physics.chem-phNov 4, 2026
SaveContext-Aware Automated NMR Structure Elucidation
Organizations: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA
Abstract
Machine learning approaches are rapidly revolutionizing the ability to analyze and extract structural insights from chemical data, enabling high-throughput chemical discovery. While existing data-driven approaches have shown remarkable promise for predicting chemical structures in the de novo setting, incorporating additional chemically informed context offers the opportunity to further improve these models' performance and extend their real-world utility. Here we provide a straightforward protocol to combine artificial-intelligence-based spectroscopic elucidation pipelines with contextual chemical data, e.g., known reactants or a desired product, by using automated retrosynthetic analysis to generate large training sets of molecules and contextual data in the form of synthetic precursors. We demonstrate our approach by showing that our recently introduced NMR structure elucidation framework can be trained to effectively leverage molecular precursor context. We show that when the chemical context provides useful information on the target molecule we obtain dramatically improved accuracy over using NMR spectra alone, obtaining Top-15 accuracies of up to 95.4% for molecules up to 40 heavy atoms spanning the full elemental range of organic chemistry. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our approach is highly robust, such that even when the context provided is uncorrelated with the target, one still obtains accuracies commensurate with those of the original NMR structure elucidation framework. This approach provides an efficient route to improve a wide range of spectroscopic structure elucidation platforms using contextual data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of our context-aware training approach for structure elucidation models using a retrosynthetic tree approach. A) A single retrosynthetic tree for a target molecule. Retrosynthetic trees were generated for molecules to varying retrosynthetic depths, , with the precursors at each level generated via retrosynthetic disconnections of parent molecules at earlier depths. B) Random sampling of the retrosynthetic tree selects out a pair of precursors (green box) to serve as a prompt for the structure elucidation model during training, where it is used alongside the 1 H NMR and 13 C NMR inputs to elucidate the structure of the corresponding small molecule. A subset of the predicted candidate molecules is shown along with their probabilities based on a sampling budget of 15 predictions.
Figure 2: Top- accuracy ( , left to right) as a function of the retrosynthetic depth, , of the precursors provided in the prompt, for the NMR+Precursor (blue), Precursor-only (orange), and NMR-only (green) models. A retrosynthetic depth of corresponds to precursors obtained after successive retrosynthetic disconnections of the target. The Top- accuracy is the percentage of targets for which the correct structure appears among the first independent predictions. The green horizontal line shows the accuracy of the NMR-only model from our previous work, which does not use a prompt (38.9%, 53.1%, and 60.4% for , respectively). Accuracies are computed on the full test set of our previous work (201,953 molecules) using, when possible, one randomly selected prompt per molecule at each retrosynthetic depth, excluding prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor (SI Table S2).
Figure 3: Top-15 accuracy of the NMR+Precursor (blue), Precursor-only (orange), and NMR-only (green) models as a function of the maximum Tanimoto similarity between the precursors in the prompt and the target, pooled over all retrosynthetic depths. Accuracies are computed on the full test set using, when possible, one randomly selected prompt per molecule at each retrosynthetic depth. Prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor are excluded, as in Figure 2 , and so are the 132 remaining prompts with a maximum Tanimoto similarity of exactly 1. Shaded bands show the standard error of each accuracy; they are almost indistinguishable from the line width. The green horizontal line shows the Top-15 accuracy of the NMR-only model (60.4%). The Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies are shown in SI Figure S5.
Figure 4: Top-15 accuracy as a function of retrosynthetic depth for target molecules containing the uncommon elements Si (top), B (middle), and P (bottom), for the NMR+Precursor (blue), Precursor-only (orange), and NMR-only (green) models separated into the cases where the prompt does (solid) or does not (dashed) contain the element. Error bars show the standard error of each accuracy, which depends on the number of prompts at that depth and prompt type. The green horizontal lines show the Top-15 accuracy of the NMR-only model on the same molecules (44.1%, 38.7%, and 25.0% for Si, B, and P, respectively). The Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies, and the numbers of molecules used, are given in SI Figure S7.
