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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Since routes that dominate the agent’s returned routes on reaction plausibility, round-trip consistency, and starting-material price are often already exposed during search but left unexpanded, RetroPlanner recovers them by jointly expanding multiple frontier molecules and comparing them in a single multi-objective decision per turn.
Figure 2: Planning on the same target under three expansion patterns, corresponding to the strategies analyzed in Section 4.1 . (a) Single-route expansion extends one route per turn, as in Retro-R1. (b) Sequential multi-route expansion grows several routes, but each turn opens and ranks one frontier molecule, as in RetroAgent. (c) Parallel multi-route expansion, used by RetroPlanner , runs three stages per turn: open selects multiple molecules from the frontier set Ot to expand at once, rank jointly orders the reaction candidates of the opened molecules for expansion through multi-objective reasoning over reaction plausibility (P), round-trip consistency (RT), and starting-material price (C). done commits routes whose leaves are all in the building-block set BB .
Figure 3: (a) Multi-objective reasoning. Reaction candidates are compared on three primary decision signals and auxiliary signals, which are referenced to order the candidates of each molecule. (b) Reasoning trace construction. Structural and reaction-level evidence is collected for the target and its candidates; a teacher LLM writes the MOLECULE / DISCONNECTIONS / DECIDING trace from that evidence, and each field is verified against the search graph, with detected inconsistencies returned as repair feedback until the trace passes.
Method
Search Outcome
Route Quality
Success Rate ↑
Routes ↑
Better-Than-Ref ↑
Plausibility ↑
Round-Trip ↑
Price ↓
USPTO-190
Search Algorithms
MCTS
44.74%
16.88
27.89%
43.33%
25.88%
391.19
Retro*-0
52.63%
29.55
34.21%
49.16%
38.99%
328.02
Retro*
57.89%
33.34
38.95%
54.93%
41.64%
281.53
Table 1: Main results on multi-step retrosynthesis planning on USPTO-190 and ChEMBL-1000 with search budget NB=50 . Search Outcome measures whether and how many routes are found, Route Quality evaluates the found routes on reaction plausibility, round-trip consistency, and starting-material price. Better-Than-Ref is N/A on ChEMBL-1000, which provides no reference routes. Best and second-best results per dataset are shown in bold and underlined .
Figure 4: Overall search time versus molecules opened per rollout. Although the two multi-route arms open a comparable number of molecules per episode, Sequential spends more time per molecule than Parallel .
Variant
Schema
Rel.
Par.
Search Outcome
Diversity
Quality
M
D
C
div
ord
Succ. ↑
Routes ↑
1stCutDiff ↑
1stCuts ↑
BTR ↑
L0
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.989
4.78
0.628
2.79
0.720
L1
✓
–
–
–
–
L0
0.989
( +0.000 )
5.49
( +0.71 )
0.691
( +0.063 )
3.15
( +0.36 )
0.769
( +0.049 )
L2
✓
✓
–
–
–
L1
0.995
( +0.006 )
5.53
( +0.04 )
0.722
( +0.031 )
3.16
( +0.01 )
0.742
( −0.027 )
L3-div
✓
✓
✓
✓
–
L2
0.989
( −0.006 )
5.78
( +0.25 )
0.726
( +0.004 )
3.34
( +0.18 )
0.720
( −0.022 )
L3-ord
✓
✓
✓
–
✓
L2
0.979
( −0.016 )
5.08
( −0.45 )
0.756
( +0.034 )
3.20
( +0.04 )
0.737
( −0.005 )
Table 3: Ablation on the reasoning schema on USPTO-190, with all variants run under the same search budget of at most NB=300 . Schema blocks: M = MOLECULE , D = DISCONNECTIONS , and C = DECIDING . The Rel. columns indicate the diverging from ( div ) and ordered by ( ord ) subfields of DECIDING . Par. denotes the parent variant from which each delta is computed. Best results are in bold .
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Training
Base model
GPT-OSS-20B
Train / val trajectories
3,142 / 64
Epochs
2
Steps
429
Batch size
4 (packed, ∼ 393K tokens)
Appendix
Table 6: Training and decoding hyperparameters for RetroPlanner .
