Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

RFL: Simplifying Chemical Structure Recognition with Ring-Free Language

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces a ring-free markup that splits a molecule into skeleton, rings, and branches, and shows that image-to-markup models trained on this decomposition beat flat-string baselines on handwritten and printed benchmarks.

desk verdict A genuinely new decomposition scheme for OCSR with consistent empirical gains, but the load-bearing equivalence claim is underspecified and unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07594 v2 pith:M3RQCYYP submitted 2024-12-10 cs.CV

Qikai Chang , Mingjun Chen , Changpeng Pi , Pengfei Hu , Zhenrong Zhang , Jiefeng Ma , Jun Du , Baocai Yin
show 1 more author
Jinshui Hu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords Ring-FreeLanguageopticalchemicalstructurerecognitiondivide-and-conquermarkupmolecularskeletondecoderhierarchicaldecodingSMILESSSMLexact-matchaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a text shorthand for molecules, Ring-Free Language (RFL), that splits a molecular drawing into a simplified skeleton, a separate list of rings, and a record of which skeleton bonds attach to which ring bonds. An image-to-markup model no longer has to produce one long flat string in a single pass; it predicts the skeleton first, then each ring, then the connection map. On a handwritten and a printed benchmark, two existing end-to-end recognizers converted to RFL outperform the same recognizers trained on standard flat markups, reaching new state-of-the-art exact-match scores. The point is that making spatial layout explicit instead of encoding it implicitly in a depth-first string lowers the learning difficulty, especially for molecules with rings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the Ring-Free Language (RFL) plus its decoder, the Molecular Skeleton Decoder (MSD). RFL converts each ring of a molecule into a placeholder — a SuperAtom for an isolated ring, a SuperBond for a fused pair — and stores the ring's atoms and bonds as a separate block; the branch map F records which skeleton bonds connect to which ring bonds, and the [conn] token marks which ring bonds are attached so the branch classifier only sees plausible candidates. What this machinery does is turn a single graph-to-sequence problem into two easier problems — skeleton-and-ring generation and pair classification — so an error on one ring does not corrupt the whole output string.

What would settle it

Implement Section 3's Splitting and Restoring, run them over a large molecular database, and check graph isomorphism of input versus reconstructed output; any mismatch disproves losslessness. Also search for a molecule with two rings of equal adjacency score where swapping the merge order yields two different RFL strings, which would make exact-match training targets ambiguous.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that RFL gives an equivalent, unique, and concise conversion of a molecule G = (V, E) into three parts: the molecular skeleton S (G with every ring collapsed into a SuperAtom or SuperBond token), the ring structures R (each ring emitted separately), and the branch information F = {(b_s, b_r)} linking skeleton bonds to ring bonds. The Splitting procedure finds non-nested rings with a modified depth-first search, resolves adjacency values γ between rings, and merges rings into placeholders in ascending order of γ; Restoring proceeds in reverse, consuming F until it is empty and returning the original graph. On top of RFL, the Molecular Skeleton Decoder (MSD) predicts S and R with an autoregressive hierarchical decoder and classifies F with a small binary classifier on bond features. The paper reports that MSD combined with two mainstream baselines sets a new state of the art on both EDU-CHEMC and Mini-CASIA-CSDB, with the largest improvements on multi-ring molecules, and that the added computational cost is small.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the RFL splitting procedure is deterministic and lossless for every molecule: the paper merges rings in ascending order of adjacency γ but specifies no tie-breaking rule among equal γ, and it does not prove that Splitting followed by Restoring always returns the original graph.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A recognizer that already uses an encoder–decoder can adopt RFL without architectural redesign, and the paper demonstrates this on two different decoders.
  • Exact-match accuracy on both handwritten and printed benchmarks rises above previous flat-markup state-of-the-art results.
  • The hierarchical split reduces error propagation: skeleton errors do not automatically destroy ring predictions, and ring errors do not rewrite the skeleton.
  • Models trained on less complex molecules retain more recognition ability on never-seen higher-complexity rings under RFL than under flat markup.
  • The extra parameters and FLOPs come mainly from the branch classifier and are small relative to the accuracy gain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decoupling principle is not tied to chemistry: any document image whose content is a graph with repeated substructures — tables, flowcharts, or circuit diagrams — could be encoded as skeleton plus detached parts plus a connection map, and the paper explicitly points toward tables, flowcharts, and diagrams as future work.
  • If RFL's uniqueness holds, it gives a natural augmentation scheme: sample a molecule, render it as an image, and train on its RFL string, avoiding the ambiguities that SMILES canonization can introduce.
  • A direct test of the mechanism would isolate ring-containing samples in each test set and compare exact-match accuracy there; the reported aggregate scores are consistent with the paper's explanation but do not prove that the gains come only from rings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Ring-Free Language (RFL), a hierarchical markup for chemical structures that decomposes a molecular graph into a skeleton, individual ring structures, and branch information, together with a Molecular Skeleton Decoder (MSD) that predicts these components and restores the structure. The method is evaluated on the handwritten EDU-CHEMC and printed Mini-CASIA-CSDB datasets, where it improves exact-match and structural exact-match over DenseWAP and RCGD baselines and reports new state-of-the-art results. Ablations on EDU-CHEMC support the contributions of the MSD decoder and the [conn] token, and generalization experiments suggest that RFL-based models degrade more gracefully on unseen structural complexity.

