[ACL 2026] A collection of AWESOME things about LLM-Centric-Molecular-Discovery
27
51 commits
updated Sep 7, 2026
A curated reading list for text-guided molecule generation and optimization, accompanying our ACL 2026 survey:
Ziqing Wang, Kexin Zhang, Zihan Zhao, Yibo Wen, Abhishek Pandey, Han Liu, and Kaize Ding.
The survey focuses on foundation-scale LLMs, with at least one billion parameters, that directly generate or edit molecular structures. Molecular property prediction, chemical question answering, and tool orchestration are complementary topics rather than the main method categories; related datasets and evaluation tools are included below.
The figures reproduce the published survey. The reading list also includes subsequent additions. Methods can appear in both task tables when they address both tasks. Resources link to code, models, datasets, or project pages; a dash means no additional resource is linked.
Counts refer to the linked releases or subsets. Compounds, activity measurements, docked poses, and instruction rows are different units; datasets also differ in whether they contain molecule, protein, or general-language examples.
| Dataset | Scale / Release | Main Use | Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| PubChem | Continuously updated; specify the downloaded snapshot | Compound structures, properties, annotations, and bioassays | Downloads |
| ChEMBL | ChEMBL 35: 2,496,335 compounds; 21,123,501 activities | Bioactivity data and molecular discovery | Release notes · Downloads |
| CrossDocked2020 | Version- and subset-dependent collections of docked poses | Protein–ligand pose and affinity modeling | Data |
| ZINC | Release- and subset-dependent | Purchasable compounds and virtual screening | Downloads |
| DOCKSTRING | Over 260K ligands across 58 targets | Docking-based regression, screening, and molecular design | Project |
| ChEBI-20 | 33,010 molecule–description pairs | Text–molecule retrieval, captioning, and generation | Data |
| OGBG-MolHIV | 41,127 molecular graphs | HIV activity prediction | Dataset |
| MOSES | 1,936,962 molecular structures | Distribution-learning molecular generation benchmark | Data and evaluation |
| MoleculeNet | 17 dataset collections; over 700K compounds in the original release | Molecular property prediction | Paper and dataset overview |
| QM9 | 133,885 molecules | Quantum properties and 3D molecular structures | Data |
| TOMG-Bench / OpenMolIns | 45K test examples across 9 subtasks; up to 1.2M instruction examples | Text-guided generation, editing, and optimization | Data and evaluation |
| MuMOInstruct | 872,483 rows in the public dataset | Multi-property molecular optimization | Dataset |
| ChemData700K | 726,776 instruction rows in the released subset | Chemistry instruction tuning | Dataset |
| ChemBench | Curated chemistry question bank | Chemical knowledge and reasoning evaluation | Dataset |
| Mol-Instructions | 2,043,587 instructions across molecule, protein, and biomolecular-text tasks | Biomolecular instruction tuning | Data and tasks |
| MolOpt-Instructions | 1,236,462 public-release rows, including general instructions | Molecular optimization instruction tuning | Dataset |
| L+M-24 | 321,120 rows in the released training split | Description-conditioned generation and molecule captioning | Training data · Evaluation |
| SMolInstruct | 3.3M examples; 1.6M distinct molecules; 14 tasks | Small-molecule chemistry instruction tuning | Dataset |
The survey organizes evaluation around four complementary dimensions. No single score establishes that a molecule is useful or experimentally synthesizable.
| Dimension | Representative Metrics | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| Validity | RDKit parsing and sanitization; chemical constraint satisfaction | Are molecular structures valid, and are task-specific structural constraints met? |
| Synthesizability | SA Score; SCScore; retrosynthetic route availability | Can a plausible synthesis route be found? Low heuristic complexity alone is not proof of laboratory feasibility. |
| Property Control | QED, LogP, TPSA, MW, HBD/HBA, target activity; constrained success rate; Pareto analysis | Are the requested objectives satisfied, and what trade-offs occur across properties? |
| Diversity | Uniqueness; novelty; internal diversity; scaffold diversity; NCircle | Does the generated set cover distinct structures rather than repeat a small set of molecules? |
Reference-based measures include exact match, BLEU, Levenshtein distance, and fingerprint Tanimoto similarity. FCD compares generated and reference distributions. These measures complement, rather than replace, chemical validity and task-specific property evaluation.
