Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 61 references

A formula-free transformer can predict the correct molecule from an infrared spectrum alone for about one in three unseen experimental samples, and the gain comes from treating expert and layer mixing as fuzzy data fusion rather than weight

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 ↗

A formula-free transformer with fuzzy MoE aggregation and contrastive alignment improves IR-to-SMILES elucidation, reaching 31.8% Top-1 on experimental NIST spectra, but the >10-point gains occur only on the QM9S subset.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection The fuzzy-MoE gains are likely inflated by a 2x active-parameter confound; the paper is still worth a referee for the encoder fusion and experimental setup. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26164 v1 pith:6IFBXAAV submitted 2026-07-28 cs.LG

Data Fusion and Contrastive Alignment for Unconstrained IR Molecular Structure Elucidation

Ethan J. Mick , Campbell A. Sweet , Matthias J. Young , Derek T. Anderson This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords infrared spectroscopymolecular structure elucidationSMILES generationMixture-of-ExpertsChoquet integralorder statisticcontrastive learningformula-free prediction
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.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that molecular structure can be predicted from an infrared spectrum alone, without the chemical formula as a crutch, and that two modifications make this feasible: a Mixture-of-Experts decoder whose expert outputs are fused by order-statistic and Choquet-integral operators instead of a linear sum, and a contrastive loss that aligns spectral embeddings with structure embeddings. The best configuration reaches 31.83% Top-1, 50.13% Top-5, and 57.23% Top-10 accuracy on experimental spectra after fine-tuning, and improves Top-K accuracy by over 10 percentage points over a dense baseline on a small-molecule simulated benchmark. Fragment-level analysis shows that most of the remaining gap to formula-conditioned models comes from small, spectrally quiet groups, implying that infrared spectra encode most of the structural information needed for identification. A sympathetic reader would care because the work reframes formula-free IR structure elucidation as an achievable goal and locates precisely where chemical-formula priors still matter.

Core claim

This paper claims that unconstrained, formula-free IR-to-SMILES structure elucidation is substantially improved by two modifications to the encoder-decoder transformer: a Mixture-of-Experts decoder in which expert outputs are aggregated by non-additive order-statistic (LOSN) or Choquet-integral (ChIMP) fusion instead of a weighted sum, and a contrastive loss that aligns the spectral encoder's pooled output with a spectrum-agnostic SMILES encoder's CLS embedding. With both changes plus LOSN-based encoder-layer fusion, the model reaches 31.83% Top-1, 50.13% Top-5, and 57.23% Top-10 accuracy on experimental spectra after fine-tuning from simulated pretraining, and improves Top-K accuracy by mor

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is non-additive aggregation over ranked inputs. The Linear Order Statistic Neuron (LOSN) applies learned weights to expert outputs sorted by magnitude per dimension, so aggregation depends on rank rather than source identity. The 2-additive Choquet integral (ChIMP) adds learned pairwise interaction terms over sorted inputs, so expert coalitions can be synergistic or redundant. These operators replace the standard linear convex sum at two points that are conventionally linear: the decoder's Mixture-of-Experts layer, where they fuse expert sub-networks, and the encoder's layer mixing, where they fuse intermediate spectral representations. A contrastive InfoNCE-style loss

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that molecular-dynamics force-field simulated infrared spectra are similar enough to real measured IR that pretraining on 633,000 synthetic spectra transfers to experimental data after fine-tuning on only 3,889 measured spectra; if that spectral-realism gap is wide, the reported accuracies and fragment conclusions may not carry over to other instruments or broader chemistry.

