Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals that chemical reasoning models utilize internal "scratchpads" of fragmented molecular structures (SMILES drafts) as causal intermediates, even when these traces contain significant hallucinations unrelated to final answer correctness. The findings caution against interpreting chain-of-thought outputs in scientific domains as faithful explanations and advocate for process-level supervision over simple accuracy metrics.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Chemical Chain-of-Thought Functions as a Hallucination-Prone Molecular Scratchpad

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2607.20935v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chemical reasoning language models are expected to derive molecular answers through faithful chain-of-thought (CoT). However, across four reasoning model families and twelve chemistry tasks, hallucination is widespread and largely decoupled from answer correctness: correct answers often coexist with fabricated structural claims absent from the relevant molecules. Yet this does not make the reasoning trace computationally irrelevant. Attribution analyses suggest a shared scratchpad function expressed in model-specific forms: Chem-R and ether-0 rely on fragmented SMILES drafts, whereas ChemDFM-R emphasizes scaffold, positional, and naming cues. Notably, perturbing Chem-R's SMILES sketches degrades generation, showing that structural drafts can be causally load-bearing even when verbal structural claims are largely inert. Together, these results show that chemical CoT is neither a faithful explanation nor merely a post-hoc rationalization, but a hallucination-prone molecular scratchpad. This finding cautions against treating CoT as direct evidence of faithful reasoning and motivates process-level supervision beyond answer-only evaluation.

Abstract:Chemical reasoning language models are expected to derive molecular answers through faithful chain-of-thought (CoT). However, across four reasoning model families and twelve chemistry tasks, hallucination is widespread and largely decoupled from answer correctness: correct answers often coexist with fabricated structural claims absent from the relevant molecules. Yet this does not make the reasoning trace computationally irrelevant. Attribution analyses suggest a shared scratchpad function expressed in model-specific forms: Chem-R and ether-0 rely on fragmented SMILES drafts, whereas ChemDFM-R emphasizes scaffold, positional, and naming cues. Notably, perturbing Chem-R's SMILES sketches degrades generation, showing that structural drafts can be causally load-bearing even when verbal structural claims are largely inert. Together, these results show that chemical CoT is neither a faithful explanation nor merely a post-hoc rationalization, but a hallucination-prone molecular scratchpad. This finding cautions against treating CoT as direct evidence of faithful reasoning and motivates process-level supervision beyond answer-only evaluation.

Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2607.20935 [cs.CE]

(or arXiv:2607.20935v1 [cs.CE] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20935 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words

Related coverage