Papers for

computational chemistry developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Practical benchmark compares methods for molecular docking optimization

PMO-Dock: Benchmarking Docking, Specificity, and Generalization in Molecular Optimization

Abstract: The Practical Molecular Optimization (PMO) benchmark standardized evaluation in molecular optimization, but it is built on simple property-based oracles that do not capture structure-based drug design. As the field has moved to docking-based objectives, evaluation practice has become unstandardized, and different methods report results on different docking tasks, often without a shared protocol for fair comparison or sample-efficiency constraints. To address this, we introduce Practical Molecular Optimization for Docking (PMO-Dock), a benchmark and protocol for docking-based optimization consisting of 25 tasks covering hit generation, lead optimization, and a new specificity task requiring strong on-target binding while penalizing off-target interactions. The protocol separates model development from final evaluation: validation tasks are used for hyperparameter tuning, and test tasks are held out for final evaluation and are not used during development. Evaluation on the test tasks is done under a strict oracle budget to reflect realistic drug-discovery settings. We benchmark four diverse high-performing methods spanning different optimization paradigms, Saturn (reinforcement learning), GenMol (discrete diffusion), Genetic-guided GFlowNet, and ChemLlama (LLM-based evolutionary search). Our results show no universally best method across tasks, additional analyses of hyperparameter transfer (cross-task and cross-category) and sensitivity show that transfer is often limited and varies by method, motivating method-dependent selection strategies. This benchmark provides a concrete standard for evaluating generalization to unseen tasks and sample efficiency under a limited test-time oracle budget.

Tue 13 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Optimizing molecules to bind well to specific proteins is crucial for drug discovery, but comparing methods fairly has been hard. The authors introduce PMO-Dock, a new benchmark that tests different optimization methods on realistic docking tasks, including how well molecules bind to a target while avoiding unwanted binding elsewhere. They run four diverse methods and find no single best approach, showing that effectiveness depends on the task. Their benchmark also tests how models generalize to new tasks under realistic limitations on experiments.
Open → 2610.19011v1

Physics improves molecular crystal generation training and fixing

Where Should Physics Enter a Molecular Crystal Generator?

Abstract: Generative models make molecular crystal structure prediction fast, but their samples still exhibit geometric and packing violations. Physics can be introduced during training, post-training, or inference, yet these choices are rarely compared with the generator and physical signal held fixed. We introduce CrystAF, an all-atom crystal flow-map generation model, and use it with the UMA interatomic potential to systematically study where physics should enter. Post-training learns physical preferences directly into CrystAF, improving molecular validity and crystal packing while leaving sampling unchanged: physics is paid for once during training rather than repeatedly at deployment. In contrast, UMA relaxation is effective at repairing local clashes but makes generation 6--26$\times$ slower, while learning from relaxed targets provides little benefit. These routes are complementary rather than competing. Physics-informed post-training first shifts the generated distribution toward more physically reasonable structures, after which inexpensive inference-time corrections further remove clashes and restore stereochemistry that the generator cannot represent. Importantly, the same post-training strategy also improves the multi-step all-atom Clari-M and rigid-body MolCrystalFlow generators, demonstrating transfer across architectures and representations. Together, our results suggest a simple principle: learn reusable physical alignment into the generator, and reserve inference-time physics for residual constraints that are better corrected than learned.

Mon 28 SeptArtificial IntelligenceComputational Engineering, Finance, and Science
The gist
Predicting how molecules form crystals can be done by computer models, but their guesses often have problems with shapes and how molecules fit together. The authors made a new model called CrystAF and studied when to add physics knowledge: during training, after training, or when making predictions. They found teaching physics after training helps the model create more realistic molecules without slowing down later, and fixing problems during prediction can catch small errors. This combined approach works for different types of models and improves crystal predictions.
Open → 2609.36398v1

MLIP Detective finds hidden errors in machine-learning atomic models

MLIP Detective: Active Failure Mode Discovery Beyond Benchmark Scores for Machine-Learning Interatomic Potentials

Abstract: Universal machine-learning interatomic potentials (u-MLIPs) aim to generalize across diverse configurations. Benchmarks enable reproducible evaluation but may not expose failures outside their predefined scope. Here, we show that physics-informed search can complement benchmark-based evaluation by uncovering hidden failure modes. We introduce MLIP Detective, an agentic framework for active failure mode discovery. Starting from benchmark evidence, MLIP Detective generates falsifiable, physics-informed failure hypotheses, screens them with inexpensive simulations, and escalates only the most suspicious cases to human experts together with proposed verification protocols. Without issue-specific prompting, MLIP Detective identified and characterized a systematic anomaly in MACE-MPA-0: the model predicted some relaxed adsorbate-surface systems involving O- or F-containing adsorbates to be higher in energy than their corresponding separated fragments. Using cross-model comparisons, MLIP Detective further inferred a likely training-data origin for the anomaly, consistent with recent reports.

Tue 8 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Machine-learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) are tools used to predict how atoms behave, but sometimes they fail in ways not visible in standard tests. The authors created MLIP Detective, which uses physics knowledge to actively search for and identify hidden mistakes in these models. For example, it found that a popular model incorrectly predicted certain molecules on surfaces to be less stable than they should be. MLIP Detective can help improve MLIPs by pointing out such errors and suggesting ways to verify them.
Open → 2609.08399v1