Significance. If the representation is indeed canonical and lossless, the paper makes a useful contribution: it shows that a structured, ring-free target can improve end-to-end OCSR across two different base decoders, with modest additional compute and publicly released code. The ablation and generalization experiments are informative, and the fact that both a DenseNet- and an RCGD-based instantiation improve over their SSML counterparts gives the empirical claim some robustness. The main limitation is that the formal properties of RFL used to justify the method are not established in the manuscript, so the reported gains are not yet fully interpretable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) does not define the intended set of rings. In a simple graph, a simple cycle has no proper sub-cycle, so the condition 'C' is a proper subset of C implies C' is not a subset of C' is vacuously true for every cycle; the formula therefore selects all cycles, not a set of 'non-nested' rings. If the authors mean a chemical notion such as the smallest set of smallest rings or a particular ring-system decomposition, it must be stated precisely.
  2. [Section 3.1, Splitting algorithm] The splitting procedure is underspecified. The adjacency relation γ between rings is never defined; when two rings have the same γ, no tie-breaking rule is given; and the SuperBond is said to be 'one of the common bonds' of two rings without saying which one. Since the paper claims RFL 'ensures uniqueness', the manuscript must specify a complete deterministic algorithm (including the modified depth-first search) and prove that the resulting RFL string is unique, or explicitly point to a canonicalization routine in the released code.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2) and Restoring] Restoring is described only through an example, and Eq. (2) does not define branch information for spiro or bridged ring systems, where two rings share a single atom or two atoms without sharing a bond. The paper states that RFL is an 'equivalent conversion' of an arbitrary molecular graph G, but no formal inverse relationship between Splitting and Restoring is proved, and the described SuperBond construction appears inapplicable to such ring systems. Please either restrict the domain explicitly or give a formal losslessness proof for all molecular graphs in the tested datasets.
  4. [Section 5.4--5.5, Tables 1--2] The main numerical claims lack reliability evidence. The same configuration MSD-DenseWAP reports EM 64.92 in Table 1 and 64.96 in Table 2 with no explanation; no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests are provided. In particular, on Mini-CASIA-CSDB the improvement of MSD-RCGD over RCGD is only 0.22 percentage points, which may be within run-to-run variation. Please report variance over several runs or a statistical test, and clarify the discrepancy between Tables 1 and 2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'the molecular skeleton decoder autoregressively decodes the skeleton R and rings S' appears to have R and S reversed; the skeleton is S and the rings are R elsewhere in the paper.
  2. [Section 5.6, Eq. (13)] The complexity coefficient 12 is justified by the atom-plus-bond count of a benzene ring, but it is applied uniformly to all rings regardless of size; please clarify whether this is intentional or an approximation, and discuss its effect on the complexity-level splitting.
  3. [Section 5.2] The text says evaluation is performed 'as well as on our synthetic dataset', but no synthetic dataset is described in Section 5.2; the ChEMBL-derived generalization set in Section 5.6 is not introduced there. Please align the dataset descriptions.
  4. [Table 1 footnotes] The footnote markers for Imago and CoMER state that these are reimplementation results, but it is not stated whether the reimplementations use the same training protocol and evaluation split as the other rows; please specify this in the table caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: RFL-MSD's reported gains are empirical, evaluated on held-out test sets, and not forced by fitted parameters or self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is representation design followed by empirical evaluation, not a claim derived from its own conclusion. RFL is defined as a decoupling of a molecular graph into skeleton S, rings R, and branch information F, and the reported improvements are measured by exact-match accuracy on held-out test sets of EDU-CHEMC and Mini-CASIA-CSDB. No equation in the paper fits a parameter to the evaluation outcome and then reports that fit as a prediction: the loss weights are hand-set, the complexity coefficient 12 in Eq. (13) is justified by the benzene atom-plus-bond count rather than tuned to test accuracy, and the ablations vary architectural components on the same held-out metric. The RCGD baseline is from the same research group, but it is not the only comparison: the independent DenseWAP baseline shows the same direction of improvement, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the main claim. The manuscript does contain real formal-soundness gaps that are correctness risks rather than circularity: the set definition in Eq. (1) is unsatisfiable as written, the adjacency measure gamma is not defined, tie-breaking among rings with equal gamma is unspecified, and Restoring is demonstrated by example rather than proved to be the inverse of Splitting. These gaps undermine the strength of the 'equivalent conversion' and 'uniqueness' assertions, but they do not make the empirical result reduce to its inputs. A formalization flaw is not a circularity; the appropriate finding is therefore a low circularity score with the verification concerns noted separately.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

