AromaGen: Interactive Generation of Rich Olfactory Experiences with Multimodal Language Models
Authors: Awu Chen, Silang Wang, Yunge Wen, Jianing Yu, Zinab Eisa, Ana Julia Santos Lopes, Jas Brooks, Hiroshi Ishii, Paul Pu Liang
Organizations: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA, USA · University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA · Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA, USA · Harvard GSD/SEAS, Cambridge, MA, USA · Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA · MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, MA, USA
Smell's connections with food, memory, and social experience have motivated researchers to bring olfaction into interactive systems. Multimodal AI opens new possibilities for generating smells from natural language, yet it remains unclear whether pretrained models encode sufficient olfactory knowledge to translate language into perceptible compositions. We present AromaGen, an AI-powered 12-channel wearable olfactory system that maps free-form natural-language descriptions to 12 base odorants selected to cover a semantically derived olfactory space, while supporting iterative refinement through natural-language feedback. In a between-subjects study (N=60) across 50 real-world benchmark smells, participants distinguished AromaGen-generated target smells above chance in a three-alternative forced-choice task, with retrieval-augmented AI composition performing comparably to human-expert composition and zero-shot AI composition. Natural-language feedback significantly improved the perceived similarity of both AI- and human-expert compositions. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of using pretrained multimodal AI, with human aroma composition data, to generate perceptible olfactory experiences from natural language.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. AromaGen maps a free-form natural-language description of a desired olfactory experience to a 12-dimensional odorant ratio vector over 12 base odorants, physically rendered through a neck-worn olfactory display, and supports iterative refinement through free-form natural-language feedback.
Figure 2. Two-dimensional describable olfactory space of English smell descriptors, grouped into 12 perceptually informed clusters (same color indicates the same cluster). X-axis represents the pleasantness / unpleasantness axis, Y-axis represents the concrete odor source / abstract evaluative axis.
#
Odorant
Cluster
Notes
1
Benz Sal
Perfumed / Clean
Soft floral, powdery, balsamic
2
Sandalwood
Woody / Resinous
Creamy, warm wood
3
Clove Bud (50%) + Cumin (50%)
Spice
Warm pungent clove, earthy cumin
4
Lavender (50%) + Rose (50%)
Floral
Herbaceous lavender, dewy rose
5
Orange (50%) + Lemon (50%)
Citrus
Sweet-tart citrus
6
Vanilla Sugar (50%) + Almond Extract (50%)
Sweet / Gourmand
Creamy vanilla, marzipan almond
Table 1. The 12 base odorants in the live AromaGen palette. The palette was selected to span diverse regions of the describable olfactory space under the 12-channel hardware constraint. Composite odorants were prepared by combining their constituent materials in the proportions shown. A 12-row palette table. Each row has a channel number, the odorant or composite blend, the matching olfactory cluster, and a short sensory note. Six rows are single materials and six are fixed blends of two or three oils.
Figure 3. The AromaGen composition pipeline. Users describe a desired olfactory experience through text or speech. The model combines pretrained knowledge with retrieved human aroma composition data to produce a 12-dimensional odorant-ratio vector over the 12 base odorants. The wearable renders the mixture, after which users can iteratively refine it through natural-language feedback.
Olfactory Cluster
Real-World Smell Targets
Floral
Lavender; rose; jasmine tea; peony and rose oil shampoo
Citrus
Orange; mango; lemonade; lime soda (Sprite)
Woody & Resinous
Birch; patchouli; whiskey and oak candle; incense
Herbal & Cooling
Basil; cucumber; peppermint tea; mint chewing gum
Spice
Ginger; black pepper; chai tea; cinnamon roll
Sweet & Gourmand
Coke; dark chocolate; apple pie; sweet popcorn; chocolate and marshmallow Pop-Tarts
Table 2. The 50 real-world smell targets used in the comparative user study, organized by AromaGen ’s 12 olfactory clusters.
Figure 4. An example of AromaGen ’s iterative refinement: the model decomposes a natural-language request, maps it onto perceptual qualities, and allocates a 12-dimensional odorant-ratio vector over the 12 base odorants. Spoken feedback (e.g., “less sour”) is applied as an in-context revision of the current mixture.
