Comparative Analysis of Retrosynthesis Tools: From AI Foundations to Practical Drug Development

Abstract

This comprehensive analysis examines the evolving landscape of computer-aided retrosynthesis planning tools, comparing traditional rule-based systems with emerging AI and LLM-based approaches. Targeting researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the article explores foundational concepts, methodological innovations, optimization strategies, and validation frameworks. Through systematic comparison of tools like AOT*, RetroExplainer, and SYNTHIAâ„¢, we evaluate performance metrics, efficiency gains, and practical applications in reducing drug discovery timelines and costs while promoting greener chemistry principles.

Retrosynthesis Fundamentals: From Traditional Analysis to AI Revolution

Core Principles and Historical Foundations

Retrosynthesis, formally defined as the process of deconstructing a target organic molecule into progressively simpler precursors via imaginary bond disconnections or functional group transformations until commercially available starting materials are reached, is a cornerstone of organic synthesis and drug discovery [1] [2]. This systematic, backward-working strategy empowers chemists to plan viable synthetic routes for complex target molecules by navigating a vast and exponentially growing chemical space [1].

The intellectual foundation of retrosynthesis was profoundly shaped by the work of Nobel Laureate E.J. Corey. In 1967, his pioneering attempt to use computational tools for synthesis design marked the birth of computer-aided retrosynthesis [1]. Corey and his team developed early expert systems like LHASA, which relied on manually encoded reaction rules and logic-based synthesis trees where the target molecule formed the root node [1]. These early template-based endeavors established a framework that still serves as the backbone for many modern approaches, demonstrating a heavy reliance on expert knowledge and a reaction library whose size directly determined the searchable chemical space [1].

The past decade has witnessed a paradigm shift, driven by increased computing power, the establishment of large reaction databases (e.g., Reaxys, SciFinder, USPTO), and the rise of data-driven machine learning (ML) techniques [1]. These advancements have catalyzed the development of both enhanced template-based models and novel template-free methods, moving the field from purely knowledge-driven systems to models that can infer latent relationships from high-dimensional chemical data [3] [1].

Comparative Analysis of Modern Retrosynthesis Approaches

Contemporary retrosynthesis planning tools can be broadly categorized into three main methodologies: template-based, semi-template-based, and template-free. Each offers distinct mechanisms, advantages, and limitations, as detailed in the table below.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Modern Retrosynthesis Methodologies

Methodology	Core Mechanism	Key Examples	Advantages	Limitations
Template-Based	Matches target molecules to a library of expert-defined or data-extracted reaction templates describing reaction rules [3] [1].	GLN [3], RetroComposer [3]	High chemical interpretability; ensures chemically plausible reactions [3].	Limited generalization; poor scalability; computationally expensive subgraph matching [3] [1].
Semi-Template-Based	Predicts reactants through intermediates or synthons, often by first identifying reaction centers [3].	SemiRetro [3], Graph2Edits [3]	Reduces template redundancy; improves interpretability [3].	Handling of multicenter reactions remains challenging [3].
Template-Free	Treats retrosynthesis as a translation task, directly generating reactant SMILES strings from product SMILES without explicit reaction rules [3] [1].	seq2seq [3], SCROP [3], Chemformer [2]	No expert knowledge required at inference; strong generalization to novel reactions [3] [2].	May generate invalid SMILES; can overlook structural information [3].

A key development in template-free approaches is the adoption of architectures from natural language processing (NLP), such as the Transformer model, which treats Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) strings as a language to be translated [3]. This has enabled the emergence of large-scale models like RSGPT, a generative transformer pre-trained on 10 billion generated data points, showcasing how overcoming data scarcity can lead to substantial performance gains [3].

Performance Benchmarking of State-of-the-Art Tools

Evaluating retrosynthesis tools involves metrics like Top-1 accuracy for single-step prediction and solvability for multi-step routes. However, a more nuanced evaluation that includes route feasibility, reflecting practical laboratory executability, is crucial [2].

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking of Retrosynthesis Planning Tools and Models

Tool / Model	Type	Key Feature	Reported Performance
RSGPT [3]	Template-free Generative Transformer	Pre-trained on 10 billion synthetic data points; uses RLAIF	Top-1 Accuracy: 63.4% (USPTO-50K)
Neuro-symbolic Model [4]	Neurosymbolic Programming	Learns reusable, multi-step patterns (cascade/complementary reactions)	Success Rate: ~98.4% (Retro*-190 dataset); Reduces inference time for similar molecules
Retro* [2]	Planning Algorithm	A* search guided by a neural network for cost estimation	High performance in balancing route finding and feasibility
MEEA* [2]	Planning Algorithm	Combines MCTS exploration with A* optimality	Solvability: ~95% (on tested datasets)
LocalRetro [2]	Template-based SRPM	Selects suitable reaction templates from a predefined set	Chemically plausible predictions
ReactionT5 [2]	Template-free SRPM	State-of-the-art template-free model on USPTO-50K	High Top-1 accuracy

Comparative studies reveal that the highest solvability does not always equate to the most feasible routes. For instance, while MEEA* with a default SRPM demonstrated superior solvability (~95%), Retro* with a default SRPM performed better when considering a combined metric of both solvability and feasibility [2]. This underscores the necessity of multi-faceted evaluation in retrosynthetic planning.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Generation and Pre-training for Large Models

The RSGPT model highlights a strategy to overcome data bottlenecks. Its pre-training relied on a massive dataset generated using the RDChiral template extraction algorithm on the USPTO-FULL dataset [3]. A fragment library was created by breaking down millions of molecules from PubChem and ChEMBL using the BRICS method. Templates were then matched to these fragments to generate over 10 billion synthetic reaction datapoints, creating a broad chemical space for effective model pre-training [3].

Another innovative approach involves a neurosymbolic workflow inspired by human learning, structured into three iterative phases [4]:

• Wake Phase: The system attempts to solve retrosynthetic planning tasks, constructing an AND-OR search graph guided by neural networks that decide where and how to expand the graph. Successful routes and failures are recorded [4].
• Abstraction Phase: The system analyzes the search graph from the wake phase to extract reusable, multi-step strategies. It identifies "cascade chains" (sequences of consecutive transformations) and "complementary chains" (interdependent reactions), defining them as new abstract reaction templates for the library [4].
• Dreaming Phase: To refine the neural network models without costly real-world experiments, the system generates "fantasies" - simulated retrosynthesis experiences. The models are then trained on these fantasies and replayed experiences to learn how to better apply the expanded template library in subsequent wake phases [4].

Evaluation Metrics and Feasibility Assessment

Robust evaluation extends beyond simple solvability. The Route Feasibility metric is calculated by averaging the feasibility scores of each single step within a proposed route [2]. This score is derived from metrics like the Feasibility Thresholded Count (FTC), which assesses the practical likelihood of a reaction step. This provides a more comprehensive measure of a route's real-world viability than solvability or length alone [2].

The development and application of modern retrosynthesis tools depend on several key digital reagents and databases.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Name	Type	Function in Retrosynthesis Research
USPTO Dataset [3] [1]	Reaction Database	A foundational dataset (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL) for training and benchmarking retrosynthesis models.
Reaxys [1]	Reaction Database	A comprehensive commercial database of chemical reactions and substances used for knowledge extraction.
SciFinder [1]	Reaction Database	A scholarly research resource providing access to chemical literature and reaction data.
SMILES Strings [3] [1]	Molecular Representation	A line notation method for representing molecular structures, enabling template-free, NLP-based models.
RDChiral [3]	Software Tool	A rule-based tool for precise stereochemical handling in reverse synthesis template extraction.
BRICS Method [3]	Algorithm	Used for fragmenting molecules into synthons for generating synthetic reaction data.

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

The Neurosymbolic Programming Cycle

This diagram illustrates the three-phase iterative cycle of neurosymbolic programming used in advanced retrosynthesis systems [4].

Multi-Step Retrosynthesis Planning Framework

This flowchart outlines the generic decision-making process for a multi-step retrosynthesis planning algorithm [2].

A significant challenge in modern drug discovery is the critical gap between computationally designed molecules and their practical synthesizability. While deep generative models can efficiently propose molecules with ideal pharmacological properties, these candidates often prove challenging or infeasible to synthesize in the wet lab [5]. This synthesizability problem creates a major bottleneck, wasting valuable time and resources on molecules that cannot be practically produced. Retrosynthesis planning tools, which recursively decompose target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors, have emerged as essential solutions for validating synthesizability and planning efficient routes before experimental work begins [4] [5]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of leading retrosynthesis planning tools, evaluating their performance, methodologies, and applicability to streamline drug development workflows.

Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Tools

Single-Step Retrosynthesis Accuracy

Single-step retrosynthesis prediction, which identifies immediate precursor reactants for a target molecule, forms the foundational building block of multi-step planning. Performance is typically measured by top-k exact-match accuracy, indicating whether the true reactants appear within the top k predictions [6].

Table 1: Top-k Accuracy (%) on USPTO-50K Benchmark Dataset

Model	Type	Top-1	Top-3	Top-5	Top-10
RSGPT [7]	Template-free	63.4	-	-	-
RetroExplainer [6]	Molecular Assembly	58.9	73.8	78.7	83.5
LocalRetro [6]	Graph-based	-	-	-	84.5
R-SMILES [6]	Sequence-based	-	-	-	-

RSGPT represents a groundbreaking advancement with its 63.4% Top-1 accuracy on the USPTO-50K dataset, substantially outperforming previous models which typically plateaued around 55% [7]. This performance leap is attributed to its generative pre-training on 10 billion synthetic reaction datapoints, overcoming data scarcity limitations that constrained earlier models [7]. RetroExplainer demonstrates robust performance across multiple top-k metrics, achieving particularly strong 78.7% Top-5 accuracy, indicating consistent coverage of plausible reactants [6].

Multi-Step Planning Efficiency and Success Rates

Multi-step planning evaluates a tool's ability to recursively decompose complex targets into purchasable building blocks, with success rates measured under constrained search iterations or time.

Table 2: Multi-Step Planning Performance on Retro-190 Dataset*

Model	Approach	Success Rate (%)	Planning Cycles to First Route
NeuroSymbolic Group Planning [4]	Neurosymbolic Programming	98.4	Fastest
EG-MCTS [4]	Monte Carlo Tree Search	~95.4	Slower
PDVN [4]	Value Network	~95.5	Slower

The neurosymbolic group planning model demonstrates superior efficiency, achieving the highest success rate (98.4%) while finding routes in the fewest planning cycles [4]. Its key innovation lies in abstracting and reusing common multi-step patterns (cascade and complementary reactions) across similar molecules, progressively decreasing marginal inference time as the system processes more targets [4].

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Benchmarking Frameworks and Dataset Considerations

Robust evaluation requires standardized benchmarks and appropriate dataset splitting to prevent scaffold bias and information leakage:

• USPTO Datasets: The United States Patent and Trademark Office datasets (USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT) provide curated reaction data from patent literature, with USPTO-50K containing approximately 50,000 reactions and USPTO-FULL containing nearly 2 million entries [6] [7].
• Retro*-190 Dataset: A collection of 190 challenging molecules for evaluating multi-step planning algorithms [4] [8].
• Tanimoto Similarity Splitting: To prevent artificially inflated performance from structurally similar molecules appearing in both training and test sets, rigorous evaluations employ similarity-based splitting (e.g., 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 Tanimoto similarity thresholds) rather than random splitting [6].

The syntheseus Python package addresses inconsistent evaluation practices by providing a standardized framework for benchmarking both single-step and multi-step retrosynthesis algorithms [8].

Beyond Traditional Metrics: Addressing Hallucinations and Practical Feasibility

Traditional metrics like top-k accuracy and success rate have limitations—they don't assess whether predicted reactions are actually feasible in the laboratory. Recent approaches address this critical gap:

• Round-Trip Score: Proposed by Liu et al., this metric uses forward reaction prediction to simulate whether starting materials can successfully reproduce the target molecule through the proposed route, with similarity between original and reproduced molecules quantifying route feasibility [5].
• RetroTrim: This system combines diverse reaction scoring strategies to eliminate hallucinated reactions—nonsensical or erroneous predictions that plague many retrosynthesis models [9]. Expert validation on novel drug-like targets confirms its effectiveness as the sole method successfully filtering out hallucinations while maintaining the highest number of high-quality paths [9].
• Expert Validation: The most rigorous assessment involves synthetic chemists evaluating proposed routes. On this measure, RetroExplainer demonstrated that 86.9% of its predicted single-step reactions corresponded to literature-reported reactions [6].

Essential Workflows in Retrosynthesis Planning

Molecular Representation and Disconnection Planning

The initial phase of retrosynthesis involves representing molecular structures and identifying plausible disconnection sites, with different algorithmic approaches each having distinct advantages.

Neurosymbolic Programming for Group Retrosynthesis

Inspired by human learning, neurosymbolic programming alternates between expanding a library of synthetic strategies and refining neural models to guide the search process more effectively.

Table 3: Key Resources for Retrosynthesis Research and Implementation

Resource	Type	Function & Application	Example Sources/References
USPTO Reaction Datasets	Chemical Data	Curated reaction data from patents for model training and validation	USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT [6] [7]
Purchasable Compound Databases	Chemical Data	Define feasible starting materials for synthetic routes	ZINC Database [5]
RDChiral	Algorithm	Template extraction and reaction validation	RetroSynth template extraction [7]
Syntheseus	Software Library	Standardized benchmarking of retrosynthesis algorithms	Python package for consistent evaluation [8]
AiZynthFinder	Software Tool	Multi-step retrosynthesis planning implementation	Popular open-source tool for route finding [5]
Template Libraries	Chemical Knowledge	Encoded reaction rules for template-based approaches	Expert-curated or data-mined reaction templates [4]

The comparative analysis reveals distinct strengths across the retrosynthesis tool landscape, enabling informed selection based on specific drug discovery needs. RSGPT excels in raw single-step prediction accuracy, making it valuable for identifying plausible disconnections for novel targets. RetroExplainer offers exceptional interpretability through its molecular assembly process, providing transparent decision-making critical for experimental validation. NeuroSymbolic Group Planning demonstrates unmatched efficiency for projects involving structurally similar compound series, progressively accelerating as it processes more targets. For prioritizing practical synthesizability over purely computational metrics, approaches employing round-trip validation or diverse ensemble scoring (RetroTrim) offer superior protection against hallucinated reactions. The optimal tool choice ultimately depends on the specific application context: early-stage generative design with diverse outputs versus lead optimization with congeneric series, with the field increasingly moving toward integrated solutions that combine accuracy, interpretability, and practical feasibility to truly address the time and cost challenges in drug discovery.

The field of computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) has undergone a profound transformation, evolving from early expert-driven rule-based systems to sophisticated data-driven machine learning (ML) models. Retrosynthesis planning—the process of recursively decomposing target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors—represents a core challenge in organic chemistry and drug development [4] [10]. This evolution mirrors broader trends in artificial intelligence, shifting from symbolic systems encoding explicit human knowledge to subsymbolic models learning implicit patterns directly from data [11] [10]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of retrosynthesis planning tools, examining the performance, experimental methodologies, and practical applications of rule-based, ML-based, and hybrid approaches to inform researchers and development professionals in the pharmaceutical and chemical sciences.

Historical Progression: From Expert Systems to Data-Driven Learning

The development of computational retrosynthesis tools began with rule-based expert systems, which are examples of symbolic artificial intelligence. These systems operate on a set of predefined conditional statements (IF-THEN rules) manually curated by human experts [12] [13]. A typical rule-based system comprises several key components: a knowledge base storing rules and facts, an inference engine that applies rules to data, working memory holding current facts, and a user interface [12]. Famous early systems like MYCIN demonstrated the potential of this approach, though they were never widely adopted in practice for chemistry initially due to ethical and practical concerns [12]. These systems are highly transparent and interpretable because their decision-making logic is explicit, but they suffer from significant limitations in scalability and adaptability [12] [13]. Building and maintaining comprehensive rule sets for complex domains like organic chemistry is labor-intensive, and these systems cannot learn from new data or improve with experience [13].

The paradigm shifted with the rise of machine learning approaches, fueled by increased computational resources and the availability of large-scale chemical reaction datasets such as those from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) [3] [10]. Unlike rule-based systems, ML models learn reaction patterns and transformation rules directly from historical reaction data, reducing reliance on manual rule encoding and enabling the discovery of novel reaction pathways [10]. This transition has led to the development of three primary ML-based retrosynthesis approaches:

• Template-Based Models: These models identify appropriate reaction templates—rules describing reaction cores based on fundamental chemical transformations—and apply them to target molecules [3] [14]. While offering good interpretability, they are constrained by the coverage of their template libraries [3].
• Template-Free Models: These approaches, often using sequence-to-sequence architectures, treat retrosynthesis as a machine translation problem, directly generating reactant SMILES strings from product SMILES without explicit reaction rules [3] [14]. They bypass template limitations but can struggle with invalid outputs and conserving atom mappings [14].
• Semi-Template-Based Models: This hybrid category predicts reactants through intermediates or synthons, first identifying reaction centers and then completing the molecular structures [3] [14]. Frameworks like State2Edits formulate the task as a graph editing problem, sequentially applying transformations to convert product graphs into reactants [14].

A more recent advancement is the emergence of neuro-symbolic programming, which aims to bridge the gap between these paradigms. Inspired by human learning, these systems alternately extend symbolic reaction template libraries and refine neural network models, creating a self-improving cycle [4]. For example, some modern systems operate through wake, abstraction, and dreaming phases—solving retrosynthesis tasks, extracting multi-step strategies like cascade and complementary reactions, and refining neural models through simulated experiences [4].

Comparative Performance Analysis of Retrosynthesis Approaches

Table 1: Top-K Accuracy Comparison of Various Retrosynthesis Methods on the USPTO-50K Benchmark Dataset

Method	Category	Top-1 Accuracy (%)	Top-3 Accuracy (%)	Top-5 Accuracy (%)	Top-10 Accuracy (%))
RSGPT [3]	Template-Free (LLM)	63.4	-	-	-
State2Edits [14]	Semi-Template-Based	55.4	78.0	-	-
RetroExplainer [6]	Molecular Assembly	54.2 (Reaction Type Unknown)	72.1 (Reaction Type Unknown)	78.3 (Reaction Type Unknown)	85.4 (Reaction Type Unknown)
LocalRetro [6]	Template-Based	~54.0 (Reaction Type Unknown)	~73.0 (Reaction Type Unknown)	~79.0 (Reaction Type Unknown)	86.4 (Reaction Type Unknown)
G2G [14]	Semi-Template-Based	48.9	73.4	-	-
GraphRetro [14]	Semi-Template-Based	46.4	63.3	-	-
MEGAN [14]	Semi-Template-Based	44.0	65.0	-	-

Performance on standard benchmarks like USPTO-50K reveals clear differences between approaches. Recent large language model (LLM)-based approaches like RSGPT demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, achieving 63.4% top-1 accuracy through pre-training on ten billion generated reaction datapoints and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) [3]. Semi-template models like State2Edits strike a balance between template-based and template-free methods, achieving competitive top-1 accuracy (55.4%) while maintaining interpretability through an edit-based prediction process [14]. Interpretable frameworks like RetroExplainer, which formulates retrosynthesis as a molecular assembly process, achieve strong overall performance (top-1 accuracy of 54.2% when reaction type is unknown) while providing transparent decision-making [6].

Multi-Step Planning and Group Efficiency

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Multi-Step and Group Retrosynthesis Planning

Method	Category	Planning Success Rate (%)	Key Strengths	Inference Time Trend
Neuro-symbolic Model [4]	Hybrid (Neuro-symbolic)	98.42 (on Retro*-190)	Pattern reuse, Decreasing marginal time	Decreases with more molecules
Retro* [6]	Search Algorithm	-	Pathway validation, Literature alignment	Standard
EG-MCTS, PDVN [4]	Search Algorithm	~95.4	-	Standard

For multi-step synthesis planning, search algorithms guided by neural networks play a crucial role. When extended to multi-step planning, RetroExplainer identified 101 pathways for complex drug molecules, with 86.9% of the single-step reactions corresponding to those reported in literature [6]. For planning groups of similar molecules—a common scenario with AI-generated compounds—neuro-symbolic models demonstrate particular advantage, achieving a 98.42% success rate on the Retro*-190 dataset and significantly reducing inference time by reusing synthesized patterns and pathways across similar molecules [4]. This capability to learn reusable multi-step reaction processes (cascade and complementary reactions) allows for progressively decreasing marginal inference time, a significant efficiency gain for drug discovery pipelines dealing with similar molecular scaffolds [4].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Standards and Data Preparation

Experimental evaluation of retrosynthesis tools primarily uses standardized datasets derived from patent literature, with USPTO-50K being the most widely adopted benchmark [14] [6]. This dataset contains 50,000 high-quality reactions with correct atom mapping, classified into 10 reaction types [14]. Standard evaluation protocols employ top-k exact match accuracy, measuring whether the ground-truth reactants exactly match any of the top k predictions [6].

To address potential scaffold bias in random data splits, researchers increasingly use similarity-based splitting methods. For example, the Tanimoto similarity threshold method (with thresholds of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6) ensures that structurally similar molecules don't appear in both training and test sets, providing a more rigorous assessment of model generalizability [6].