This is an empirical ML paper, so the ledger does not attempt to list all trained weights. It lists the hand-set constants, the structural assumptions about molecules, and the placeholder tokens introduced by RFL.

free parameters (2)
  • complexity coefficient for n_ring = 12
    Hand-chosen in Eq. (13) because benzene has 12 atoms plus bonds; used only to stratify the generalization dataset, not fitted to recognition outcomes.
  • loss weights lambda_1 and lambda_2 = 1.0 each
    Set in Eq. (12) to combine cross-entropy and branch classification losses; no sensitivity analysis is reported, so the balance is an unexamined choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Molecular structures are representable as simple undirected graphs with no stereochemistry, charges, or isotopes.
    Section 3.1 defines G=(V,E) as a simple graph; RFL tokens do not encode stereo or isotopic information, and metrics ignore non-chemical parts, so full chemical identity may not be captured.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified depth-first search yields a well-defined set of non-nested rings with a deterministic merge order.
    Eq. (1) relies on 'all rings C' and the splitting rule 'ascending order of gamma' (Section 3.1, Step 2) without specifying tie-breaking or proving termination and correctness for fused and bridged ring systems.
  • domain assumption The datasets and metrics correctly reflect recognition quality.
    Struct-EM ignores non-chemical parts and the paper does not analyze failure modes caused by ambiguous labels, annotation errors, or molecules outside the simple-graph assumption.
invented entities (3)
  • SuperAtom
    purpose: Placeholder token representing a ring collapsed into a single atom during RFL splitting, so the skeleton becomes ring-free.
    Introduced in Section 3.1; a serialization construct, not a physical entity, with no external falsifiable prediction.
  • SuperBond
    purpose: Placeholder token representing adjacency between two rings collapsed into a bond during RFL splitting.
    Introduced in Section 3.1; a serialization construct, not a physical entity.
  • [conn] token
    purpose: Special token appended to connected ring bonds to filter candidates for branch classification.
    Introduced in Section 4.2; a serialization convention used to reduce the branch classification matrix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RFL: Simplifying Chemical Structure Recognition with Ring-Free Language." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3RQCYYP

