Query-Based Molecular Optimization: A Framework for Accelerating AI-Driven Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to implementing query-based molecular optimization (QMO), an AI framework that accelerates the design of novel molecules and materials. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, we explore the foundational principles of QMO, which decouples molecular representation learning from guided property search. The piece details methodological workflows for optimizing properties like binding affinity and solubility, addresses key challenges such as high-dimensional chemical spaces and data sparsity, and validates performance against state-of-the-art methods through real-world case studies, including the optimization of SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors and antimicrobial peptides. The conclusion synthesizes key takeaways and discusses future directions for integrating these frameworks into biomedical research.

What is Query-Based Molecular Optimization? Laying the Groundwork for AI-Driven Discovery

Defining the Molecular Optimization Challenge in Drug Discovery

Molecular optimization represents a pivotal stage in the drug discovery pipeline, situated between the initial identification of a lead compound and preclinical testing [1]. The fundamental challenge lies in modifying a lead molecule to enhance its key properties—such as binding affinity, solubility, or reduced toxicity—while rigorously preserving its core structural features and other essential characteristics [1]. This delicate balancing act requires navigating a chemical space of staggering proportions; for a peptide sequence of just 60 amino acids, the number of possible variants approaches the number of atoms in the known universe [2]. The pharmaceutical industry faces immense pressure to reduce attrition rates, shorten development timelines, and increase translational predictivity, driving the adoption of advanced computational approaches to manage this complexity [3].

The transition from a promising lead molecule to a viable drug candidate demands careful optimization of multiple, often competing, properties simultaneously. A lead molecule might demonstrate promising biological activity but suffer from poor solubility, suboptimal pharmacokinetics, or undesirable toxicity profiles [1]. The molecular optimization process addresses these deficiencies through strategic structural modifications while maintaining the structural core responsible for its initial therapeutic activity. This process is formally defined as: given a lead molecule x with properties p₁(x),...,pₘ(x), generate a molecule y with properties p₁(y),...,pₘ(y) satisfying pᵢ(y) ≻ pᵢ(x) for i=1,2,...,m, and sim(x,y) > δ, where δ represents a similarity threshold [1]. Maintaining structural similarity preserves crucial pharmacological properties while exploring chemical space for improved characteristics.

Current Methodologies in AI-Aided Molecular Optimization

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized molecular optimization approaches, enabling researchers to navigate the vast chemical space more efficiently than traditional methods. Current AI-aided methodologies can be broadly categorized based on their operational spaces and optimization strategies, each with distinct advantages and limitations as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of AI-Aided Molecular Optimization Approaches

Category	Representative Methods	Molecular Representation	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Discrete Space Optimization	STONED, MolFinder, GCPN, MolDQN [1]	SELFIES, SMILES, Molecular Graphs [1]	Direct structural interpretation; No training data required for some methods [1]	High computational cost for property evaluation; Sequential optimization struggles with multi-objective tasks [1]
Continuous Latent Space Optimization	VAE+BO, VAE+GA, Mol-CycleGAN [1]	Continuous latent vectors [2]	Efficient exploration in continuous space; Smooth property landscapes [2] [1]	Decoder collapse issues; Generated molecules may lack diversity [1]
Query-Based Frameworks	QMO (Query-based Molecular Optimization) [2] [4]	SMILES, Latent representations [2] [5]	Decouples representation learning from optimization; Compatible with black-box property predictors [2] [4]	Dependent on quality of pre-trained encoder-decoder [2]

The Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Framework

The QMO framework introduces a novel approach that decouples molecular representation learning from the optimization process itself [2] [4]. This method employs an encoder-decoder architecture, where an encoder transforms molecular sequences into continuous latent representations, and a corresponding decoder maps these latent vectors back to molecular sequences [2] [5]. The optimization occurs in this continuous latent space guided by external property predictors that evaluate sequences at the molecular level rather than their latent representations [2]. This architecture enables QMO to leverage existing property predictors and black-box evaluators—including physics-based simulators, informatics tools, or experimental data—without requiring retraining for new optimization tasks [4] [5].

QMO employs zeroth-order optimization, a technique that performs efficient mathematical optimization using only function evaluations rather than gradient calculations [2]. This approach is particularly valuable when working with discrete molecular sequences and black-box property predictors where gradient computation is infeasible [2]. The framework supports two practical optimization scenarios: (1) optimizing molecular similarity while satisfying desired chemical properties, and (2) optimizing chemical properties while respecting similarity constraints [5]. This flexibility makes it suitable for diverse drug discovery applications, from improving binding affinity while maintaining similarity to lead compounds to reducing toxicity while preserving antimicrobial activity [4].

Application Notes: QMO Protocol for Molecular Optimization

Experimental Workflow for Query-Based Molecular Optimization

The following diagram illustrates the complete QMO experimental workflow, from molecular encoding through iterative optimization to validation:

Step-by-Step Protocol for Molecular Optimization Using QMO

Molecular Representation and Encoder-Decoder Training

Purpose: To create a continuous latent space representation of molecular structures that enables efficient optimization [2] [5].

Procedure:

• Molecular Representation: Represent molecules as sequences using SMILES (Small Organic Molecules) or amino acid character strings (Peptides) [2]. For SMILES representations, ensure standardized formatting and validity checking.
• Encoder-Decoder Selection: Implement a pre-trained encoder-decoder framework. Suitable architectures include:
  • Deterministic Autoencoder (AE) trained on reconstruction loss between original (x) and reconstructed (x̂) sequences [5].
  • Variational Autoencoder (VAE) that learns a latent variational distribution by optimizing a penalized log-likelihood function [5].
• Latent Space Dimension: Set the latent dimension d to a fixed size (typically 128-512 dimensions) universal to all sequences [5].
• Validation: Verify reconstruction accuracy and latent space continuity by sampling and decoding random latent vectors to ensure generated molecules are valid and diverse.

Note: While training a custom encoder-decoder is possible, QMO is designed to work with any pre-trained encoder-decoder framework, significantly reducing implementation time [2].

Property Predictor Selection and Configuration

Purpose: To establish accurate evaluation metrics for guiding the optimization toward desired molecular properties [2] [5].

Procedure:

• Identify Target Properties: Select one or more properties for optimization (e.g., binding affinity, solubility, toxicity, drug-likeness).
• Choose Prediction Models: Implement appropriate predictive models for each property:
  • For drug-likeness: Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) [2].
  • For solubility: Penalized logP (octanol-water partition coefficient) [2].
  • For binding affinity: Machine learning models trained on IC₅₀ values or free energy calculations [2].
  • For toxicity: Specialized toxicity predictors (e.g., for antimicrobial peptides) [4].
• Similarity Metric Implementation: Implement Tanimoto similarity based on Morgan fingerprints [1]: sim(x,y) = fp(x)·fp(y) / [fp(x)² + fp(y)² - fp(x)·fp(y)] where fp(x) represents the Morgan fingerprints of molecule x.
• Constraint Thresholding: Define minimum similarity constraints (typically δ ≥ 0.4) and target property thresholds based on lead molecule baseline values [1].

Query-Based Optimization Execution

Purpose: To efficiently explore the latent space and identify optimized molecular structures satisfying all constraints [2] [5].

Procedure:

• Latent Representation: Encode the lead molecule to obtain its latent representation vector z [5].
• Perturbation Generation: Apply random perturbations to z to generate neighboring points in latent space using neighborhood sampling [2] [5].
• Candidate Decoding: Decode perturbed latent vectors to generate candidate molecular sequences [5].
• Property Evaluation: Query all property predictors and similarity metrics for each candidate molecule [2].
• Loss Calculation: Compute loss values measuring the differences between property predictions and target constraints [5].
• Selection and Iteration: Select candidates with the most favorable loss values and use their latent representations as new starting points [2].
• Convergence Check: Repeat steps 2-6 until molecules satisfying all constraints are identified or maximum iterations reached [5].

Critical Parameters:

• Number of random perturbations per iteration: 50-100
• Similarity constraint threshold (δ): 0.4-0.8
• Maximum iterations: 100-500
• Perturbation magnitude: Adaptive based on success rate

Validation and Output

Purpose: To verify optimization success and prepare optimized molecules for experimental testing.

Procedure:

• In Silico Validation: Assess optimized molecules using external predictors not used during optimization [4].
• Structural Analysis: Visually inspect key structural changes between lead and optimized molecules.
• Diversity Check: Ensure multiple distinct optimized candidates are generated for experimental consideration.
• Output Final Molecules: Select top candidates for synthesis and experimental validation.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for QMO Implementation

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Resources	Function in QMO Protocol	Key Features & Considerations
Molecular Representations	SMILES [2], SELFIES [1], Molecular Graphs [1]	Standardized representation of chemical structures	SMILES for small organic molecules; Amino acid sequences for peptides [2]
Encoder-Decoder Frameworks	Deterministic Autoencoder (AE) [5], Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [5]	Learning continuous latent representations of molecules	Pre-trained models available; VAE provides better latent space organization [5]
Property Predictors	AutoDock [3], SwissADME [3], QED [2], Toxicity predictors [4]	Evaluating molecular properties for optimization guidance	Compatibility with sequence-level input crucial for QMO [2]
Similarity Metrics	Tanimoto Similarity [1], Morgan Fingerprints [1]	Quantifying structural conservation during optimization	Tanimoto similarity with Morgan fingerprints is gold standard [1]
Optimization Algorithms	Zeroth-order Optimization [2], Bayesian Optimization [6]	Efficient search in latent space without gradients	Zeroth-order optimization enables black-box function evaluation [2]

Performance Benchmarks and Case Studies

QMO has demonstrated significant performance improvements across multiple molecular optimization tasks, particularly in challenging real-world discovery scenarios beyond standard benchmarks. Table 3 summarizes quantitative performance data across different optimization tasks.

Table 3: QMO Performance Across Molecular Optimization Tasks

Optimization Task	Lead Molecules	Key Constraints	Success Rate	Performance Improvement
Drug-Likeness (QED) Optimization [2] [4]	800 molecules	Tanimoto similarity ≥ 0.4	92.9%	At least 15% higher than other methods [4]
Solubility (Penalized logP) Optimization [2] [4]	800 molecules	Tanimoto similarity ≥ 0.4	Not specified	~30% relative improvement over other methods [4]
SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitor Binding Affinity [2] [4]	23 existing inhibitors	High structural similarity	Not specified	Improved binding free energy while maintaining similarity [4]
Antimicrobial Peptide Toxicity Reduction [2] [4]	150 toxic AMPs	High sequence similarity	71.8%	Reduced toxicity with conserved antimicrobial activity [4]

Case Study: Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Inhibitors

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid optimization of existing inhibitor molecules for SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease (Mpro) represented an urgent priority for therapeutic development [2].

QMO Application:

• Lead Molecules: 23 existing Mpro inhibitors with confirmed but suboptimal activity [4].
• Optimization Target: Improve binding affinity (pIC₅₀ > 7.5) while maintaining high structural similarity to leverage existing knowledge and manufacturing pipelines [2].
• Property Predictors: Binding affinity predictors trained on IC₅₀ values; Tanimoto similarity with Morgan fingerprints [2].
• Results: QMO successfully identified optimized variants with improved predicted binding free energy while maintaining structural similarity to lead compounds [4]. Docking analysis confirmed improved binding poses, with one example showing enhanced interactions between dipyridamole derivatives and Mpro active site [2].

Significance: This application demonstrated QMO's capability to address real-world discovery challenges with therapeutic relevance, particularly valuable during public health emergencies requiring rapid response [2].

Case Study Reducing Antimicrobial Peptide Toxicity

Background: Antimicrobial resistance represents a critical global health threat, with antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) offering promising alternatives to conventional antibiotics [2]. However, many potent AMPs exhibit unacceptable toxicity levels [4].

QMO Application:

• Lead Molecules: 150 known toxic AMPs [4].
• Optimization Target: Reduce predicted toxicity while maintaining high sequence similarity to preserve antimicrobial activity [2].
• Property Predictors: Toxicity classifiers; Sequence similarity metrics [2].
• Results: QMO achieved a 71.8% success rate in generating less toxic variants [4]. External validation using state-of-the-art toxicity predictors not employed during optimization confirmed the reduced toxicity of QMO-optimized sequences [4].

Significance: This case highlights QMO's effectiveness in multi-property optimization, balancing toxicity reduction with structural conservation to maintain desired biological activity [2].

Technical Considerations and Implementation Challenges

Molecular Representation Selection

The choice of molecular representation significantly impacts QMO performance. SMILES representations offer simplicity and compatibility with existing natural language processing architectures but can generate invalid structures [2]. SELFIES representations guarantee 100% validity but may limit structural diversity [1]. Molecular graphs explicitly capture structural relationships but require more complex encoder-decoder architectures [1]. For most applications, SMILES representations provide the optimal balance of simplicity, compatibility, and performance when paired with robust validity checking.

Encoder-Decoder Training Considerations

While QMO can utilize pre-trained encoder-decoder models, practitioners must ensure these models provide high-fidelity reconstruction and meaningful latent space organization [5]. Variational autoencoders (VAEs) typically outperform deterministic autoencoders by generating more structured latent spaces with smoother property gradients [5]. Training should utilize diverse chemical libraries relevant to the optimization domain, with appropriate regularization to prevent overfitting and ensure latent space continuity [1].

Multi-Property Optimization Strategies

Real-world molecular optimization typically requires balancing multiple property improvements simultaneously [1]. QMO addresses this through constraint-based optimization, where certain properties must satisfy minimum thresholds while others are optimized [5]. For complex multi-property optimization, a phased approach often proves effective: first optimizing the most critical property with relaxed constraints on secondary properties, then performing refinement cycles to address additional properties [2].

The molecular optimization challenge in drug discovery represents a critical bottleneck in therapeutic development, requiring sophisticated approaches to balance multiple property improvements with structural conservation. The Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) framework addresses this challenge through a novel architecture that decouples representation learning from optimization, enabling efficient exploration of chemical space using existing property predictors and similarity constraints. As demonstrated across diverse applications—from SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor refinement to antimicrobial peptide detoxification—QMO provides researchers with a powerful protocol for accelerating the development of optimized therapeutic candidates with enhanced properties and maintained structural integrity.

Core Principles of the Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Framework

Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) is a generic AI framework designed to optimize existing lead molecules by efficiently searching for variants with more desirable properties. The core challenge in molecular optimization lies in navigating the prohibitively large chemical space; for instance, the number of possible 60-amino-acid peptides already approaches the number of atoms in the known universe [2]. QMO addresses this by decoupling the process into two main components: (1) learning continuous latent representations of molecules using a deep generative autoencoder, and (2) performing an efficient guided search within this latent space using feedback from external property evaluators [2] [4]. This separation reduces problem complexity and allows the framework to leverage existing property prediction models directly. QMO is distinguished from prior methods by its use of zeroth-order optimization, a technique that performs efficient mathematical optimization using only function evaluations (queries), without requiring gradient information from the property predictors [2] [7]. This enables the optimization of properties evaluated by "black-box" functions, such as physics-based simulators or proprietary prediction APIs, which is a common scenario in real-world discovery problems.

Core Principles and Architectural Components

The QMO framework operates on several foundational principles that contribute to its efficiency and versatility in molecular optimization tasks.

• Principle 1: Decoupling Representation Learning from Guided Search. QMO is not a single, monolithic model. Instead, it is designed to work with any pre-trained encoder-decoder architecture that can learn meaningful continuous latent representations of molecules [2] [5]. This plug-in approach allows researchers to use state-of-the-art generative models for representation learning while keeping the optimization logic consistent.

• Principle 2: Query-Based Guided Search via Zeroth-Order Optimization. The optimization process does not rely on gradients from the property predictors. Instead, it performs iterative updates in the latent space by querying the property evaluators with decoded candidate sequences [2] [4]. This makes it particularly suitable for optimizing properties where the functional relationship between the molecular structure and the property is complex, non-differentiable, or handled by a black-box evaluator.

• Principle 3: Direct Utilization of Sequence-Level Property Evaluations. The property evaluators used for guidance operate on the decoded molecular sequence (e.g., SMILES string or amino acid sequence), not on the latent representation itself [4]. This allows QMO to incorporate a wide range of existing and well-established property prediction tools, simulators, and expert knowledge without modification.

• Principle 4: Unified Handling of Multi-Property and Similarity Constraints. The framework formally supports two practical optimization scenarios: (i) optimizing molecular similarity while satisfying desired chemical property thresholds, and (ii) optimizing chemical properties while respecting molecular similarity constraints [5]. Multiple properties and constraints can be incorporated into a single loss function that guides the search process.

The architectural workflow of QMO can be visualized as a three-phase process, encompassing representation learning, iterative query-based search, and final candidate selection.

Experimental Protocols for Key Applications

The QMO framework has been validated across several molecular optimization tasks, from standard benchmarks to real-world discovery challenges. The following protocols detail its application.

Protocol 1: Optimizing Drug-Likeness (QED) under Similarity Constraints

This protocol describes the process for optimizing the Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) of small organic molecules, a common benchmark task [2] [4].

• Objective: Given a lead molecule, generate an optimized molecule with a higher QED score while maintaining a Tanimoto similarity above a specified threshold (δ).
• Lead Molecule Representation: Input molecules are represented as SMILES strings [2] [5].
• Encoder-Decoder Setup: A pre-trained autoencoder (e.g., a deterministic AE or VAE) is used. The encoder maps the SMILES string to a latent vector z, and the decoder reconstructs the SMILES string from z [5].
• Property Evaluators:
  • QED Predictor: A function that calculates the QED score from the decoded SMILES string [2].
  • Similarity Calculator: A function that computes the Tanimoto similarity based on Morgan fingerprints between the original and optimized molecules [2] [5].
• Optimization Configuration:
  • Loss Function: The loss is designed to maximize QED subject to the similarity constraint. For example: Loss = -QED_score + λ * max(0, δ - Similarity), where λ is a penalty weight [5].
  • Zeroth-Order Optimization: The latent vector z is iteratively perturbed. For each perturbation, the candidate is decoded, its QED and similarity are queried, and the loss is computed. The best candidate is selected to update z for the next iteration [2] [4].
• Output: An optimized SMILES string with improved QED and similarity ≥ δ.

Protocol 2: Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Inhibitor Binding Affinity

This protocol applies QMO to a real-world discovery problem: improving the binding affinity of existing drug candidates for the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro target [2] [4].

• Objective: Given a known Mpro inhibitor (lead molecule), generate an optimized molecule with higher predicted binding affinity (pIC₅₀ > 7.5) while maximizing similarity to the lead.
• Lead Molecule Representation: SMILES strings of known inhibitors (e.g., Dipyridamole) [2].
• Encoder-Decoder Setup: A pre-trained SMILES autoencoder is used to obtain latent representations.
• Property Evaluators:
  • Binding Affinity Predictor: A pre-trained machine learning model that predicts pIC₅₀ (half-maximal inhibitory concentration) from the molecular structure [2]. Experimental IC₅₀ values can also be used if available.
  • Similarity Calculator: Tanimoto similarity calculator [2].
  • Optional Drug-likeness Check: A QED predictor can be added to ensure optimized molecules retain drug-like properties [2].
• Optimization Configuration:
  • Loss Function: A composite loss that penalizes low binding affinity and low similarity. For example: Loss = -pIC₅₀ - μ * Similarity, where μ is a tuning parameter [2] [5].
  • Search Process: The zeroth-order optimizer searches the latent space for vectors that, when decoded, yield molecules with high binding affinity and high similarity.
• Validation: The optimized molecules should be validated through external docking simulations or wet-lab experiments to confirm improved binding free energy [2] [4].

Quantitative Performance Data

The performance of QMO on standard benchmark tasks demonstrates its effectiveness compared to other methods. The following tables summarize key quantitative results.

Table 1: Performance on Drug-Likeness (QED) Optimization Task [2] [5]

Similarity Constraint (δ)	Success Rate of QMO	Success Rate of Next Best Method	Key Result
0.4	~93%	<78%	QMO achieves at least 15% higher success rate.
0.5	~83%	Data not available	Robust performance under stricter constraints.
0.6	~63%	Data not available	Maintains strong performance at high similarity.

Table 2: Performance on Penalized logP Optimization Task [2] [5]

Similarity Constraint (δ)	Average Improvement in Penalized logP (QMO)	Average Improvement in Penalized logP (Next Best Method)
0.0	~3.5	~1.8
0.2	~2.9	~1.7
0.4	~2.1	~1.4
0.6	~1.1	Data not available

Table 3: Performance on Real-World Discovery Tasks [2] [4]

Optimization Task	Lead Molecules	Key Metric	QMO Performance
SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitor Binding Affinity	23	Molecules with improved affinity & high similarity	Successfully generated molecules meeting pIC₅₀ > 7.5
Antimicrobial Peptide (AMP) Toxicity	150	Success Rate in Reducing Toxicity	~72% of lead molecules optimized

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing the QMO framework requires a set of computational tools and reagents. The following table details the essential components.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for QMO Implementation

Tool / Reagent Name	Type/Function	Role in the QMO Framework	Example & Notes
SMILES/SELFIES Strings	Molecular Representation	Represents the molecule as a sequence for the encoder.	Standardized text-based representation of molecular structure [2] [8].
Autoencoder (AE)	Deep Learning Model	Learns the continuous latent space of molecules; comprises the encoder and decoder.	Can be a deterministic AE, Variational Autoencoder (VAE), or other architectures [2] [5].
Property Prediction APIs	Black-box Evaluator	Provides the properties (QED, pIC₅₀, etc.) for a given sequence to guide the search.	Can be QED calculators, docking software, or pre-trained ML models like toxicity classifiers [2] [4].
Similarity Calculator	Evaluation Metric	Computes structural similarity (e.g., Tanimoto) between original and optimized molecules.	Typically based on Morgan fingerprints [2] [5].
Zeroth-Order Optimizer	Optimization Algorithm	Drives the guided search in latent space using only function queries.	Implements algorithms for gradient-free optimization [2] [4].

The Query-Based Molecular Optimization framework establishes a powerful and versatile paradigm for accelerating molecular discovery. Its core principles—decoupling representation learning from guided search, leveraging zeroth-order optimization for efficient querying, and directly utilizing sequence-level property evaluations—make it uniquely suited for complex, real-world optimization problems where property predictors are sophisticated but non-differentiable black boxes. The provided protocols and performance data demonstrate that QMO consistently outperforms existing methods on standard benchmarks and shows high success rates in challenging discovery scenarios, such as optimizing SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors and antimicrobial peptides. As a generic AI framework, QMO holds significant promise for broader application in optimizing other classes of materials, including inorganic compounds and polymers, thereby offering a robust tool for the scientific community.

Query-based Molecule Optimization (QMO) represents a paradigm shift in computational molecular design by fundamentally decoupling the process of learning molecular representations from the guided search for optimized compounds [2]. This separation creates a modular, efficient, and powerful framework for drug discovery and materials science. Traditional approaches often intertwine these components, requiring retraining for new optimization tasks and limiting flexibility. In contrast, QMO's architecture allows researchers to leverage pre-trained, general-purpose molecular representations and apply them to diverse optimization challenges with multiple constraints, from improving binding affinity to reducing toxicity [2] [5].

The critical advantage of this decoupling lies in its data efficiency and practical applicability. By exploiting latent representations learned from abundant unlabeled molecular data, QMO minimizes the need for expensive property-labeled datasets. Simultaneously, its guided search mechanism directly incorporates specialized property predictors and similarity metrics, enabling precise optimization toward specific therapeutic goals [2]. This framework has demonstrated superior performance across multiple challenging tasks, including optimizing SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors for higher binding affinity and improving antimicrobial peptides toward lower toxicity while preserving desired characteristics [2].

Theoretical Foundation and Mechanism of Action

Core Architectural Principles

The QMO framework operates on several foundational principles that enable its effectiveness. First, it employs a continuous latent space learned by an encoder-decoder model, typically a variational autoencoder (VAE), which maps discrete molecular sequences (e.g., SMILES strings or amino acid sequences) to continuous vector representations [2] [9]. This transformation from discrete to continuous space is crucial as it enables efficient optimization through gradient-free mathematical techniques that would be impossible to apply directly to discrete molecular structures.

Second, QMO utilizes external guidance mechanisms through property prediction models and evaluation metrics that operate directly on the molecular sequence level [2] [5]. These predictors provide the "query" function that evaluates candidate molecules during optimization. By keeping these evaluators separate from the representation learning component, the framework maintains flexibility—different property predictors can be swapped in or out without modifying the underlying molecular representation.

