Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 46 references

De novo MS/MS structure recovery improves when a noisy fingerprint posterior is turned into a calibrated band of queries for a molecule-language model, not one thresholded fingerprint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 17:42 UTC pith:AN5JIWJ2

load-bearing objection Real empirical SOTA on de novo MS/MS via a clean fix for the oracle-vs-posterior mismatch; the fingerprint interface is still the ceiling. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23607 v1 pith:AN5JIWJ2 submitted 2026-07-26 cs.LG cs.CL

MS-GPT: Rethinking MS/MS De Novo Structure Elucidation as Spectrum-Induced Posterior Querying of a Molecule-Language Model

Xin Zhao , Yumin Liu , Zhuo Li , Weichu Zheng , Feng Zhu , Xiaokang Yang , Yaohui Jin , Yanyan Xu This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords tandem mass spectrometryde novo structure elucidationspectrum-induced posteriormolecule-language modelfingerprint-mediated generationactive-bit density calibrationAI for science
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper targets the training–inference mismatch in fingerprint-mediated de novo structure elucidation from tandem mass spectra. Decoders are trained on perfect fingerprints computed from molecules, but at inference they usually receive a single noisy fingerprint obtained by thresholding a spectrum-induced posterior. MS-GPT instead treats that posterior as a source of many queries: it calibrates a band of active-bit densities near the oracle-fingerprint regime, samples a fixed candidate pool across the band, pools the generated structures, and ranks them by how often they appear. A small adapter then adjusts how posterior-derived queries are read without rewriting the pretrained molecular prior. On two public known-formula benchmarks the method raises exact structure match well above prior decoders, and larger candidate pools keep lifting recall at near-linear cost. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a practical route into chemical space that library search cannot reach, while keeping the speed of autoregressive molecule generation.

Core claim

Fingerprint-mediated MS/MS de novo elucidation should be cast as spectrum-induced posterior querying of a conditional molecule-language model. Converting the continuous fingerprint posterior into a density-calibrated band of queries, distributing a fixed candidate budget across that band, ranking by generation-frequency consensus, and lightly adapting only the query-reading path yields new state-of-the-art Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy of 29.8%/41.1% on NPLIB1 and 23.9%/28.7% on MassSpecGym.

What carries the argument

Spectrum-induced posterior querying: active-bit density band calibration chooses thresholds so query fingerprints stay near oracle active-bit density; fixed-size group querying spreads a fixed candidate pool across those thresholds; posterior-aligned LoRA adapts fingerprint encoding and cross-attention while freezing the molecule backbone.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a fixed-bit fingerprint predicted from the spectrum, after population-level density calibration, still carries enough identifying structural signal for the language model to recover the true molecule.

