Materials synthesis planning (MSP) connects AI-driven materials discovery to experimental realization by proposing precursors, synthesis operations, and processing conditions for a target material. Existing approaches predict these components separately or in pairs and treat conditions only as a prediction target. Consequently, MSP remains centered on recipe prediction: it leaves unexplored how conditions can serve as process context for constructing synthesis routes, and it does not address which candidate routes should be executed under limited experimental resources. We propose CondMSP, which extends MSP from recipe prediction to execution-aware planning. CondMSP predicts temperature, time, and atmosphere by combining a joint predictor with variable-specific experts, and then uses these predictions both as process context, grounding the generation and retrieval of operation sequences, and as execution requirements, specifying which thermal stages can share a furnace run and at what cost. This specification is held fixed across all compared methods; within it, CondMSP ranks routes across precursor sets by a common utility and, under furnace budgets, jointly selects routes and allocates their thermal stages by constrained optimization. CondMSP improves condition and operation prediction and, under this shared constraint, raises reference-recipe recovery from 27.9% to 32.9% at three simulated furnace runs per target and from 34.7% to 40.0% at 30 trials, while a new evaluation set of 2,344 targets supports generalization beyond oxide-dominated training chemistry.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of CondMSP . (a) Predicted conditions connect operation prediction with resource-aware planning. (b) A joint LLM and variable-specific experts predict synthesis conditions. (c) Condition-grounded generation and condition-aware retrieval are fused into an SOP ranking. (d) MILP selects routes and allocates thermal stages under resource budgets. Recipes and numerical values are illustrative.
Temperature
Time
Atmosphere
Model
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Macro-F1 ↑
Huo et al. (2022)
151.76
195.29
13.11
25.64
N/A
SyntMTE ( Prein et al., 2025b )
171.79 ( ± 8.71)
217.60 ( ± 11.65)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Karpovich et al. (2023)
144.36 ( ± 0.23)
188.85 ( ± 0.03)
15.35 ( ± 0.25)
25.31 ( ± 0.34)
N/A
GBM experts
143.42
190.88
12.93
25.47
54.07
Joint LLM
138.68 ( ± 3.72)
203.13 ( ± 1.82)
13.92 ( ± 0.68)
26.58 ( ± 1.22)
63.56 ( ± 4.47)
Table 1: Synthesis condition prediction.
Method
Top-1
Top-3
Top-5
Top-10
Top-20
Top-30
Specialized Models
MPC ( He et al., 2023 )
3.74 ( ± 0.38)
9.69 ( ± 0.22)
13.58 ( ± 0.82)
19.46 ( ± 0.38)
25.82 ( ± 0.66)
32.39 ( ± 0.45)
SPENDE ( Na, 2023 )
6.68 ( ± 0.66)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MSP-LLM ( Noh et al., 2026 )
10.71 ( ± 0.13)
18.92 ( ± 0.23)
22.88 ( ± 0.76)
30.28 ( ± 0.19)
40.23 ( ± 0.56)
46.51 ( ± 0.29)
Large Language Models
GPT-5.4 mini (zero-shot)
0.00 ( ± 0.00)
0.05 ( ± 0.08)
0.16 ( ± 0.23)
2.72 ( ± 0.15)
7.73 ( ± 1.08)
11.00 ( ± 0.46)
Table 2: Synthesis operation prediction.
