Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41390858›Full record

ArticleCommunications chemistry2025

Evaluating large language models on multimodal chemistry olympiad exams.

Yiming Cui, Xin Yao, Yuxuan Qin, Xin Li, Shijin Wang, Guoping Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The automated red pen.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yiming CuiState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China. ymcui@ieee.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2452-375X
Xin YaoState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China.
Yuxuan QinState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6278-2804
Xin LiState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China.
Shijin WangState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China. sjwang3@iflytek.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9202-7678
Guoping HuState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multimodal scientific reasoning remains a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs), particularly in chemistry, where problem-solving relies on symbolic diagrams, molecular structures, and structured visual data. Here, we systematically evaluate 40 proprietary and open-source multimodal LLMs, including GPT-5, o3, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and Qwen2.5-VL, on a curated benchmark of Olympiad-style chemistry questions drawn from over two decades of U.S. National Chemistry Olympiad (USNCO) exams. These questions require integrated visual and textual reasoning across diverse modalities. We find that many models struggle with modality fusion, where, in some cases, removing the image even improves accuracy, indicating misalignment in vision-language integration. Chain-of-Thought prompting consistently enhances both accuracy and visual grounding, as demonstrated through ablation studies and occlusion-based interpretability. Our results reveal critical limitations in the scientific reasoning abilities of current MLLMs, providing actionable strategies for developing more robust and interpretable multimodal systems in chemistry. This work provides a timely benchmark for measuring progress in domain-specific multimodal AI and underscores the need for further advances at the intersection of artificial intelligence and scientific reasoning.

Identifiers

PMID41390858
PMCPMC12717038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.