Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization with Independent Tanimoto Kernel Gaussian Processes for Diverse Pareto Front Exploration

Anabel Yong

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization with Independent Tanimoto Kernel Gaussian Processes for Diverse Pareto Front Exploration

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that using independent Tanimoto-kernel Gaussian processes over full-dimensional sparse molecular fingerprints lets multi-objective Bayesian optimization beat a dimensionality-reducing GP-BO baseline, yielding valid SMILES…

desk verdict A plausible engineering combination that is not yet backed by sufficient evidence; the abstract overclaims on a single benchmark with no variance or ablations. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14072 v1 pith:IJBFBJMK submitted 2025-08-12 cs.LG physics.chem-ph

Anabel Yong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGphysics.chem-ph

keywords multi-objectiveBayesianoptimizationTanimotokernelGaussianprocessmolecularfingerprintsParetofrontexplorationSMILESDockSTRING

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 introduces GP-MOBO, a multi-objective Bayesian optimization method for molecules, and argues that it beats a standard GP-BO baseline. Instead of compressing molecular fingerprints, GP-MOBO feeds the full sparse fingerprint into an exact Gaussian process with a Tanimoto kernel, running one independent GP per objective. On the DockSTRING benchmark, the authors report that after 20 optimization iterations it identifies higher-quality valid SMILES, explores more of chemical space, and lands closer to the true Pareto front in every tested scenario. A sympathetic reader would care because molecular discovery routinely involves conflicting objectives, and the paper claims a computationally cheap surrogate can handle them better than a dimensionality-reducing baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Tanimoto kernel on sparse binary molecular fingerprints: the similarity between two fingerprints is the size of their intersection divided by the size of their union, and this kernel defines the covariance of an exact Gaussian process run on the full fingerprint dimension rather than on a reduced embedding. GP-MOBO builds one such Gaussian process per objective, independently, and combines their predictions in an acquisition step aimed at exploring the Pareto front. The full-dimensional kernel does the central work: it exploits fingerprint sparsity to keep computation light and retains information that dimensionality reduction would discard.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by running GP-MOBO and GP-BO on DockSTRING with identical initialization and acquisition, changing only whether the surrogate uses the full Tanimoto kernel or a reduced fingerprint representation; if the geometric mean and Pareto proximity no longer favor GP-MOBO, the central claim fails. Replacing the Tanimoto kernel with a different full-dimensional kernel would also reveal whether the kernel, rather than the dimensionality, is what carries the advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that treating each objective with its own exact Gaussian process under a Tanimoto kernel over the full-dimensional sparse molecular fingerprint is not merely tractable but beneficial: GP-MOBO fully leverages fingerprint dimensionality, and that is the reason it outperforms GP-BO. In every tested DockSTRING scenario it reports superior proximity to the Pareto front and higher geometric mean values across 20 Bayesian optimization iterations, while still producing valid SMILES and a broader exploration of the chemical search space. The discovery, stated in the author's framing, is that dimensionality reduction—the usual route to making fingerprint-based GPs tractable—costs search quality, and that independent per-objective surrogates plus exact inference preserve enough signal to guide multi-objective search.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that an independent full-dimensional Tanimoto-kernel Gaussian process models each DockSTRING objective accurately enough that the acquisition step ranks candidates close to how the true objectives would.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the DockSTRING benchmark, GP-MOBO reports higher geometric mean values than GP-BO after 20 Bayesian optimization iterations.
The molecules GP-MOBO finds are reported as higher-quality valid SMILES, not merely better surrogate scores.
GP-MOBO achieves a broader exploration of the chemical search space, with superior proximity to the Pareto front in all tested scenarios.
Performing exact Gaussian process inference on full-dimensional sparse fingerprints is practical without extensive computational resources, so multi-objective molecular optimization becomes cheaper to run.

Reading between the lines

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

If the benefit truly comes from full-dimensional fingerprints, then any fingerprint dimensionality reduction used by other molecular surrogates may be sacrificing search quality; a controlled ablation varying only fingerprint dimension would test this directly.
The independent Tanimoto-kernel surrogate could transfer to other sparse binary feature spaces, such as reaction fingerprints or fragment bit vectors, where the same intersection-over-union geometry applies.
Because each objective gets its own independent GP, correlated objectives do not share statistical strength; whether a multi-output or coregionalized kernel would improve Pareto coverage is an open question this paper does not address.
The 20-iteration comparison on DockSTRING leaves transfer to other benchmarks and real synthesis constraints untested, so generalizing beyond this dataset is a plausible but unproven consequence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing you should know: this is a reasonable engineering idea—exact GPs with Tanimoto kernels on full-dimensional molecular fingerprints for multi-objective BO—but the evidence in the abstract is far too thin to support the claims. If the full text has proper experiments, it might be a useful workshop paper; as presented, I would not send it to peer review.