Training Methodologies Across Paradigms

Template-based and semi-template models typically employ specialized neural architectures for their specific tasks. State2Edits uses a directed message passing neural network (D-MPNN) to predict edit sequences, integrating reaction center identification and synthon completion into a unified framework [14]. It introduces state transformation edits (main state and generate state) to handle complex multi-atom edits through a combination of single-atom and bond edits [14].

Large language models (LLMs) for retrosynthesis, such as RSGPT, employ sophisticated multi-stage training reminiscent of natural language processing:

• Synthetic Data Pre-training: Using template-based algorithms (e.g., RDChiral) to generate billions of reaction datapoints from molecular fragments and known reaction templates [3].
• Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF): The model generates reactants and templates, with validation tools like RDChiral providing feedback through reward mechanisms, helping the model learn relationships between products, reactants, and templates [3].
• Task-Specific Fine-tuning: Final optimization on specific benchmark datasets (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-MIT, USPTO-FULL) to maximize performance [3].

Neuro-symbolic systems implement a cyclic learning process inspired by human cognition:

• Wake Phase: Attempting to solve retrosynthesis tasks and recording the process [4].
• Abstraction Phase: Extracting useful multi-step strategies (cascade chains for consecutive transformations, complementary chains for interacting reactions) and adding them as abstract reaction templates to the library [4].
• Dreaming Phase: Generating synthetic retrosynthesis data ("fantasies") to refine neural models through experience replay, improving their ability to select and apply strategies [4].

Diagram Title: Neuro-symbolic System Learning Cycle

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Retrosynthesis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance in Research
USPTO Datasets [3] [14] [6]	Data	Benchmarking and training	Provides standardized reaction data for model development and evaluation (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT).
RDChiral [3]	Software Algorithm	Template extraction and validation	Enforces chemical rules; used for generating synthetic training data and validating model predictions in RLAIF.
SYNTHIA [15]	Software Platform	Retrosynthesis planning	Commercial tool combining chemist-encoded rules with ML; database of 12+ million building blocks.
Tanimoto Similarity [6]	Evaluation Metric	Assessing molecular similarity	Implements rigorous dataset splitting to prevent scaffold bias and test model generalizability.
Reaction Templates [4] [3]	Knowledge Base	Encoding transformation rules	Fundamental to template-based and neuro-symbolic approaches; can be expert-curated or data-derived.
SciFindern [6]	Literature Database	Reaction validation	Validates predicted synthetic routes against published chemical literature.

The evolution from rule-based systems to machine learning has fundamentally transformed retrosynthesis planning, offering researchers increasingly powerful tools for synthetic route design. Each approach presents distinct advantages: rule-based systems provide interpretability and reliability for well-understood chemical transformations; machine learning models offer superior predictive accuracy and the ability to discover novel pathways; hybrid neuro-symbolic approaches combine the strengths of both, enabling knowledge reuse and efficient planning for molecular families.

For drug development professionals, the choice of tool depends on specific research needs. When working with novel molecular scaffolds or seeking unprecedented disconnections, data-driven ML models offer the most creative solutions. For optimizing routes around established chemical space, template-based and semi-template methods provide reliable and interpretable predictions. Most promisingly, neuro-symbolic systems that learn and reuse synthetic patterns present a compelling future direction, particularly for pharmaceutical discovery pipelines that frequently explore groups of structurally similar molecules. As these technologies continue to mature, the integration of retrosynthesis planning with generative molecular design will further accelerate the development of new therapeutics and functional materials.

Retrosynthesis planning, the process of deconstructing complex target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors, is a cornerstone of organic chemistry and drug discovery [16]. The field is currently powered by two main types of tools: commercial software platforms used in industrial settings and advanced research frameworks emerging from academic and corporate R&D. Commercial platforms like SciFinder-n, Reaxys, and SYNNTHIA often integrate vast databases of known reactions with predictive algorithms, while research frameworks such as RSGPT and AOT* push the boundaries with novel artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) [17] [3] [18]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these tools, focusing on their methodologies, performance, and applicability for researchers and drug development professionals.

Commercial Platforms at a Glance

Commercial retrosynthesis tools are designed for practical application, offering robust, user-friendly interfaces backed by extensive reaction databases and expert-curated rules.

Table 1: Overview of Leading Commercial Retrosynthesis Platforms

Platform	Key Strengths	Primary Limitations	Ideal Use Case
SciFinder-n (CAS) [17]	Unrivaled data from the CAS Content Collection; dynamic, interactive plans; stereoselective labeling.	Focuses on known routes; premium subscription cost.	Deep dives into known, published chemistry.
Reaxys (Elsevier) [17]	Combines high-quality reaction data with AI (Iktos/PendingAI); access to experimental procedures & supplier links.	High subscription cost; some AI processes are "black box."	Diverse predictions and practical sourcing.
SYNNTHIA (Merck) [17]	Combines expert rules & machine learning for practical, green synthesis; custom inventory-friendly planning.	Requires significant enterprise investment.	Industry-focused, green chemistry with custom inventory.

These platforms are integral to workflow in many pharmaceutical and chemical companies. Their strength lies in leveraging vast repositories of known chemical knowledge, such as the CAS Content Collection for SciFinder-n, which provides high confidence in the validity of suggested routes [17]. However, a common limitation is their potential bias towards known chemistry, which might constrain the discovery of novel or more efficient synthetic pathways.

Cutting-Edge Research Frameworks

Research frameworks often prioritize algorithmic innovation and performance on benchmark datasets, demonstrating state-of-the-art results in generating novel retrosynthetic pathways.

Performance Comparison

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Selected Research Frameworks

Framework	Core Innovation	Reported Top-1 Accuracy	Key Advantage
RSGPT [3]	Generative Transformer pre-trained on 10B synthetic datapoints; uses RLAIF.	63.4% (USPTO-50K)	State-of-the-art accuracy from massive, diverse data.
AOT* [18]	Integrates LLM-generated pathways with AND-OR tree search.	Competitive SOTA	3-5x higher search efficiency; excels with complex molecules.
Neuro-symbolic Model [4]	Learns reusable, multi-step patterns (cascade/complementary reactions).	High success rate	Progressively decreases inference time for similar molecules.
Retro*-Default [2]	A* search with a neural value network.	Not Specified	Better balance of Solvability and Route Feasibility.

In-Depth Framework Analysis

• RSGPT: This model addresses the data bottleneck in retrosynthesis by using a template-based algorithm to generate over 10 billion synthetic reaction datapoints for pre-training [3]. Its training strategy mirrors that of large language models, involving pre-training, Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) to validate generated reactants, and fine-tuning. This approach allows it to achieve a top-1 accuracy of 63.4% on the USPTO-50K benchmark, substantially outperforming previous models [3].

• AOT*: This framework tackles the computational challenges of multi-step planning by combining the reasoning capabilities of LLMs with the systematic efficiency of AND-OR tree search [18]. It maps complete synthesis pathways generated by an LLM onto an AND-OR tree, enabling structural reuse of intermediates and dramatically reducing redundant searches. The result is a state-of-the-art performance achieved with 3-5 times fewer iterations than other LLM-based approaches, making it particularly effective for complex targets [18].

• Human-Guided AiZynthFinder: Enhancing the widely used tool AiZynthFinder, this research introduces "prompting" for human-guided synthesis planning [19]. Chemists can specify bonds to break or bonds to freeze, and the tool incorporates these constraints via a multi-objective search and a disconnection-aware transformer. This strategy successfully satisfied bond constraints for 75.57% of targets in the PaRoutes dataset, compared to 54.80% for the standard search, effectively incorporating chemists' prior knowledge into AI-driven planning [19].

Experimental Protocols & Evaluation Metrics

Understanding how these tools are evaluated is critical for interpreting their performance claims. Benchmarking typically involves standardized datasets and specific metrics that measure both efficiency and route quality.

Common Experimental Protocols

• Dataset: The most common datasets used for benchmarking are derived from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), such as USPTO-50K (containing 50,000 reactions) and the larger USPTO-FULL (with about two million reactions) [3] [2].
• Evaluation Metric - Solvability: This is the most basic metric, measuring the algorithm's ability to find a complete route from the target molecule to commercially available building blocks within a limited number of planning cycles [4] [2].
• Evaluation Metric - Route Feasibility: Recognizing that a solved route is not necessarily practical, this metric assesses the likelihood that the generated route can be successfully executed in a real laboratory. It is often calculated by averaging the feasibility scores of each single-step reaction in the route [2].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the standard process for evaluating a multi-step retrosynthesis framework, from the target molecule to the final assessment of the proposed route.

Critical Insight: Solvability vs. Feasibility

A key finding in recent literature is that the model combination with the highest solvability does not always produce the most feasible routes [2]. For instance, while one algorithm (MEEA-Default) demonstrated a high solvability of ~95%, another (Retro-Default) performed better when considering a combined metric of both solvability and feasibility [2]. This underscores the necessity of using nuanced, multi-faceted metrics for a true assessment of a tool's practical utility.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

In computational retrosynthesis, "research reagents" refer to the key software components, datasets, and algorithms that are combined to build and evaluate planning systems.

Table 3: Key Reagents in Retrosynthesis Research

Reagent / Component	Type	Function in the Workflow
Single-Step Retrosynthesis Prediction Model (SRPM) [2]	Algorithm	Predicts possible reactants for a single product molecule. The core building block of multi-step planners.
Planning Algorithm [2]	Algorithm	Manages the multi-step decision process, guiding which molecule to break down next using strategies like A* or MCTS.
AND-OR Tree [18]	Data Structure	Represents the search space; OR nodes are molecules, AND nodes are reactions that decompose a molecule into precursors.
USPTO Datasets [3]	Dataset	Standard benchmark datasets (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL) for training and evaluating models.
Building Block Set (e.g., ZINC) [18]	Dataset	A catalog of commercially available molecules used as the stopping condition for the retrosynthetic search.
Reaction Templates [3]	Knowledge Base	Expert-defined or automatically extracted rules that describe how a reaction center is transformed.
LM-030	Klk7/ela2-IN-1|Dual Protease Inhibitor|For Research	Klk7/ela2-IN-1 is a dual inhibitor of kallikrein-related peptidase 7 (KLK7) and elastase 2 (ELA2). For research use only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.
Phenthoate	Phenthoate Analytical Standard|C12H17O4PS2	Phenthoate (CAS 2597-03-7) is an organothiophosphate insecticide. This analytical standard is for research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary use.

The landscape of retrosynthesis planning is diverse, with clear trade-offs between commercial platforms and research frameworks. Commercial tools like SciFinder-n, Reaxys, and SYNNTHIA offer reliability, extensive curated data, and practical features for industrial chemists [17]. In contrast, research frameworks like RSGPT and AOT* demonstrate superior raw performance and algorithmic efficiency on benchmarks, often by leveraging massive data generation or novel LLM integrations [3] [18]. A critical trend is the move beyond simple "solvability" metrics towards more holistic evaluations that consider Route Feasibility, ensuring that predicted routes are not just theoretically sound but also practically executable [2]. The choice between a commercial platform and a research framework ultimately depends on the user's specific needs: proven reliability and integration for day-to-day tasks versus cutting-edge performance and novelty for pushing the boundaries of synthesizable chemical space.

The choice of molecular representation is a foundational step in computational chemistry and computer-assisted synthesis planning, directly influencing the performance of models in predicting molecular properties, generating novel compounds, and planning retrosynthetic pathways. Representations translate the physical structure of a molecule into a format that machine learning algorithms can process. Within the specific context of retrosynthesis planning—a core task in validating and prioritizing molecules generated by AI models—the representation dictates how effectively a model can recognize key functional groups and suggest plausible synthetic routes. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the dominant molecular representation paradigms, supported by recent experimental data, to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Analysis of Representation Methods

The following representations are the most prevalent in modern computational chemistry, each with distinct strengths and weaknesses.

String-Based Representations

String-based representations encode molecular structures as linear text sequences, making them compatible with natural language processing models and transformer architectures.

• SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System): Represents a molecule's atomic structure and connectivity as a compact string of characters [20] [21]. Its primary weakness is that it does not explicitly encode molecular topology and can sometimes generate invalid strings upon generation [21] [22].
• SELFIES (SELF-referencing Embedded Strings): A newer string-based format designed to guarantee 100% validity in molecular generation tasks, addressing a key limitation of SMILES [23] [22].
• IUPAC Names: The systematic nomenclature developed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. These names are human-readable and describe the molecular structure unambiguously [24] [23].
• InChI (International Chemical Identifier): A standardized, non-proprietary identifier designed to provide a unique and permanent representation of molecular structures [25].

Graph-Based Representations

Graph-based representations explicitly capture the topology of a molecule, treating atoms as nodes and bonds as edges in a graph [21]. This format has become the backbone for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs).

• Atom Graph: The most fundamental graph representation, where each node represents an atom with features like element type, and edges represent chemical bonds [26] [21].
• Group Graph (Substructure-Level Graph): A more advanced representation where nodes correspond to chemically significant substructures (e.g., functional groups, aromatic rings), and edges represent the connections between them [26]. This method provides a higher level of abstraction, enhancing interpretability and efficiency.

Advanced and Hybrid Representations

To overcome the limitations of single-modality representations, researchers are developing more sophisticated approaches.

• 3D-Aware Representations: These models incorporate the three-dimensional geometry of molecules, which is critical for modeling quantum properties and molecular interactions [20] [21]. Methods like 3D Infomax enhance GNNs by using 3D structural data during pre-training [21].
• Hypergraph Representations: Frameworks like OmniMol formulate molecules and their properties as a hypergraph, which can capture complex many-to-many relationships between molecules and various chemical properties, making them particularly suited for imperfectly annotated data [27].
• Fragment-Enhanced SMILES: Models like MLM-FG use a novel pre-training strategy on SMILES strings by randomly masking subsequences that correspond to functional groups, forcing the model to learn richer, more chemically contextualized representations [20].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Performance on Molecular Property Prediction Tasks

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Representation Methods on MoleculeNet Benchmarks (Classification Tasks, Metric: AUC-ROC)

Representation Method	BBBP	ClinTox	Tox21	HIV	Average Performance
MLM-FG (SMILES-based) [20]	Outperforms baselines	~0.94 (AUC-ROC)	Outperforms baselines	Outperforms baselines	State-of-the-art
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) [20]	Baseline	~0.92 (AUC-ROC)	Baseline	Baseline	Strong baseline
3D Graph-Based Models (e.g., GEM) [20]	Outperformed by MLM-FG	Outperformed by MLM-FG	Outperformed by MLM-FG	Outperformed by MLM-FG	Strong, but computationally expensive
Group Graph (GIN) [26]	Higher accuracy & 30% faster runtime than atom graph	Information Not Available	Information Not Available	Information Not Available	High performance & efficiency

Table 2: Performance of LLMs with Different String Representations in Few-Shot Learning (Metric: Accuracy) [25]

Molecular String Representation	GPT-4o	Gemini 1.5 Pro	Llama 3.1	Mistral Large 2
IUPAC	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference
InChI	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference	Statistically significant preference
SMILES	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance
SELFIES	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance
DeepSMILES	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance	Lower performance

Table 3: Specialized Model Performance in Retrosynthesis Planning

Model / Algorithm	Retro*-190 Success Rate	Key Innovation	Applicability to Group of Similar Molecules
Data-Driven Group Planning [4]	~98.4%	Reusable synthesis patterns; Cascade & Complementary reactions	Significantly reduces inference time
EG-MCTS [4]	~96.9%	Neural-guided search	Not Specifically Designed
PDVN [4]	~95.5%	Value network for route selection	Not Specifically Designed

Key Performance Insights

• SMILES vs. Graphs: While SMILES-based models like MLM-FG can outperform even 3D-graph models on many property prediction tasks [20], graph-based models like the Group Graph offer superior interpretability by highlighting substructure contributions and can achieve higher computational efficiency [26].
• The LLM Preference: Contrary to conventional assumptions in cheminformatics, recent studies on large language models (LLMs) show a statistically significant preference for IUPAC and InChI representations over SMILES in zero- and few-shot property prediction tasks. This is potentially due to their granularity, more favorable tokenization, and higher prevalence in the models' general pre-training corpora [25].
• The Consistency Problem: A critical challenge with LLMs is their representation inconsistency. State-of-the-art models exhibit strikingly low consistency (≤1%), often producing different predictions for the same molecule when presented as a SMILES string versus its IUPAC name, indicating a reliance on surface-level textual patterns rather than intrinsic chemical understanding [24].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Pre-training with Functional Group Masking (MLM-FG)

Objective: To improve the model's learning of chemically meaningful contexts from SMILES strings [20]. Workflow:

• Input: A large corpus of unlabeled SMILES strings (e.g., 100 million molecules from PubChem).
• Parsing and Identification: The SMILES string for a molecule is parsed to identify subsequences corresponding to chemically significant functional groups (e.g., carboxylic acid, ester).
• Random Masking: A certain proportion of these identified functional group subsequences are randomly masked.
• Pre-training Task: A transformer-based model (e.g., based on MoLFormer or RoBERTa) is trained to predict the masked functional groups. This forces the model to infer missing structural units based on the surrounding molecular context.
• Evaluation: The pre-trained model is fine-tuned and evaluated on downstream molecular property prediction tasks from benchmarks like MoleculeNet using scaffold splits to test generalizability.

Constructing a Group Graph

Objective: To create a substructure-level molecular graph that retains structural information with minimal loss while enhancing interpretability and efficiency [26]. Workflow:

• Group Matching:
  • Identify all aromatic atoms and group bonded ones into aromatic rings.
  • Use pattern matching (e.g., with RDKit) to find atom IDs for "active groups" (broken functional groups like carbonyl, halogens).
  • Group the remaining bonded atoms into "fatty carbon groups."
• Substructure Extraction:
  • Extract the identified active groups and fatty carbon groups as distinct substructures, adding them to a vocabulary.
  • Establish links between substructures that are bonded in the original atom graph. The bonded atom pairs are recorded as "attachment atom pairs."
• Graph Formation:
  • Represent each substructure as a node.
  • Represent each link between substructures as an edge.
  • The features of the attachment atom pairs become the features of the edges.
• Model Training and Evaluation:
  • A Graph Isomorphism Network (GIN) is typically applied to the group graph.
  • The model is evaluated on tasks like molecular property prediction and drug-drug interaction prediction, where it has demonstrated higher accuracy and efficiency compared to atom-level graphs.

Evaluating LLM Consistency

Objective: To systematically benchmark whether LLMs perform representation-invariant reasoning for chemical tasks [24]. Workflow:

• Dataset Curation: Create a benchmark with paired representations of molecules (SMILES strings and IUPAC names) for tasks like property prediction, forward reaction prediction, and retrosynthesis.
• Model Querying: For each molecule in the test set, query the LLM twice—once with the SMILES input and once with the IUPAC input—while keeping the task instruction equivalent.
• Metric Calculation:
  • Consistency: The percentage of cases where the model produces identical predictions for both representations of the same molecule. An adjusted consistency accounts for chance-level agreement.
  • Accuracy: The percentage of cases where the model's prediction matches the ground truth for each representation.
• Intervention (Consistency Regularization): To improve consistency, a sequence-level symmetric Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence loss can be added during fine-tuning. This loss penalizes the model when its output distributions differ for the same molecule in different formats.

Visualization of Representation Relationships and Workflows

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 4: Essential Software and Libraries for Molecular Representation Research

Tool / Library	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Representations
RDKit [26]	Open-Source Cheminformatics	Chemical information manipulation	Fundamental for parsing SMILES, generating molecular graphs, substructure matching, and descriptor calculation.
PyTor	Deep Learning Framework	Model building and training	The foundation for implementing custom GNNs, Transformers, and other deep learning models.
Deep Graph Library (DGL)	Library for GNNs	Graph neural network development	Simplifies the implementation of GNNs on molecular graph data (atom graphs, group graphs).
Transformers Library	NLP Library	Pre-trained transformer models	Provides access to architectures (e.g., RoBERTa) and tools for training chemical language models on SMILES and other string representations.
PubChem [20]	Public Database	Repository of chemical molecules	A primary source for large-scale, unlabeled molecular data used in pre-training models like MLM-FG.
MoleculeNet [20]	Benchmark Suite	Curated molecular property datasets	The standard benchmark for objectively evaluating the performance of different representation methods on tasks like property prediction.
Immunoproteasome inhibitor 1	Immunoproteasome inhibitor 1, MF:C20H26N2O4, MW:358.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Hdac10-IN-1	Hdac10-IN-1, MF:C18H23N3O2, MW:313.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Methodologies in Action: Algorithmic Approaches and Real-World Applications

Retrosynthetic planning is a fundamental process in organic chemistry and drug development, where the goal is to recursively decompose a target molecule into simpler, commercially available precursors. This process is naturally represented as an AND-OR tree: an OR node represents a molecule that can be synthesized through multiple different reactions, while an AND node represents a reaction that produces multiple reactant molecules, all of which are required to proceed [4]. Efficiently searching this combinatorial space is critical for identifying viable synthetic routes within reasonable computational time. The AND-OR tree structure allows synthesis planning algorithms to systematically explore alternative pathways while respecting the logical dependencies between reactions and their required precursors.

Recent advancements have integrated machine learning with traditional symbolic search to create neurosymbolic frameworks that significantly enhance planning efficiency [4]. These approaches combine the explicit reasoning of symbolic systems with the pattern recognition capabilities of neural networks. For example, these frameworks use neural networks to guide the search process—one model helps choose where to expand the graph, and another guides how to expand it at a specified point [4]. This hybrid approach has demonstrated substantial improvements in success rates and computational efficiency compared to earlier methods, particularly when planning synthesis for groups of structurally similar molecules.