Figure 5: Examples of target molecules containing Si (top), B (middle), and P (bottom) for which only the NMR+Precursor model recovers the correct structure within its Top-15 predictions. Each row, labeled with the target’s uncommon element and the retrosynthetic depth of the prompt, shows, from left to right: the target, the precursors provided in the prompt, and the predictions of the NMR+Precursor, Precursor-only, and NMR-only models. For the NMR+Precursor model, we show the correct structure, which appears among its 15 predictions. The Precursor-only and NMR-only models do not produce the target in any of their 15 predictions, so the prediction with the highest Tanimoto similarity to the target is shown instead. Examples were drawn from the full test set, among single-component targets with at least 30 heavy atoms whose prompt does not contain the target itself and for which the closest prediction of both the Precursor-only and NMR-only models has a Tanimoto similarity to the target below 0.5.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Setting | Value |
|---|---|
| Software | AiZynthFinder 4.4.1 ( AiZynthExpander ) |
| Expansion policy | USPTO template-based neural network ( uspto_model.onnx , uspto_templates.csv.gz ) |
| Template cutoffs | cumulative probability 0.995, at most 50 templates ( cutoff_cumulative , cutoff_number ) |
| Reactant sets returned per expansion ( return_n ) | 50 |
| Feasibility (filter) model | USPTO ( uspto_filter_model.onnx ); scores recorded only, no reactions removed |
| Selection at each node | uniformly at random among the returned reactant sets |
Table S1: Settings used to generate the retrosynthetic trees with AiZynthExpander. Settings not listed are AiZynthFinder defaults.
Figure S1: An example retrosynthetic tree generated by AiZynthExpander for a test-set molecule (top), one of the five trees generated for this molecule, expanded to the maximum retrosynthetic depth of . Each row shows the precursors at retrosynthetic depth , and the lines connect each molecule to the precursors obtained from its disconnection; the children of a molecule together form one possible prompt.
| Molecules with a prompt | Target among precursors | Prompts used | % of test set | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 201,376 | 55 (0.03%) | 201,321 | 99.69 |
| 2 | 201,302 | 8,057 (4.00%) | 193,245 | 95.69 |
| 3 | 201,280 | 708 (0.35%) | 200,572 | 99.32 |
| 4 | 201,271 | 976 (0.48%) | 200,295 | 99.18 |
| 5 | 201,266 | 183 (0.09%) | 201,083 | 99.57 |
| Total | 1,006,495 | 9,979 (0.99%) | 996,516 |
Table S2: Number of test-set prompts at each retrosynthetic depth before and after excluding prompts in which the target molecule itself appears among the precursors. Each of the 201,953 test molecules contributes at most one randomly selected prompt per depth; a molecule has no prompt at a depth if none of its retrosynthetic trees reaches that depth (577 molecules have no usable tree at all). The NMR+Precursor and Precursor-only models are evaluated on identical prompts.
Figure S2: Cross-attention between the NMR spectra and the precursor prompt, as performed in each of the eight decoder layers of the NMR+Precursor structure model. Keys ( ) and values ( ) are linear projections of the output of the spectrum encoder, whose input sequence consists of the 1 H NMR spectrum tokens produced by the convolutional embedding followed by one token per 13 C NMR chemical shift. Queries ( ) are linear projections of the decoder states of the precursor prompt and target SMILES tokens after masked self-attention. Attention is computed in heads, whose outputs are concatenated, linearly projected, and added to the decoder states (Add & Norm) before the decoder’s feed-forward block. The cross-attention layers are the only place in the model where the precursor prompt and the NMR spectra interact.
