Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Limeade: Let integer molecular encoding aid

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Limeade is a mixed-integer programming tool that converts SMARTS substructure requests into linear constraints and generates a pool of molecules satisfying them.

desk verdict Useful, mostly sound MIP-generation tool paper; the inclusion encoding is incomplete for disconnected SMARTS patterns, but it deserves a serious referee with targeted revision requests. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16623 v1 pith:EUUKOITU submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CE

Shiqiang Zhang , Christian W. Feldmann , Frederik Sandfort , Miriam Mathea , Juan S. Campos , Ruth Misener This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE MSC 90C1192E10
keywords mixed-integerprogrammingcomputer-aidedmoleculardesignSMARTSgenerationsubstructureinclusionexclusionconstraintencodingMorganfingerprints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents Limeade, a mixed-integer programming (MIP) tool for generating molecules from user-supplied chemical requirements. The central claim is that substructure requests written in SMARTS notation—both 'must include' and 'must exclude' patterns—can be translated automatically into linear constraints, so that solving the MIP produces a pool of molecules that satisfy the requests. The paper demonstrates the encoding for atom-level, bond-level, and graph-level patterns, and shows an iterative workflow in which excluding unwanted substructures raises the share of generated molecules that avoid rare Morgan fingerprints from 2 out of 957 to about 86 percent of 63,973 unique molecules. If correct, the tool lets chemists specify design needs directly and obtain candidate molecules without formulating an optimization model by hand.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the component-matching constraint system built on an integer molecular encoding. A molecule is represented by binary feature variables for atoms (type, neighbor count, hydrogen count, double/triple bond flags) and binary adjacency matrices for bonds. A substructure is reduced to a list of M 'components'—properties such as 'there is a bond', 'there is no bond', 'atom is in set T', 'atom has d neighbors'—each expressible as a linear term in the variables. For a candidate window of n consecutive atom indices, the sum S(V_n) of matched components is compared against M: exclusion requires S < M for every window, while inclusion introduces a binary variable σ with S ≥ M·σ and requires at least one σ = 1. This reduces substructure requirements to O(N − n) linear constraints and binary variables, at the cost of assuming the substructure can be placed on consecutive indices.

What would settle it

Run Limeade with a disconnected SMARTS pattern, for example include 'C.C' (two separate carbons with no bond) in a two-carbon molecule; the paper's own formulation should declare this infeasible even though such a molecule clearly exists, demonstrating that the consecutive-index assumption is a genuine restriction on the class of supported patterns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Limeade claims that the molecular design problem is better framed as feasible-region sampling than as single-molecule optimization: the user supplies structural requirements, and the solver returns a diverse pool of molecules satisfying all of them. The enabling mechanism is a set of linear constraints that encode substructure matching. For inclusion, binary variables indicate whether a window of n consecutive atom indices fully matches the given substructure, and the model requires at least one such window; for exclusion, the model requires that no window reaches a full match. Because a perfect match is defined by the sum of linear 'component' terms (bond presence, atom type, hydrogen count, neighbor count, and so on), SMARTS patterns are converted into constraints rather than compared by graph isomorphism. The paper's case study shows that iteratively excluding rare Morgan fingerprints improves feasibility from 2/957 to roughly 86% of 63,973 generated unique molecules.