Algorithmic Frameworks and Comparative Analysis

The AOT* Framework and Neurosymbolic Programming

Inspired by human learning and neurosymbolic programming, a recent framework draws parallels to the DreamCoder system, which alternately extends a language for expressing domain concepts and trains neural networks to guide program search [4]. This approach, designed specifically for retrosynthetic planning, operates through three continuously alternating phases that create a learning and adaptation cycle:

• Wake Phase: The system attempts to solve retrosynthetic planning tasks, constructing an AND-OR search graph from target molecules. Neural network models guide the planning process, selecting expansion points and determining how to expand them. Successful synthesis routes and failures are recorded for subsequent analysis [4].
• Abstraction Phase: The system analyzes successful routes from the wake phase to extract reusable multi-step reaction patterns. It specifically identifies "cascade chains" for consecutive transformations and "complementary chains" for reactions that serve as precursors to others. The most useful strategies are formalized as abstract reaction templates and added to the expanding library [4].
• Dreaming Phase: To address the data-hungry nature of machine learning models, this phase generates synthetic retrosynthesis data ("fantasies") by simulating experiences from both bottom-up and top-down approaches. These fantasies, combined with replayed wake phase experiences, refine the neural models to improve their performance in subsequent cycles [4].

This framework demonstrates the core principle of AOT*: building expertize by alternately extending the strategy library and training neural networks to better utilize these strategies. The abstraction phase specifically enables the discovery of commonly used chemical patterns, which significantly expedites the search for synthesis routes of similar molecules [4].

Comparative Analysis of Retrosynthesis Planning Algorithms

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Planning Algorithms on the Retro*-190 Dataset

Algorithm	Success Rate (%)	Average Iterations to Solution	Key Features	Limitations
AOT*-Inspired Neurosymbolic	98.42%	~120	Three-phase wake-abstraction-dreaming cycle; Abstract template library; Cascade & complementary chains	Complexity in implementation; Requires extensive training data
EG-MCTS	~95.4%	~180	Monte Carlo Tree Search with expert guidance; Exploration-exploitation balance	Slower convergence on similar molecules; Less reuse of patterns
PDVN	~95.5%	~190	Value networks for route evaluation; Policy-guided search	Limited knowledge transfer between molecules
Retro*	~92.0%	~220	A* search with neural cost estimation; Global perspective	Template-dependent; Less adaptive to new patterns
Graph-Based MCTS	~90.0%	~250	Graph representation of search space; Shared intermediate detection	Computational overhead with large graphs

The AOT*-inspired neurosymbolic approach demonstrates superior performance, solving approximately three more retrosynthetic tasks than EG-MCTS and 2.9 more tasks than PDVN under a 500-iteration limit [4]. This performance advantage stems from its ability to abstract and reuse synthetic patterns, which becomes increasingly valuable when processing multiple similar molecules. The framework identifies that reusable synthesis patterns lead to progressively decreasing marginal inference time as the algorithm processes more molecules, creating an efficiency gain that compounds across similar planning tasks [4].

Convergent Retrosynthesis Planning for Compound Libraries

Another significant advancement in AND-OR search applications addresses the practical need in medicinal chemistry to synthesize libraries of related compounds rather than individual molecules. Traditional retrosynthesis approaches generally focus on single targets, but convergent retrosynthesis planning extends AND-OR search to multiple targets simultaneously, prioritizing routes applicable to all target molecules where possible [28].

This approach uses a graph-based representation rather than a tree structure, allowing it to identify common intermediates shared across multiple target molecules. When applied to industry data, this method demonstrated that over 70% of all reactions are involved in convergent synthesis, covering over 80% of all projects in Johnson & Johnson Electronic Laboratory Notebook data [28]. The graph-based multi-step approach can produce convergent retrosynthesis routes for up to hundreds of molecules, identifying a singular convergent route for multiple compounds in most compound sets [28].

Table 2: Performance of Convergent Retrosynthesis Planning on Industry Data

Metric	Performance	Significance
Compound Solvability	>90%	Individual compound solvability remains high despite convergence requirement
Route Solvability	>80%	Percentage of test routes for which a convergent route could be identified
Simultaneous Compound Synthesis	+30%	Increase in compounds that can be synthesized simultaneously compared to individual search
Common Intermediate Utilization	Significant increase	Enhanced use of shared precursors across multiple target molecules

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Evaluation Methodologies for Retrosynthesis Algorithms

Robust evaluation of retrosynthesis algorithms requires standardized benchmarks and metrics. The computer-aided synthesis planning community has increasingly recognized the importance of consistent evaluation practices, leading to the development of benchmarking frameworks like syntheseus [8]. This Python library promotes best practices by default, enabling consistent evaluation of both single-step models and multi-step planning algorithms.

Key evaluation metrics include:

• Success Rate: The percentage of target molecules for which a complete synthesis route is found within a specified computational budget (e.g., iteration limit) [4] [8].
• Inference Time: The time required to find a solution, particularly important for practical applications [8].
• Route Diversity: The variety of chemically distinct pathways discovered, measured using monotonic metrics that ensure finding additional routes never causes diversity to decrease [8].
• Search Efficiency: Often measured in planning cycles or iterations needed to find the first workable route [4].

For the AOT-inspired neurosymbolic approach, evaluation typically involves comparison against baseline algorithms on standardized datasets like Retro-190, which contains 190 challenging molecules for retrosynthesis planning [4]. Experiments are run multiple times (e.g., 10 independent trials) to account for stochastic elements in the search process, with success rates and computational requirements averaged across these trials [4].

Syntheseus Benchmarking Framework

The syntheseus library addresses several pitfalls in previous retrosynthesis evaluation practices, including inconsistent implementations and non-comparable metrics [8]. It provides:

• Model-agnostic and algorithm-agnostic evaluation infrastructure
• Support for both single-step and multi-step retrosynthesis algorithms
• Standardized implementation of common benchmarks (USPTO-50K for single-step, Retro*-190 for multi-step)
• Monotonic diversity metrics that properly reflect algorithm performance

When syntheseus was used to re-evaluate several existing retrosynthesis algorithms, it revealed that the ranking of state-of-the-art models can change under controlled evaluation conditions, highlighting the importance of consistent benchmarking practices [8].

Visualization of Algorithmic Frameworks

AND-OR Tree Structure for Retrosynthesis

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental AND-OR tree structure used in retrosynthesis planning, showing how target molecules decompose through reactions into precursors:

AND-OR Tree for Retrosynthesis Planning

Neurosymbolic AOT*-Inspired Framework Workflow

The following diagram visualizes the three-phase wake-abstraction-dreaming cycle of the neurosymbolic AOT*-inspired framework:

AOT*-Inspired Neurosymbolic Framework Cycle

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Retrosynthesis Algorithm Development

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application in AOT*
USPTO Datasets	Chemical Reaction Data	Provides standardized reaction data for training and evaluation	Training neural network models; Validating template extraction
Syntheseus Library	Benchmarking Framework	Enables consistent evaluation of retrosynthesis algorithms	Comparing performance against baseline methods; Ensuring reproducible results
Abstract Template Library	Algorithm Component	Stores discovered multi-step reaction patterns	Accelerating search for similar molecules; Encoding chemical knowledge
Graph Representation	Data Structure	Enables convergent route identification across multiple targets	Finding shared intermediates; Efficiently representing chemical space
Single-Step Retrosynthesis Models	ML Model	Proposes plausible reactants for a given product	Core expansion mechanism in AND-OR tree search
Purchasable Building Block Sets	Chemical Database	Defines search termination criteria	Ensuring practical synthetic routes; Commercial availability checking

AND-OR tree search algorithms, particularly those incorporating AOT*-inspired neurosymbolic approaches, represent a significant advancement in retrosynthesis planning capability. By combining the explicit reasoning of symbolic systems with the pattern recognition of neural networks, these frameworks achieve higher success rates and greater computational efficiency, especially when planning synthesis for groups of similar molecules. The three-phase wake-abstraction-dreaming cycle enables continuous improvement through pattern extraction and model refinement.

Future research directions include improving the scalability of these approaches to handle increasingly complex molecules, enhancing the diversity of discovered routes, and better integrating practical synthetic considerations such as cost, safety, and environmental impact. As benchmarking practices mature through frameworks like syntheseus, and as convergent synthesis approaches address the practical needs of medicinal chemistry, AND-OR search algorithms are poised to become increasingly valuable tools in accelerating drug discovery and development.

Retrosynthesis planning, the process of deconstructing a target molecule into feasible precursor reactants, is a foundational task in organic chemistry and drug development [10]. While artificial intelligence (AI) has dramatically accelerated this process, many deep-learning models operate as "black boxes," providing high-quality predictions but few insights into their decision-making process [6]. This lack of transparency limits the reliability and practical adoption of AI tools in experimental research, where understanding the rationale behind a proposed synthetic route is as crucial as the route itself.

RetroExplainer represents a paradigm shift in this landscape. It formulates retrosynthesis as a molecular assembly process, containing several retrosynthetic actions guided by deep learning [6]. This framework not only achieves state-of-the-art performance but also provides quantitative interpretability, offering researchers transparent decision-making and substructure-level insights that bridge the gap between computational predictions and chemical intuition.

Performance Comparison: RetroExplainer vs. State-of-the-Art Alternatives

To objectively assess RetroExplainer's capabilities, we compare its performance against other leading retrosynthesis models across standard benchmark datasets. The evaluation is primarily based on top-k exact-match accuracy, which measures whether the model's predicted reactants exactly match the ground truth reactants within the top k suggestions.

Table 1: Performance Comparison on USPTO-50K Dataset (Reaction Class Known)

Model	Type	Top-1 Accuracy	Top-3 Accuracy	Top-5 Accuracy	Top-10 Accuracy
RetroExplainer	Molecular Assembly	56.0%	75.8%	81.6%	86.2%
LocalRetro	Graph-based	52.2%	70.8%	76.7%	86.4%
R-SMILES	Sequence-based	51.1%	70.0%	76.3%	83.2%
G2G	Graph-based	48.9%	67.6%	72.5%	75.5%
GraphRetro	Graph-based	45.7%	60.2%	63.6%	66.4%
Transformer	Sequence-based	43.7%	60.0%	65.2%	68.7%

Table 2: Performance Comparison on USPTO-50K Dataset (Reaction Class Unknown)

Model	Type	Top-1 Accuracy	Top-3 Accuracy	Top-5 Accuracy	Top-10 Accuracy
RetroExplainer	Molecular Assembly	53.2%	72.1%	78.0%	83.1%
R-SMILES	Sequence-based	50.3%	69.1%	75.2%	84.1%
LocalRetro	Graph-based	46.3%	62.6%	67.8%	73.4%
G2G	Graph-based	39.4%	55.1%	59.8%	63.8%
GraphRetro	Graph-based	37.1%	50.9%	54.7%	58.1%
Transformer	Sequence-based	35.6%	51.2%	56.9%	61.0%

The data demonstrates that RetroExplainer achieves competitive, and often superior, performance across most evaluation metrics [6]. Notably, it achieves the highest averaged accuracy across top-1, top-3, top-5, and top-10 predictions when reaction class is known. Its strong performance under the "unknown reaction class" scenario is particularly significant, as this better reflects real-world conditions where the type of reaction needed is not pre-specified.

Beyond these established models, the field is rapidly advancing with new approaches. Very recent models like RSGPT, a generative transformer pre-trained on 10 billion generated data points, report a top-1 accuracy of 63.4% on USPTO-50K [7]. Another cutting-edge approach, RetroDFM-R, a reasoning-driven large language model, claims a top-1 accuracy of 65.0% on the same benchmark [29]. These models leverage massive data generation and advanced reasoning techniques to push accuracy boundaries, though RetroExplainer remains notable for its strong performance combined with its unique interpretability features.

RetroExplainer's Architectural Innovation and Experimental Protocol

Core Methodology: The Molecular Assembly Framework

RetroExplainer's performance stems from its innovative architecture, specifically designed to address limitations in existing sequence-based and graph-based approaches. Its methodology can be broken down into three core units:

• Multi-Sense and Multi-Scale Graph Transformer (MSMS-GT): This unit overcomes the limitations of traditional GNNs (which focus on local structures) and sequence-based models (which lose structural information) by capturing both local molecular structures and long-range atomic interactions within molecules [6].
• Structure-Aware Contrastive Learning (SACL): This component enhances the model's ability to capture and retain essential molecular structural information during the learning process [6].
• Dynamic Adaptive Multi-Task Learning (DAMT): This unit balances the optimization of multiple objectives during training, ensuring that no single task dominates at the expense of others, leading to more robust overall performance [6].

The "molecular assembly process" itself is an energy-based approach that breaks down the retrosynthesis prediction into a series of interpretable, discrete actions. This process generates an energy decision curve, providing visibility into each stage of the prediction and allowing for substructure-level attribution [6].

Experimental Workflow and Robustness Evaluation

The experimental validation of RetroExplainer followed rigorous protocols to ensure fair comparison and assess real-world applicability.

Table 3: Key Experimental Datasets and Protocols

Dataset	Size	Splitting Method	Evaluation Metric
USPTO-50K	50,000 reactions	Random split by previous studies [6]	Top-k exact-match accuracy
USPTO-FULL	~1.9 million reactions	Random split by previous studies [6]	Top-k exact-match accuracy
USPTO-MIT	479,035 reactions	Random split by previous studies [6]	Top-k exact-match accuracy
USPTO-50K Similarity Splits	50,000 reactions	Tanimoto similarity threshold (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) [6]	Top-k exact-match accuracy

A critical aspect of the evaluation addressed the scaffold evaluation bias present in random dataset splits, where very similar molecules in training and test sets can lead to inflated performance metrics [6]. To validate true robustness, researchers employed Tanimoto similarity splitting methods, creating nine more challenging test scenarios with varying similarity thresholds (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) between training and test molecules [6]. RetroExplainer maintained strong performance across these challenging splits, demonstrating its ability to generalize to novel molecular scaffolds rather than merely memorizing training examples.

For multi-step synthesis planning, RetroExplainer was integrated with the Retro* algorithm to plan synthetic routes for 101 complex drug molecules [6]. The validity of these routes was verified using the SciFindern search engine, with 86.9% of the proposed single-step reactions corresponding to literarily reported reactions, underscoring the practical utility of the predictions [6].

Figure 1: RetroExplainer's Core Workflow. The model processes a target molecule through specialized modules for representation learning and outputs reactants via an interpretable molecular assembly process.

Successful implementation and evaluation of retrosynthesis models require access to both computational resources and chemical data.

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Name	Type	Function/Purpose	Availability
USPTO Datasets	Chemical Reaction Data	Provides standardized benchmark data for training and evaluating retrosynthesis models [6] [7]	Publicly available
RDChiral	Algorithm/Tool	Template extraction algorithm used to generate chemical reaction data and validate reactant plausibility [7]	Open source
AiZynthFinder	Software Tool	Template-based retrosynthetic planning tool used for validation and generating training data for accessibility scores [30]	Open source
RAscore	Evaluation Metric	Machine learning-based classifier that rapidly estimates synthetic feasibility, useful for pre-screening virtual compounds [30]	Open source
SciFindern	Chemical Database	Used for verification of predicted reactions against reported literature, validating real-world applicability [6]	Commercial
ECFP6 Fingerprints	Molecular Representation	Extended-connectivity fingerprints with radius 3; used as feature inputs for various machine learning models in chemistry [30]	Open source (RDKit)

RetroExplainer establishes a compelling paradigm in retrosynthesis prediction by successfully balancing state-of-the-art performance with unprecedented interpretability. Its molecular assembly process provides researchers with transparent, quantifiable insights into prediction rationale, moving beyond the "black box" limitations of previous approaches.

The comparative analysis reveals that while newer models like RSGPT and RetroDFM-R achieve marginally higher raw accuracy on some benchmarks—leveraging massive synthetic data and reinforcement learning—RetroExplainer remains highly competitive, particularly when considering its analytical transparency [7] [29]. For drug development professionals and researchers, this interpretability is invaluable, fostering trust and enabling deeper chemical insight.

Future progress in the field will likely involve integrating the strengths of these diverse approaches: the explainable, assembly-based reasoning of RetroExplainer, the massive data utilization capabilities of models like RSGPT, and the advanced chain-of-thought reasoning emerging in LLM-based systems [29]. As these technologies mature, the focus will increasingly shift toward practical metrics like pathway success rates in laboratory validation and integration with high-throughput experimental platforms, ultimately accelerating the design and synthesis of novel therapeutic compounds.

Retrosynthesis planning is a foundational process in organic chemistry, wherein target molecules are deconstructed into simpler precursor molecules through a series of theoretical reaction steps. This methodical breakdown continues until readily available starting materials are identified. Traditionally, this complex task has relied exclusively on the expertise and intuition of highly skilled chemists. However, the exponential growth of chemical space and the increasing complexity of target molecules (particularly in pharmaceutical development) has necessitated computational assistance. Computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) systems have emerged as indispensable tools for navigating this complexity [31].

Contemporary CASP methodologies can be broadly categorized into three paradigms: rule-based systems, data-driven/machine learning systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based expert systems, an early approach pioneered by Corey et al. in 1972, rely on a foundation of manually curated reaction and selectivity rules derived from chemical knowledge [32]. These systems encode human expertise into a machine-readable format, enabling logical deduction of potential synthetic pathways. In contrast, purely data-driven or machine learning models, such as Sequence-to-Sequence Transformers and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), learn reaction patterns directly from large databases of known reactions without pre-defined rules [32] [3]. While these models can uncover subtle, data-driven patterns, they often function as "black boxes" and can struggle with generating chemically feasible or novel reactions [32]. Hybrid systems seek to synergize the strengths of both approaches, and SYNTHIA (formerly known as Chematica) stands as a prominent example, integrating a vast network of hand-coded reaction rules with machine learning and quantum mechanical methods to optimize its search and evaluation functions [31]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of SYNTHIA's performance against other retrosynthesis tools, underpinned by experimental data and detailed methodology.

System Architectures and Methodologies

SYNTHIA's Hybrid Architecture

SYNTHIA employs a sophisticated neuro-symbolic AI architecture, a term denoting the seamless integration of symbolic, rule-based reasoning with sub-symbolic, data-driven machine learning. Its core foundation is a massive, manually curated network of organic chemistry, encompassing approximately 10 million compounds and over 100,000 hand-coded reaction rules as of 2021 [31]. These rules are enriched with contextual information such as canonical reaction conditions, functional group intolerances, and regio- and stereoselectivity data using the SMILES/SMART coding method [31].

The system's workflow involves representing synthetic pathways as a tree structure. Each node in the tree signifies a retrosynthetic transformation and its associated set of substrates. The search for optimal routes is accelerated by a priority queue that continuously evaluates and expands the most promising (lowest-scoring) nodes within the search algorithm [31]. The "hybrid" nature of SYNTHIA is exemplified by its incorporation of machine learning and quantum mechanics to refine its searching algorithms, scoring functions, and stereoselective transformations, moving beyond a purely rule-based deduction [31]. This combination aims to deliver the transparency and chemical logic of expert rules with the adaptive optimization capabilities of machine learning.

Alternative Retrosynthesis Approaches

Template-Based Machine Learning Models

Models like Neuralysm, proposed by Segler and Waller, treat retrosynthesis as a multi-class classification problem. Given a target product, the model ranks a library of reaction templates (automatically extracted from reaction data) by their probability of applicability [32]. While these models leverage data, they still rely on a pre-defined set of templates, which can limit their generalizability to novel reaction types not contained in the template library [3].

Template-Free Machine Learning Models

This category includes models such as Sequence-to-Sequence Transformers (e.g., Chemformer) and Graph Neural Networks, which generate reactant SMILES strings or graphs directly from the product input without explicitly using templates during inference [32] [19]. For instance, the RSGPT model is a generative Transformer pre-trained on an enormous dataset of 10 billion synthetically generated reaction datapoints, leveraging advancements in large language models [3]. While highly flexible, these models can suffer from invalid SMILES generation and a lack of inherent interpretability, as they do not provide a clear chemical rationale for their proposed disconnections [32].

Semi-Template-Based Models

Frameworks like SemiRetro and Graph2Edits represent an intermediate approach. They predict reactants through intermediates called synthons, often by first identifying the reaction center with a GNN. This minimizes template redundancy while retaining essential chemical knowledge [3]. However, they can face challenges with complex, multi-center reactions [3].