What's actually new: combining exact GPs with the Tanimoto kernel on full fingerprints, rather than projected or descriptor-based inputs, for multi-objective molecular optimization. That's a plausible and potentially practical contribution. The independent per-objective surrogate setup is standard BO. The 'fast minimal package' claim suggests there may be reusable code, which would be a real plus.

What the paper does well: the motivation is clear, and DockSTRING is a reasonable testbed. Using geometric mean across 20 iterations is a defensible summary metric, though not sufficient on its own.

Where it's soft: no error bars, no seeds, no ablations, no statistical tests. The abstract claims 'all tested scenarios' but only names DockSTRING. There's no surrogate calibration check—we don't see whether the GP predictive means or uncertainties match true objective values on held-out molecules. There's no ablation isolating whether gains come from full-dimensional fingerprints, the Tanimoto kernel, or the independent GPs. Hyperparameter choices and diversity weights are unexplained. And the only named baseline is GP-BO; there's no comparison to other recent multi-objective molecular BO methods. These aren't fatal flaws in the idea, but they mean the core claim 'fully leveraging fingerprint dimensionality' is asserted, not demonstrated.

The citation pattern is hard to assess because the full text is unreadable in the supplied version. The abstract cites no prior work, which is odd for a method that positions itself as a state-of-the-art advance. I'm not accusing the author of missing references—just noting we can't verify engagement with the literature from what we have.

Who is this for? People working on multi-objective molecular optimization, especially those using fingerprint-based surrogates. If the code is released and the experiments are cleaned up, it could be a nice practical contribution. But as it stands, the paper needs substantial strengthening: variance reporting, ablations, at least one more baseline, and clarification of how hyperparameters and diversity weights were chosen.

My recommendation: desk reject with an invitation to resubmit after a serious empirical revision. If the full text turns out to contain the missing details, I'd be happy to reconsider, but based on the abstract alone, it deserves a hard pass.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes GP-MOBO, a multi-objective Bayesian optimization method for molecular discovery that couples independent exact Gaussian processes with a Tanimoto kernel applied directly to full-dimensional sparse molecular fingerprints. The claimed contribution is that exploiting the full fingerprint dimensionality improves both objective quality and Pareto-front proximity relative to a GP-BO baseline, assessed on the DockSTRING benchmark through a geometric mean over 20 optimization iterations. The abstract asserts consistent superiority and broader exploration, but the body of the submitted manuscript is largely unreadable due to character corruption, and the running header references a different arXiv identifier (2508.14070v2 [cs.CR]). The available evidence is therefore an abstract-level claim with no inspectable algorithm, derivations, tables, or statistical detail.