@misc{pith2026241207594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RFL: Simplifying Chemical Structure Recognition with Ring-Free Language},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3RQCYYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07594}
}
read the original abstract

The primary objective of Optical Chemical Structure Recognition is to identify chemical structure images into corresponding markup sequences. However, the complex two-dimensional structures of molecules, particularly those with rings and multiple branches, present significant challenges for current end-to-end methods to learn one-dimensional markup directly. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel Ring-Free Language (RFL), which utilizes a divide-and-conquer strategy to describe chemical structures in a hierarchical form. RFL allows complex molecular structures to be decomposed into multiple parts, ensuring both uniqueness and conciseness while enhancing readability. This approach significantly reduces the learning difficulty for recognition models. Leveraging RFL, we propose a universal Molecular Skeleton Decoder (MSD), which comprises a skeleton generation module that progressively predicts the molecular skeleton and individual rings, along with a branch classification module for predicting branch information. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed RFL and MSD can be applied to various mainstream methods, achieving superior performance compared to state-of-the-art approaches in both printed and handwritten scenarios. The code is available at https://github.com/JingMog/RFL-MSD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Ring-Free Language with previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The step-by-step decoupling process of Ring-Free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of our method. First, the molecular image is input into the CNN Encoder to extract deep features. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A qualitative comparison of our proposed method with the SOTA method in the handwritten dataset EDU-CHEMC 新复杂度 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exact match rate (in %) of DenseWAP and MSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bian, X.; Qin, B.; Xin, X.; Li, J.; Su, X.; and Wang, Y. 2022. Handwritten mathematical expression recognition via attention aggregation based bi-directional mutual learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, 113--121

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    S.; Iftikhar, Z.; and Dengel, A

    Bukhari, S. S.; Iftikhar, Z.; and Dengel, A. 2019. Chemical structure recognition (CSR) system: automatic analysis of 2D chemical structures in document images. In 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 1262--1267. IEEE

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Chen, M.; Wu, H.; Chang, Q.; Cheng, H.; Ma, J.; Hu, P.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, C.; Pi, C.; Hu, J.; et al. 2024. ICDAR 2024 Competition on Recognition of Chemical Structures. In International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 397--409. Springer

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Cho, K.; Van Merri \"e nboer, B.; Gulcehre, C.; Bahdanau, D.; Bougares, F.; Schwenk, H.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Chung, J.; Gulcehre, C.; Cho, K.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Clevert, D.-A.; Le, T.; Winter, R.; and Montanari, F. 2021. Img2Mol--accurate SMILES recognition from molecular graphical depictions. Chemical science, 12(42): 14174--14181

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Deng, Y.; Kanervisto, A.; and Rush, A. M. 2016. What you get is what you see: A visual markup decompiler. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04938, 10(32-37): 3

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Ding, L.; Zhao, M.; Yin, F.; Zeng, S.; and Liu, C.-L. 2022. A Large-Scale Database for Chemical Structure Recognition and Preliminary Evaluation. In 2022 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 1464--1470. IEEE

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    V.; and Nicklaus, M

    Filippov, I. V.; and Nicklaus, M. C. 2009. Optical structure recognition software to recover chemical information: OSRA, an open source solution

    2009

  2. [10]

    Fujiyoshi, A.; Nakagawa, K.; and Suzuki, M. 2011. Robust method of segmentation and recognition of chemical structure images in cheminfty. In Pre-proceedings of the 9th IAPR international workshop on graphics recognition, GREC, volume 1