What would settle it

Measure the fine-tuned model's Top-1 accuracy on experimental spectra recorded by a different infrared instrument, with a different resolution or sample preparation, without any retuning; if accuracy collapses relative to the in-distribution experimental test set, the simulated-to-experimental transfer claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Formula-free IR-only structure elucidation reaches about 32% Top-1 accuracy on held-out experimental spectra, so de novo prediction no longer depends on a known molecular formula.
  • The ablations imply that non-additive fusion is a better inductive bias than linear gating for structurally heterogeneous generation, not merely a training trick.
  • Because spectral information largely suffices, the practical bottleneck is resolving small, spectrally quiet fragments; targeted data augmentation, higher spectral resolution, or instrument-specific fine-tuning should narrow that gap.
  • The contrastive alignment also yields a spectrum-to-molecule retrieval space with high R@K accuracy, offering a second route to identification independent of beam generation.
  • Pretraining on simulated molecular-dynamics spectra followed by fine-tuning on a small experimental set is a workable recipe, provided the simulations are close enough to real measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the learned retrieval space could be used at inference time to rerank or prune beam-search candidates, a straightforward extension the paper does not test.
  • Beyond the paper: because the fragment analysis implicates quiet groups that a formula resolves, an auxiliary formula-prediction head (kept out of the decoder input) may recover much of the formula-conditioned advantage without compromising the formula-free claim.
  • Beyond the paper: the same fuzzy MoE aggregation should transfer to other spectral modalities or multi-source structure elucidation, where expert redundancy and synergy are chemically meaningful; this is conjecture, not a claim of the paper.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed performance drop at high SMILES augmentation likely comes from the contrastive loss treating augmented copies of the same molecule as negatives; treating same-molecule augmentations as positives is a testable fix.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a formula-free encoder-decoder transformer for IR-to-SMILES structure elucidation. It replaces the standard dense decoder FFN with an MoE layer whose expert outputs are combined by linear convex sum, LOSN, or 2-additive Choquet (ChIMP), and fuses encoder layer outputs with LOSN/ChIMP. It also adds a CoCa-style contrastive alignment loss. Experiments on IBM-MD simulated spectra, QM9S, and NIST experimental spectra after fine-tuning report Top-1/5/10 accuracy; the best model (MoE-LOSN) achieves 27.12/44.62/53.96 on IBM-MD and 31.83/50.13/57.23 on NIST. The abstract claims >10 pp improvement over the dense FFN baseline on QM9S. The paper also introduces substructure-level fragment evaluation, including BRICS and custom sp3-cut fragmentation.