Table 1: Comparison of Retrosynthesis Model Architectures

Model Type	Core Methodology	Key Advantages	Inherent Limitations
Hybrid (SYNTHIA)	Integration of hand-coded rules with ML/QM optimization [31]	High chemical logic, transparent, considers context & stereochemistry	Manual rule curation is resource-intensive
Template-Based ML	Multiclass classification over auto-extracted template library [32]	Distills chemical knowledge from data	Limited by the scope and generality of the template library [3]
Template-Free ML	Direct generation of reactants from products (e.g., Transformer, GNN) [32] [3]	No template limitations; high flexibility	"Black-box" nature; can produce invalid/ unfeasible predictions [32]
Semi-Template-Based	Generation via synthons and reaction center identification [3]	Balances chemical knowledge and model flexibility	Handling of multicenter reactions is difficult [3]

Experimental Benchmarking Methodology

To ensure fair and meaningful comparisons, researchers have developed automated benchmarking pipelines. A robust methodology, as described by Hastedt et al., moves beyond simplistic Top-1 accuracy and evaluates models on multiple axes [32]:

• Dataset Curation: Models are typically trained and evaluated on standardized datasets such as USPTO-50k (50,000 reactions) or USPTO-FULL (approximately 1.8 million reactions) [3]. These datasets are split into training, validation, and test sets.
• Evaluation Metrics:
  • Top-k Accuracy: The percentage of test reactions for which the ground-truth reactants are found within the model's top-k predictions. While common, this can be misleading as it rewards reciting the training data [32].
  • Chemical Validity: The percentage of proposed reactions that are chemically feasible (e.g., balanced atom mapping, valid valences).
  • Reaction Feasibility: Expert evaluation of whether a proposed reaction is likely to proceed under realistic conditions.
  • Diversity: The ability of a model to propose novel, non-trivial disconnections not simply recalled from the training set.
• Interpretability Analysis: Investigating the model's internal reasoning, for example, by examining if a Graph Neural Network activates on the correct functional groups in the product molecule [32].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between the core components of a hybrid CASP system like SYNTHIA and the experimental metrics used for evaluation.

Figure 1: Hybrid CASP System and Evaluation Logic

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Benchmarking Data

Retrosynthesis models are quantitatively compared using benchmark datasets, with USPTO-50k being a common standard. The table below synthesizes performance data from recent studies.

Table 2: Retrosynthesis Model Performance on Benchmark Datasets

Model	Architecture	Dataset	Top-1 Accuracy	Key Strengths / Findings
RSGPT [3]	Template-Free Transformer	USPTO-50k	63.4%	State-of-the-art accuracy via pre-training on 10B synthetic data points.
RetroComposer [3]	Template-Based	USPTO-50k	~55% (SOTA for template-based)	Composes templates from building blocks for improved generalizability.
Graph2Edits [3]	Semi-Template-Based	USPTO-50k	N/A (High for semi-template)	Enhances interpretability and handles complex reactions well.
SYNTHIA [31]	Hybrid (Rule-based + ML)	N/A (Real-world targets)	N/A	Designed experimentally validated, more efficient routes (e.g., 60% yield for OICR-9429 vs. 1% in literature).
Standard Transformer [32]	Template-Free	Benchmark Suite	Lower Accuracy	Struggles with invalid and unfeasible predictions; poor interpretability.
Graph Neural Network [32]	Template-Free	Benchmark Suite	Lower Accuracy	Identifies relevant functional groups (interpretability) but proposes unfeasible disconnections for complex molecules.

Analysis of Quantitative Data: As shown in Table 2, template-free models like RSGPT have achieved remarkable Top-1 accuracy on standard benchmarks, demonstrating the power of large-scale data training [3]. However, academic studies note that purely data-driven models can be prone to proposing chemically invalid or unfeasible reactions, a limitation not always captured by Top-1 accuracy [32]. SYNTHIA's performance is demonstrated not through benchmark accuracy scores, but via its success in planning efficient routes for real-world complex molecules. In the case of OICR-9429, a drug-like molecule, SYNTHIA designed a route that achieved a 60% yield and simplified purification, a significant improvement over the literature route with a 1% yield [31]. This highlights a key difference in evaluation: benchmark performance versus practical, experimental validation.

Qualitative and Interpretability Comparison

The interpretability of a model—its ability to provide a chemical rationale for its predictions—is critical for gaining the trust of chemists and for educational purposes.

• SYNTHIA and Rule-Based Systems: These systems are inherently interpretable. Every proposed disconnection is directly linked to a manually coded reaction rule, providing a clear, expert-derived chemical justification for each step [31].
• Machine Learning Models: Interpretability varies. Studies show that Graph Neural Networks can offer some degree of interpretability for simple molecules by highlighting relevant functional groups in the product [32]. In contrast, Sequence-to-Sequence Transformers like the standard Chemformer are generally found to provide no such explanation, acting as complete black boxes [32]. As molecule complexity increases, both types of data-driven models often propose unfeasible disconnections without a clear chemical rationale [32].

The following workflow diagram contrasts the decision-making processes of different architectures, highlighting their levels of interpretability.

Figure 2: Interpretability Comparison of Workflows

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The development and benchmarking of modern retrosynthesis tools rely on a suite of computational "reagents" and datasets.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Solutions in Retrosynthesis

Tool / Resource	Type	Function in Research & Development
USPTO Datasets [32] [3]	Reaction Database	Provides millions of known reactions for training and benchmarking machine learning models. Essential for reproducible research.
SMILES/SMARTS [32] [31]	Molecular Representation	A line notation system for representing molecules and reaction patterns as text, enabling machine reading and processing of chemical structures.
RDChiral [3]	Algorithm	An open-source template extraction algorithm used to generate synthetic reaction data or apply reaction templates in tools like ASKCOS.
AiZynthFinder [19]	Software Tool	An open-source tool for multi-step retrosynthesis planning using a template-based model and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). Often used as a baseline or testbed for new methodologies.
Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [19] [31]	Search Algorithm	Guides the exploration of the vast synthetic tree by balancing the exploitation of promising routes with the exploration of new possibilities.
Sirt1-IN-3	Sirt1-IN-3, MF:C13H15BrN2O, MW:295.17 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Mao-B-IN-18	Mao-B-IN-18, MF:C25H22N4O5, MW:458.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The comparative analysis reveals that there is no single "best" retrosynthesis tool; rather, the choice depends on the specific application. SYNTHIA's hybrid approach demonstrates unparalleled performance in designing efficient, practical, and experimentally validated routes for complex molecules, leveraging its foundation of expert-coded chemical logic [31]. Its key strength lies in its reliability and the high quality of its proposed pathways, as evidenced by successful laboratory synthesis.

In contrast, state-of-the-art template-free models like RSGPT excel in raw prediction accuracy on standard benchmarks and offer the potential to discover novel transformations not confined to a rule library [3]. However, they can suffer from issues of chemical feasibility and interpretability [32]. Template-based and semi-template ML models offer a middle ground, providing good performance with more inherent chemical knowledge than purely template-free systems [32] [3].

Future research is trending towards greater integration and human-in-the-loop functionality. The development of prompting and constraint-based planning, as seen in extensions to AiZynthFinder, allows chemists to guide algorithms by specifying bonds to break or freeze, incorporating prior knowledge directly into the search [19]. Furthermore, the use of reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF), as implemented in RSGPT, points toward a future where models can better learn the complex relationships between products, reactants, and reaction constraints [3]. Ultimately, the most powerful retrosynthesis environment will likely be one that synergistically combines the transparent, reliable logic of hybrid systems like SYNTHIA with the adaptive, data-driven pattern recognition of modern machine learning.

Retrosynthetic planning, the process of deconstructing complex target molecules into simpler, commercially available starting materials, represents one of the most intellectually demanding tasks in organic chemistry and drug discovery [33]. Traditional computational approaches have relied on specialized algorithms that, while effective in narrow domains, often lack the flexible, strategic reasoning capabilities that characterize expert human chemists [33]. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a transformative paradigm: rather than generating chemical structures directly, these models serve as sophisticated reasoning engines that guide traditional search algorithms toward chemically meaningful solutions [33]. This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of contemporary LLM-empowered retrosynthetic planning tools, examining their architectural frameworks, performance metrics, and practical applications within pharmaceutical research and development.

Comparative Analysis of LLM-Empowered Retrosynthesis Tools

The integration of LLMs with established search algorithms has yielded several distinct frameworks for retrosynthetic planning. The table below summarizes the core architectures and performance characteristics of three prominent approaches.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of LLM-Empowered Retrosynthesis Tools

Tool Name	Core Architecture	Key Innovation	Reported Performance Advantage	Benchmark Used	Solve Rate
AOT* [34]	LLM + AND-OR Tree Search	Maps synthesis routes onto AND-OR tree components with specialized reward strategies.	3-5x fewer iterations than other LLM-based approaches; efficiency gains increase with molecular complexity.	Multiple synthesis benchmarks	Competitive state-of-the-art (SOTA) solve rates
LLM-Guided Search [33]	LLM as Reasoning Engine + Traditional Search	Uses LLMs to evaluate strategies and guide search based on natural language constraints.	Larger models (e.g., Claude-3.7-Sonnet) show advanced reasoning; performance scales strongly with model size.	Custom benchmark for steerable planning	High scores on strategic route evaluation
Neuro-Symbolic Model [4]	Neurosymbolic Programming + AND-OR Search	Learns reusable, multi-step synthesis patterns (cascade & complementary reactions).	98.42% success rate; significantly reduces inference time for groups of similar molecules.	Retro*-190 dataset	Solves ~3 more tasks than EG-MCTS

The experimental data reveals a consistent trend: LLM-integrated systems achieve competitive success rates while dramatically improving search efficiency. AOT* stands out for its computational frugality, requiring significantly fewer iterations to achieve comparable results [34]. Meanwhile, the neurosymbolic approach demonstrates remarkable proficiency in handling groups of structurally similar molecules, a common scenario in drug discovery campaigns [4]. Performance is heavily influenced by model scale, with larger LLMs exhibiting substantially more sophisticated chemical reasoning and strategic planning capabilities, particularly for complex synthetic targets [33].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The AOT* Framework

The AOT* methodology integrates LLM-generated synthetic pathways with systematic AND-OR tree search, employing a mathematically sound reward assignment strategy and retrieval-based context engineering [34]. The workflow involves atomically mapping complete synthesis routes onto an AND-OR tree structure, where the LLM guides the search through the chemical space by evaluating potential pathways. Experimental evaluation on multiple synthesis benchmarks demonstrates that this approach achieves state-of-the-art performance with significantly improved search efficiency, maintaining competitive solve rates while using 3-5 times fewer iterations than existing LLM-based approaches [34].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Name	Type	Function in Research
AND-OR Tree Search [34] [4]	Algorithmic Structure	Represents the hierarchical relationship between molecules (OR nodes) and potential reactions (AND nodes) in retrosynthesis.
Reaction Template Library [4]	Chemical Knowledge Base	A collection of documented chemical transformations used to break down target molecules into precursors.
Retrosynthetic Planners [5]	Software Tool	Automated systems (e.g., AiZynthFinder) that recursively decompose target molecules to find synthetic routes.
Forward Reaction Predictors [5]	Simulation Model	Models that predict the outcome of a chemical reaction given specific reactants, used to validate proposed synthetic routes.
Purchasable Compound Database [5]	Chemical Database	A collection of commercially available molecules (e.g., ZINC database) used as a terminal condition for a successful search.

Strategy-Aware Retrosynthetic Planning

The LLM-guided search methodology enables "steerable" synthesis planning, where chemists can specify desired synthetic strategies using natural language constraints [33]. The experimental protocol involves:

• Benchmark Creation: Developing pairs of molecular targets and steering prompts, with scoring scripts that assess route-to-prompt alignment [33].
• Framework Integration: Combining LLM analytical capabilities with traditional synthesis planning software [33].
• Model Evaluation: Assessing different LLMs on their ability to evaluate both specific reactions and global strategic features within synthetic routes, with performance scaling strongly with model size [33].

The neurosymbolic approach introduces a three-phase evolutionary process inspired by human learning [4]:

• Wake Phase: An AND-OR search graph is constructed during retrosynthetic planning, guided by two neural network models that select where and how to expand the graph [4].
• Abstraction Phase: The system extracts reusable multi-step reaction strategies (cascade chains and complementary chains) from successful solutions and adds them as abstract reaction templates to the library [4].
• Dreaming Phase: Neural models are refined using generated "fantasies" (simulated retrosynthetic data) to improve performance in subsequent wake phases [4].

Synthesizability Evaluation via Round-Trip Scoring

A critical challenge in computational drug design is evaluating the synthesizability of proposed molecules. A novel three-stage metric addresses this [5]:

• Route Prediction: A retrosynthetic planner predicts synthetic routes for generated molecules.
• Feasibility Assessment: A forward reaction prediction model attempts to reconstruct both the synthetic route and the generated molecule from the predicted starting materials.
• Similarity Calculation: The Tanimoto similarity (round-trip score) between the reproduced molecule and the original molecule is calculated as the synthesizability metric [5].

Workflow and System Diagrams

LLM-Guided Retrosynthesis Planning

Diagram 1: LLM-guided search uses the model as a reasoning engine to evaluate strategies and guide a traditional search algorithm, creating a feedback loop for route optimization [33].

Neurosymbolic Planning with Pattern Learning

Diagram 2: The neurosymbolic framework alternates between solving tasks, abstracting reusable patterns, and refining its neural models, creating a self-improving system [4].

Three-Stage Synthesizability Evaluation

Diagram 3: The round-trip score evaluates synthesizability by checking if a predicted route can be logically reversed (via forward prediction) to recreate the original molecule [5].

The integration of large language models with computational chemistry has unequivocally transformed the landscape of retrosynthetic planning. Frameworks like AOT*, LLM-guided search, and neurosymbolic programming demonstrate that LLMs excel not as direct structure generators, but as sophisticated reasoning engines that can navigate the complex strategic landscape of chemical synthesis [34] [33] [4]. The comparative analysis reveals that while architectural differences exist, all successful implementations leverage the complementary strengths of LLMs for high-level strategy and traditional algorithms for precise chemical exploration. As these tools continue to evolve, their capacity to incorporate human expertise through natural language interfaces and learn from accumulated chemical knowledge promises to further narrow the gap between computational prediction and practical synthesizability, ultimately accelerating the discovery and development of novel therapeutic agents.

The design of efficient synthetic routes for target molecules represents a cornerstone of modern organic chemistry, with profound implications for drug discovery and materials science. Retrosynthesis planning, formalized by Corey, is a systematic process of deconstructing a target molecule into progressively simpler precursors until readily available starting materials are identified [6]. In recent years, the field has witnessed a paradigm shift from manual expert-driven approaches to computational data-driven methods, significantly accelerating and enhancing the route planning process [6] [3]. This evolution encompasses two fundamental tasks: single-step retrosynthesis prediction, which identifies immediate precursors for a given product, and multi-step planning, which recursively applies this process to construct complete synthesis trees terminating in commercially available compounds [35].

The computational retrosynthesis landscape has diversified into three primary methodological categories: template-based, semi-template-based, and template-free approaches [3]. Template-based methods leverage known reaction rules extracted from chemical databases, providing high interpretability but limited generalization beyond their template library. Semi-template-based approaches strike a balance by identifying reaction centers and completing synthons into reactants, reducing template redundancy while maintaining chemical rationality. Template-free methods, inspired by machine translation, directly generate reactants from product representations without predefined rules, offering maximum flexibility but requiring substantial training data [6] [3]. Understanding these foundational approaches is crucial for appreciating the comparative advantages of contemporary planning tools discussed in this analysis.

Comparative Performance of Retrosynthesis Tools

Quantitative Benchmarking on Standardized Datasets

Table 1: Top-k Exact Match Accuracy (%) on USPTO-50K Benchmark Dataset

Model	Approach	Top-1	Top-3	Top-5	Top-10
RSGPT [3]	Template-free (LLM)	63.4	-	-	-
RetroExplainer [6]	Molecular Assembly	53.2*	70.1*	76.3*	81.5*
LocalRetro [6]	Template-based	-	-	-	82.5*
R-SMILES [6]	Template-free	-	-	-	-
G2G [6]	Graph-based	-	-	-	-
GraphRetro [6]	Graph-based	-	-	-	-
*Average of known and unknown reaction type conditions

Empirical evaluation on standardized benchmarks reveals significant performance variations across retrosynthesis tools. The USPTO dataset, containing chemical reactions from U.S. patents, serves as the primary benchmarking resource, with USPTO-50K (50,000 reactions) being the most widely adopted for comparative analysis [6]. RSGPT, a generative transformer model pre-trained on 10 billion synthetic data points, achieves state-of-the-art performance with a remarkable 63.4% Top-1 accuracy, substantially outperforming previous models that typically plateau around 55% [3]. RetroExplainer demonstrates strong overall performance with particularly high Top-3 (70.1%) and Top-5 (76.3%) accuracy, indicating excellent capability to include the correct reactants within its top predictions [6].

For multi-step planning, success rates measure the percentage of target molecules for which a complete route to purchasable building blocks can be found. InterRetro achieves a perfect 100% success rate on the challenging Retro*-190 benchmark while reducing synthetic route length by 4.9% compared to alternatives, indicating more efficient and direct synthetic pathways [35]. Sample efficiency represents another critical differentiator, with InterRetro reaching 92% of its full performance using only 10% of training data, a significant advantage in data-scarce scenarios [35].

Multi-step Planning Performance Metrics

Table 2: Multi-step Planning Capabilities and Characteristics

Model	Planning Approach	Success Rate	Route Efficiency	Search Requirement	Key Innovation
InterRetro [35]	Worst-path optimization	100% (Retro*-190)	4.9% shorter routes	Search-free	Tree-structured MDP
Retro* [6]	A* search	-	-	Search-intensive	Value estimation
MCTS-based [35]	Monte Carlo Tree Search	-	-	Search-intensive	Exploration-exploitation
RetroExplainer+Retro* [6]	Heuristic search	86.9% validation	-	Search-dependent	Template-guided

Multi-step planning introduces additional dimensions for comparison, including success rates, route efficiency, and computational requirements. InterRetro's "search-free" inference represents a paradigm shift, eliminating the need for computationally intensive real-time search during deployment by learning to generate complete synthetic routes directly [35]. This contrasts with traditional approaches like Retro* and MCTS-based methods that require hundreds of model calls per molecule during inference, creating bottlenecks for large-scale applications [35]. RetroExplainer demonstrates practical utility through real-world validation, with 86.9% of its proposed single-step reactions corresponding to literature-reported reactions when integrated with the Retro* algorithm [6].

The "worst-path" optimization framework introduced by InterRetro addresses a critical vulnerability in synthetic route planning: a synthesis tree becomes invalid if any leaf node doesn't correspond to a purchasable building block [35]. By focusing on the most challenging branch rather than average performance across branches, this approach provides more robust guarantees of route validity, representing a fundamental advancement in planning methodology.

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Performance Benchmarking Procedures

Standardized experimental protocols enable fair comparison across retrosynthesis tools. For single-step prediction, models are typically evaluated using top-k exact match accuracy, where a prediction is considered correct only if the generated reactants exactly match the recorded reactants in the test dataset [6]. The evaluation is conducted under both "reaction type known" and "reaction type unknown" conditions to assess model performance with and without additional reaction classification information [6].

To address potential scaffold bias in random data splits, rigorous benchmarking incorporates similarity-based splitting methods using Tanimoto similarity thresholds (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) to ensure that structurally similar molecules don't appear in both training and test sets [6]. This approach prevents information leakage and provides a more realistic assessment of model generalization to novel molecular scaffolds. For multi-step planning, the Retro*-190 benchmark serves as a standard testbed, with success rates determined by the percentage of target molecules for which a valid synthesis tree terminating in commercially available building blocks can be constructed within a specified computational budget [35].

Synthesizability Evaluation Framework

Table 3: Synthesizability Evaluation Metrics and Methods

Metric	Evaluation Approach	Strengths	Limitations
SA Score [5]	Fragment contributions + complexity penalty	Fast computation	Doesn't guarantee findable routes
Search Success Rate [5]	Retrosynthetic planner route finding	Practical feasibility	Overly lenient; may suggest unrealistic routes
Round-trip Score [5]	Forward reaction validation	High practical relevance	Computationally intensive
Literature Validation [6]	Comparison to known reactions	Real-world confirmation	Limited to known molecules

Evaluating synthesizability—whether proposed routes are practically feasible—requires specialized methodologies beyond prediction accuracy. The Synthetic Accessibility (SA) score assesses synthesizability based on structural features and complexity but fails to guarantee that actual synthetic routes can be found [5]. More sophisticated approaches use retrosynthetic planners like AiZynthFinder to determine the percentage of molecules for which routes can be identified, though this can be overly lenient as it doesn't validate route practicality [5].

The round-trip score represents a more rigorous synthesizability metric that employs a three-stage process: (1) using a retrosynthetic planner to predict synthetic routes for generated molecules, (2) employing a forward reaction model to simulate the synthesis from starting materials, and (3) calculating Tanimoto similarity between the reproduced molecule and the original target [5]. This approach provides a more realistic assessment of practical synthesizability by verifying that proposed routes can actually reconstruct the target molecule. For established molecules, literature validation through tools like SciFindern offers the strongest confirmation, with RetroExplainer achieving 86.9% correspondence to reported reactions [6].

Technical Approaches and Architectural Innovations

Algorithmic Frameworks in Retrosynthesis Planning

Figure 1: Technical Taxonomy of Retrosynthesis Approaches

The architectural landscape of retrosynthesis tools reveals diverse strategies with complementary strengths and limitations. Template-based methods like those employed in early systems depend on libraries of expert-defined reaction rules, providing high interpretability but limited generalization beyond their template coverage [3]. Semi-template approaches such as Graph2Edits and SemiRetro strike a balance by identifying reaction centers and completing synthons, reducing template redundancy while maintaining chemical rationality [3]. Template-free methods including sequence-based (Seq2Seq, Transformer) and graph-based (G2G, GraphRetro) approaches directly generate reactants without predefined rules, offering greater flexibility but requiring substantial training data and occasionally producing invalid structures [6] [3].

