global decision (e.g., selecting the overall reaction type) is addressed first because it critically guides the subsequent search for local specifics (e.g., identifying the precise reaction center).
% it critically constrains and guides the subsequent search for local specifics (e.g., identifying the precise reaction center).
This hierarchical organization yields $n$ interconnected, difficulty-increasing candidate sets $\mathcal{T}$.
These candidate sets, combined with any external domain knowledge $k$, collectively form the LLM's reasoning context. The resulting prompt is thus designed to be a structured yet open-ended environment, guiding the LLM while encouraging it to leverage both the curated candidates and its own intrinsic knowledge.
(2) LLM-driven Critical-Generative Reasoning. Within this tailored context, the LLM operates as the active chemical reasoner. It leverages the provided information to autonomously execute a step-by-step reasoning chain, moving sequentially through sub-tasks to construct a logically coherent retrosynthetic pathway.
Specifically, the LLM's autonomous reasoning is a dynamic interplay of two core capabilities: critical analysis and generative decision-making.
At each reasoning step, the LLM first rigorously evaluates the candidate set for the current sub-task within the provided context. This critical analysis, which ensures a comprehensive exploration of the problem space, directly informs the subsequent decision-making process, which manifests in one of two actions:
(1) Selection: The LLM identifies and selects the most plausible candidate from the provided options.
(2) Generation: If its analysis concludes that no provided candidate is satisfactory, the LLM leverages its internal knowledge and reasoning context to generate a novel, self-consistent solution.
This adaptive reasoning strategy, by mirroring human expert intuition, is therefore not only more efficient and context-aware but also fundamental to enhancing both the accuracy and explainability of the final prediction.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\small
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Top-1 Acc (\%)}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{BLEU}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{Dis}$\downarrow$ & \textbf{Validity}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{MACCS}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{RDK}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{Morgan}$\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{8}{l}{\textit{LLM-based chemical models}} \\\hline
% Text+Chem T5 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & $\times$ \\
T5Chem~\cite{lu2022unified} & 43.64 & 0.972 & 8.42 & 0.982 & 0.956 & 0.974 & 0.925 \\
ChemFormer~\cite{irwin2022chemformer} & 27.30 & 0.769 & 14.77 & 0.952 & 0.782 & 0.690 & 0.647 \\
nach0~\cite{livne2024nach0} & 30.52 & 0.976 & 11.91 & 0.990 & 0.947 & 0.977 & 0.905 \\
ChemLLM~\cite{zhang2024chemllm} & 12.16 & 0.868 & 10.42 & 0.977 & 0.849 & 0.846 & 0.772 \\
ChemDFM~\cite{zhao2024chemdfm} & 6.69 & 0.743 & 16.62 & 0.874 & 0.714 & 0.807 & 0.617 \\
% BatGPT-Chem \cite{yang2024batgpt} & 49.1 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & $\times$ \\
ChemCrow (+nach0)~\cite{bran2023chemcrow} & 30.52 & 0.976 & 11.91 & 0.990 & 0.947 & 0.977 & 0.905 \\
% ChemDual \cite{lin2025enhancing} & 46.3 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & --& $\times$ \\
% Chemma \cite{zhang2025large} & 56.4 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & $\times$ \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{8}{l}{\textit{LLM-based general models}} \\\hline
GPT-3.5$^*$ & 31.30 & 0.967 & 7.87 & 0.991 & 0.949 & 0.964 & 0.910 \\
GPT-4o$^*$ & 31.21 & 0.968 & 7.80 & 0.991 & 0.950 & 0.965 & 0.912 \\
% DeepSeek-R1$^*$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
InterLM-2-Chat-7B$^*$ & 23.12 & 0.954 & 11.17 & 0.893 & 0.944 & 0.951 & 0.907 \\
Gemini-2.5-preview-05-20$^*$ & 37.11 & 0.984 & 6.75 & 0.959 & 0.971 & 0.988 & 0.942 \\
% Claude-3-7-sonnet-20250307$^*$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct$^*$ & 36.09 & 0.970 & 7.77 & 0.992 & 0.958 & 0.972 & 0.920 \\ \hline
% Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct ($\text{SFT}$) & 43.20 & 0.975 & 7.34 & 0.992 & 0.959 & 0.968 & 0.921 \\
% Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (SFT with CoT) & 43.2 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & $\times$ \\
\textbf{Retro-Expert} & \textbf{66.23} & \textbf{0.995} & \textbf{4.41} & \textbf{0.997} & \textbf{0.986} & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.972} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
%Benchmark results of different models in molecule captioning tasks. †: results from Guo et al. [2023]. *: reproduced results. he table reports Top-1 accuracy and whether the model provides natural language interpretability. Retro-Expert achieves the highest Top-1 accuracy (66.2%) among all com-pared models while also offering interpretable outputs, while most LLMs lack interpretability grounded in chemical logic.
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Comparison of LLM-based models on the retrosynthesis task. $*$ the model is provided with Top-4 reactant candidates and additional domain knowledge anchors (i.e., reaction types, reaction center) from specialized models. Results for other models are reproduced following their original evaluation methods.}
\label{tab:LLM_comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization}
To overcome the limitations of SFT, which primarily trains models to memorize common reaction patterns from datasets, we introduce a reinforcement learning framework to optimize the LLM's reasoning policy within the constructed chemical decision space.
At the heart of this framework lies our proposed Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization (KGPO) mechanism. The core objective of KGPO is to incentivize the LLM to learn a chemically-grounded reasoning policy that prioritizes the logical validity of the entire pathway, not merely the correctness of the final prediction. The objective function for this optimization is formally defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\max_{\pi_\theta} \mathbb{E}_{q \sim \mathcal{D},\, y \sim \pi_\theta(\cdot \mid q; \mathcal{E})} \left[ r_\phi(q, y) \right] \\
- \beta \, \mathbb{D}_{kl} \left[ \pi_\theta(y \mid q; \mathcal{E}) \,\|\, \pi_{\text{ref}}(y \mid q; \mathcal{E}) \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In this objective function, $\pi_\theta$ represents the policy model being optimized, while $\pi_{ref}$ is a reference model used to regularize the policy update, with their divergence measured by $\mathbb{D}_{kl}$. The term $q$ denotes a query sampled from the dataset, comprising the candidate set $\mathcal{T}$ and any external domain knowledge $k$. The output $y$ generated by the policy model includes both the complete reasoning path $\mathcal{T}_{LLM}$ and the final predicted reactants $a$. The optimization aims to maximize the expected reward $r_\phi(q,y)$.
To effectively optimize this objective, we adopt the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) algorithm~\cite{shao2024deepseekmath}. Furthermore, we design a novel rule-based, multi-stage reward mechanism tailored to enhance the LLM's reasoning over the candidate outputs from specialized retrosynthesis models.
% specifically tailored to enhance the LLM's reasoning over the candidate outputs from the specialized retrosynthesis models.
While previous methods focus their reward signals solely on the correctness of the final reactant, we emphasize that the logical soundness of the reasoning path is equally critical.
In practice, a chemist's trust is earned not by a single, opaque prediction, but by an interpretable reasoning process that aligns with established chemical principles.
To this end, the KGPO framework utilizes a composite reward function that evaluates both the process and the outcome. This function is specifically designed to leverage domain knowledge from specialized models, guiding the LLM's reasoning toward chemical validity while maintaining high accuracy in the final prediction. For a sampled decision path $y$, it is defined as:
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{equation}
r(\mathcal{T}_\text{LLM}, y) = \alpha_{\text{1}}\sum_{i=1}^n r_i + \alpha_{\text{2}} r_{\text{reactant}} + \alpha_{\text{3}} r_{\text{format}},
\end{equation}
where the term $r_i$ represents the binary stage reward for each of the $n$ sub-tasks, assigned a value of 1 if the intermediate prediction is correct for that stage and 0 otherwise. $r_{\text{reactant}}$ is the reward for the correctness of the final predicted reactants and $r_{\text{format}}$ aim to ensure the required output format. The $\alpha$ terms represent the weights of the corresponding reward.
Through KGPO, Retro-Expert fundamentally shifts its focus from ``\textbf{\textit{accuracy-centric prediction}}'' to the ``\textbf{\textit{generation of coherent and interpretable reasoning chains}}''.
By optimizing the entire reasoning pathway, the framework produces reasoning that aligns with established principles and expert knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing its practical value and trustworthiness in real-world applications.
Furthermore, this process-oriented reward structure inherently mitigates the risk of ``reward hacking'', where a model might find a correct answer by a flawed or nonsensical logical path.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\subsubsection{Dataset.} We conduct experiments using the benchmark dataset USPTO-50K~\cite{schneider2016s} which contains 50,000 atom-mapped reaction records, and adopt the same training/validation/test splits in 8:1:1 as prior works~\cite{dai2019retrosynthesis}.
%split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of 8:1:1 following prior works~\cite{dai2019retrosynthesis}.
%~\cite{dai2019retrosynthesis, yan2020retroxpert}.
Based on previous methods~\cite{somnath2021learning},
%~\cite{somnath2021learning, zeng2024ualign}
we canonicalize the product SMILES and reassign the atom-mapping to the corresponding reactant SMILES based on the canonical ordering.
