R-GroundBench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for R-Group Groundingin Markush Molecular Editing

Chemical structures appear in patents and the scientific literature as images. For programmatic usage, such as indexing in databases or constructing machine learning model training sets, they must be transformed into line notations. The two common forms of this task are translating an image of a single molecule (optical chemical structure recognition - OCSR) and translating a Markush structure that represents a family of molecules. While prior work in the former case is quite mature, Markush structure parsing remains a challenging task. In this work, we treat both tasks as an image-to-text translation problem. We then propose OCSRGlyph, a state-of-the-art OCSR model, improving performance over prior methods by carefully considering stereochemistry. For the Markush task, we introduce MarkushGlyph, a vision-language model that reads the entire Markush structure as an image. This contrasts with prior systems, which often use multiple stages to separately process visual and text input content. Finally, we introduce a new metric for determining the accuracy of Markush structure translations, handling failure modes present in prior metrics.

Large language models are increasingly used as chemistry assistants, yet most chemistry benchmarks still score only final answers. This masks a critical failure mode: a model may output the correct molecule, product, or option while its reasoning violates chemical logic. Existing process-level evaluators are hard to scale because LLM judges and human step-level process annotation are costly, inconsistent, and vulnerable to hallucination. We introduce ChemCoTBench-V2, a rule-verifiable diagnostic benchmark for low-cost, auditable evaluation of structured, verifier-addressable chemical reasoning traces. It spans molecular understanding, molecule editing, molecular optimization, and reaction prediction, with 5,620 evaluation samples across 18 reporting tasks. Models must expose key intermediate steps in expert-designed templates, and those steps are checked with deterministic chemistry rules and, for closed-answer tasks, reference traces rather than another LLM judge. Open-ended molecular optimization is evaluated with oracle-verifiable state constraints rather than strict trace matching. The benchmark reports three separate signals: final-answer correctness, template adherence, and step-wise verifier correctness over expert-refined intermediate commitments. Experiments on frontier models reveal a persistent gap between final-answer success and structured-reasoning-state consistency: models often follow the requested format while failing chemical-step checks, or answer correctly with weak supporting reasoning. ChemCoTBench-V2 enables fine-grained model comparison and identifies the concrete step at which the trace first violates the verifier.

Chemical reasoning language models are expected to derive molecular answers through faithful chain-of-thought (CoT). However, across four reasoning model families and twelve chemistry tasks, hallucination is widespread and largely decoupled from answer correctness: correct answers often coexist with fabricated structural claims absent from the relevant molecules. Yet this does not make the reasoning trace computationally irrelevant. Attribution analyses suggest a shared scratchpad function expressed in model-specific forms: Chem-R and ether-0 rely on fragmented SMILES drafts, whereas ChemDFM-R emphasizes scaffold, positional, and naming cues. Notably, perturbing Chem-R's SMILES sketches degrades generation, showing that structural drafts can be causally load-bearing even when verbal structural claims are largely inert. Together, these results show that chemical CoT is neither a faithful explanation nor merely a post-hoc rationalization, but a hallucination-prone molecular scratchpad. This finding cautions against treating CoT as direct evidence of faithful reasoning and motivates process-level supervision beyond answer-only evaluation.