What would settle it

On held-out spectra whose posterior already agrees well with the true fingerprint inside the calibrated band, multi-query pooling plus adaptation would fail to beat strong single-threshold controls on Top-10 exact match; that result would collapse the posterior-querying claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Fingerprint-mediated pipelines should keep the full posterior and query multiple operating points instead of one threshold.
  • A molecule-only pretrained decoder can be shared across spectral datasets, with only the spectrum encoder and a tiny adapter made domain-specific.
  • Autoregressive generation can raise structure recall by enlarging the candidate pool at near-linear extra inference cost.
  • Exact-match gains track spectrum-induced posterior fidelity; better encoders transfer directly into better elucidation.
  • Ranking by generation-frequency consensus across the query band is a workable substitute for collapsing uncertainty into one fingerprint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Fixed-radius fingerprints can make true isomers indistinguishable even under a perfect oracle query, so some failures are representational ceilings, not posterior noise.
  • The same band-query pattern could apply to other inverse problems that force a continuous sensor posterior through a discrete pretrained interface.
  • Gains that concentrate at Top-10 more than Top-1 suggest the main product is a richer shortlist for expert review, not only a single automatic ID.
  • The fidelity analyses point next toward training or refining the spectrum encoder against the decoder’s query manifold rather than freezing it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the training–inference mismatch in fingerprint-mediated MS/MS de novo structure elucidation: decoders are pretrained on oracle Morgan fingerprints but queried at inference with a single thresholded spectrum-induced posterior. MS-GPT recasts decoding as posterior querying of a fingerprint–formula-conditioned molecule-language model (a cross-attention-augmented SAFE-GPT, pretrained on ~100M molecules). Three mechanisms are proposed: (i) active-bit density band calibration, which maps a density-ratio interval K=[0.95,1.50] (matched to encoder-training-set active-bit density) to a threshold band; (ii) fixed-size group querying, which spreads a candidate pool B=M×N over M=20 interpolated thresholds; and (iii) posterior-aligned adaptation, a rank-4 LoRA on the query-reading pathway trained with recoverability-grouped CE+KL losses. On NPLIB1 and MassSpecGym under the known-formula protocol, MS-GPT reports Top-1/Top-10 exact match of 29.76%/41.07% and 23.91%/28.65%, exceeding FRIGID by 4–8 points. Ablations (Tables 2–3), posterior-fidelity and pretraining-proximity stratifications, allocation and pool-scaling sweeps, pretraining-data scaling, and failure-mode case studies support the claims.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful contribution to an actively contested benchmark area. The exact-match gains over the strongest diffusion baseline (FRIGID) are large (+4.7/+7.7 points Top-1/Top-10 on NPLIB1; +5.6/+6.7 on MassSpecGym) and the method is inference-cheap. Notable strengths that weigh positively: the pretraining corpus explicitly excludes connectivity-equivalent (InChIKey-14) validation/test structures, addressing the most obvious leakage channel; source code and checkpoints are released, making the pipeline reproducible; the ablations cleanly separate the three components across two benchmarks; the stratified analyses (posterior fidelity, pretraining proximity) directly test and largely rule out the memorization explanation; and the case studies honestly document a hard representational ceiling (radius-2 Morgan non-identifiability, Fig. 14(c)/Table 9) rather than hiding it. The reframing itself — treating the fingerprint posterior as a query distribution rather than a point estimate — is conceptually simple but, on this evidence, effective, and the candidate-pool scaling results give the field a falsifiable, easy-to-replicate direction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 1 / §4.2 / Fig. 1] The SOTA claim rests on comparing MS-GPT at candidate-pool size B=100 against FRIGID's numbers transcribed from [2], but the manuscript never states the inference budget (number of diffusion steps / candidate evaluations per spectrum) underlying FRIGID's Table 1 entries. This matters because FRIGID's central contribution is inference-time scaling, and MS-GPT's own Table 4 shows Top-10 gains of ~6 points from B=100 to B=1500. Figure 1 partially addresses this by plotting FRIGID's compute point, but the x-axis provenance ('timings taken from FRIGID') does not establish that the accuracy marker corresponds to FRIGID's best-budget configuration rather than a budget-matched one. Please state, in Table 1 or its caption, the per-spectrum evaluation budget of each baseline, and ideally include a FRIGID-at-matched-compute point on the Figure 1 frontier.
  2. [§3.3 / App. A.6 / App. B.4] The density band K=[0.95,1.50] is selected 'empirically with reference to validation-set metrics' and shared across benchmarks, and Appendix A.6 itself concludes the band 'may have been more conservative than necessary.' The component ablation brackets the band's value (outer-band and point-query controls in Tables 2–3), but there is no sensitivity analysis over (κ_min, κ_max) itself. Given that the headline margin over the strongest point-query control is ~4 Top-1 points (Table 2), and that Figures 11–12 show non-trivial val/test divergence in fidelity shares on NPLIB1, the robustness of the headline numbers to the band choice is load-bearing for the claim that calibration (rather than fortuitous endpoint tuning) drives the gain. A small sweep over band endpoints on the validation split, reported for both benchmarks, would close this. Relatedly, please clarify how much of the band selec
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (6) / §3.3] The uniform grid average in Eq. (6) is presented as approximating the posterior expectation in Eq. (1), but no weighting connects the linear-in-threshold grid to the actual posterior over fingerprints; the approximation is heuristic. A sentence clarifying that Eq. (6) is a coverage/ensemble device rather than a Monte Carlo estimate of Eq. (1) would prevent over-reading.
  2. [§4.2 / Table 1] No test-set sizes or confidence intervals are reported anywhere. With Top-1 margins of 4.7–5.6 points over FRIGID this is likely not decisive, but standard errors (or Wilson intervals) for the Table 1 entries should be added, particularly for MassSpecGym.
  3. [Table 1 / §4.1 metrics] Top-k Tanimoto is reported for all methods, but only MCES gets a comparability appendix (B.6). Please state the fingerprint type/radius used for the Tanimoto metric and confirm baseline papers used compatible definitions; otherwise add a comparability caveat analogous to the MCES one.
  4. [§4.1 Implementation / App. A.7 (Table 5)] Table 5 shows a one-epoch MS-GPT-Base trained on 500M–1B structures substantially outperforming the main model's Base variant (31.55/37.80 vs 28.42/33.78 Top-1/Top-10 on NPLIB1), yet the main results use two epochs over 100M. Please explain why the larger corpus was not used for the headline model, or clarify the chronology; as written it leaves open whether the main numbers are pretraining-limited.
  5. [§3.3 / App. B.4] The rationale that extending below κ=1.00 'maps to the flat, high-threshold region of A(t)' is plausible but unsupported; a small plot of A(t) per dataset (or a pointer to where it can be found in the supplement) would help.
  6. [Abstract / Table 1] LaTeX artifacts: '29.8\%/41.1\%' and '23 .9%/28.7%' have stray spacing/escaping in the abstract; similar spacing issues appear in Table 1 ('25.037.100.58', '29.767.380.61'). Please proof the compiled tables.
  7. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] D_enc is defined as a mean active-bit count over (x,C,m) drawn from T_enc (Eq. 3), but T_enc is a set of spectrum–structure pairs; please clarify whether multiple spectra per structure are counted with multiplicity and whether D_enc weights spectra or unique molecules.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SOTA claims are held-out benchmark evaluations, not quantities forced by construction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

MS-GPT’s load-bearing claim is empirical Top-k exact-match accuracy on public NPLIB1 and MassSpecGym splits under the known-formula protocol, compared to published baselines. The derivation chain is a standard ML pipeline: molecule-only pretraining of p_θ on oracle fingerprints (Eq. 2), a frozen external MIST encoder supplying π, population-level active-bit density calibration of thresholds from the encoder’s training split alone (Eqs. 3–5; App. B.4), multi-query sampling (Eq. 6), and optional LoRA adaptation on domain training posteriors (Eq. 7). Pretraining excludes connectivity-equivalent val/test InChIKey-14 blocks. Density band K and recoverability groups are validation/training hyperparameters, not test-label fits renamed as predictions. No self-definitional identity equates a reported accuracy to its inputs; no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the result. Framing as “posterior querying” is methodological, not a renamed known law. Residual risks (hand-chosen K, radius-2 non-identifiability) are assumption/correctness issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

The work is empirical ML on top of established cheminformatics objects (Morgan fingerprints, SAFE strings, known formula) and a frozen MIST posterior. Load-bearing choices are the fingerprint-mediated factorization, population density calibration band, group-query approximation to the posterior expectation, and adapter training groups—not new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Active-bit density-ratio band K=[κ_min, κ_max] = [0.95, 1.50]
    Shared band endpoints chosen empirically from validation metrics; maps to dataset-specific thresholds via encoder training density (App. B.4). Central inference behavior depends on this interval.
  • Query groups M and samples per group N (pool B=M×N) = M=20, N=5, B=100
    Default inference allocation; ablated but default M=20, N=5, B=100 is a design choice affecting reported Top-k.
  • Posterior-aligned adaptation recoverability thresholds and loss weights (α_g, λ_g) = c_cut=0.40; weights per Table 7
    frozen-hit / residual / low-coverage split uses c≥0.40 and hand-set CE/KL weights (Table 7); shapes adapter training signal.
  • LoRA rank and adaptation schedule = rank=4, α=8; 3000/2500 steps selected
    Rank-4 LoRA on query pathway; step counts and selected checkpoints from validation (B.3).
  • Generation sampling hyperparameters = T=1.0, top-k=50, top-p=0.95
    Temperature, top-k, top-p fixed at inference (B.5) and affect candidate diversity/ranking.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption De novo elucidation factors as E_{z~q_φ(z|x,C)}[p_θ(y|z,C)] with z a discrete Morgan fingerprint (Eq. 1).
    Standard fingerprint-mediated paradigm; assumes fingerprints plus formula are an adequate bottleneck for structure recovery from MS/MS.
  • ad hoc to paper Population active-bit density matching keeps thresholded posterior queries near the oracle-fingerprint manifold in aggregate (Eqs. 3–5).
    Core calibration hypothesis of §3.3; supported empirically but not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite group average over M thresholds approximates the posterior expectation (Eq. 6).
    Practical Monte Carlo-style stand-in for the full expectation over fingerprint bits.
  • domain assumption Molecular formula C is known at inference (known-formula protocol).
    Stated evaluation setting §4.1; removes formula inference error from the measured task.
  • domain assumption InChIKey-14 identity defines exact 2D structural match for metrics.
    Community evaluation convention used throughout Table 1 and ablations.
  • domain assumption SAFE-GPT molecular prior plus cross-attention conditioning can map fingerprint-formula queries to valid structures after molecule-only pretraining.
    Inherited from SAFE-GPT / transformer LM practice; warm-start and pretraining corpus are load-bearing.
invented entities (3)
  • Active-bit density band calibration no independent evidence
    purpose: Map spectrum posterior π to a threshold interval whose active-bit counts track oracle fingerprint density.
    Procedural construct introduced in §3.3; validated by ablation vs outer-band and point-query controls, not an external physical object.
  • Fixed-size group querying no independent evidence
    purpose: Distribute a fixed candidate budget B across M posterior operating points.
    Inference schedule approximating Eq. 1; gains shown vs M=1 point queries.
  • Posterior-aligned LoRA adapter with recoverability-grouped CE+KL objective no independent evidence
    purpose: Adapt query-reading pathway to domain posterior bit patterns while KL-anchoring the pretrained prior.
    Training recipe in §3.4; improves Top-10 especially; no claim of a new chemical entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 27576 in / 3727 out tokens · 84978 ms · 2026-07-30T17:42:43.509843+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Molecular structure elucidation from tandem mass spectra (MS/MS) is a central inverse problem in analytical chemistry. Most existing approaches to MS/MS identification remain tied to reference libraries or predefined candidate sets, whereas de novo methods aim to generate structures directly from spectra. A common de novo route predicts a molecular fingerprint from the spectrum and then decodes structures from it, enabling decoder pretraining on large molecule-only corpora. However, this paradigm creates a training-inference mismatch: the decoder is trained on oracle fingerprints computed from molecules, but at inference it is queried with a noisy spectrum-induced fingerprint posterior that is typically collapsed to a single thresholded fingerprint. We introduce MS-GPT, which recasts fingerprint-mediated de novo elucidation as spectrum-induced posterior querying of a conditional molecule-language model. MS-GPT conditions a molecule-language model on fingerprints and formulas, then converts the spectrum-induced posterior into a band of fingerprint queries near the oracle-fingerprint manifold through active-bit density calibration. Candidates sampled across this band are pooled and ranked by generation-frequency consensus. A lightweight LoRA adapter further mitigates domain-specific posterior bias while preserving the pretrained molecular prior. On NPLIB1 and MassSpecGym, MS-GPT sets a new state of the art, reaching Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy of 29.8\%/41.1\% and 23.9\%/28.7\%, respectively. Candidate-pool scaling shows that efficient autoregressive molecular generation continues to improve recall with a little additional inference cost. The source code and model checkpoints are available at https://github.com/VIKI623/MS-GPT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23607 by Feng Zhu, Weichu Zheng, Xiaokang Yang, Xin Zhao, Yanyan Xu, Yaohui Jin, Yumin Liu, Zhuo Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NPLIB1 Top-10 exact-match accuracy versus per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MS-GPT inference as spectrum-induced posterior querying. (a) A spectrum encoder maps an MS/MS spectrum and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pretraining and adaptation of the conditional molecule-language model. (a) Molecule-only formula-grouped pretrain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NPLIB1 Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NPLIB1 Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MassSpecGym Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MassSpecGym Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NPLIB1 Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MassSpecGym Top-1/Top-10 exact-match accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MassSpecGym posterior-fidelity bin proportions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NPLIB1 posterior-fidelity bin proportions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: MS-GPT case studies on NPLIB1 across candidate-pool sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: MS-GPT case studies on MassSpecGym across candidate-pool sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dorrestein

    Wout Bittremieux, Mingxun Wang, and Pieter C. Dorrestein. 2022. The criti- cal role that spectral libraries play in capturing the metabolomics community knowledge.Metabolomics18, 12 (2022), 94

    2022

  2. [2]

    Montgomery Bohde, Hongxuan Liu, Mrunali Manjrekar, Magdalena Lederbauer, Shuiwang Ji, Runzhong Wang, and Connor W. Coley. 2026. FRIGID: Scaling Diffusion-Based Molecular Generation from Mass Spectra at Training and Infer- ence Time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16648(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Montgomery Bohde, Mrunali Manjrekar, Runzhong Wang, Shuiwang Ji, and Connor W. Coley. 2025. DiffMS: Diffusion Generation of Molecules Conditioned on Mass Spectra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09571(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    de Jonge, Adamo Young, Fleming Kretschmer, Raman Samusevich, Janne Heirman, Fei Wang, Luke Zhang, Kai Dührkop, et al

    Roman Bushuiev, Anton Bushuiev, Niek F. de Jonge, Adamo Young, Fleming Kretschmer, Raman Samusevich, Janne Heirman, Fei Wang, Luke Zhang, Kai Dührkop, et al. 2024. MassSpecGym: A benchmark for the discovery and iden- tification of molecules. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 37. 110010–110027

    2024

  5. [5]

    Roman Bushuiev, Anton Bushuiev, Raman Samusevich, et al . 2025. Self- supervised learning of molecular representations from millions of tandem mass spectra using DreaMS.Nature Biotechnology(2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Thomas Butler, Abraham Frandsen, Rose Lightheart, et al . 2023. MS2Mol: A transformer model for illuminating dark chemical space from mass spectra. ChemRxiv(2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. 2020. Chem- BERTa: Large-Scale Self-Supervised Pretraining for Molecular Property Predic- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09885(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    de Jonge, Joris J

    Niek F. de Jonge, Joris J. R. Louwen, Elena Chekmeneva, et al. 2023. MS2Query: reliable and scalable MS2 mass spectra-based analogue search.Nature Commu- nications14, 1 (2023), 1752

    2023

  9. [9]

    Hoffmann, Daniel Petras, William H

    Kai Dührkop, Louis-Félix Nothias, Markus Fleischauer, Raphael Reher, Marcus Ludwig, Martin A. Hoffmann, Daniel Petras, William H. Gerwick, Juho Rousu, Pieter C. Dorrestein, and Sebastian Böcker. 2021. Systematic classification of unknown metabolites using high-resolution fragmentation mass spectra.Nature Biotechnology39, 4 (2021), 462–471

    2021

  10. [10]

    Kai Dührkop, Huibin Shen, Marvin Meusel, Juho Rousu, and Sebastian Böcker

  11. [11]

    Carl Edwards, Tuan Lai, Kevin Ros, Garrett Honke, Kyunghyun Cho, and Heng Ji

  12. [12]

    Franco, N

    P. Franco, N. Porta, John D. Holliday, and Peter Willett. 2014. The use of 2D fingerprint methods to support the assessment of structural similarity in orphan drug legislation.Journal of Cheminformatics6, 1 (2014), 5. doi:10.1186/1758- 2946-6-5

    doi:10.1186/1758- 2014

  13. [13]

    Xavier, and Connor W

    Samuel Goldman, Jeremy Wohlwend, Martin Strazar, Guy Haroush, Ramnik J. Xavier, and Connor W. Coley. 2023. Annotating metabolite mass spectra with domain-inspired chemical formula transformers.Nature Machine Intelligence5, 9 (2023), 965–979

    2023

  14. [14]

    Yang Han, Pengyu Wang, Kai Yu, Xin Chen, and Lu Chen. 2025. MS-BART: Unified Modeling of Mass Spectra and Molecules for Structure Elucidation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20615(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Shion Honda, Shoi Shi, and Hiroki R. Ueda. 2019. SMILES Transformer: Pre- trained Molecular Fingerprint for Low Data Drug Discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04738(2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Hisayuki Horai, Masanori Arita, Shigehiko Kanaya, et al . 2010. MassBank: a public repository for sharing mass spectral data for life sciences.Journal of Mass Spectrometry45, 7 (2010), 703–714

    2010

  17. [17]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685(2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Florian Huber, Sven van der Burg, Justin J. J. van der Hooft, and Lars Ridder. 2021. MS2DeepScore: a novel deep learning similarity measure to compare tandem mass spectra.Journal of Cheminformatics13, 1 (2021), 84

    2021

  19. [19]

    Math- iowetz, and Markus Boehm

    Raphael Klein, Sascha Jung, Alexander Neumann, Mehran Jalaie, Alan M. Math- iowetz, and Markus Boehm. 2026. Strategies for Identifying Molecules of Interest in Large Chemical Spaces.Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling(2026). doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01496

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01496 2026

  20. [20]

    Mario Krenn, Florian Häse, Akshat Kumar Nigam, Pascal Friederich, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. 2020. SELFIES: A 100% robust molecular string representation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology1, 4 (2020), 045024

    2020

  21. [21]

    Tuan Le, Robin Winter, Frank Noé, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2020. Neuraldecipher–reverse-engineering extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) to their molecular structures.Chemical Science11, 38 (2020), 10378–10389

    2020

  22. [22]

    Litsa, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Payel Das, and Lydia E

    Eleni E. Litsa, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Payel Das, and Lydia E. Kavraki. 2023. An end-to-end deep learning framework for translating mass spectra to de-novo molecules.Communications Chemistry6, 1 (2023), 132

    2023

  23. [23]

    Fromer, and Connor W

    Mrunali Manjrekar, Runzhong Wang, Samuel Goldman, Jenna C. Fromer, and Connor W. Coley. 2026. Generative structural elucidation from mass spectra as an iterative optimization problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07709(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Laura Mismetti, Marvin Alberts, Andreas Krause, and Mara Graziani. 2025. Test- Time Tuned Language Models Enable End-to-end De Novo Molecular Structure Generation from MS/MS Spectra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23746(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Harry L. Morgan. 1965. The generation of a unique machine description for chemical structures–a technique developed at chemical abstracts service.Journal of Chemical Documentation5, 2 (1965), 107–113

    1965

  26. [26]

    Ghaith Mqawass, Tuan Le, Fabian Theis, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2026. De Novo Molecular Structure Elucidation from Mass Spectra via Flow Matching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19912(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Neng Kai Nigel Neo, Jing Lim, Yong Zhau Preston Ngoui, Xue Ting Serene Koh, and Bingquan Shen. 2025. One Small Step with Fingerprints, One Giant Leap for De NovoMolecule Generation from Mass Spectra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04180 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Jianan Nie and Peng Gao. 2026. FlowMS: Flow Matching for De Novo Structure Elucidation from Mass Spectra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18397(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Emmanuel Noutahi, Cristian Gabellini, Michael Craig, Jonathan S. C. Lim, and Prudencio Tossou. 2024. Gotta be SAFE: a new framework for molecular design. Digital Discovery3 (2024), 796–804

    2024

  30. [30]

    Xiaohan Qin, Chao Wang, Zhengyang Zhou, Linjiang Chen, Wenjie Du, and Yang Wang. 2026. MSAnchor: De Novo Molecular Generation from Mass Spectrometry Data with Anchor-Extended Molecular Scaffolds. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 953–961

    2026

  31. [31]

    David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. 2010. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling50, 5 (2010), 742–754

    2010

  32. [32]

    Jerret Ross, Brian Belgodere, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Inkit Padhi, Youssef Mroueh, and Payel Das. 2022. Large-Scale Chemical Language Representa- tions Capture Molecular Structure and Properties.Nature Machine Intelligence4, 12 (2022), 1256–1264

    2022

  33. [33]

    Hoffman, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Youssef Mroueh, and Payel Das

    Jerret Ross, Brian Belgodere, Samuel C. Hoffman, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Youssef Mroueh, and Payel Das. 2024. GP-MoLFormer: A Foundation Model for Molecular Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04912(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Schymanski, Sebastian Wolf, Juliane Hollender, and Steffen Neumann

    Christoph Ruttkies, Emma L. Schymanski, Sebastian Wolf, Juliane Hollender, and Steffen Neumann. 2016. MetFrag relaunched: incorporating strategies beyond in silico fragmentation.Journal of Cheminformatics8, 1 (2016), 3

    2016

  35. [35]

    Shrivastava, Neil Swainston, Sudeshna Samanta, Ian Roberts, Marc Wright Muelas, and Douglas B

    Anubhav D. Shrivastava, Neil Swainston, Sudeshna Samanta, Ian Roberts, Marc Wright Muelas, and Douglas B. Kell. 2021. MassGenie: A transformer-based deep learning method for identifying small molecules from their mass spectra. Biomolecules11, 12 (2021), 1793

    2021

  36. [36]

    Stravs, Kai Dührkop, Sebastian Böcker, and Nicola Zamboni

    Michael A. Stravs, Kai Dührkop, Sebastian Böcker, and Nicola Zamboni. 2022. MSNovelist: de novo structure generation from mass spectra.Nature Methods 19, 7 (2022), 865–870

    2022

  37. [37]

    Xichen Sun, Wentao Wei, Jiahua Rao, Jiancong Xie, and Yuedong Yang. 2026. De Novo Molecular Generation from Mass Spectra via Many-Body Enhanced Diffusion. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2026

  38. [38]

    Ucak, Ikuo Ashyrmamatov, and Juyong Lee

    Umut V. Ucak, Ikuo Ashyrmamatov, and Juyong Lee. 2023. Reconstruction of lossless molecular representations from fingerprints.Journal of Cheminformatics 15, 1 (2023), 26

    2023

  39. [39]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30

    2017

  40. [40]

    Fei Wang, Jaanus Liigand, Siyang Tian, David Arndt, Russell Greiner, and David S. Wishart. 2021. CFM-ID 4.0: more accurate ESI-MS/MS spectral prediction and compound identification.Analytical Chemistry93, 34 (2021), 11692–11700

    2021

  41. [41]

    Carver, Vanessa V

    Mingxun Wang, Jeremy J. Carver, Vanessa V. Phelan, Laura M. Sanchez, Neha Garg, Yao Peng, Don Duy Nguyen, et al. 2016. Sharing and community cura- tion of mass spectrometry data with Global Natural Products Social Molecular Networking.Nature Biotechnology34, 8 (2016), 828–837

    2016

  42. [42]

    Runzhong Wang, Mrunali Manjrekar, Behnam Mahjour, Julijana Avila-Pacheco, Justin Provenzano, Emily Reynolds, Magdalena Lederbauer, Evgeny Mashin, Samuel Goldman, Mingxun Wang, et al . 2025. Neural spectral prediction for structure elucidation with tandem mass spectrometry.bioRxiv(2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Yinkai Wang, Xiaohui Chen, Liping Liu, and Soha Hassoun. 2025. MADGEN: Mass-Spec attends to De Novo Molecular Generation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  44. [44]

    confidently wrong

    David Weininger. 1988. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules.Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences28, 1 (1988), 31–36. 9 Zhao et al. A Additional Experimental Results A.1 Component Ablation Table 3 presents the MassSpecGym counterpart to the NPLIB1 abla- tion in Table 2. MS-GP...

    1988

  45. [2015]

    Searching molecular structure databases with tandem mass spectra using CSI:FingerID.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 41 (2015), 12580–12585

    2015

  46. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    Translation between Molecules and Natural Language. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    2022