\subsubsection{Baselines.}
We compare Retro-Expert against various strong baselines,
categorized into two primary classes: (1) specialized models based approaches, encompassing template-based (LocalRetro~\cite{chen2021deep}, GLN~\cite{dai2019retrosynthesis}), semi-template-based (GraphRetro~\cite{somnath2021learning}, RetroPrime~\cite{wang2021retroprime}, Graph2Edits~\cite{zhong2023retrosynthesis}), and template-free (Retroformer~\cite{yao2023retroformer}, UAlign~\cite{zeng2024ualign}) models; (2) LLM-based methods, including chemistry-specialized LLMs and general LLMs.
To ensure a fair comparison, we follow each model's default evaluation settings and provide necessary predictions from specialized models (e.g., reaction type classifiers) to support the retrosynthesis prediction.
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics.}
Inspired by~\cite{zhao2024chemdfm}, we adopt two sets of metrics to evaluate the performance between the predicted and golden standardized SMILES.
The first set focuses on the \textbf{textual similarity}, using Top-1 accuracy, BLEU, and levenshtein distance.
The second set evaluates the \textbf{chemical similarity}, encompassing the validity of the generated SMILES and fingerprint tanimoto similarity (i.e., MACCS, RDK, Morgan).
Additionally, we compare the performance of Retro-Expert against retrosynthetic specialized models using Top-1 accuracy.
\subsubsection{Implementation Details.}
We employ three specialized models for expert-level retrosynthesis analysis: T5Chem~\cite{lu2022unified} for reaction type prediction, and GraphRetro~\cite{somnath2021learning} for both reaction center localization and reactant prediction.
During inference, \textit{ANY} specialized models can be used to provide candidate results for sub-tasks.
To balance accuracy and optimization efficiency, we use Top-3 candidate predictions from each model.
We utilize Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct as the LLM and train it with reinforcement learning using 9k samples.
% To prevent reward hacking, during training, the correct answers in the specialized model’s candidate predictions are distributed across positions 1, 2, and 3 in a 5:3:2 ratio to ensure balanced label distribution.
During training, to prevent reward hacking, we distribute the correct predictions from the specialized model among the top three candidate positions in a 5:3:2 ratio. This strategy prevents the model from developing a positional bias (e.g., always selecting the first candidate) and forces it to learn the intrinsic quality of predictions.
\subsection{Results \& Discussion}
%Table~\ref{tab:LLM_comparison} and Table~\ref{tab:small_models_comparison} present the comparative results of Retro-Expert against multiple baselines on the USPTO-50K benchmark. The key findings are summarized as follows:
\noindent{\textit{\textbf{Superiority over LLM-based Approaches.}}}
As detailed in Table~\ref{tab:LLM_comparison}, Retro-Expert significantly outperforms both its underlying base model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) and other chemistry-focused foundation models, achieving a Top-1 Accuracy improvement of over 22.59\%.
This demonstrates that our knowledge-guided RL reasoning is substantially more effective than the standard SFT paradigm. While SFT endows models with extensive chemical knowledge, it primarily encourages pattern memorization, limiting their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning.
Crucially, our framework is the only one to generate a chemically-grounded, natural language explanation for its predictions.
%addressing a critical gap left by all other methods.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\small
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Baseline} & \textbf{Collab.} & $\Delta$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Interpretability}}\\
& & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{(enabled)}} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textit{Template-based}} \\
LocalRetro & 63.9 & 66.1 & \textbf{+2.2} & \checkmark \\
GLN & 64.2 & 66.5 & \textbf{+2.3} & \checkmark \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textit{Semi-template}} \\
GraphRetro & 63.9 & 66.2 & \textbf{+2.4} & \checkmark \\
RetroPrime & 64.8 & 67.4 & \textbf{+2.6} & \checkmark \\
% Graph2Edits~\cite{zhong2023retrosynthesis} & 67.2 & 70.3 & \textbf{3.1} \\
Graph2Edits & 67.2 & 70.3 & \textbf{+3.1} & \checkmark \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textit{Template-free}} \\
Retroformer & 63.5 & 65.5 & \textbf{+2.0} & \checkmark \\
UAlign & 66.2 & 69.0 & \textbf{+2.8} & \checkmark \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% Performance comparison of retrosynthesis methods on USPTO-50K.
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Top-1 accuracy of individual retrosynthetic specialized models and their collaboration with our Retro-Expert on the USPTO-50K dataset. $\Delta$ denotes the improvement when Retro-Expert collaborates with the specialized model.}
\label{tab:small_models_comparison}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{pics/figure3_final.pdf}
\vspace{-8mm}
\caption{Comparison of correct predictions distributions across different models and Success rate of Retro-Expert’s self-correction mechanism.}
\label{fig:distribution}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent{\textit{\textbf{Synergistic Enhancement of Specialized Models.}}}
Beyond outperforming LLMs, Retro-Expert demonstrates strong synergy when collaborating with different specialized, non-LLM models (Table~\ref{tab:small_models_comparison}).
% These results validate that Retro-Expert is capable of collaborating with different specialized models. Note that the LLM does not need re-training when transferring to a new specialized model.
Retro-Expert surpasses the standalone Top-1 accuracy of these expert models, with performance gains scaling proportionally as the baseline model's own accuracy increases.
These results validate that Retro-Expert effectively reasons over the provided candidate information to optimize its final decision.
This collaborative mechanism serves a dual purpose: it boosts the predictive performance of the entire system while making the final choice fully interpretable.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent{\textit{\textbf{Emergent Capability for Self-reflection and Reasoning.}}}
A particularly compelling finding is the emergent capability of Retro-Expert for self-reflection and reasoning, which allows the LLM to overcome the limitations of the collaborating specialized models.
The framework does not uncritically accept the candidates provided by specialized models. Instead, it exhibits a capacity for critical analysis and self-correction.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}, when a specialized model fails to provide valid reactant candidates (e.g., they are entirely incorrect), Retro-Expert leverages the available chemical context to autonomously generate a novel and correct prediction.
A statistical analysis of such failure cases reveals that this self-reflection mechanism achieved a remarkable 46.2\% success rate, demonstrating that it is not a selection model but a generative model that can create new answers.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccc|c}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Decision Space}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\shortstack{\textbf{Reactants}\\\textbf{Top-1 Accuracy (\%)}}} \\ \cline{1-3}
Type & Center & Reactant & \\ \hline
& & $\checkmark$ & 28.9 \\
$\checkmark$ & & $\checkmark$ & 31.0 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & 53.7 \\
$\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{66.2} \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of different combinations of reasoning strategies across different subtasks. Sub-tasks with both unchecked indicate the sub-task is skipped and directly execute retrosynthesis prediction.}
\label{tab:task}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!t]
\small
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Evaluator}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|l|cccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Evaluator}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Metrics}} \\
\cline{3-5}
& & \textbf{MA} & \textbf{FC} & \textbf{LC} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{GPT-4o}
& Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct & 3.67 & 3.12 & 4.06 \\
& Retro-Expert & \textbf{4.21} & \textbf{3.89} & \textbf{4.17} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Human}
& Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct & 3.21 & 2.89 & 3.87 \\
& Retro-Expert & \textbf{4.17} & \textbf{3.69} & \textbf{4.23} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
% Scores are derived from GPT-4o and human expert assessment.
\caption{Evaluation on reasoning process using GPT-4o and human expert assessment. MA: Mechanism Accuracy, FC: Factual Correctness, LC: Logic Consistency.}
\label{tab:thinking-eval}
\end{table}
\subsection{Alation Study}
%We conducted a series of ablation studies to validate the core architectural choices of Retro-Expert. Additional ablation studies are provided in the appendix.
\noindent{\textit{\textbf{Effective Reasoning Hinges on the Chemical Decision Space.}}}
To validate the necessity of constructing chemical decision space, we train LLMs using RL under different decision spaces. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:task}, When only three candidate reactants are provided, the model's accuracy is extremely low (28.9\%). When gradually add ``type'', ``center'' into the decision space, the performance gradually increase to 66.2\%.
This indicates that a structured, multi-dimensional decision space is essential to properly ground the LLM's reasoning and achieve high accuracy.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
% \toprule
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Top-1 Acc (\%)} \\
% \midrule
\hline
% \multicolumn{2}{l}{\textit{Chemical LLMs}} \\
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct~\cite{yang2025qwen2} & 29.33 \\
ChemLLM~\cite{zhang2024chemllm} & 15.33 \\
% \midrule
% \multicolumn{2}{l}{\textit{General LLMs}} \\
DeepSeek-R1~\cite{guo2025deepseek} & 32.54 \\\hline
% \midrule
% \multicolumn{2}{l}{\textit{General LLMs}} \\
Retro-Expert (ours) & \textbf{57.00} \\
% \bottomrule
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Top-1 accuracy (\%) of different models on the out-of-distribution \textbf{ChemBench benchmark}.}
\label{tab:chembench-results}
\end{table}
\subsection{Interpretability Evaluation}
%Generating trustworthy natural language explanations is crucial for enhancing chemists' trust in AI models and facilitating their real-world application. Consequently, a systematic evaluation of the model's reasoning process is essential.
Since explanatory capabilities are largely absent in specialized chemical models, we benchmarked Retro-Expert against general LLMs on the USPTO-50K test set. These baseline models were explicitly prompted to generate a step-by-step rationale.