(a) Trial budget (number of syntheses tried)
(b) Furnace budget (runs ∣ hours)
Method
1
3
5
10
20
30
1 run
2 runs
3 runs
5 runs
10 runs
12 h
24 h
48 h
96 h
GPT-5.4 mini (end-to-end, 100-shot)
5.99 ( ± 0.31)
8.71 ( ± 0.46)
9.91 ( ± 0.31)
12.20 ( ± 0.00)
15.14 ( ± 0.31)
16.72 ( ± 0.85)
10.84 ( ± 0.39)
11.66 ( ± 0.15)
13.24 ( ± 0.54)
14.87 ( ± 0.69)
16.50 ( ± 0.69)
5.45 ( ± 0.15)
9.91 ( ± 0.00)
13.51 ( ± 0.31)
15.09 ( ± 0.85)
GPT-5.4 mini (PP → SOP, 100-shot)
7.19 ( ± 0.31)
8.61 ( ± 0.31)
9.97 ( ± 0.54)
12.69 ( ± 0.08)
15.80 ( ± 0.31)
18.08 ( ± 0.31)
12.64 ( ± 0.77)
12.31 ( ± 0.00)
14.81 ( ± 0.00)
17.27 ( ± 0.54)
18.08 ( ± 0.31)
6.37 ( ± 0.39)
11.22 ( ± 0.77)
15.31 ( ± 0.08)
17.27 ( ± 0.39)
GPT-4o mini (end-to-end, fine-tuned)
7.55 ( ± 0.31)
8.46 ( ± 0.67)
10.20 ( ± 0.33)
14.56 ( ± 0.77)
20.26 ( ± 0.98)
21.57 ( ± 1.04)
11.73 ( ± 0.23)
15.94 ( ± 1.06)
19.39 ( ± 1.00)
21.24 ( ± 1.00)
21.53 ( ± 1.09)
6.64 ( ± 0.11)
13.36 ( ± 0.38)
18.23 ( ± 0.62)
20.73 ( ± 1.14)
GPT-4o mini (PP → SOP, fine-tuned)
8.21 ( ± 0.25)
8.79 ( ± 0.25)
9.84 ( ± 0.33)
13.65 ( ± 0.69)
19.72 ( ± 0.58)
21.60 ( ± 0.54)
11.51 ( ± 1.11)
15.98 ( ± 0.45)
19.21 ( ± 0.74)
21.53 ( ± 0.41)
21.60 ( ± 0.54)
6.32 ( ± 0.11)
12.82 ( ± 0.27)
18.05 ( ± 0.35)
20.73 ( ± 0.77)
Candidate construction × route selection
Table 3: Material synthesis planning under trial and furnace budgets.
(a) Trial budget
(b) Furnace budget
Number of syntheses tried
Runs
Hours
Single-ref.
Multi-ref.
Single-ref.
Multi-ref.
Single-ref.
Multi-ref.
Method
1
3
5
10
20
30
1
3
5
10
20
30
1
2
3
5
10
1
2
3
5
10
12
24
48
96
12
24
48
96
GPT-5.4 mini (end-to-end, 100-shot)
3.94 ( ± 0.19)
5.64 ( ± 0.19)
6.42 ( ± 0.22)
7.87 ( ± 0.19)
9.73 ( ± 0.28)
10.73 ( ± 0.13)
15.74 ( ± 2.62)
17.59 ( ± 3.93)
20.37 ( ± 2.62)
25.00 ( ± 2.62)
25.93 ( ± 2.62)
30.09 ( ± 1.96)
6.48 ( ± 0.38)
7.76 ( ± 0.09)
8.99 ( ± 0.06)
10.00 ( ± 0.09)
10.51 ( ± 0.25)
24.07 ( ± 0.00)
26.85 ( ± 1.31)
27.78 ( ± 1.31)
28.24 ( ± 1.96)
29.63 ( ± 1.31)
2.71 ( ± 0.35)
5.50 ( ± 0.25)
8.32 ( ± 0.06)
9.97 ( ± 0.25)
6.48 ( ± 1.31)
12.04 ( ± 2.62)
20.83 ( ± 3.27)
28.24 ( ± 1.96)
GPT-5.4 mini (PP → SOP, 100-shot)
4.18 ( ± 0.03)
5.64 ( ± 0.06)
7.09 ( ± 0.41)
9.68 ( ± 0.35)
12.61 ( ± 0.19)
14.53 ( ± 0.38)
15.28 ( ± 0.65)
18.98 ( ± 1.96)
27.31 ( ± 1.96)
30.56 ( ± 0.00)
37.04 ( ± 1.31)
40.74 ( ± 1.31)
8.70 ( ± 0.09)
9.48 ( ± 0.06)
12.14 ( ± 0.09)
14.33 ( ± 0.28)
14.53 ( ± 0.38)
25.46 ( ± 1.96)
31.48 ( ± 1.31)
34.72 ( ± 0.65)
40.74 ( ± 1.31)
40.74 ( ± 1.31)
3.18 ( ± 0.13)
7.00 ( ± 0.16)
10.64 ( ± 0.44)
13.37 ( ± 0.57)
9.26 ( ± 0.00)
14.81 ( ± 1.31)
26.85 ( ± 0.00)
36.57 ( ± 0.65)
GPT-4o mini (end-to-end, fine-tuned)
4.01 ( ± 0.07)
4.22 ( ± 0.11)
4.76 ( ± 0.14)
7.53 ( ± 0.07)
13.07 ( ± 0.83)
17.68 ( ± 1.52)
15.74 ( ± 0.00)