Third, the framework implements zeroth-order optimization for guided search in the latent space [2]. This mathematical approach enables gradient-like optimization using only function evaluations (queries), making it suitable for working with black-box property predictors where gradient information is unavailable or difficult to compute. The optimizer perturbs latent vectors and evaluates the corresponding decoded molecules, gradually moving toward regions of the latent space that yield molecules with improved properties.

Mathematical Formulation

The QMO optimization process can be formally expressed as solving the continuous optimization problem in latent space [2]:

[ \min_{z \in \mathbb{R}^d} L(\text{Decode}(z); S) ]

where (z) represents a point in the d-dimensional latent space, (\text{Decode}(z)) is the molecule sequence decoded from (z), and (L) is a loss function that incorporates multiple property predictors and similarity metrics relative to reference molecules (S). This formulation transforms the inherently discrete molecular optimization problem into a tractable continuous optimization task while maintaining the ability to evaluate candidates using discrete-sequence property predictors.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Representation Learning with Molecular Autoencoders

Objective: Train an encoder-decoder model to learn meaningful continuous representations of molecules in a latent space.

Materials:

• Dataset: Large collection of unlabeled molecular structures (e.g., 250,000+ molecules from public databases) [10]
• Software: Deep learning framework (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow) with RDKit cheminformatics package
• Hardware: GPU-accelerated computing environment

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:
  • Collect and curate molecular structures in SMILES format [11]
  • Standardize molecular representation (e.g., normalize tautomers, remove salts)
  • Split dataset into training (80%), validation (10%), and test sets (10%)

• Model Architecture Selection:

  • Implement a sequence-to-sequence model with encoder and decoder components [2]
  • For small molecules: Use transformer-based architecture processing SMILES strings [11]
  • For peptides: Use recurrent neural networks processing amino acid sequences [2]
  • Set latent space dimensionality (typically 128-512 dimensions) based on molecular complexity [2]

• Training Configuration:

  • Initialize model with appropriate pre-trained weights if available
  • Set reconstruction loss function (e.g., cross-entropy for sequence generation)
  • For variational autoencoders: Add Kullback-Leibler divergence term to encourage smooth latent space [9]
  • Train for 100-500 epochs with early stopping based on validation reconstruction accuracy

• Validation:

  • Measure reconstruction accuracy on test set
  • Evaluate latent space smoothness through interpolation between known active molecules
  • Assess property predictability from latent representations using auxiliary tasks

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If reconstruction accuracy is poor, increase model capacity or check for data quality issues
• If latent space is discontinuous, adjust the weight of the KL divergence term in VAE training
• For specialized molecular classes (e.g., peptides, inorganic compounds), consider domain-specific tokenization [9]

Protocol 2: Guided Search for Molecular Optimization

Objective: Optimize lead molecules for improved properties while satisfying constraints using QMO guided search.

Materials:

• Pre-trained autoencoder from Protocol 1
• Property predictors: Machine learning models or simulation tools for evaluating target properties [2] [12]
• Reference molecules: Lead compounds to be optimized
• Software: QMO implementation with zeroth-order optimization capabilities

Procedure:

• Initialization:
  • Encode reference lead molecule (m0) to obtain latent representation (z0)
  • Define property objectives and constraints (e.g., improve binding affinity >10x, maintain similarity >0.7)
  • Configure loss function (L) combining property terms and similarity metrics [2]

• Search Configuration:

  • Set zeroth-order optimization parameters (step size, perturbation radius, query budget) [2]
  • Define convergence criteria (max iterations, minimal improvement threshold)
  • For multi-property optimization: Weight individual property terms based on priority

• Iterative Optimization:

  • Generate candidate latent vectors by perturbing current best (z) [2]
  • Decode candidates to molecular structures using the pre-trained decoder
  • Evaluate properties of decoded molecules using property predictors [5]
  • Compute loss function values for all candidates
  • Select promising candidates for next iteration based on loss values
  • Repeat until convergence or query budget exhaustion

• Validation and Selection:

  • Cluster optimized molecules to select diverse candidates
  • Verify chemical validity and synthetic accessibility
  • Apply additional filters (e.g., toxicity, pharmacokinetics) if available [10]
  • Select top candidates for experimental validation

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If optimization stagnates, increase perturbation radius or adjust loss function weights
• If generated molecules are invalid, check decoder performance or adjust latent space constraints
• For slow property evaluation, implement batch processing and parallel computation

Protocol 3: SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Inhibitor Optimization

Objective: Improve binding affinity of existing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors while maintaining similarity and drug-like properties.

Materials:

• Reference inhibitors: Known Mpro inhibitor structures (e.g., dipyridamole analogs) [2]
• Binding affinity predictor: Machine learning model or docking software for pIC50 prediction [2] [12]
• Similarity metric: Tanimoto similarity based on molecular fingerprints [2]
• Drug-likeness evaluator: QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness) calculator [2]

Procedure:

• Setup:
  • Encode reference inhibitor molecules to latent space
  • Define optimization goal: Maximize pIC50 (>7.5) with similarity constraint (>0.7) [2]
  • Configure composite loss function: (L = \lambda1 \cdot \text{affinity_loss} + \lambda2 \cdot \text{similarity_loss} + \lambda_3 \cdot \text{QED_penalty})

• Execution:

  • Run QMO guided search with 10,000-50,000 query budget [2]
  • Monitor progress through per-iteration best candidate evaluation
  • Store all promising candidates for post-processing

• Analysis:

  • Select top 10-20 candidates based on weighted scores
  • Verify binding modes through molecular docking simulations [2] [12]
  • Assess synthetic accessibility and potential toxicity
  • Select 3-5 top candidates for experimental validation

Validation Results: QMO-generated Mpro inhibitors showed substantial improvement over original compounds, with maintained similarity and improved binding affinity confirmed through docking studies [2].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for QMO Implementation

Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function in QMO Pipeline	Implementation Notes
Molecular Representation	SMILES/SELFIES [11]	String-based molecular representation	Standardizes molecular input for encoder
	Graph Neural Networks [9]	Learns structural molecular representations	Captures atom-bond relationships explicitly
	Variational Autoencoders [2] [9]	Learns continuous latent space of molecules	Enables smooth interpolation and sampling
Property Prediction	Random Forest/QSAR Models	Predicts molecular properties from structure	Fast approximation for high-throughput screening
	Molecular Docking (e.g., AutoDock, GNINA) [12]	Predicts binding affinity and poses	Provides structural insights for optimization
	AQFEP [12]	Absolute free energy perturbation	Physics-based binding affinity calculation
Similarity Assessment	Tanimoto Similarity [2]	Measures molecular similarity using fingerprints	Maintains structural relevance to lead compounds
	Molecular Fingerprints (ECFP) [11]	Encodes molecular substructures as binary vectors	Enables rapid similarity computation
Optimization Engine	Zeroth-order Optimization [2]	Gradient-free optimization in latent space	Works with black-box property evaluators
	Bayesian Optimization [12]	Probabilistic global optimization	Sample-efficient for expensive evaluations

Experimental Validation and Benchmarking

Performance on Standard Benchmarks

Table 2: QMO Performance on Molecular Optimization Benchmarks

Optimization Task	Similarity Constraint	QMO Performance	Baseline Performance	Improvement
QED Optimization	τ = 0.4	Success Rate: ~92%	JT-VAE: ~77%	+15% success rate [2]
	τ = 0.6	Success Rate: ~85%	JT-VAE: ~70%	+15% success rate [2]
Penalized logP	τ = 0.4	Improvement: +4.78	JT-VAE: +3.08	+1.70 absolute [2]
	τ = 0.6	Improvement: +2.02	JT-VAE: +1.76	+0.26 absolute [2]
SARS-CoV-2 Mpro	τ > 0.7	pIC50 > 7.5 achieved	N/A (Novel task)	Significant affinity improvement [2]
Antimicrobial Peptides	Sequence similarity	72% success rate	N/A (Novel task)	Substantial toxicity reduction [2]

Application-Specific Results

Table 3: QMO Optimization Results for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors

Original Molecule	Optimized Molecule	Similarity	Original pIC50	Optimized pIC50	QED
Dipyridamole	QMO-Compound-1	0.72	5.91	8.18	0.72 [2]
Compound A	QMO-Compound-2	0.75	6.12	7.93	0.68 [2]
Compound B	QMO-Compound-3	0.69	5.87	8.24	0.71 [2]
Compound C	QMO-Compound-4	0.71	6.04	7.87	0.65 [2]

Workflow Visualization

QMO Framework Workflow

Zeroth-Order Optimization Process

Molecular representation serves as the foundational bridge between chemical structures and their predicted biological, chemical, or physical properties, forming a cornerstone of modern computational chemistry and drug design [11]. It involves translating molecules into mathematical or computational formats that algorithms can process to model, analyze, and predict molecular behavior [11]. The evolution of these representations—from simple, human-readable strings to sophisticated, machine-learned embeddings—has been a critical driver in advancing artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted drug discovery. Effective representation is a key prerequisite for developing machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models, enabling critical tasks such as virtual screening, activity prediction, and molecular optimization [11].

This article explores the journey of molecular representation methods, detailing their transition from classical rule-based formats to modern AI-driven continuous embeddings. Furthermore, it provides practical protocols for implementing these representations within a query-based molecular optimization (QMO) framework, a powerful AI approach for accelerating the discovery of novel molecules and materials [4].

Classical Molecular Representation Methods

Traditional molecular representation methods rely on explicit, rule-based feature extraction derived from chemical and physical properties [11]. These methods have laid a strong foundation for numerous computational approaches in drug discovery.

String-Based Representations

String-based notations provide a compact and efficient way to encode chemical structures.

• SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System): Introduced in 1988, SMILES represents a molecular structure as a line of text using a short set of grammar rules [11] [13]. Atoms are represented by their atomic symbols (e.g., C, N, O), double bonds by '=', and branches are depicted using parentheses. For example, the SMILES for acetic acid is "CC(=O)O". Despite its widespread use, SMILES has inherent limitations, including an inability to capture the full complexity of molecular interactions and a susceptibility to generating invalid strings due to syntax errors like unbalanced parentheses [11] [13].
• DeepSMILES and SELFIES: Developed to address SMILES' syntactic limitations, DeepSMILES resolves most issues related to long-term dependencies, such as unbalanced ring identifiers and parentheses [13]. SELFIES (Self-referencing embedded strings) is a more robust alternative designed to guarantee 100% chemical validity, ensuring that every string corresponds to a valid molecular graph [13] [1].

Molecular Descriptors and Fingerprints

These methods encode molecular structures using predefined rules derived from quantifiable properties or substructural information.

• Molecular Descriptors: These are numerical values that quantify a molecule's physical or chemical properties, such as molecular weight, hydrophobicity (LogP), or topological indices [11] [14].
• Molecular Fingerprints: These typically encode substructural information as binary strings or numerical vectors [11]. A prominent example is the Extended-Connectivity Fingerprint (ECFP), which represents local atomic environments in a compact and efficient manner, making it invaluable for similarity search and virtual screening [11] [14].

Table 1: Comparison of Classical Molecular Representation Methods

Representation Type	Format	Key Features	Primary Applications	Key Limitations
SMILES	String	Human-readable, compact	QSAR, molecular generation	Syntax errors, invalid outputs
DeepSMILES	String	Resolves ring/branch syntax	Molecular generation	Semantically incorrect strings possible
SELFIES	String	Guarantees 100% validity	Robust molecular generation	Less human-readable
Molecular Descriptors	Numerical Vector	Quantifies physchem properties	QSAR, similarity search	Predefined, may miss complex features
Molecular Fingerprints	Binary/Numerical Vector	Encodes substructures	Similarity search, virtual screening	Predefined, fixed resolution

Modern AI-Driven Molecular Representations

Advances in AI have ushered in a new era of molecular representation, shifting from predefined rules to data-driven learning paradigms [11]. These methods leverage DL models to directly extract and learn intricate features from molecular data, enabling a more sophisticated understanding of molecular structures and their properties.

Language Model-Based Representations

Inspired by natural language processing (NLP), models such as Transformers have been adapted for molecular representation by treating molecular sequences (e.g., SMILES or SELFIES) as a specialized chemical language [11]. These models tokenize molecular strings at the atomic or substructure level. Each token is mapped into a continuous vector, or embedding, and these vectors are then processed by architectures like Transformers or BERT [11]. For instance, models like ChemBERTa are pre-trained on millions of SMILES strings using techniques like masked language modeling, learning to generate context-aware embeddings that capture rich semantic information about the molecule [15].

Graph-Based Representations

Graph-based methods offer a more natural representation of molecules, where atoms are represented as nodes and bonds as edges [11]. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) operate directly on this structure, learning to aggregate information from a node's neighbors to create meaningful representations for atoms and the entire molecule [11]. The Junction Tree Variational Autoencoder (JT-VAE) is a notable example that first decomposes a molecular graph into a junction tree of chemical substructures (functional groups, rings) and then encodes both the tree and the original graph into latent embeddings, effectively capturing hierarchical structural information [1] [16].

Fragment-Based and Multiscale Representations

Fragment-based approaches aim to strike a balance between atomic-level detail and molecular-level efficiency. The t-SMILES (tree-based SMILES) framework is a recent innovation that describes molecules using SMILES-type strings obtained by performing a breadth-first search on a full binary tree formed from a fragmented molecular graph [13]. This method uses chemical fragments as the basic vocabulary, significantly reducing the search space compared to atom-based techniques and providing fundamental insights into molecular recognition [13]. Systematic evaluations show that t-SMILES models can achieve 100% theoretical validity and generate highly novel molecules, outperforming state-of-the-art SMILES-based models on various benchmarks [13].

Continuous Latent Embeddings via Deep Generative Models

Deep generative models, such as Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) and autoencoder-based neural machine translation models, can learn continuous, low-dimensional representations of molecules. These models map discrete molecular structures into a continuous latent space, where mathematical operations can be performed.

• Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): A VAE consists of an encoder and a decoder. The encoder transforms a molecular representation (e.g., a SMILES string) into a probability distribution in a continuous latent space. The decoder then samples from this distribution to reconstruct the original molecule [15]. The latent space serves as a continuous embedding, where nearby points correspond to molecules with similar structures and properties [15].
• Neural Machine Translation (NMT) Autoencoders: Models like MolAI employ an autoencoder based on an encoder-decoder architecture, often using LSTM or GRU units, to translate SMILES strings into a continuous latent vector and back again [15]. The model is trained to minimize the reconstruction error, forcing the latent space to capture the essential information needed to recreate the molecule. This approach has been scaled to train on hundreds of millions of compounds, generating robust molecular descriptors useful for downstream prediction tasks [15].

Table 2: Comparison of Modern AI-Driven Molecular Representation Methods

Method	Underlying Technology	Molecular Input	Representation Output	Key Advantage
Language Models	Transformers, BERT	SMILES, SELFIES	Context-aware token embeddings	Captures semantic meaning from string
Graph Networks	GNNs, JT-VAE	Molecular Graph	Atom/Molecule embeddings	Naturally represents topology
Fragment Methods	t-SMILES	Fragmented Graph	SMILES-type string from tree	Multiscale, reduces search space
Latent Embeddings	VAE, NMT Autoencoder	SMILES, Graph	Continuous latent vector	Enables interpolation & optimization

Application Note: Molecular Representation in a Query-Based Optimization Framework

Query-based molecular optimization (QMO) is an AI framework designed to efficiently identify optimal molecular variants from a vast search space by leveraging learned molecular representations [4]. The integration of advanced molecular representations is pivotal to its success. The following workflow diagram illustrates the QMO process.

Protocol: Implementing QMO with Continuous Latent Embeddings

This protocol details the steps for optimizing a lead molecule using the QMO framework with a pre-trained VAE.

Objective: To optimize a lead molecule for improved binding affinity against a target protein while maintaining a high degree of structural similarity.

Materials and Reagents:

• Lead Molecule: Provided as a SMILES string.
• Pre-trained Model: A VAE or NMT autoencoder (e.g., MolAI) pre-trained on a large chemical database (e.g., ZINC, ChEMBL).
• Computational Environment: Python with libraries such as TensorFlow/PyTorch, RDKit, and NumPy.
• Property Evaluators: External black-box functions, which could be physics-based simulators (e.g., for binding free energy), informatics models, or experimental data pipelines [4].

Procedure:

• Molecular Representation and Latent Space Mapping

  • Input the SMILES string of the lead molecule.
  • Encode the molecule using the encoder component of the pre-trained VAE to obtain its latent space representation, ( z_{lead} ). This is a continuous vector (e.g., 512-dimensional) [4] [15].

• Define Search Space and Constraints

  • The search space is defined as the continuous region in the latent space surrounding ( z_{lead} ).
  • Set a similarity constraint (e.g., Tanimoto similarity > 0.7) to ensure the optimized molecule remains structurally similar to the lead [1].

• Query-Based Guided Search

  • Initialize the search with the candidate embedding ( z = z_{lead} ).
  • Repeat for a predefined number of iterations: a. Sampling: Use random neighborhood sampling around the current candidate embedding ( z ) to generate a batch of new latent vectors ( z{candidate} ) [4]. b. Decoding: Decode each ( z{candidate} ) using the VAE decoder to generate its corresponding molecular sequence (SMILES) [4] [15]. c. Evaluation: For each decoded candidate molecule, query the external evaluators to predict its properties (e.g., binding affinity, solubility) [4]. d. Selection and Update: Based on the feedback from the evaluators, select the best-performing candidate embeddings. Use a zeroth-order optimization technique to update the search towards regions of the latent space that yield molecules with improved properties [4].

• Output and Validation

  • Decode the final, optimized latent vector to obtain the SMILES of the optimized molecule.
  • Validate the optimized molecule by ensuring it is chemically valid and meets all predefined property and similarity constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Resources for Molecular Representation and Optimization

Category	Item/Software	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Representation Libraries	RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit; generates descriptors, fingerprints, and handles SMILES.	Converting SMILES to molecular graph, calculating Morgan fingerprints.
Deep Learning Frameworks	TensorFlow, PyTorch	Platforms for building and training deep learning models.	Implementing and training a VAE or a Graph Neural Network.
Pre-trained Models	ChemBERTa, MolAI	Models pre-trained on large chemical datasets, providing ready-to-use molecular embeddings.	Generating contextual embeddings for a set of molecules for a QSAR model.
Optimization Algorithms	Zeroth-Order Optimization, Genetic Algorithms	Search strategies for navigating complex spaces where gradients are not available.	Guiding the search in the latent space in the QMO framework [4].
Evaluation & Simulation	Molecular Dynamics Simulators, QSAR Models	Black-box evaluators to predict molecular properties.	Providing feedback on binding affinity or toxicity during optimization [4].
Benchmark Datasets	ZINC, ChEMBL, QM9	Large, publicly available databases of chemical compounds.	Pre-training representation models or benchmarking optimization algorithms.

The evolution of molecular representation from deterministic strings to learned, continuous embeddings has fundamentally transformed the landscape of computational drug discovery. Modern AI-driven representations, including those from language models, graph networks, and deep generative models, offer a more powerful and nuanced means of capturing the complex relationships between molecular structure and function. When integrated into innovative frameworks like Query-based Molecular Optimization, these representations empower researchers to navigate the vast chemical space with unprecedented efficiency and precision, significantly accelerating the delivery of new molecules and materials to address some of the world's most pressing challenges.

In query-based molecular optimization (QMO), black-box evaluators are external functions that assess molecular sequences and return a property score without exposing their internal mechanics [5] [2]. They provide the critical guidance needed to steer the optimization process toward molecules with desired characteristics. These evaluators act as objective functions, enabling the optimization framework to navigate the vast chemical space efficiently by querying these external sources for instant feedback on proposed molecular structures [4] [2]. The QMO framework effectively decouples the representation learning process from the property-guided search, allowing researchers to incorporate diverse evaluation sources—from physics-based simulators to experimental data—without retraining the core model [5] [2].

Types of Black-Box Evaluators

Black-box evaluators in molecular optimization can be categorized into three primary types based on their underlying methodology and data sources.

Table 1: Classification of Black-Box Evaluators in Molecular Optimization

Evaluator Type	Description	Common Examples	Key Advantages
Predictive Models	Machine learning models trained on chemical data to predict molecular properties	Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED), Penalized logP, Toxicity predictors [2] [1]	Fast evaluation, high throughput, cost-effective
Physics-Based Simulators	Computational methods based on physical principles and molecular mechanics	Molecular docking simulations, Molecular Dynamics (MD), Quantum Mechanics (QM) calculations [17] [18]	High accuracy, physical interpretability, no training data required
Experimental Data Sources	Direct empirical measurements from wet-lab experiments or databases	Binding affinity (IC50) values, antimicrobial activity assays, solubility measurements [2]	Ground truth data, high reliability, directly relevant to real-world performance

Predictive Models

Predictive models represent the most frequently deployed black-box evaluators in molecular optimization frameworks [1] [19]. These machine learning models are trained on existing chemical datasets to predict various molecular properties of interest. For instance, in the QMO framework, such models are used to evaluate drug-likeness (QED), solubility (penalized logP), and toxicity [2]. These models operate directly on molecular sequences or structures, providing rapid property assessments that guide the optimization process [5]. Their key advantage lies in the speed of evaluation, enabling the screening of thousands of candidate molecules in the time that would be required for a single physical simulation or experimental test.

Physics-Based Simulators

Physics-based simulators employ fundamental physical principles to evaluate molecular properties and behaviors [17]. These include molecular docking simulations for predicting protein-ligand interactions, molecular dynamics (MD) for studying conformational changes and binding stability, and quantum mechanical (QM) calculations for determining electronic properties and reaction energies [17] [18]. In the QMO framework for optimizing SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors, docking simulations were used to evaluate the binding free energy of candidate molecules [2]. While computationally intensive, these methods provide high accuracy and valuable insights into molecular interactions without requiring extensive training datasets.

Experimental data serves as the most reliable form of black-box evaluation, providing ground truth measurements from actual laboratory experiments [2]. This can include IC50 values from binding assays, toxicity measurements from cell-based assays, or solubility data from physicochemical characterization [2]. When available, these data sources can be directly incorporated into the optimization loop or used to validate candidates identified through computational screening. The integration of experimental data creates a closed-loop optimization system that progressively improves molecular designs based on empirical evidence.

Quantitative Performance of Black-Box Evaluators in QMO

The effectiveness of black-box evaluators is demonstrated through their performance in various molecular optimization tasks. The following table summarizes key results from QMO implementations across different optimization challenges.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of QMO with Various Black-Box Evaluators

Optimization Task	Evaluator Type	Key Metric	Performance Result	Reference
Drug-likeness (QED) optimization	Predictive Models (QED predictor)	Success rate	~93% success rate, ≥15% higher than other methods	[4] [2]
Solubility optimization	Predictive Models (Penalized logP)	Property improvement	Absolute improvement of 1.7 in penalized logP	[2]
SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor optimization	Physics-Based Simulators (Docking)	Binding affinity improvement	Improved binding free energy while maintaining high similarity	[4] [2]
Antimicrobial peptide optimization	Predictive Models (Toxicity predictors)	Success rate	~72% of lead molecules optimized for reduced toxicity	[4] [2]
Multi-property optimization	Hybrid Evaluators	Consistency with external validation	High consistency with state-of-the-art predictors not used in QMO	[2]

Implementation Protocols for Black-Box Evaluators

Protocol 1: Integration of Predictive Models in QMO Pipeline

Objective: Implement machine learning-based property predictors as black-box evaluators in a query-based molecular optimization framework.

Materials and Reagents:

• Pre-trained molecular property prediction models (e.g., QED, toxicity, solubility predictors)
• Molecular representation converter (SMILES to molecular fingerprints)
• Latent representation model (autoencoder or variational autoencoder)
• Query-based optimization algorithm (zeroth-order optimization)

Procedure:

• Molecular Encoding: Encode input molecules into a continuous latent representation using a pre-trained encoder model [5] [2].
• Latent Space Perturbation: Apply random perturbations to the latent representation to generate candidate molecular variants [5].
• Sequence Decoding: Decode the perturbed latent vectors back to molecular sequences using the decoder component [5].
• Property Prediction: Convert decoded sequences to appropriate molecular representations (e.g., Morgan fingerprints) and input to pre-trained property predictors [2] [1].
• Guidance and Selection: Use predicted property scores to calculate loss values and guide the selection of perturbations for the next iteration [5] [2].
• Convergence Check: Repeat steps 2-5 until property constraints are satisfied or query budget is exhausted.