The evaluation combines automatic scoring using GPT-4o with expert human assessment. For the human evaluation, we recruited three independent evaluators, each with experience in synthetic organic chemistry.
% Each evaluator scored model-generated explanations from a representative subset of the USPTO-50K test set.
% To provide a comprehensive evaluation,
We design three core metrics: (1) Mechanism Accuracy (MA): The alignment of the described reaction mechanism with established chemical principles; (2) Factual Correctness (FC): The degree of factual errors in chemical knowledge within the reasoning process; and (3) Logical Consistency (LC): The logic coherence and soundness of the reasoning process.
% We define all evaluation metrics as soft constraints, scored on a 1 to 5 point scale, with 5 being the best. Each metric includes a corresponding definition with detailed evaluation criteria. (See Appendix for detailed criteria).
All evaluation metrics was scored on a 1 to 5 point scale, with 5 being the best. Each metric includes a corresponding definition with detailed evaluation criteria. (See Appendix for detailed criteria).
\noindent{\textit{\textbf{Retro-Expert Delivers Credible Reasoning Superior to General LLMs.}}}
As detailed in Table~\ref{tab:thinking-eval}, Retro-Expert achieves scores near or above 4.0 in the automated GPT-4o assessment, significantly outperforming the general LLM baselines.
This strong performance was largely corroborated by human experts, who awarded high scores for Mechanism Accuracy (MA) and Logical Consistency (LC), confirming that Retro-Expert generates clear, coherent, and mechanistically plausible reasoning pathways.
Interestingly, our analysis revealed a notable discrepancy in the Factual Correctness (FC) metric, where human experts assigned a more moderate score (3.69) than the automated assessment. This discrepancy reveals that while the model’s reasoning process is robust, it can occasionally make minor factual errors. These demonstrated capabilities are crucial for enhancing the transparency and interpretability of the prediction process, fostering greater trust in its real-world application.
\subsection{Generalization on Out-of-Distribution Data}
We evaluated Retro-Expert's generalization on the ChemBench out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmark, whose 300 reaction pathways are 94.66\% absent from the USPTO-50K dataset, thus reflecting a real-world discovery scenario.
To ensure a rigorous and fair comparison, we formulated the identical decision space for all models as a four-option choice task (one ground truth, three distractors).
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:chembench-results}, a stark performance gap emerges, highlighting the critical difference between general reasoning and specialized, principle-driven reasoning.
Despite operating within the same chemical decision space, general LLMs struggle on these OOD samples, achieving accuracies around 30\%. Their failure stems from an inability to consistently apply chemical principles to navigate the decision space, often defaulting to superficial pattern matching which is ineffective for novel reactions.
In contrast, Retro-Expert's accuracy of 57.00\% nearly doubles the baselines. This superior generalization results directly from its training: the Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization (KGPO) ingrains a transferable, chemistry-principled reasoning policy. This policy enables Retro-Expert to strategically navigate the decision space for novel reactions, demonstrating a crucial step towards reliable AI in chemical discovery.
\subsection{Case Study: Making the Reasoning Transparent}
% In Figure~\ref{fig:think}, we visualize the natural language-based interpretable reasoning process generated by Retro-Expert.
% First, specialized models construct a chemical decision space by proposing candidates for reaction type and centers. The LLM then navigates this space, critically evaluating each option and using self-verification to deduce the final, justified pathway. This transforms prediction into a transparent and verifiable process.
As visualized on the right side of Figure~\ref{fig:dataset overview}, Retro-Expert generates a human-readable rationale that articulates its step-by-step analysis for a specific molecule.
The process begins with the construction of the decision space. For this example, specialized models identify ``functional group addition'' as a probable reaction type and pinpoint positions 11 and 12 as potential reaction centers. The model's rationale then demonstrates its navigation of this space. For instance, it correctly discards a candidate reactant, explicitly stating it is ruled out due to the ``absence of a clear bromomethyl group''.
The logical and verifiable narrative is essential for enhancing an chemical expert's trust and boosting the model's practical applicability.
\subsection{Wet Lab Experiments}
To validate Retro-Expert’s practical utility, we extended beyond in-silico (dry-lab) tests to chemical web-lab experiments, demonstrating its capacity as a genuine engine for chemical discovery. We provide direct experimental evidence that Retro-Expert successfully pioneers the first reported synthesis of a molecule that previously lacked any documented production path, and discovers a novel reaction route for an existing compound.
Our experiments successfully validate these two distinct types of chemical discovery. (1) Our Retro-Expert model predicted a new route of \textbf{Suzuki-Miyaura coupling} to synthesize 3-(2-ethoxyphenyl)thiophene (CCOC1=CC=CC=C1C1=CSC=C1) via a reaction between 1-bromo-2-ethoxybenzene (CCOc1ccccc1Br) and thiophen-3-ylboronic acid (OB(O)c1ccsc1). Crucially, verification using the CAS SciFinder database confirmed that while the compound's structure was known, no synthesis pathway had ever been published for it. Our work thus constitutes its first-ever reported synthesis, which we successfully achieved with a percent yield of 79.3\%.
(2) For the well-established molecule 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanone (CCOC1=CC=C(C=C1)C(C)=O), our model identified a novel \textbf{Jones Oxidation} pathway.
The target compound can be synthesized via 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanol (CCOc1ccc(C(C)O)cc1) using chromium trioxide in acidic conditions. This route, confirmed to be an undocumented alternative to existing methods, was also successfully executed in our chemical lab with a yield of 58.82\%. These outcomes offer compelling proof that Retro-Expert is a transformative tool for practical chemical discovery.
\section{Conclusion}
We introduced Retro-Expert, the first retrosynthesis framework to address long-standing interpretability limitations by generating human-readable, step-by-step reasoning. Our approach synergizes specialized models, which construct a chemical decision space, with an LLM that navigates it using a policy trained via RL. Experiments show Retro-Expert achieves competitive accuracy and strong generalization while allowing for plug-and-play modularity.
By bridging the gap between AI prediction and a chemist's workflow, Retro-Expert establishes a new paradigm for trustworthy and collaborative AI in chemical discovery.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project (2023ZD0120802).
\bibliography{aaai2026}
\clearpage
\input{appendix.tex}
\end{document}
% \usepackage{amsmath}
% \usepackage{graphicx}
% \usepackage{appendix}
% \usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
% \usepackage{times}
% \usepackage{amsmath}
% \usepackage{graphicx}
% \usepackage{tcolorbox}
% \usepackage{amsfonts}
% \usepackage{subcaption}
% \usepackage{appendix}
% \usepackage{titlesec}
% \usepackage{cleveref}
% % 章节编号用大写字母
% \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}
% % 图片编号格式：章节字母 + 数字
% \numberwithin{figure}{section}
% \renewcommand{\thefigure}{\thesection\arabic{figure}}
% % --- 附录内容 ---
% \begin{document}
% \title{\textbf{Appendix}}
% \title{\vspace{-2cm}Appendix\vspace{-0.5cm}}
% \date{}
% \maketitle
% \onecolumn
% \section*{Appendix}
% \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix}
% \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}} % 章节编号变字母
% \numberwithin{figure}{section} % 图编号按章节重置
% \renewcommand{\thefigure}{\thesection\arabic{figure}}
% \appendix
% \setcounter{secnumdepth}{3} % 显示章节编号
% % 重定义 section 为左对齐显示编号
% \makeatletter
% \renewcommand\section{%
% \@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% 这里0pt等价于\z@
% {-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}% 默认前间距
% {2.3ex \@plus .2ex}% 默认后间距
% {\normalfont\Large\bfseries\raggedright}% 字体加左对齐
% }
% \makeatother
% % 将段间距设为0，并使用段首缩进区分段落
% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
% \setlength{\parindent}{1.5em}
% % 2. 重新定义 \section, \subsection 等章节命令，使其极度紧凑
% \makeatletter
% \renewcommand{\section}{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}%
% {-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}% % 上间距 (负值表示向上提)
% {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}% % 下间距
% {\normalfont\Large\bfseries\raggedright}}
% \renewcommand{\subsection}{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
% {-3.25ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%
% {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
% {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}
% \makeatother
% % 3. 压缩公式上下的间距
% \setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{1pt}
% \setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{1pt}
% \setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{0pt}
% \setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{1pt}
% --- 定义一个全新的、可分页的、格式独立的附录环境 ---
\newenvironment{compactappendix}{%
% --- 环境开始时执行的代码 ---
% 1. 设置我们想要的、紧凑的段落格式
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parindent}{1.5em}
% 2. 定义一个只在此环境中有效的、全新的章节命令
% 它不与模板的 \section 冲突，并且是可分页的
\onecolumn
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}
\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\thesection.\arabic{subsection}}
% 3. 定义一个只在此环境中有效的、全新的 \section 命令
\newcommand{\appendisection}[1]{%
\par\refstepcounter{section}%
\addvspace{3ex}%
\phantomsection%
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\thesection.\quad ##1}%
\noindent%
{\raggedright\normalfont\Large\bfseries \thesection.\quad ##1}%
\par\nobreak%
\addvspace{1.5ex}%
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{1pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{1pt}
\setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{1pt}
}
% 4. 定义一个只在此环境中有效的、全新的 \subsection 命令
\newcommand{\appendisubsection}[1]{%
\par\refstepcounter{subsection}%
\addvspace{3ex}%
\phantomsection%
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{\thesubsection.\quad ##1}%
\noindent%
{\raggedright\normalfont\large\bfseries \thesubsection.\quad ##1}% 字体比 section 小一号
\par\nobreak%
\addvspace{1.25ex}%
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{1pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{1pt}
\setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{1pt}
}
}{%
% --- 环境结束时执行的代码 (此处为空) ---
}
% --- 现在，开始使用我们定义好的环境 ---
\begin{compactappendix}
% --- 1. 创建居中的 "Appendix" 大标题 ---
{\centering\normalfont\Large\bfseries Appendix\par}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix} % (可选) 将 "Appendix" 总标题也加入目录
\vspace{2.5ex} % 在大标题后增加一点垂直距离
This supplemental document provides details on our \textbf{Retro-Expert}.