Load-bearing premise

The inclusion mechanism assumes that any molecule containing the requested substructure can be renumbered so that the substructure's atoms sit on consecutive positions; this holds for connected patterns, but fails for disconnected patterns like 'C.C', where the connectivity rules force consecutive atoms to be bonded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user who can write a SMARTS string can request and forbid substructures without any knowledge of mixed-integer programming.
  • Iterative exclusion of undesired motifs can rapidly reshape a generated library, as shown by the Morgan fingerprint case study where feasible molecules rose from 2/957 to about 86%.
  • When user requirements are contradictory, Limeade reports an irreducible inconsistent subsystem that identifies which constraints clash.
  • Because generation samples the feasible region rather than optimizing a single score, the solution pool naturally offers diverse candidate structures, and batch generation with varied random seeds increases that diversity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The consecutive-index relaxation means Limeade is best suited to connected, localized substructure patterns; applying it to dispersed or disconnected fragments requires either manual rephrasing of the pattern or relying on the post-hoc validation step rather than the constraints.
  • Scaling the inclusion constraints to multiple simultaneous substructures without the consecutive-index shortcut would require additional binary variables and reintroduce the symmetry-breaking complications the authors deliberately avoided, so a practical extension would likely need a different formulation.
  • Pairing Limeade's feasible-region sampling with a learned score (such as a graph neural network) in a rank-then-select loop could sidestep the hardness of optimizing directly over the molecular space, since the tool already provides a diverse set of candidates to score.
  • The validation-step fallback for large exclusion patterns means the guarantee of exclusion is softened for big substructures; one could measure the empirical frequency of excluded patterns after validation to see where the line between constraint-based and validation-based exclusion should be drawn.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Limeade is a mixed-integer programming (MIP) framework for de novo molecular generation. It encodes molecular graphs over a fixed number of heavy atoms with binary variables for atom types, neighbor counts, implicit hydrogens, and bond types, imposes structural constraints largely inherited from prior work, and adds user-facing constraints for atom/bond/ring composition. The claimed new contribution is an automatic translation of SMARTS substructure inclusion and exclusion into linear constraints, together with batch solution pooling and IIS-based infeasibility diagnostics. The paper demonstrates the workflow on an aspirin-like example and on an iterative case study that excludes substructures associated with rare Morgan fingerprints.

Significance. If the SMARTS inclusion encoding were complete, Limeade would be a useful low-barrier MIP-based generation tool: it ships open-source code, provides a Pyomo implementation, reports IIS for infeasible models, and the case study shows a large improvement in the fraction of molecules avoiding rare fingerprints after iterative exclusions. However, the central technical claim of general SMARTS inclusion support is compromised by the incompleteness of the consecutive-index formulation, so the tool's practical scope is narrower than stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (6)] The consecutive-index inclusion formulation is not a complete encoding of SMARTS inclusion for multiple disjoint disconnected patterns, and it can falsely declare infeasibility. Consider the six-atom path C1-C2-C3-N4-N5-N6. This molecule contains the non-bonded carbon pair {C1,C3} and the non-bonded nitrogen pair {N4,N6}, so it satisfies the two inclusion requirements 'C.C' and 'N.N'. In any ordering satisfying (C3), the pair {C1,C3} can occupy consecutive indices only if C2 is the very first atom of the molecule: if C2 is after either of C1,C3, the earlier of C1,C3 has no earlier neighbor; if C2 is before both but not first, C2 has no earlier neighbor. The same argument forces N5 to be the first atom for {N4,N6}. Since C2 and N5 are distinct, no C3-valid ordering places both pairs on consecutive windows, and the MIP (6) reports infeasible even though the molecule genuinely contains both patterns. This directly undermines the abstract's and Section 3.2's claim of general SMARTS inclusion support.
  2. [§2.3 and §3.2] The paper does not restrict the inclusion feature to pattern classes for which Eq. (6) is exact, nor does it disclose the consecutive-index assumption. Section 3.2 presents the supported SMARTS components without any connectivity requirement, and the API example accepts arbitrary SMARTS strings; the abstract states that Limeade 'supports inclusion and exclusion of SMARTS patterns' without qualification. The manuscript should either implement a complete inclusion encoding (e.g., with explicit subgraph-isomorphism variables that allow non-consecutive placements) or explicitly document that inclusion is an approximation that may reject feasible molecules, and characterize the exact cases (for instance, a single connected pattern placed at the beginning of the index ordering). The validation step in Section 3.3 cannot mitigate false infeasibility, because when the MIP is infeasible there are no generated molecules to validate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Page 5] The text reads 'Paper structureSection 2 introduces'; it should read 'Paper structure. Section 2 introduces'.
  2. [Page 7] The phrase 'For a molecular with N heavy atoms' should be 'For a molecule with N heavy atoms'.
  3. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (C19)] In the hydrogen-count sum, the term X_{i,I_h_i} should be X_{v,I_h_i}; the atom index v is missing.
  4. [§3.2] The run-together text 'attributeAtomType' should be 'attribute AtomType', referring to the RDKit atom attribute.
  5. [§3.4] The phrase 'no more than 10 5 constraints' should be written as '10^5 constraints' for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: SMARTS constraints are direct encodings; self-citations are standard and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Limeade can encode substructure inclusion/exclusion as MIP constraints. The derivation chain in Section 2.3 defines S(V_n) as a sum of matched components and expresses inclusion as S(V_n) = M for some subset V_n, then relaxes subset search to consecutive windows in constraint (6). This is a direct logical encoding, not a circular reduction: the existence of a matching window is the definition of inclusion, and the constraints do not presuppose the molecules they generate. The structural constraints (C1)-(C19) are imported from prior work, including the authors' own Zhang et al. [43], but they are standard molecular-graph encodings also cited to the broader literature [6-11], and the paper's new contribution is the SMARTS layer built on top of them. The self-citations [42,43] are therefore not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the paper's conclusions; they provide foundational encodings and a numerical estimate for a design trade-off. The aspirin example is a retrieval sanity check: the target molecule's defining substructures are supplied as constraints, so finding aspirin among the last six solutions is a consistency check, not a prediction. The case study is explicitly iterative: the authors observe the most frequent rare Morgan fingerprints in generated molecules, add exclusion constraints for those patterns, and then re-measure feasibility against the external ChEMBL-based criterion. Because the exclusions are chosen from observed failures, the improvement demonstrates the workflow rather than an out-of-sample prediction, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the feasibility metric is external and the improvement is not a logical tautology. The paper also discloses limitations, including the relaxed consecutive-index inclusion (Section 2.3) and the validation-step fallback for large or unsupported patterns (Section 3.3); the consecutive-window relaxation may be incomplete for disconnected or multiple SMARTS patterns, but that is a correctness limitation, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the inherited molecular-encoding axioms and on the sufficiency of the Table 2 components for substructure matching. The main undisclosed risk is the consecutive-index inclusion assumption, which over-restricts disconnected SMARTS patterns.