    2011

  3. [11]

    P.; Chambers, J.; Mendez, D.; Mutowo, P.; Atkinson, F.; Bellis, L

    Gaulton, A.; Hersey, A.; Nowotka, M.; Bento, A. P.; Chambers, J.; Mendez, D.; Mutowo, P.; Atkinson, F.; Bellis, L. J.; Cibri \'a n-Uhalte, E.; et al. 2017. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic acids research, 45(D1): D945--D954

    2017

  4. [12]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  5. [13]

    R.; McNaught, A.; Pletnev, I.; Stein, S.; and Tchekhovskoi, D

    Heller, S. R.; McNaught, A.; Pletnev, I.; Stein, S.; and Tchekhovskoi, D. 2015. InChI, the IUPAC international chemical identifier. Journal of cheminformatics, 7: 1--34

    2015

  6. [14]

    Hu, J.; Wu, H.; Chen, M.; Liu, C.; Wu, J.; Yin, S.; Yin, B.; Yin, B.; Liu, C.; Du, J.; et al. 2023. Handwritten Chemical Structure Image to Structure-Specific Markup Using Random Conditional Guided Decoder. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia,...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Huang, G.; Liu, Z.; Van Der Maaten, L.; and Weinberger, K. Q. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4700--4708

    2017

  8. [16]

    Jiang, Y.; Jin, S.; Jin, X.; Xiao, X.; Wu, W.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zeng, X.; Yang, G.; and Niu, Z. 2023. Pharmacophoric-constrained heterogeneous graph transformer model for molecular property prediction. Communications Chemistry, 6(1): 60

    2023

  9. [17]

    V.; and Sosnin, S

    Khokhlov, I.; Krasnov, L.; Fedorov, M. V.; and Sosnin, S. 2022. Image2SMILES: Transformer-based molecular optical recognition engine. Chemistry-Methods, 2(1): e202100069

    2022

  10. [18]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Landrum, G. 2013. Rdkit documentation. Release, 1(1-79): 4

    2013

  12. [20]

    I.; Nassar, A.; Weber, V.; Meijer, I.; Staar, P.; and Yu, F

    Morin, L.; Danelljan, M.; Agea, M. I.; Nassar, A.; Weber, V.; Meijer, I.; Staar, P.; and Yu, F. 2023. MolGrapher: Graph-based Visual Recognition of Chemical Structures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 19552--19561

    2023

  13. [21]

    Oldenhof, M.; Arany, A.; Moreau, Y.; and Simm, J. 2020. ChemGrapher: optical graph recognition of chemical compounds by deep learning. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 60(10): 4506--4517

    2020

  14. [22]

    Oldenhof, M.; De Brouwer, E.; Arany, A.; and Moreau, Y. 2024. Atom-Level Optical Chemical Structure Recognition with Limited Supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17669--17678

    2024

  15. [23]

    Y.; and Davis, R

    Ouyang, T. Y.; and Davis, R. 2011. Chemink: a natural real-time recognition system for chemical drawings. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, 267--276

    2011

  16. [24]

    W.; and Barzilay, R

    Qian, Y.; Guo, J.; Tu, Z.; Li, Z.; Coley, C. W.; and Barzilay, R. 2023. MolScribe: robust molecular structure recognition with image-to-graph generation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(7): 1925--1934

    2023

  17. [25]

    O.; Zielesny, A.; and Steinbeck, C

    Rajan, K.; Brinkhaus, H. O.; Zielesny, A.; and Steinbeck, C. 2020. A review of optical chemical structure recognition tools. Journal of Cheminformatics, 12: 1--13

    2020

  18. [26]

    Rajan, K.; Zielesny, A.; and Steinbeck, C. 2020. DECIMER: towards deep learning for chemical image recognition. Journal of Cheminformatics, 12(1): 65

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part II...