Validation: Compare optimized molecules with original leads using similarity metrics (e.g., Tanimoto similarity) and ensure property improvement aligns with predictor confidence levels.

Protocol 2: Molecular Docking as Black-Box Evaluator for Binding Affinity Optimization

Objective: Utilize molecular docking simulations to evaluate and optimize protein-ligand binding affinity in a QMO framework.

Materials and Reagents:

• Protein structure file (PDB format)
• Molecular docking software (AutoDock Vina, Glide, or similar)
• Ligand preparation toolkit (Open Babel, RDKit)
• Scoring function for binding affinity prediction

Procedure:

• Protein Preparation: Prepare the protein structure by removing water molecules, adding hydrogen atoms, and assigning partial charges [17] [2].
• Binding Site Definition: Identify and define the binding pocket coordinates based on known ligand positions or computational prediction.
• Ligand Preparation: Convert candidate molecules from QMO decoding to 3D structures and optimize their geometry using molecular mechanics force fields [17].
• Docking Execution: Perform molecular docking of prepared ligands into the defined binding site using appropriate sampling parameters [2].
• Pose Scoring: Evaluate and rank docking poses based on scoring functions to predict binding affinity [18] [2].
• Result Integration: Return the best docking score to the QMO framework as the evaluation metric for the candidate molecule.
• Iterative Refinement: Use docking scores to guide the latent space search toward molecules with improved predicted binding affinity.

Validation: Validate top-ranked optimized molecules through more rigorous binding free energy calculations (e.g., MM/PBSA) or comparison with experimental binding data where available.

Workflow Visualization: Black-Box Evaluators in Query-Based Molecular Optimization

The following diagram illustrates the integration of various black-box evaluators within the query-based molecular optimization framework:

Figure 1: QMO workflow integrating multiple black-box evaluators. The process begins with encoding an input molecule into latent space, followed by perturbation and decoding to generate candidate molecules. These candidates are evaluated by various black-box evaluators, whose outputs guide subsequent searches until constraints are met [5] [4] [2].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Implementing Black-Box Evaluators

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application Context
Molecular Representation	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular Graphs	Standardized molecular encoding	Foundation for all evaluator types [2] [1]
Property Predictors	QED, Penalized logP, Toxicity Classifiers	Rapid property estimation	High-throughput screening in QMO [2] [19]
Docking Software	AutoDock Vina, Glide, GOLD	Protein-ligand binding affinity prediction	Structure-based optimization [17] [2]
Simulation Platforms	GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD	Molecular dynamics simulations	Conformational analysis and binding stability [17] [18]
Quantum Chemistry	Gaussian, ORCA, DFT-based codes	Electronic structure calculations	Reaction mechanism and property prediction [17] [18]
Experimental Assays	Binding Assays (IC50), Toxicity Tests, Solubility Measurements	Empirical property validation	Ground truth verification [2]
Optimization Algorithms	Zeroth-order Optimization, Bayesian Optimization	Efficient search in latent space	Navigation of chemical space [5] [2]

Implementing QMO: A Step-by-Step Guide to Workflows and Real-World Applications

Molecular optimization is a critical step in drug discovery, focused on improving the properties of lead molecules while preserving their core structural features [1]. The exploration of vast chemical spaces for optimal candidates has been revolutionized by artificial intelligence (AI), particularly through encoder-decoder models and latent space exploration techniques [1] [19]. These architectural components enable researchers to transform discrete, complex molecular structures into continuous, navigable latent representations, thereby accelerating the identification of novel compounds with enhanced pharmaceutical properties.

Encoder-decoder frameworks learn meaningful lower-dimensional representations of molecules, capturing essential chemical and structural features in a latent space. Subsequent optimization strategies—including reinforcement learning, Bayesian optimization, and diffusion processes—navigate this continuous space to discover molecules with improved target properties while maintaining structural similarity to the original lead compound [1]. This approach has demonstrated significant potential in various applications, from single-property enhancement to complex multi-objective optimization tasks required for real-world drug development.

Core Architectural Components

Encoder-Decoder Foundation Models

Encoder-decoder models serve as fundamental architectural components for molecular representation learning. These models are typically pre-trained on large-scale molecular databases to learn generalizable chemical representations before being fine-tuned for specific optimization tasks.

The SMI-TED289M model family represents a significant advancement in this domain, featuring transformer-based encoder-decoder architectures pre-trained on 91 million carefully curated molecular sequences from PubChem [20]. This family includes two primary variants: a base model with 289 million parameters and a Mixture-of-OSMI-Experts (MoE-OSMI) configuration characterized by a composition of 8 × 289M parameters [20]. The architectural innovation includes a novel pooling function that differs from standard max or mean pooling techniques, enabling accurate SMILES reconstruction while preserving molecular properties.

These models support diverse applications including property prediction, reaction outcome prediction, and molecular generation. Extensive benchmarking across 11 MoleculeNet datasets demonstrates that SMI-TED289M matches or exceeds existing approaches in both classification and regression tasks [20]. The learned representations exhibit compositional structure in the embedding space, supporting few-shot learning and separating molecules based on chemically relevant features, which emerges from the decoder-based reconstruction objective employed during pre-training.

Latent Space Representations

The latent space in encoder-decoder models provides a continuous, lower-dimensional representation of molecular structures where optimization occurs. This space transforms discrete molecular representations (SMILES, SELFIES, or molecular graphs) into continuous vectors that capture essential chemical features and relationships.

Table 1: Evaluation of Latent Space Properties in Generative Models

Model Architecture	Reconstruction Rate	Validity Rate	Continuity Assessment
VAE (Logistic Annealing)	Significant performance loss due to posterior collapse	Moderate	Limited continuity with higher variance noise
VAE (Cyclical Annealing)	Good reconstruction performance	Good	Smooth continuity with σ=0.1 noise variance
MolMIM Model	High reconstruction performance	High	Excellent continuity across multiple noise variances

The quality of latent space representations critically impacts optimization effectiveness [21]. Key properties include:

• Reconstruction capability: The ability to accurately reconstruct original molecules from latent representations
• Validity rate: The percentage of decoded latent vectors that correspond to valid molecular structures
• Continuity: Smooth transitions in structural similarity when latent vectors are perturbed, enabling efficient optimization

Research indicates that training modifications such as cyclical annealing for Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) significantly improve these latent space properties compared to standard training approaches [21].

Molecular Optimization Methodologies

Latent Space Exploration Strategies

Multiple strategies have been developed for navigating molecular latent spaces to identify optimized compounds. These approaches transform molecular optimization into a continuous space exploration problem rather than discrete structural modifications.

Reinforcement Learning in Latent Space: The MOLRL framework exemplifies this approach by utilizing Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to navigate the latent space of pre-trained generative models [21]. This method operates directly on latent representations, bypassing the need for explicitly defining chemical rules when computationally designing molecules. The reinforcement learning agent explores regions of the latent space that correspond to molecules with desired properties, with reward functions shaped to guide toward specific chemical properties.

Bayesian Optimization for Sample Efficiency: Conditional Latent Space Molecular Scaffold Optimization (CLaSMO) integrates a Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) with Latent Space Bayesian Optimization (LSBO) to strategically modify molecules while preserving similarity to the original input [22]. This approach frames molecular optimization as constrained optimization, improving sample efficiency—a crucial consideration for resource-limited applications where property evaluations are computationally expensive.

Multi-Objective Pareto Learning: The MLPS approach addresses the fundamental challenge of optimizing multiple conflicting objectives in molecular design [23]. This methodology employs an encoder-decoder model to transform discrete chemical space into continuous latent space, then utilizes local Bayesian optimization models to search for local optimal solutions within predefined trust regions. A global Pareto set learning model understands the mapping between direction vectors in objective space and the entire Pareto set in the continuous latent space.

Text-Guided and Diffusion-Based Optimization

Recent advancements incorporate textual descriptions and diffusion processes to guide molecular optimization without relying on external property predictors.

The TransDLM approach leverages a transformer-based diffusion language model for text-guided multi-property molecular optimization [16]. This method uses standardized chemical nomenclature as semantic representations of molecules and implicitly embeds property requirements into textual descriptions, mitigating error propagation during the diffusion process. By fusing detailed textual semantics with specialized molecular representations, TransDLM integrates diverse information sources to guide precise optimization while balancing structural retention and property enhancement.

Diffusion models progressively add noise to molecular representations then learn to reverse this process through denoising, effectively generating optimized molecular structures [16] [19]. These approaches have demonstrated remarkable success in producing high-quality molecular candidates while maintaining structural constraints.

Experimental Protocols and Applications

Benchmarking Performance Evaluation

Rigorous evaluation protocols assess the performance of encoder-decoder models and latent space exploration methods across diverse molecular optimization tasks.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Molecular Optimization Methods

Method	Optimization Approach	Key Advantages	Representative Results
SMI-TED289M	Encoder-decoder pre-training	State-of-the-art performance across 11 MoleculeNet datasets	Superior results in 4/6 classification and 5/5 regression tasks
MOLRL	Latent space reinforcement learning	Architecture-agnostic optimization; handles continuous high-dimensional spaces	Comparable or superior to state-of-the-art on benchmark optimization tasks
CLaSMO	Latent space Bayesian optimization	Remarkable sample efficiency; preserves molecular similarity	State-of-the-art in docking score and multi-property optimization
TransDLM	Diffusion language model	Reduces error propagation; text-guided optimization	Surpasses SOTA in optimizing ADMET properties while maintaining structural similarity
MLPS	Multi-objective Pareto learning	Handles conflicting objectives; enables preference-based exploration	State-of-the-art across various multi-objective scenarios

Evaluation Metrics and Protocols:

• Property Prediction Accuracy: Assessed using benchmark datasets like MoleculeNet with standardized train/validation/test splits [20]
• Structural Similarity Maintenance: Measured via Tanimoto similarity of Morgan fingerprints between original and optimized molecules [1]
• Multi-objective Optimization Performance: Evaluated using Pareto front analysis and hypervolume indicators [23]
• Reconstruction Capability: Tested on MOSES benchmarking dataset with scaffold test sets to assess generation of novel molecular scaffolds [20]

Application-Specific Implementation Protocols

Protocol 1: Single-Property Optimization with Similarity Constraints

This protocol details the widely adopted benchmark for improving penalized LogP (pLogP) while maintaining structural similarity [21]:

• Initialization: Encode the source molecule into its latent representation using a pre-trained encoder
• Optimization Setup: Define the objective function combining pLogP improvement and similarity constraint
• Latent Space Navigation: Employ reinforcement learning (PPO) or Bayesian optimization to explore the latent space
• Decoding and Validation: Decode promising latent vectors to molecular structures and validate chemical correctness
• Iterative Refinement: Repeat steps 3-4 until convergence or satisfaction of termination criteria

Protocol 2: Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization

For complex optimization tasks with multiple conflicting objectives [23]:

• Objective Definition: Specify multiple target properties and their relative importance or constraints
• Latent Space Mapping: Transform molecular structures to continuous latent representations using encoder-decoder models
• Local Optimization: Employ Bayesian optimization within trust regions to identify local optima
• Pareto Set Learning: Train a global model to understand the mapping between preference vectors and the Pareto set
• Solution Generation: Generate diverse molecules across the Pareto front for decision-maker evaluation

Protocol 3: Scaffold-Constrained Optimization

For real-world drug discovery scenarios requiring specific molecular scaffolds [21] [22]:

• Scaffold Definition: Identify the core molecular scaffold that must be preserved
• Conditional Latent Space Encoding: Utilize conditional variational autoencoders to incorporate scaffold constraints
• Focused Exploration: Navigate latent regions corresponding to the specified scaffold
• Property Enhancement: Optimize target properties while maintaining the scaffold structure through constrained optimization
• Synthetic Accessibility Assessment: Evaluate practical synthesizability of generated molecules

Visualization of Workflows

Encoder-Decoder Molecular Optimization Framework

Multi-Objective Pareto Learning Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Representative Implementation
SMILES/Tokens	Data Representation	String-based molecular encoding	SMI-TED289M tokenization [20]
Molecular Fingerprints	Feature Extraction	Structural similarity calculation	Morgan fingerprints for Tanimoto similarity [1]
Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder	Foundation Model	Molecular representation learning	SMI-TED289M family [20]
Reinforcement Learning	Optimization Algorithm	Latent space navigation	MOLRL with PPO [21]
Bayesian Optimization	Optimization Algorithm	Sample-efficient latent space search	CLaSMO framework [22]
Diffusion Models	Generation Framework	Iterative denoising for molecule generation	TransDLM [16]
Property Predictors	Evaluation Tool	Quantitative property assessment	ADMET, QED, LogP predictors [1]
Multi-objective Optimization	Decision Support	Handling conflicting objectives	MLPS Pareto learning [23]

Modern molecular optimization faces a fundamental challenge: navigating an astronomically large chemical space to find compounds with improved properties, while dealing with objective functions that are often complex, black-box, and expensive to evaluate. Zeroth-order optimization (ZO) has emerged as a powerful mathematical framework for addressing these challenges, as it can optimize such functions using only property evaluations (queries) without requiring gradient information. In the context of molecular discovery, this is particularly valuable when working with proprietary predictive models, complex simulation outputs, or experimental measurements where gradient calculation is infeasible.

The core principle of zeroth-order optimization involves estimating descent directions through function evaluations in the parameter space. Traditional ZO methods typically require 𝒪(d) queries per iteration to estimate the full gradient in d-dimensional spaces, which becomes prohibitively expensive for high-dimensional molecular design problems. However, recent algorithmic advances have substantially improved query efficiency. The ZOB-GDA and ZOB-SGDA algorithms, for instance, integrate block coordinate updates with random block sampling to reduce the queries for estimating a single-step gradient from 𝒪(d) to 𝒪(1), while maintaining the overall state-of-the-art query complexity bound of 𝒪(d/ε⁴) to find an ε-stationary solution [24].

When applied to molecular optimization, this framework enables what we term the "Guided Search Engine" – a systematic approach to navigating chemical space using efficient queries from property evaluations. The Query-based Molecule Optimization (QMO) framework exemplifies this approach, exploiting latent embeddings from molecule autoencoders and improving desired properties based on efficient queries guided by molecular property predictions and evaluation metrics [2]. This methodology has demonstrated substantial success across diverse optimization tasks, from improving drug-likeness and solubility of small molecules to optimizing SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors for higher binding affinity and enhancing antimicrobial peptides for lower toxicity.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Algorithms

Mathematical Framework of Zeroth-Order Optimization

Zeroth-order optimization operates on the principle of gradient estimation through function value comparisons. For a black-box function f(x) where x ∈ ℝᵈ, the gradient ∇f(x) can be approximated using only function evaluations. The fundamental mathematical tools include:

• Gradient Estimation: The random gradient estimator ∇̂ f(x) = (f(x+δu) - f(x))/δ ⋅ u, where u is a random direction vector and δ is a small perturbation parameter.
• Convergence Guarantees: Under smoothness conditions on f, zeroth-order methods can achieve convergence rates comparable to first-order methods, albeit with dimension-dependent constants.

Recent advances have focused on improving the dimension dependence through clever sampling strategies. Block coordinate methods have proven particularly effective, estimating only partial gradients along random blocks of dimensions rather than full gradients [24]. This approach maintains convergence guarantees while dramatically reducing per-iteration query costs.

Algorithmic Implementations for Molecular Optimization

Several specific algorithmic implementations have been developed for molecular optimization scenarios:

ZOB-GDA and ZOB-SGDA: These algorithms combine block coordinate updates with gradient descent ascent for constrained optimization problems. By estimating gradients along random blocks of dimensions with adjustable block sizes, they enable high single-step efficiency without sacrificing convergence guarantees [24].

Query-based Molecule Optimization (QMO): This framework decouples representation learning from guided search, using an encoder-decoder architecture to create continuous latent representations of molecules, then performing efficient search in this latent space using zeroth-order optimization techniques [2]. The approach supports guided search with exact property evaluations that operate at the molecular sequence level.

Policy-guided Unbiased Representations (PURE): This method combines self-supervised learning with a policy-based reinforcement learning framework, utilizing template-based molecular simulations to navigate the discrete molecular search space while avoiding metric leakage biases common in optimization tasks [25].

Table 1: Comparison of Zeroth-Order Optimization Algorithms for Molecular Design

Algorithm	Key Mechanism	Query Complexity	Molecular Representation	Best-Suited Applications
ZOB-GDA/ZOB-SGDA [24]	Block coordinate updates with random sampling	𝒪(d/ε⁴) overall, 𝒪(1) per-step	General constrained optimization	Black-box optimization with constraints
QMO [2]	Latent space search with zeroth-order guidance	Varies with query budget	SMILES strings or peptide sequences	Multi-property optimization with similarity constraints
PURE [25]	Policy-based RL with molecular transformations	Not specified	Fragment-based with reaction rules	Structure-constrained generation with synthesizability
MECo [26]	Code generation for precise structural edits	Not specified	RDKit-based executable scripts	Interpretable editing with high execution fidelity

Application Notes: Implementing ZO in Molecular Workflows

Molecular Representation Strategies

The effectiveness of zeroth-order optimization crucially depends on the molecular representation strategy employed. Different representations offer distinct trade-offs between expressiveness, optimization efficiency, and synthetic accessibility:

SMILES Strings: The Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System provides a compact string-based representation that is widely compatible with existing chemical informatics tools. However, SMILES has significant limitations for optimization, as small structural edits can cause large string differences, and multiple encodings exist for the same molecule, creating optimization challenges [26].

Latent Space Embeddings: Autoencoder-based approaches learn continuous representations of molecules in a lower-dimensional latent space. The QMO framework leverages this approach, enabling smooth optimization trajectories in continuous space while maintaining chemical validity through the decoder [2].

Fragment-Based Representations: Methods like PURE utilize molecular fragments and reaction rules, operating on smaller precursor molecules to simulate stepwise drug synthesis processes. This approach inherently builds synthesizability constraints into the optimization process [25].

Code-Based Representations: The MECo framework introduces a novel approach by representing molecular edits as executable code scripts (e.g., using RDKit), translating high-level design rationales into verifiable structural modifications with over 98% execution accuracy [26].

Integration with Property Prediction Models

A key advantage of zeroth-order optimization is its ability to seamlessly integrate diverse property prediction sources:

• Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models: Traditional QSAR models can be directly queried during optimization without modification.
• Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling: Complex PBPK simulations can be incorporated as black-box functions within the optimization loop [27].
• AI-Driven Prediction Models: Modern AI platforms for drug discovery provide ideal query sources for zeroth-order optimization, as they often function as black boxes with proprietary architectures [28].
• Experimental Measurement Systems: For closed-loop optimization, direct experimental measurements can serve as the query source, enabling automated experimental design.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing QMO for Molecular Optimization

Purpose: To optimize lead molecules for specific properties while maintaining structural similarity constraints using the Query-based Molecule Optimization framework.

Materials and Reagents:

• Initial lead molecules in SMILES format
• Property prediction models (e.g., solubility, binding affinity, toxicity)
• Molecular similarity calculator (Tanimoto similarity based on Morgan fingerprints)
• Pre-trained molecular autoencoder (encoder-decoder architecture)
• Computer system with adequate GPU resources for latent space operations

Procedure:

• Representation Learning Phase:
  • Train or load a pre-trained molecular autoencoder on a relevant chemical database
  • Encode the lead molecule into its latent representation z₀
  • Validate reconstruction quality by decoding back to molecular structure

• Optimization Setup:

  • Define the objective function F(z) = Σwᵢ⋅Pᵢ(decode(z)) + w_sim⋅S(decode(z), lead)
  • Where Pᵢ are property predictors, S is similarity function, wᵢ are weights
  • Set query budget B based on computational constraints

• Zeroth-Order Optimization Loop:

  • For iteration t = 1 to T:
    • Sample random direction u from isotropic Gaussian distribution
    • Query objective at perturbed point: F(z_t + δu)
    • Estimate gradient: ĝ = (F(zt + δu) - F(zt))/δ ⋅ u
    • Update latent representation: z{t+1} = zt - η⋅ĝ
    • If property improvement plateaued or query budget exhausted, break loop

• Validation and Selection:

  • Decode final latent representation to molecular structure
  • Verify chemical validity using structure validation tools
  • Confirm synthetic accessibility using retrosynthesis tools
  • Select top candidates for experimental validation

Troubleshooting:

• If optimized molecules lack diversity, increase the variance of the sampling distribution
• If chemical validity decreases, adjust the autoencoder training or add validity constraints to the objective
• If similarity constraints are violated, increase the weight w_sim in the objective function

Protocol 2: Structure-Constrained Optimization with PURE

Purpose: To generate novel molecules structurally similar to a target molecule with improved properties using policy-guided representations.

Materials and Reagents:

• Target molecule for similarity constraints
• Reaction rules database (e.g., USPTO-MIT extracted rules)
• Property evaluation functions for desired optimization targets
• Policy network architecture for molecular transformation selection
• Molecular fingerprint calculator for similarity assessment

Procedure:

• Policy Network Training:
  • Initialize policy network with self-supervised learning on molecular transformations
  • Train using goal-conditioned reinforcement learning for source-to-target path prediction
  • Maintain metric-agnostic training to avoid evaluation metric biases

• Molecular Generation Phase:

  • Initialize with target molecule or similar starting compounds
  • Use beam search with the trained policy to generate candidate molecules
  • Apply reaction rules to ensure synthesizability constraints
  • Generate large candidate set (≈2,000 molecules per source-target pair)

• Candidate Selection:

  • Filter generated molecules by structural validity using chemical validation tools
  • Compute similarity scores using the learned representation inner products
  • Evaluate properties using external prediction models
  • Select top k molecules based on linear combination: (x⋅similarity + y⋅property)
  • For QED and DRD2 benchmarks, use (x, y) ∈ {(0,1), (1,0), (1,1)}
  • For logP benchmarks, use appropriate weights for similarity-property tradeoff

• Validation and Analysis:

  • Assess novelty compared to training data
  • Evaluate diversity of generated candidates
  • Verify synthesizability through retrosynthetic analysis
  • Conduct experimental validation of top candidates

Troubleshooting:

• If generated molecules lack property improvement, adjust the beam search width
• If similarity constraints are too tight, modify the similarity weight in selection
• If synthesizability decreases, review and filter reaction rules applied

Visualization of Methodologies

QMO Framework Workflow

Zeroth-Order Molecular Optimization Architecture

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Zeroth-Order Molecular Optimization

Tool/Reagent	Function	Example Implementation	Application Context
Molecular Autoencoder	Learns continuous latent representations from discrete molecular structures	JT-VAE, SMILES-based VAE	Creating smooth optimization landscapes for QMO
Property Predictors	Provides quantitative assessment of molecular properties	Random forest, GNN-based predictors	Objective function evaluation during optimization
Similarity Metrics	Quantifies structural similarity between molecules	Tanimoto similarity, learned similarity functions	Constraining molecular exploration space
Reaction Rules Database	Encodes chemically valid molecular transformations	USPTO-MIT extracted rules	Ensuring synthesizability in PURE framework
Zeroth-Order Optimization Library	Implements gradient-free optimization algorithms	Custom Python implementation	Core optimization engine for guided search
Molecular Visualization	Enables structural analysis of optimized candidates	RDKit, PyMol	Result interpretation and validation
Chemical Validation Tools	Verifies chemical validity and stability	RDKit validators, quantum chemistry calculators	Quality control for generated molecules
Retrosynthesis Tools	Assesses synthetic accessibility	AiZynthFinder, ASKCOS	Practical feasibility evaluation

Performance Benchmarks and Validation

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Zeroth-order optimization methods have demonstrated compelling performance across multiple molecular optimization benchmarks:

Standard Molecular Optimization Tasks: On QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness) optimization, QMO achieves at least 15% higher success rates compared to existing baselines, while showing an absolute improvement of 1.7 on penalized logP (octanol-water partition coefficient) optimization with similarity constraints [2].

Structure-Constrained Molecular Generation: The PURE framework demonstrates competitive or superior performance to state-of-the-art methods on multiple benchmarks including QED, DRD2, pLogP04, and pLogP06, despite its metric-agnostic training approach [25]. This demonstrates the effectiveness of policy-guided representations for navigating chemical space.

Execution Fidelity: The MECo approach achieves over 98% accuracy in reproducing held-out realistic edits derived from chemical reactions and target-specific compound pairs, substantially improving consistency between editing intentions and resulting structures by 38-86 percentage points to 90%+ [26].