free parameters (3)
  • Morgan fingerprint rarity threshold = 5 occurrences in ChEMBL
    Section 4 defines a molecule as infeasible if it contains a radius-1 Morgan fingerprint occurring fewer than 5 times in ChEMBL; the threshold is arbitrary and hand-chosen.
  • Case-study composition bounds and N = N=20, lb=[10,None,None,None], ub=[None,5,5,5], double/triple<=10, rings<=0
    Hand-chosen bounds in Section 4 to restrict the generated pool; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Iteratively excluded substructures = [CH0]; [N,O,S]~[N,O,S]; [N,O,S]~C~[N,O,S]
    Selected in Section 4 by inspecting the top uncommon patterns from previous iterations; these are data-dependent choices in the demonstration, not fixed method parameters.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Structural constraints (C1)-(C19) from Zhang et al. 43 exactly characterize chemically valid molecules over the chosen atom types.
    Limeade's feasibility guarantee rests on this inherited encoding; the paper cites but does not re-derive or validate it.
  • domain assumption The component set in Table 2 is sufficient to decide whether a supported SMARTS pattern is present in a candidate molecule.
    Section 2.3 chooses components for linearity and RDKit extractability, but no proof establishes that equality of these components is necessary and sufficient for substructure matching; aromaticity, charges, and stereochemistry are excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper Any molecule containing a requested substructure can be represented with that substructure on consecutive atom indices while preserving connectivity constraints (C3).
    Equation (6) relies on this for tractable inclusion; it holds for a single connected pattern under full permutation symmetry, but fails for disconnected patterns such as 'C.C' and is not established for multiple patterns with unclear relationships.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Limeade: Let integer molecular encoding aid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUUKOITU

@misc{pith2026241116623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Limeade: Let integer molecular encoding aid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUUKOITU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16623}
}
read the original abstract