Significance. If the claimed result were adequately supported, GP-MOBO would be a practically relevant contribution to molecular multi-objective optimization, particularly because the use of exact GPs with full-dimensional Tanimoto kernels could avoid information loss from fingerprint dimensionality reduction. The paper also addresses a real need for computationally lightweight surrogates in molecular BO. However, the manuscript as submitted does not establish these claims: it provides no checkable derivation, no surrogate-calibration evidence, no ablations, and only a single named baseline with no error bars or statistical tests. No reproducible code or machine-checked proofs are provided. The potential significance is real, but the current evidence is far below the bar for a serious journal.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and Results] The central empirical claim—'consistently outperforms traditional methods like GP-BO' and 'superior proximity to the Pareto front in all tested scenarios'—rests on a geometric mean over 20 Bayesian optimization iterations on DockSTRING. The paper reports no per-seed variance, error bars, number of independent runs, or statistical tests, and it names only a single baseline. This evidence is too weak to support the claimed consistency and generality; either the comparisons must be restricted to what is actually measured or additional experiments are required.
[Full text (all sections)] The body of the manuscript is corrupted: most sentences and equations are unreadable, and the running header identifies the text as 'arXiv:2508.14070v2 [cs.CR]', which does not match the manuscript under review (arXiv:2508.14072, cs.LG). Consequently, the GP-MOBO algorithm, the Tanimoto-kernel construction, the acquisition function, the hyperparameter choices, and the numerical results cannot be inspected. A readable manuscript is a prerequisite for any soundness assessment; this document does not currently support review.
[Method / Experiments] The claimed mechanism—that gains come from 'fully leveraging fingerprint dimensionality' with independent Tanimoto-kernel GPs—is never isolated. There is no ablation comparing full-dimensional Tanimoto kernels against fingerprint projections, against a multi-output or correlated surrogate, or against a diversity term that is disabled. Without such controls, the title-level contribution is not established.
[Experiments] No surrogate-calibration check is reported. For the 20-step BO loop to yield the claimed Pareto-front proximity, the per-objective GP must reliably rank candidates; the paper gives no held-out predictive accuracy or calibration comparison between GP predictive means/uncertainties and true DockSTRING objective values. This is a load-bearing gap because a poorly calibrated surrogate could make the apparent advantage an artifact of the acquisition heuristic rather than the kernel choice.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract says 'higher-quality and valid SMILES' but reports no validity rate or breakdown of the geometric mean, so the validity claim is unsubstantiated.
[Abstract] The phrase 'all tested scenarios' is ambiguous; the manuscript appears to test only the DockSTRING dataset, and a single dataset does not support the plural 'scenarios'.
[Reproducibility] No code repository, data splits, or random seeds are listed, despite the emphasis on a 'fast minimal package'; providing these would be necessary for the empirical claims to be reproducible.
[Full text] The inconsistent arXiv identifier in the running header should be resolved, and the notation for the independent Tanimoto-kernel GPs should be defined in a readable manner.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified: the abstract reports a benchmark against an external baseline, with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The only readable portion of the manuscript is the abstract; the supplied full text is corrupted mojibake and contains no recoverable equations, algorithm definitions, or derivation steps. The abstract reports an empirical comparison in which GP-MOBO is stated to outperform the GP-BO baseline on the DockSTRING dataset across 20 Bayesian optimization iterations. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, no quantity defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no self-citation chain invoked as load-bearing support. Because no specific reduction can be quoted from the paper's own equations, the hard rule requiring a quoted exhibit of circularity is not met. The absence of surrogate-calibration checks, per-seed variance, and ablations is an evidentiary gap rather than a circularity; the central claim remains an empirical claim that could fail on evidence without being circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract was usable because the supplied full text is corrupted; the free parameters and assumptions are inferred from the abstract and may change if the full text becomes readable.

free parameters (2)

Per-objective GP hyperparameters (kernel length scale, observation noise)
Standard Gaussian process hyperparameters are fit during surrogate construction; the abstract reports no values, bounds, or fitting procedure, so their influence on the Pareto-front claims is unknown.
Exploration or diversity weighting in the acquisition function
The abstract does not describe how the acquisition function balances diversity against objective improvement; if this weighting was tuned on DockSTRING results, it would affect the benchmark claims.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption A Gaussian process with a Tanimoto kernel provides a valid surrogate for molecular objective functions
The method's query selection relies on GP posterior approximations over fingerprint space; the abstract provides no validation of surrogate calibration on the benchmark.
domain assumption DockSTRING evaluation scores are a meaningful proxy for molecular quality and validity
The empirical claims are measured on this benchmark, and the abstract gives no independent validation of the benchmark's suitability.
domain assumption Exact Gaussian process inference on full fingerprint dimensionality is computationally feasible at the scale used
The central efficiency claim depends on the 'fast minimal package' and on the feasibility of exact kernel matrix operations; no complexity analysis or hardware details are in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization with Independent Tanimoto Kernel Gaussian Processes for Diverse Pareto Front Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJBFBJMK

@misc{pith2026250814072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization with Independent Tanimoto Kernel Gaussian Processes for Diverse Pareto Front Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJBFBJMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14072}
}

read the original abstract

We present GP-MOBO, a novel multi-objective Bayesian Optimization algorithm that advances the state-of-the-art in molecular optimization. Our approach integrates a fast minimal package for Exact Gaussian Processes (GPs) capable of efficiently handling the full dimensionality of sparse molecular fingerprints without the need for extensive computational resources. GP-MOBO consistently outperforms traditional methods like GP-BO by fully leveraging fingerprint dimensionality, leading to the identification of higher-quality and valid SMILES. Moreover, our model achieves a broader exploration of the chemical search space, as demonstrated by its superior proximity to the Pareto front in all tested scenarios. Empirical results from the DockSTRING dataset reveal that GP-MOBO yields higher geometric mean values across 20 Bayesian optimization iterations, underscoring its effectiveness and efficiency in addressing complex multi-objective optimization challenges with minimal computational overhead.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

