chemical synthesis teams

Abstract: Single-step retrosynthesis is a one-to-many inverse problem, yet most models are trained and evaluated against a single recorded reactant set. Reference-based training gives no explicit positive signal for unrecorded alternatives, and exact-match evaluation rejects non-matching predictions regardless of chemical plausibility. We propose Retrosynthesis via Reinforcement Learning from Forward Feedback (RetroRLFF), which optimizes reactant generation using both reference agreement and forward consistency with the target product. Starting from a supervised decoder-only Transformer, RetroRLFF generates complete reactant candidates and uses a frozen forward reaction model to predict products. A sequence-level reward combines reference agreement and forward consistency while penalizing invalid outputs. Direct Advantage-Based Policy Optimization updates the policy without human preference annotations or a preference-trained reward model. On USPTO-50K, RetroRLFF outperforms all 14 baselines in candidate-level round-trip accuracy at k = 1, 3, 5, and 10. With approximately 50 million parameters, it achieves 90.1% top-1 round-trip accuracy, exceeding R-SMILES, the strongest competing baseline on this metric, by 8.5 percentage points. Compared with its supervised policy, round-trip accuracy increases from 83.1% to 90.1%, while exact-match accuracy is maintained at 57.9% versus 57.5%. In an anonymized expert assessment of 131 randomly selected test cases, organic synthesis experts prefer RetroRLFF over EditRetro in 67.9% of comparisons. These results support forward feedback as a training signal for improving forward consistency while retaining top-1 reference recovery. Expert assessment provides complementary evidence of synthetic feasibility on the selected cases, although neither forward consistency nor expert preference establishes experimental feasibility.

Abstract: As generative models and AI agents propose chemical reactions at a scale beyond expert review, feasibility verifiers decide which proposals enter synthesis planning. But do their decisions agree with chemists across different kinds of candidates? We introduce FREA, a benchmark of 751 reactions labeled by expert chemists under an explicit feasibility criterion, drawn from retrosynthesis model proposals, zero-yield experimental records, edits by large language models (LLMs), and five negative candidate generation methods. Our evaluation finds that no verifier leads across all sources: LLMs given only the criterion are competitive with dedicated verifiers, while forward models perform best on retrosynthesis proposals but reject most feasible edits of recorded reactions at the evaluated operating points. Looking beyond aggregate scores, both forward models perform below chance when separating infeasible alternative disconnections from feasible generated candidates. To study whether negative supervision addresses these weaknesses, we also release a corpus of over 14 million recorded reactions and generated negative candidates. In matched training comparisons, adding a mixture of generated negatives to forward training raises mean AUROC across sources, but these gains do not extend to retrosynthesis proposals. Varying the generation method further shows that the largest gain on generated candidates coincides with worse proposal screening. These findings motivate evaluating verifiers against experts across sources and designing negatives for transfer to model proposals.