Significance. The formula-free setting is a genuine contribution: most prior IR-to-structure work conditions on a molecular formula, and removing this constraint is practically relevant. The substructure evaluation methodology is a useful diagnostic that goes beyond exact-match accuracy. The manuscript provides detailed ablations and promises open source code. However, the central architectural claim — that non-additive LOSN/ChIMP aggregation is responsible for the observed gains — is undermined by an active-parameter confound in the decoder ablation. There are also internal inconsistencies in the ChIMP and temperature specifications, and the headline improvement is supported only on one dataset. These issues must be resolved before the empirical conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4, Table 3 vs Section 3.3, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The decoder ablation is not capacity-controlled. The text states MoE-LCS uses 8 experts with k=4 and that the active parameters match the dense FFN. MoE-LOSN and MoE-ChIMP aggregate over all E=8 expert outputs per Eqs. (8)-(9), so they activate and compute twice as many expert FFN parameters. The observed gains, e.g., QM9S Top-1 63.28 vs 55.58 (MoE-LOSN vs MoE-LCS) and 63.28 vs 52.15 (vs dense FFN), may therefore reflect 2x active expert capacity rather than the aggregation operator. The paper acknowledges a load-balancing asymmetry but not this parameter-count asymmetry. Please add controlled comparisons: e.g., a top-4 LCS with matched active parameters, a dense FFN with doubled width, or fMoE variants restricted to the same expert subset.
  2. [Appendix A.3, Table 5 vs Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] The contrastive temperature x03C4 is specified as 'learned, initialized at 0.07' in Table 5, while the main text says 'initialized to 1 and exponentiated during training.' Since x03C4 directly scales the InfoNCE logits, this inconsistency changes the effective loss. Please clarify whether x03C4 is the temperature itself or its log-scale parameter, and report the actual initial value used in the experiments.
  3. [Appendix A.3, Table 6 and Eq. (9)] ChIMP group size is specified as 64 with 8 groups for d_model=512, but Eq. (9) applies the Choquet integral per output dimension over E=8 expert outputs. If the Choquet integral is applied per group of 64 dimensions, the number of learned interaction terms and the sorting semantics differ from the per-dimension description. If it is applied per dimension, the 'group size' is irrelevant. This needs clarification because the parameter count and the operation depend on it.
  4. [Abstract and Table 3] The claim of 'over 10 percentage points' improvement is only supported on QM9S (Top-1: 63.28 vs 52.15 for dense FFN). On IBM-MD the improvement is 2.91 pp and on NIST 4.62 pp. The abstract should qualify the claim by dataset, or the main text should explicitly restrict the headline to QM9S.
  5. [Tables 1-3] No variance or statistical significance information is reported. Several comparisons in Table 3 are small (e.g., MoE-ChIMP vs MoE-LCS on NIST: +1.00 Top-1, -2.85 Top-5, +3.41 Top-10). Without multiple seeds or confidence intervals, it is unclear which differences are meaningful. In addition, Table 1's prior-baseline numbers are taken from different papers without confirming identical preprocessing (resolution, duplicate removal, atom filters, test splits); the 'state-of-the-art' statement should be restricted to the setup actually matched.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4] Typo: 'wheras' should be 'whereas'.
  2. [Appendix A.2, Eq. (16)] The notation 'A_{x03C0(j)} = 0' should presumably be 'A_{x03C0(0)} = x2205' (empty set) in the definition of the Choquet integral.
  3. [Section 5.3] The sentence 'the observed performance differences are purely attributable to the inductive bias of the aggregation operator' overstates the evidence; parameter counts are close but not identical, and training dynamics differ.
  4. [Table 4] The formula-conditioned variants (Dense FFN with formula; MoE-LOSN with formula) are not described in the Methods. Please specify how the formula is injected and whether this matches the prior formula-conditioned baselines.
  5. [Figure 1] Caption punctuation: 'In(B)' and 'In(A)' should be formatted consistently (e.g., 'In (B)' and 'In (A)').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: main claims rest on held-out empirical ablations; self-citations supply operator definitions, not evidence of efficacy.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical and externally anchored: Table 3 compares MoE-LOSN/MoE-ChIMP/MoE-LCS/dense FFN on held-out IBM-MD, QM9S, and NIST test sets; Table 1 benchmarks against prior work (Alberts et al., Wu et al.). No reported accuracy or retrieval number is a refit of its own target. The self-citations to LOSN (Veal et al. 2019), ChIMP (Islam et al. 2020), and ELOS (Kakula et al. 2020) define the aggregation operators and are used as architectural building blocks ('In previous work, we formalized the extended linear order statistic (ELOS)... This generalization is utilized for the LOSN in this work,' Sec. 3.2); they are not invoked to prove that the operators improve IR-to-SMILES accuracy. That proof is the paper's own ablation. The only explicit self-referential caveat is in Sec. 3.3: 'because MoE-LOSN and MoE-ChIMP aggregate over all E expert outputs... they are subject to no comparable collapse pressure and are trained without it. This asymmetry should be taken into account... not a controlled one.' That caveat concerns expert-utilization analysis, not the accuracy claims. A real confound exists in Table 3: Sec. 5.4 says 'The total active parameters of these 4 experts match the parameter count of the dense FFN for consistency,' but Eqs. 8-9 define MoE-LOSN/ChIMP as aggregating over all E=8 experts, so those variants have 2x active expert parameters. This is a capacity confound and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: including more experts does not by construction force the observed ordering (MoE-ChIMP underperforms MoE-LOSN), and no equation equates the fuzzy aggregation output with the comparison target. On the circularity question, the derivation chain is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical: a trained network achieves the reported accuracies. It rests on standard transformer/contrastive machinery (standard_math), domain assumptions about IR simulation realism and SMILES representation, and ad hoc assumptions in the fragment-based interpretation. The fuzzy operators are taken as given from the authors' prior papers; their correctness is not re-derived here.

