Abstract
Current chemistry benchmarks primarily evaluate outcome prediction or reaction pathway generation, but rarely test whether a model can explain why an observed chemical effect occurs. We introduce ChemExplain, a benchmark of 1,180 multiple-choice chemistry questions drawn from 383 peer-reviewed papers. Each question pairs a molecular or reaction image with an observed chemical effect and four candidate explanations, each associated with a different structural feature visible in the image. Answering requires the model to perceive the depicted structure, apply chemical knowledge, and identify which feature most directly explains the effect, a capability we term explanatory attribution. The correct feature-mechanism relation is derived from supporting evidence in the source paper rather than invented by the question-generation LLM. We construct the benchmark automatically with a multi-agent framework that applies progressive quality control at three stages and validate it with eight chemistry domain experts. The strongest evaluated model reaches 78.6% accuracy, leaving considerable room for improvement. On a 600-question expert-reviewed subset, reasoning-trace analysis classifies 71.4% of the strongest model's errors as attribution failures. Attribution is also the largest error category for the open-source and chemistry-specific models included in our analysis.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17183