Mixed-integer programming (MIP) is a well-established framework for computer-aided molecular design (CAMD). By precisely encoding the molecular space and score functions, e.g., a graph neural network, the molecular design problem is represented and solved as an optimization problem, the solution of which corresponds to a molecule with optimal score. However, both the extremely large search space and complicated scoring process limit the use of MIP-based CAMD to specific and tiny problems. Moreover, optimal molecule may not be meaningful in practice if scores are imperfect. Instead of pursuing optimality, this paper exploits the ability of MIP in molecular generation and proposes Limeade as an end-to-end tool from real-world needs to feasible molecules. Beyond the basic constraints for structural feasibility, Limeade supports inclusion and exclusion of SMARTS patterns, automating the process of interpreting and formulating chemical requirements to mathematical constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Limeade takes practical requirements as inputs, encodes molecular space and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example showing how to retrieve aspirin after including and excluding several [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Computer-aided methods and tools for chemical product design

    Gani, R. Computer-aided methods and tools for chemical product design. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2004, 82, 1494--1504

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Y.; Chong, F

    Ng, L. Y.; Chong, F. K.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Challenges and opportunities in computer aided molecular design. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 2014, 34, 25--34

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    D.; Sahinidis, N

    Austin, N. D.; Sahinidis, N. V.; Trahan, D. W. Computer-aided molecular design: An introduction and review of tools, applications, and solution techniques. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2016, 116, 2--26

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Editorial overview: Frontiers of chemical engineering: chemical product design II

    Gani, R.; Zhang, L.; Gounaris, C. Editorial overview: Frontiers of chemical engineering: chemical product design II . Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2022, 35, 100783

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    S.; Gani, R.; You, F

    Alshehri, A. S.; Gani, R.; You, F. Deep learning and knowledge-based methods for computer-aided molecular design — toward a unified approach: State-of-the-art and future directions. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2020, 141, 107005

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Computer aided molecular design: A novel method for optimal solvent selection

    Odele, O.; Macchietto, S. Computer aided molecular design: A novel method for optimal solvent selection. Fluid Phase Equilibria 1993, 82, 47--54

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Churi, N.; Achenie, L. E. Novel mathematical programming model for computer aided molecular design. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1996, 35, 3788--3794

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    V.; Maranas, C

    Camarda, K. V.; Maranas, C. D. Optimization in polymer design using connectivity indices. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1999, 38, 1884--1892

    work page 1999

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    E.; Ostrovsky, G

    Sinha, M.; Achenie, L. E.; Ostrovsky, G. M. Environmentally benign solvent design by global optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering 1999, 23, 1381--1394

    1999

  2. [10]

    V.; Tawarmalani, M.; Yu, M

    Sahinidis, N. V.; Tawarmalani, M.; Yu, M. Design of alternative refrigerants via global optimization. AIChE Journal 2003, 49, 1761--1775

    2003

  3. [11]

    Generic mathematical programming formulation and solution for computer-aided molecular design

    Zhang, L.; Cignitti, S.; Gani, R. Generic mathematical programming formulation and solution for computer-aided molecular design. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2015, 78, 79--84

    2015

  4. [12]

    K.; Eden, M.; Gani, R

    Liu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Liu, L.; Du, J.; Tula, A. K.; Eden, M.; Gani, R. OptCAMD : An optimization-based framework and tool for molecular and mixture product design. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2019, 124, 285--301

    2019

  5. [13]

    W.; Tan, R

    Hatamleh, M.; Chong, J. W.; Tan, R. R.; Aviso, K. B.; Janairo, J. I. B.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Design of mosquito repellent molecules via the integration of hyperbox machine learning and computer aided molecular design. Digital Chemical Engineering 2022, 3, 100018

    2022

  6. [14]

    Wu, Z.; Pan, S.; Chen, F.; Long, G.; Zhang, C.; Philip, S. Y. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 2020, 32, 4--24

    2020

  7. [15]

    Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications

    Zhou, J.; Cui, G.; Hu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, C.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Sun, M. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI Open 2020, 1, 57--81

    2020

  8. [16]

    Machine learning on graphs: A model and comprehensive taxonomy

    Chami, I.; Abu-El-Haija, S.; Perozzi, B.; R \'e , C.; Murphy, K. Machine learning on graphs: A model and comprehensive taxonomy. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2022, 23, 1--64

    2022

  9. [17]

    G.; Hicham, K

    Rittig, J. G.; Hicham, K. B.; Schweidtmann, A. M.; Dahmen, M.; Mitsos, A. Graph neural networks for temperature-dependent activity coefficient prediction of solutes in ionic liquids. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2023, 171, 108153

    2023

  10. [18]

    M.; Weber, J

    Gao, Q.; Dukker, T.; Schweidtmann, A. M.; Weber, J. M. Self-supervised graph neural networks for polymer property prediction. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering 2024, 9, 1130--1143

    2024

  11. [19]

    Deep learning based regression and multiclass models for acute oral toxicity prediction with automatic chemical feature extraction

    Xu, Y.; Pei, J.; Lai, L. Deep learning based regression and multiclass models for acute oral toxicity prediction with automatic chemical feature extraction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2017, 57, 2672--2685

    2017

  12. [20]

    Molecule property prediction based on spatial graph embedding

    Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Jiang, M.; Wang, S.; Zhang, S.; Wei, Z. Molecule property prediction based on spatial graph embedding. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2019, 59, 3817--3828

    2019

  13. [21]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2019, 59, 3370--3388

    Yang, K.; Swanson, K.; Jin, W.; Coley, C.; Eiden, P.; Gao, H.; Guzman-Perez, A.; Hopper, T.; Kelley, B.; Mathea, M.; others Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2019, 59, 3370--3388

    2019

  14. [22]

    M.; Rittig, J

    Schweidtmann, A. M.; Rittig, J. G.; K \" o nig, A.; Grohe, M.; Mitsos, A.; Dahmen, M. Graph neural networks for prediction of fuel ignition quality. Energy & Fuels 2020, 34, 11395--11407

    2020

  15. [23]

    Building attention and edge message passing neural networks for bioactivity and physical--chemical property prediction

    Withnall, M.; Lindel \"o f, E.; Engkvist, O.; Chen, H. Building attention and edge message passing neural networks for bioactivity and physical--chemical property prediction. Journal of Cheminformatics 2020, 12, 1--18

    2020

  16. [24]

    S.; Tula, A

    Alshehri, A. S.; Tula, A. K.; Zhang, L.; Gani, R.; You, F. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering; 2021; Vol. 50; pp 227--233

    2021

  17. [25]

    Sharma, A.; Kumar, R.; Ranjta, S.; Varadwaj, P. K. SMILES to smell: decoding the structure--odor relationship of chemical compounds using the deep neural network approach. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2021, 61, 676--688

    2021

  18. [26]

    A scalable and integrated machine learning framework for molecular properties prediction

    Chen, G.; Song, Z.; Qi, Z.; Sundmacher, K. A scalable and integrated machine learning framework for molecular properties prediction. AIChE Journal 2023, 69, e18185

    2023

  19. [27]

    Group contribution-based property modeling for chemical product design: A perspective in the AI era

    Mann, V.; Gani, R.; Venkatasubramanian, V. Group contribution-based property modeling for chemical product design: A perspective in the AI era. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2023, 568, 113734

    2023

  20. [28]

    T.; Chew, Y

    Tiew, S. T.; Chew, Y. E.; Lee, H. Y.; Chong, J. W.; Tan, R. R.; Aviso, K. B.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. A Fragrance Prediction Model for Molecules Using Rough Set-based Machine Learning. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 2023, 95, 438--446

    2023

  21. [29]

    R.; Lengyel, I.; Stevens, C

    Dobbelaere, M. R.; Lengyel, I.; Stevens, C. V.; Van Geem, K. M. Geometric deep learning for molecular property predictions with chemical accuracy across chemical space. Journal of Cheminformatics 2024, 16, 99