In Section~\ref{sectionA}, we describe the technical implementation of Retro-Expert.
Section~\ref{sectionB} presents all the prompts used in LLM-based baselines.
In Section~\ref{sectionC}, we visualize representative reasoning examples to analyze the reasoning capabilities of Retro-Expert, including successful selection and generation cases, as well as failure cases.
Section~\ref{sectionD} details the interpretability evaluation setup, covering
the prompts corresponding to the evaluation metrics, and human evaluation procedures.
In Section~\ref{sectionE}, we provide the prompts applied for all models when evaluated on the out-of-distribution (OOD) dataset.
Section~\ref{sectionF} shows the details of our web lab experiments.
Finally, Section~\ref{sectionG} presents additional ablation studies.
\appendisection{Details of KGPO Module}\label{sectionA}
\noindent This section elaborates on the technical implementation details of our Retro-Expert.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Training Samples.}
To optimize training efficiency and enhance the model's ability to learn diverse chemical reaction principles, we did not utilize the entire training dataset directly. Instead, we meticulously curated a high-quality training subset. The original dataset exhibited a significant long-tailed distribution of reaction templates and severe imbalance in sample quantities across different reaction types.
Our screening strategy was designed to mitigate these data skews. First, consistent with prior work, we employed chemical tools (i.e., RDKit) to extract reaction patterns from the training set using a subgraph pattern matching approach. All samples were partitioned into five tiers based on their template frequency. Subsequently, we performed stratified random sampling: samples were drawn from each frequency-based tier while ensuring that the final selected subset maintained a balanced distribution across reaction types. This process yielded a compact and balanced training set comprising 9k samples, providing a more robust data foundation for the model to learn reliable reasoning capabilities.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Training Configuration.}
We employ reinforcement learning via GPRO (Generalized Reinforcement Learning with Policy Optimization) to optimize the reasoning strategy of the LLM (Qwen-7B-Instruct). To ensure training stability while promoting deep deliberation and exploration, the core hyperparameters are configured as follows: $\text{train\_epochs}$=2, $\text{max\_completion\_length}$=8192, $\text{temperature}$=0.7, $\beta$=0.001.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Composite Reward Function.}
This function is designed to evaluate the complete decision-making process from the reasoning path to the final prediction.
\begin{equation}
r(\mathcal{T}_\text{LLM}, y) = \alpha_{\text{1}}\sum_{i=1}^n r_i + \alpha_{\text{2}} r_{\text{reactant}} + \alpha_{\text{3}} r_{\text{format}},
\end{equation}
It comprises distinct intermediate rewards ($r_1$, $r_2$, $r_3$) corresponding to three sub-tasks: reaction type prediction, reaction center localization, and reactant prediction, respectively. Additionally, $r_{\text{reactant}}$ provides the final reward for the correctness of predicted reactants, while $r_{\text{format}}$ incentivizes strict adherence to the specified output structure: \texttt{<think>...</think><answer>...</answer>}. The corresponding weighting coefficients are set as $\alpha_1 = 1.5$, $\alpha_2 = 1.0$, and $\alpha_3 = 0.2$.
\vspace{0.5em}
% 用于训练的Prompt为：
The prompt used for training is as follows:
\begin{center}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{0.97\linewidth}
% {\centering \textbf{Training Setting} \par}
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{System:}
You are a helpful AI Assistant that provides well-reasoned and detailed responses.
You first think about the reasoning process as an internal monologue and then provide the user with the answer.
Respond in the following format: \texttt{<think>\textbackslash n...\textbackslash n</think>\textbackslash n<answer>\textbackslash n...\textbackslash n</answer>}
\vspace{0.5em}
\dotfill
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Assistant:}
You are an experienced chemist analyzing chemical retrosynthesis.
Given the standard SMILES representation of the product is: \{Product Standard SMILES\},\\
Its automapping version is: \{Product Mapped SMILES\},\\
The IUPAC name of the product is: \{IUPAC Name\}.
\vspace{0.5em}
The most likely reaction type for synthesizing this product is: \{Reaction Type\}.\\
The most likely reaction center for synthesizing this product is: \{Reaction Center\}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Reactants Candidate Set:}\\
(1) \{Top-1 Reactants Candidate\}\\
(2) \{Top-2 Reactants Candidate\}\\
(3) \{Top-3 Reactants Candidate\}\\
(4) \{Top-4 Reactants Candidate\}
\vspace{0.5em}
Please reasonably infer the most likely reactants for synthesizing the product molecule from the Reactants Candidate Set.
Please note that \texttt{<answer>\textbackslash n...\textbackslash n</answer>} should only contain the reactants.
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
1. The prompt for our Retro-Expert training.
\end{center}
% \begin{center}
% \fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
% \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
% You are a helpful AI Assistant that provides well-reasoned and detailed responses.
% You first think about the reasoning process as an internal monologue and then provide the user with the answer.
% Respond in the following format: \texttt{<think>\textbackslash n...\textbackslash n</think>\textbackslash n<answer>\textbackslash n...\textbackslash n</answer>}
% \end{minipage}
% }
% \vspace{1em}
% 1. The system prompt for our Retro-Expert training.
% \end{center}
\appendisection{Details of Comparison Methods}\label{sectionB}
\noindent This section details all prompts employed in the LLM-based methods within our comparative experiments. Specifically, for chemical LLMs, which inherently adhere to prescribed dialogue schemas. To ensure valid predictions, we strictly follow each model’s native evaluation templates when generating output.
For general LLMs, we employ a unified prompt structure identical to that used by our Retro-Expert, instructing the LLM to execute reactant predictions. Crucially, all general LLMs are provided with the identical chemical action space, comprising: (1) predicted reaction types, (2) predicted reaction centers, and (3) top-4 reactant candidates generated by specialized models.
% nach0 & chemcrow
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
What are the possible reactants that could have formed the following product?
\{Product Standard SMILES\}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
2. The prompt for nach0 and ChemCrow.
\end{center}
% ChemLLM
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
There is a single choice question about chemistry.
Answer the question by replying A, B, C, or D.
\vspace{0.5em}
Question: What are the usual materials employed for creating \text{\{Product Standard SMILES\}}?
Its automapping version is: \text{\{Product Mapped SMILES\}}.
The IUPAC name of the product is: \text{\{IUPAC Name\}}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\text{A.} \text{\{Top-1 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
\text{B.} \text{\{Top-2 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
\text{C.} \text{\{Top-3 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
\text{D.} \text{\{Top-4 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
% \begin{itemize}
% \item[\textbf{A.}] \textbf{\{Top-1 Reactants Candidate\}}
% \item[\textbf{B.}] \textbf{\{Top-2 Reactants Candidate\}}
% \item[\textbf{C.}] \textbf{\{Top-3 Reactants Candidate\}}
% \item[\textbf{D.}] \textbf{\{Top-4 Reactants Candidate\}}
% \end{itemize}
Answer:
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
3. The prompt for ChemLLM.
\end{center}
% ChemDFM
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
Chemical reaction equations are typically expressed in the following form:
\texttt{reactant1.reactant2.reactant3...>>product}. In this form, each substance (reactant or product) is represented using the SMILES notation.
\vspace{0.5em}
Now we will provide you with an incomplete chemical reaction equation, where the missing part is represented by \texttt{"\_\_\_"}.
The missing part could consist of one or more substances.
Based on the remaining portions of the reaction equation, please infer what the missing part could be.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Note:} Please only provide the missing part in your response, without any additional content.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Incomplete equation:}
\[
\_\_\_ \gg \textbf{\{Product Standard SMILES\}}
\]
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
4. The prompt for ChemDFM.
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
% {\centering \textbf{Training Setting} \par}
You are an experienced chemist analyzing chemical retrosynthesis.
Given the standard SMILES representation of the product is: \text{\{Product Standard SMILES\}},\\
Its automapping version is: \text{\{Product Mapped SMILES\}},\\
The IUPAC name of the product is: \text{\{IUPAC Name\}}.
\vspace{0.5em}
The most likely reaction type for synthesizing this product is: \text{\{Reaction Type\}}.\\
The most likely reaction center for synthesizing this product is: \text{\{Reaction Center\}}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Reactants Candidate Set:}\\
(1) \text{\{Top-1 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
(2) \text{\{Top-2 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
(3) \text{\{Top-3 Reactants Candidate\}}\\
(4) \text{\{Top-4 Reactants Candidate\}}
\vspace{0.5em}
Please reasonably infer the most likely reactants for synthesizing the product molecule from the Reactants Candidate Set.