    2015

  20. [28]

    M.; Sexton, A

    Sadawi, N. M.; Sexton, A. P.; and Sorge, V. 2012. Chemical structure recognition: a rule-based approach. In Document Recognition and Retrieval XIX, volume 8297, 101--109. SPIE

    2012

  21. [29]

    Smolov, V.; Zentsev, F.; and Rybalkin, M. 2011. Imago: Open-Source Toolkit for 2D Chemical Structure Image Recognition. In TREC

    2011

  22. [30]

    Staker, J.; Marshall, K.; Abel, R.; and McQuaw, C. M. 2019. Molecular structure extraction from documents using deep learning. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(3): 1017--1029

    2019

  23. [31]

    Z.; Sarin, M.; and Gupta, S

    Sundaramoorthy, C.; Kelvin, L. Z.; Sarin, M.; and Gupta, S. 2021. End-to-end attention-based image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14721

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tu, Z.; Lu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; and Li, H. 2016. Modeling coverage for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.04811

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Weininger, D. 1988. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences, 28(1): 31--36

    1988

  26. [34]

    Weir, H.; Thompson, K.; Woodward, A.; Choi, B.; Braun, A.; and Mart \' nez, T. J. 2021. ChemPix: automated recognition of hand-drawn hydrocarbon structures using deep learning. Chemical science, 12(31): 10622--10633

    2021

  27. [35]

    Xu, Y.; Xiao, J.; Chou, C.-H.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, J.; Hu, Q.; Li, H.; Han, N.; Liu, B.; Zhang, S.; et al. 2022 a . MolMiner: you only look once for chemical structure recognition. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 62(22): 5321--5328

    2022

  28. [36]

    Xu, Z.; Li, J.; Yang, Z.; Li, S.; and Li, H. 2022 b . SwinOCSR: end-to-end optical chemical structure recognition using a Swin Transformer. Journal of Cheminformatics, 14(1): 41

    2022

  29. [37]

    Yao, J.; Lai, Y.; Kou, H.; Wu, T.; and Liu, R. 2024. QE-BEV: Query evolution for bird's eye view object detection in varied contexts. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2927--2935

    2024

  30. [38]

    Yao, J.; Li, C.; and Xiao, C. 2024. Swift Sampler: Efficient Learning of Sampler by 10 Parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05578

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yu, Z.; and Gao, H. 2022. Molecular representation learning via heterogeneous motif graph neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 25581--25594. PMLR

    2022

  32. [40]

    Zang, X.; Zhao, X.; and Tang, B. 2023. Hierarchical molecular graph self-supervised learning for property prediction. Communications Chemistry, 6(1): 34

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhang, J.; Du, J.; and Dai, L. 2018. Multi-scale attention with dense encoder for handwritten mathematical expression recognition. In 2018 24th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR), 2245--2250. IEEE

    2018

  34. [42]

    Zhang, J.; Du, J.; Yang, Y.; Song, Y.-Z.; Wei, S.; and Dai, L. 2020. A tree-structured decoder for image-to-markup generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 11076--11085. PMLR

    2020

  35. [43]

    Zhang, X.-C.; Yi, J.-C.; Yang, G.-P.; Wu, C.-K.; Hou, T.-J.; and Cao, D.-S. 2022. ABC-Net: a divide-and-conquer based deep learning architecture for SMILES recognition from molecular images. Briefings in bioinformatics, 23(2): bbac033

    2022

  36. [44]

    Zhao, W.; and Gao, L. 2022. Comer: Modeling coverage for transformer-based handwritten mathematical expression recognition. In European conference on computer vision, 392--408. Springer

    2022

  37. [45]

    Zhao, W.; Gao, L.; Yan, Z.; Peng, S.; Du, L.; and Zhang, Z. 2021. Handwritten mathematical expression recognition with bidirectionally trained transformer. In Document analysis and recognition--ICDAR 2021: 16th international conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, September 5--10, ...

    2021

  38. [46]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  39. [47]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.