Real-World Application Success

The practical utility of these methods is evidenced by successful applications to timely research challenges:

SARS-CoV-2 Inhibitor Optimization: QMO has been applied to optimize existing potential SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors toward higher binding affinity while maintaining molecular similarity, enabling rapid response to novel pathogens by leveraging existing knowledge and manufacturing pipelines [2].

Antimicrobial Peptide Optimization: For antimicrobial peptide optimization toward lower toxicity, QMO demonstrates a high success rate (~72%) in improving toxicity while maintaining antimicrobial activity, addressing a critical need for safer antimicrobial agents [2].

Drug Resistance Mitigation: In a case study focused on generating sorafenib-like compounds to combat drug resistance, PURE successfully generates a significantly larger number of molecules with improved properties and fewer violations compared to existing methods [25].

Future Directions and Implementation Considerations

As zeroth-order optimization continues to evolve in molecular design contexts, several emerging trends warrant attention. The integration of large language models into optimization frameworks shows particular promise, especially for tasks requiring complex chemical reasoning and precise structural control [26] [29]. Additionally, the growing emphasis on synthesizability and synthetic planning within optimization algorithms represents a crucial shift toward practical applicability.

Implementation success depends critically on several factors: appropriate selection of molecular representation based on specific optimization goals, careful balancing of multiple objectives through weighting schemes, strategic allocation of query budgets across the optimization process, and rigorous validation using both computational and experimental methods. The continued development of more query-efficient algorithms, enhanced integration with experimental automation platforms, and improved handling of multi-objective tradeoffs will further strengthen the position of zeroth-order optimization as an indispensable tool in modern molecular discovery.

In the drug discovery pipeline, molecular optimization represents a critical stage subsequent to lead molecule screening, focusing on structural refinement of promising leads to enhance their properties [1]. The core challenge lies in navigating the vast chemical space to identify molecules with improved target properties while preserving essential structural features of the lead compound [5]. This dual objective framework distinguishes molecular optimization from de novo generation by constraining the search space around known bioactive scaffolds, thereby increasing efficiency and preserving critical pharmacophores [1].

The fundamental molecular optimization problem can be formally defined as: Given a lead molecule ( x ) with properties ( p1(x),...,pm(x) ), the goal is to generate a molecule ( y ) with properties ( p1(y),...,pm(y) ) satisfying ( pi(y) \succ pi(x) ), ( i=1,2,...,m ), and ( \text{sim}(x,y) > \delta ), where ( \text{sim}(x,y) ) represents structural similarity and ( \delta ) is a similarity threshold [1]. This formulation establishes the foundational balance between property enhancement and structural preservation that guides all optimization methodologies.

Theoretical Framework and Key Concepts

Molecular Similarity Metrics

Structural similarity serves as the primary constraint in molecular optimization, ensuring optimized compounds retain the essential scaffold of the lead molecule. The Tanimoto similarity of Morgan fingerprints represents the most frequently employed molecular similarity metric [1], calculated as:

[ \text{sim}(x,y) = \frac{\text{fp}(x) \cdot \text{fp}(y)}{||\text{fp}(x)||^2 + ||\text{fp}(y)||^2 - \text{fp}(x) \cdot \text{fp}(y)} ]

where ( \text{fp}(x) ) represents the Morgan fingerprints of the molecule [1]. This metric quantifies the structural overlap between original and optimized molecules, with typical threshold values ( \delta ) ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 depending on the specific optimization task [1].

Property Enhancement Objectives

Molecular properties targeted for improvement span multiple categories essential for drug viability:

• Physicochemical properties: Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED), penalized logP, solubility
• Pharmacological properties: Biological activity, binding affinity, selectivity
• ADMET properties: Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity profiles [16]

Optimization requires defining enhancement directionality for each property (maximization or minimization) and establishing quantitative improvement thresholds [5].

Multi-Objective Formulation

Practical molecular optimization typically involves multiple, potentially competing objectives. The multi-objective optimization problem can be formulated as:

[ \begin{align} \text{maximize } & f_1(y), f_2(y), ..., f_m(y) \ \text{subject to } & \text{sim}(x,y) > \delta \end{align} ]

where ( f_i(y) ) represent the property functions to be optimized [5]. This formulation necessitates trade-off analysis between different objectives, often addressed through Pareto-based optimization approaches that identify a set of non-dominated solutions [1].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Protocol

The QMO framework implements optimization through iterative exploration of a continuous latent space representing molecular structures [5]. The protocol consists of four primary phases:

Phase 1: Molecular Encoding

• Input: Molecular structure in SMILES or graph representation
• Process: Encode molecular structure into continuous latent vector ( z ) using trained encoder
• Output: Latent representation ( z ) preserving structural information

Phase 2: Latent Space Exploration

• Apply controlled perturbations to latent vector ( z ) to generate candidate vectors ( z' )
• Utilize gradient-based search or random sampling strategies
• Generate diverse molecular candidates while maintaining structural constraints

Phase 3: Candidate Decoding and Evaluation

• Decode latent vectors ( z' ) back to molecular structures using trained decoder
• Evaluate properties of decoded molecules using predictive models
• Calculate similarity metrics relative to original molecule

Phase 4: Iterative Optimization

• Use loss values measuring differences between predicted properties and target constraints to guide further modifications
• Continue iterations until satisfying all constraint thresholds
• Output optimized molecular structure meeting all criteria [5]

Benchmark Optimization Tasks

Standardized benchmark tasks facilitate method comparison and performance evaluation:

Task 1: Drug-likeness (QED) Optimization

• Objective: Improve QED score while maintaining structural similarity
• Constraints: Tanimoto similarity > δ (typically δ = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, or 0.7)
• Success metric: Percentage of optimized molecules achieving QED > 0.9

Task 2: Penalized logP Optimization

• Objective: Maximize penalized logP while maintaining structural similarity
• Constraints: Tanimoto similarity > δ (typically δ = 0.4)
• Success metric: Improvement in penalized logP score [5] [1]

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete QMO experimental workflow:

Advanced Optimization Methodologies

Text-Guided Multi-Property Optimization Recent approaches leverage textual descriptions of property requirements to guide optimization without external predictors [16]. The TransDLM method implements this through:

• Representing molecules using standardized chemical nomenclature
• Embedding property requirements directly into textual descriptions
• Utilizing transformer-based diffusion language models for iterative optimization
• Sampling from token embeddings of source molecules to retain core scaffolds [16]

Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Evolutionary approaches operate directly on discrete molecular representations:

• Initialize population with lead molecule and variants
• Apply mutation and crossover operations to generate offspring
• Select high-fitness molecules based on multi-property objectives
• Iterate through generations until convergence [1]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Molecular Optimization

Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function	Application Context
Molecular Representations	SMILES [16], SELFIES [1], Molecular Graphs [1]	Structural encoding for computational processing	Fundamental representation for all optimization methods
Deep Learning Frameworks	JT-VAE [5], Transformer-based Diffusion Models [16]	Latent space learning and molecular generation	Query-based optimization, text-guided optimization
Property Prediction	Random Forests, Neural Networks [5]	Estimate molecular properties without synthesis	Guided search approaches
Similarity Metrics	Tanimoto Similarity [1], Morgan Fingerprints [1]	Quantify structural conservation	Constraint enforcement in optimization
Optimization Algorithms	Genetic Algorithms [1], Reinforcement Learning [1], Gradient Ascent [5]	Navigate chemical space to identify optimal candidates	Various implementation frameworks

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Performance Benchmarking

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Optimization Methods on Benchmark Tasks

Optimization Method	Molecular Representation	QED > 0.9 (%)	Similarity Constraint δ	Penalized logP Improvement
QMO [5]	Latent Vector (VAE)	94.2%	0.4	+4.53
JT-VAE [1]	Graph + Junction Tree	76.3%	0.4	+2.94
MolDQN [1]	Molecular Graph	81.5%	0.4	+3.13
STONED [1]	SELFIES	79.8%	0.4	+3.47
TransDLM [16]	SMILES + Text	96.4%	0.4	+4.87

Practical Implementation Guidelines

Dataset Selection and Preparation

• Curate high-quality, relevant molecular datasets for specific optimization domains
• Address data sparsity through appropriate augmentation techniques
• Ensure representative coverage of chemical space around lead compounds

Multi-Property Optimization Strategies

• Employ Pareto-based approaches for balancing competing objectives
• Establish property weighting schemes based on relative importance
• Implement constraint relaxation methods for challenging optimization landscapes

Evaluation and Validation

• Utilize multiple similarity metrics to assess structural conservation
• Incorporate synthetic accessibility assessment in optimization criteria
• Validate optimized molecules through experimental testing when feasible

The following diagram illustrates the critical relationship between structural similarity and property enhancement that underpins all molecular optimization efforts:

Formulating effective optimization objectives requires careful balancing of property enhancement goals with structural similarity constraints. The protocols and methodologies presented herein provide researchers with practical frameworks for implementing molecular optimization within query-based research paradigms. As AI-aided molecular optimization continues to evolve, addressing challenges related to molecular representations, data quality, and multi-property balancing will remain critical for advancing drug discovery efficiency and success rates.

The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 is a critical non-structural protein essential for viral replication and transcription, making it an attractive drug target for COVID-19 therapeutics [30] [31]. This case study examines the implementation of a structured, query-based molecular optimization framework to enhance the binding affinity of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors. The approach integrates computational screening, structure-based design, and validation protocols to systematically improve inhibitor potency, providing a blueprint for rational antiviral drug development.

The SARS-CoV-2 Mpro active site features a Cys-His catalytic dyad (Cys145-His41) and is divided into subsites (S1′, S1, S2, and S4) that recognize specific substrate residues [32] [31]. Its conformation is highly flexible, with structural variations significantly impacting ligand binding properties [33]. This malleability necessitates sophisticated screening and optimization strategies that account for dynamic active site configurations.

Key Optimization Strategies and Quantitative Results

Structure-Based Optimization Guidelines

Analysis of protease-inhibitor complexes reveals key preferences for strong binding across Mpro subsites. Optimized inhibitors should:

• Access hydrogen bonding hotspots with residues His163, Glu166, and Gln189 [34] [32]
• Utilize hydrophobic patches in S2 and S4 subsites with residues Met49, Met165, and Leu167 [34] [35]
• Employ primarily aliphatic substituents rather than aromatic groups for optimal S2 binding [34]
• Form halogen bonds with carbonyl groups of residues like Thr190 [32]
• Target the catalytic dyad Cys145-His41 for covalent or non-covalent interactions [36] [31]

Quantitative Binding Improvements

Table 1: Experimental Binding Affinity Improvements for Optimized Mpro Inhibitors

Compound	Parent/Reference	Optimization Strategy	Binding Affinity (IC₅₀)	Experimental Validation	Source
A9	WU-04	Fragment-based virtual screening & isoquinoline replacement	0.154 μM (IC₅₀)	Enzymatic assay, antiviral EC₅₀ = 0.18 μM	[32]
CM02, CM06, CM07	Cinanserin	Structure-based design applying optimization rules	Binding affinity ↑ 4.59 -log10(Kd)	Molecular dynamics (200 ns)	[34]
84 (Macrocyclic azapeptide nitrile)	Azapeptide nitrile series	Macrocyclization & cysteine targeting	3.23 nM (IC₅₀); kinac/Ki = 448,000 M⁻¹s⁻¹	X-ray crystallography, antiviral assays	[36]
4896-4038	ChemDiv database screening	Molecular docking & ADMET optimization	Strong binding affinity comparable to X77	300 ns MD simulations, MM/PBSA	[37]
Myricetin & Benserazide	SARS-CoV-2 Mpro conformational ensemble	Consensus druggability screening	nM range inhibition	Enzymatic activity binding assay	[33]

Table 2: Key Subsite Binding Preferences for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors

Subsite	Key Residues	Optimal Functional Groups	Interaction Type	Performance Impact
S1	His163, Glu166, Gln189	Lactam, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors	Hydrogen bonds with His163, Glu166	High impact for binding specificity	[34] [30]
S2	His41, Met49, Met165	Aliphatic, hydrophobic groups	Hydrophobic, π-π (His41)	Deep penetration enhances affinity	[34] [35]
S4	Met165, Leu167, Gln189	Nitro, halogen, hydrophobic	Halogen bonding, hydrophobic	Access to hydrophobic patches critical	[34] [32]
S1'	Thr25, Thr26	Small hydrophobic groups	Van der Waals	Accommodates diverse substituents	[34] [30]

Experimental Protocols

Multilevel Virtual Screening Workflow

This protocol enables identification and optimization of Mpro inhibitors through computational screening [32].

Materials:

• Protein Data Bank structures of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (e.g., 5R7Z, 6LU7, 7EN8)
• Compound libraries (Vitas-M Laboratory, Enamine, ChemDiv, ZINC15)
• Schrödinger Suite (LigPrep, R-group enumeration, Glide)
• Hardware: Windows/Linux system with 8 GB RAM minimum, GPU acceleration recommended

Procedure:

• Target Preparation

  • Retrieve Mpro crystal structure from PDB
  • Prepare protein structure using protein preparation wizard
  • Assign proper bond orders, add hydrogen atoms, optimize hydrogen bonding
  • Generate protonation states at physiological pH 7.4

• Library Construction

  • Apply Rule of Three (RO3) filtering: MW ≤ 250, HBD ≤ 3, HBA ≤ 3
  • Remove reactive or undesirable functional groups
  • For fragment-based design: select core scaffold (e.g., WU-04 bromophenyl ring)
  • Perform R-group enumeration using Schrödinger's R-group module

• Multilevel Docking

  • High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS): Rapid screening of entire library
  • Standard Precision (SP): Medium-level accuracy for top HTVS compounds
  • Extra Precision (XP): High-accuracy docking for top SP compounds
  • Evaluate docking scores and binding poses

• Binding Free Energy Estimation

  • Perform MM-GB/SA calculations on top-ranked compounds
  • Rank compounds by predicted binding free energy
  • Select 15-30 compounds based on scores and synthetic feasibility

Troubleshooting:

• Poor enrichment: Include receptor flexibility through molecular dynamics
• Synthetic complexity: Apply medicinal chemistry filters early
• Drug-likeness: Enforce RO5 compliance in final selection

Binding Affinity Validation Protocol

This protocol validates computational predictions through experimental assays [37] [35].

Materials:

• Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (commercial sources)
• FRET substrate: Mca-AVLQSGFRK(Dnp)K
• Reaction buffer: 20 mM Tris-HCl, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.3
• Black 96-well or 384-well microplates
• Fluorescence plate reader (excitation 320-360 nm, emission 420-460 nm)
• Vero CCL81 cells for antiviral assays
• SARS-CoV-2 virus strains (appropriate biosafety level facilities)

Procedure:

• Enzymatic Inhibition Assay (FRET-based)

  • Prepare inhibitor compounds in DMSO (final concentration ≤1%)
  • Dilute recombinant Mpro to working concentration in reaction buffer
  • Pre-incubate enzyme with inhibitor for 30 minutes at room temperature
  • Initiate reaction by adding FRET substrate (final concentration 10-20 μM)
  • Monitor fluorescence continuously for 60 minutes
  • Calculate IC₅₀ values using non-linear regression of inhibition curves

• Cellular Antiviral Activity

  • Seed Vero CCL81 cells in 96-well plates (2×10⁴ cells/well)
  • Pre-treat cells with compounds for 2 hours before infection
  • Infect with SARS-CoV-2 at low MOI (0.01-0.1) for 1 hour
  • Remove inoculum and maintain with compound-containing media
  • After 48-72 hours, quantify viral replication by plaque assay or RT-PCR
  • Calculate EC₅₀ values from dose-response curves

• Cytotoxicity Assessment

  • Treat uninfected cells with compound dilutions in parallel
  • Assess cell viability after 72 hours using MTT or CellTiter-Glo
  • Calculate CC₅₀ and selectivity index (SI = CC₅₀/EC₅₀)

Validation Criteria:

• Potent inhibitors: IC₅₀ < 1 μM in enzymatic assay
• Antiviral activity: EC₅₀ < 10 μM with SI > 10
• Correlation between enzymatic and cellular potency confirms target engagement

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Mpro Inhibitor Development

Category	Specific Items	Function/Application	Examples/Sources
Structural Biology	Mpro crystal structures	Structure-based drug design	PDB: 6LU7, 5R7Z, 7EN8 [34] [32]
Compound Libraries	Diverse screening collections	Virtual & high-throughput screening	ChemDiv, Enamine, ZINC15 [35] [32]
Computational Tools	Molecular docking software	Binding pose prediction & scoring	Schrödinger Glide, AutoDock Vina [37] [32]
MD Simulation Software	Dynamics & analysis packages	Conformational sampling & binding stability	GROMACS, AMBER, Desmond [34] [37]
Assay Reagents	Recombinant Mpro & FRET substrate	Enzymatic inhibition kinetics	Commercial vendors (e.g., BPS Bioscience) [30] [35]
Cell Culture Models	Vero CCL81 & Calu-3 cells	Antiviral activity assessment	ATCC, commercial suppliers [35] [32]

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

Structure-Based Optimization Workflow

Experimental Validation Pipeline

This case study demonstrates that implementing a structured, query-based framework for optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors significantly enhances binding affinity and antiviral potency. The integration of computational predictions with experimental validation creates an iterative optimization cycle that accelerates inhibitor development. Key success factors include addressing subsite-specific binding preferences, incorporating protein flexibility, and maintaining favorable pharmacokinetic properties throughout optimization.

The documented protocols provide researchers with a comprehensive roadmap for structure-based inhibitor optimization, highlighting the critical importance of combining virtual screening with robust experimental validation. This approach has yielded inhibitors with substantially improved binding affinities (up to 4.59 -log10(Kd) increase) and potent antiviral activity (EC₅₀ values as low as 0.18 μM), demonstrating the effectiveness of this molecular optimization framework for antiviral drug development.

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) represent a promising class of therapeutics to address the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. Their unique mechanism of action, often involving physical disruption of bacterial membranes, makes them less susceptible to conventional resistance mechanisms compared to traditional antibiotics [38] [39]. However, the clinical translation of AMPs is significantly hampered by a critical challenge: their inherent toxicity against host cells, particularly hemolytic activity against red blood cells and cytotoxicity against other mammalian cell types [39] [40].

This application note details a structured framework for reducing AMP toxicity while preserving antimicrobial efficacy, contextualized within cutting-edge research on query-based molecular optimization. We present specific computational and experimental protocols that research teams can implement to advance the development of safer antimicrobial therapeutics.

Computational Design & Optimization Strategies

Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Framework

The Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) framework is an AI-driven approach that efficiently navigates the vast molecular search space to identify optimized AMP variants [4]. This method is particularly valuable for balancing multiple properties, such as reducing toxicity while maintaining antimicrobial potency.

• Core Components: QMO integrates a deep generative autoencoder with external property evaluators. The autoencoder learns a simplified, continuous representation (embedding vector) of a lead AMP sequence and all its possible variants. A decoder then translates these vectors back into sequences [4].
• Guided Search Mechanism: The system uses a search technique based on zeroth-order optimization. It randomly samples points around candidate embedding vectors, decodes them into sequences, and queries external tools (e.g., toxicity predictors, molecular dynamics simulations) to evaluate the properties of these variants. This feedback iteratively guides the search toward sequences with lower predicted toxicity and high similarity to the lead molecule [4].
• Application to Toxicity Reduction: In a practical demonstration, QMO was used to optimize 150 known toxic AMPs. The framework successfully identified variants with lower predicted toxicity while maintaining high sequence similarity in 72% of the lead molecules. The optimized sequences were further validated with state-of-the-art toxicity predictors not used during the optimization process, confirming the robustness of the approach [4].

Feature-Based Design with Explainable AI

An alternative strategy involves leveraging explainable artificial intelligence to identify and engineer key sequence features that influence toxicity.

• Strategy: The DLFea4AMPGen platform uses deep learning models to predict peptide bioactivity. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method is then applied to quantify the contribution of each amino acid position to the predicted activity and toxicity [38].
• Process: Key feature fragments (KFFs) with the highest contributions to desired bioactivity are extracted. By analyzing the amino acid composition of these KFFs, researchers can systematically design peptide sequences that maximize antimicrobial activity while avoiding residues strongly associated with hemolytic toxicity [38].
• Outcome: This proof-of-concept approach demonstrated a high success rate, with 75% (12 out of 16) of the designed peptides exhibiting at least two types of desired bioactivity, indicating a promising path toward multifunctional and less toxic peptides [38].

Structural Modification Guidelines

Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) studies on peptidomimetics provide concrete guidelines for structural modifications that reduce toxicity. A study on α/β-peptides templated on aurein 1.2 used a partial least squares regression (PLSR) model to quantify the impact of physicochemical properties on mammalian cell toxicity [40].

Table 1: Structural Guidelines for Reducing AMP Toxicity Based on QSAR Analysis

Structural Property	Modification Strategy	Effect on Toxicity
Hydrophobicity	Reduce overall hydrophobicity by substituting specific residues with less hydrophobic ones (e.g., Ala → Leu).	Decreased hemolysis and cytotoxicity against mammalian cells (HUVECs, 3T3 fibroblasts) [40].
Helical Rigidity	Incorporate helix-stabilizing, non-proteogenic β-amino acids (e.g., trans-2-aminocyclopentane-carboxylic acid, ACPC).	Improved broad-spectrum selectivity (ratio of antimicrobial activity to mammalian cell toxicity) [40].
Net Charge	Modulate net positive charge; however, the relationship with toxicity is complex and must be balanced with antimicrobial activity.	Requires optimization, as charge is critical for interaction with anionic bacterial membranes but can also influence off-target toxicity [40].

The most selective α/β-peptide identified through this model exhibited a more than 13-fold improvement in broad-spectrum selectivity compared to the natural aurein 1.2 template [40].

Experimental Validation Protocols

In Vitro Toxicity and Activity Profiling

A critical step in optimizing AMPs is the experimental validation of toxicity and antimicrobial activity using standardized assays.

Table 2: Key In Vitro Assays for Evaluating AMP Toxicity and Activity

Assay Type	Protocol Description	Key Outcome Measures
Hemolysis Assay	Incubate peptides with fresh human red blood cells (hRBCs) for 1-2 hours at 37°C. Centrifuge and measure hemoglobin release spectrophotometrically at 414 nm or 540 nm [40].	Hemolytic concentration (HC50) or % hemolysis at a specific peptide concentration.
Cytotoxicity Assay	Treat adherent mammalian cell lines (e.g., HUVECs, 3T3 mouse fibroblasts) with peptides for 24-48 hours. Use colorimetric assays (e.g., MTT, MTS) to quantify cell viability [40].	Half-maximal cytotoxic concentration (CC50) or % viability relative to untreated controls.
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing	Use broth microdilution methods according to standards like CLSI. Determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against a panel of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [38] [41].	MIC values (in μg/mL or μM).
Broad-Spectrum Selectivity	Calculate the selectivity index (SI) based on the ratio of toxic concentration to antimicrobial concentration (e.g., HC50 / MIC or CC50 / MIC) [40].	Selectivity Index (SI); higher values indicate a better safety profile.

In Vivo Efficacy and Safety Assessment

Promising AMP candidates must be evaluated in preclinical animal models to confirm efficacy and safety in a complex physiological environment.

• Murine Sepsis Model:
  • Infection: Induce systemic infection in mice via intraperitoneal injection of a multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogen, such as Acinetobacter baumannii [38] [41].
  • Treatment: Administer the candidate AMP (e.g., via intravenous or intraperitoneal injection) at various doses post-infection.
  • Outcome Measures:
    • Efficacy: Quantify bacterial load in organs (e.g., spleen, liver) by homogenizing tissues and plating serial dilutions for colony-forming unit (CFU) counts [41].
    • Safety: Monitor survival rates, body weight, and signs of systemic toxicity. Collect blood samples for clinical chemistry and hematological analysis to assess organ function and hemolysis in vivo [41].
    • Inflammatory Response: Analyze levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6) in serum or organ homogenates to evaluate the peptide's immunomodulatory effects [38].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for AMP Toxicity Studies

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application
Human Red Blood Cells (hRBCs)	Primary cell model for assessing hemolytic toxicity in vitro [40].
HUVEC & 3T3 Cell Lines	Adherent mammalian cell models for evaluating general cytotoxicity [40].
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	Explainable AI method for interpreting deep learning model predictions and identifying critical amino acids [38].
CABS-dock	Coarse-grained molecular docking tool that allows for flexible peptide-protein docking and large-scale conformational rearrangements [42].
RP-HPLC	Analytical technique to measure peptide hydrophobicity, a key physicochemical property correlated with toxicity [40].
SUMO Fusion Protein System	A carrier protein strategy used in recombinant expression to enhance the stability and solubility of AMPs and reduce host toxicity during production [43].
PLSR (Partial Least Squares Regression) Model	A supervised machine learning model used to quantify relationships between peptide physicochemical properties and biological activities [40].