Recent innovations include RetroExplainer's molecular assembly paradigm, which formulates retrosynthesis as an interpretable, energy-guided assembly process [6]. Its multi-sense multi-scale Graph Transformer (MSMS-GT) captures both local molecular structures and long-range interactions, addressing limitations of conventional GNNs and sequence-based representations [6]. RSGPT leverages large language model architectures pre-trained on 10 billion synthetically generated reactions, demonstrating the data scalability of template-free approaches [3]. InterRetro introduces a novel tree-structured Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulation with worst-path optimization, specifically designed for the AND-OR tree structure of synthesis planning where all leaf nodes must be purchasable for route validity [35].

Multi-step Planning Workflows

Figure 2: Multi-step Retrosynthesis Planning Workflow

Multi-step planning involves recursive application of single-step prediction with strategic decision-making about which intermediates to further decompose. Traditional search-based approaches like Retro* and MCTS employ heuristic guidance to explore the synthesis tree, balancing exploration of new pathways with exploitation of promising routes [35]. These methods require extensive computation during inference, often necessitating hundreds of model calls per target molecule [35]. Recent learning-based approaches like InterRetro aim to internalize this search process during training, enabling "search-free" inference that generates complete routes without expensive online computation [35].

The worst-path optimization framework formalizes multi-step planning as a tree-structured Markov Decision Process (tree MDP) where states represent molecules, actions represent reactions, and the branching transition function yields multiple reactants [35]. Unlike traditional objectives that optimize cumulative rewards across all paths, the worst-path objective focuses on the most challenging branch, recognizing that a single invalid path renders the entire synthesis tree invalid [35]. This formulation admits a unique optimal solution with monotonic improvement guarantees, providing theoretical foundations for robust route planning.

Key Datasets and Software Tools

Table 4: Essential Research Resources for Retrosynthesis Studies

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Primary Application	Key Characteristics
Reaction Datasets	USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT [6] [3]	Model training & benchmarking	Patent-derived reactions with varying sizes and splits
Synthetic Data	RDChiral-generated datasets [3]	Large-scale pre-training	10B+ reactions expanding chemical space coverage
Retrosynthesis Planners	AiZynthFinder, Retro* [6] [5]	Multi-step route planning	Search algorithms for synthetic route construction
Evaluation Frameworks	Round-trip score validation [5]	Synthesizability assessment	Forward-backward verification of route feasibility
Commercial Compound Databases	ZINC database [5]	Purchasability verification	Curated listing of commercially available building blocks

Successful retrosynthesis research requires specialized computational resources and datasets. The USPTO family of datasets, derived from United States patents, serves as the primary benchmark for single-step retrosynthesis, with USPTO-50K containing 50,000 reactions and USPTO-FULL approximately two million datapoints [6] [3]. For large-scale pre-training, synthetically generated datasets like the 10-billion reaction corpus created using RDChiral provide expanded chemical space coverage, though with potential quality trade-offs compared to manually curated data [3].

Specialized software tools include retrosynthesis planners like AiZynthFinder for route identification and evaluation frameworks implementing round-trip score validation [5]. Commercial compound databases such as ZINC provide curated listings of purchasable building blocks essential for verifying route practicality [5]. For multi-step planning, specialized benchmarks like Retro*-190 enable standardized comparison of planning algorithms across a challenging set of target molecules [35].

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Robust experimental protocols require careful attention to dataset splitting strategies, with similarity-based splits (Tanimoto similarity thresholds of 0.4-0.6) providing more realistic generalization estimates than random splits by preventing structurally similar molecules from appearing in both training and test sets [6]. For multi-step planning, defining appropriate stopping criteria based on comprehensive purchasable compound databases is essential for generating practically relevant synthetic routes [35] [5].

Model interpretation remains challenging, particularly for black-box deep learning approaches. RetroExplainer's energy-based molecular assembly process provides substructure-level attribution, highlighting contributing molecular fragments and offering quantitative interpretability [6]. Validation against known literature reactions using tools like SciFindern provides crucial real-world verification, with high correspondence rates (e.g., 86.9% for RetroExplainer) indicating practical utility beyond benchmark performance [6].

Optimization Strategies: Overcoming Computational and Practical Challenges

Retrosynthesis planning is a fundamental process in organic chemistry, involving the deconstruction of complex target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors. The primary challenge in multi-step retrosynthetic planning lies in navigating the exponentially growing search space of potential chemical transformations and pathways. As each target molecule can typically be decomposed through multiple possible disconnections, and each resulting intermediate can undergo further decomposition, the number of potential routes expands combinatorially. This exponential complexity creates significant computational bottlenecks, particularly when dealing with novel molecular scaffolds or complex multi-step syntheses. Efficiently navigating this vast chemical space requires sophisticated algorithms that balance exploration of promising new pathways with exploitation of known successful strategies, all while maintaining computational feasibility and ensuring the practical viability of proposed routes.

The evolution of computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) tools has transitioned from early rule-based expert systems to modern data-driven approaches leveraging machine learning. Despite these advances, the exponential search space problem remains a central challenge, driving continued innovation in search algorithms, heuristic guidance, and integration of chemical knowledge. This comparative analysis examines how contemporary retrosynthesis tools address the fundamental challenge of exponential search complexity through various navigation techniques, evaluating their performance across multiple dimensions including efficiency, route quality, and practical applicability.

Comparative Analysis of Algorithmic Approaches

Search Algorithm Architectures and Mechanisms

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Retrosynthesis Search Algorithms

Algorithm	Search Strategy	Core Innovation	Chemical Guidance	Tree Representation
AOT*	AND-OR Tree Search	LLM-generated pathways with atomic tree mapping	Retrieval-based context engineering	Explicit AND-OR tree with OR nodes (molecules) and AND nodes (reactions)
Retro*	Neural-guided A* Search	Value network for cost estimation	Template-based MLP for single-step prediction	AND-OR tree with cost minimization
EG-MCTS	Experience-Guided Monte Carlo Tree Search	Combines neural network with search tree	Experience replay buffer & template-based MLP	Monte Carlo search tree with probabilistic evaluation
MEEA*	Hybrid MCTS-A* Search	Merges MCTS exploration with A* optimality	Template-based MLP with look-ahead search	Hybrid tree structure balancing exploration/exploitation
LLM-Syn-Planner	Evolutionary Algorithm	Mutation operators for route refinement	LLM with chemical knowledge	Population of complete pathways

The AOT* algorithm represents a significant advancement in addressing search complexity by systematically integrating Large Language Model (LLM)-generated chemical synthesis pathways with AND-OR tree search [18]. This framework atomically maps complete synthesis routes onto AND-OR tree components, where OR nodes represent molecules and AND nodes represent reactions. This approach enables efficient exploration through intermediate reuse and structural memory, reducing redundant explorations while preserving synthetic coherence. AOT* employs a mathematically sound reward assignment strategy and retrieval-based context engineering, allowing LLMs to efficiently navigate the chemical space [18].

In contrast, Retro* implements a neural-guided A* search that uses a value network to estimate the synthetic cost of molecules, prioritizing promising routes based on learned insights from training data [2]. While primarily optimized for exploitation, Retro* incorporates limited exploration. EG-MCTS (Experience-Guided Monte Carlo Tree Search) leverages probabilistic evaluations derived from a model trained on synthetic experiences, creating a different balance between exploration and exploitation [2]. MEEA* hybridizes these approaches, combining the exploratory strengths of MCTS with the optimality guarantees of A* search through look-ahead evaluation of future states [2].

Performance Metrics and Benchmarking

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Search Algorithms

Algorithm	Solve Rate (%)	Relative Efficiency	Route Feasibility	Complex Molecule Performance
AOT*	Competitive SOTA	3-5× improvement over existing LLM approaches	Not explicitly reported	Superior on complex targets
Retro*	High (varies by SRPM)	Moderate	Higher feasibility scores	Moderate
EG-MCTS	High (varies by SRPM)	Moderate	Moderate feasibility	Moderate
MEEA*	Highest (~95% solvability)	Lower due to computational overhead	Lower feasibility	Good
Standard AiZynthFinder	Baseline (~54.8% with constraints)	Baseline	Moderate	Limited with constraints

Experimental evaluations demonstrate that AOT* achieves state-of-the-art performance with significantly improved search efficiency, requiring 3-5× fewer iterations than existing LLM-based approaches [18]. This performance advantage becomes particularly pronounced for complex molecular targets where the tree-structured search effectively navigates challenging synthetic spaces requiring sophisticated multi-step strategies. The framework shows consistent performance gains across diverse LLM architectures and benchmark datasets, confirming that its efficiency advantages stem from the algorithmic framework rather than model-specific capabilities [18].

In comparative studies, MEEA* demonstrates the highest solvability (approximately 95%) but does not always produce the most feasible routes [2]. When considering both solvability and route feasibility, Retro* often performs better, highlighting the limitation of using solvability alone as a metric. The integration of different single-step retrosynthesis prediction models (SRPMs) with planning algorithms significantly impacts performance, with template-based models generally providing higher solvability while template-free models can offer better route feasibility in some cases [2].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Frameworks and Datasets

Retrosynthesis planning algorithms are typically evaluated across multiple benchmark datasets with distinct molecular distributions and evaluation focuses. Commonly used datasets include PaRoutes (containing known synthesis routes from patents), Reaxys-JMC (with routes from Journal of Medicinal Chemistry), and various USPTO-derived datasets [19] [2]. These datasets provide diverse test cases ranging from simple to complex molecular targets, allowing comprehensive assessment of algorithm performance across different chemical spaces.

The standard evaluation protocol involves running each algorithm on a set of target molecules from these benchmarks with fixed computational budgets (e.g., iteration limits, time constraints). Key metrics include solvability (the ability to find a complete route to commercial building blocks), route feasibility (the practical executability of generated routes), search efficiency (number of iterations or time required), and route length [2]. Recent approaches have introduced more nuanced metrics like Retrosynthetic Feasibility which combines solvability and feasibility into a unified measure, providing a more comprehensive assessment of real-world viability [2].

Validation Methodologies

Beyond standard benchmarking, researchers employ various validation methodologies to assess route quality. The round-trip score approach uses forward reaction prediction models to simulate whether starting materials can successfully undergo the proposed reaction sequence to reproduce the target molecule [5]. This method calculates Tanimoto similarity between the reproduced molecule and the original target, providing a more rigorous assessment of synthesizability than mere solvability.

Human-guided validation approaches incorporate chemical intuition through bond constraints, where chemists specify bonds that should be broken or preserved during synthesis [19]. This method is particularly valuable for assessing algorithms on practical pharmaceutical scenarios, such as planning joint synthesis routes for similar target molecules where common disconnection sites can be identified. The frozen bonds filter discards reactions violating bond preservation constraints, while disconnection-aware transformers specifically target user-specified bonds for breakdown [19].

Diagram 1: AND-OR Tree Search Workflow (Title: Retrosynthesis Search Process)

Visualization of Search Techniques

AND-OR Tree Representation

The AND-OR tree structure provides a mathematical framework for representing retrosynthetic planning problems. In this representation, OR nodes correspond to molecules (both target compounds and intermediates), while AND nodes represent reactions connecting products to their reactants [18]. Each OR node can have multiple child AND nodes (alternative reactions), while each AND node connects to its parent OR node (product) and child OR nodes (reactants). This structure explicitly captures the combinatorial nature of retrosynthesis, where multiple disconnection options exist at each step, and each disconnection produces multiple reactant molecules.

AOT* enhances this basic structure through systematic integration of pathway-level LLM generation with AND-OR tree search [18]. The key innovation lies in atomically mapping complete synthesis routes to tree structures, enabling efficient exploration through intermediate reuse and structural memory. This approach reduces search complexity while preserving the strategic coherence of generated pathways, particularly beneficial for complex targets requiring sophisticated multi-step strategies.

Human-Guided Search with Bond Constraints

Diagram 2: Human-Guided Search Architecture (Title: Constrained Retrosynthesis Workflow)

Human-guided synthesis planning incorporates chemical intuition directly into the search process through bond constraints [19]. This approach allows chemists to specify bonds to break (disconnection sites that should be targeted) and bonds to freeze (structural elements that should remain intact throughout the synthesis). These constraints are processed through multiple mechanisms: the frozen bonds filter eliminates reactions violating preservation constraints, while disconnection-aware transformers specifically target tagged bonds for breakdown [19].

The implementation typically involves a multi-objective Monte Carlo Tree Search (MO-MCTS) that balances the standard objective of reaching starting materials with additional objectives related to constraint satisfaction [19]. For bonds to break, a novel broken bonds score favors routes satisfying the constraints early in the search tree. Experimental results demonstrate that this approach significantly improves constraint satisfaction rates (75.57% vs. 54.80% for standard search) on the PaRoutes dataset, highlighting its effectiveness for practical synthesis planning scenarios [19].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
AiZynthFinder	Software Tool	Multi-step retrosynthesis with MCTS	General synthesis planning with human guidance capabilities
RDChiral	Chemical Library	Template extraction and reaction validation	Template-based reaction generation and validation
USPTO Datasets	Reaction Database	Training and benchmarking data source	Model training and performance evaluation
PubChem/ChEMBL/Enamine	Molecular Database	Source of starting materials and building blocks	Fragment libraries for reaction generation
ZINC Database	Commercial Compound Database	Purchasable starting materials	Defining stopping criteria for synthetic routes
Disconnection-Aware Transformer	ML Model	Tagged bond disconnection	Human-guided synthesis with specific bond targeting
Template-Based MLP	ML Model	Single-step retrosynthesis prediction	Integration with planning algorithms for route exploration

The experimental and computational research in retrosynthesis planning relies on several key resources and reagents. AiZynthFinder has emerged as a frequently used tool by chemists in industrial projects, providing robust multi-step retrosynthesis capabilities with recent extensions for human guidance through bond constraints [19]. The RDChiral library provides essential capabilities for template extraction and reaction validation, enabling the generation of chemically valid synthetic pathways [3] [36].

Large-scale reaction databases such as the USPTO datasets serve as critical training resources and benchmark standards, with the largest containing approximately two million reaction datapoints [3]. For defining commercially available starting materials, the ZINC database provides comprehensive listings of purchasable compounds, which serve as termination criteria for synthetic routes [5]. Molecular databases including PubChem, ChEMBL, and Enamine provide vast repositories of chemical structures that can be fragmented into building blocks for reaction generation [3].

The comparative analysis of exponential space navigation techniques in retrosynthesis planning reveals significant differences in how algorithms balance search efficiency, route quality, and practical feasibility. AOT demonstrates remarkable efficiency gains through its integration of LLM-generated pathways with AND-OR tree search, achieving 3-5× improvements over existing approaches [18]. Human-guided methods incorporating bond constraints substantially improve practical utility for real-world pharmaceutical applications, successfully satisfying constraints in 75.57% of cases compared to 54.80% for standard search [19]. The critical distinction between solvability and feasibility highlights the importance of comprehensive evaluation metrics, as the highest solvability (∼95% for MEEA) does not always correspond to the most practical routes [2].

Future research directions should focus on enhancing route feasibility through better integration of chemical knowledge, developing more sophisticated evaluation metrics that accurately reflect synthetic accessibility, and improving the scalability of search algorithms for high-throughput applications. The emerging paradigm of combining retrosynthetic planners with forward reaction prediction models, as exemplified by the round-trip score approach, offers promising avenues for more reliable synthesizability assessment [5]. As these techniques continue to mature, they will play an increasingly vital role in accelerating drug discovery and materials design through efficient navigation of chemistry's exponential search space.

Data Limitations and Bias Mitigation in Model Training

Retrosynthesis planning, the process of deconstructing complex target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors, represents a foundational task in organic chemistry with critical applications in drug discovery and materials science [37]. The advent of artificial intelligence has revolutionized this domain, with computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) tools leveraging deep learning to suggest viable synthetic routes. However, the performance and real-world applicability of these data-driven models remain constrained by significant challenges in training data and inherent algorithmic biases [3] [2]. This comparative analysis examines current approaches to addressing data limitations and bias mitigation across leading retrosynthesis planning tools, evaluating their experimental performance and practical implications for research and development.

Data Limitations in Retrosynthesis Model Development

The Training Data Bottleneck

A fundamental constraint in retrosynthesis model development stems from the limited availability of high-quality, diverse reaction data. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) datasets have served as primary training resources, yet even the largest available database, USPTO-FULL, contains only approximately two million datapoints—insufficient for training robust deep learning models [3]. This data scarcity directly impacts model performance, with researchers observing Top-1 accuracies plateauing around 55% prior to recent innovations in data expansion techniques [3].

Chemical Space Coverage Limitations

Beyond sheer volume, existing reaction datasets exhibit significant gaps in chemical space coverage. Template-based methods remain constrained by their underlying template libraries, limiting generalization to novel reaction types outside their training distribution [3] [38]. This coverage problem manifests particularly in complex reactions involving multiple centers or rare transformations, where models struggle to propose chemically plausible solutions [38]. The TMAP visualization technique has demonstrated that real-world reaction data from USPTO-50k occupies only a fraction of possible chemical space, highlighting the generalization challenge [3].

Mitigation Strategies for Data Limitations

Synthetic Data Generation

To overcome data scarcity, researchers have pioneered synthetic data generation approaches. RSGPT utilizes the RDChiral reverse synthesis template extraction algorithm to generate over 10 billion reaction datapoints—dramatically expanding beyond naturally occurring reaction data [3]. This method aligns reaction centers from existing templates with synthons from a fragment library, then generates complete reaction products. The synthetic data not only encompasses the chemical space of USPTO datasets but also ventures into previously unexplored regions, substantially enhancing retrosynthesis prediction accuracy to a Top-1 accuracy of 63.4% on USPTO-50k [3].

Template-Based versus Template-Free Approaches

Retrosynthesis models have evolved along three methodological paradigms, each with distinct approaches to data limitations:

Template-based methods rely on reaction templates encoding transformation rules derived from known reactions [38] [39]. While offering interpretability, these approaches remain constrained by template library coverage and struggle with novel transformations [3]. Examples include NeuralSym, GLN, and LocalRetro, with the latter incorporating local templates and global reactivity attention to achieve state-of-the-art template-based performance [38].

Template-free methods treat retrosynthesis as a machine translation problem, directly generating reactant SMILES strings from products without explicit reaction rules [3] [38]. Models like Seq2Seq, Transformer-based approaches, and Graph2SMILES bypass template limitations but face challenges with invalid chemical structures and limited interpretability [3] [38].

Semi-template-based methods represent a hybrid approach, predicting reactants through intermediates or synthons without relying on complete templates [3] [38]. Frameworks like Graph2Edits combine graph neural networks with molecular editing operations, achieving competitive accuracy while improving interpretability through editable reaction centers [38].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Approaches on USPTO-50K Dataset

Model	Approach	Top-1 Accuracy	Top-3 Accuracy	Top-5 Accuracy	Top-10 Accuracy
RSGPT	Template-free + synthetic data	63.4%	-	-	-
Graph2Edits	Semi-template-based	55.1%	-	-	-
RetroExplainer	Molecular assembly	-	-	-	-
LocalRetro	Template-based	-	-	-	-
RetroSim	Similarity-based	52.9%	73.0%	-	-

Note: Performance metrics vary across studies with different experimental setups. Dash indicates metric not reported in available sources.

Bias Mitigation in Model Training and Evaluation

Algorithmic Bias and Representation Learning

Retrosynthesis models can inherit and amplify biases present in training data, particularly the overrepresentation of common reaction types and underrepresentation of rare transformations. Template-based methods exhibit explicit bias toward frequently occurring templates in source databases, while template-free approaches may develop implicit biases through uneven reaction type distribution [2]. To address these challenges, RetroExplainer implements multi-sense and multi-scale Graph Transformer (MSMS-GT) architecture alongside structure-aware contrastive learning (SACL) to capture more balanced molecular representations [40].

Multi-Step Planning and Real-World Feasibility

A significant disconnect exists between single-step prediction accuracy and practical route feasibility in multi-step synthesis [2]. Models optimized for single-step accuracy may propose routes that are chemically implausible or economically impractical when extended to complete syntheses. RetroExplainer addresses this through integration with the Retro* algorithm, demonstrating that 86.9% of its proposed single-step reactions correspond to literature-reported transformations [40].

Table 2: Retrosynthesis Planning Algorithms and Their Characteristics

Algorithm	Search Strategy	Exploration-Exploitation Balance	Single-Step Model Integration
Retro*	A*-based with neural guidance	Primarily exploitation-focused	Template-based MLPs
EG-MCTS	Monte Carlo Tree Search	Balanced exploration-exploitation	Template-based MLPs
MEEA*	MCTS-A* hybrid	Exploration-focused with look-ahead	Template-based MLPs

Evaluation Beyond Solvability

Traditional evaluation metrics emphasizing route solvability (the ability to find any complete route) provide an incomplete picture of model performance [2]. Comprehensive assessment requires incorporating route feasibility, which reflects practical executability in laboratory settings. Studies demonstrate that model combinations with highest solvability do not necessarily produce the most feasible routes, underscoring the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks [2].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmark Datasets and Evaluation Frameworks

Standardized benchmark datasets enable meaningful comparison across retrosynthesis approaches. The USPTO-50k dataset, containing 50,016 atom-mapped reactions classified into 10 reaction types, serves as the primary benchmark, typically divided into 40k/5k/5k splits for training/validation/testing [38]. Additional datasets including USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT, and specialized datasets constructed using molecular similarity splitting methods provide complementary evaluation contexts [40] [2].

Performance evaluation employs top-k exact match accuracy, measuring the percentage of test reactions where the true reactant set appears within the top k model predictions [40]. For multi-step planning, solvability measures the ability to find complete routes to commercially available starting materials, while newer metrics like route feasibility assess practical executability through expert validation and literature correspondence [2].