Your response must strictly follow the \textbf{Output Format}. Do not include any explanation or additional text.
[Output Format]
\texttt{answer: <the reactant SMILES>}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
5. The prompt for general LLM.
\end{center}
\appendisection{Results Analysis}\label{sectionC}
\noindent This section showcases visualized examples illustrating Retro-Expert's reasoning process, highlights both successful and failed cases.
\appendisubsection{Successful Reasoning (Selection Scene)}
\noindent We demonstrate the reasoning processes generated by our Retro-Expert across diverse reaction types (in Figure~\ref{fig:select1}-\ref{fig:select6}). This indicates Retro-Expert's fundamental competency in executing chemically valid reasoning and making accurate selections within a high-quality chemical action space.
Specifically, our Retro-Expert is capable of performing effective critical reasoning over all candidate options rather than merely selecting the top-1 prediction. During the decision-making process, the model actively incorporates key reaction-related information—such as reaction type and center—to infer plausible mechanisms and eliminate implausible candidates. Notably, Retro-Expert demonstrates strong generalization even for reaction types with limited representation in the training data, and maintains high accuracy across molecules with varying structural complexity. This highlights its ability to perform nuanced, context-aware retrosynthetic reasoning beyond surface-level pattern recognition.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select1.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (1/6) for oxidation reaction.}
\label{fig:select1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select5.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (2/6) for deprotection reaction.}
\label{fig:select5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select3.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (3/6) for heteroatom alkylation and arylation reaction.}
\label{fig:select3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select4.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (4/6) for C-C bond formation reaction.}
\label{fig:select4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select2.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (5/6) for acylation and related processes reaction.}
\label{fig:select2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/select6.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of reasoning process (6/6) for functional group addition reaction.}
\label{fig:select6}
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select1.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for oxidation reaction.}
% \label{fig:select11}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select5.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for deprotection reaction.}
% \label{fig:select12}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select3.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for heteroatom alkylation and arylation reaction.}
% \label{fig:select13}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select4.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for C-C bond formation reaction.}
% \label{fig:select14}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \caption{Visualization of reasoning process using the selection strategy from different reaction types.}
% \label{fig:select1}
% \end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select3.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for heteroatom alkylation and arylation reaction.}
% \label{fig:select11}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select4.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for C-C bond formation reaction.}
% \label{fig:select12}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{Visualization of reasoning process using the selection strategy from common reaction types.}
% \label{fig:select2}
% \end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select2.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for acylation and related processes reaction.}
% \label{fig:select21}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/select6.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example for functional group addition reaction.}
% \label{fig:select22}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{Visualization of reasoning process using the selection strategy.}
% \label{fig:select2}
% \end{figure}
\newpage
\appendisubsection{Successful Reasoning (Generation Scene)}
\noindent Furthermore, we showcase Retro-Expert’s capacity for self-reflection and generation. Crucially, when confronted with suboptimal candidates from all specialized models, Retro-Expert engages in critical analysis and autonomously synthesizes a novel, chemically sound solution (in Figure~\ref{fig:generate1}-\ref{fig:generate3}).
This generative capability is observed in two distinct yet challenging scenarios. When the candidate set is empty (i.e., no viable options are proposed by the specialized models), Retro-Expert proactively initiates a reasoning process based on available information in the decision space (e.g., reaction type and center). Through this process, it constructs a plausible synthetic route grounded in chemical principles. When all candidate options are present but incorrect, Retro-Expert strategically rejects them and synthesizes an improved solution by critically analyzing the flaws in the proposed candidates and leveraging useful fragments or partial patterns they contain. In both settings, the model demonstrates a high level of autonomy and domain-aware creativity, producing chemically valid outputs even in the absence of reliable reactant candidate.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/generate1.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of the reasoning process (1/3) when no candidate is available.}
\label{fig:generate1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/generate2.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of the reasoning process (2/3) when no candidate is available.}
\label{fig:generate2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{append_pics/generate3.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of the reasoning process (3/3) when the provided candidate is incorrect.}
\label{fig:generate3}
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/generate1.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example 1 when no candidate available.}
% \label{fig:generate11}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/generate2.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example 2 when no candidate available.}
% \label{fig:generate12}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/generate3.pdf}
% \caption{Reasoning process example 3 when the provided candidate is incorrect.}
% \label{fig:generate13}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{Visualization of the correct reasoning process when no valid candidate set is provided.}
% \label{fig:generate1}
% \end{figure}
\newpage
% This generative capability is observed in two distinct yet challenging scenarios. When the candidate set is empty (i.e., no viable options are proposed by the specialized models), Retro-Expert proactively initiates a reasoning process based on available information in the decision space (e.g., reaction type and center). Through this process, it constructs a plausible synthetic route grounded in chemical principles. When all candidate options are present but incorrect, Retro-Expert strategically rejects them and synthesizes an improved solution by critically analyzing the flaws in the proposed candidates and leveraging useful fragments or partial patterns they contain. In both settings, the model demonstrates a high level of autonomy and domain-aware creativity, producing chemically valid outputs even in the absence of reliable reactant candidate.
\appendisubsection{Failure Analysis}
\noindent This section presents examples of model prediction failures. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fail}, it reveals two scenarios encountered by our Retro-Expert:
(1) Multiple chemically similar reactive sites within a molecule,
(2) Multiple distinct transformation pathways under the same reaction type containing broad reaction.
These limitations indicate the model's current inability to perform site-specific chemical discrimination.
Future work will integrate domain-specific chemical heuristics and specialized physical evaluation models (energetic/kinetic).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/fail1.pdf}
\caption{Failure case for multiple reactive sites.}
\label{fig:select11}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/fail2.pdf}
\caption{Failure case for multiple possible reaction paths.}
\label{fig:select12}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Visualization of failure case.}
\label{fig:fail}
\end{figure}
\appendisection{Details of Interpretability Evaluation}\label{sectionD}
% GPT-4o推理的prompt, 打分设置的细节
% 人类评估的实现细节：实现形式（给prompt），三个专家对一个例子的意见展示，专家意见的高度相关性，表格数据怎么计算的（取平均值）
\noindent In this section, we describe the setup for interpretability evaluation, including the prompts corresponding to the evaluation metrics, human evaluation protocols and scoring methodology.
\appendisubsection{Details of Evaluation Metrics}
\noindent We provide all the prompts for evaluation.
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
{\centering \textbf{Mechanism Accuracy} ($\mathbb{MA}$) \par}
\textbf{System: }
You are an expert in chemical retrosynthetic analysis, responsible for evaluating the quality of reasoning processes generated by retrosynthetic models.
\vspace{0.5em}
\#INSTRUCTIONS:
Based on the following the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, conduct a professional assessment across the follow dimensions:
\vspace{0.5em}
Mechanism Accuracy: Assess whether the reaction mechanism described in the reasoning aligns with established chemical principles.
[Score 1]: Incorrect mechanism.
[Score 2]: Partially correct but with significant deviations.
[Score 3]: Partially correct with minor deviations.
[Score 4]: Largely consistent.
[Score 5]: Fully consistent.
\vspace{0.5em}
Evaluations must be grounded in given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information} and the results must be strictly formatted according to the specified Output Format.
\vspace{0.5em}
[Output Format Example]
\texttt{Mechanism Accuracy:2}
\vspace{0.5em}
\dotfill
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Assistant: }
Please evaluate the mechanism accuracy of the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, based on the given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{\{Generated Reasoning Process\}}
\vspace{1em}
\textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}:
The product's standard SMILES representation is \{Product Standard SMILES\};
Its automapping version is \{Product Mapped SMILES\};
The IUPAC name of the product is \{IUPAC Name\}.
The reaction type for synthesizing this product is: \{The Golden Reaction Type\}.
The reaction center of the product molecule is: \{The Golden Reaction Center\}.
The reactants for synthesizing the product molecule are: \{The Golden Reactants\}.
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
6. The prompt for Mechanism Accuracy ($\mathbb{MA}$).
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
{\centering \textbf{Factual Correctness} ($\mathbb{FC}$) \par}
\textbf{System: }
You are an expert in chemical retrosynthetic analysis, responsible for evaluating the quality of reasoning processes generated by retrosynthetic models.
\vspace{0.5em}
\#INSTRUCTIONS:
Based on the following the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, conduct a professional assessment across the follow dimensions:
\vspace{0.5em}
Factual Correctness: Evaluate the presence of factual errors concerning chemical principles within the reasoning description.
[Score 1]: Major factual errors.
[Score 2]: Several errors.
[Score 3]: minor error(s).
[Score 4]: Essentially free of errors.
[Score 5]: Completely accurate.
\vspace{0.5em}
Evaluations must be grounded in given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information} and the results must be strictly formatted according to the specified Output Format.
\vspace{0.5em}
[Output Format Example]
\texttt{Factual Correctness:2}
\vspace{0.5em}
\dotfill
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Assistant: }
Please evaluate the factual correctness of the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, based on the given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{\{Generated Reasoning Process\}}
\vspace{1em}
\textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}:
The product's standard SMILES representation is \{Product Standard SMILES\};
Its automapping version is \{Product Mapped SMILES\};
The IUPAC name of the product is \{IUPAC Name\}.
The reaction type for synthesizing this product is: \{The Golden Reaction Type\}.