Sample efficiency matters: A benchmark for practical molecular optimization, 10 2024

Wenhao Gao, Tianfan Fu, Jimeng Sun, and Connor Coley. Sample efficiency matters: A benchmark for practical molecular optimization, 10 2024

2024
[2]

Diagnosing and fixing common problems in bayesian optimization for molecule design, 2024

Austin Tripp and Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato. Diagnosing and fixing common problems in bayesian optimization for molecule design, 2024

2024
[3]

Grammar variational autoencoder, 2017

Matt J Kusner, Brooks Paige, and Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato. Grammar variational autoencoder, 2017

2017
[4]

Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation, 03 2019

Wengong Jin, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation, 03 2019

2019
[5]

Molgan: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs

Nicola De Cao and Thomas Kipf. Molgan: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs. arXiv:1805.11973 [cs, stat] , 09 2022

arXiv 2022
[6]

All smiles variational autoencoder, 06 2019

Zaccary Quadrant, Artem Cherkasov, Jason Tyler, and Rolfe Quadrant. All smiles variational autoencoder, 06 2019

2019
[7]

Molecular fingerprint vae, 2021

Andrea Karlova, Wim Dehaen, and Daniel Svozil. Molecular fingerprint vae, 2021

2021
[8]

Molecular fingerprints for robust and efficient ml-driven molecular generation, 10 2022

Ruslan Tazhigulov, Joshua Schiller, Jacob Oppenheim, and Max Winston. Molecular fingerprints for robust and efficient ml-driven molecular generation, 10 2022

work page 2022

Show all 86 references

[9]

Barking up the right tree: an approach to search over molecule synthesis dags, 12 2020

John Bradshaw, Brooks Paige, Matt Kusner, Marwin Segler, and Jose Miguel Hernández-Lobato. Barking up the right tree: an approach to search over molecule synthesis dags, 12 2020

2020
[10]

Local latent space bayesian optimization over structured inputs, 2022

Natalie Maus, Haydn Jones, Juston Moore, Matt Kusner, John Bradshaw, and Jacob Gardner. Local latent space bayesian optimization over structured inputs, 2022

2022
[11]

High-dimensional bayesian optimisation with variational autoencoders and deep metric learning, 2021

Antoine Grosnit, Rasul Tutunov, Alexandre Max Maraval, Ryan-Rhys Griffiths, Alexander I Cowen-Rivers, Lin Yang, Lin Zhu, Wenlong Lyu, Zhitang Chen, Jun Wang, Jan Peters, and Haitham Bou-Ammar. High-dimensional bayesian optimisation with variational autoencoders and deep metric...

2021
[12]

Gaussian process encoders: Vaes with reliable latent-space uncertainty

Judith Butepage, Lucas Maystre, and Mounia Lalmas. Gaussian process encoders: Vaes with reliable latent-space uncertainty. Lecture notes in computer science , 12976:84--99, 01 2021

2021
[13]

Molecular de-novo design through deep reinforcement learning

Marcus Olivecrona, Thomas Blaschke, Ola Engkvist, and Hongming Chen. Molecular de-novo design through deep reinforcement learning. Journal of Cheminformatics , 9, 09 2017

2017
[14]

Gflownet foundations, 2021

Yoshua Bengio, Salem Lahlou, Tristan Deleu, Edward J Hu, Mo Tiwari, and Emmanuel Bengio. Gflownet foundations, 2021

2021
[15]

Segler, and Alain C

Nathan Brown, Marco Fiscato, Marwin H.S. Segler, and Alain C. Vaucher. Guacamol: Benchmarking models for de novo molecular design. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 59:1096--1108, 03 2019

2019
[16]

Wenhao Gao, Rocío Mercado, and Connor W. Coley. Amortized tree generation for bottom-up synthesis planning and synthesizable molecular design. arXiv:2110.06389 [cs, q-bio] , 03 2022

2022 arXiv
[17]

Jan H. Jensen. A graph-based genetic algorithm and generative model/monte carlo tree search for the exploration of chemical space. Chemical Science , 10:3567--3572, 2019