Figure S3: Top- accuracy ( , left to right) as a function of the retrosynthetic depth of the precursors in the prompt for the Precursor-only baselines: the encoder-decoder model used for all comparisons in the main text (orange), and the decoder-only model trained with a probability (purple) or (magenta) of replacing the training prompt by a blank prompt. The green horizontal lines show the accuracy of the NMR-only model (38.9%, 53.1%, and 60.4% for , respectively). Accuracies are computed on the full test set, using one randomly selected prompt per molecule at each retrosynthetic depth when possible and excluding prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor.
| Model | Optimizer | Precision | Gradient clipping | Epochs trained | Best epoch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMR+Precursor | AdamW | FP32 | norm 1.0 | 0.25 | 84 | 50 |
| Precursor-only, encoder-decoder | Adam | bf16 mixed | none | 0 | 112 | 112 |
| Precursor-only, decoder-only | Adam | bf16 mixed | none | 0.25 | 180 | 147 |
| Precursor-only, decoder-only | Adam | bf16 mixed | none | 0 | 180 | 171 |
Table S3: Optimization settings for each model. All models use a batch size of 128, a constant learning rate of , and a single NVIDIA H100 GPU. is the probability that a training prompt is replaced by a blank prompt. The best epoch is the epoch with the lowest validation loss, whose checkpoint is used for evaluation.
Figure S4: Distributions of the maximum Tanimoto similarity to the target (left) and of the size of the largest precursor in heavy atoms (right), taken over the precursors in each prompt and separated by retrosynthetic depth. Tanimoto similarities are computed from Morgan fingerprints (radius 2, 2048 bits). The distributions are computed over all prompts in the retrosynthetic trees of the full dataset of 2 million molecules; prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor are excluded from the Tanimoto similarity distributions.
Figure S5: Top- accuracy ( , left to right) of the NMR+Precursor (blue), Precursor-only (orange), and NMR-only (green) models as a function of the maximum Tanimoto similarity between the precursors in the prompt and the target, pooled over all retrosynthetic depths. Accuracies are computed on the full test set using, when possible, one randomly selected prompt per molecule at each retrosynthetic depth. Prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor are excluded, and so are the 132 remaining prompts with a maximum Tanimoto similarity of exactly 1. Shaded bands show the standard error of each accuracy. The green horizontal lines show the accuracy of the NMR-only model (38.9%, 53.1%, and 60.4% for , respectively). The Top-15 panel is shown in the main text (Figure 3).
Figure S6: Five randomly selected prompts with a maximum precursor Tanimoto similarity between 0.90 and 1.0, drawn from the full test set with prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor excluded, and excluding prompts whose most similar precursor differs from the target only in its salt form or counterions. Each row shows, from left to right, the target (labeled with the maximum Tanimoto similarity and the retrosynthetic depth of the prompt), the precursor in the prompt most similar to the target, and the first (Top-1) prediction of the NMR+Precursor and Precursor-only models. Atoms highlighted in red lie outside the maximum common substructure with the target (for the target, with the most similar precursor). Prediction boxes are outlined in green if the prediction is the target and in red otherwise.
Figure S7: Top- accuracy ( , left to right) as a function of retrosynthetic depth for target molecules containing Si (top row), B (middle row), and P (bottom row), for the NMR+Precursor (blue), Precursor-only (orange), and NMR-only (green) models. Results are separated by whether at least one precursor in the prompt contains that element (solid lines, circles) or not (dashed lines, squares). Error bars show the standard error of each accuracy, which depends on the number of prompts at that depth and prompt type. The green horizontal lines show the accuracy of the NMR-only model on the same molecules (Top-1, Top-5, and Top-15 accuracies of 23.2%, 35.8%, and 44.1% for Si; 21.2%, 31.8%, and 38.7% for B; and 10.5%, 19.2%, and 25.0% for P). All results are for the 2,650 Si-, 1,048 B-, and 2,715 P-containing molecules of the full test set, with one randomly selected prompt per molecule at each retrosynthetic depth when possible, excluding prompts in which the target itself appears as a precursor. The Top-15 panels are shown in the main text (Figure 4).