Method
Success Rate (%) at Search Budget NB
NB=50
NB=100
NB=200
NB=300
NB=400
NB=500
USPTO-190
Search Algorithms
MCTS
44.74
52.11
58.95
67.89
71.58
72.11
Retro*-0
52.63
59.47
63.68
70.00
72.11
74.74
Retro*
57.89
64.21
71.58
79.47
80.53
84.74
Appendix
Table 7: Success rate (%) under increasing search budgets on USPTO-190 and ChEMBL-1000, with R-SMILES as the single-step model for all methods. The search budget NB is the number of unique single-step model calls. Best and second-best results are in bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 5: Left: Attention from action tokens to the route rows of the input search graph, under different contents of the reasoning field. Attention is highest when the field holds the instance’s own analysis, compared with no reasoning before or after training, meaningless text, or the analysis of another instance. Right: Attention from diverging from tokens to the rows of the search graph in two examples. Attention concentrates on the referenced route (orange) rather than the current branch (green).
Figure 6: From step-level decisions to route-level objectives for a single target. Left: Routes recovered by RetroPlanner on three route-level objectives: the fraction of steps with plausibility p≥0.05 , the fraction of steps with round-trip consistency rt≤5 , and the total starting-material price c , where lower is better. Pareto-optimal routes are shown in red and dominated routes in gray. Right: A Pareto-optimal route (A) and a dominated route (B) for the same target. Each reaction is annotated with its p , rt , and building-block price, and ▲ marks the objective that separated the leading candidates at that step. In route A, choices justified by different objectives at each step combine into a route that is not dominated on any objective.
Multi-step retrosynthesis planning seeks to decompose a target molecule into commercially available building blocks through a sequence of feasible reactions. The vast combinatorial search space makes this task challenging even for expert chemists. Traditional methods combine tree search with offline-trained value networks that score candidates in isolation, without reasoning about complete multi-step routes. Recent work leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) for this task, but relies on simple interfaces that limit exploration of the full search space. We introduce RetroAgent, an LLM agent that bridges symbolic search and neural reasoning through a harness with structured memory. Through memory and chemistry tools, the agent observes the full search state, including explored routes, available alternatives, and properties of intermediates, enabling informed decisions grounded in both global progress and domain knowledge. Experiments on in-distribution and out-of-distribution benchmarks demonstrate that RetroAgent delivers strong performance and generalization.
Synthesis planning aiming to find pathways of reactions for a target molecule is one of the most important and challenging tasks in drug discovery. Recent progress has produced both specialized deep-learning retrosynthesis systems and general-purpose large language models, but objective comparison remains difficult due to the lack of flexible, chemically interpretable benchmarking protocols. In the current study, we are introducing the URSA (Utilitarian RetroSynthesis Assessment) evaluation framework that provides the opportunity to benchmark the synthetic routes not only from a formal perspective, such as convergence to commercially available starting materials, but also from a chemical plausibility perspective, mimicking the way expert chemists evaluate the reactions and routes. The study covers a comprehensive evaluation of both conventional end-to-end retrosynthesis solutions and LLMs for the synthesis planning task on a set of novel, diverse target molecules with undisclosed synthetic routes, which represent realistic tasks in the daily drug design routine. We find that while LLMs can support high-level strategic planning, they currently underperform specialized retrosynthesis models in reliably solving synthesis planning tasks.
Bogdan Zagribelnyy, Ivan Ilin, Nikita Bondarev +7
Insilico Medicine AI Limited, Masdar City, Abu Dhabi, UAE · Independent researcher · Insilico Medicine Canada Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada +1
Retrosynthesis prediction aims to identify reactants that can synthesize a given product molecule. Although molecular large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promising results, most existing methods either generate reactants directly or provide only generic product-level analysis, without explicitly reasoning about bond-disconnection strategies that justify specific reactant choices. This paper proposes RetroReasoner, a retrosynthetic reasoning model that captures chemists' strategic disconnection-based thinking. RetroReasoner is trained with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. For supervised fine-tuning, SyntheticRetro generates structured disconnection rationales paired with reactant predictions. For reinforcement learning, a round-trip reward evaluates predicted reactants by passing them through a forward synthesis model and rewarding predictions that reconstruct the original product. RetroReasoner can also be applied to multi-step retrosynthetic planning by incorporating it into a parallelized Monte Carlo tree search framework, reducing search time while increasing the number and diversity of valid synthetic pathways. Experimental results show that RetroReasoner outperforms prior baselines, including not only molecular LLMs but also retrosynthesis-specific expert models, and generates a broader range of feasible reactant proposals, especially for challenging reaction instances. The code is available at https://github.com/KU-AGI/RetroReasoner.
Hanbum Ko, Chanhui Lee, Ye Rin Kim +4
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University · Materials Intelligence Lab, LG AI Research · Department of Statistics, Korea University