MT-Mol: Multi Agent System with Tool-based Reasoning for Molecular Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have large potential for molecular optimization, as they can gather external chemistry tools and enable collaborative interactions to iteratively refine molecular candidates. However, this potential remains underexplored, particularly in the context of structured reasoning, interpretability, and comprehensive tool-grounded molecular optimization. To address this gap, we introduce MT-MOL, a multi-agent framework for molecular optimization that leverages tool-guided reasoning and role-specialized LLM agents. Our system incorporates comprehensive RDKit tools, categorized into five distinct domains: structural descriptors, electronic and topological features, fragment-based functional groups, molecular representations, and miscellaneous chemical properties. Each category is managed by an expert analyst agent, responsible for extracting task-relevant tools and enabling interpretable, chemically grounded feedback. MT-MOL produces molecules with tool-aligned and stepwise reasoning through the interaction between the analyst agents, a molecule-generating scientist, a reasoning-output verifier, and a reviewer agent. As a result, we show that our framework shows the state-of-the-art performance of the PMO-1K benchmark on 17 out of 23 tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".