2019
[18]

Parallel and distributed thompson sampling for large-scale accelerated exploration of chemical space

Jose Miguel Hernández-Lobato, James Requeima, Edward O Pyzer-Knapp, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Parallel and distributed thompson sampling for large-scale accelerated exploration of chemical space. PMLR , 70:1470--1479, 07 2017

2017
[19]

A fresh look at de novo molecular design benchmarks, 05 2023

Austin Tripp, Gregor Simm, and Jose Miguel Hernández-Lobato. A fresh look at de novo molecular design benchmarks, 05 2023

2023
[20]

J. Knowles. Parego: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , 10:50--66, 02 2006

2006
[21]

Timothy Marler and Jasbir S

R. Timothy Marler and Jasbir S. Arora. The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , 41:853--862, 12 2009

2009
[22]

The computation of the expected improvement in dominated hypervolume of pareto front approximations, 2008

Michael Emmerich, Andre Deutz, Jan-Willem Klinkenberg, and Niels Bohrweg. The computation of the expected improvement in dominated hypervolume of pareto front approximations, 2008

2008
[23]

Efficient computation of expected hypervolume improvement using box decomposition algorithms

Kaifeng Yang, Michael Emmerich, Andre Deutz, and Thomas Back. Efficient computation of expected hypervolume improvement using box decomposition algorithms. Journal of Global Optimization , 75:3--34, 07 2019

2019
[24]

A. J. Keane. Statistical improvement criteria for use in multiobjective design optimization. AIAA Journal , 44:879--891, 04 2006

2006
[25]

Predictive entropy search for multi-objective bayesian optimization

Daniel Hernandez-Lobato, Jose Hernandez-Lobato, Amar Shah, and Ryan Adams. Predictive entropy search for multi-objective bayesian optimization. PMLR , 48:1492--1501, 06 2016

2016
[26]

Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization, 2020

Samuel Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization, 2020

2020
[27]

Multi-task gaussian process prediction, 2007

Edwin V Bonilla, Kian Chai, and Christopher Williams. Multi-task gaussian process prediction, 2007

2007
[28]

Kernels for vector-valued functions: a review, 2024

Mauricio A Alvarez, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Neil D Lawrence. Kernels for vector-valued functions: a review, 2024

2024
[29]

Bohb: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale, 07 2018

Stefan Falkner, Aaron Klein, and Frank Hutter. Bohb: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale, 07 2018

2018
[30]

A knowledge-gradient policy for sequential information collection

Peter I Frazier, Warren B Powell, and Savas Dayanik. A knowledge-gradient policy for sequential information collection. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 47:2410--2439, 01 2008

2008
[31]

Wei, David Duvenaud, Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Dennis Sheberia, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Timothy D

Rafael Gomez-Bombarelli, Jennifer N. Wei, David Duvenaud, Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Dennis Sheberia, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Timothy D. Hirzel, Ryan P. Adams, and Ala Aspuru-Guzik. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous re...

2018
[32]

A general framework for constrained bayesian optimization using information-based search

Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, Michael Gelbart, Ryan Adams, Matthew Hoffman, and Zoubin Ghahramani. A general framework for constrained bayesian optimization using information-based search. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17:1--53, 2016

2016
[33]

Deva Priyakumar

Sarvesh Mehta, Manan Goel, and U. Deva Priyakumar. Mo-memes: A method for accelerating virtual screening using multi-objective bayesian optimization. Frontiers in Medicine , 9, 09 2022

2022
[34]

Graff, Eugene I

David E. Graff, Eugene I. Shakhnovich, and Connor W. Coley. Accelerating high-throughput virtual screening through molecular pool-based active learning. Chemical Science , 12:7866--7881, 2021

2021
[35]

Swamidass, Hiroto Saigo, and Pierre Baldi

Liva Ralaivola, Sanjay J. Swamidass, Hiroto Saigo, and Pierre Baldi. Graph kernels for chemical informatics. Neural Networks , 18:1093--1110, 10 2005

2005
[36]

Anderson, G

E. Anderson, G. Veith, and D. Weininger. Smiles (simplified molecular identification and line entry system): A line notation and computerized interpreter for chemical structures | science inventory | us epa, 1987

1987
[37]

Smiles, a chemical language and information system

David Weininger. Smiles, a chemical language and information system. 1. introduction to methodology and encoding rules. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 28:31--36, 02 1988