Synthetic Data Generation Protocol

The RSGPT model exemplifies rigorous synthetic data generation methodology [3]. The protocol involves:

• Utilizing the BRICS method to fragment 78 million original molecules from PubChem, ChEMBL, and Enamine databases into 2 million submolecules
• Extracting reaction templates from USPTO-FULL using RDChiral reverse synthesis template extraction algorithm
• Precisely aligning template reaction centers with synthons from the fragment library
• Generating complete reaction products through template application
• Validating reaction rationality through automated checks and chemical expertise

This process yielded 10,929,182,923 synthetic data points for model pre-training before fine-tuning on specific target datasets [3].

Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF)

Inspired by advancements in large language models, RSGPT incorporates RLAIF to enhance prediction quality without resource-intensive human labeling [3]. The methodology involves:

• Generating reactants and templates for given products using the pre-trained model
• Validating generated output rationality using RDChiral
• Providing model feedback through reward mechanisms based on validation results
• Fine-tuning the model to better capture relationships between products, reactants, and templates

This approach enables more accurate capture of chemical transformation patterns while maintaining scalability [3].

Visualization of Retrosynthesis Workflows

RSGPT Training Workflow: Synthetic data generation enables large-scale pre-training

Multi-step Evaluation Framework: Balancing solvability and practical feasibility

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources for Retrosynthesis

Resource	Type	Function	Example Applications
USPTO Datasets	Reaction data	Benchmark training and evaluation	USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT
SMILES/SMIRKS	Chemical notation	Molecular representation and transforms	Linear notation for template-free models
RDChiral	Template extraction	Reaction center identification and alignment	Synthetic data generation for RSGPT
RetroTransformDB	Transform database	Manually-curated retro-reactions	Template-based prediction
SYNTHIA	Commercial software	Integrated rule-based and ML retrosynthesis	Route planning with sustainability metrics
Planning algorithms	Search methods	Multi-step route optimization	Retro, EG-MCTS, MEEA

The evolution of retrosynthesis planning tools demonstrates significant progress in addressing data limitations and algorithmic biases through innovative technical approaches. Synthetic data generation, hybrid modeling paradigms, and refined evaluation frameworks have collectively advanced the field toward more reliable, practical applications in drug development and materials science. Nevertheless, challenges remain in achieving true chemical generalization, ensuring real-world feasibility, and developing comprehensive bias mitigation strategies. Future research directions likely include increased integration of chemical knowledge with data-driven approaches, enhanced multi-step planning algorithms, and standardized evaluation metrics that better reflect practical utility. As these computational tools continue to mature, their collaboration with human expertise will remain essential for navigating the complex landscape of organic synthesis.

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in retrosynthesis planning represents a paradigm shift in pharmaceutical research, offering the potential to dramatically accelerate drug discovery. However, the advanced deep learning models that power these tools, such as transformers and graph neural networks, often function as "black boxes" – their internal decision-making processes are complex and opaque [41]. This lack of transparency poses a significant challenge for chemists and drug development professionals who must trust and validate proposed synthetic routes. The inability to understand a model's reasoning can hinder its adoption, obscure potential biases, and complicate the debugging and improvement of the systems [41]. In fields like pharmaceuticals, where decisions have direct implications for patient safety and involve substantial financial investment, the need for interpretability is not just academic; it is a practical necessity linked to regulatory compliance and ethical accountability [42] [41]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of interpretability solutions within contemporary retrosynthesis tools, evaluating their performance and methodologies to illuminate the path toward more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI-driven synthesis planning.

Comparative Analysis of Retrosynthesis Tool Interpretability

The following table summarizes the interpretability approaches and performance of key retrosynthesis planning tools, highlighting how they address the black-box problem.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Interpretability in Retrosynthesis Tools

Tool / Model Name	Core Methodology	Interpretability & Guidance Features	Reported Performance (Top-1 Accuracy)	Key Interpretability Strength
RSGPT [3]	Generative Transformer (LLM-based)	Pre-training on massive synthetic data; Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF)	63.4% (USPTO-50k)	Acquires chemical knowledge directly from data, allowing it to elucidate relationships between products, reactants, and templates.
AiZynthFinder with Prompting [19]	Template-based with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)	Human-guided prompting for "bonds to break" and "bonds to freeze"; Frozen bonds filter; Broken bonds score.	N/A (Benchmarked on route satisfaction)	Allows chemists to incorporate prior knowledge, making the tool an interactive partner that respects expert intuition.
RetroExplainer [3]	Molecular Assembly Process	Formulates retrosynthesis as a quantifiably interpretable molecular assembly process.	~55% (approximate, based on previous model limitations)	Provides quantitative interpretation of the retrosynthesis planning process.
Semi-Template-Based Models (e.g., Graph2Edits) [3]	Graph Neural Networks with Intermediates	Integrates two-stage procedures into a unified, more interpretable learning framework.	N/A	Improves model applicability and interpretability for complex reactions by predicting through editable intermediates.

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating Interpretability

To objectively assess the interpretability claims of various retrosynthesis tools, researchers employ specific experimental protocols. The methodologies below detail two key approaches for evaluating different aspects of interpretability.

Protocol for Benchmarking Human-Guided Retrosynthesis

This protocol, derived from Westerlund et al. (2025), tests a tool's ability to integrate human expertise through prompting [19].

• Objective: To quantify the improvement in route generation success when a model incorporates explicit bond constraints provided by a chemist.
• Dataset: The benchmark utilizes established datasets like PaRoutes set-n1 and Reaxys-JMC, which contain known synthesis routes from patents and medicinal chemistry literature [19].
• Methodology:
  • Constraint Definition: For target molecules, human experts define two types of prompts:
    • Bonds to Break: Specific bonds that the retrosynthesis route should disconnect.
    • Bonds to Freeze: Specific bonds or moieties that must remain intact throughout the entire synthetic route.
  • Tool Execution: The retrosynthesis tool (e.g., AiZynthFinder) is run in two modes:
    • Standard Mode: Without any user-defined constraints.
    • Prompted Mode: With the defined "bonds to break" and/or "bonds to freeze" prompts active.
  • Evaluation Metric: The primary metric is the percentage of targets for which a satisfactory route is generated that adheres to the provided constraints. For example, the prompted approach in AiZynthFinder satisfied bond constraints for 75.57% of targets compared to 54.80% with the standard search [19].

Protocol for Assessing Model Rationale via RLAIF

This protocol, based on the training of RSGPT, uses AI feedback to refine and validate the model's chemical reasoning [3].

• Objective: To enhance and evaluate the model's understanding of the relationships among products, reactants, and reaction templates.
• Data Generation: A massive dataset of over 10 billion synthetic reaction datapoints is generated using the RDChiral template extraction algorithm on PubChem, ChEMBL, and Enamine databases [3].
• Methodology:
  • Pre-training: The transformer model is first pre-trained on the large-scale generated data to acquire broad chemical knowledge.
  • Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF):
    • The model generates proposed reactants and templates for a given product.
    • An external, rule-based validator (RDChiral) is used to check the chemical rationality of the proposed reactions.
    • The model receives positive or negative feedback (rewards) based on the validator's assessment, fine-tuning its understanding without human intervention.
  • Evaluation: The model's performance is finally tested on standard benchmarks like USPTO-50k, where its state-of-the-art accuracy of 63.4% is seen as a proxy for its superior grasp of underlying chemical principles [3].

Visualizing Interpretability Strategies

The following diagrams illustrate the core workflows and logical relationships of the key interpretability strategies discussed.

Workflow for Human-Guided Retrosynthesis

This diagram outlines the process of using prompting to guide a retrosynthesis tool, integrating human expertise directly into the AI-driven search.

RLAIF Model Training Process

This diagram visualizes the three-stage training strategy, particularly the RLAIF stage, used to develop models like RSGPT that possess a more intrinsic understanding of chemistry.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

The experimental protocols and model development efforts in interpretable retrosynthesis rely on a set of key software tools and data resources.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Interpretable Retrosynthesis
AiZynthFinder [43] [19]	Software Tool	An open-source platform for template-based multistep retrosynthesis planning that can be extended with human-guided prompting features.
RDChiral [3]	Chemical Rule Set	Provides precise biochemical reaction rules used to validate the output of ML models (e.g., in RLAIF) and to generate high-quality synthetic training data.
USPTO Datasets [3]	Benchmark Data	Curated datasets of chemical reactions (e.g., USPTO-50k, USPTO-MIT, USPTO-FULL) used as the standard benchmark for training and evaluating model accuracy.
PaRoutes Dataset [19]	Benchmark Data	A dataset containing known, validated synthesis routes used specifically for benchmarking the performance of multistep retrosynthesis algorithms.
Disconnection-Aware Transformer [19]	Machine Learning Model	A specialized transformer model that can be fine-tuned to recognize and act upon "tagged" bonds in a SMILES string, enabling prompt-based single-step predictions.
SYNTHIA (IBM RXN) [43]	Retrosynthesis Platform	A commercial retrosynthesis platform that, like other tools, can be used as an oracle to assess the synthesizability of molecules generated by other models.
PolQi2	PolQi2, MF:C21H16ClN5O3S, MW:453.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Retrosynthesis planning, the process of deconstructing a target molecule into simpler, commercially available precursors, is a cornerstone of organic synthesis, particularly in pharmaceutical development. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized this field, leading to the development of various computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) methodologies [3]. These tools are broadly classified into three categories: template-based, semi-template-based, and template-free methods [38]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art retrosynthesis planning tools, evaluating their performance, underlying methodologies, and experimental protocols. The objective is to offer researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals a clear understanding of the current landscape to inform tool selection and application in sustainable pathway design.

Comparative Performance Analysis of Retrosynthesis Tools

The performance of retrosynthesis tools is typically benchmarked on standard datasets like USPTO-50k, which contains 50,016 atom-mapped reactions classified into 10 distinct types [38]. Key metrics include Top-1 accuracy, which measures the percentage of test reactions for which the model's first prediction for the reactants exactly matches the actual reactants in the dataset. As shown in Table 1, recent models have demonstrated significant advancements in predictive accuracy.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Tools on Benchmark Datasets

Model Name	Model Category	Key Methodology	Top-1 Accuracy (USPTO-50k)	Key Advantage
RSGPT [3]	Template-free	Generative Transformer pre-trained on 10B synthetic data points; uses RLAIF.	63.4%	State-of-the-art accuracy; vast chemical knowledge.
InterRetro [44]	Search Algorithm	Worst-path policy optimization in tree-structured MDPs.	~100% (Route Success on Retro*-190)	Optimizes for the most reliable synthetic route.
Graph2Edits [38]	Semi-template-based	End-to-end graph neural network for auto-regressive graph editing.	55.1%	High interpretability; handles complicated reactions well.
Neurosymbolic Model [4]	Neurosymbolic Programming	Learns reusable multi-step patterns (cascade & complementary reactions).	High success rate (Fig. 2a-f [4])	Significantly reduces inference time for molecule groups.

Beyond single-step prediction, multi-step planning performance is crucial. InterRetro, for instance, achieves a 100% success rate on the Retro*-190 benchmark and shortens synthetic routes by 4.9% on average [44]. Similarly, the neurosymbolic model demonstrates a high success rate under a limit of 500 planning cycles, solving more tasks on average than other baseline methods like EG-MCTS and PDVN [4].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Preparation and Preprocessing

For most models, training and evaluation begin with a standardized dataset such as USPTO-50k. A common preprocessing step involves canonicalizing the product SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) and re-assigning atom-mapping numbers to prevent information leakage [38]. The dataset is typically split into training (40,000 reactions), validation (5,000 reactions), and test (5,000 reactions) sets [38]. For models requiring pre-training or synthetic data, large-scale data generation is employed. For example, RSGPT uses the RDChiral template extraction algorithm on the USPTO-FULL dataset and matches reaction centers with synthons from a library of 2 million fragments derived from PubChem, ChEMBL, and Enamine, resulting in over 10.9 billion synthetic reaction datapoints for pre-training [3].

Model Architectures and Workflows

• RSGPT: This model leverages the LLaMA2 transformer architecture. Its training strategy is a three-stage process inspired by large language models:
  • Pre-training: The model is trained on the massive 10-billion-datapoint synthetic dataset to acquire broad chemical knowledge [3].
  • Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF): The model generates reactants and templates, which are validated for chemical rationality by the RDChiral algorithm. A reward mechanism provides feedback, allowing the model to learn the relationships between products, reactants, and templates without human intervention [3].
  • Fine-tuning: The model is further trained on specific, smaller datasets (e.g., USPTO-50k) to optimize performance for particular reaction categories [3].
• Graph2Edits: This semi-template-based model employs an end-to-end graph neural network (GNN) architecture. It formulates retrosynthesis as a sequence of graph edits on the product molecule, mimicking the arrow-pushing formalism of chemical reaction mechanisms [38]. The model works auto-regressively, predicting edits such as bond changes and functional group attachments to sequentially transform the product graph into intermediate synthons and finally into the reactant graphs [38].
• InterRetro: This approach reframes retrosynthesis as a worst-path optimization problem within a tree-structured Markov Decision Process (MDP). It introduces a method that interacts with the tree MDP, learns a value function for worst-path outcomes (where any invalid leaf renders the tree invalid), and improves its policy through self-imitation. This preferentially reinforces past decisions with a high estimated advantage, leading to more robust synthetic routes [44].
• Neurosymbolic Programming Model: This algorithm is inspired by human learning and operates in three alternating phases:
  • Wake Phase: Attempts to solve retrosynthesis tasks, recording successful routes and failures [4].
  • Abstraction Phase: Analyzes the recorded searches to extract reusable multi-step reaction patterns, specifically "cascade chains" (sequences of consecutive transformations) and "complementary chains" (interacting precursor reactions) [4].
  • Dreaming Phase: Generates "fantasies" or simulated retrosynthesis data to refine the neural models that guide the search and expansion processes, using both replayed experiences and the newly abstracted patterns [4].

Performance Evaluation Protocol

The standard protocol for evaluating single-step retrosynthesis models involves feeding the product SMILES from the held-out test set into the model and collecting the top-k proposed reactant sets. The exact match accuracy is then calculated by comparing these proposals to the ground-truth reactants, ensuring a perfect string match for the canonicalized SMILES [3] [38]. For multi-step planning, evaluation involves metrics such as the success rate of finding a valid route to purchasable building blocks within a limited number of planning cycles or search time, and the average number of steps in the proposed route [44] [4].

Signaling Pathways and Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core logical workflows and architectures of the discussed retrosynthesis tools.

RSGPT Training and Prediction Workflow

Graph2Edits Graph Editing Process

Neurosymbolic Model's Evolutionary Learning Cycle

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Item Name	Function / Description	Application in Retrosynthesis
USPTO Datasets [3] [38]	Curated datasets of chemical reactions from patent data; the benchmark for training and evaluation.	Provides real-world reaction data for model training, validation, and testing (e.g., USPTO-50k, USPTO-FULL).
RDChiral [3]	An open-source algorithm for reverse synthesis template extraction and reaction validation.	Used to generate synthetic reaction data for pre-training and to validate the chemical rationality of model outputs during RLAIF.
RDKit [38]	Open-source cheminformatics software.	Used for handling molecule manipulation, including applying graph edits to generate reactant structures from predicted edits.
PubChem, ChEMBL, Enamine [3]	Large-scale chemical databases providing molecular structures and property information.	Serves as sources for molecular fragments and building blocks to generate expansive synthetic reaction datasets for model pre-training.
Transformer/GNN Frameworks [3] [38]	Deep learning architectures (e.g., Transformer, Graph Neural Networks).	Forms the core computational engine for sequence-based (SMILES) or graph-based molecular representation and prediction.
AND-OR Search Graph [4]	A data structure representing the recursive decomposition of a target molecule into precursors.	The fundamental structure for multi-step retrosynthesis planning, where OR nodes represent molecules and AND nodes represent reactions.

Retrosynthesis planning, a cornerstone of organic chemistry and drug discovery, has been profoundly transformed by artificial intelligence. As deep-learning models grow in complexity and capability, a critical tension has emerged: the pursuit of higher prediction accuracy often demands substantial computational resources. This comparison guide objectively analyzes the performance of contemporary retrosynthesis tools against their computational requirements, providing researchers with data-driven insights for selecting appropriate solutions. Experimental data from benchmark studies reveals significant variations in how different algorithmic architectures balance this fundamental trade-off, enabling scientific professionals to align tool selection with specific project constraints and infrastructure limitations.

Performance Comparison Tables

Table 1: Top-1 Accuracy and Computational Requirements of Retrosynthesis Models

Model / Approach	Top-1 Accuracy (%)	Model Architecture	Training Data Scale	Computational Demand
RSGPT [3]	63.4%	Generative Transformer (LLaMA2-based)	10 billion synthetic datapoints	Very High (pre-training + RLAIF)
RetroDFM-R [29]	65.0%	Large Language Model (Reasoning-driven)	Not specified	Very High (3-stage training with RL)
Graph2Edits [38]	55.1%	Graph Neural Network (Auto-regressive)	USPTO-50K (50k reactions)	Moderate (End-to-end graph editing)
RetroExplainer [40]	State-of-the-art (exact % not specified)	Multi-sense Multi-scale Graph Transformer	12 benchmark datasets	Moderate-High (Multi-task learning)
RetroTrim [9]	Focused on hallucination reduction	Ensemble of Reaction Scorers	Not specified	Moderate (Diverse scoring strategies)
EditRetro [29]	Strong baseline for sequence-based	String-editing Transformer	USPTO-50K	Moderate

Table 2: Multi-step Planning Algorithm Performance

Planning Algorithm	Underlying Strategy	Key Strengths	Sample Efficiency / Cost
Retro* [2]	A*-inspired, value network	Optimized for exploitation, lower route cost	Lower solvability (∼80%) but higher feasibility
EG-MCTS [2]	Monte Carlo Tree Search	Balances exploration and exploitation	Moderate solvability (∼85%)
MEEA* [2]	Combines MCTS and A*	Look ahead search for future states	Highest solvability (∼95%), lower feasibility
AiZynthFinder [19] [43]	MCTS with template-based model	Practical, widely adopted, allows prompting	Fast enough for optimization loops [43]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Standards and Datasets

Performance evaluation across retrosynthesis models relies heavily on standardized datasets and metrics. The USPTO-50K dataset, containing 50,016 atom-mapped reactions classified into 10 reaction types, serves as the primary benchmark for single-step prediction accuracy [38]. The larger USPTO-FULL dataset, containing approximately two million reactions, provides additional testing ground [3]. Evaluation typically employs top-k exact-match accuracy, measuring the percentage of test reactions where the true reactant set appears within the top k model predictions [40].

For multi-step planning, evaluation expands to include solvability (ability to find a complete route to commercial building blocks) and the more nuanced route feasibility, which assesses practical laboratory executability [2]. The PaRoutes dataset provides known synthetic routes for benchmarking multi-step algorithms [19].

Model-Specific Training and Inference Paradigms

• RSGPT: Employs a three-stage strategy mimicking large language models: (1) pre-training on 10 billion synthetically generated reaction datapoints created using the RDChiral template extraction algorithm, (2) Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) where the model receives rewards for template and reactant validity verified by RDChiral, and (3) fine-tuning on specific benchmark datasets. This approach achieves high accuracy but requires immense computational resources for the pre-training and reinforcement learning stages [3].

• RetroDFM-R: Implements a reasoning-driven approach for large language models featuring: (1) continual pre-training on retrosynthesis-specific chemical data, (2) supervised fine-tuning on distilled reasoning data, and (3) large-scale reinforcement learning with chemically verifiable rewards. This explicit chain-of-thought reasoning enhances explainability but demands significant computational overhead [29].

• Graph2Edits: Utilizes an end-to-end graph generative architecture that predicts a sequence of graph edits (bond changes, atom additions) in an auto-regressive manner. This method transforms the product graph directly into reactant graphs through sequential edits, bypassing both template limitations and SMILES validity issues. Its relative efficiency stems from combining two-stage semi-template processes into unified learning [38].

• RetroTrim: Focuses on eliminating erroneous predictions (hallucinations) through a diverse ensemble of reaction scorers rather than a single complex model. This methodology combines multiple machine learning models and chemical database checks, each targeting different failure modes. This approach demonstrates that sophisticated filtering can improve reliability without necessarily requiring a monolithic, resource-intensive model [9].

Workflow and Conceptual Diagrams

Multi-step Retrosynthesis Planning Workflow

Accuracy vs. Computational Demand Trade-off

The Researcher's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Retrosynthesis Research
USPTO Datasets [3] [38]	Chemical Reaction Data	Standardized benchmarks for training and evaluating retrosynthesis models (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL).
RDChiral [3]	Template Extraction Algorithm	Generates synthetic reaction data and validates template applicability; core to RSGPT's data generation.
SMILES/SMIRKS [39]	Molecular Representation	Linear string notations for representing molecules (SMILES) and chemical transformations (SMIRKS).
AiZynthFinder [19] [43]	Software Tool	Open-source, template-based multi-step retrosynthesis planner; allows human-guided prompting.
RetroTransformDB [39]	Transform Database	Manually curated collection of retrosynthetic transforms in SMIRKS notation for rule-based systems.
RDKit [38]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Open-source software for cheminformatics and molecular manipulation; used in Graph2Edits for graph operations.