The reaction center of the product molecule is: \{The Golden Reaction Center\}.
The reactants for synthesizing the product molecule are: \{The Golden Reactants\}.
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
7. The prompt for Factual Correctness ($\mathbb{FC}$).
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
{\centering \textbf{Logical Consistency} ($\mathbb{LC}$) \par}
\textbf{System: }
You are an expert in chemical retrosynthetic analysis, responsible for evaluating the quality of reasoning processes generated by retrosynthetic models.
\vspace{0.5em}
\#INSTRUCTIONS:
Based on the following the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, conduct a professional assessment across the follow dimensions:
\vspace{0.5em}
Logical Consistency: Determine if conclusions follow logically from premises, analyses, or assumptions without contradictory leaps.
[Score 1]: Conclusion contradicts premises/analysis.
[Score 2]: Partially consistent but with significant logical leaps.
[Score 3]: Partially consistent with only minor leaps.
[Score 4]: Largely fluent and natural.
[Score 5]: Completely fluent and natural.
\vspace{0.5em}
Evaluations must be grounded in given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information} and the results must be strictly formatted according to the specified Output Format.
\vspace{0.5em}
[Output Format Example]
\texttt{Logical Consistency:2}
\vspace{0.5em}
\dotfill
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Assistant: }
Please evaluate the logical consistency of the \textbf{Generated Reasoning Process}, based on the given \textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{\{Generated Reasoning Process\}}
\vspace{1em}
\textbf{Authentic Chemical Synthesis Information}:
The product's standard SMILES representation is \{Product Standard SMILES\};
Its automapping version is \{Product Mapped SMILES\};
The IUPAC name of the product is \{IUPAC Name\}.
The reaction type for synthesizing this product is: \{The Golden Reaction Type\}.
The reaction center of the product molecule is: \{The Golden Reaction Center\}.
The reactants for synthesizing the product molecule are: \{The Golden Reactants\}.
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
8. The prompt for Logical Consistency ($\mathbb{LC}$).
\end{center}
\newpage
\appendisubsection{Details of Human Study}
\noindent Based on the USPTO-50K test set, we provide the model's interpretable reasoning process along with corresponding ground truth including: reactant-product SMILES, reaction type, and reaction centers.
Evaluators were first presented with ground truth information for each sample, then asked to score the interpretable reasoning process. Specifically, they rate the reasoning in terms of (1) Mechanism Accuracy, (2) Fatual Correctness, and (3) Logical Consistency. Each criterion is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest quality. The final score for a sample is calculated as the average of the scores assigned by all evaluators. The evaluation interface layout is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:human_study}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{append_pics/human.pdf}
\caption{Generated reasoning process rating for human evaluation — assessing the mechanism accuracy, fatual correctness, logical consistency of the generated reasoning process on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores
indicating superior reasoning quality.}
\label{fig:human_study}
\end{figure}
\appendisection{Details of Out-of-Distribution Analysis}\label{sectionE}
\noindent In this section, we provide the identical prompt to all benchmarked models under a uniformly chemical decision space.
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{black}{gray!10}{%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
There is a single choice question about chemistry. Answer the question by replying A, B, C, or D. The options are TopK predictions.
\vspace{0.5em}
Question: What are the usual materials employed for creating: \{Product Standard SMILES\}? Please reasonably infer the most likely reactants for synthesizing the product molecule from the Reactants Candidate Set.
\vspace{0.5em}
\textbf{Reactants Candidate Set}:
A. \{Option A information in Chembench\}\\
B. \{Option B information in Chembench\}\\
C. \{Option C information in Chembench\}\\
D. \{Option D information in Chembench\}\\
Your response must strictly follow the Output Format.
Do not include any explanation or additional text.
[Output Format Example]:
\texttt{answer: B}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{1em}
9. The prompt for Out-of-Distribution Analysis.
\end{center}
\appendisection{Details of Web Lab Experiments}\label{sectionF}
\noindent To validate Retro-Expert's practical utility in real-world chemical discovery, we experimentally verify two predicted synthetic routes. Sci-Finder serves as the gold standard for determining route novelty.
\appendisubsection{Synthesis of 3-(2-ethoxyphenyl)thiophene}
\noindent Retro-Expert predicts the target molecule could be synthesized via Suzuki-Miyaura coupling between 1-bromo-2-ethoxybenzene and thiophen-3-ylboronic acid. The reaction scheme is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:wetfigure1}. Furthermore, the occurrence of the reaction and the correct structure of the synthesized product are confirmed by both the $^1$H NMR and $^{13}$C NMR spectra, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wet_lab1}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{append_pics/wetfigure1.pdf}
\caption{The synthesis path of 3-(2-ethoxyphenyl)thiophene.}
\label{fig:wetfigure1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/wet11.pdf}
\caption{$^1$H NMR spectrum}
\label{fig:image1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{append_pics/wet12.pdf}
\caption{$^{13}$C NMR spectrum}
\label{fig:image2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{NMR characterization of the synthesized product 3-(2-ethoxyphenyl)thiophene. Both $^1$H and $^{13}$C NMR spectra support the successful formation and structural integrity of the compound.}
\label{fig:wet_lab1}
\end{figure}
The detailed experimental procedure:
1-bromo-2-ethoxybenzene (0.20~g, 1.0~mmol, M1), 3-thiopheneboronic acid (0.15~g, 1.2~mmol, M2), and tetrakis (triphenylphosphine)palladium(0) (0.12~g, 0.1~mmol) were added to a 25 mL three-necked flask. The flask was evacuated and backfilled with nitrogen three times to ensure an oxygen-free atmosphere. An aqueous solution of K\textsubscript{2}CO\textsubscript{3} (1~M) was prepared and set aside. Subsequently, 8~mL of tetrahydrofuran (THF) was added to the flask, followed by the addition of 2~mL prepared K\textsubscript{2}CO\textsubscript{3} solution, ensuring the reaction system remained under a continuous nitrogen purge throughout the addition.
The reaction mixture was heated to reflux at 92\,\textdegree C under a nitrogen atmosphere. Reaction progress was monitored by thin-layer chromatography (TLC). After 40 hours, the reaction was deemed complete.
The excess solvent was removed under reduced pressure using a rotary evaporator. The crude residue was diluted with 50~mL of water and extracted with 50~mL of ethyl acetate. The layers were separated, and the extraction process with ethyl acetate was repeated three times. The combined organic extracts were dried over anhydrous Na\textsubscript{2}SO\textsubscript{4}. After filtration, the solvent was removed under reduced pressure to afford the crude product as a dark brown liquid. The crude material was purified directly by column chromatography using petroleum ether as the eluent, yielding the desired product as a pale yellow liquid (0.16 g, 79.3\%).
\appendisubsection{Synthesis of 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanone}
\noindent Retro-Expert identified a novel route via Jones oxidation. The synthesis proceeds from 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanol under acidic conditions using chromium trioxide. A visual representation of the reaction process is provided in Figure~\ref{fig:wetfigure2}. Furthermore, the successful oxidation of the secondary alcohol to the corresponding ketone and the formation of the correct product structure were confirmed by \(^1\)H NMR spectroscopy.
$^1$H NMR spectrum of the synthesized 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanone, confirming the successful oxidation of the secondary alcohol to a ketone. The observed chemical shifts are consistent with the expected structure.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{append_pics/wetfigure2.pdf}
\caption{The synthesis path of 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanone.}
\label{fig:wetfigure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{append_pics/wet21.pdf}
\caption{$^1$H NMR spectrum of the synthesized 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanone, confirming the successful oxidation of the secondary alcohol to a ketone. The observed chemical shifts are consistent with the expected structure.}
\label{fig:wet_lab2}
\end{figure}
The detailed experimental procedure:
Chromium trioxide (1.80~g, 0.018~mol) was dissolved in 8.2~mL of deionized water in a 20~mL sample vial. Concentrated sulfuric acid (1.8~mL) was then added dropwise with continuous stirring while maintaining the reaction temperature at 0\,\textdegree C throughout. The resulting orange-red solution constituted the \textit{Jones reagent} (1.8~M).
Separately, 1-(4-ethoxyphenyl)ethanol (0.22~g, 0.013~mol, J1) was dissolved in 10~mL of cold acetone (0\,\textdegree C) in a 25~mL round-bottom flask. While keeping the temperature at 0\,\textdegree C, 2~mL of the freshly prepared Jones reagent was added dropwise. The mixture was stirred at 0\,\textdegree C for 3~hours.
Subsequently, 10~mL of ice-cold saturated NaHSO\textsubscript{3} solution was added to quench the reaction, and the pH was adjusted to 13 using ice-cold aqueous KOH. The resulting mixture was extracted with chloroform (3~$\times$~50~mL) and washed with deionized water. The combined organic layers were dried over anhydrous Na\textsubscript{2}SO\textsubscript{4} and concentrated under reduced pressure at room temperature, yielding 125.5~mg of a pale yellow oily product with a yield of 58.82\%.
\newpage
\appendisection{Additional Ablation Study}\label{sectionG}
\noindent This section presents additional ablation studies.
\vspace{0.5em}
% reward-hacking:
\noindent\textbf{Reward hacking.}
Due to the probabilistic bias in the Top-K candidate results provided by small models, i.e., the correct answer appears in the Top-1 position with significantly higher probability than in other positions.