    2024

  22. [30]

    R.; Soman, J.; Regep, C.; Liu, G.; Hayter, J

    Gaudelet, T.; Day, B.; Jamasb, A. R.; Soman, J.; Regep, C.; Liu, G.; Hayter, J. B.; Vickers, R.; Roberts, C.; Tang, J.; others Utilizing graph machine learning within drug discovery and development. Briefings in Bioinformatics 2021, 22, bbab159

    2021

  23. [31]

    Graph neural networks for automated de novo drug design

    Xiong, J.; Xiong, Z.; Chen, K.; Jiang, H.; Zheng, M. Graph neural networks for automated de novo drug design. Drug Discovery Today 2021, 26, 1382--1393

    2021

  24. [32]

    G.; Ritzert, M.; Schweidtmann, A

    Rittig, J. G.; Ritzert, M.; Schweidtmann, A. M.; Winkler, S.; Weber, J. M.; Morsch, P.; Heufer, K. A.; Grohe, M.; Mitsos, A.; Dahmen, M. Graph machine learning for design of high-octane fuels. AIChE Journal 2022, e17971

    2022

  25. [33]

    C.; Coley, C

    Fromer, J. C.; Coley, C. W. Computer-aided multi-objective optimization in small molecule discovery. Patterns 2023, 4

    2023

  26. [34]

    N.; Philot, E

    Lima, A. N.; Philot, E. A.; Trossini, G. H. G.; Scott, L. P. B.; Maltarollo, V. G.; Honorio, K. M. Use of machine learning approaches for novel drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2016, 11, 225--239

    2016

  27. [35]

    C.; Boukouvalas, Z.; Fuge, M

    Elton, D. C.; Boukouvalas, Z.; Fuge, M. D.; Chung, P. W. Deep learning for molecular design — a review of the state of the art. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering 2019, 4, 828--849

    2019

  28. [36]

    Graph-based generative models for de Novo drug design

    Xia, X.; Hu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Z. Graph-based generative models for de Novo drug design. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies 2019, 32, 45--53

    2019

  29. [37]

    S.; Rabiee, H

    Faez, F.; Ommi, Y.; Baghshah, M. S.; Rabiee, H. R. Deep graph generators: A survey. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 106675--106702

    2021

  30. [38]

    D.; Afantitis, A.; Serra, A.; Fratello, M.; Papadiamantis, A

    Mouchlis, V. D.; Afantitis, A.; Serra, A.; Fratello, M.; Papadiamantis, A. G.; Aidinis, V.; Lynch, I.; Greco, D.; Melagraki, G. Advances in de novo drug design: from conventional to machine learning methods. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021, 22, 1676

    2021

  31. [39]

    G.; Wolf, A

    Pirnay, J.; Rittig, J. G.; Wolf, A. B.; Grohe, M.; Burger, J.; Mitsos, A.; Grimm, D. G. GraphXForm: Graph transformer for computer-aided molecular design with application to extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01667 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A survey of generative AI for de novo drug design: new frontiers in molecule and protein generation

    Tang, X.; Dai, H.; Knight, E.; Wu, F.; Li, Y.; Li, T.; Gerstein, M. A survey of generative AI for de novo drug design: new frontiers in molecule and protein generation. Briefings in Bioinformatics 2024, 25, bbae338

    2024

  33. [41]

    Gao, W.; Fu, T.; Sun, J.; Coley, C. W. Sample efficiency matters: A benchmark for practical molecular optimization. NeurIPS Track Datasets and Benchmarks. 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    S.; Feldmann, C.; Walz, D.; Sandfort, F.; Mathea, M.; Tsay, C.; Misener, R

    Zhang, S.; Campos, J. S.; Feldmann, C.; Walz, D.; Sandfort, F.; Mathea, M.; Tsay, C.; Misener, R. Optimizing over trained GNNs via symmetry breaking. NeurIPS. 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    S.; Feldmann, C.; Sandfort, F.; Mathea, M.; Misener, R