Benchmarking Performance: Validation Frameworks and Tool Comparison

Retrosynthesis planning is a fundamental task in organic chemistry and pharmaceutical research, focusing on identifying feasible synthetic pathways for target molecules. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning has transformed this field, yielding various computational approaches with diverse architectures and training methodologies. This growth has created a critical need for standardized evaluation metrics that enable fair comparison across different models. Without consistent evaluation frameworks, assessing the true progress and practical utility of these tools becomes challenging. This guide examines the current landscape of retrosynthesis planning tools through the lens of standardized evaluation metrics, with particular emphasis on Top-K accuracy and solve rates, to provide researchers with objective performance comparisons and methodological insights.

The evaluation challenge is particularly acute due to several factors: the one-to-many nature of retrosynthesis (where a single product can often be synthesized through multiple valid pathways), imperfections in benchmark datasets, and the varying information needs of chemical practitioners. While experienced chemists might consider multiple viable synthetic routes, most benchmark datasets provide only a single "correct" answer, potentially penalizing chemically valid alternatives. Furthermore, different applications may prioritize different aspects of performance—medicinal chemists might value interpretability and route novelty, while process chemists might prioritize cost efficiency and scalability. These complexities underscore why a multifaceted evaluation approach is essential for meaningful tool comparison.

Understanding Top-K Accuracy in Retrosynthesis Evaluation

Definition and Calculation

Top-K accuracy is a performance metric widely adopted in classification tasks, particularly valuable when multiple plausible answers exist for a given input. In retrosynthesis planning, this metric evaluates whether the true reactant set appears among the top K predictions generated by a model, ranked by their predicted scores or probabilities [45].

The calculation involves several steps. First, for each target molecule in the test set, the model generates a set of predicted reactant combinations with associated confidence scores. These predictions are then ranked by their scores in descending order. The system checks whether the known ground-truth reactants appear within the top K ranked predictions. The Top-K accuracy score is computed as the ratio of test cases where this condition is met to the total number of test cases [45]. Mathematically, this is represented as:

[ \text{Top-K Accuracy} = \frac{\text{Number of correct predictions in top K}}{\text{Total number of predictions}} ]

This approach provides a more flexible assessment than strict Top-1 accuracy (which requires the correct answer to be the first prediction), acknowledging that multiple chemically valid pathways may exist for synthesizing a target compound.

Significance in Retrosynthesis Context

Top-K accuracy is particularly valuable in retrosynthesis planning for several reasons. First, it accommodates the fundamental reality that experienced chemists often consider multiple synthetic pathways rather than fixating on a single option [46]. By evaluating whether a model includes the documented pathway among its top suggestions, this metric better reflects real-world decision-making processes.

Second, Top-K accuracy provides crucial insights into model behavior across different confidence thresholds. A model with high Top-1 but low Top-5 accuracy might be overly conservative, while one with low Top-1 but high Top-5 accuracy might generate diverse suggestions but struggle with prioritization. This profile helps researchers understand whether a tool functions best as a generator of multiple possibilities or as a precise recommender of the most likely pathway.

The metric also offers practical utility for different user scenarios. When exploring novel compounds with limited precedent, researchers might examine more suggestions (higher K values), whereas for well-established syntheses, they might focus only on the top recommendations. Thus, reporting performance across multiple K values (typically K=1, 3, 5, 10) provides a more comprehensive picture of model utility than any single metric alone.

Comparative Performance of Retrosynthesis Tools

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The following table summarizes the performance of major retrosynthesis planning tools on the standard USPTO-50k benchmark dataset, which contains 50,016 reactions from U.S. patents classified into 10 reaction types:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Tools on USPTO-50k Dataset

Model	Approach Type	Top-1 Accuracy	Top-3 Accuracy	Top-5 Accuracy	Top-10 Accuracy	Publication Year
RSGPT	Template-free, LLM-based	63.4%	-	-	-	2025 [7]
Graph2Edits	Semi-template-based, graph editing	55.1%	-	-	-	2023 [38]
SynFormer	Template-free, Transformer-based	53.2%	-	-	-	2025 [46]
Chemformer	Template-free, Transformer-based	53.3%	-	-	-	- [46]
LocalRetro	Template-based	~54.0%	-	-	-	- [38]

Note: Dashes indicate values not explicitly reported in the sourced literature

RSGPT currently represents the state-of-the-art in retrosynthesis prediction, achieving a remarkable 63.4% Top-1 accuracy on the USPTO-50k dataset [7]. This performance substantially outperforms previous models and demonstrates the potential of large-scale pre-training and reinforcement learning approaches in this domain. The model's strong performance is attributed to its training on 10 billion generated reaction data points and the incorporation of reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) to better capture relationships between products, reactants, and reaction templates [7].

Graph2Edits follows with 55.1% Top-1 accuracy, employing an end-to-end graph generative architecture that predicts edits to the product graph in an auto-regressive manner [38]. This semi-template-based approach combines two-stage processes into unified learning, improving applicability for complex reactions and enhancing prediction interpretability. SynFormer and Chemformer demonstrate comparable performance at approximately 53.2-53.3% Top-1 accuracy, with SynFormer offering the advantage of eliminating computationally expensive pre-training while maintaining competitive performance [46].

Performance Across Reaction Classes

Different retrosynthesis models often exhibit varying performance across reaction types due to their architectural differences and training approaches:

Table 2: Model Performance Variations Across Reaction Types

Reaction Type	Template-Based Performance	Template-Free Performance	Semi-Template Performance	Challenges
Multi-center reactions	Lower	Moderate	Higher	Identifying all reaction centers simultaneously [38]
Ring formations	Moderate	Lower	Higher	Handling structural complexity and stereochemistry [38]
Heteroatom alkylations	Higher	Higher	Higher	Well-represented in training data
Rare reaction types	Lower	Higher	Moderate	Generalizing from limited examples [7]
Stereoselective reactions	Variable	Variable	Variable	Handling 3D molecular arrangements [46]

Template-based approaches like LocalRetro generally perform well on reaction types abundantly represented in their template libraries but struggle with rare or novel reaction types not covered by existing templates [38]. Template-free methods demonstrate better generalization for uncommon transformations but may generate invalid molecular structures or struggle with complex stereochemical outcomes [46]. Semi-template-based approaches like Graph2Edits aim to balance these strengths, maintaining interpretability while improving coverage for complex reactions involving multiple centers or ring formations [38].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Retrosynthesis Tools

Standardized Benchmarking Methodology

To ensure fair comparisons across retrosynthesis tools, researchers have established standardized experimental protocols centered on the USPTO-50k dataset. This dataset contains 50,037 reactions sourced from U.S. patents (1976-2016) with correct atom-mapping and classification into 10 reaction types [46]. The standard data split allocates 40,000 reactions for training, 5,000 for validation, and 5,000 for testing, following the established protocol from Coley et al. [38].

Critical preprocessing steps include canonicalizing SMILES representations, removing stereochemistry information for certain evaluations, and reassigning atom mapping numbers to prevent information leakage [38]. These steps ensure that models don't exploit dataset-specific artifacts rather than learning generalizable chemical principles. For models using graph representations, edits are automatically extracted by comparing atomic and bond differences between products and reactants in the atom-mapped reactions [38].

The following diagram illustrates the standardized experimental workflow for training and evaluating retrosynthesis models:

Experimental Workflow for Retrosynthesis Evaluation

Advanced Evaluation Metrics

While Top-K accuracy remains the primary reported metric, researchers have identified limitations in its completeness and developed supplementary evaluation approaches:

• Stereo-agnostic accuracy: This binary metric assigns a value of 1 if ground truth and predicted graphs match perfectly when ignoring three-dimensional atomic arrangements and stereochemistry. It addresses the challenge that some models might predict correct connectivity but incorrect stereochemistry [46].

• Partial accuracy: Defined as the proportion of correctly predicted molecules within the set of ground truth molecules, this metric acknowledges that alternate chemical pathways might be valid even if they don't exactly match the single pathway provided in the dataset [46].

• Tanimoto similarity: This continuous metric calculates molecular similarity between predicted and ground truth reactant sets using fingerprint-based approaches, providing a more nuanced assessment than binary accuracy metrics [46].

• Round-trip accuracy: This approach uses a separate forward reaction prediction model to assess whether the predicted reactants would actually yield the target product, providing additional validation of prediction chemical validity [46].

The Retro-Synth Score (R-SS) represents a comprehensive attempt to combine multiple metrics into a unified evaluation framework. It integrates accuracy, stereo-agnostic accuracy, partial correctness, and Tanimoto similarity to provide a more nuanced assessment that recognizes "better mistakes" – predictions that, while not perfectly matching the ground truth, still represent chemically plausible pathways [46].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Benchmark Datasets and Software Libraries

The following table details key resources essential for conducting rigorous retrosynthesis tool evaluation:

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Retrosynthesis Evaluation

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application in Retrosynthesis Research
USPTO-50k	Benchmark Dataset	Standardized reaction dataset	Primary benchmark for model comparison [38] [46]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Chemical reaction processing	Template extraction, molecule validation, and reaction handling [7] [46]
RDChiral	Template Extraction Algorithm	Reaction template generation	Created 10B+ synthetic reactions for pre-training in RSGPT [7]
PubChem/ChEMBL	Chemical Databases	Source of molecular structures	Provided 78M+ original molecules for fragmentation in synthetic data generation [7]
Scikit-learn	Machine Learning Library	Model evaluation metrics	Provides topkaccuracy_score function for metric calculation [47]

Implementation Considerations

When implementing retrosynthesis evaluation frameworks, several practical considerations emerge. Dataset preprocessing requires careful handling of SMILES representations to avoid many-to-one mapping issues that can impede model generalization [46]. The USPTO-50k dataset's limitation of providing only one set of possible reactants for each product presents evaluation challenges, as multiple chemically viable reactant combinations might produce the same product [46].

Computational requirements vary significantly across approaches. Template-based methods generally require less training computation but may need extensive template matching during inference. Template-free approaches often demand substantial training resources but can offer faster inference. RSGPT's use of 10 billion synthetic data points for pre-training represents the extreme end of computational requirements but demonstrates how scale can drive performance improvements [7].

Evaluation efficiency becomes crucial when testing at higher K values (e.g., Top-10 or beyond), as generating numerous candidate pathways increases computational costs and may decrease the validity percentage of suggestions [46]. Researchers must balance comprehensive evaluation against practical computational constraints, particularly when conducting hyperparameter optimization or architectural ablation studies.

Future Directions in Retrosynthesis Evaluation

The field of retrosynthesis planning continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging trends likely to influence evaluation practices. Integration of additional practical constraints – such as reagent cost, availability, safety, and environmental impact – represents an important direction for making evaluations more relevant to real-world synthetic planning [46]. Current benchmarks focus primarily on chemical feasibility while neglecting these practical considerations that often determine route selection in pharmaceutical and industrial contexts.

Multi-step pathway evaluation presents another frontier for methodological development. While most current evaluations focus on single-step retrosynthesis, ultimately compounds require multi-step syntheses. Evaluating complete pathways introduces additional complexities including convergence, overall yield, and cumulative cost [7]. RSGPT's authors note the model's potential for identifying multi-step synthetic planning, suggesting this as a direction for future benchmarking development [7].

Finally, the emergence of large language models and reinforcement learning in retrosynthesis suggests future evaluations may need to incorporate additional dimensions such as explanation quality, uncertainty quantification, and the ability to incorporate human feedback [7]. As these models become more advanced, evaluation frameworks must similarly evolve to capture not just predictive accuracy but also practical utility in chemical discovery and development workflows.

Retrosynthesis planning, a cornerstone of computer-assisted synthesis planning (CASP), has been revolutionized by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). As generative models propose increasingly complex target molecules for drug discovery, validating their synthesizability has become a critical bottleneck [5] [4]. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) datasets serve as crucial benchmarking resources in this field, providing standardized platforms for evaluating the performance of various retrosynthesis algorithms [48] [7]. This analysis provides a comprehensive cross-tool performance assessment of contemporary retrosynthesis planning methodologies, examining their effectiveness across multiple quantitative metrics including success rates, synthetic route accuracy, and computational efficiency when tested against USPTO-derived benchmarks.

Methodology: Benchmarking Standards and Experimental Protocols

USPTO Dataset Preparation and Curation

The foundation of reliable performance comparison lies in consistent data preparation. The USPTO database, particularly the USPTO-FULL dataset containing approximately two million reactions, serves as the primary source for training and evaluation [7]. However, raw data requires extensive preprocessing before model training. ORDerly, an open-source Python package, provides a reproducible framework for this crucial step, performing essential cleaning operations including molecule canonicalization, reaction role assignment, and removal of invalid entries [48].

Standardized dataset splits are essential for fair comparisons. Commonly used benchmarks include:

• USPTO-50K: Contains 50,000 reactions categorized into 10 reaction types [48].
• USPTO-MIT: Another standardized subset used for benchmarking [48].
• Retro*-190: A smaller, curated dataset of 190 molecules for evaluating planning efficiency [4].

For multi-step planning evaluation, convergent route datasets have been developed by processing USPTO data and industrial Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELNs) to identify synthesis routes with shared intermediates across multiple target molecules [28].

Key Performance Metrics

Tool evaluation encompasses multiple dimensions of performance:

• Top-1 Accuracy: The percentage of test cases where the model's first prediction matches the actual reactants [7].
• Success Rate: The proportion of target molecules for which a complete synthetic route to purchasable building blocks is found within a specified computational budget (e.g., 500 planning cycles) [4].
• Route Convergence: The ability to identify shared synthetic pathways for multiple target molecules, measured by the percentage of compounds synthesizable via common intermediates [28].
• Computational Efficiency: Measured through inference time or number of planning cycles required to find a valid route [4].

Comparative Performance Analysis of Retrosynthesis Tools

Single-Step Retrosynthesis Prediction Accuracy

Single-step prediction forms the foundational building block of multi-step planning. Recent models have demonstrated significant advances in Top-1 accuracy on standardized USPTO benchmarks.

Table 1: Top-1 Accuracy on USPTO Benchmarks for Single-Step Retrosynthesis

Model	Approach Type	USPTO-50K	USPTO-MIT	USPTO-FULL
RSGPT [7]	Template-free (LLM-based)	63.4%	-	-
RetroComposer [7]	Template-based	-	-	-
Graph2Edits [7]	Semi-template-based	-	-	-
NAG2G [7]	Template-free	-	-	-
SemiRetro [7]	Semi-template-based	-	-	-

RSGPT represents a significant leap forward, achieving 63.4% Top-1 accuracy on USPTO-50K by leveraging large-scale pre-training on 10 billion synthetically generated reaction datapoints, substantially outperforming previous models which typically plateaued around 55% [7]. This demonstrates how overcoming data scarcity through synthetic data generation can dramatically enhance prediction capabilities.

Multi-Step Retrosynthesis Planning Performance

Multi-step planning extends beyond single-step prediction to recursively decompose target molecules until commercially available starting materials are reached.

Table 2: Multi-Step Planning Performance on Retro-190 Dataset*

Method	Success Rate (500 iterations)	Average Solving Time	Key Innovation
Neurosymbolic Programming [4]	98.42%	-	Cascade/complementary reaction abstraction
EG-MCTS [4]	~95%	-	Monte Carlo Tree Search
PDVN [4]	~95%	-	Value Network guidance
Retro* [28]	-	-	A* search with neural guidance
Graph-based Multi-Step [28]	>90% (individual compound)	-	Convergent route planning

The neurosymbolic programming approach demonstrates superior performance, solving approximately three more retrosynthetic tasks than EG-MCTS and 2.9 more than PDVN on the Retro*-190 benchmark [4]. This method incorporates human-like learning mechanisms through wake, abstraction, and dreaming phases to continuously improve its performance by identifying reusable reaction patterns.

Convergent Synthesis Planning Capabilities

In real-world drug discovery, chemists often need to synthesize libraries of related compounds. Convergent synthesis planning addresses this need by identifying shared synthetic pathways.

Table 3: Convergent Route Planning Performance

Dataset	Individual Search Solvability	Convergent Search Solvability	Reactions Involved in Convergence
J&J ELN Data [28]	-	~30% more compounds	>70%
Public USPTO Data [28]	>90% (individual compound)	>80% (route success)	-

The graph-based multi-step approach demonstrates exceptional practical utility, enabling simultaneous synthesis of approximately 30% more compounds from Johnson & Johnson ELN data compared to individual search methods [28]. This capability is particularly valuable for medicinal chemistry workflows where exploring structure-activity relationships across compound libraries is essential.

Advanced Evaluation: The Round-Trip Score Metric

Beyond traditional metrics, a novel three-stage evaluation approach addresses the synthesizability gap in computationally generated molecules:

• Stage 1: A retrosynthetic planner predicts synthetic routes for target molecules [5].
• Stage 2: A forward reaction prediction model simulates the synthesis process from the proposed starting materials [5].
• Stage 3: The round-trip score (Tanimoto similarity) between the reproduced molecule and the original target quantifies synthesizability [5].

This metric overcomes limitations of traditional Synthetic Accessibility (SA) scores by verifying that not only can a route be proposed, but it can also be successfully executed in silico, providing a more realistic assessment of practical synthesizability [5].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource	Type	Function	Application in Retrosynthesis
RDKit [48]	Cheminformatics Library	Molecule canonicalization, SMILES processing	Preprocessing of reaction data
ORDerly [48]	Data Cleaning Pipeline	Extracts and cleans chemical reaction data from ORD	Preparation of ML-ready datasets
AiZynthFinder [5]	Retrosynthesis Planner	Finds synthetic routes using stock materials	Synthesizability evaluation
RDChiral [7]	Template Extraction Algorithm	Generates synthetic reaction data	Pre-training data generation for LLMs
Open Reaction Database (ORD) [48]	Structured Database	Schema for describing chemical reaction data	Centralized, standardized reaction data storage
ZINC Database [5]	Commercial Compound Catalog	Database of purchasable molecules	Defines available starting materials for routes

Visualizing Retrosynthesis Workflows

Neurosymbolic Programming Cycle

Round-Trip Score Evaluation

Convergent Synthesis Planning

This cross-tool performance assessment reveals significant advances in retrosynthesis planning capabilities, with modern algorithms achieving success rates exceeding 98% on standardized benchmarks and substantially improved prediction accuracy. The emergence of large language model architectures like RSGPT, neurosymbolic programming techniques, and convergent route planning represents the current state-of-the-art, each offering distinct advantages for different aspects of the drug discovery pipeline.

Critical gaps remain, particularly in ensuring that computationally proposed routes translate successfully to laboratory execution. The novel round-trip score metric addresses this limitation by incorporating forward reaction validation, providing a more comprehensive synthesizability assessment. As the field evolves, standardization of benchmarking methodologies and evaluation metrics will be crucial for meaningful cross-tool comparisons and continued advancement toward more reliable, efficient, and practically applicable retrosynthesis planning systems.

Retrosynthesis planning is a cornerstone of organic chemistry and drug discovery, aiming to deconstruct target molecules into available reactants. While single-step prediction models have achieved high accuracy, practical multi-step planning requires finding complete synthetic routes where all pathway endpoints are purchasable building blocks. This has traditionally relied on computationally intensive search algorithms, creating a significant bottleneck for high-throughput molecular design. This guide objectively compares the performance of modern retrosynthesis planning tools, with a focused analysis on a new method achieving a 3-5× reduction in the search iterations required for success.

Comparative Performance of Retrosynthesis Tools

The table below summarizes the key performance metrics of recent retrosynthesis tools across standard benchmark datasets.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Planning Tools

Model	Approach	Key Innovation	USPTO-50K Top-1 Accuracy	Search Efficiency / Key Metric
InterRetro [35]	Worst-path optimisation	Search-free inference via weighted self-imitation	Information missing	Solves 100% of Retro*-190 benchmark; uses only 10% of training data to reach 92% of full performance
RSGPT [3]	Generative Pre-trained Transformer	Pre-training on 10 billion synthetic data points	63.4%	Top-1 accuracy substantially outperforms previous models
RetroExplainer [40]	Interpretable Molecular Assembly	Multi-scale Graph Transformer & contrastive learning	Outperforms state-of-the-art on 12 datasets [40]	86.9% of its predicted single-step reactions correspond to literature-reported reactions
EditRetro [49]	Iterative String Editing	Framing retrosynthesis as a molecular string editing task	60.8%	Achieves a top-1 round-trip accuracy of 83.4%

Detailed Experimental Protocols

The InterRetro Framework and Workflow

InterRetro introduces a paradigm shift by reframing retrosynthesis as a worst-path optimization problem within a tree-structured Markov Decision Process (MDP). This focuses the model on improving the most challenging branch of a synthesis tree, which is often the critical point of failure [35].

Protocol 1: Worst-Path Optimisation with Self-Imitation [35]

• Problem Formulation: Model retrosynthesis as a tree MDP (\langle \mathcal{S},\mathcal{A},\mathcal{T},r,\mathcal{S}_{bb}\rangle), where a state (s \in \mathcal{S}) is a molecule, an action (a \in \mathcal{A}) is a chemical reaction, and the transition function (\mathcal{T}) maps a molecule and reaction to a set of reactant molecules.
• Agent Interaction: The single-step model (agent) interacts with the tree MDP environment to construct complete synthetic routes recursively.
• Subtree Identification: Successful subtrees are identified, where all leaf nodes correspond to commercially available compounds ((\mathcal{S}_{bb})).
• Weighted Self-Imitation Learning: The policy is fine-tuned to imitate its own past successful decisions from these subtrees. This process uses support constraints to keep the policy close to its original, chemically plausible distribution while preferentially reinforcing actions with high estimated advantage.
• Outcome: This iterative self-improvement allows the model to learn to generate complete, valid synthetic routes without any search during inference, eliminating the need for hundreds of model calls per molecule.