When using result correctness as the reward, the LLM will directly select the first candidate to continuously maximize its reward.
To validate the effectiveness of our candidate position shuffling strategy, we visualized the positional distribution of correct answers in the small model’s K candidates and the distribution of positions selected by the LLM. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}, using the original K candidates from small models results in severe reward hacking, whereas our position shuffling strategy effectively mitigates this issue.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{append_pics/dis.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of positional distributions between the correct answers of small models and the selected positions of LLMs.}
\label{fig:distribution}
\end{figure}
% \textbf{Effectivenss of small models' Top-K candidates.}
% We analyze the impact of using different K values for candidate results during inference on LLM reasoning performance in Table~\ref{tab:topk}.
% During training, small models only provide 3 candidate results for LLM.
% As K decreases, the number of candidates the LLM needs to reason over reduces, lowering the reasoning difficulty (the expected correct reasoning probability changes from 33.3\% to 50\%).
% Consequently, reactants prediction accuracy gradually increases.
% We surprisingly found that when K equals to 1, reactant accuracy reached 66.8\%, exceeding the small model’s Top-1 accuracy by 2.9\%.
% This indicates that even when small models fail to provide the correct answer, the LLM retains the ability to correct its predictions from erroneous candidates.
% As K increases, the LLM’s reasoning difficulty rises, ultimately leading to a 3.4\% decrease in accuracy.
% We attribute this decline to the training setting, increasing the training K value could further force the model to enhance its reasoning capabilities.
% \section{Multi-step Retrosynthesis}
% we extended Retro-Expert to multi-step retrosynthesis.
% --- 附录结束 ---
% \end{document}
\end{compactappendix}
\begin{thebibliography}{43}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\bibitem[{Bran et~al.(2023)Bran, Cox, Schilter, Baldassari, White, and Schwaller}]{bran2023chemcrow}
Bran, A.~M.; Cox, S.; Schilter, O.; Baldassari, C.; White, A.~D.; and Schwaller, P. 2023.
\newblock Chemcrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05376}.
\bibitem[{Bran et~al.(2025)Bran, Neukomm, Armstrong, Jon{\v{c}}ev, and Schwaller}]{bran2025chemical}
Bran, A.~M.; Neukomm, T.~A.; Armstrong, D.~P.; Jon{\v{c}}ev, Z.; and Schwaller, P. 2025.
\newblock Chemical reasoning in LLMs unlocks steerable synthesis planning and reaction mechanism elucidation.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08537}.
\bibitem[{Chen and Jung(2021)}]{chen2021deep}
Chen, S.; and Jung, Y. 2021.
\newblock Deep retrosynthetic reaction prediction using local reactivity and global attention.
\newblock \emph{JACS Au}, 1(10): 1612--1620.
\bibitem[{Chen et~al.(2025)Chen, He, Fu, Zhang, Jin, Dai, Li, Min, Hu, Zhang et~al.}]{chen2025pandora}
Chen, Y.; He, J.; Fu, L.; Zhang, S.; Jin, R.; Dai, X.; Li, J.; Min, D.; Hu, N.; Zhang, Y.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock Pandora: A Code-Driven Large Language Model Agent for Unified Reasoning Across Diverse Structured Knowledge.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12734}.
\bibitem[{Dai et~al.(2019)Dai, Li, Coley, Dai, and Song}]{dai2019retrosynthesis}
Dai, H.; Li, C.; Coley, C.; Dai, B.; and Song, L. 2019.
\newblock Retrosynthesis prediction with conditional graph logic network.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 32.
\bibitem[{Feng et~al.(2024)Feng, Ding, Wang, Zhuang, Wang, Qin, Zhao, Yao, Zhang, and Chen}]{feng2024sciknoweval}
Feng, K.; Ding, K.; Wang, W.; Zhuang, X.; Wang, Z.; Qin, M.; Zhao, Y.; Yao, J.; Zhang, Q.; and Chen, H. 2024.
\newblock Sciknoweval: Evaluating multi-level scientific knowledge of large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09098}.
\bibitem[{Feng et~al.(2025)Feng, Gong, Li, Guo, Wang, Peng, Wang, and Yue}]{feng2025video}
Feng, K.; Gong, K.; Li, B.; Guo, Z.; Wang, Y.; Peng, T.; Wang, B.; and Yue, X. 2025.
\newblock Video-r1: Reinforcing video reasoning in mllms.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776}.
\bibitem[{Gao et~al.(2022)Gao, Tan, Wu, and Li}]{gao2022semiretro}
Gao, Z.; Tan, C.; Wu, L.; and Li, S.~Z. 2022.
\newblock SemiRetro: Semi-template framework boosts deep retrosynthesis prediction.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08205}.
\bibitem[{Guo et~al.(2025)Guo, Yang, Zhang, Song, Zhang, Xu, Zhu, Ma, Wang, Bi et~al.}]{guo2025deepseek}
Guo, D.; Yang, D.; Zhang, H.; Song, J.; Zhang, R.; Xu, R.; Zhu, Q.; Ma, S.; Wang, P.; Bi, X.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948}.
\bibitem[{Guo et~al.(2023)Guo, Nan, Liang, Guo, Chawla, Wiest, Zhang et~al.}]{guo2023can}
Guo, T.; Nan, B.; Liang, Z.; Guo, Z.; Chawla, N.; Wiest, O.; Zhang, X.; et~al. 2023.
\newblock What can large language models do in chemistry? a comprehensive benchmark on eight tasks.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 36: 59662--59688.
\bibitem[{Hu et~al.(2025)Hu, Zhou, Wang, Li, Yang, Fan, and Yang}]{huosda}
Hu, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, X.; Yang, W.; Fan, H.; and Yang, Y. 2025.
\newblock OSDA Agent: Leveraging Large Language Models for De Novo Design of Organic Structure Directing Agents.
\newblock In \emph{The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations}.
\bibitem[{Huang et~al.(2025)Huang, Geng, Hua, Huang, Zou, Zhang, Liu, and Zhang}]{huang2025o1}
Huang, Z.; Geng, G.; Hua, S.; Huang, Z.; Zou, H.; Zhang, S.; Liu, P.; and Zhang, X. 2025.
\newblock O1 Replication Journey--Part 3: Inference-time Scaling for Medical Reasoning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06458}.
\bibitem[{Irwin et~al.(2022)Irwin, Dimitriadis, He, and Bjerrum}]{irwin2022chemformer}
Irwin, R.; Dimitriadis, S.; He, J.; and Bjerrum, E.~J. 2022.
\newblock Chemformer: a pre-trained transformer for computational chemistry.
\newblock \emph{Machine Learning: Science and Technology}, 3(1): 015022.
\bibitem[{Liu et~al.(2024)Liu, Shi, Zhang, Li, Zhang, Wang, Kawaguchi, and Chua}]{liu2024reactxt}
Liu, Z.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, A.; Li, S.; Zhang, E.; Wang, X.; Kawaguchi, K.; and Chua, T.-S. 2024.
\newblock Reactxt: Understanding molecular" reaction-ship" via reaction-contextualized molecule-text pretraining.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14225}.
\bibitem[{Livne et~al.(2024)Livne, Miftahutdinov, Tutubalina, Kuznetsov, Polykovskiy, Brundyn, Jhunjhunwala, Costa, Aliper, Aspuru-Guzik et~al.}]{livne2024nach0}
Livne, M.; Miftahutdinov, Z.; Tutubalina, E.; Kuznetsov, M.; Polykovskiy, D.; Brundyn, A.; Jhunjhunwala, A.; Costa, A.; Aliper, A.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; et~al. 2024.
\newblock nach0: multimodal natural and chemical languages foundation model.
\newblock \emph{Chemical Science}, 15(22): 8380--8389.
\bibitem[{Lu and Zhang(2022)}]{lu2022unified}
Lu, J.; and Zhang, Y. 2022.
\newblock Unified deep learning model for multitask reaction predictions with explanation.
\newblock \emph{Journal of chemical information and modeling}, 62(6): 1376--1387.
\bibitem[{Pan et~al.(2025)Pan, Liu, Wu, Liu, Zhu, Li, Chen, Ouyang, and Rueckert}]{pan2025medvlm}
Pan, J.; Liu, C.; Wu, J.; Liu, F.; Zhu, J.; Li, H.~B.; Chen, C.; Ouyang, C.; and Rueckert, D. 2025.
\newblock Medvlm-r1: Incentivizing medical reasoning capability of vision-language models (vlms) via reinforcement learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19634}.
\bibitem[{Putri, Taufiq et~al.(2025)}]{putri2025effectiveness}
Putri, R.~A.; Taufiq, A.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock Effectiveness of Innovative Learning Models to Improve Scientific Reasoning on Physics Topics: A Literature Review.
\newblock \emph{Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA}, 11(3): 19--22.
\bibitem[{Sacha et~al.(2021)Sacha, B{\l}az, Byrski, Dabrowski-Tumanski, Chrominski, Loska, W{\l}odarczyk-Pruszynski, and Jastrzebski}]{sacha2021molecule}
Sacha, M.; B{\l}az, M.; Byrski, P.; Dabrowski-Tumanski, P.; Chrominski, M.; Loska, R.; W{\l}odarczyk-Pruszynski, P.; and Jastrzebski, S. 2021.
