TMCS: Tool-Grounded Multi-Agent Reasoning for Compositional Chemical Problem Solving

Chemistry questions often demand exact computation and database lookups that a language model cannot supply from its parameters, so it must reach for external tools. Tool use here is a three-part problem: select the right tool from a large pool, fill it with correctly typed arguments, and chain calls so that each consumes the outputs of the last. CheMatAgent, a previously published system, addresses this with hierarchical evolutionary MCTS: separate policy and execution models searching tool-call trees under two learned critics, one regressed partly onto GPT-assigned scores. We show that a single policy suffices. Our model interleaves reasoning, tool calls, and returns in one left-to-right generation, trained by a supervised warm-up and then outcome-level reinforcement learning against a programmatic reward read directly off the gold call chain, which leaves no learned critic and no judge in the training loop. On ChemToolBench multiple-tool comprehensive chemistry, on both backbones CheMatAgent use, we improve Tool F1 by 5.5% and Return F1 by 9.6% on Qwen-2.5-7B, and by 3.7% and 3.9% on Llama-3.1-8B, compared with their strongest search configuration, at one model invocation per question, against a search whose cost grows with the tree; we also lead answer Pass Rate on Qwen-2.5-7B.

Artificial intelligence in molecular science must move beyond pattern recognition toward chemically valid and interpretable reasoning. We present a task-adaptive large reasoning model that integrates chemical knowledge through a synergistic multispecialist architecture, chain-of-thought supervision, and molecule-informed reinforcement learning. Task-conditioned routing coordinates prediction and inference specialists across 10 molecular tasks spanning molecular description and generation, nomenclature translation, property prediction, and reaction prediction. The model outperforms more than 20 general-purpose and molecular large language models, improves aggregate performance over the base model by 50.3%, and surpasses the leading molecular multitask baseline on most tasks. Analyses of specialist representations and reasoning pathways reveal task-specific adaptation while retaining interpretable chemical inference. A case study further demonstrates an integrated workflow for central nervous system candidate generation, property screening, molecular interpretation, and retrosynthetic planning. These results demonstrate a versatile multi-task framework for knowledge-guided molecular reasoning and design, with the potential to serve as a core task engine for future molecular science agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable as tool-using agents, with benchmarks spanning diverse general agentic tasks. Yet rigorous evaluation of scientific tool use remains limited. In chemistry, recent agents can plan syntheses and invoke domain-specific tools, but evaluations often rely on curated demonstrations, expert assessment, or LLM-as-judge scoring rather than exact, judge-free ground truth. We address this gap with chemical procurement cost estimation, a practical task in which an agent must ground chemical identities, retrieve supplier quotes, select valid purchasable packs, normalize quantities, and compute cost from a reaction description. We introduce ChemCost, a benchmark of 1,427 evaluable reactions grounded to a frozen pricing snapshot covering 2,261 chemicals and 230,775 supplier quotes, supporting scalar scoring and stage-level diagnosis of grounding, retrieval, procurement, and arithmetic failures. To evaluate robustness, we further construct controlled noise-injected views that perturb chemical aliases, quantity expressions, missing fields, and input formatting. Experiments with frontier, open-weight, and chemistry-specialized LLM agents show that tool access is necessary but insufficient for solving the task. The strongest agents reach only 50.6% accuracy within 25% relative error on clean inputs and degrade substantially with realistic noise. Stage-level analysis further shows that failures arise from brittle parsing, ineffective evidence integration, invalid pack selection, and non-convergent tool use.