16.05 ( ± 0.53)
17.28 ( ± 0.53)
20.06 ( ± 1.93)
30.25 ( ± 3.85)
37.65 ( ± 3.74)
5.38 ( ± 0.17)
9.21 ( ± 0.27)
14.52 ( ± 0.68)
17.49 ( ± 1.43)
17.68 ( ± 1.52)
19.14 ( ± 0.53)
22.84 ( ± 1.07)
33.95 ( ± 4.66)
37.65 ( ± 3.74)
37.65 ( ± 3.74)
2.50 ( ± 0.04)
6.51 ( ± 0.31)
11.55 ( ± 0.60)
14.88 ( ± 0.74)
5.25 ( ± 1.41)
13.58 ( ± 1.07)
25.00 ( ± 1.85)
33.64 ( ± 3.25)
Table 4: Material synthesis planning on the new target set under trial and furnace budgets. Single and Multi denote single-reference ( n=2,236 ) and multi-reference ( n=108 ) targets.
Table 10: Recipe characteristics of the original and new data.
Dataset (targets)
Ranking
Top-1
Top-2
Top-3
Top-5
Top-10
Original test (918)
Original beams
74.29
84.10
88.34
91.83
94.55
Distinct sets
74.29
84.42
88.78
92.16
94.55
New targets (2,344)
Original beams
83.19
87.41
89.93
91.68
93.90
Distinct sets
83.19
87.93
90.32
91.98
93.90
Appendix
Table 11: Shared precursor prediction.
Temperature
Model
Training data
Rows
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Huo et al. (2022)
Original split
6,228
152.84
197.16
Huo et al. (2022)
+ raw corpus ⋆
11,331
151.76
195.29
SyntMTE
Original split ⋆
6,228
171.79 ( ± 8.71)
217.60 ( ± 11.65)
SyntMTE
+ raw corpus
11,331
173.07 ( ± 2.83)
219.20 ( ± 2.53)
SyntMTE
Literature + LLM data
30,762
180.85 ( ± 5.72)
228.02 ( ± 10.78)
Appendix
Table 12: Training data for adapted condition baselines.
NED similarity
LCS-F1
Multiset-F1
Method
Top-10
Top-30
Top-10
Top-30
Top-10
Top-30
Specialized models
MPC
69.51±0.10
78.87±0.17
79.38±0.12
86.37±0.15
83.43±0.26
90.10±0.26
SPENDE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MSP-LLM
75.08±0.12
83.67±0.02
83.22±0.02
89.27±0.06
86.81±0.15
92.26±0.07
Large language models
Appendix
Table 13: Soft operation-sequence scores.
Oxide
Non-oxide
Elemental precursors
Method
1
10
30
1
10
30
1
10
30
MSP-LLM
6.23 ( ± 0.45)
20.10 ( ± 0.56)
30.30 ( ± 0.64)
3.71 ( ± 0.55)
8.81 ( ± 0.18)
17.47 ( ± 1.33)
3.61 ( ± 0.57)
8.72 ( ± 0.22)
17.59 ( ± 1.34)
GPT-4o mini (end-to-end, fine-tuned)
5.93 ( ± 0.07)
13.83 ( ± 0.13)
21.25 ( ± 1.79)
3.86 ( ± 0.07)
5.25 ( ± 0.28)
17.27 ( ± 1.56)
3.97 ( ± 0.10)
5.35 ( ± 0.29)
17.81 ( ± 1.59)
GPT-4o mini (PP → SOP, fine-tuned)
5.68 ( ± 0.32)
10.84 ( ± 0.58)
18.57 ( ± 0.13)
3.13 ( ± 0.06)
4.61 ( ± 0.17)
16.59 ( ± 0.87)
3.14 ( ± 0.07)
4.59 ( ± 0.17)
16.88 ( ± 0.91)
GPT-5.4 mini (end-to-end, zero-shot)
0.06 ( ± 0.09)
1.28 ( ± 0.18)
4.74 ( ± 0.18)
0.58 ( ± 0.18)
2.21 ( ± 0.14)
4.29 ( ± 0.09)
0.60 ( ± 0.19)
2.27 ( ± 0.09)
4.41 ( ± 0.09)
GPT-5.4 mini (end-to-end, 100-shot)
5.19 ( ± 0.45)
13.25 ( ± 0.45)
18.44 ( ± 0.36)
4.13 ( ± 0.23)
6.37 ( ± 0.14)
8.22 ( ± 0.14)
4.21 ( ± 0.28)
6.09 ( ± 0.09)
7.83 ( ± 0.28)
Appendix
Table 14: New-target recipe recovery by chemistry.