free parameters (7)
  • contrastive temperature τ = 0.07 (initialized; learned)
    InfoNCE temperature controls alignment sharpness; Section 3.1 says initialized to 1, Table 5 says 0.07.
  • alignment loss weight λ = 1.0
    Weight of contrastive term in total loss (Eq. 4); chosen by hand.
  • beam width = 10
    Beam search width used for Top-K generation; affects accuracy and validity.
  • number of experts E = 8
    MoE expert count; hyperparameter.
  • top_k = 4
    k for sparse MoE-LCS baseline.
  • SMILES enumeration degree = 6
    Chosen by augmentation sweep (Appendix C.3) for NIST fine-tuning.
  • ChIMP group size = 64
    Features per Choquet group; hyperparameter.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption PCFF molecular-dynamics simulated IR spectra approximate experimental IR sufficiently for transfer learning
    Used to pretrain models on 633k simulated spectra before fine-tuning on ~3.9k NIST experimental spectra; Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption SMILES string sequence (with canonicalization and InChI equivalence) is a valid target representation for molecular structure
    Generation target; RDKit/InChI used for evaluation (Section 4.2).
  • standard math InfoNCE contrastive loss on in-batch negatives yields a latent geometry where retrieval R@K is meaningful
    Used in Section 5.2; relies on standard contrastive learning theory.
  • domain assumption Beam search with width 10 and validity filtering approximates the model's true top-K distribution
    Inference protocol; invalid SMILES discarded (Section 4.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The custom sp3-cut fragmentation and BRICS decomposition provide chemically meaningful error decompositions
    Used to conclude IR encodes most structural info (Section 5.6, Appendix B).
  • ad hoc to paper The model's failure modes reflect spectral information content rather than decoder capacity limits
    The conclusion that isomer-ranking performance gap is due to overlapping absorption bands assumes the decoder is near-optimal; Section 6.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Fusion and Contrastive Alignment for Unconstrained IR Molecular Structure Elucidation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IFBXAAV

@misc{pith2026260726164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Fusion and Contrastive Alignment for Unconstrained IR Molecular Structure Elucidation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IFBXAAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26164}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Automated molecular structure elucidation from infrared (IR) spectroscopy data has seen significant advancements in recent years, but its broad applicability is limited by a reliance on pre-determined chemical formulas provided as auxiliary model inputs. This limits model predictions to isomer identification rather than full molecular structure prediction. Although transformer models have been shown to identify molecular isomers with high accuracy, their reliability for unconstrained structure elucidation is comparatively low and poorly understood. In this work, we propose and evaluate key modifications to the traditional encoder-decoder transformer. To better address the vast chemical space of the unconstrained problem, we implement a novel Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) decoder module that utilizes non-additive aggregation via linear-order statistics and the Choquet integral. We further modify the transformer to utilize these non-additive operators when aggregating spectral representations as well. Together with an auxiliary contrastive alignment loss term, these enhancements improve Top-K prediction accuracy by over 10 percentage points compared to baseline IR-only models. Through sub-structure fragment analysis of molecular predictions, we further confirm that infrared spectra encode the vast majority of relevant chemical information, implying that the higher performance of isomer-ranking models is largely due to underrepresented or overlapping absorption bands for molecules in the explored chemical space. Ultimately, by demonstrating the efficacy of automated molecular structure elucidation from measured IR spectra, this work serves to significantly broaden the utility of AI in analytical chemistry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26164 by Campbell A. Sweet, Derek T. Anderson, Ethan J. Mick, Matthias J. Young.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The proposed transformer architecture. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Standard and proposed expert aggregation methods for MoE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative prediction examples on NIST experimental spectra. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Select Top-5 predictions for the MoE-LOSN model on the NIST experimental test set. The model takes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of contrastive loss on model performance. (Left): Top-K prediction accuracy of our baseline model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-fragment-class precision, recall, and F1 scores for BRICS fragment classes on held-out NIST experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Substructure analysis. (A): Miss rate of sp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A shows miss rate vs. test set occurrences, identifying a few fragments that are disproportionately missed and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Expert SMILES token attribution for different MoE configurations. Bin intensity denotes the probability that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Encoder Fusion layer weight by spectral position, and relative contribution, for the standard gate-weighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Varying degrees of SMILES enumeration of training samples on the experimental training set before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.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