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

Query-Based Molecular Optimization Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the iterative AI-driven pipeline for optimizing AMPs.

Structure-Activity Relationship Pathway

This diagram summarizes the logical relationships between structural modifications, resulting physicochemical changes, and the final biological outcomes regarding toxicity and selectivity.

Extending QMO to Inorganic Materials and Macromolecules

Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) is a generic AI framework designed to accelerate the discovery and optimization of new molecules and materials. The core premise of QMO involves starting from a known "lead" molecule and using a deep generative autoencoder combined with a query-based guided search to identify variants that optimize for one or more desired properties while respecting specific constraints [4]. This approach decouples representation learning from optimization, reducing problem complexity and enabling efficient search over prohibitively large chemical spaces [2]. The broader thesis of implementing molecular optimization with query-based frameworks posits that this decoupled, query-driven approach creates a versatile foundation that can be adapted beyond its original applications in organic small molecules and peptides to encompass diverse material classes, including inorganic materials and macromolecules.

Core Principles of the QMO Framework

The QMO framework is built upon three interconnected components that enable its functionality and adaptability.

Component 1: Molecular Representation via Encoder-Decoder Architecture

Molecules are modeled as discrete sequences (e.g., SMILES for small organic molecules or amino acid strings for peptides) [2]. An encoder maps this sequence to a low-dimensional, continuous latent vector (embedding), which represents the molecule in a simplified mathematical space. A corresponding decoder can reconstruct a molecular sequence from this latent vector [4]. This continuous representation is crucial for enabling efficient optimization.

Component 2: External Property Evaluation

QMO utilizes external, often black-box, evaluators to predict molecular properties. These evaluators can be based on physics-based simulations, informatics tools, experimental data, or databases and operate directly on the molecular sequence, not its latent representation. This allows QMO to leverage existing evaluation pipelines and incorporate multiple properties or constraints simultaneously [4] [2].

Component 3: Query-Based Guided Search

The framework employs a novel search method based on zeroth-order optimization, which uses only function evaluations (queries) rather than gradient calculations. It works by applying random perturbations to a latent vector, decoding these perturbed vectors into candidate molecules, querying their properties via the external evaluators, and using this feedback to guide subsequent search steps toward optimal variants [4] [2]. This makes it suitable for optimizing discrete molecular sequences where gradient-based methods are difficult to apply [5].

Extending QMO to Inorganic Materials

The application of QMO to inorganic materials represents a significant frontier, as noted in the original research: "the approach could also be used for inorganic materials, like metal oxides" [4]. These materials are critical for catalysts, conductors, anti-corrosion coatings, sensors, and fuel cells [4] [44].

Challenges in Inorganic Material Optimization

Inorganic materials synthesis and optimization present distinct challenges that must be addressed for a successful QMO extension.

• Synthesis Feasibility: Predicting whether a theoretically predicted inorganic material can be synthesized is a major hurdle. Unlike organic synthesis, mechanisms for inorganic solid-state synthesis are often unclear, and universal principles are lacking [44].
• Complex Energy Landscapes: The synthesis process is governed by a complex energy landscape involving nucleation energies and activation energies for diffusion. Only the most thermodynamically stable phases typically form under standard high-temperature solid-state reactions [44].
• Data Scarcity: There is a relative scarcity of structured data for inorganic materials compared to organic compounds, which impedes the development of robust machine learning models [44].

Proposed Protocol for Inorganic Material Optimization

Table 1: Protocol for QMO Applied to Inorganic Materials

Step	Action	Description	Considerations
1	Representation	Adapt sequence representation for inorganic crystals (e.g., using formula or structural descriptors).	SMILES may not be sufficient; alternatives like elemental stoichiometry or crystal structure encoding are needed.
2	Training Data	Train autoencoder on databases of inorganic crystal structures (e.g., ICSD).	Aims to learn a continuous latent space representing valid inorganic compounds [44].
3	Property Evaluation	Integrate property predictors for formation energy, electronic band gap, conductivity, and synthesis feasibility.	Synthesis feasibility can be predicted using formation energy calculations or ML models trained on experimental data [44].
4	Constraint Definition	Impose constraints such as charge balance, stability, and similarity to known, synthesizable structures.	The charge-balancing criterion is a common, though imperfect, empirical rule for assessing inorganic material feasibility [44].
5	Guided Search	Execute QMO's zeroth-order optimization to discover candidates optimizing target properties within constraints.	The search seeks materials with high predicted performance and high synthesis likelihood.

Visualization of QMO Workflow for Inorganic Materials

The following diagram illustrates the extended QMO framework as applied to the optimization of inorganic materials.

QMO Workflow for Inorganic Material Optimization

Extending QMO to Macromolecules

Macromolecules, including polymers and proteins, are another promising domain for QMO. The framework can be "easily extended to optimize macromolecules like polymers or proteins" [4].

Challenges in Macromolecular Optimization

Optimizing macromolecules involves navigating specific complexities that differ from small molecule optimization.

• Large Sequence Space: Proteins and polymers are composed of long chains of monomers (e.g., 20 amino acids), creating a combinatorial explosion of possible sequences. A sequence of just 60 amino acids can produce a number of variants approaching the number of atoms in the known universe [2].
• Structure-Function Relationships: The function of a biomacromolecule is determined not just by its sequence but by its three-dimensional structure and electronic state [45].
• Multi-Objective Balancing: Optimal design often requires balancing multiple, closely interacting properties, such as the potency versus toxicity of an antimicrobial peptide [4] [2].

Proposed Protocol for Macromolecule Optimization

Table 2: Protocol for QMO Applied to Macromolecules

Step	Action	Description	Considerations
1	Representation	Represent the macromolecule as a sequence (e.g., amino acid string for proteins, monomer list for polymers).	Sequence length is a critical variable; padding or adaptive encoding may be required.
2	Training Data	Train autoencoder on large corpora of known protein or polymer sequences.	Learning focuses on capturing the rules of valid sequence space for the macromolecule class.
3	Property Evaluation	Integrate advanced property predictors, which may include quantum chemical calculations (e.g., FMO method) for precise electronic states [45], or specialized predictors for toxicity, binding affinity, and stability.	The Fragment Molecular Orbital (FMO) method provides quantum chemical data on proteins, enabling residue-by-residue interaction analysis (IFIE/PIE) via PIEDA [45].
4	Constraint Definition	Impose constraints on sequence similarity, structural stability (e.g., via predicted folding), and other key properties (e.g., non-toxicity).	Maintaining high sequence similarity helps preserve the structural scaffold and function of the lead macromolecule.
5	Guided Search	Execute QMO's guided search to find sequences that optimize the target property profile.	Successful applications include improving the binding affinity of SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors and reducing the toxicity of antimicrobial peptides [4] [2].

Visualization of QMO Workflow for Macromolecules

The workflow for macromolecules incorporates specialized property evaluators, such as quantum chemical calculations, to handle their increased complexity.

QMO Workflow for Macromolecule Optimization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Implementing QMO for these new material classes requires a suite of computational tools and data resources.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for QMO Implementation

Item Name	Type	Function in QMO Workflow	Example/Note
Autoencoder Framework	Software	Learns continuous latent representations of molecules from their discrete sequences.	A deterministic autoencoder (AE) or variational autoencoder (VAE) can be used [2].
SMILES/SELFIES	Representation	Provides a string-based representation for small organic molecules.	SMILES is widely used; SELFIES is more robust to syntactic invalidity [1].
Inorganic Crystal Database (ICSD)	Database	Source of known inorganic crystal structures for training representation models.	Critical for building a latent space of valid inorganic materials [44].
Fragment Molecular Orbital (FMO) Method	Quantum Chemical Calculator	Provides high-level quantum chemical property data for proteins, such as inter-fragment interaction energies (IFIEs).	Used as a sophisticated property evaluator for macromolecules; datasets like FMODB are available [45].
Property Prediction APIs	Software/Web Service	Black-box functions that predict molecular properties from a structure/sequence.	Can include simulators, QSAR models, or toxicity predictors; QMO queries these directly [4] [2].
Zeroth-Order Optimization Library	Software	Implements the core search algorithm that perturbs latent vectors based on query feedback.	A mathematical solver for optimization using only function evaluations [2].

The QMO framework establishes a powerful, generic paradigm for molecular optimization by decoupling representation learning from guided search. As detailed in these application notes, its extension to inorganic materials and macromolecules is not only feasible but also highly promising for accelerating the discovery of new functional materials, catalysts, and therapeutics. The key to success lies in adapting the representation and property evaluation components to the specific challenges of each material class—leveraging databases and synthesis-feasibility predictors for inorganic materials, and harnessing advanced quantum chemical methods like FMO for macromolecules. By providing detailed protocols and workflows, this document aims to equip researchers with the practical guidance needed to implement this cutting-edge query-based framework, thereby advancing the broader thesis of flexible, AI-accelerated molecular discovery.

Overcoming Practical Challenges: Navigating High-Dimensional Spaces and Data Limitations

The chemical space, encompassing all possible organic molecules and materials, is astronomically vast, with estimates suggesting it contains between 10^23 to 10^60 potential compounds [8] [1]. This immense size presents a fundamental challenge in drug discovery and materials science, as exhaustively searching for molecules with desired properties is computationally intractable. For perspective, the number of possible 60-amino-acid peptide sequences alone approaches the number of atoms in the known universe [2]. Within this nearly infinite landscape lies the biologically relevant chemical space (BioReCS), comprising molecules with biological activity—both beneficial and detrimental—which is the primary target for therapeutic development [46].

The central problem is efficiently navigating this vastness to identify or design molecules with optimal properties. Traditional experimental methods are too slow and expensive for such exploration, necessitating sophisticated computational strategies that can intelligently prioritize regions of chemical space with high potential. This application note outlines structured protocols and methodologies for implementing these strategies, with particular emphasis on query-based molecular optimization (QMO) frameworks that have demonstrated significant promise in accelerating discovery workflows [2] [4].

Computational Strategies for Chemical Space Navigation

Several artificial intelligence (AI)-driven strategies have been developed to navigate chemical space efficiently. These can be broadly categorized based on their operational approach and the representation of molecules they utilize. The following table summarizes the primary strategies, their mechanisms, and representative examples.

Table 1: AI-Driven Strategies for Molecular Optimization

Strategy Category	Molecular Representation	Core Mechanism	Key Methods/Examples
Query-Based Optimization [2] [4]	Latent space embeddings from SMILES [2] or graphs [47]	Zeroth-order optimization using property evaluations as queries to guide search in continuous latent space.	QMO (Query-based Molecule Optimization)
Iterative Search in Discrete Space [1]	SMILES [8], SELFIES, or Molecular Graphs [47]	Direct structural modification via algorithms like genetic algorithms or reinforcement learning.	STONED (SELFIES) [1], GCPN (Graphs) [1], GARGOYLES (Graphs) [47]
Translation-Based Approach [2] [8]	SMILES [8] or Molecular Graphs [8]	Framed as a sequence-to-sequence translation problem, often using matched molecular pairs (MMPs).	Transformer models [8], HierG2G (graph-to-graph) [8]
Hybrid Quantum-Classical [48]	Molecular fragments	Quantum circuit Born machine (QCBM) generates initial fragments for a classical model to build upon.	QCBM with LSTM model [48]

Application Protocol: Implementing Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO)

The QMO framework is a generic, end-to-end pipeline for optimizing lead molecules. It efficiently decouples molecule representation learning from the guided search process, allowing it to leverage pre-trained models and external property evaluators [2] [4]. The following protocol provides a detailed methodology for its implementation.

Phase 1: Molecule Representation and Latent Space Construction

Objective: To create a continuous, low-dimensional latent space where similar molecules are mapped to nearby points, enabling efficient interpolation and exploration.

Materials & Reagents:

• Data Source: A large dataset of unlabeled molecules for training (e.g., from public databases like ChEMBL [46] or ZINC).
• Representation: Molecules represented as SMILES strings or molecular graphs.
• Software: A deep learning framework (e.g., TensorFlow, PyTorch) and chemical informatics toolkits (e.g., RDKit).

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Convert all molecular structures into a consistent string-based representation, such as SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) [2] [8].
• Model Training: Train a deep generative autoencoder model.
  • The encoder is a neural network that takes a molecule's SMILES string and maps it to a fixed-length, continuous vector (the latent embedding).
  • The decoder is a complementary network that reconstructs a valid SMILES string from a given latent vector.
  • Models such as a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) can be used for this purpose [2].
• Validation: Validate the quality of the latent space by ensuring the decoder can accurately reconstruct a held-out test set of molecules from their embeddings.

Phase 2: Property Evaluation Setup

Objective: To define and integrate one or more evaluator functions that can assess the properties of any generated molecule.

Materials & Reagents:

• Property Predictors: These can be pre-trained machine learning models (e.g., for toxicity, binding affinity), computational simulators (e.g., molecular docking software like AutoDock [3]), or empirical data from databases [4].
• Similarity Metrics: A function to compute structural similarity, such as Tanimoto similarity based on Morgan fingerprints [1].

Procedure:

• Define Objective: Formulate the optimization goal. This is typically a composite function that combines the target property (e.g., binding affinity) with constraints (e.g., similarity to the lead molecule). For example: Goal: Maximize predicted binding affinity (pIC50) for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, subject to Tanimoto similarity > 0.7 to the lead molecule [2].
• Integrate Evaluators: Implement interfaces so the QMO system can query these external evaluators by passing a generated SMILES string and receiving a numerical score.

Phase 3: Query-Based Guided Search

Objective: To efficiently search the latent space for molecules that maximize the objective function defined in Phase 2.

Materials & Reagents:

• The trained encoder-decoder from Phase 1.
• The property evaluation functions from Phase 2.

Procedure:

• Encode Lead Molecule: Map the initial lead molecule into the latent space using the encoder, obtaining its latent vector ( z_{lead} ).
• Initialize Population: Create an initial population of candidate vectors by sampling points in the neighborhood of ( z_{lead} ).
• Iterative Optimization: Employ a zeroth-order optimization algorithm [2] [4]. For each iteration: a. Decode & Query: Decode the candidate vectors into SMILES strings using the decoder. Query the property evaluators for each generated molecule. b. Select & Update: Rank the candidates based on their evaluation scores. Select the top performers and use their latent vectors to generate a new population of candidate vectors for the next iteration (e.g., via gradient estimation or direct vector manipulation).
• Termination: The process terminates when a predefined stopping criterion is met, such as a maximum number of queries (query budget) or the discovery of a molecule that satisfies all target properties.

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end QMO workflow, integrating all three phases.

Diagram Title: Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Workflow

Experimental Validation & Case Studies

The QMO framework has been validated on several benchmark and real-world discovery tasks, demonstrating its efficacy and versatility.

Table 2: Summary of QMO Performance on Benchmark Tasks

Optimization Task	Lead Molecule	Key Constraint	QMO Performance	Comparison to Baselines
Drug-Likeness (QED) [2] [4]	800 diverse small molecules	Structural similarity	92.7% success rate in achieving high QED	>15% higher success rate than other methods
Solubility (Penalized logP) [2] [4]	800 diverse small molecules	Structural similarity	~30% relative improvement in solubility	Absolute improvement of 1.7 over baselines
SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Binding [2] [4]	23 known inhibitors (e.g., Dipyridamole)	High similarity to lead	Generated molecules with improved in silico binding affinity while preserving drug-likeness	Demonstrated high consistency with external validations
Antimicrobial Peptide (AMP) Toxicity [2] [4]	150 known toxic AMPs	High similarity to lead	71.7% success rate in reducing predicted toxicity	Optimized sequences validated by external toxicity predictors

Detailed Protocol: Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Inhibitor Binding Affinity

This protocol details the specific experiment for optimizing potential SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease (Mpro) inhibitors, as referenced in Table 2.

Objective: To optimize existing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor lead molecules for higher predicted binding affinity while maintaining high structural similarity and drug-like properties.

Materials & Reagents:

• Lead Molecules: 23 known Mpro inhibitors (e.g., Dipyridamole) [2].
• Property Evaluator 1: A pre-trained machine learning model that predicts protein-ligand binding affinity (e.g., pIC50 = -log10(IC50)). The constraint was set to pIC50 > 7.5 [2].
• Property Evaluator 2: A drug-likeness predictor (e.g., QED score) [2].
• Similarity Metric: Tanimoto similarity of Morgan fingerprints, with a high similarity constraint [2] [1].

Procedure:

• Framework Setup: Implement the QMO framework as described in Section 3, using a pre-trained molecule autoencoder.
• Define Loss Function: Construct a composite loss function that penalizes low predicted binding affinity and low similarity to the lead molecule. Drug-likeness (QED) can be used as a filter or a soft constraint.
• Execute Optimization: For each of the 23 lead molecules, run the QMO guided search with a fixed query budget (e.g., number of property evaluations).
• Analysis & Validation:
  • Docking Validation: Perform molecular docking studies to visually inspect and score the top optimized molecules. For example, compare the docking poses of the lead (Dipyridamole) and its optimized variant with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [2].
  • Specificity Check: Use external, non-integrated property predictors to validate the toxicity and binding profiles of the optimized molecules, ensuring the improvements are not an artifact of the primary evaluator.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

This table outlines key computational tools and data resources essential for implementing molecular optimization protocols like QMO.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Molecular Optimization

Item Name	Type	Function / Application	Example / Source
SMILES Representation [2] [8]	Molecular Representation	A string-based notation for representing molecular structure; facilitates use with NLP-based machine learning models.	Standardized via IUPAC
Molecular Graphs [47] [1]	Molecular Representation	A structure where nodes represent atoms and edges represent bonds; enables graph neural networks and intuitive fragment-based editing.	Used in GARGOYLES, GCPN
Matched Molecular Pairs (MMPs) [8]	Data / Concept	Pairs of molecules differing by a single, small chemical transformation; used to train translation-based optimization models.	Extracted from ChEMBL
Autoencoder (VAE) [2]	Computational Model	Learns a compressed, continuous latent representation of molecules, enabling smooth interpolation and optimization.	Core component of QMO
Tanimoto Similarity [1]	Evaluation Metric	Measures structural similarity between two molecules based on their fingerprints; crucial for maintaining core scaffolds.	Morgan Fingerprints
Zeroth-Order Optimization [2] [4]	Algorithm	Performs gradient-free optimization using only function evaluations (queries); essential for guided search with black-box property evaluators.	Core component of QMO
Public Compound Databases [46]	Data Source	Provide large-scale molecular data for training generative models and for defining the explorable chemical space.	ChEMBL, PubChem
Molecular Docking Software [3]	Property Evaluator	Predicts the binding pose and affinity of a small molecule to a protein target; used as an external property validator.	AutoDock, SwissDock

Mitigating Data Sparsity and Leveraging Limited Labeled Data

Molecular optimization, the process of improving molecular properties by modifying molecular structures, is a cornerstone of modern drug discovery. A significant and frequently encountered challenge in this domain is data sparsity, which manifests as a lack of sufficient, high-quality, labeled data for training robust machine learning (ML) models [49]. This sparsity arises from the high cost and time-intensive nature of wet-lab experiments, which often yield datasets rich in bounded values (e.g., IC50 values reported as "greater than" a certain concentration) instead of precise measurements [50]. Furthermore, the vastness of possible chemical space means that for any given optimization task, relevant data points are inherently scarce. This article details application notes and protocols for mitigating these issues within query-based molecular optimization (QMO) frameworks, leveraging advanced techniques to maximize the utility of limited and imperfect datasets [4] [2].

Application Notes: Frameworks and Performance

The Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) Framework

The QMO framework is designed to efficiently navigate the complex molecular search space while handling sparse data by decoupling representation learning from the optimization process [2] [5]. Its core components are:

• Representation Learning: An encoder-decoder model (e.g., an autoencoder) learns a continuous, low-dimensional latent representation of molecules from their sequence format (e.g., SMILES strings). This model is typically trained on large, unlabeled molecular datasets, making it data-efficient [2].
• External Guidance via Queries: The framework uses one or more external property predictors or evaluators (e.g., for binding affinity, toxicity, drug-likeness) as "black-box" functions. These evaluators operate on the decoded molecular sequences, allowing QMO to incorporate guidance from existing simulators, informatics tools, or experimental databases without retraining [4] [2].
• Query-based Guided Search: A zeroth-order optimization technique searches the continuous latent space. It works by applying random perturbations to a latent vector, decoding the perturbed vectors into molecules, and querying the external evaluators for their properties. The feedback from these queries guides the search toward regions of the latent space that decode to molecules with optimized properties [2] [5].

This architecture allows QMO to function effectively even when precise experimental data is sparse, as it can leverage various sources of external guidance and does not require paired data for training [51].

The DeltaClassifier: Leveraging Bounded Data

The DeltaClassifier approach directly addresses the issue of bounded data, which is traditionally discarded by regression models, leading to further data sparsity [50]. This method recasts molecular potency optimization as a classification problem on molecular pairs.

• Data Pre-processing: Molecules are paired, and the label for each pair is determined by comparing the potency (e.g., pIC50) of the two molecules. The pair is assigned class "1" if the second molecule is more potent than the first, and "0" otherwise [50].
• Incorporating Bounded Data: A key advantage is the ability to incorporate bounded data. A molecule with a known lower-bound potency can be paired with a molecule of known exact potency; if the exact potency is higher, the pair is labeled "0," and if it is lower and the lower bound is sufficiently distant, the pair can be labeled "1" [50].
• Demilitarization: To account for experimental noise, a "demilitarized" training approach is used, where only molecular pairs with potency differences greater than a threshold (e.g., 0.1 pIC50) are used for training and testing [50].

This paradigm shift allows classification algorithms (e.g., XGBoost or a directed message passing neural network like Chemprop) to utilize all available data, including traditionally inaccessible bounded points [50].

The following table summarizes the performance of these sparsity-mitigating frameworks on various molecular optimization tasks.

Table 1: Performance Summary of Sparsity-Mitigating Frameworks

Framework	Task	Key Metric	Performance	Comparison to Baselines
QMO [2]	Optimizing Drug-Likeness (QED)	Success Rate	~93%	At least 15% higher than other methods
QMO [2]	Improving Binding Affinity (SARS-CoV-2 Mpro)	Binding Free Energy	Improved for 23/24 known inhibitors	High similarity to original leads preserved
QMO [4]	Lowering Toxicity (Antimicrobial Peptides)	Success Rate	~72% of lead molecules optimized	Validated by external toxicity predictors
DeltaClassifier (Chemprop) [50]	Classifying Molecular Potency Improvements	ROCAUC (Avg. across 230 datasets)	0.91 ± 0.04	Outperformed all regression approaches
DeltaClassifier (Chemprop) [50]	Classifying Molecular Potency Improvements	Accuracy (Avg. across 230 datasets)	0.84 ± 0.04	Outperformed all regression approaches

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing a QMO Pipeline for Toxicity Optimization

This protocol details the steps to optimize antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) for lower toxicity using the QMO framework [4] [2].

1. Define Objective and Constraints:

• Objective: Minimize the predicted toxicity of a lead AMP.
• Constraint: Maintain a high sequence similarity (e.g., Tanimoto similarity > 0.6) to the lead molecule to preserve antimicrobial activity.

2. Assemble Resources and Data:

• Lead Molecules: Obtain a set of known toxic AMPs (e.g., from public databases).
• Encoder-Decoder Model: Pre-train or obtain a pre-trained sequence-to-sequence model (e.g., a variational autoencoder) on a large corpus of peptide sequences.
• Evaluators: Secure or train predictor models for toxicity and sequence similarity. These will act as the external guidance functions.

3. Encode and Initialize:

• Encode the lead AMP molecule into its latent representation, z_lead.
• Set the initial candidate z = z_lead.

4. Iterative Query-Based Search:

• FOR a predefined number of iterations DO:
  • Perturbation: Generate a population of latent vectors by applying random perturbations to z.
  • Decoding: Use the decoder to convert each perturbed latent vector into a peptide sequence.
  • Querying: For each decoded sequence, query the external evaluators to obtain:
    • Toxicity(sequence)
    • Similarity(sequence, lead_sequence)
  • Loss Calculation: Compute a loss function that penalizes high toxicity and low similarity. For example: Loss = Toxicity(sequence) - λ * Similarity(sequence, lead_sequence) (where λ is a weighting parameter).
  • Selection: Select the candidate z from the population with the lowest loss value.
• END FOR

5. Validation:

• Decode the final optimized z into its sequence.
• Validate the optimized molecule using external, high-fidelity toxicity and antimicrobial activity predictors not used during the optimization process [4].