\newblock Molecule edit graph attention network: modeling chemical reactions as sequences of graph edits.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling}, 61(7): 3273--3284.
\bibitem[{Schneider, Stiefl, and Landrum(2016)}]{schneider2016s}
Schneider, N.; Stiefl, N.; and Landrum, G.~A. 2016.
\newblock What’s what: The (nearly) definitive guide to reaction role assignment.
\newblock \emph{Journal of chemical information and modeling}, 56(12): 2336--2346.
\bibitem[{Segler and Waller(2017)}]{segler2017neural}
Segler, M.~H.; and Waller, M.~P. 2017.
\newblock Neural-symbolic machine learning for retrosynthesis and reaction prediction.
\newblock \emph{Chemistry--A European Journal}, 23(25): 5966--5971.
\bibitem[{Shao et~al.(2024)Shao, Wang, Zhu, Xu, Song, Bi, Zhang, Zhang, Li, Wu et~al.}]{shao2024deepseekmath}
Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Bi, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; et~al. 2024.
\newblock Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300}.
\bibitem[{Somnath et~al.(2021)Somnath, Bunne, Coley, Krause, and Barzilay}]{somnath2021learning}
Somnath, V.~R.; Bunne, C.; Coley, C.; Krause, A.; and Barzilay, R. 2021.
\newblock Learning graph models for retrosynthesis prediction.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 34: 9405--9415.
\bibitem[{Su et~al.(2025)Su, Li, Liu, Ma, Ning, Tang, Ju, Ye, Chen, Hu et~al.}]{su2025gmai}
Su, Y.; Li, T.; Liu, J.; Ma, C.; Ning, J.; Tang, C.; Ju, S.; Ye, J.; Chen, P.; Hu, M.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock GMAI-VL-R1: Harnessing Reinforcement Learning for Multimodal Medical Reasoning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01886}.
\bibitem[{Sun et~al.(2021)Sun, Dai, Li, Kearnes, and Dai}]{sun2021towards}
Sun, R.; Dai, H.; Li, L.; Kearnes, S.; and Dai, B. 2021.
\newblock Towards understanding retrosynthesis by energy-based models.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 34: 10186--10194.
\bibitem[{Tang et~al.(2025)Tang, Hu, Ye, Shao, Yin, Ouyang, Zhou, Lu, Zhang, Zhao et~al.}]{tang2025chemagent}
Tang, X.; Hu, T.; Ye, M.; Shao, Y.; Yin, X.; Ouyang, S.; Zhou, W.; Lu, P.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock ChemAgent: Self-updating Library in Large Language Models Improves Chemical Reasoning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06590}.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2018)Wang, Cao, Zhang, and Qi}]{wang2018computational}
Wang, J.; Cao, H.; Zhang, J.~Z.; and Qi, Y. 2018.
\newblock Computational protein design with deep learning neural networks.
\newblock \emph{Scientific reports}, 8(1): 1--9.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2025)Wang, Li, Paliotta, Ritter, Rush, and Dao}]{wang2025m1}
Wang, J.; Li, W.-D.; Paliotta, D.; Ritter, D.; Rush, A.~M.; and Dao, T. 2025.
\newblock M1: Towards Scalable Test-Time Compute with Mamba Reasoning Models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10449}.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2021)Wang, Li, Qiu, Chen, Liu, Liao, Hsieh, and Yao}]{wang2021retroprime}
Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Qiu, J.; Chen, G.; Liu, H.; Liao, B.; Hsieh, C.-Y.; and Yao, X. 2021.
\newblock Retroprime: A diverse, plausible and transformer-based method for single-step retrosynthesis predictions.
\newblock \emph{Chemical Engineering Journal}, 420: 129845.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2023)Wang, Song, Xu, Wang, Zhou, and Ma}]{wang2023retrodiff}
Wang, Y.; Song, Y.; Xu, M.; Wang, R.; Zhou, H.; and Ma, W. 2023.
\newblock RetroDiff: Retrosynthesis as multi-stage distribution interpolation.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14077}.
\bibitem[{Xie et~al.(2025)Xie, Gao, Ren, Luo, Hong, Dai, Zhou, Qiu, Wu, and Luo}]{xie2025logic}
Xie, T.; Gao, Z.; Ren, Q.; Luo, H.; Hong, Y.; Dai, B.; Zhou, J.; Qiu, K.; Wu, Z.; and Luo, C. 2025.
\newblock Logic-rl: Unleashing llm reasoning with rule-based reinforcement learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14768}.
\bibitem[{Yan et~al.(2020)Yan, Ding, Zhao, Zheng, Yang, Yu, and Huang}]{yan2020retroxpert}
Yan, C.; Ding, Q.; Zhao, P.; Zheng, S.; Yang, J.; Yu, Y.; and Huang, J. 2020.
\newblock Retroxpert: Decompose retrosynthesis prediction like a chemist.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 33: 11248--11258.
\bibitem[{Yang et~al.(2025)Yang, Yu, Li, Liu, Huang, Huang, Jiang, Tu, Zhang, Zhou et~al.}]{yang2025qwen2}
Yang, A.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Huang, H.; Jiang, J.; Tu, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, J.; et~al. 2025.
\newblock Qwen2. 5-1m technical report.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15383}.
\bibitem[{Yang et~al.(2024)Yang, Shi, Li, Jiang, Yang, Lu, and Zhao}]{yang2024batgpt}
Yang, Y.; Shi, R.; Li, Z.; Jiang, S.; Yang, Y.; Lu, B.-L.; and Zhao, H. 2024.
\newblock BatGPT-Chem: a foundation large model for chemical engineering.
\bibitem[{Yao et~al.(2023)Yao, Heinecke, Niebles, Liu, Feng, Xue, Murthy, Chen, Zhang, Arpit et~al.}]{yao2023retroformer}
Yao, W.; Heinecke, S.; Niebles, J.~C.; Liu, Z.; Feng, Y.; Xue, L.; Murthy, R.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, J.; Arpit, D.; et~al. 2023.
\newblock Retroformer: Retrospective large language agents with policy gradient optimization.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02151}.
\bibitem[{Zeng et~al.(2024)Zeng, Yang, Zhao, Zhang, Nie, Yang, Jin, and Xu}]{zeng2024ualign}
Zeng, K.; Yang, B.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Nie, F.; Yang, X.; Jin, Y.; and Xu, Y. 2024.
\newblock Ualign: pushing the limit of template-free retrosynthesis prediction with unsupervised SMILES alignment.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Cheminformatics}, 16(1): 80.
\bibitem[{Zhang et~al.(2024)Zhang, Liu, Tan, Chen, Yan, Yan, Li, Huang, Yue, Ouyang et~al.}]{zhang2024chemllm}
Zhang, D.; Liu, W.; Tan, Q.; Chen, J.; Yan, H.; Yan, Y.; Li, J.; Huang, W.; Yue, X.; Ouyang, W.; et~al. 2024.
\newblock Chemllm: A chemical large language model.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06852}.
\bibitem[{Zhao et~al.(2024)Zhao, Ma, Chen, Sun, Li, Xia, Chen, Xu, Zhu, Zhu et~al.}]{zhao2024chemdfm}
Zhao, Z.; Ma, D.; Chen, L.; Sun, L.; Li, Z.; Xia, Y.; Chen, B.; Xu, H.; Zhu, Z.; Zhu, S.; et~al. 2024.
\newblock ChemDFM: a large language foundation model for chemistry.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14818}.
\bibitem[{Zheng et~al.(2019)Zheng, Rao, Zhang, Xu, and Yang}]{zheng2019predicting}
Zheng, S.; Rao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, J.; and Yang, Y. 2019.
\newblock Predicting retrosynthetic reactions using self-corrected transformer neural networks.
\newblock \emph{Journal of chemical information and modeling}, 60(1): 47--55.
\bibitem[{Zhong et~al.(2023)}]{zhong2023retrosynthesis}
Zhong, W.; et~al. 2023.
\newblock Retrosynthesis prediction using an end-to-end graph generative architecture for molecular graph editing.
\newblock \emph{Nature Communications}, 14(1): 3009.
\bibitem[{Zhong et~al.(2022)Zhong, Song, Feng, Liu, Jia, Yao, Wu, Hou, and Song}]{zhong2022root}
Zhong, Z.; Song, J.; Feng, Z.; Liu, T.; Jia, L.; Yao, S.; Wu, M.; Hou, T.; and Song, M. 2022.
\newblock Root-aligned SMILES: a tight representation for chemical reaction prediction.
\newblock \emph{Chemical Science}, 13(31): 9023--9034.
\bibitem[{Zhou et~al.(2023)Zhou, Liu, Xu, Iyer, Sun, Mao, Ma, Efrat, Yu, Yu et~al.}]{zhou2023lima}
Zhou, C.; Liu, P.; Xu, P.; Iyer, S.; Sun, J.; Mao, Y.; Ma, X.; Efrat, A.; Yu, P.; Yu, L.; et~al. 2023.
\newblock Lima: Less is more for alignment.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 36: 55006--55021.
\bibitem[{Zhou et~al.(2024)Zhou, Zanette, Pan, Levine, and Kumar}]{zhou2024archer}
Zhou, Y.; Zanette, A.; Pan, J.; Levine, S.; and Kumar, A. 2024.
\newblock Archer: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn rl.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19446}.
\end{thebibliography}