SMDD-Bench: Can LLMs Solve Real-World Small Molecule Drug Design Tasks?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to accelerate small molecule drug design due to their ability to reason about information from diverse sources and formats. However, their practical utility remains unclear due to the lack of benchmarks that reflect real-world scenarios. In this work, we introduce a suite of chemically-grounded tasks spanning molecular property prediction, molecular representation transformations, and molecular design. Importantly, we formulate these tasks as reinforcement learning (RL) environments, enabling a unified approach for evaluation and post-training. Across three model families, we find that frontier models are increasingly proficient at chemical tasks, but that there is significant room for improvement, especially in experimental settings with low data. Critically, we show that RL-based post-training can substantially improve performance. A smaller model post-trained on our environments becomes competitive with state-of-the-art frontier models, despite a significantly weaker base model. This suggests a practical route toward employing LLMs in drug discovery; by combining carefully-designed evaluation tasks with targeted post-training, we can both elucidate and close critical capability gaps.

Advances in large language models (LLMs) have recently opened new and promising avenues for small-molecule drug discovery. Yet existing LLM-based approaches for molecular generation often suffer from high rates of invalid and low-quality ligand candidates, a result of the syntactic limitations of current models with regard to molecular strings. In this paper, we introduce $\texttt{ToolMol}$, an evolutionary agentic framework for de novo drug design. $\texttt{ToolMol}$ combines a multi-objective genetic algorithm with an agentic LLM operator that iteratively updates the ligand population. We build a comprehensive toolbox of RDKit-backed functions that allows our agentic operator to consisently make precise ligand modifications. $\texttt{ToolMol}$ achieves state-of-the-art performance on multi-objective property optimization tasks, discovering drug-like and synthesizable ligands that have $>10\%$ stronger predicted binding affinity compared to existing methods, evaluated on three protein targets. $\texttt{ToolMol}$ ligands additionally achieve state-of-the-art results in gold-standard Absolute Binding Free Energy scores, gaining over existing methods by over $35\%$. By studying chain-of-thought reasoning traces, we observe that tool-calling enables the model to more faithfully execute its planned modifications, efficiently exploiting the strong chemical prior knowledge in LLMs.

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with five contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find no strong evidence that informal phrasing degrades output quality; it may, however, still be helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Finally, we extend the framework to 38 adversarial questions that are ambiguous, invalid, out-of-scope or ethically sensitive, and show that the agent's refusal behavior is guided by the stated intent of a request. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.