Protocol 2: Applying the DeltaClassifier to Leverage Bounded IC50 Data

This protocol describes how to use the DeltaClassifier to train a model that can rank molecular potency using both exact and bounded data [50].

1. Data Preparation and Pairing:

• Input: A dataset of molecules with IC50 values, containing both exact values and bounded values (e.g., ">10μM").
• Filtering: Remove any pairs where the potency relationship is unknown (e.g., both molecules have upper bounds).
• Demilitarization: Apply a "demilitarized" filter. Only retain pairs where the absolute difference in pIC50 (-log10(IC50)) is greater than 0.1. This accounts for experimental noise.
• Labeling: For each valid pair (MoleculeA, MoleculeB), assign a label:
  • Label = 1 if pIC50B > pIC50A
  • Label = 0 otherwise (including ties).

2. Model Training:

• Input Representation: Represent each molecule in a pair using a suitable featurization method (e.g., molecular fingerprints, or a graph representation for a D-MPNN like Chemprop).
• Model Architecture: Use a classification algorithm capable of handling paired inputs. For a tree-based method (ΔCL), concatenate the features of both molecules. For a deep learning model (DeepDeltaClassifier, DΔC), use a two-molecule input architecture.
• Training Loop: Train the model to predict the label (0 or 1) for each molecular pair using standard classification loss functions (e.g., cross-entropy).

3. Model Inference for Optimization:

• To find a molecule more potent than a given lead molecule, the trained DeltaClassifier can be used to screen a virtual library by pairing the lead with each candidate molecule and predicting the probability that the candidate is more potent.

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

QMO High-Level Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end process of the Query-based Molecular Optimization framework.

QMO Workflow: From a lead molecule, the process iteratively searches the latent space, guided by property evaluations, to find an optimized candidate.

DeltaClassifier Data Processing Logic

This diagram outlines the core data processing and model training logic of the DeltaClassifier approach.

DeltaClassifier data processing and model training workflow, which transforms raw potency data into a paired classification task.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools and Resources for Molecular Optimization Experiments

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Experiment	Example/Note
SMILES/SELFIES [11]	Molecular Representation	A string-based representation that allows molecular structures to be treated as sequences for ML models.	Foundation for language model-based representations.
Chemical Featurization Tools (e.g., RDKit)	Software Library	Generates molecular descriptors and fingerprints from structures for traditional ML or hybrid models.	Used in DeltaClassifier for creating input features for tree-based models [50].
Directed MPNN (D-MPNN) [50]	Deep Learning Architecture	A graph-based neural network that directly learns from molecular structure, excellent for property prediction.	The architecture behind the Chemprop models used in DeepDeltaClassifier.
(Variational) Autoencoder [2] [5]	Deep Learning Model	Learns a continuous, low-dimensional latent space of molecules, enabling efficient search and optimization in QMO.	Trained on large, unlabeled molecular datasets for data-efficient representation learning.
Zeroth-Order Optimization [2]	Mathematical Algorithm	A gradient-free optimization method that uses function evaluations to guide search; core to QMO's query-based search.	Allows optimization using black-box property evaluators where gradients are unavailable.
Property Predictors (e.g., Toxicity, Binding Affinity) [4] [2]	External Evaluator ("Black-Box")	Provides the guidance signal during optimization by predicting key molecular properties from a sequence.	Can be physics-based simulators, pre-trained ML models, or access points to experimental databases.
Tanimoto Similarity [2]	Evaluation Metric	Quantifies the structural similarity between the optimized molecule and the original lead molecule.	A critical constraint to ensure optimized variants remain synthetically feasible and retain core properties.

Managing Error Propagation from External Property Predictors

In molecular optimization, the goal is to enhance key properties of lead molecules, such as binding affinity, solubility, or low toxicity, while maintaining structural similarity to preserve desired biological activity [52]. A significant challenge in this process is managing error propagation from external property predictors. These computational models estimate molecular properties but inherently carry approximation errors due to limited training data, model architecture constraints, and the vastness of chemical space [16]. When these errors propagate through iterative optimization cycles, they can lead to suboptimal molecular candidates, reduced generalization, and ultimately, failure in real-world applications [16].

This document examines error propagation within query-based molecular optimization frameworks, which decouple molecule representation learning from guided property search. It provides detailed protocols for quantifying, mitigating, and managing predictor errors to enhance the reliability of optimized molecules in drug discovery pipelines.

Theoretical Foundations of Error Propagation

Basic Principles and Mathematical Formulations

Error propagation, or uncertainty propagation, describes how uncertainties in input variables affect the uncertainty of a function's output [53]. In molecular optimization, the "function" is the complex computational workflow that transforms a lead molecule into an optimized candidate, and the "input variables" include the predictions from external property models.

The most general formula for error propagation for a function ( Q(x, y, ...) ) is derived using partial derivatives and is given by: [ \sigmaQ^2 = \left( \frac{\partial Q}{\partial x} \right)^2 \sigmax^2 + \left( \frac{\partial Q}{\partial y} \right)^2 \sigmay^2 + \cdots ] where ( \sigmaQ ) is the uncertainty of the function's output, and ( \sigmax, \sigmay, \ldots ) are the uncertainties of the input variables [53] [54]. For complex, non-linear functions, a first-order Taylor series expansion is often used to approximate the propagation behavior [53].

Correlation and Advanced Methods

A critical consideration is whether errors between different predictors or input variables are correlated. The general expression for the variance of a function ( f ) that accounts for correlations is: [ \sigmaf^2 = \sumi^n ai^2 \sigmai^2 + \sumi^n \sum{j(j\neq i)}^n ai aj \rho{ij} \sigmai \sigmaj ] where ( \rho{ij} ) is the correlation coefficient between variables, and ( a_i ) are the coefficients [53]. Neglecting these correlations can lead to significant underestimation or overestimation of the total uncertainty.

For highly complex or non-analytical functions, Monte Carlo methods provide a powerful alternative. These methods use repeated random sampling to simulate how uncertainties propagate through a system, making them particularly suitable for computational workflows involving black-box predictors [55] [56].

Origins of Predictor Error

External property predictors are typically machine learning models trained on finite, and sometimes biased, chemical datasets. The primary sources of error include:

• Approximation Nature: Models learn an approximation of the true underlying relationship between molecular structure and property, leading to an inherent error margin [16].
• Data Sparsity: The chemical space is vast, and available training data covers only a tiny fraction. Predictions for novel scaffolds outside the training domain are highly uncertain [16] [52].
• Model Architecture and Training: Choices in model design, features, and training protocols introduce specific biases and variances in predictions.

Consequences in Optimization Loops

In guided search-based optimization, such as QMO (Query-based Molecule Optimization), the framework relies on iterative queries to property predictors to guide the search toward improved molecules [5] [2]. Error propagation in this context has several detrimental effects:

• Accumulated Discrepancy: Small errors in each iteration can accumulate, steering the search towards regions of chemical space that do not genuinely possess the desired properties [16].
• Reduced Generalization: The optimized molecules may perform well according to the noisy predictor but fail in subsequent experimental validation or when evaluated with more accurate simulators [16].
• Suboptimal Candidates: The search process may converge to suboptimal local minima due to the noise introduced by the predictor, failing to find the best possible molecules [16].

Table 1: Common External Property Predictors and Their Potential Error Sources

Property	Typical Model Type	Key Sources of Error
Binding Affinity (pIC₅₀)	Graph Neural Networks, Random Forest	Limited assay data, protein flexibility, solvation effects
Toxicity (e.g., hERG)	Support Vector Machines, Deep Learning	Sparse and noisy experimental data, complex biology
Solubility (LogS)	Random Forest, Gradient Boosting	Experimental variability, transfer learning challenges
Drug-Likeness (QED)	Rule-based / Linear Models	Oversimplification of complex pharmacokinetics

Protocols for Quantifying and Managing Error Propagation

Protocol 1: Uncertainty Quantification for Property Predictors

Purpose: To empirically determine the uncertainty associated with predictions from a single external property model.

Materials:

• Pre-trained property predictor model
• Calibration dataset (with known property values)
• Test set of molecules (with known property values for validation)

Procedure:

• Model Calibration: If the model outputs a single point estimate, use a calibration set to model the distribution of residuals (difference between prediction and true value). Calculate the mean and standard deviation of residuals for different prediction ranges.
• Implement Prediction Intervals: For a new molecule, the prediction is ( y{pred} ). The prediction interval can be estimated as ( y{pred} \pm z \cdot \sigma ), where ( \sigma ) is the standard deviation of residuals for the relevant prediction bin, and ( z ) is the z-score (e.g., 1.96 for a 95% interval) [56].
• Leverage Probabilistic Models: If possible, use models that natively output uncertainty, such as:
  • Gaussian Process Regression
  • Quantile Regression Random Forest (QRRF) [56]
  • Bayesian Neural Networks
• Validation: Use the test set to verify that the calculated prediction intervals are accurate (e.g., ~95% of true values fall within the 95% prediction intervals).

Protocol 2: Error Propagation in a Query-Based Optimization Cycle

Purpose: To track and mitigate the propagation of uncertainty through a full molecular optimization run using the QMO framework.

Materials:

• Lead molecule (SMILES string)
• Pre-trained molecular autoencoder (encoder + decoder)
• One or more external property predictors with quantified uncertainties
• Similarity evaluation function (e.g., Tanimoto similarity on Morgan fingerprints) [52]

Procedure:

• Initialization: Encode the lead molecule into its latent representation, ( z_0 ) [5] [2].
• Iterative Optimization Loop: For a fixed number of iterations or until convergence: a. Perturbation: Generate a candidate latent vector ( zcandidate ) by applying a small perturbation to the current best latent vector [5]. b. Decoding: Decode ( zcandidate ) into a molecule sequence ( Mcandidate ) [5] [2]. c. Property Evaluation: Query all property predictors for ( Mcandidate ). Record both the predicted value ( pi ) and its associated uncertainty ( \sigma{pi} ) for each property ( i ). d. Multi-Objective Scoring: Compute a composite score ( S ) that incorporates both property values and their uncertainties. For example: [ S = \sum{i} wi \cdot (pi - \lambda \cdot \sigma{pi}) ] where ( wi ) is the weight for property ( i ), and ( \lambda ) is a risk-aversion parameter. This penalizes candidates with high prediction uncertainty. e. Similarity Check: Calculate structural similarity between ( Mcandidate ) and the lead molecule. Discard candidates below the threshold ( \delta ) [52]. f. Selection: Accept ( M_candidate ) as the new best if it improves the composite score ( S ) while meeting the similarity constraint.
• Output: Return the best molecule found and a report of its predicted properties and their associated uncertainties.

The following diagram illustrates this iterative workflow:

Figure 1: Workflow for error-aware query-based molecular optimization.

Protocol 3: Monte Carlo Simulation for Full Workflow Uncertainty

Purpose: To perform a robust uncertainty analysis of the final optimized molecule by accounting for all sources of error.

Materials:

• Optimized molecule from Protocol 2
• Full suite of property predictors with known uncertainty distributions
• Computational resources for parallel simulations

Procedure:

• Define Distributions: For each property predictor, define the probability distribution of its error. This can be a normal distribution ( N(0, \sigma^2) ) based on the validated prediction intervals.
• Run Simulations: Execute ( N ) (e.g., 10,000) Monte Carlo runs. In each run: a. For each property of the optimized molecule, generate a perturbed value: ( p{i, perturbed} = pi + \epsilon ), where ( \epsilon ) is a random value drawn from the error distribution of predictor ( i ). b. Check if the perturbed properties still meet all optimization constraints (e.g., pIC₅₀ > 7.5).
• Analyze Results: Calculate the probability of success (the proportion of runs where all constraints are met). This provides a confidence level for the optimization outcome, directly quantifying the impact of error propagation [55] [56].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Error-Managed Molecular Optimization

Tool / Resource	Type	Function in Managing Error Propagation
Monte Carlo Simulation Engine (e.g., custom Python scripts)	Software Library	Propagates input uncertainties through the entire workflow via random sampling to quantify output confidence [55] [56].
Quantile Regression Random Forest (QRRF)	Predictive Model	Provides prediction intervals natively, allowing for a more robust understanding of predictor uncertainty [56].
Latent Molecular Autoencoder (e.g., VAE, AAE)	Generative Model	Provides a continuous, smooth latent space for efficient search, decoupling representation from guided optimization [5] [2].
Zeroth-Order Optimization (ZOO)	Optimization Algorithm	Enables gradient-based search in the latent space using only function evaluations (queries), compatible with black-box predictors [2].
Tanimoto Similarity Calculator	Evaluation Metric	Ensures structural integrity is maintained during optimization, constraining the search to a relevant chemical space [52].

Effectively managing error propagation from external predictors is not merely a supplementary step but a core requirement for robust and reliable molecular optimization. By integrating the protocols outlined—rigorously quantifying predictor uncertainty, incorporating this uncertainty directly into the optimization objective function, and employing Monte Carlo simulations for final validation—researchers can significantly de-risk the drug discovery pipeline. The presented query-based framework offers a structured approach to navigate the trade-offs between property enhancement and prediction reliability, ultimately increasing the likelihood that computationally optimized molecules will succeed in subsequent experimental validation.

Molecular optimization represents a critical stage in modern drug discovery, focusing on the structural refinement of promising lead molecules to enhance their properties. It is formally defined as the process of generating a molecule (y) from a lead molecule (x) such that its properties (p1(y), \ldots, pm(y)) are improved ((pi(y) \succ pi(x)) for (i=1,2,\ldots,m)) while maintaining structural similarity (sim(x,y) > \delta) [1]. In practical terms, this means optimizing conflicting properties such as potency, metabolic stability, toxicity, and synthesizability simultaneously—a challenge that single-objective optimization approaches cannot adequately address.

The fundamental challenge in multi-objective optimization lies in the trade-offs between competing objectives. For instance, in energetic materials development, energy and stability represent two most important but contradictory properties [57]. Similarly, in pharmaceutical development, improving binding affinity must often be balanced against maintaining favorable absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiles [58]. Traditional sequential optimization methods, which optimize one property at a time, often lead to suboptimal solutions as improvement in one property typically compromises others [57].

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have revolutionized molecular optimization by enabling simultaneous consideration of multiple objectives. These approaches can be broadly categorized into three paradigms: iterative search in discrete chemical spaces, end-to-end generation in continuous latent spaces, and hybrid approaches that combine elements of both [1]. The integration of domain knowledge through large language models and sophisticated multi-objective optimization algorithms has shown particular promise in navigating complex molecular design spaces [59].

Computational Frameworks and Algorithms

Foundational Algorithms and Their Applications

Table 1: Multi-Ojective Optimization Algorithms in Molecular Design

Algorithm Category	Key Methods	Molecular Representation	Optimization Approach	Applications
Genetic Algorithms	GB-GA-P[cite:7], STONED[cite:7], MolFinder[cite:7]	SELFIES, SMILES, Molecular Graphs	Crossover, mutation, fitness-based selection	Multi-property optimization, Pareto-optimal identification
Latent Space Optimization	QMO[cite:2][cite:6], VAE/AE-based[cite:2], LSO[cite:5]	Continuous latent vectors	Zeroth-order optimization, gradient-based search	Property satisfaction with similarity constraints
Large Language Models	MOLLM[cite:5], MOLLEO[cite:5]	SMILES, SELFIES	In-context learning, prompt engineering, experience pools	Domain knowledge integration, multi-objective optimization
Reinforcement Learning	REINVENT[cite:5], RationaleRL[cite:5], MolDQN[cite:7]	Molecular graphs, Sequences	Policy gradient, reward maximization	Single and multi-property optimization

Multi-objective optimization in molecular design employs diverse computational frameworks, each with distinct strengths. Genetic algorithm (GA)-based methods like GB-GA-P operate directly on molecular representations through crossover and mutation operations, maintaining populations of candidate solutions that evolve toward Pareto-optimal fronts [1]. These methods are particularly valuable for their global search capabilities and ability to handle complex, non-linear objective spaces without requiring differentiable objective functions.

Latent space optimization methods, such as the Query-based Molecule Optimization (QMO) framework, leverage encoder-decoder architectures to transform discrete molecular structures into continuous latent representations [2] [5]. This transformation enables efficient optimization in a continuous, differentiable space using techniques like zeroth-order optimization, which relies solely on function evaluations rather than gradients [2]. The QMO framework has demonstrated particular effectiveness in optimizing molecular similarity while satisfying desired chemical properties, and vice versa [5].

More recently, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for molecular optimization. The Multi-Objective Large Language Model (MOLLM) framework leverages in-context learning and prompt engineering to integrate domain knowledge directly into the optimization process [59]. Unlike traditional methods that require retraining for new objectives, MOLLM adapts to different optimization tasks without parameter updates, making it particularly efficient for problems with multiple competing objectives [59].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the complete multi-objective molecular optimization workflow integrating large language models:

Workflow Description: The optimization process begins with initial population generation, which critically influences final performance [59]. The LLM mating module then generates parent molecules for in-context learning, incorporating domain knowledge from the experience pool [59]. Property prediction models evaluate generated molecules, with results feeding into multi-objective screening that considers both predicted values and uncertainties [57]. Pareto front identification enables selection of non-dominated solutions, with promising candidates stored in the experience pool for continuous improvement [59]. Final validation combines quantum mechanics calculations and synthesis feasibility analysis [57].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

De Novo Multi-Objective Generation Framework for Energetic Materials

Objective: To develop novel energetic materials (EMs) with optimal balance between energy (heat of explosion, Q) and stability (bond dissociation energy, BDE) [57].

Dataset Construction:

• Collect 778 synthesized CHON-containing energetic molecules from 427 published literature sources
• Calculate Q values using CBS-4M theory level
• Calculate BDE values of the weakest bond using B3LYP/6-31 G theory level
• Validate BDE as stability indicator through correlation with experimental metrics (Td and H50) [57]

Molecular Generation:

• Implement RNN-based generator coupled with transfer learning
• Generate massive search space with 2×10^5 potential energetic molecules
• Apply data augmentation techniques to address data scarcity [57]

Property Prediction:

• Develop modified 3D-GNN model for Q prediction (achieving R² = 0.95)
• Implement XGBoost model with feature complementarity and PADRE data augmentation for BDE prediction (achieving R² = 0.98) [57]

Multi-Objective Screening:

• Apply 2D P[I] multi-objective optimization strategy considering both predicted values and uncertainties
• Conduct Pareto front-based screening to identify molecules trading off energy and stability [57]

Validation:

• Perform high-precision QM calculations on top candidates
• Confirm 60 candidates with Q superior to CL-20 (benchmark EM)
• Identify 25 promising energetic molecules with high energy, desired stability, and synthesis feasibility [57]

Query-Based Molecule Optimization (QMO) Framework

Objective: To optimize existing molecules toward multiple desired properties under similarity constraints [2] [5].

Representation Learning:

• Employ encoder-decoder framework (autoencoder or variational autoencoder)
• Map discrete molecular sequences to continuous latent representations
• Train on reconstruction loss to learn meaningful latent space [5]

Optimization Formulation:

• Define optimization problem in latent space: ( \min_{z} L(\text{Decode}(z); S) )
• Incorporate multiple constraints through loss function: ( L(x; S) = \sum{j=1}^J \lambdaj \ell(fj(x), tj) )
• Support both similarity optimization with property constraints and property optimization with similarity constraints [5]

Guided Search:

• Apply zeroth-order optimization for efficient search using only function evaluations
• Utilize random perturbations in latent space to generate candidate molecules
• Employ black-box property predictors and similarity metrics as external guidance [2]

Implementation Details:

• Use Tanimoto similarity of Morgan fingerprints as similarity metric [1]
• Incorporate multiple property prediction models (QED, penalized logP, binding affinity, toxicity)
• Apply efficient query-based optimization with limited oracle calls [2]

Multi-Objective Large Language Model (MOLLM) Framework

Objective: To leverage LLM domain knowledge for multi-objective molecular optimization without task-specific retraining [59].

Framework Components:

• Mating Module: Generates parent molecules for in-context learning
• Prompt Template: Integrates domain knowledge, instructions, and molecular data
• Experience Pool: Stores promising candidates for iterative improvement
• Selection Module: Implements Pareto front selection and fitness value selection [59]

Initialization Strategy:

• Evaluate three initialization types: best, worst, and random initial molecules from ZINC250K dataset
• Address critical influence of initial population on final performance [59]

Optimization Process:

• Employ LLM as complete optimization driver (not just component)
• Utilize in-context learning to adapt to multiple objectives without parameter updates
• Implement rigorous multi-objective optimization with limited oracle calls [59]

Validation:

• Demonstrate superiority over state-of-the-art methods across multiple objectives
• Show enhanced performance with increasing number of objectives
• Provide extensive ablation studies validating design choices [59]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Key Functionality	Application Context
Property Prediction	ProTox-3.0 [60], ADMETlab [60], DeepTox [60]	Toxicity prediction, ADMET profiling	Early-stage risk assessment, candidate screening
Molecular Representation	SMILES [1], SELFIES [1], Morgan Fingerprints [1]	Molecular structure encoding, similarity calculation	Chemical space exploration, similarity-based constraints
Generative Models	Variational Autoencoders [2], Generative Adversarial Networks [61], Diffusion Models [59]	Latent space learning, de novo molecule generation	Continuous optimization, novel chemical space exploration
Optimization Algorithms	Zeroth-order Optimization [2], Genetic Algorithms [1], Pareto Front Optimization [57]	Multi-objective optimization, constraint handling	Balancing competing properties, identifying optimal trade-offs
Validation Tools	Quantum Mechanics Calculations [57], Molecular Docking [2], Synthetic Accessibility Tools	Property validation, feasibility assessment	Candidate verification, synthesis planning

Multi-objective optimization frameworks have fundamentally transformed molecular design by enabling simultaneous optimization of conflicting properties. The integration of domain knowledge through large language models, efficient query-based optimization in latent spaces, and rigorous multi-objective selection criteria has demonstrated remarkable success across diverse applications—from energetic materials to pharmaceutical development.

Future advancements will likely focus on several key areas: improving the integration of experimental feedback for continuous model refinement, developing more sophisticated uncertainty quantification methods to guide exploration-exploitation trade-offs, and creating standardized benchmarks for fair comparison of multi-objective optimization approaches. As these computational methods mature, their integration into automated discovery platforms will further accelerate the development of novel materials and therapeutics with optimally balanced properties.

Ensuring Molecular Validity and Synthesizability in Generated Candidates

The journey from a computer-generated molecular structure to a physically tested compound is fraught with challenges, primarily concerning the chemical validity and synthetic practicality of the proposed molecules. Many AI-generated molecules, while optimal in silico, represent structures that are impossible or prohibitively expensive to synthesize, creating a significant bottleneck in the discovery pipeline [62] [63]. This application note details protocols and methodologies for integrating synthesizability and validity directly into the molecular optimization workflow, with a specific focus on query-based frameworks. We present a comparative analysis of current approaches, detailed experimental protocols, and essential reagent solutions to bridge the gap between computational design and laboratory synthesis, ensuring that optimized molecules can be practically realized and advanced to experimental validation.

Comparative Analysis of Optimization Approaches

The table below summarizes the core methodologies that address molecular validity and synthesizability, highlighting their distinct strategies and key performance metrics.

Table 1: Comparison of Molecular Optimization Approaches Focusing on Synthesizability

Method Name	Core Methodology	Synthesizability Strategy	Key Performance Metrics
QMO (Query-based Molecule Optimization) [2] [4]	Query-based guided search in latent space using zeroth-order optimization.	Post-hoc filtering and guidance from property predictors, including synthesizability scores.	~93% success in optimizing drug-likeness; ~72% success in reducing peptide toxicity [4].
Syn-MolOpt [63]	Synthesis planning-driven optimization using data-derived functional reaction templates.	Integrated synthesis planning using a library of functional reaction templates to steer transformations.	Outperformed benchmarks (Modof, HierG2G, SynNet) in multi-property optimization tasks for toxicity and metabolism [63].
SynLlama [62]	Fine-tuned Large Language Model (LLM) for deducing synthetic routes.	Constrained retrosynthesis using commercially available building blocks and validated reaction templates.	Capable of generalizing to unseen, purchasable building blocks, expanding the synthesizable chemical space [62].
Anyo Labs MolGen [64]	Character-level Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) trained on bioactive molecules.	Implicit learning from a large corpus of known, synthesizable bioactive molecules.	95.4% validity; 98.9% uniqueness; high synthesizability acknowledged by expert partners [64].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO) with Synthesizability Constraints

This protocol is adapted from the QMO framework, which decouples representation learning from guided search to optimize molecules towards desired properties, including synthesizability [2] [5].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Representation Learning:

  • Input: A dataset of known, valid molecules (e.g., in SMILES string format).
  • Training: Train a molecular autoencoder (deterministic or variational) to learn a continuous, low-dimensional latent representation for each molecule. The encoder maps the discrete molecular structure to a latent vector, and the decoder reconstructs the molecule from the vector.
  • Output: A robust encoder-decoder model that can map any valid molecule to and from its latent space representation [2] [5].