Comparison
Top-1
Top-3
Top-5
Top-10
Top-20
Top-30
CondMSP − CondMSP (w/o conditions)
+0.29 [ − 0.33, +0.91]
+0.98 [ − 0.04, +2.00]
+0.44 [ − 0.51, +1.42]
+1.60 [+0.29, +2.94]
+1.56 [+0.40, +2.76]
+2.03 [+0.65, +3.41]
CondMSP − MSP-LLM
+0.69 [+0.00, +1.42]
+1.20 [+0.07, +2.36]
+1.92 [+0.65, +3.27]
+3.96 [+2.29, +5.63]
+3.49 [+1.96, +5.05]
+2.54 [+0.98, +4.14]
Appendix
Table 15: Paired differences in SOP exact match (percentage points) on the 918 test targets with reference precursors. Each cell reports the mean difference and its 95% bootstrap confidence interval; positive values favor CondMSP .
Inference input
Top-10
Top-30
Conditions removed
29.96±0.33
45.28±0.45
Conditions shuffled across targets
30.28±0.95
44.73±1.09
Target-matched conditions
32.03±0.66
47.89±0.38
Appendix
Table 16: Sensitivity of SOP generation to condition context at inference (exact match, %; mean ± sample SD over three seeds).
Method
30-trial recovery (%)
CondMSP (w/o conditions)
37.87±0.82
CondMSP
40.01±0.35
Difference (pp) [95% CI]
+2.14 [0.91, 3.41]
Appendix
Table 17: Candidate-construction control at 30 trials on the same 918 test targets. Recovery is reported as mean ± sample SD across three SOP seeds. The final row reports the paired difference in percentage points and its 95% confidence interval.
Trials
Runs
Hours
Test set
Variant
1
10
30
1
3
10
12
48
96
Original
end-to-end
0.00 ( ± 0.00)
0.93 ( ± 0.08)
3.59 ( ± 0.31)
3.27 ( ± 0.15)
1.53 ( ± 0.15)
3.49 ( ± 0.31)
1.58 ( ± 0.08)
2.72 ( ± 0.00)
3.05 ( ± 0.15)
Original
PP → SOP
0.00 ( ± 0.00)
2.23 ( ± 0.08)
7.30 ( ± 0.31)
6.54 ( ± 0.15)
1.53 ( ± 0.31)
7.24 ( ± 0.23)
2.89 ( ± 0.39)
4.58 ( ± 0.15)
6.10 ( ± 0.15)
New (single)
end-to-end
0.36 ( ± 0.13)
1.63 ( ± 0.16)
3.94 ( ± 0.06)
2.42 ( ± 0.00)
1.97 ( ± 0.06)
3.49 ( ± 0.13)
1.01 ( ± 0.03)
2.57 ( ± 0.03)
2.91 ( ± 0.06)
New (single)
PP → SOP
0.11 ( ± 0.03)
2.59 ( ± 0.25)
8.27 ( ± 0.13)
5.75 ( ± 0.09)
2.21 ( ± 0.28)
8.25 ( ± 0.09)
1.59 ( ± 0.16)
4.85 ( ± 0.22)
6.28 ( ± 0.47)
New (multi)
end-to-end
1.39 ( ± 0.65)
7.41 ( ± 0.00)
14.81 ( ± 1.31)
9.72 ( ± 1.96)
10.65 ( ± 1.96)
12.50 ( ± 0.65)
4.63 ( ± 0.00)
9.26 ( ± 1.31)
10.19 ( ± 0.00)
Appendix
Table 18: Zero-shot synthesis planning with GPT-5.4 mini under trial and furnace budgets. New (single) and New (multi) denote single-reference ( n=2,236 ) and multi-reference ( n=108 ) targets of the new set.