For comparable results, specify the dataset split, model checkpoint, sampling settings, oracle implementation, fingerprint parameters, similarity constraints, success thresholds, and evaluation budget. State whether success rates use all attempts or only valid molecules as their denominator, and whether cached oracle evaluations count toward the budget.
| Resource | Role | Link |
|---|---|---|
| RDKit | SMILES parsing, sanitization, fingerprints, and descriptors | Documentation |
| AiZynthFinder | Retrosynthetic route planning | Code |
| ASKCOS | Synthesis planning and reaction assessment | Application · Code |
| MOSES | Distribution-learning metrics and benchmarks | Code |
| GuacaMol | Distribution-learning and goal-directed generation benchmarks | Code |
| MolScore | Goal-directed molecular scoring and evaluation | Code |
| Therapeutics Data Commons | Drug-discovery datasets, oracles, and benchmarks | Documentation |
| TOMG-Bench | Text-guided generation, editing, and optimization evaluation | Code |
| ChemBench | Chemical knowledge and reasoning evaluation | Code |
Appendix H compares seven models across generation and optimization on QED, LogP, JNK3, GSK3β, and DRD2. The tables below reproduce the paper's reported results, not a live leaderboard.
Optimization prompts request similarity of at least 0.6 to the input molecule. The generation and optimization PC values use different success definitions and should not be treated as interchangeable success rates. Prompt templates and experimental details are in Appendix H.
Figures 1–3 and Tables 2–3 are reproduced from Wang et al., ACL 2026, under CC BY 4.0. Click an image to view it at full resolution.
Suggestions and corrections are welcome through issues or pull requests. Please include the paper title, publication year or venue, task, learning paradigm, and official paper and resource links.
@inproceedings{wang-etal-2026-survey,
title={A Survey of Large Language Models for Text-Guided Molecular Discovery: From Molecule Generation to Optimization},
author={Wang, Ziqing and Zhang, Kexin and Zhao, Zihan and Wen, Yibo and Pandey, Abhishek and Liu, Han and Ding, Kaize},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)},
pages={43738--43769},
year={2026},
publisher={Association for Computational Linguistics},
doi={10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.2026},
url={https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.2026/}
}
33 commits
18 commits
[ACL 2026] A collection of AWESOME things about LLM-Centric-Molecular-Discovery
27
51 commits
updated Sep 7, 2026
A curated reading list for text-guided molecule generation and optimization, accompanying our ACL 2026 survey:
Ziqing Wang, Kexin Zhang, Zihan Zhao, Yibo Wen, Abhishek Pandey, Han Liu, and Kaize Ding.
The survey focuses on foundation-scale LLMs, with at least one billion parameters, that directly generate or edit molecular structures. Molecular property prediction, chemical question answering, and tool orchestration are complementary topics rather than the main method categories; related datasets and evaluation tools are included below.
The figures reproduce the published survey. The reading list also includes subsequent additions. Methods can appear in both task tables when they address both tasks. Resources link to code, models, datasets, or project pages; a dash means no additional resource is linked.
Counts refer to the linked releases or subsets. Compounds, activity measurements, docked poses, and instruction rows are different units; datasets also differ in whether they contain molecule, protein, or general-language examples.
