ChemVLM: an open-source vision+LLM tuned for chemical images, exams, and property prediction

August 14, 20246 min

Overview

Production Readiness

0.6

Novelty Score

0.6

Cost Impact Score

0.5

Citation Count

3

Authors

Junxian Li, Di Zhang, Xunzhi Wang, Zeying Hao, Jingdi Lei, Qian Tan, Cai Zhou, Wei Liu, Yaotian Yang, Xinrui Xiong, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Wenhai Wang, Wei Li, Shufei Zhang, Mao Su, Wanli Ouyang, Yuqiang Li, Dongzhan Zhou

Links

Abstract / PDF

Why It Matters For Business

ChemVLM reduces manual image-to-structure work and improves multimodal chemistry question answering; it can speed tasks that mix diagrams and text, but requires substantial compute.

Summary TLDR

ChemVLM is an open-source multimodal model (vision encoder + chemical LLM) trained and finetuned to read chemical images, answer multimodal chemistry exam questions, and predict molecular properties. It outperforms general-purpose multimodal LLMs on the authors' Chemical OCR, MMCR-Bench, and MMChemBench datasets and matches or surpasses GPT-4V on several chemistry tasks. Specialized OCR tools still give higher pure SMILES accuracy. Code and data links are provided.

Problem Statement

Text-only chemical LLMs miss structure and reaction images. Existing image->SMILES tools convert modality but do not perform deeper multimodal reasoning. Chemists spend time manually redrawing images; a chemistry-focused multimodal LLM could read images and reason jointly with text.

Main Contribution

ChemVLM: an open-source multimodal chemistry model that pairs a ViT-based image encoder with ChemLLM-20B and an MLP projector.

Three new evaluation datasets: ChemOCR (SMILES OCR), MMCR-Bench (exam-style multimodal chemistry Q&A), and MMChemBench (molecule caption + property prediction).

Two-stage training recipe using LoRA and DeepSpeed, with public code and training/test data provided.

Key Findings

ChemVLM achieves strong chemical OCR quality among multimodal LLMs.

NumbersAvg Tanimoto similarity 71% on ChemOCR

ChemVLM produces many exact SMILES matches compared to general MLLMs.

NumbersTanimoto@1.0 = 42.9% vs GPT-4V 2.1%

ChemVLM edges out GPT-4V on custom multimodal exam questions.

NumbersMMCR-Bench accuracy 41.7% vs GPT-4V 40.1%

Adding image modality improves molecular property prediction.

NumbersMMChemBench property prediction 80.9% vs ChemLLM (text-only) 72.2% (+8.7)

Results

Avg Tanimoto similarity (ChemOCR)

Value71%

BaselineMolScribe 92%

Tanimoto@1.0 (ChemOCR)

Value42.9%

BaselineGPT-4V 2.1%

Accuracy

Value41.7%

BaselineGPT-4V 40.1%

Accuracy

Value71.2%

BaselineGPT-4V 71.9%

MMChemBench: property prediction

Value80.9%

BaselineChemLLM (text-only) 72.2%

MMChemBench: molecule caption

Value98.2%

BaselineGPT-4 96.3%

Who Should Care

What To Try In 7 Days

Clone the repo and run the provided inference on a small ChemOCR sample to compare outputs.

Test ChemVLM on your molecule images to see gains in property prediction vs text-only models.

Use LoRA finetuning on a small in-house dataset to adapt the model to your lab's image styles.

Agent Features

Tool Use

  • RDKit for SMILES validation
  • Deepspeed for training

Frameworks

  • LoRA
  • DeepSpeed ZeRO-3

Architectures

  • ViT-MLP-LLM
  • Vision Transformer (InternViT-6B)
  • ChemLLM-20B as LLM backbone

Optimization Features

Token Efficiency

  • Context length 2048 tokens to allow long responses

Infra Optimization

  • Trained on 16× A100 (80GB) GPUs

Model Optimization

  • LoRA

System Optimization

  • Gradient accumulation and small per-GPU batch sizes

Training Optimization

  • Two-stage training: align projector then full finetune
  • Use of DeepSpeed bf16 and ZeRO-3 for memory efficiency

Reproducibility

Code Available

Data Available

Open Source Status

  • yes

Risks & Boundaries

Limitations

  • Only image and text modalities supported; no molecular-graph or time-series inputs.
  • Training was done for one epoch on large infra; generalization beyond reported datasets is unproven.
  • Specialized OCR tools still exceed ChemVLM on pure SMILES extraction accuracy.

When Not To Use

  • When you need highest-possible SMILES extraction accuracy (use MolScribe/Decimer).
  • In low-resource settings where running large ViT+LLM models is infeasible.
  • When your data includes graphs or time-series not supported by the model.

Failure Modes

  • Hallucinated reasoning or incorrect chemical statements on complex questions.
  • Incorrect SMILES output in cases with noisy or stylized images.
  • Overfitting to exam-style question templates causing brittle generalization.

Core Entities

Models

  • ChemVLM-26B
  • ChemLLM-20B
  • InternViT-6B
  • GPT-4V
  • Qwen-VL-Chat
  • LLaVA-v1.5-13B
  • InternVL-v1.5
  • Yi-VL-Plus
  • Decimer
  • MolScribe

Metrics

  • Avg Tanimoto similarity (%)
  • Tanimoto@1.0 (%)
  • Accuracy
  • Total score (%)

Datasets

  • ChemOCR
  • MMCR-Bench
  • MMChemBench
  • CMMU
  • ScienceQA
  • ChemBench
  • Scibench
  • DECIMER HDM
  • PEACE
  • USPTO-50K
  • OpenDataLab

Benchmarks

  • ChemOCR
  • MMCR-Bench
  • MMChemBench
  • CMMU
  • ScienceQA
  • Scibench