61 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Klein.Organic Chemistry

    David R. Klein.Organic Chemistry. Wiley Global Education, 2013. 15 arXivTemplateA PREPRINT

    2013

  2. [2]

    Griffiths.Handbook of Vibrational Spectroscopy

    Peter R. Griffiths.Handbook of Vibrational Spectroscopy. Wiley Global Education, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Interpretation of infrared spectra, a practical approach.Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry, 12:10815–10837, 2000

    John Coates et al. Interpretation of infrared spectra, a practical approach.Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry, 12:10815–10837, 2000

    2000

  4. [4]

    Elsevier, 2017

    Peter Larkin.Infrared and Raman spectroscopy: principles and spectral interpretation. Elsevier, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Leveraging infrared spectroscopy for automated structure elucidation.Chemistry Communications, 7, 2024

    Marvin Alberts, Federico Zipoli, and Teodoro Laino. Leveraging infrared spectroscopy for automated structure elucidation.Chemistry Communications, 7, 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01341-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s42004-024-01341-w 2024

  6. [6]

    Computer-assisted structure elucidation (case): Current and future perspectives.Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry, 59:667–668, 07 2021

    Mikhail Elyashberg and Dimitris Argyropoulos. Computer-assisted structure elucidation (case): Current and future perspectives.Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry, 59:667–668, 07 2021. doi:10.1002/mrc.5162

    work page doi:10.1002/mrc.5162 2021

  7. [7]

    Fine, Anand A

    Jonathan A. Fine, Anand A. Rajasekar, Krupal P. Jethava, and Gaurav Chopra. Spectral deep learn- ing for prediction and prospective validation of functional groups.Chem. Sci., 11:4618–4630, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC06240H

    work page doi:10.1039/c9sc06240h 2020

  8. [8]

    Enders, Nicole M

    Abigail A. Enders, Nicole M. North, Chase M. Fensore, Juan Velez-Alvarez, and Heather C. Allen. Functional group identification for ftir spectra using image-based machine learning models.Analytical Chemistry, 93(28): 9711–9718, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00867. PMID: 34190551

    doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00867 2021

  9. [9]

    Automatic materials characterization from infrared spectra using convolutional neural networks.Chemical Science, 14(13):3600–3609, 2023

    Guwon Jung, Son Gyo Jung, and Jacqueline M Cole. Automatic materials characterization from infrared spectra using convolutional neural networks.Chemical Science, 14(13):3600–3609, 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC05892H

    work page doi:10.1039/d2sc05892h 2023

  10. [10]

    Bemis and Mark A

    Guy W. Bemis and Mark A. Murcko. The properties of known drugs. 1. molecular frameworks.Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 39(15):2887–2893, 1996. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/jm9602928. PMID: 8709122

    doi:10.1021/jm9602928 1996

  11. [11]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Transformer-based models for predicting molecular structures from infrared spectra using patch-based self-attention.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 129(8):2077–2085, 2025

    Wenjin Wu, Aleš Leonardis, Jianbo Jiao, Jun Jiang, and Linjiang Chen. Transformer-based models for predicting molecular structures from infrared spectra using patch-based self-attention.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 129(8):2077–2085, 2025. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.4c05665. PMID: 39951543

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.4c05665 2077

  13. [13]

    Setting new benchmarks in ai-driven infrared structure elucidation.Digital Discovery, 4:1936–1943, 2025

    Marvin Alberts, Federico Zipoli, and Teodoro Laino. Setting new benchmarks in ai-driven infrared structure elucidation.Digital Discovery, 4:1936–1943, 2025. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/D5DD00131E

    work page doi:10.1039/d5dd00131e 1936

  14. [14]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    Alexey Dosovitskiy et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Smiles, a chemical language and information system

    David Weininger. Smiles, a chemical language and information system. 1. introduction to methodol- ogy and encoding rules.Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 28(1):31–36, 1988. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ci00057a005

    doi:10.1021/ci00057a005 1988

  16. [16]

