ToxReason: A Benchmark for Mechanistic Chemical Toxicity Reasoning via Adverse Outcome Pathway

arXiv cs.AI / 4/10/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper introduces ToxReason, a new benchmark for evaluating mechanistic chemical toxicity reasoning grounded in the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP), rather than relying only on chemical-structure correlations.
  • It tests whether models can infer organ-level toxic outcomes and their underlying mechanisms from the Molecular Initiating Event (MIE) to Adverse Outcome (AO) using drug–target interaction evidence and toxicity labels.
  • The authors show that strong toxicity prediction accuracy can still coincide with biologically unfaithful or unreliable explanations, highlighting a gap in current benchmark evaluation.
  • Experiments across multiple LLMs indicate that reasoning-aware training improves both mechanistic reasoning quality and toxicity prediction performance.
  • Overall, the work argues that trustworthy toxicity modeling requires incorporating reasoning into both evaluation and training, not just measuring predictive scores.

Abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled molecular reasoning for property prediction. However, toxicity arises from complex biological mechanisms beyond chemical structure, necessitating mechanistic reasoning for reliable prediction. Despite its importance, current benchmarks fail to systematically evaluate this capability. LLMs can generate fluent but biologically unfaithful explanations, making it difficult to assess whether predicted toxicities are grounded invalid mechanisms. To bridge this gap, we introduce ToxReason, a benchmark grounded in the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) that evaluates organ-level toxicity reasoning across multiple organs. ToxReason integrates experimental drug-target interaction evidence with toxicity labels, requiring models to infer both toxic outcomes and their underlying mechanisms from Molecular Initiating Event (MIE) to Adverse Outcome (AO). Using ToxReason, we evaluate toxicity prediction performance and reasoning quality across diverse LLMs. We find that strong predictive performance does not necessarily imply reliable reasoning. Furthermore, we show that reasoning-aware training improves mechanistic reasoning and, consequently, toxicity prediction performance. Together, these results underscore the necessity of integrating reasoning into both evaluation and training for trustworthy toxicity modeling.