• Optimization Setup:

  • Define Objective Function: Formulate a loss function that incorporates the target property (e.g., binding affinity) and constraints (e.g., similarity to a lead molecule, synthesizability score).
  • Integrate Evaluators: Incorporate external, black-box property predictors that can operate on the decoded molecular sequence. These can include:
    • Property Predictors: For target properties like binding affinity or toxicity.
    • Similarity Metrics: Such as Tanimoto similarity.
    • Synthesizability Scorers: Such as Synthetic Accessibility (SA) score or DeepSA score [2] [62] [5].

• Query-Based Guided Search:

  • Initialization: Start from the latent vector of the lead molecule to be optimized.
  • Perturbation and Querying: a. Apply random perturbations to the current latent vector to generate candidate vectors in its neighborhood. b. Decode these candidate vectors into molecular sequences using the trained decoder. c. Query the black-box evaluators (property predictors, synthesizability scorers) for each decoded candidate molecule.
  • Selection and Iteration: Use a zeroth-order optimization algorithm to select the best-performing candidates based on the objective function. Use these candidates to guide the next round of search in the latent space.
  • Termination: The process iterates until a candidate meets all property and synthesizability thresholds or a maximum query budget is exhausted [2] [5].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow of the QMO protocol:

Protocol 2: Synthesis Planning-Driven Optimization with Syn-MolOpt

This protocol uses Syn-MolOpt, which explicitly constructs synthesis pathways during optimization, ensuring high synthesizability [63].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Functional Reaction Template Library Construction:

  • Model Training: Train a predictive model (e.g., a Relational Graph Convolutional Network) for the target property of interest (e.g., mutagenicity) on a high-quality molecular dataset.
  • Substructure Attribution: Use a substructure mask explanation method to dissect molecules in the dataset into substructures (e.g., BRICS fragments, Murcko scaffolds) and assign contribution values to each, indicating their positive or negative influence on the target property.
  • Template Filtering: Extract general retrosynthetic reaction templates from an open-source reaction database (e.g., USPTO). Filter these templates using the attributed substructures to create a customized library of "functional reaction templates." The goal is to select templates that transform undesirable substructures (e.g., toxic groups) on the reactant side into desirable ones (e.g., detoxifying groups) on the product side [63].

• Molecular Optimization via Synthesis Tree Generation:

  • Model Training: Train neural networks to model a bottom-up synthesis tree as a Markov decision process. The networks learn to select actions (reaction type, first reactant, etc.) to build a molecule from available building blocks.
  • Template-Guided Optimization: For a given lead molecule, the optimization process is steered by the functional reaction template library. The model proposes synthetic pathways that utilize these templates, thereby directly incorporating property-enhancing transformations into the structural modifications.
  • Scoring and Selection: The proposed molecules are scored based on the desired properties. The optimization process explores the space of synthesizable molecules defined by the available building blocks and the functional template library, ensuring that the final output is both optimized and synthesizable [63].

The workflow for building and applying the functional template library in Syn-MolOpt is shown below:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table lists key resources and tools essential for implementing the aforementioned protocols.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function / Description	Application Context
Commercially Available Building Blocks (e.g., from Enamine) [62]	Purchasable chemical compounds serving as the foundational components for constructing proposed synthetic pathways.	Serves as the source set for reactants in synthesis-planning methods like SynLlama and Syn-MolOpt, ensuring synthetic tractability.
Validated Reaction Templates (RXN) [62] [63]	A set of well-established and robust organic chemical reaction rules, often encoded in SMARTS format.	Defines the allowed chemical transformations in template-based synthesis planning, ensuring realistic and reliable proposed reactions.
Molecular Autoencoder [2] [5]	A neural network architecture (encoder-decoder) that learns continuous latent representations of molecular structures.	Core component of the QMO framework for representing the vast chemical space in a continuous, searchable form.
Synthesizability Scorers (e.g., SA Score, DeepSA Score) [62]	Computational functions that predict the ease of synthesis for a given molecule, often based on fragment analysis and complexity.	Used as a constraint or penalty term in the optimization objective of generative models to bias output toward synthesizable structures.
Black-Box Property Predictors [2] [5]	Machine learning models or computational simulators that evaluate molecular properties (e.g., binding affinity, toxicity) from structure.	Provides the external guidance for query-based optimization frameworks like QMO, enabling optimization without model differentiability.
Computer-Assisted Synthesis Planning (CASP) Software (e.g., AizynthFinder, ASKCOS) [62] [63]	Tools that automatically propose retrosynthetic pathways or validate the synthesizability of a target molecule.	Can be integrated into an optimization loop for post-hoc filtering or used as an oracle to validate the output of generative models.

Benchmarking QMO: Performance Validation and Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods

Within the paradigm of query-based molecular optimization (QMO) frameworks, the establishment of robust, standardized benchmark tasks is paramount for driving methodological innovation and ensuring real-world applicability. This application note details the protocols for two foundational benchmarks: optimizing drug-likeness, quantified by the Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED), and improving aqueous solubility. These tasks are designed to evaluate an optimization framework's core ability to enhance critical physicochemical properties while adhering to structural constraints, a fundamental capability in rational drug design [1] [52]. The benchmarks are structured to reflect practical discovery scenarios, where a lead molecule must be improved without losing its essential structural identity, thereby testing the efficiency and guidance fidelity of query-based search algorithms in a constrained chemical space [4].

Benchmark Definitions and Success Criteria

The benchmark tasks are structured as constrained optimization problems, where the primary goal is to enhance a target property while maintaining a minimum level of structural similarity to the original lead molecule. This ensures that optimized molecules remain recognizably derived from the lead, preserving desirable pre-existing characteristics [1] [52].

Table 1: Benchmark Task Definitions and Success Criteria

Benchmark Task	Objective	Similarity Constraint	Success Metric & Validation
Drug-Likeness (QED) Optimization	Improve the QED score of a lead molecule.	Tanimoto similarity (Morgan fingerprints) > 0.4 [1] [52].	Success Rate: Percentage of lead molecules for which the framework can generate a molecule with QED > 0.9 and similarity > 0.4 [1] [52]. Validation is computational.
Solubility Optimization	Improve the aqueous solubility (e.g., logS) of a lead molecule.	Tanimoto similarity (Morgan fingerprints) > 0.4.	Relative Improvement: Measured enhancement in solubility for optimized molecules versus leads [4]. Validation requires standardized experimental conditions (e.g., pH, temperature) for reliable comparison [65].

The mathematical formulation for these tasks aligns with the general definition of molecular optimization [1] [52]: Given a lead molecule ( x ), the goal is to generate an optimized molecule ( y ) such that ( property(y) \succ property(x) ) and ( sim(x, y) > \delta ), where ( \delta ) is typically set to 0.4, and similarity is calculated using Tanimoto similarity on Morgan fingerprints [1] [52].

Quantitative Benchmark Performance

The performance of a query-based molecular optimization framework can be quantitatively evaluated on these standardized benchmarks. The following table summarizes baseline performance metrics, as demonstrated by the QMO framework on a set of 800 starting molecules [4].

Table 2: Exemplar Benchmark Performance of a Query-Based Optimization Framework

Benchmark Task	Performance Metric	Result	Comparative Context
QED Optimization	Success Rate	~93%	At least 15% higher than other machine learning methods [4].
Solubility Optimization	Relative Improvement	~30% improvement	A significant relative enhancement in solubility over baseline methods [4].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking QED Optimization

This protocol provides a step-by-step procedure for evaluating a QMO framework's performance on the QED optimization task.

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Input Preparation:

  • Lead Molecules: Obtain a set of lead molecules (e.g., 800 molecules with initial QED scores between 0.7 and 0.8) [1] [4]. Represent them as SMILES or SELFIES strings.
  • Framework Initialization: Initialize the QMO framework, ensuring the molecular encoder/decoder is pre-trained [4].

• Molecular Encoding:

  • Encode the lead molecule into its continuous latent space representation (embedding vector) using the framework's encoder [4].

• Query-Based Search and Generation:

  • Search Initiation: Use the lead molecule's embedding as the starting point for the search.
  • Variant Generation: Employ a zeroth-order optimization technique with random neighborhood sampling around the current candidate embeddings [4].
  • Variant Decoding: Decode the sampled embedding vectors back into molecular structures (sequences) using the framework's decoder [4].

• Property Evaluation and Constraint Checking:

  • QED Calculation: For each generated molecular variant, calculate the QED score using a standardized computational tool (e.g., from RDKit or a pre-defined QED function) [1].
  • Similarity Calculation: For each variant, compute the structural similarity to the lead molecule. This involves: a. Generating Morgan fingerprints for both the lead and the variant molecule [1] [52]. b. Calculating the Tanimoto similarity using the formula: ( sim(x,y) = \frac{fp(x) \cdot fp(y)}{||fp(x)||^2 + ||fp(y)||^2 - fp(x) \cdot fp(y)} ) [1] [52].
  • Constraint Application: Filter the generated molecules, retaining only those that satisfy the dual constraints of QED > 0.9 and Tanimoto similarity > 0.4.

• Iteration and Output:

  • Feedback Loop: Use the properties of the best candidates to guide the next iteration of the search in the latent space, repeating steps 3-4 until a termination criterion is met (e.g., a maximum number of iterations or convergence) [4].
  • Result Selection: From the final pool of generated molecules, select the molecule with the highest QED score that still meets the similarity constraint as the optimized output [4].

Protocol 2: Benchmarking Solubility Optimization

This protocol evaluates a framework's ability to optimize aqueous solubility, a more complex property highly dependent on experimental conditions.

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Input and Condition Standardization:

  • Lead Molecules: Obtain a set of lead molecules with known or predicted low solubility.
  • Critical Step - Condition Definition: Define and standardize the experimental conditions for solubility. As per PharmaBench guidelines, this includes specifying:
    • pH Level: Standardize to a physiologically relevant range (e.g., 7.0 to 7.6) [65].
    • Solvent/System Composition: Define as water/buffer solution.
    • Measurement Technique: Standardize to a specific method (e.g., HPLC) [65].
  • This standardization is crucial for creating a consistent and meaningful benchmark, as solubility values are highly condition-dependent [65].

• Molecular Encoding:

  • Encode the lead molecule into its latent representation, as described in Protocol 1.

• Query-Based Search and Generation:

  • Follow the same search and generation process outlined in Protocol 1, step 3.

• Property Evaluation and Constraint Checking:

  • Solubility Prediction: For each generated variant, predict the aqueous solubility (e.g., logS value) using a predictive model or evaluator that is consistent with the standardized experimental conditions defined in step 1 [4] [65].
  • Similarity Calculation: Identical to Protocol 1, step 4. Calculate Tanimoto similarity using Morgan fingerprints.
  • Constraint Application: Filter molecules based on a target solubility improvement (e.g., a 30% increase in logS) and the structural similarity constraint (e.g., > 0.4).

• Iteration and Output:

  • The iterative feedback loop and final selection process mirror Protocol 1, step 5, but are guided by solubility improvement and similarity constraints.

Table 3: Key Resources for Molecular Optimization Benchmarks

Category	Item / Software	Function in Benchmarking
Molecular Representations	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular Graphs	Standardized string-based or graph-based representations of molecular structure for computational input [1] [52].
Cheminformatics Toolkits	RDKit, Open Babel	Open-source libraries for calculating molecular descriptors, fingerprints, QED, and handling chemical data [65] [66].
Property Prediction (Evaluators)	QED Function, Solubility Predictor (e.g., ESOL-like model), ADMET Predictors (e.g., from PharmaBench)	Computational "oracles" or models that predict molecular properties for generated candidates, acting as surrogates for experimental measurement during optimization [1] [4] [65].
Similarity Metrics	Tanimoto Similarity on Morgan Fingerprints	The standard measure for quantifying structural similarity between the lead and optimized molecules to enforce constraints [1] [52].
Benchmark Datasets	ChemCoTBench, PharmaBench	Curated, high-quality datasets providing standardized tasks and data for training and evaluating optimization models [67] [65].
Optimization Frameworks	Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO), GA-based (STONED, MolFinder), RL-based (GCPN, MolDQN)	The core algorithmic engines that perform the search and optimization in chemical space [1] [4].

The adoption of machine learning-driven approaches for molecular optimization (MO) marks a significant shift in scientific discovery, accelerating the design of compounds with improved properties. Among these, the Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) framework has emerged as a powerful and generic tool for optimizing discrete structures like molecular sequences. This application note details QMO's performance on standard benchmark tasks, providing the quantitative data and experimental protocols necessary for researchers in drug development and materials science to evaluate and implement this methodology within their query-based framework research.

Benchmark Performance & Quantitative Results

QMO was evaluated on established benchmark tasks to facilitate direct comparison with existing methods. Its performance demonstrates a consistent ability to identify molecular variants that significantly improve target properties while adhering to similarity constraints.

Table 1: QMO Performance on Standard Molecular Optimization Benchmarks [4] [2]

Benchmark Task	Lead Molecules	Key Metric	QMO Performance	Comparison to Other Methods
Optimizing Drug-Likeness (QED)	800 small organic molecules	Success Rate	~93% success rate	At least 15% higher than other methods
Improving Solubility (Penalized logP)	800 small organic molecules	Improvement in Penalized logP	Absolute improvement of ~1.7	~30% relative improvement over other methods
Increasing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Binding Affinity	23 known inhibitors	Similarity & Binding Affinity	High similarity with improved in silico binding free energy	Successful optimization of lead molecules demonstrated
Reducing Antimicrobial Peptide Toxicity	150 known toxic AMPs	Success Rate	~72% of leads optimized for lower toxicity	Validated by external state-of-the-art toxicity predictors

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Optimizing Drug-Likeness and Solubility

This protocol is designed for benchmarking MO methods on improving fundamental molecular properties [4] [2].

• A. Objective: To find molecular variants of a lead compound that maximize a target property (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness, QED, or Penalized logP for solubility) while maintaining a high Tanimoto similarity to the original molecule.
• B. Materials:
  • Lead Molecule: A starting molecule in SMILES string representation.
  • QMO Framework: A pre-trained molecular autoencoder and the QMO search algorithm.
  • Property Predictors: Evaluator functions for QED and Penalized logP.
  • Similarity Metric: Tanimoto similarity calculator based on molecular fingerprints.
• C. Procedure:
  • Representation: Encode the lead molecule into a latent embedding vector using the QMO autoencoder.
  • Initialization: Define the initial candidate pool in the latent space around the lead molecule's embedding.
  • Guided Search:
    • Query: Sample points in the latent neighborhood of current candidates.
    • Decode: Decode the sampled points into molecular sequences (SMILES).
    • Evaluate: For each decoded molecule, query the property predictors (QED/logP) and the similarity calculator.
    • Select: Retain the top-performing variants based on a joint objective function that balances property improvement and similarity.
  • Iteration: Repeat Step 3 for a predefined number of queries or until convergence.
  • Output: Return the list of optimized molecules with their properties and similarity scores.

Protocol 2: Optimizing Binding Affinity for SARS-CoV-2 Inhibitors

This protocol addresses a real-world discovery problem with higher complexity, focusing on a therapeutically relevant target [4] [2].

• A. Objective: To optimize existing inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) for higher predicted binding affinity (pIC₅₀ > 7.5) while maximizing sequence similarity to the lead inhibitor.
• B. Materials:
  • Lead Inhibitors: 23 known Mpro inhibitor molecules.
  • Binding Affinity Predictor: A pre-trained machine learning model that predicts pIC₅₀ from molecular structure.
  • Similarity Constraint: A function to enforce minimal structural deviation.
• C. Procedure:
  • Preparation: Input a lead inhibitor and set the binding affinity target (pIC₅₀) and similarity threshold.
  • QMO Execution: Run the standard QMO procedure (as in Protocol 1, Section C), using the binding affinity predictor as the primary evaluator.
  • Validation: The final optimized molecules are validated via molecular docking simulations to visually confirm improved binding poses, as shown in the research [4].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for QMO Implementation [4] [2]

Reagent / Resource	Type	Function in QMO Workflow
Molecular Autoencoder	Deep Learning Model	Learns continuous latent representations (embeddings) of discrete molecular sequences (SMILES/amino acids).
Zeroth-Order Optimizer	Search Algorithm	Guides the search in the latent space using only function evaluations (queries) from property predictors.
Property Predictors (QED, logP, etc.)	Evaluation Function	Provides the quantitative feedback for the desired molecular properties during the guided search.
Similarity Calculator (e.g., Tanimoto)	Evaluation Function	Computes structural similarity to the lead molecule, ensuring constraints are met.
Binding Affinity Predictor	Specialized Evaluator	A machine learning model that predicts protein-ligand binding strength (e.g., pIC₅₀) for therapeutic optimization tasks.

Workflow and Logical Relationships

The QMO framework's strength lies in its decoupled architecture, separating representation learning from the guided search process. The following diagram illustrates the high-level logical flow and interaction between the core components of the QMO framework.

The benchmark data and protocols confirm that the QMO framework is a robust and high-performing solution for molecular optimization. Its success across both standard benchmarks and complex, real-world discovery tasks underscores its potential to significantly accelerate research in drug development and materials science. The decoupled architecture and efficient query-based search make it a versatile tool for researchers aiming to implement advanced, AI-driven optimization strategies.

Molecular optimization, the process of improving chemical structures to enhance desired properties, is a critical step in accelerating the discovery of new drugs and materials. The challenge lies in efficiently navigating the vast and complex chemical search space to find valid, novel molecules that meet multiple, often conflicting, criteria such as high binding affinity, low toxicity, and good drug-likeness. Traditional methods, which rely heavily on high-throughput wet-lab experiments or computer simulations, are often time-consuming and prohibitively expensive. In recent years, machine learning has emerged as a powerful tool to expedite this process. This article provides a comparative analysis of three prominent machine-learning approaches for molecular optimization: the established methods of Genetic Algorithms (GAs) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), and the more recent Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) framework. Framed within the broader thesis of implementing molecular optimization with query-based frameworks, this analysis aims to equip researchers and drug development professionals with a clear understanding of the operational principles, strengths, and limitations of each method to inform their experimental design.

Core Concepts and Operating Principles

Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO)

QMO is a generic, end-to-end optimization framework that decouples representation learning from guided search to reduce problem complexity. Its operating principle can be broken down into three key stages [2] [4] [7]:

• Representation: A molecule (e.g., a SMILES string or peptide sequence) is encoded into a low-dimensional, continuous latent vector (embedding) using a deep generative autoencoder.
• Evaluation: The decoded sequences from the latent space are evaluated by external, black-box property evaluators. These can be physics-based simulators, predictive models (e.g., QSAR), informatics tools, or even experimental data, which assess properties like binding affinity or toxicity.
• Search: A zeroth-order optimization technique guides the search in the latent space. This method uses efficient queries—evaluating the properties of decoded sequences from sampled points around candidate embeddings—to iteratively steer the search toward regions with optimal properties without relying on gradient information from the evaluators.

Genetic Algorithms (GAs)

GAs are metaheuristic optimization algorithms inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution [68] [69]. They operate on a population of candidate solutions (molecules), with each molecule represented as a chromosome (e.g., a string of genes). The algorithm proceeds through several phases [68]:

• Initialization: A population of random molecules is generated.
• Evaluation: A fitness function quantifies the performance (fitness) of each individual.
• Selection: The fittest individuals are selected for reproduction, typically with a probability proportional to their fitness score.
• Crossover: Pairs of selected individuals (parents) exchange genetic material to produce offspring, creating new candidate molecules.
• Mutation: Random changes are introduced to some genes in the offspring with low probability, maintaining population diversity and preventing premature convergence.
• Termination: The iterative process continues until a convergence criterion or a maximum number of generations is reached.

Reinforcement Learning (RL)

RL is a machine learning paradigm where an agent learns to make a sequence of decisions by interacting with an environment [68] [70]. In molecular optimization, the process is formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) [70]:

• State (s): The current molecule and the current step in the sequence.
• Action (a): A chemically valid modification, such as adding an atom or changing a bond order.
• Reward (R): A numerical signal (e.g., calculated property improvement) received after each action.
• Policy: The strategy (often a neural network) that the agent learns to select actions that maximize the cumulative discounted reward over time.

Methods like REINVENT further enhance this by fine-tuning a pre-trained generative model using policy gradients, steering it to generate molecules with higher predicted rewards [71] [72].

Comparative Analysis of Performance and Applications

The following table summarizes the key characteristics, advantages, and limitations of QMO, GAs, and RL for molecular optimization.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of QMO, Genetic Algorithms, and Reinforcement Learning for Molecular Optimization

Feature	Query-Based Molecular Optimization (QMO)	Genetic Algorithms (GAs)	Reinforcement Learning (RL)
Operating Principle	Zeroth-order optimization in a continuous latent space [2]	Population-based evolution inspired by natural selection [68]	Trial-and-error learning via agent-environment interaction [68]
Core Methodology	Decouples representation learning (autoencoder) from guided search [4]	Generational cycles of selection, crossover, and mutation [69]	Markov Decision Process (MDP); policy optimization [70]
Problem Suitability	Efficient black-box optimization with property evaluations [2]	General-purpose optimization; no gradients needed [68]	Sequential decision-making problems [68]
Key Advantage	High data efficiency; direct use of external evaluators [2] [7]	Broad applicability; effective exploration of discrete spaces [68]	Can learn complex, multi-step modification strategies [70]
Primary Limitation	Performance dependent on the quality of the latent space [2]	Computationally expensive; requires careful design of genetic operators [68]	Can suffer from sparse rewards and require extensive data [68] [71]
Sample Application	Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors for binding affinity [2] [4]	Feature selection in mammogram analysis for cancer detection [69]	De novo design of EGFR inhibitors using generative models [71]

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

In standardized benchmark tasks, these methods demonstrate distinct performance levels. The table below summarizes reported results for optimizing drug-likeness (QED) and solubility (Penalized logP) under similarity constraints.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance on Benchmark Molecular Optimization Tasks

Method	Task	Reported Performance	Notes
QMO [2] [4]	QED Optimization	~93% success rate	Outperformed other ML methods by at least 15%
QMO [2]	Penalized logP Optimization	Absolute improvement of 1.7	Superior performance on this benchmark
MolDQN (RL) [70]	Multi-objective Optimization (Drug-likeness & Similarity)	Comparable or better than several contemporary algorithms	Achieved without pre-training on specific datasets
GA [68]	General Optimization	Effective but can be computationally expensive	Performance highly dependent on fitness function design

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for QMO-based Molecular Optimization

Application Note: Optimizing lead molecules for improved binding affinity while constraining structural similarity, as demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors [2] [4].

Objective: To generate novel molecular variants with enhanced binding affinity (pIC50 > 7.5) while maintaining high Tanimoto similarity to a lead molecule.

Materials & Reagents: Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for QMO Protocol

Reagent / Tool	Function / Description	Source / Implementation
Molecule Autoencoder	Learns continuous latent representations (embeddings) of molecules from their string (e.g., SMILES) representations.	Pre-trained on a large corpus of molecules (e.g., from PubChem or ChEMBL).
Property Predictor	A black-box function that evaluates a desired property (e.g., binding affinity pIC50).	Can be a QSAR model, a docking score simulation, or an experimental assay.
Similarity Calculator	Computes structural similarity (e.g., Tanimoto similarity on fingerprints) between the lead and optimized molecules.	RDKit or similar cheminformatics toolkit.
Zeroth-Order Optimizer	The core search algorithm that updates latent vectors based on property queries.	Implemented as per the QMO framework [2].

Procedure:

• Representation Learning:
  • Input: A dataset of molecules for pre-training.
  • Action: Train a sequence-to-sequence autoencoder (e.g., using SMILES strings) to learn a robust latent space. The model must accurately encode a molecule and decode its latent vector back to a valid molecular structure.
  • Output: A pre-trained encoder and decoder.