    Zhang, S.; Campos, J. S.; Feldmann, C.; Sandfort, F.; Mathea, M.; Misener, R. Augmenting optimization-based molecular design with graph neural networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2024, 186, 108684

    2024

  36. [44]

    M.; Yorke-Smith, N

    McDonald, T.; Tsay, C.; Schweidtmann, A. M.; Yorke-Smith, N. Mixed-Integer Optimisation of Graph Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Molecular Design. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2024, 185, 108660

    2024

  37. [45]

    M.; Bongartz, D.; Grothe, D.; Kerkenhoff, T.; Lin, X.; Najman, J.; Mitsos, A

    Schweidtmann, A. M.; Bongartz, D.; Grothe, D.; Kerkenhoff, T.; Lin, X.; Najman, J.; Mitsos, A. Deterministic global optimization with G aussian processes embedded. Mathematical Programming Computation 2021, 13, 553--581

    2021

  38. [47]

    Mi s i \'c , V. V. Optimization of tree ensembles. Operations Research 2020, 68, 1605--1624

    2020

  39. [48]

    M.; Misener, R

    Mistry, M.; Letsios, D.; Krennrich, G.; Lee, R. M.; Misener, R. Mixed-integer convex nonlinear optimization with gradient-boosted trees embedded. INFORMS Journal on Computing 2021, 33, 1103--1119

    2021

  40. [49]

    M.; Sudermann-Merx, N.; Misener, R

    Thebelt, A.; Kronqvist, J.; Mistry, M.; Lee, R. M.; Sudermann-Merx, N.; Misener, R. ENTMOOT: A framework for optimization over ensemble tree models. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2021, 151, 107343

    2021

  41. [50]

    M.; Sudermann-Merx, N.; Walz, D.; Tranter, T.; Misener, R

    Thebelt, A.; Tsay, C.; Lee, R. M.; Sudermann-Merx, N.; Walz, D.; Tranter, T.; Misener, R. Multi-objective constrained optimization for energy applications via tree ensembles. Applied Energy 2022, 306, 118061

    2022

  42. [51]

    Maximizing information from chemical engineering data sets: Applications to machine learning

    Thebelt, A.; Wiebe, J.; Kronqvist, J.; Tsay, C.; Misener, R. Maximizing information from chemical engineering data sets: Applications to machine learning. Chemical Engineering Science 2022, 252, 117469

    2022

  43. [52]

    L.; Johnson, E

    Ammari, B. L.; Johnson, E. S.; Stinchfield, G.; Kim, T.; Bynum, M.; Hart, W. E.; Pulsipher, J.; Laird, C. D. Linear Model Decision Trees as Surrogates in Optimization of Engineering Applications. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2023, 178

    2023

  44. [53]

    Partition-based formulations for mixed-integer optimization of trained ReLU neural networks

    Tsay, C.; Kronqvist, J.; Thebelt, A.; Misener, R. Partition-based formulations for mixed-integer optimization of trained ReLU neural networks. NeurIPS. 2021

    2021

  45. [54]

    D.; Misener, R

    Ceccon, F.; Jalving, J.; Haddad, J.; Thebelt, A.; Tsay, C.; Laird, C. D.; Misener, R. OMLT : Optimization & machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2022, 23, 15829--15836

    2022

  46. [55]

    M.; Bongartz, D.; Mitsos, A

    Schweidtmann, A. M.; Bongartz, D.; Mitsos, A. Encyclopedia of Optimization; Springer, 2022; pp 1--8

    2022

  47. [56]

    Optimizing over an ensemble of trained neural networks

    Wang, K.; Lozano, L.; Cardonha, C.; Bergman, D. Optimizing over an ensemble of trained neural networks. INFORMS Journal on Computing 2023,

    2023

  48. [57]

    S.; Misener, R

    Hojny, C.; Zhang, S.; Campos, J. S.; Misener, R. Verifying message-passing neural networks via topology-based bounds tightening. ICML. 2024

    2024

  49. [58]

