Track new results across pure and applied mathematics.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Route-Instruction Grounding and Steering (RIGS), a two-stage framework for controllable retrosynthesis that addresses the limitations of single-step models evaluated solely on recorded reaction recovery. RIGS first trains a language projector to discern instruction preferences for precursor sets and then uses this projector to steer a frozen generative model via residual adapters. Experiments with nested one-to-many training supports show that RIGS effectively increases the range of generated alternatives and can guide generation according to explicit instructions, revealing a non-monotone relationship between coverage and control across model scales.
Chemists can now precisely steer retrosynthesis to favor specific precursor sets, moving beyond simple reaction recovery to nuanced chemical design.
Single-step retrosynthesis models are commonly evaluated by their ability to recover recorded reactions. In practice, chemists may need to choose among several precursor sets for the same product, for example to preserve a particular motif. Recovering a recorded answer alone does not establish this ability to follow a preference. Satisfying such requests requires both coverage of relevant alternatives and control over which alternatives are favored. We introduce Route-Instruction Grounding and Steering (RIGS), a two-stage framework for instruction-conditioned retrosynthesis. Stage A trains a language projector, teaching it which alternatives an instruction favors or discourages. Stage B uses the projector learned in Stage A to steer a frozen generative model through lightweight residual adapters. We construct nested one-to-many training supports by pairing each product with increasing numbers of candidate precursor sets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that broader support helps the model generate a wider range of alternatives, and RIGS can learn to guide generation according to instructions. The relationship between coverage and control is consistent across model scales but non-monotone.