| Dataset | Scale / Release | Main Use | Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| PubChem | Continuously updated; specify the downloaded snapshot | Compound structures, properties, annotations, and bioassays | Downloads |
| ChEMBL | ChEMBL 35: 2,496,335 compounds; 21,123,501 activities | Bioactivity data and molecular discovery | Release notes · Downloads |
| CrossDocked2020 | Version- and subset-dependent collections of docked poses | Protein–ligand pose and affinity modeling | Data |
| ZINC | Release- and subset-dependent | Purchasable compounds and virtual screening | Downloads |
| DOCKSTRING | Over 260K ligands across 58 targets | Docking-based regression, screening, and molecular design | Project |
| ChEBI-20 | 33,010 molecule–description pairs | Text–molecule retrieval, captioning, and generation | Data |
| OGBG-MolHIV | 41,127 molecular graphs | HIV activity prediction | Dataset |
| MOSES | 1,936,962 molecular structures | Distribution-learning molecular generation benchmark | Data and evaluation |
| MoleculeNet | 17 dataset collections; over 700K compounds in the original release | Molecular property prediction | Paper and dataset overview |
| QM9 | 133,885 molecules | Quantum properties and 3D molecular structures | Data |
| TOMG-Bench / OpenMolIns | 45K test examples across 9 subtasks; up to 1.2M instruction examples | Text-guided generation, editing, and optimization | Data and evaluation |
| MuMOInstruct | 872,483 rows in the public dataset | Multi-property molecular optimization | Dataset |
| ChemData700K | 726,776 instruction rows in the released subset | Chemistry instruction tuning | Dataset |
| ChemBench | Curated chemistry question bank | Chemical knowledge and reasoning evaluation | Dataset |
| Mol-Instructions | 2,043,587 instructions across molecule, protein, and biomolecular-text tasks | Biomolecular instruction tuning | Data and tasks |
| MolOpt-Instructions | 1,236,462 public-release rows, including general instructions | Molecular optimization instruction tuning | Dataset |
| L+M-24 | 321,120 rows in the released training split | Description-conditioned generation and molecule captioning | Training data · Evaluation |
| SMolInstruct | 3.3M examples; 1.6M distinct molecules; 14 tasks | Small-molecule chemistry instruction tuning | Dataset |
The survey organizes evaluation around four complementary dimensions. No single score establishes that a molecule is useful or experimentally synthesizable.
| Dimension | Representative Metrics | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| Validity | RDKit parsing and sanitization; chemical constraint satisfaction | Are molecular structures valid, and are task-specific structural constraints met? |
| Synthesizability | SA Score; SCScore; retrosynthetic route availability | Can a plausible synthesis route be found? Low heuristic complexity alone is not proof of laboratory feasibility. |
| Property Control | QED, LogP, TPSA, MW, HBD/HBA, target activity; constrained success rate; Pareto analysis | Are the requested objectives satisfied, and what trade-offs occur across properties? |
| Diversity | Uniqueness; novelty; internal diversity; scaffold diversity; NCircle | Does the generated set cover distinct structures rather than repeat a small set of molecules? |
Reference-based measures include exact match, BLEU, Levenshtein distance, and fingerprint Tanimoto similarity. FCD compares generated and reference distributions. These measures complement, rather than replace, chemical validity and task-specific property evaluation.
For comparable results, specify the dataset split, model checkpoint, sampling settings, oracle implementation, fingerprint parameters, similarity constraints, success thresholds, and evaluation budget. State whether success rates use all attempts or only valid molecules as their denominator, and whether cached oracle evaluations count toward the budget.
| Resource | Role | Link |
|---|---|---|
| RDKit | SMILES parsing, sanitization, fingerprints, and descriptors | Documentation |
| AiZynthFinder | Retrosynthetic route planning | Code |
| ASKCOS | Synthesis planning and reaction assessment | Application · Code |
| MOSES | Distribution-learning metrics and benchmarks | Code |
| GuacaMol | Distribution-learning and goal-directed generation benchmarks | Code |
| MolScore | Goal-directed molecular scoring and evaluation | Code |
| Therapeutics Data Commons | Drug-discovery datasets, oracles, and benchmarks | Documentation |
| TOMG-Bench | Text-guided generation, editing, and optimization evaluation | Code |
| ChemBench | Chemical knowledge and reasoning evaluation | Code |
Appendix H compares seven models across generation and optimization on QED, LogP, JNK3, GSK3β, and DRD2. The tables below reproduce the paper's reported results, not a live leaderboard.
Optimization prompts request similarity of at least 0.6 to the input molecule. The generation and optimization PC values use different success definitions and should not be treated as interchangeable success rates. Prompt templates and experimental details are in Appendix H.
Figures 1–3 and Tables 2–3 are reproduced from Wang et al., ACL 2026, under CC BY 4.0. Click an image to view it at full resolution.
Suggestions and corrections are welcome through issues or pull requests. Please include the paper title, publication year or venue, task, learning paradigm, and official paper and resource links.
@inproceedings{wang-etal-2026-survey,
title={A Survey of Large Language Models for Text-Guided Molecular Discovery: From Molecule Generation to Optimization},
author={Wang, Ziqing and Zhang, Kexin and Zhao, Zihan and Wen, Yibo and Pandey, Abhishek and Liu, Han and Ding, Kaize},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)},
pages={43738--43769},
year={2026},
publisher={Association for Computational Linguistics},
doi={10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.2026},
url={https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.2026/}
}
33 commits
18 commits