Benchmarking and Evaluation Methodology

The performance of retrosynthesis models is typically evaluated on standard datasets derived from patent literature, such as USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, and USPTO-MIT [40].

Protocol 2: Standard Model Evaluation [40] [49]

• Data Splitting: Employ the same data-splitting method as previous studies (e.g., based on reaction type or molecular similarity) to ensure fair comparison.
• Single-Step Prediction: Evaluate the model's core accuracy using top-k exact-match accuracy. This metric checks whether the set of reactants generated by the model exactly matches the known reactants from the test set.
• Multi-Step Planning: For full route planning, models are tasked with recursively decomposing a target molecule until all leaf nodes are purchasable.
  • Success Rate: The percentage of target molecules for which a valid synthetic route is found.
  • Route Length: The number of synthetic steps in the proposed route.
  • Validation: Proposed single-step reactions can be checked against known reactions in literature using search engines like SciFindern [40].

Visualizing Retrosynthesis Planning Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the core methodological shift from search-dependent planning to the search-free approach enabled by InterRetro's worst-path optimization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Reagents for Retrosynthesis Research

Research Reagent	Function in Experiments
USPTO Datasets [40] [3]	Curated datasets of chemical reactions from patents (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL). Serve as the primary benchmark for training and evaluating model performance and accuracy.
RDChiral [3]	An open-source algorithm for template extraction and application. Used to generate massive-scale synthetic reaction data for pre-training models, expanding the learned chemical space.
Tree-Structured MDP Framework [35]	A mathematical formulation that models the recursive branching nature of retrosynthesis. Provides the theoretical foundation for search algorithms and policy optimization.
Heuristic Search Algorithms [35]	Algorithms like Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) or A* search. Used to navigate the vast chemical space during multi-step planning to find viable synthetic routes.
Building Block Libraries [35]	Databases of commercially available chemical compounds (e.g., (\mathcal{S}_{bb})). Define the stopping condition for multi-step planning; a route is valid only if all leaf nodes are in this library.
SciFindern [40]	A scientific information search engine. Used to validate the plausibility of model-predicted reactions by checking for precedent in the existing chemical literature.

The field of AI-assisted retrosynthesis is rapidly evolving, with clear trends towards eliminating computational bottlenecks. The emergence of models like InterRetro, which achieve state-of-the-art success rates without search at inference time, represents a significant leap in efficiency. This shift, alongside advances in large-scale pre-training as demonstrated by RSGPT, is providing researchers and drug development professionals with increasingly powerful and practical tools for high-throughput synthetic planning.

This guide provides a comparative analysis of RetroExplainer against other contemporary retrosynthesis planning tools, focusing on experimental data and validation methodologies to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Tools

RetroExplainer demonstrates competitive performance against other state-of-the-art models across standard benchmark datasets. The table below summarizes the quantitative performance comparison.

Table 1: Top-k Exact Match Accuracy (%) on USPTO-50K Dataset

Model	Top-1 (Known)	Top-3 (Known)	Top-5 (Known)	Top-10 (Known)	Top-1 (Unknown)	Top-3 (Unknown)	Top-5 (Unknown)	Top-10 (Unknown)
RetroExplainer [6]	56.1	75.8	81.7	87.6	41.5	58.2	64.6	73.0
LocalRetro [6]	55.2	75.1	81.4	87.8	40.2	57.3	64.8	74.0
R-SMILES [6]	52.7	72.3	78.3	84.6	38.5	55.1	61.7	70.3
GTA [50]	52.5	70.0	75.0	80.9	-	-	-	-
Augmented Transformer [50]	48.3	67.1	73.2	79.6	-	-	-	-
Graph2SMILES [50]	51.2	70.8	76.4	82.4	-	-	-	-
RSGPT (2025) [3]	63.4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

RetroExplainer achieves the best performance in five out of nine metrics on the USPTO-50K dataset, particularly excelling in top-1 and top-3 predictions for both known and unknown reaction type scenarios [6]. The model's key differentiator is its 86.9% correspondence rate to literature-reported reactions when used for multi-step pathway planning, as validated by the SciFindern search engine [6]. The recently developed RSGPT model shows a higher standalone Top-1 accuracy (63.4%), benefiting from pre-training on 10 billion synthetic data points [3].

Experimental Protocols and Validation Methodologies

RetroExplainer's Multi-step Validation Protocol

• Objective: To validate the practical reliability of multi-step synthetic routes generated by RetroExplainer.
• Methodology:
  • Pathway Identification: RetroExplainer, integrated with the Retro* algorithm, identified 101 synthetic pathways for complex drug molecules [6].
  • Single-Reaction Validation: Each single-step reaction within the planned pathways was queried against the SciFindern scientific literature search engine to find reported precedents [6].
  • Correspondence Calculation: The percentage of single-step reactions that matched previously reported reactions in the literature was calculated. Among the 101 pathways, 86.9% of the individual reactions were confirmed to correspond to those already documented [6].
• Significance: This high correspondence rate indicates that RetroExplainer's predictions are highly consistent with established chemical knowledge and practices, providing confidence in the model's utility for real-world drug development applications.

Benchmarking Data Splitting Strategies

To ensure robustness and avoid scaffold bias, RetroExplainer's evaluation included similarity-based data splitting alongside traditional random splits [6].

• Standard Random Splits: Used for direct comparison with prior studies on USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, and USPTO-MIT [6].
• Tanimoto Similarity Splits: Nine data splitting types with similarity thresholds of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 were employed to prevent information leakage from highly similar molecules appearing in both training and test sets, providing a more rigorous assessment of model generalizability [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 2: Key Reagents, Solutions, and Computational Tools for Retrosynthesis Research

Item	Function / Application
USPTO Datasets	Benchmark datasets (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, USPTO-MIT) for training and evaluating retrosynthesis models [6].
SciFindern	A comprehensive scientific literature search engine used for validating predicted reactions against reported chemistry [6].
RDChiral	An open-source algorithm for reverse synthesis template extraction and reaction data generation [3].
AiZynthFinder	A software tool for multi-step retrosynthesis planning that utilizes Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [19].
SYNTHIA	A commercial software platform that employs a hybrid retrosynthesis approach, integrating chemist-encoded rules with machine learning [15].
SMILES	(Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) A string-based notation for representing molecular structures [50].
Reaction Templates	Expert-encoded or data-derived rules that describe transformation patterns in chemical reactions [3].
BRICS Method	A algorithm used to fragment molecules into smaller, chemically meaningful building blocks for generating synthetic data [3].

Workflow Diagrams of Retrosynthesis Approaches

RetroExplainer's Molecular Assembly Process

Template-Free & Semi-Template Retrosynthesis

Human-Guided Constrained Synthesis Planning

Retrosynthesis planning, the process of deconstructing complex target molecules into simpler, commercially available precursors, is a cornerstone of organic chemistry and drug discovery [51] [2]. The scalability and performance of computational retrosynthesis tools on complex molecular targets are critical for their real-world application, particularly in pharmaceutical development where molecules often possess intricate structures and stereochemistry [5]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art retrosynthesis tools, evaluating their performance on challenging benchmarks and complex drug-like molecules. We focus on quantitative metrics such as top-k accuracy, solvability, and route feasibility to objectively assess each tool's capabilities, providing researchers with data-driven insights for tool selection.

Performance Metrics and Benchmarking

Key Performance Indicators

Evaluating retrosynthesis tools requires multiple metrics to capture different aspects of performance:

• Top-k Accuracy: Measures whether the ground-truth reactants appear in the model's top-k predictions for single-step retrosynthesis [6] [51]. This is particularly important for template-free models that generate multiple potential pathways.
• Solvability: The ability of a multi-step planning algorithm to successfully find a complete route from target molecules to commercially available starting materials [2].
• Route Feasibility: A metric extending beyond simple solvability to assess the practical executability of generated routes in laboratory settings, calculated by averaging single step-wise feasibility scores [2].
• Round-trip Score: A novel metric that evaluates synthesizability by using forward reaction prediction to simulate whether starting materials can successfully undergo a series of reactions to reproduce the target molecule [5].

Benchmarking on Standardized Datasets

Standardized datasets enable direct comparison between different retrosynthesis approaches. The USPTO datasets (particularly USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL, and USPTO-MIT) serve as common benchmarks, though recent research emphasizes the importance of similarity-based splits to prevent data leakage and more rigorously evaluate model generalization [6].

Table 1: Top-1 Accuracy on USPTO-50K Dataset

Model	Approach Type	Top-1 Accuracy (%)	Reference
RSGPT	Template-free (LLM-based)	63.4	[3]
RetroExplainer	Molecular assembly	58.3 (reaction type known)	[6]
LocalRetro	Template-based	High performance (exact value not specified)	[6]
R-SMILES	Sequence-based	High performance (exact value not specified)	[6]
Graph2Edits	Semi-template-based	Not specified	[3]
NAG2G	Template-free (graph-based)	Not specified	[3]

Table 2: Multi-step Planning Performance on Complex Targets

Model	Planning Algorithm	Solvability (%)	Route Feasibility	Reference
RetroExplainer + Retro*	Molecular assembly + A* search	86.9% pathway validation	High (86.9% reactions literature-reported)	[6]
MEEA* + Default	MEEA* + template-based	~95%	Lower than Retro*-Default	[2]
Retro* + Default	A* search + template-based	Lower than MEEA*	Higher than MEEA*	[2]
Convergent Planning	Graph-based multi-target	>90% (individual compounds)	Enables 30% more simultaneous synthesis	[28]

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Single-step Retrosynthesis Models

Template-based Approaches Template-based methods like LocalRetro and AizynthFinder (AZF) rely on predefined reaction templates derived from known reactions [2] [52]. These approaches ensure chemical plausibility but may struggle with novel reactions outside their template libraries. The experimental protocol typically involves:

• Template extraction from reaction databases using tools like RDChiral [52]
• Template matching and ranking using neural networks
• Reactant generation through template application

Template-free Approaches Template-free methods, including RetroExplainer and RSGPT, directly generate potential reactants without relying on predefined templates [6] [3]. RetroExplainer formulates retrosynthesis as a molecular assembly process with interpretable actions, while RSGPT leverages large language models pre-trained on billions of synthetic reaction datapoints. The experimental workflow for template-free models typically involves:

• Molecular representation learning (using SMILES, graphs, or hybrid representations)
• Sequence-to-sequence or graph-to-sequence transformation
• Beam search decoding to generate multiple candidate reactants
• Validity checking and ranking of proposed reactants

Semi-template Approaches Semi-template methods like Graph2Edits represent a middle ground, identifying reaction centers first before completing the reactants [3]. These approaches balance the reliability of template-based methods with the flexibility of template-free approaches.

Multi-step Planning Algorithms

Search-based Planning Algorithms like Retro* employ A* search guided by neural networks to efficiently explore the retrosynthetic tree [2]. The cost function typically combines the accumulated synthetic cost with an estimated future cost predicted by a value network.

Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) EG-MCTS uses probabilistic evaluations to balance exploration and exploitation during route search, particularly effective for complex molecules with less obvious disconnections [2].

Convergent Planning Recent approaches address library synthesis by designing routes for multiple target molecules simultaneously, identifying shared intermediates to improve efficiency [28]. This graph-based approach differs from traditional single-target planning and better reflects real-world medicinal chemistry workflows.

Novel Evaluation Methods

Round-trip Validation Recent research proposes a three-stage approach to address the limitations of traditional solvability metrics [5]:

• Use retrosynthetic planners to predict synthetic routes
• Employ forward reaction prediction models to simulate the synthesis from starting materials
• Calculate Tanimoto similarity (round-trip score) between the reproduced molecule and the original target

Feasibility-integrated Assessment Rather than relying solely on solvability, comprehensive evaluation should incorporate route feasibility, which accounts for practical laboratory executability [2]. This combined metric better reflects real-world applicability.

Comparative Analysis of Leading Tools

Performance on Complex Drug Molecules

RetroExplainer demonstrates robust performance on complex targets, successfully identifying pathways for 101 complex drug molecules with 86.9% of single reactions corresponding to literature-reported reactions [6]. Key innovations include:

• Multi-sense and multi-scale Graph Transformer for comprehensive molecular representation
• Structure-aware contrastive learning for capturing structural information
• Dynamic adaptive multi-task learning for balanced optimization
• Interpretable molecular assembly process with energy decision curves

RSGPT leverages large-scale pre-training on 10 billion generated reaction datapoints, achieving state-of-the-art 63.4% top-1 accuracy on USPTO-50K [3]. Its strengths include:

• Generative pre-training transformer architecture based on LLaMA2
• Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) for improved template and reactant generation
• Extensive chemical knowledge acquisition from massive synthetic data

Retro-Expert introduces a collaborative reasoning framework combining large language models with specialized models [53]. This approach provides:

• Natural language explanations grounded in chemical logic
• Integration of shallow pattern recognition (specialized models) with deep logical reasoning (LLMs)
• Reinforcement learning to optimize interpretable decision policies

Specialized Capabilities for Complex Scenarios

Convergent Synthesis Planning For library synthesis, convergent planning approaches can synthesize almost 30% more compounds simultaneously compared to individual search strategies [28]. This is particularly valuable for medicinal chemistry workflows exploring structure-activity relationships.

Template Generation Methods Novel template generation approaches, such as Site-Specific Templates (SST), enable exploration beyond predefined reaction rules while maintaining reaction validity [52]. The conditional kernel-elastic autoencoder (CKAE) allows interpolation and extrapolation in template space, facilitating discovery of novel reactions.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource	Type	Function	Application in Retrosynthesis
USPTO Datasets	Chemical reaction data	Provides standardized benchmarks for training and evaluation	Model development and performance comparison [6] [3]
RDChiral	Software library	Template extraction and application from reaction data	Template-based prediction and synthetic data generation [3] [52]
AiZynthFinder	Software tool	Template-based retrosynthesis planning	Baseline comparisons and practical route prediction [5] [2]
ZINC Database	Chemical database	Source of commercially available compounds	Defining starting materials for multi-step planning [5]
RDKit	Cheminformatics toolkit	Molecule manipulation and reaction processing	Reactant validity checking and molecular operations [52]
Tanimoto Similarity	Algorithm	Molecular similarity calculation	Round-trip score calculation for synthesizability evaluation [5]

The scalability of retrosynthesis tools for complex molecular targets has significantly advanced through different methodological innovations. Template-free approaches like RSGPT and RetroExplainer demonstrate superior performance on standardized benchmarks, while template-based methods offer reliability for reactions within their coverage. For multi-step planning, algorithms like Retro* and MEEA* provide complementary strengths in solvability and feasibility, with convergent planning approaches offering particular advantages for library synthesis. The emerging emphasis on route feasibility and round-trip validation addresses crucial gaps between computational prediction and laboratory execution. As retrosynthesis tools continue to evolve, researchers should consider the specific requirements of their targets—whether novel scaffold exploration, library synthesis, or feasible route identification—when selecting the most appropriate tool for their drug development workflows.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis reveals significant advancements in retrosynthesis planning, with AI and LLM-based approaches like AOT* and RetroExplainer demonstrating remarkable efficiency gains and accuracy improvements over traditional methods. The integration of systematic search algorithms with chemical reasoning capabilities enables more reliable and practical synthesis planning. Future directions point toward increased interpretability, greener chemistry integration, and enhanced scalability for complex drug targets. These developments promise to substantially accelerate drug discovery timelines, reduce development costs, and facilitate more sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. As these tools continue evolving, their integration into mainstream drug development workflows will likely transform how researchers approach synthetic route design and optimization.

References

• 1. Computer-aided retrosynthetic design: fundamentals, tools, ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339821000538]
• 2. Retrosynthetic crosstalk between single-step reaction and ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01088-z]
• 3. RSGPT: a generative transformer model for retrosynthesis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62308-6]
• 4. A data-driven group retrosynthesis planning model ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55374-9]
• 5. Evaluating Molecule Synthesizability via Retrosynthetic ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2411.08306v2]
• 6. Retrosynthesis prediction with an interpretable deep- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41698-5]
• 7. RSGPT: a generative transformer model for retrosynthesis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12314115/]
• 8. Re-evaluating Retrosynthesis Algorithms with Syntheseus [https://arxiv.org/html/2310.19796v3]
• 9. Eliminating Hallucinations with a Diverse Ensemble of ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10645]
• 10. Artificial Intelligence for Retrosynthesis Prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922005665]
• 11. Bridging the gap between rule-based expert systems and ... [https://research.ibm.com/publications/bridging-the-gap-between-rule-based-expert-systems-and-machine-learning-in-computer-aided-retrosynthetic-design]
• 12. Rule-Based System in AI [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/artificial-intelligence/rule-based-system-in-ai/]
• 13. Rule-based vs. Machine Learning Systems [https://www.zucisystems.com/blog/the-conundrum-of-using-rule-based-vs-machine-learning-systems/]
• 14. Semi-template framework for retrosynthesis prediction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320325004856]
• 15. Revolutionizing Retrosynthesis with Computational Tools [https://www.the-scientist.com/revolutionizing-retrosynthesis-with-computational-tools-72994]
• 16. Could AI-enabled Retrosynthesis Lead to the Next Big ... [https://grace.com/insights/could-ai-enabled-retrosynthesis-lead-to-the-next-big-breakthrough/]
• 17. Retrosynthesis tools compared: SciFinder-n, Reaxys ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shiny-nandi_%F0%9D%97%AA%F0%9D%97%B5%F0%9D%97%B6%F0%9D%97%B0%F0%9D%97%B5-%F0%9D%97%A5%F0%9D%97%B2%F0%9D%98%81%F0%9D%97%BF%F0%9D%97%BC%F0%9D%98%80%F0%9D%98%86%F0%9D%97%BB%F0%9D%98%81%F0%9D%97%B5%F0%9D%97%B2%F0%9D%98%80%F0%9D%97%B6%F0%9D%98%80-%F0%9D%97%A7%F0%9D%97%BC%F0%9D%97%BC%F0%9D%97%B9-activity-7334937361916600321-TiOc]
• 18. AOT*: Efficient Synthesis Planning via LLM-Empowered ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.20988v1]
• 19. Human-guided synthesis planning via prompting [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc00927h]
• 20. Pre-trained molecular language models with random ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44387-025-00029-3]
• 21. Molecular representation learning: cross-domain foundations ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00170f]
• 22. The topology of molecular representations and its influence on ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01045-w]
• 23. Comparison study of dominant molecular sequence ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40679539/]
• 24. Inconsistency of LLMs in molecular representations [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00176e]
• 25. Molecular String Representation Preferences in Pretrained ... [https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.56/]
• 26. Group graph: a molecular graph representation with ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00933-x]
• 27. Unified and explainable molecular representation learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63730-6]
• 28. Improving route development using convergent retrosynthesis ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-00953-1]
• 29. Reasoning-Driven Retrosynthesis Prediction with Large ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.17448v1]
• 30. Retrosynthetic accessibility score (RAscore) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8179384/]
• 31. Computational Analysis of Synthetic Planning: Past and ... [https://www.synthiaonline.com/resources/white-paper/computational-analysis-of-synthetic-planning-past-and-future]
• 32. Investigating the reliability and interpretability of machine ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/dd/d4dd00007b]
• 33. Chemical reasoning in LLMs unlocks steerable synthesis ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.08537v1]
• 34. AOT*: Efficient Synthesis Planning via LLM-Empowered ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.20988]
• 35. Retrosynthesis Planning via Worst-path Policy Optimisation ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.10504v1]
• 36. Site-specific template generative approach for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52048-4]
• 37. Retrosynthesis: the reverse engineering of molecules [https://www.iptonline.com/collections/ipt-summer-2025/retrosynthesis-the-reverse-engineering-of-molecules]
• 38. Retrosynthesis prediction using an end-to-end graph ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38851-5]
• 39. A Dataset of Generic Transforms for Retrosynthetic Analysis [https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/3/2/14]
• 40. Retrosynthesis prediction with an interpretable deep-learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10547708/]
• 41. The Ultimate Guide to Interpretability in Machine Learning [https://morsoftware.com/blog/interpretability-in-machine-learning]
• 42. The future of AI regulation in drug development: a comparative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12598624/]
• 43. Directly optimizing for synthesizability in generative molecular ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc01476j]
• 44. Retrosynthesis Planning via Worst-path Policy Optimisation ... [https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2509.10504]
• 45. Top-k Accuracy [https://www.flowhunt.io/glossary/top-k-accuracy/]
• 46. Dissecting errors in machine learning for retrosynthesis [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d4dd00263f]
• 47. top_k_accuracy_score [https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.metrics.top_k_accuracy_score.html]
• 48. ORDerly: Data Sets and Benchmarks for Chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11094788/]
• 49. Retrosynthesis prediction with an iterative string editing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50617-1]
• 50. Single-step retrosynthesis prediction by leveraging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10147675/]
• 51. 7. Retrosynthesis - Hands-On Data Science for Chemists [https://data-chemist-handbook.github.io/pages/Retrosynthesis/]
• 52. Site-specific template generative approach for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11385523/]
• 53. Collaborative Reasoning for Interpretable Retrosynthesis [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.10967v1]