    Nmr-solver: Automated structure elucidation via large-scale spectral matching and physics-guided fragment optimization, 2025

    Yongqi Jin, Jun-Jie Wang, Fanjie Xu, Xiaohong Ji, Zhifeng Gao, Linfeng Zhang, Guolin Ke, Rong Zhu, and Weinan E. Nmr-solver: Automated structure elucidation via large-scale spectral matching and physics-guided fragment optimization, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00640

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Unraveling molecular structure: A multimodal spectroscopic dataset for chemistry, 2024

    Marvin Alberts, Oliver Schilter, Federico Zipoli, Nina Hartrampf, and Teodoro Laino. Unraveling molecular structure: A multimodal spectroscopic dataset for chemistry, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 17492

    2024

  18. [18]

    Lewis, Magnus J

    Martin Priessner, Richard J. Lewis, Magnus J. Johansson, Jonathan M. Goodman, Jon Paul Janet, and Anna Tomberg. Enhancing molecular structure elucidation with reasoning-capable llms.Digital Discovery, 5:1237–1251,

  19. [19]

    Na, Kibum Kim, and Chanyoung Park

    Heewoong Noh, Namkyeong Lee, Gyoung S. Na, Kibum Kim, and Chanyoung Park. Ir-agent: Expert-inspired llm agents for structure elucidation from infrared spectra, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=B1ckMDqlg

    2017

  21. [21]

    Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(120):1–39, 2022

    William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(120):1–39, 2022. URL http: //jmlr.org/papers/v23/21-0998.html

    2022

  22. [22]

    Anderson, Grant Scott, James M Keller, Timothy C

    Charlie Veal, Alex Yang, Alex Hurt, Muhammad Aminul Islam, Derek T. Anderson, Grant Scott, James M Keller, Timothy C. Havens, and Bo Tang. Linear order statistic neuron. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pages 1–6, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858802. 16 arXivTemplateA PREPRINT

    arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Anderson, Anthony J

    Muhammad Aminul Islam, Derek T. Anderson, Anthony J. Pinar, Timothy C. Havens, Grant Scott, and James M. Keller. Enabling explainable fusion in deep learning with fuzzy integral neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(7):1291–1300, 7 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/tfuzz.2019.2917124

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Toward complete molecular structure prediction from infrared spec- troscopy using deep learning.Journal of chemical information and modeling, 66, 12 2025

    Colin Zhang and Yang Ha. Toward complete molecular structure prediction from infrared spec- troscopy using deep learning.Journal of chemical information and modeling, 66, 12 2025. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.5c01834

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c01834 2025

  25. [25]

    Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

  26. [26]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022. ISSN 2835-8856. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Ee277P3AYC

    2022

  28. [28]

    Molecular contrastive learn- ing of representations via graph neural networks.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4:1–9, 03 2022

    Yuyang Wang, Jianren Wang, Zhonglin Cao, and Amir Barati Farimani. Molecular contrastive learn- ing of representations via graph neural networks.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4:1–9, 03 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00447-x

    doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00447-x 2022

  29. [29]

    Multi-modal con- trastive learning for chemical structure elucidation with vibraclip.Digital Discovery, 4:3818–3827, 2025

    Pau Rocabert-Oriols, Camilla Lo Conte, Núria López, and Javier Heras-Domingo. Multi-modal con- trastive learning for chemical structure elucidation with vibraclip.Digital Discovery, 4:3818–3827, 2025. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/D5DD00269A

    work page doi:10.1039/d5dd00269a 2025

  30. [30]

    End-to-end multimodal structure elucidation from raw spectra combining contrastive learning and evolutionary algorithms.Nature Communications, 17(5013), 2026

    Adrian Mirza, Luc Patiny, and Kevin Maik Jablonka. End-to-end multimodal structure elucidation from raw spectra combining contrastive learning and evolutionary algorithms.Nature Communications, 17(5013), 2026. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-73846-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-73846-y 2026

  31. [31]

    A theory of fuzzy measures: Representations, the choquet integral, and null sets.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 159(2):532–549, 1991