Multi-step retrosynthesis planning is often considered solved once a route to purchasable starting materials is found, but such a route should also be practical in real-world chemistry. Recent LLM-based planners formulate this process as sequential decision-making over an AND-OR graph, yet typically expand a single molecule per turn and are optimized for solvability alone, leaving alternative routes uncompared across the multiple objectives that determine practicality before the search budget is committed. We introduce RetroPlanner, an LLM-based planner that jointly compares multiple routes to steer the search toward higher synthesizability, as measured by reaction plausibility, round-trip consistency, and starting-material price. RetroPlanner is trained to reason over chemical evidence: structural progress from the target molecule, bond changes and reaction classes, where candidate routes diverge from one another, and how they rank across multiple objectives. Experiments on multi-step retrosynthesis benchmarks demonstrate that RetroPlanner recovers more alternative routes than prior LLM-based planners while improving synthetic route quality and maintaining a high success rate.
Ye Rin Kim, Yongjun Jeong, Seongjun Yun +4
Korea University, Department of Artificial Intelligence · Korea University, Department of Statistics
Retrosynthetic planning seeks to connect a target molecule to commercially available starting materials through a multistep route. Classical planners construct such routes by iteratively applying single-step reaction models within a search procedure; constrained variants often require specialized algorithms or architectural changes. Direct route generation reframes retrosynthesis as sequence generation, but existing direct-generation methods still train separate models for different planning specifications. We introduce Ariadne, a decoder-only route generator that represents the target, optional constraints, and route in one prompt-completion sequence. On the RetroCast/PaRoutes mkt-cnv-160 benchmark family, one 24-layer checkpoint follows route-depth and required-starting-material prompts: adding the corresponding prompt fields raises Solv-0 by 13.7 points for depth constraints and 31.2 points for required-leaf constraints. Ariadne also improves over DESP, a bidirectional search planner, on required-leaf Top-10 and Solv-0 in 24 GPU-minutes versus 6.8 GPU-hours. On standard reconstruction, Ariadne is comparable to DMS Explorer XL at about half the reported inference time. Across additional target-only benchmarks, Ariadne's clearest gains are on route-holdout reconstruction, whereas AiZynthFinder MCTS remains stronger on several Solv-0 comparisons. These results extend sequence generation from specialist retrosynthesis models to prompt-conditioned structural route generation. We release the codebase and training scripts to support further work, but do not introduce Tier-1--3 route checkers; those remain the main bottleneck before models of this kind can become useful to experimental chemists.
Reaction condition recommendation sits immediately after retrosynthetic disconnection selection, and in practice, chemists require both accurate predictions and the precedents that justify them. We present HiRes (Hierarchical Reaction Representations), a retrieval-augmented condition recommendation system whose learned reaction space serves as both a classifier feature and an inspectable precedent memory. The model combines a graph encoder, transformation-aware cross-attention, multi-stream reaction fusion, and a k-NN retrieval layer. HiRes achieves state-of-the-art performance among primary-slot USPTO-Condition models, reaching Catalyst, Solvent, and Reagent top-1 accuracies (Acc@1) of 0.929, 0.534, and 0.530 respectively. It ties the best reported baseline on Catalyst while outperforming models such as REACON on Solvent and Reagent. Furthermore, paired bootstrap analysis demonstrates that integrating retrieval with learned condition heads provides statistically significant gains for solvent and reagent selection over purely parametric approaches. Ultimately, HiRes bridges the gap between predictive accuracy and chemical interpretability, offering a single representation that supplies both competitive recommendations and the concrete chemical precedents necessary for practical synthesis planning.
Shreyas Vinaya Sathyanarayana, Raja Sekhar Pappala, Deepak Warrier