    P.; Sahinidis, N

    Samudra, A. P.; Sahinidis, N. V. Optimization-based framework for computer-aided molecular design. AIChE Journal 2013, 59, 3686--3701

    2013

  50. [59]

    A.; Intikhab, S.; Elbashir, N.; Eden, M

    Kalakul, S.; Zhang, L.; Fang, Z.; Choudhury, H. A.; Intikhab, S.; Elbashir, N.; Eden, M. R.; Gani, R. Computer aided chemical product design-- ProCAPD and tailor-made blended products. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2018, 116, 37--55

    2018

  51. [60]

    P.; Lee, H

    Heng, Y. P.; Lee, H. Y.; Chong, J. W.; Tan, R. R.; Aviso, K. B.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Incorporating Machine Learning in Computer-Aided Molecular Design for Fragrance Molecules. Processes 2022, 10, 1767

    2022

  52. [61]

    J.; Aung, K

    Ooi, Y. J.; Aung, K. N. G.; Chong, J. W.; Tan, R. R.; Aviso, K. B.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Design of fragrance molecules using computer-aided molecular design with machine learning. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2022, 157, 107585

    2022

  53. [62]

    E.; Lee, H

    Chew, Y. E.; Lee, H. Y.; Heng, Y. P.; Tiew, S. T.; Chong, J. W.; Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Design of formulated fragrant products using rough set machine learning and molecular design tools. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2024, 203, 305--320

    2024

  54. [63]

    Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation

    Jin, W.; Barzilay, R.; Jaakkola, T. Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation. ICML. 2018

    2018

  55. [64]

    Hierarchical generation of molecular graphs using structural motifs

    Jin, W.; Barzilay, R.; Jaakkola, T. Hierarchical generation of molecular graphs using structural motifs. ICML. 2020

    2020

  56. [65]

    A deep generative model for fragment-based molecule generation

    Podda, M.; Bacciu, D.; Micheli, A. A deep generative model for fragment-based molecule generation. AISTATS. 2020

    2020

  57. [66]

    R.; Durrant, J

    Green, H.; Koes, D. R.; Durrant, J. D. DeepFrag : a deep convolutional neural network for fragment-based lead optimization. Chemical Science 2021, 12, 8036--8047

    2021

  58. [67]

    S.; Yu, H

    Powers, A. S.; Yu, H. H.; Suriana, P. A.; Dror, R. O. Fragment-based ligand generation guided by geometric deep learning on protein-ligand structures. ICLR 2022 Workshop MLDD. 2022

    2022

  59. [68]

    SMARTS - A Language for Describing Molecular Patterns

    Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. SMARTS - A Language for Describing Molecular Patterns. 2007

    2007

  60. [69]

    https://www.rdkit.org

    RDKit: Open-source cheminformatics . https://www.rdkit.org

  61. [70]

    2023; https://www.gurobi.com

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual . 2023; https://www.gurobi.com

    2023

  62. [71]

    L.; Hackebeil, G

    Bynum, M. L.; Hackebeil, G. A.; Hart, W. E.; Laird, C. D.; Nicholson, B. L.; Siirola, J. D.; Watson, J.-P.; Woodruff, D. L.; others Pyomo - optimization modeling in python; Springer, 2021; Vol. 67

    2021

  63. [72]

    C", "N",

    Zdrazil, B.; Felix, E.; Hunter, F.; Manners, E. J.; Blackshaw, J.; Corbett, S.; de Veij, M.; Ioannidis, H.; Lopez, D. M.; Mosquera, J. F.; others The ChEMBL Database in 2023: a drug discovery platform spanning multiple bioactivity data types and time periods. Nucleic Acids Res...

    2023

  64. [73]

    https://www.gurobi.com

    Zdrazil, B.; Felix, E.; Hunter, F.; Manners, E. J.; Blackshaw, J.; Corbett, S.; de Veij, M.; Ioannidis, H.; Lopez, D. M.; Mosquera, J. F.; others The ChEMBL Database in 2023: a drug discovery platform spanning multiple bioactivity data types and time periods. Nucleic Acids Res...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.