Figure 5. Experimenter-facing web interface for AromaGen : natural-language input (text or speech), a visualization of the 12-dimensional odorant-ratio vector, playback on the wearable, and natural-language feedback. Image input is supported by the architecture but was not evaluated.
Figure 6. AromaGen hardware, with 12 cartridges containing 12 base odorants
Figure 7. The 50 physical odor sources used as references for our real-world benchmark smells across 12 olfactory clusters, presented in odorless paper portion cups. Each row corresponds to one olfactory cluster, with odor sources ordered from left to right.
Expert
Background
Overall
Highest-rated clusters
Lowest-rated cluster
1
Barista and taste researcher
4.22 (1.36)
Chemical & Solvent 5.75; Citrus 5.50
Fermented & Sour 2.50
2
Pastry chef
5.40 (0.90)
Chemical & Solvent 6.50; Citrus 5.75; Woody & Resinous 5.75
Roasted & Smoky 4.50
3
Perfumer
3.86 (0.93)
Citrus 4.50; Woody & Resinous 4.50
Putrid & Decay 2.75
Table 3. Mean 7-point similarity of each expert’s final compositions. Overall is the mean (SD) across all 50 targets. Cluster values are that expert’s mean rating for targets in the named cluster. A three-row table of expert elicitation ratings. Expert 1, a barista and taste researcher, averaged 4.22. Expert 2, a pastry chef, averaged 5.40. Expert 3, a perfumer, averaged 3.86. The highest-rated clusters were Chemical and Solvent, Citrus, and Woody and Resinous. The lowest-rated clusters were Fermented and Sour, Roasted and Smoky, and Putrid and Decay.
Figure 8. Overview of the comparative user study procedure across AromaGen composition, human-expert composition, and AromaGen zero-shot composition.
Figure 9. Comparative user study procedure. 1. Study environment. 2. Physical odor presentation. 3. Logging similarity ratings in AromaGen interface. 4. Capturing natural language based feedback in AromaGen interface.
Figure 10. 3-AFC test accuracy by composition condition ( N=60 ; 240 trials per condition). Accuracy was above chance across all three conditions ( AromaGen : 70.8%; Expert: 69.6%; AromaGen zero-shot: 63.7%), with no statistically significant differences between conditions.
Figure 11. Phrase cloud of participants’ natural-language feedback. Feedback commonly expressed directional changes to perceptual qualities ("more", "less" etc), relational comparisons to desired smells ("similar", "more like" etc), and uncertainty or approximation ("don’t know", "maybe" etc), illustrating how participants could steer generated smells without explicitly specifying odorants or compositional changes.
Figure 12. Three-alternative forced-choice identification accuracy by olfactory cluster, pooled across conditions (N = 60, 720 trials). (Left) Identification accuracy by smell cluster; all 12 clusters exceed chance (33%), ranging from 83% (Chemical & Solvent) to 45% (Sweet & Gourmand). (Right) Similarity ratings before and after spoken feedback for AromaGen and Human Expert; both conditions show a significant increase in perceived similarity following feedback ( AromaGen : 4.09→4.65; Human Expert: 3.79→4.05).
Figure 13. Percentage of compositions containing each of the 12 base odorants, by generation condition ( AromaGen , Human Expert Elicitation, AromaGen Zero-shot). Usage patterns differ notably by condition; Human-expert compositions rely most heavily on a small number of signature odorants (e.g., Orange + Lemon, 53%), while AromaGen Zero-shot spreads usage most evenly across the palette
Figure 14. Word cloud of participants’ freely generated target aroma, spanning nature ("forest", "mountain" etc), edibles ("kimchi", "sauce" etc), chemicals ("laundry", "detergent" etc.), places ("Colombia", "Seoul" etc), people ("grandma", "sister" etc) and more.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
AI+RAG
Expert
Zero-shot AI
Demographic forms ( n )
20
20
19
Women
17
9
12
Men
3
11
7
Age 25–34
10
9
12
English not primary
5
10
7
Ethnicity
Appendix
Table 4. Participant demographics across conditions in the comparative study. Demographic data were available for 20 participants in the AI+RAG and Expert conditions and 19 participants in the zero-shot AI condition.
Odorant
Type
Brand
Ingredients / Formula
Cumin
Essential Oil
Silky Scents
100% pure Cumin seed oil ( Cuminum cyminum )
Eucalyptus
Essential Oil
Creative Flavours & Fragrances
Eucalyptus essential oil ( Eucalyptus spp.)