• Optimization Setup:

  • Encode the lead molecule into its latent representation, z_lead.
  • Define the loss function L(z) = λ * Property_Score(z) + (1 - λ) * Similarity_Score(z), where Property_Score is from the evaluator and Similarity_Score is relative to z_lead.

• Query-Based Guided Search:

  • For a predefined number of iterations do:
    • Sampling: Generate a set of candidate latent vectors {z_candidate} by sampling points in the neighborhood of the current best point z (e.g., z + δU, where U is random noise).
    • Decoding & Validation: Decode each z_candidate into a molecule sequence and validate its chemical structure.
    • Query & Evaluation: For each valid decoded molecule, query the property predictor and similarity calculator to compute the loss function L.
    • Update: Update the current latent vector z based on the evaluation results, moving it towards regions of lower loss (higher desired property and similarity).

• Output: Decode the final optimized latent vector z_optimal to obtain the proposed molecule. Validate its properties through external tools or wet-lab experiments.

Protocol for Reinforcement Learning-based Molecular Design

Application Note: De novo design of bioactive compounds using a generative model fine-tuned with RL, as applied to EGFR inhibitors [71] [72].

Objective: To generate novel, synthetically accessible molecules with high predicted activity against a specific protein target.

Materials & Reagents:

• Generative Model: A pre-trained SMILES-based RNN or Transformer model.
• Predictive Model: A QSAR model for the target of interest (e.g., a random forest classifier for EGFR activity).
• RL Framework: A platform like REINVENT [72] to manage the learning loop.

Procedure:

• Pre-training (Prior): Train a generative model (e.g., a Transformer) on a large dataset of drug-like molecules (e.g., ChEMBL) to learn the general syntax and distribution of chemical structures. This model serves as the "prior" [72].

• Reinforcement Learning Fine-Tuning:

  • Initialize the agent (the generative model to be optimized) with the weights of the prior.
  • For each step in the RL training do:
    • Sampling: The agent generates a batch of molecules.
    • Scoring: Each molecule is scored by a composite scoring function S(T). For target activity optimization, this function typically includes:
      • Activity Score: The predicted probability of activity from the QSAR model.
      • Diversity Filter Penalty: A penalty from a memory system (e.g., in REINVENT) to discourage the repeated generation of the same scaffolds and prevent mode collapse.
    • Loss Calculation & Update: The agent's parameters are updated by minimizing a loss function that encourages high scores while preventing excessive deviation from the prior to maintain molecule quality and validity [72]: Loss(θ) = [NLL_aug(T) - NLL(T; θ)]² where NLL(T; θ) is the agent's negative log-likelihood, and NLL_aug(T) = NLL(T; θ_prior) - σ * S(T) is the augmented likelihood that incorporates the score.

• Output: Use the fine-tuned agent to generate novel candidate molecules for the target. Select top candidates for experimental validation.

Integration and Future Directions

The choice between QMO, GAs, and RL is not mutually exclusive, and hybrid approaches are increasingly explored. For instance, GAs can be used to optimize the hyperparameters of an RL algorithm, or RL can be integrated to adaptively control the operators in a GA [68] [73]. QMO's flexibility allows it to serve as a powerful framework where the "evaluators" can be scores derived from other algorithms.

Future research will likely focus on better integration of these paradigms, improving sample efficiency for RL, developing more expressive latent representations for QMO, and creating more standardized benchmarks. Furthermore, the incorporation of real-time expert feedback and the expansion to optimize more complex properties, such as 3D molecular structure and synthetic accessibility, will be critical for advancing the field of molecular optimization. The QMO framework, in particular, with its decoupled architecture and efficient use of black-box evaluators, presents a versatile and powerful approach for accelerating scientific discovery in drug development and materials science [4].

Query-based Molecular Optimization (QMO) represents a significant advancement in AI-driven molecular design, leveraging a deep generative autoencoder and a query-based guided search to optimize lead compounds towards desired properties [4]. However, the real-world utility of any molecular optimization framework depends on the robustness and generalizability of its predictions. External validation using independent, state-of-the-art classifiers that were not part of the optimization process is a critical step to verify that the improvements predicted by the model are reliable and not the result of overfitting to specific evaluators [1]. This application note details experimental protocols and presents data from a case study that rigorously validates QMO predictions for critical properties—specifically, the reduction of antimicrobial peptide (AMP) toxicity and the improvement of SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor binding affinity—against external toxicity and activity classifiers.

The QMO framework decouples representation learning from guided search to efficiently navigate the vast molecular search space [4] [2]. Its operation can be summarized in a two-stage process, illustrated in the workflow below.

Diagram 1: The two-stage QMO workflow, showing representation learning and query-based guided search.

External Validation Protocol

This protocol ensures that molecules optimized by the QMO framework are evaluated against independent models to confirm generalizable property improvements.

Experimental Workflow for External Validation

The following diagram outlines the sequential steps for conducting an external validation study, from the initial QMO run to the final comparative analysis.

Diagram 2: Sequential workflow for the external validation of QMO-optimized molecules.

Materials and Reagents

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for QMO Validation

Category	Item/Software	Function in Protocol	Example/Note
Lead Molecules	Toxic Antimicrobial Peptides (AMPs) [4]	Starting compounds for optimization towards lower toxicity.	150 known toxic AMPs [4].
	SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors [4] [2]	Starting compounds for optimization towards higher binding affinity.	23 existing inhibitors (e.g., Dipyridamole) [4].
Computational Framework	QMO Software	Core framework for molecular optimization.	Includes autoencoder and search algorithm [4].
Internal Evaluators (QMO)	Toxicity Predictor (Internal)	Provides guidance signal during QMO search for lowering toxicity.	Trained on proprietary/benchmark toxicity data.
	Binding Affinity Predictor (Internal)	Provides guidance signal during QMO search for improving pIC50.	Predicts binding free energy or pIC50 [2].
External Validators	Independent Toxicity Classifier(s)	Assesses toxicity of QMO outputs without bias.	State-of-the-art predictors not used in QMO training [4] [1].
	Independent Activity/Binding Classifier(s)	Assesses binding affinity/activity of QMO outputs without bias.	Alternative docking software or predictive model [4].
Similarity Metric	Tanimoto Similarity	Quantifies structural conservation between lead and optimized molecule.	Based on Morgan fingerprints [2] [1].

Step-by-Step Procedure

• QMO Optimization Run:

  • Input: A set of lead molecules (e.g., 150 toxic AMPs or 23 SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors).
  • Configuration: Configure the QMO framework for the specific task:
    • For AMP Optimization, the objective is to minimize predicted toxicity while constraining Tanimoto similarity to the lead molecule to be above a specified threshold (e.g., >0.7) [4].
    • For Inhibitor Optimization, the objective is to maximize predicted binding affinity (pIC50) while maintaining high sequence similarity [2].
  • Execution: Run the QMO algorithm, which uses its internal evaluators to guide the search. The output is a set of optimized molecular sequences.

• Selection of Independent Validators:

  • Identify and acquire one or more external predictive models for toxicity and/or biological activity. These models must be trained on separate data and/or use different architectures than the internal QMO evaluators to ensure independence [74].

• External Property Prediction:

  • Submit the sequences of the QMO-optimized molecules to the independent classifiers.
  • For each optimized molecule, record the predicted property value (e.g., toxicity score, binding affinity) from the external validator.

• Data Analysis and Correlation:

  • For each lead-optimized pair, calculate the property improvement (ΔProperty) as predicted by both the QMO internal evaluator and the external validator.
  • Quantify the correlation between the improvements predicted by the internal and external models. A strong positive correlation validates the QMO framework's ability to make generalizable predictions.
  • Calculate a success rate: the percentage of lead molecules for which the external validator confirms the property improvement trend predicted by QMO [4].

Case Study: Validating QMO-Optimized Antimicrobial Peptides

Objective

To validate that AMPs optimized by QMO for reduced toxicity, according to its internal evaluator, are confirmed to be less toxic by independent, state-of-the-art toxicity predictors [4].

Methods

• Lead Molecules: 150 known toxic AMPs.
• QMO Objective: Minimize toxicity under a similarity constraint.
• Internal Evaluator: QMO's internal toxicity predictor.
• External Validators: One or more state-of-the-art toxicity predictors not used in the QMO framework's training or optimization process.

Results and Validation

Table 2: External Validation Results for AMP Toxicity Optimization

Metric	QMO Internal Prediction	External Validation Result	Interpretation
Success Rate	72% of leads (108/150) were optimized by QMO [4].	External classifiers confirmed the reduced toxicity for the successful optimizations [4].	QMO successfully generates less toxic variants for a majority of leads.
Toxicity Correlation	QMO predicted a specific reduction in toxicity score.	Toxicity scores predicted by external tools "closely matched" QMO's predictions [4].	High consistency between internal and external predictions confirms generalizability.
Similarity Constraint	Tanimoto similarity was maintained above a defined threshold.	(Implicitly maintained via QMO process)	Ensures optimized variants retain core structural features of the lead.

Case Study: Validating QMO-Optimized SARS-CoV-2 Inhibitors

Objective

To validate that SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors optimized by QMO for higher binding affinity are confirmed by external evaluations, such as molecular docking simulations [4] [2].

Methods

• Lead Molecules: 23 existing inhibitor molecules of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (e.g., Dipyridamole).
• QMO Objective: Maximize binding affinity (pIC50 > 7.5) under a high similarity constraint.
• Internal Evaluator: QMO's internal binding affinity predictor (e.g., a machine learning model trained on IC50 data).
• External Validation: Extended docking analysis to calculate binding free energy and identify binding poses [4].

Results and Validation

Table 3: External Validation Results for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitor Optimization

Metric	QMO Internal Prediction	External Validation Result	Interpretation
Binding Affinity	Improved predicted binding free energy (ΔΔG) for optimized variants [4].	Docking confirmed improved (lower) binding free energy for the top QMO poses [4].	External physics-based simulation confirms AI-predicted improvement.
High-Affinity Threshold	pIC50 constrained to be >7.5 (signifying good affinity) [2].	Achieved in optimized molecules.	Optimized molecules meet the threshold for promising drug candidates.
Similarity	High sequence similarity to the lead molecule was maintained.	(Implicitly maintained via QMO process)	Preserves known manufacturability and safety profiles of lead compounds.

Discussion

The consistent correlation between QMO's internal predictions and the results from independent external validators, as demonstrated in the case studies, underscores the robustness of the QMO framework. The high success rate (~72%) in optimizing AMP toxicity and the confirmation of improved binding affinity for SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors via docking studies provide strong evidence that QMO is not simply overfitting to its internal evaluators but is generating molecules with genuine, generalizable property enhancements [4].

This external validation protocol is a critical component for establishing trust in AI-driven molecular optimization. It provides researchers and drug development professionals with a verified methodology to ensure that the molecules they select for further investment and synthesis have a high probability of exhibiting the desired properties in subsequent experimental testing, thereby accelerating the delivery of new therapeutics and materials.

The quest for efficient molecular optimization is a central challenge in modern drug discovery. Traditional approaches often rely on external property predictors to guide the search for molecules with improved properties, a process that can introduce predictive errors and cumulative discrepancies, leading to suboptimal candidates [75] [16]. Within the broader context of query-based frameworks research, two emerging paradigms are demonstrating significant potential to overcome these limitations: text-guided diffusion models and advanced Bayesian optimization (BO) frameworks. Text-guided diffusion models leverage natural language descriptions to implicitly embed complex property requirements, thereby mitigating error propagation [75]. Simultaneously, Bayesian optimization provides a principled, sample-efficient framework for navigating high-dimensional chemical spaces, with recent advancements emphasizing Pareto-aware strategies for multi-objective optimization [76]. This application note details the protocols and key resources for implementing these innovative approaches, providing researchers with practical tools to accelerate molecular design.

Application Notes & Protocols

Text-Guided Diffusion for Multi-Property Molecular Optimization

Core Principles and Workflow

The Transformer-based Diffusion Language Model (TransDLM) addresses a key limitation of predictor-based methods: the error propagation caused by external property predictors that struggle to generalize across the vast chemical space [75] [16]. TransDLM leverages standardized chemical nomenclature as a semantic representation of molecules and implicitly embeds property requirements into textual descriptions, guiding the diffusion process directly without a separate predictor [75] [16].

The protocol, as detailed by Xiong et al., involves several critical stages [75] [16]:

• Molecular Representation: Molecules are represented using Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) strings. However, to enhance semantic clarity, these are supplemented or aligned with standardized chemical nomenclature that intuitively describes molecular structures and functional groups.
• Textual Conditioning: The desired multi-property optimization goals (e.g., "high solubility and low clearance") are formulated into a natural language text prompt.
• Diffusion Process: A diffusion model, built on a transformer architecture, is trained to iteratively denoise the SMILES string representation. This denoising process is conditioned on the embedded textual description, ensuring the generated molecules satisfy the specified properties while retaining the core scaffold of the source molecule.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of the TransDLM method:

Performance Benchmarking

TransDLM has been benchmarked against state-of-the-art methods on key Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) properties. The quantitative results below demonstrate its superior performance in enhancing desired chemical properties while maintaining structural similarity to the source molecule [75].

Table 1: Performance Benchmark of TransDLM on ADMET Property Optimization [75]

Model	Structural Similarity (↑)	LogD Optimization (↑)	Solubility Optimization (↑)	Clearance Optimization (↑)
TransDLM	0.79	0.42	0.85	0.91
JT-VAE [16]	0.71	0.31	0.74	0.82
MolDQN [16]	0.68	0.29	0.76	0.79
MMP-Based Methods [16]	0.75	0.35	0.80	0.85

Bayesian Optimization Frameworks for Molecular Design

Pareto-Aware Multi-Objective Optimization

Bayesian optimization offers a powerful statistical framework for the sample-efficient optimization of expensive-to-evaluate functions, a common scenario in molecular design where properties may be derived from complex simulations or experiments [19] [77]. A key development in this field is the shift from simple scalarization strategies to Pareto-aware methods that explicitly model the trade-offs between multiple objectives [76].

The protocol for Pareto-aware BO involves the following steps [76]:

• Surrogate Modeling: A probabilistic surrogate model, typically a Gaussian Process (GP), is trained on initial molecular data to learn the relationship between a molecular representation and its target properties.
• Pareto Front Identification: The current set of non-dominated solutions—where no single molecule can be improved in one property without worsening another—is identified.
• Pareto-Aware Acquisition: An acquisition function, such as Expected Hypervolume Improvement (EHVI), is used to select the next candidate molecule for evaluation. EHVI quantifies the potential of a new candidate to increase the total volume of the dominated objective space in the Pareto front.

The logical workflow of this approach is outlined below:

Benchmarking Scalarized vs. Pareto-Aware BO

Empirical studies rigorously compare Pareto-aware BO against scalarized alternatives. Under tightly controlled conditions with identical GP surrogates and molecular representations, the Pareto-based EHVI method consistently outperforms scalarized Expected Improvement (EI) across multiple optimization tasks [76].

Table 2: Comparison of Bayesian Optimization Strategies in Molecular Design [76]

Optimization Strategy	Pareto Front Coverage (↑)	Convergence Speed (↑)	Chemical Diversity (↑)	Performance in Low-Data Regime
Pareto-Aware (EHVI)	High	Fast	High	Superior
Scalarized (EI)	Moderate	Slow	Moderate	Prone to Failure

Successful implementation of the described protocols requires a suite of computational tools and datasets. The following table catalogues essential "research reagent solutions" for molecular optimization.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Molecular Optimization

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Protocol
TransDLM Model [75] [16]	Software Model	Text-guided molecular optimization via diffusion.	Core model for implementing the text-guided diffusion protocol.
CpxPhoreSet & LigPhoreSet [78]	Dataset	High-quality 3D ligand-pharmacophore pairs.	Training data for developing pharmacophore-aware diffusion models like DiffPhore.
Materials Project Database [79]	Dataset	Repository of inorganic crystal structures and properties.	Source of training and benchmarking data for crystal structure generation (e.g., Chemeleon).
Gaussian Process (GP) Surrogate [76]	Statistical Model	Probabilistic modeling of the molecule-property landscape.	Core component of the Bayesian optimization protocol for predicting property values.
Expected Hypervolume Improvement (EHVI) [76]	Algorithm	Pareto-aware acquisition function for MOBO.	Guides the search for optimal candidates in multi-objective Bayesian optimization.
Equivariant Graph Neural Network (GNN) [79] [78]	Neural Network Architecture	Learns from 3D molecular/graph data while respecting symmetries.	Backbone for encoding 3D structures in models like Chemeleon and DiffPhore.

The integration of text-guided diffusion models and Pareto-aware Bayesian optimization frameworks represents a significant leap forward for query-based molecular optimization research. TransDLM demonstrates that bypassing external predictors through semantic guidance yields more reliable and structurally faithful molecules. Concurrently, the rigorous benchmarking of Pareto-aware BO confirms that explicit multi-objective handling outperforms simpler scalarization strategies, especially under limited evaluation budgets. Together, these emerging alternatives provide researchers and drug development professionals with a more robust, efficient, and interpretable toolkit for navigating the complex landscape of chemical space, directly addressing critical challenges in predictive accuracy and multi-property trade-offs that have long hindered computational molecular design.

Conclusion

Query-based molecular optimization represents a paradigm shift in AI-driven molecular design, offering a powerful, generic, and data-efficient framework for accelerating scientific discovery. By decoupling representation learning from guided search, QMO effectively navigates the immense complexity of chemical space to optimize critical properties—from drug-likeness and binding affinity to peptide toxicity—while preserving essential structural features. Validation across benchmark tasks and real-world discovery problems, such as designing better SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors and safer antimicrobial peptides, underscores its practical utility and consistency with external evaluators. Future directions point toward the integration of more complex properties like 3D molecular structure, the incorporation of expert-in-the-loop feedback for human-AI collaboration, and the fusion of QMO with emerging technologies like quantum computing and multi-omics data. As these frameworks mature, they hold immense potential to streamline the entire drug development pipeline, delivering safer, more effective therapeutics to patients faster and at a lower cost.

References

• 1. Artificial Intelligence in Molecular Optimization - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12112088/]
• 2. Optimizing molecules using efficient queries from property ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-021-00422-y]
• 3. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 4. Accelerating molecular optimization with AI [https://research.ibm.com/blog/molecular-optimization-ai-acceleration-qmo]
• 5. Query-based molecule optimization and applications ... [https://patents.google.com/patent/US12367397/en]
• 6. A general optimization protocol for molecular property ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8769690/]
• 7. Optimizing Molecules using Efficient Queries from Property ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.01921]
• 8. Molecular optimization by capturing chemist's intuition using ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00497-0]
• 9. Molecular representation learning: cross-domain foundations ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00170f]
• 10. Unified and explainable molecular representation learning for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12484882/]
• 11. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 12. Machine Learning Guided AQFEP: A Fast and Efficient ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11360131/]
• 13. t-SMILES: a fragment-based molecular representation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49388-6]
• 14. Adaptive subspace Bayesian optimization over molecular ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00188a]
• 15. MolAI: A Deep Learning Framework for Data-Driven Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12529771/]
• 16. Text-guided multi-property molecular optimization with a ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.13597v3]
• 17. Advancing predictive modeling in computational chemistry ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44371-025-00363-0]
• 18. Revolutionizing pharmacology: AI-powered approaches in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259009862500020X]
• 19. Generative artificial intelligence based models optimization ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01059-4]
• 20. An open-source family of large encoder-decoder ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01585-0]
• 21. Targeted molecular generation with latent reinforcement ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-99785-0]
• 22. Conditional Latent Space Molecular Scaffold Optimization ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01423]
• 23. Multi-Objective Molecular Design Through Learning Latent ... [https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/34092]
• 24. Query-Efficient Zeroth-Order Algorithms for Nonconvex ... [https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2510.19165]
• 25. PURE: policy-guided unbiased REpresentations for structure ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01090-5]
• 26. Code‑driven Interpretable Molecular Optimization [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.14455v1]
• 27. Advancing drug development with “Fit-for-Purpose” modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436579/]
• 28. Leading AI-Driven Drug Discovery Platforms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031699725075118]
• 29. Large language model guided automated reaction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01630-y]
• 30. Structure of Mpro from SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of its ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2223-y]
• 31. Structural Basis of Potential Inhibitors Targeting SARS-CoV ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.622898/full]
• 32. Optimization of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors by a Structure ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/2/670]
• 33. A Blueprint for High Affinity SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8009102/]
• 34. Optimization Rules for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Antivirals ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32859008/]
• 35. Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Inhibitors Using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10892746/]
• 36. Structure-Based Discovery of Potent SARS-CoV-2 Main ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38753594/]
• 37. Identification of promising SARS-CoV-2 main protease ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-86016-9]
• 38. DLFea4AMPGen de novo design of antimicrobial peptides ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64378-y]
• 39. Peptide-based antibiotics: structure-driven strategies to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968089625004274]
• 40. Establishing quantifiable guidelines for antimicrobial α/β- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10807133/]
• 41. Exploring the repository of de novo-designed bifunctional ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/97330]
• 42. Antimicrobial Peptide Designing and Optimization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6921640/]
• 43. Expression strategies for the efficient synthesis of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33516-1]
• 44. How to accelerate the inorganic materials synthesis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11960098/]
• 45. Quantum chemical calculation dataset for representative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03999-2]
• 46. On the biologically relevant chemical space: BioReCS [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2025.1674289/full]
• 47. Gargoyles: An Open Source Graph-Based Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10568706/]
• 48. Chemical space exploration with quantum computing [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02638-x]
• 49. quality in AI: 9 common issues and best practices | TechTarget Data [https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/feature/9-data-quality-issues-that-can-sideline-AI-projects]
• 50. Leveraging bounded datapoints to classify molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11253865/]
• 51. A domain-label-guided translation model for molecular ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046202324000513]
• 52. Artificial Intelligence in Molecular Optimization: Current ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4878]
• 53. Propagation of uncertainty [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty]
• 54. Error Propagation (Propagation of Uncertainty) [https://www.statisticshowto.com/statistics-basics/error-propagation/]
• 55. Tutorial: Guide to error propagation for particle counting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850222001276]
• 56. Probabilistic prediction by means of the propagation ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1009191/full]
• 57. De novo multi-objective generation framework for energetic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01845-6]
• 58. Finding Balance: Multi-Objective Optimization in Molecular ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6863e52ac1cb1ecda08070ae]
• 59. Multi-Objective Large Language Model for Molecular Design [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.12845v1]
• 60. In Silico Research Is Rewriting the Rules of Drug Development [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12070237/]
• 61. Unleashing the power of generative AI in drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964462400117X]
• 62. SynLlama: Generating Synthesizable Molecules and Their ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.12602]
• 63. Syn-MolOpt: a synthesis planning-driven molecular ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-00975-9]
• 64. Anyo Labs Molecular Generator [https://www.anyolabs.com/articles/anyo-labs-molecular-generator]
• 65. Enhancing ADMET benchmarks with large language models [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11387650/]
• 66. How Cheminformatics is Used in Drug Discovery in 2025? [https://neovarsity.org/blogs/how-cheminformatics-is-used-in-drug-discovery]
• 67. IDEA-XL/ChemCoTBench: LLM Reasoning Benchmark & ... [https://github.com/IDEA-XL/ChemCoTBench/]
• 68. Reinforcement Learning vs Genetic Algorithm — AI for ... [https://medium.com/xrpractices/reinforcement-learning-vs-genetic-algorithm-ai-for-simulations-f1f484969c56]
• 69. The Applications of Genetic Algorithms in Medicine - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4678452/]
• 70. Optimization of Molecules via Deep Reinforcement Learning [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47148-x]
• 71. Generative and reinforcement learning approaches for the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-022-00733-0]
• 72. Evaluation of reinforcement learning in transformer-based ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00887-0]
• 73. Reinforcement Learning Enhanced Multi-Objective Social ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/22/3613]
• 74. Comparing Classification Models - You're Probably Doing ... [http://practicalcheminformatics.blogspot.com/2023/11/comparing-classification-models-youre.html]
• 75. Text-Guided Multi-Property Molecular Optimization with a ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13597]
• 76. Bayesian Optimization for Molecules Should Be Pareto ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13704]
• 77. Adaptive representation of molecules and materials in ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d5sc00200a]
• 78. Knowledge-guided diffusion model for 3D ligand ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57485-3]
• 79. Exploration of crystal chemical space using text-guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59636-y]