    Toshiaki Murofushi and Michio Sugeno. A theory of fuzzy measures: Representations, the choquet integral, and null sets.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 159(2):532–549, 1991. ISSN 0022-247X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(91)90213-J

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-247x(91)90213-j 1991

  32. [32]

    R.R. Yager. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1):183–190, 1988. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/21.87068

    doi:10.1109/21.87068 1988

  33. [33]

    Generalized choquet fuzzy integral fusion

    Sansanee Auephanwiriyakul, James M Keller, and Paul D Gader. Generalized choquet fuzzy integral fusion. Information Fusion, 3(1):69–85, 2002. ISSN 1566-2535. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-2535(01)00054-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s1566-2535(01)00054-9 2002

  34. [34]

    A decade of application of the choquet and sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid.Annals of Operations Research, 175, 04 2008

    Michel Grabisch and Christophe Labreuche. A decade of application of the choquet and sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid.Annals of Operations Research, 175, 04 2008. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-007- 0064-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10288-007- 2008

  35. [35]

    Does string-based neural mt learn source syntax? InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Ntural Language Processing, pages 1526–1534, 01 2016

    Xing Shi, Inkit Padhi, and Kevin Knight. Does string-based neural mt learn source syntax? InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Ntural Language Processing, pages 1526–1534, 01 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1159

    doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1159 2019

  36. [36]

    Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer

    Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Deep contextualized word representations. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, V olume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227–2237, New Orleans, L...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 2018

  37. [37]

    Exploiting deep representations for neural machine translation

    Zi-Yi Dou, Zhaopeng Tu, Xing Wang, Shuming Shi, and Tong Zhang. Exploiting deep representations for neural machine translation. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4253–4262, Brussels, Belgium, October-November 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1457

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1457 2018

  38. [38]

    Gtrans: Grouping and fusing transformer layers for neural machine translation

    Jian Yang, Yuwei Yin, Liqun Yang, Shuming Ma, Haoyang Huang, Dongdong Zhang, Furu Wei, and Zhoujun Li. Gtrans: Grouping and fusing transformer layers for neural machine translation. IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc., 31:1489–1498, November 2022. ISSN 2329-9290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2022.3221040

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neural Computation, 3:79–87, 03 1991

    Robert Jacobs, Michael Jordan, Steven Nowlan, and Geoffrey Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neural Computation, 3:79–87, 03 1991. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1991.3.1.79

    doi:10.1162/neco.1991.3.1.79 1991

  40. [40]

    From sparse to soft mixtures of experts

    Joan Puigcerver, Carlos Riquelme Ruiz, Basil Mustafa, and Neil Houlsby. From sparse to soft mixtures of experts. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, 17 arXivTemplateA PREPRINT pages 28435–28445, 2024. URL https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/ 79fea214543ba263952ac3f4e5452b14-Paper-Conference.pdf

    2024

  41. [41]

    Soft merging of experts with adaptive routing.Transac- tions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Mohammed Muqeeth, Haokun Liu, and Colin Raffel. Soft merging of experts with adaptive routing.Transac- tions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= 7I199lc54z. Featured Certification

    2024

  42. [42]

    Price, Steven R

    Stanton R. Price, Steven R. Price, and Derek T. Anderson. Introducing fuzzy layers for deep learn- ing. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pages 1–6. IEEE, 6 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/fuzz-ieee.2019.8858790

    arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Layer normalization, 2016. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1607.06450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Extended linear order statistic (elos) aggregation and regression

    Siva Krishna Kakula, Anthony Pinar, Timothy Havens, and Derek Anderson. Extended linear order statistic (elos) aggregation and regression. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 07 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZ48607.2020.9177595

    arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 92 (2):167–189, 1997

    Michel Grabisch. k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 92 (2):167–189, 1997. ISSN 0165-0114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00168-1. Fuzzy Measures and Integrals

    work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(97)00168-1 1997

  46. [46]

    W. E. Wallace. Infrared spectra. InNIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    A deep learning model for predicting selected organic molecular spectra.Nature Computational Science, 3:1–8, 11 2023

    Zihan Zou, Yujin Zhang, Lijun Liang, Mingzhi Wei, Jiancai Leng, Jun Jiang, Yi Luo, and Wei Hu. A deep learning model for predicting selected organic molecular spectra.Nature Computational Science, 3:1–8, 11 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00550-y

    doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00550-y 2023

  48. [48]

    Hunter, Costas Bekas, and Alpha A

    Philippe Schwaller, Teodoro Laino, Théophile Gaudin, Peter Bolgar, Christopher A. Hunter, Costas Bekas, and Alpha A. Lee. Molecular transformer: A model for uncertainty-calibrated chemical reaction prediction.ACS Central Science, 5(9):1572–1583, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.9b00576. PMID: 31572784

    doi:10.1021/acscentsci.9b00576 2019

  49. [49]

    Smiles enumeration as data augmentation for neural network modeling of molecules, 2017

    Esben Jannik Bjerrum. Smiles enumeration as data augmentation for neural network modeling of molecules, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    rdkit/rdkit: 2026_03_3 (Q1 2026) Release

    Greg Landrum et al. rdkit/rdkit: 2026_03_3 (Q1 2026) Release. URL https://zenodo.org/records/ 20446949

    2026

  51. [51]

    Inchi - the worldwide chemical structure identifier standard.Journal of cheminformatics, 5:7, 01 2013

    Stephen Heller, Alan McNaught, Stephen Stein, Dmitrii Tchekhovskoi, and Igor Pletnev. Inchi - the worldwide chemical structure identifier standard.Journal of cheminformatics, 5:7, 01 2013. doi:10.1186/1758-2946-5-7

    work page doi:10.1186/1758-2946-5-7 2013

  52. [52]

    Why is tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?Journal of Cheminformatics, 7(20), 05 2015

    Dávid Bajusz, Anita Rácz, and Károly Héberger. Why is tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?Journal of Cheminformatics, 7(20), 05 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015- 0069-3

    work page doi:10.1186/s13321-015- 2015

  53. [53]

    Machine learning molecular dynamics for the simulation of infrared spectra.Chem

    Michael Gastegger, Jörg Behler, and Philipp Marquetand. Machine learning molecular dynamics for the simulation of infrared spectra.Chem. Sci., 8, 08 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SC02267K

    doi:10.1039/c7sc02267k 2017

  54. [54]

    On the art of compiling and using ’drug-like’ chemical fragment spaces.ChemMedChem, 3:1503–7, 10 2008

    Jörg Degen, Christof Wegscheid-Gerlach, Andrea Zaliani, and Matthias Rarey. On the art of compiling and using ’drug-like’ chemical fragment spaces.ChemMedChem, 3:1503–7, 10 2008. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.200800178

    doi:10.1002/cmdc.200800178 2008

  55. [55]

    The national research platform: Stretched, multi-tenant, scientific kubernetes cluster

    Derek Weitzel et al. The national research platform: Stretched, multi-tenant, scientific kubernetes cluster. In Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2025: The Power of Collaboration, PEARC ’25, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3708035.3736060

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Improving language understanding by generative pre-training, 2018

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training, 2018

    2018

  57. [57]

    Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding, 2023

    Jianlin Su, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Ahmed Murtadha, Bo Wen, and Yunfeng Liu. Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2104.09864

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Large-scale chemical language representations capture molecular structure and properties.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(12): 1256–1264, 2022

    Jerret Ross, Brian Belgodere, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Inkit Padhi, Youssef Mroueh, and Payel Das. Large-scale chemical language representations capture molecular structure and properties.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(12): 1256–1264, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00580-7

    doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00580-7 2022

  59. [59]

    Pinar, Muhammad Aminul Islam, Derek T

    Siva Krishna Kakula, Anthony J. Pinar, Muhammad Aminul Islam, Derek T. Anderson, and Timothy C. Havens. Novel regularization for learning the fuzzy choquet integral with limited training data.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 29(10):2890–2901, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3009722. 18 arXivTemplateA PREPRINT A Implementation Details A.1 A...

    arXiv 2021

  60. [2019]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [2026]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/D5DD00359H

    work page doi:10.1039/d5dd00359h

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.