Onion
Powder
Badia
Onion powder
Ylang Ylang
Essential Oil
White Naturals
Pure Ylang Ylang essential oil; 1 fl oz
Sichuan Oil (Linalool)
Essential Oil
Creative Flavours & Fragrances
High concentration of Linalool derived from Sichuan peppercorns, providing a woody, floral, and citrus-spicy top note.
Red Clover
Tincture
Cambridge Naturals
Organic Red Clover flowering tops ( Trifolium pratense ); grain alcohol (45–55% by volume); deionized water; herb strength ratio 1:3
Appendix
Table 5. Sources and compositions of the 12 base odorants used in AromaGen ’s palette.
Multimodal generation creates coordinated text, images, audio, video, 3D, and other outputs from mixed inputs while preserving meaning and consistency.
Images tell us what a scene looks like, but rarely what it would feel like to be there. While recent datasets pair visual scenes with electronic-nose measurements, aligning smell signals with images remains challenging because many olfactory cues arise from contextual environmental factors that are not directly visible in pixels. We introduce SCENT, a multimodal framework that uses language guidance as a semantic bridge between vision and olfaction. Our approach leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to generate scene descriptors capturing objects, environmental context, and plausible ambient smell cues suggested by the visual scene. These descriptors provide semantic guidance for learning olfactory representations. We train a smell encoder that maps electronic-nose signals into a shared embedding space aligned with both visual and textual representations, and introduce a languageguided latent decomposition that separates object-specific odors from contextual environmental contributions. Experiments on the New York Smells dataset demonstrate that SCENT significantly improves crossmodal retrieval compared to vision-only baselines, achieving state-of-theart performance on smell-to-image and smell-to-text retrieval tasks. In addition, our framework produces interpretable olfactory representations that enable the disentanglement of complex smell mixtures. Our results reveal the importance of contextual semantic information for grounding olfactory perception in multimodal learning and pave the way for future research in this area.
Here we introduce the Olfactory Perception (OP) benchmark, designed to assess the capability of large language models (LLMs) to reason about smell. The benchmark contains 1,010 questions across eight task categories spanning odor classification, odor primary descriptor identification, intensity and pleasantness judgments, multi-descriptor prediction, mixture similarity, olfactory receptor activation, and smell identification from real-world odor sources. Each question is presented in two prompt formats, compound names and isomeric SMILES, to evaluate the effect of molecular representations. Evaluating 21 model configurations across major model families, we find that compound-name prompts consistently outperform isomeric SMILES, with gains ranging from +2.4 to +18.9 percentage points (mean approx +7 points), suggesting current LLMs access olfactory knowledge primarily through lexical associations rather than structural molecular reasoning. The best-performing model reaches 64.4% overall accuracy, which highlights both emerging capabilities and substantial remaining gaps in olfactory reasoning. We further evaluate a subset of the OP across 21 languages and find that aggregating predictions across languages improves olfactory prediction, with AUROC = 0.86 for the best performing language ensemble model. LLMs should be able to handle olfactory and not just visual or aural information.
Eftychia Makri, Nikolaos Nakis, Laura Sisson +4
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA · Human Nature Lab, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA · Patina, New York, NY, USA +1
While modern multimodal models integrate vision with language, audio, or touch, olfaction remains largely unexplored due to the lack of paired visuo-olfactory data. We introduce SmellNet-V, a scalable visuo-olfactory dataset built on the insight that odor identity is largely invariant to visual transformations within a semantic category. This allows us to synthetically pair smell-only samples with semantically aligned in-the-wild web images, converting a unimodal olfactory dataset into a cross-modal benchmark without costly co-collection. Building on this dataset, we propose See & Sniff, a self-supervised framework that learns joint visuo-olfactory representations via dense local alignment and naturally produces smell saliency maps for spatial grounding of odor sources. We further introduce pixel-level smell localization task and a benchmark for evaluation. Our method surpasses smell-only baselines by 7% in smell classification from smell alone and generalizes to cross-modal retrieval and smell localization, establishing visuo-olfactory learning as a new direction in multimodal perception.
Seongyu Kim, Seungwoo Lee, Hyeonggon Ryu +2
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea · Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea · Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea