mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Real Data Closes Synthetic-to-Real Gap in Optical Chemical Structure Recognition

arXiv 2608.09100 ↗First posted 10 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Millions of chemical structures appear in patents and papers only as drawings, and using that information at scale requires reading the drawings. OCSR appears nearly solved on synthetic images yet remains difficult on real documents: the starting recognizer, Qwen2.5-VL-7B, exceeds 91% accuracy on synthetic renders but falls below 16% on three real-world benchmarks (ACS, CLEF-IP, USPTO). To identify the main source of improvement, 21 recognizers were fine-tuned on mixtures of synthetically rendered structures and labeled real depictions from patents, journal figures, and hand-drawn collections, varying the vision language model (VLM) base, the fraction of real training data, and the vision-tower adaptation strategy. Labeled real training images make the largest difference. For Qwen2.5-VL, ACS exact match rises from 0.15 with no real data to 0.37 at 9.5% and 0.46 at 50.2%; a controlled experiment across three base models reproduces the trend. A vision-tower LoRA, in contrast, does nothing for Qwen (+0.00, paired p=1.00), substantially helps InternVL3-8B (+22.8 to +34.6 pt), and modestly helps GLM-4.1V-9B (+1.0 to +9.6 pt), so its value depends on the base model. The best configuration reaches 0.96 exact match on clean renders and 0.49, 0.65, 0.84, and 0.76 on ACS, CLEF-IP, UOB, and USPTO, respectively. Gaps between base models are largest without real data (0.21), shrink to 0.06 at 70% real data, and reorder the ranking; base model and real-data mixture must therefore be selected together. Small-scale experiments on handwritten image-to-LaTeX recognition and chart-to-table conversion show that base-model rankings also vary beyond chemistry. More generally, model and adaptation choices for visual structure recognition should be evaluated on the target task.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.

Builds on

9 of 21 references.

References · 9

  1. 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,499
  2. 2023InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Taskscited by 2,546
  3. 2022ChartQA: A Benchmark for Question Answering about Charts with Visual and Logical Reasoningcited by 1,461
  4. 2016Image-to-Markup Generation with Coarse-to-Fine Attentioncited by 79
  5. 2024ChemVLM: Exploring the Power of Multimodal Large Language Models in Chemistry Areacited by 69
  6. 2022MolScribe: Robust Molecular Structure Recognition with Image-To-Graph Generationcited by 48
  7. 2018Molecular Structure Extraction From Documents Using Deep Learningcited by 25
  8. 2024MolNexTR: A Generalized Deep Learning Model for Molecular Image Recognitioncited by 16
  9. 2025TinyChemVL: Advancing Chemical Vision-Language Models via Efficient Visual Token Reduction and Complex Reaction Taskscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025MarkushGrapher: Joint Visual and Textual Recognition of Markush Structures
  2. 2025GTR-CoT: Graph Traversal as Visual Chain of Thought for Molecular Structure Recognition
  3. 2026ViCoR: Reliable Molecular Structure Extraction via Spatially Aligned Verification and Executable Revision
  4. 2026MarkushGlyph and OCSRGlyph: Improved Chemical Structure Recognition
  5. 2025OCSU: Optical Chemical Structure Understanding for Molecule-centric Scientific Discovery
  6. 2025MolSight: Optical Chemical Structure Recognition with SMILES Pretraining, Multi-Granularity Learning and Reinforcement Learning
  7. 2026Fine-tuning DeepSeek-OCR-2 for Molecular Structure Recognition
  8. 2024Probing the limitations of multimodal language models for chemistry and materials research