Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42608697›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026

How well can off-the-shelf LLMs elucidate molecular structures from mass spectra using chain-of-thought reasoning?

Yufeng Wang, Lu Wei, Lin Liu, Hao Xu, Haibin Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Yufeng Wang *Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Road, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Lu Wei *Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Road, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Lin LiuDepartment of Chemistry, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Hao XuDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. haxu@bwh.harvard.edu.
Haibin LingDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Westlake University, 600 Dunyu Road, Xihu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310030, China. linghaibin@westlake.eud.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry (MS) is a powerful analytical technique for identifying small molecules, yet determining complete molecular structures directly from tandem mass spectra (MS/MS) remains a long-standing challenge due to complex fragmentation patterns and the vast diversity of chemical space. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has shown promise for reasoning-intensive scientific tasks, but their capability for chemical interpretation is still unclear. We present a zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) benchmark for evaluating how well off-the-shelf general-purpose LLMs can infer molecular structure from text-serialized MS/MS peak lists and a known molecular formula, without fine-tuning, retrieval, external chemistry tools, or constrained search. Rather than proposing a new spectrum-trained model, our goal is diagnostic: to isolate what the evaluated off-the-shelf LLMs can and cannot do in a direct MS/MS-to-SMILES generation setting when only textualized spectral evidence and prompting are available. This distinction is important because our benchmark targets a deliberately constrained regime: direct structure generation from text-formatted spectral evidence alone, rather than multimodal reasoning with spectral images, candidate reranking over structures generated by specialized chemistry systems, or knowledge and search-augmented LLM workflows. We formalize expert chemists' reasoning steps (such as double bond equivalent (DBE) analysis, neutral loss identification, and fragment assembly) into structured prompts and assess multiple state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude-3.5-Sonnet, GPT-4o-mini, and Llama-3 series) using the MassSpecGym dataset. Our evaluation across metrics of SMILES validity, formula consistency, and structural similarity reveals that while LLMs can produce syntactically valid and partially plausible structures, they fail to achieve chemical accuracy or link reasoning to correct molecular predictions. These findings highlight both the interpretive potential and the current limitations of LLM-based reasoning for molecular elucidation, providing a foundation for future work that combines domain knowledge and reinforcement learning to achieve chemically grounded AI reasoning.Scientific contributionWe introduce a zero-shot chain-of-thought benchmark for direct MS/MS-to-SMILES prediction with off-the-shelf general-purpose LLMs, providing a controlled test of text-only, no-tools molecular structure elucidation. In contrast to prior approaches based on spectrum-trained models, multimodal reasoning, or tool-augmented candidate pipelines, our study isolates the capabilities and limitations of prompting alone. We show that fluent chain-of-thought reasoning does not translate into chemically grounded structure recovery, establishing a reproducible baseline and a clear target for future method development.

Indexed as

Chain-of-thoughtLLMMass spectraMolecular structures

Identifiers

PMID42608697
PMCPMC13480093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.