1988
[38]

Improving fragment-based deep molecular generative models, 07 2024

Panukorn Taleongpong and Brooks Paige. Improving fragment-based deep molecular generative models, 07 2024

2024
[39]

Therapeutics data commons machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development, 2021

Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Wenhao Gao, Yue Zhao, Yusuf Roohani, Jure Leskovec, Connor Coley, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun, and Marinka Zitnik. Therapeutics data commons machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development, 2021

2021
[40]

Extended-connectivity fingerprints

David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 50:742--754, 04 2010

2010
[41]

Durant, Burton A

Joseph L. Durant, Burton A. Leland, Douglas R. Henry, and James G. Nourse. Reoptimization of mdl keys for use in drug discovery. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences , 42:1273--1280, 11 2002

2002
[42]

jcompoundmapper: An open source java library and command-line tool for chemical fingerprints

Georg Hinselmann, Lars Rosenbaum, Andreas Jahn, Nikolas Fechner, and Andreas Zell. jcompoundmapper: An open source java library and command-line tool for chemical fingerprints. Journal of Cheminformatics , 3, 01 2011

2011
[43]

The pharmacophore kernel for virtual screening with support vector machines

Pierre Mahe, Liva Ralaivola, Veronique Stoven, and Jean-Philippe Vert. The pharmacophore kernel for virtual screening with support vector machines. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 46:2003--2014, 08 2006

2003
[44]

Brown, Shikha Varma-O'Brien, and David Rogers

Moises Hassan, Robert D. Brown, Shikha Varma-O'Brien, and David Rogers. Cheminformatics analysis and learning in a data pipelining environment. Molecular Diversity , 10:283--299, 08 2006

2006
[45]

Rdkit: A software suite for cheminformatics, computational chemistry, and predictive modeling, 2013

Greg Landrum. Rdkit: A software suite for cheminformatics, computational chemistry, and predictive modeling, 2013

2013
[46]

The photoswitch dataset: A molecular machine learning benchmark for the advancement of synthetic chemistry

Aditya Raymond Thawani, Ryan-Rhys Griffiths, Arian Jamasb, Anthony Bourached, Penelope Jones, William McCorkindale, Alexander Aldrick, and Alpha Lee. The photoswitch dataset: A molecular machine learning benchmark for the advancement of synthetic chemistry. ChemRxiv , 07 2020

2020
[47]

Population-based de novo molecule generation, using grammatical evolution

Naruki Yoshikawa, Kei Terayama, Masato Sumita, Teruki Homma, Kenta Oono, and Koji Tsuda. Population-based de novo molecule generation, using grammatical evolution. Chemistry Letters , 47:1431--1434, 11 2018

2018
[48]

Zare, and Patrick Riley

Zhenpeng Zhou, Steven Kearnes, Li Li, Richard N. Zare, and Patrick Riley. Optimization of molecules via deep reinforcement learning. Scientific Reports , 9, 07 2019

2019
[49]

Similarity maps - a visualization strategy for molecular fingerprints and machine-learning methods

Sereina Riniker and Gregory A Landrum. Similarity maps - a visualization strategy for molecular fingerprints and machine-learning methods. Journal of Cheminformatics , 5, 09 2013

2013
[50]

Gaussian processes for machine learning, 2006

C Rasmussen and C Williams. Gaussian processes for machine learning, 2006

2006
[51]

Gauche: A library for gaussian processes in chemistry, 2023

Ryan-Rhys Griffiths, Leo Klarner, Henry Moss, Aditya Ravuri, Sang Truong, Samuel Stanton, Gary Tom, Bojana Rankovic, Yuanqi Du, Arian Jamasb, Aryan Deshwal, Julius Schwartz, Austin Tripp, Gregory Kell, Simon Frieder, Anthony Bourached, Alex Chan, Jacob Moss, Chengzhi Guo, Joha...

2023
[52]

An introduction to gaussian process models, 02 2021

Thomas Beckers. An introduction to gaussian process models, 02 2021

2021
[53]

Gaussian process regression networks, 10 2011

Andrew Wilson, David Knowles, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Gaussian process regression networks, 10 2011

2011
[54]

Occam's razor, 01 2000

Carl Rasmussen and Zoubin Ghahramani. Occam's razor, 01 2000

2000
[55]

Kernels for graphs

Kashima Hisashi, Tsuda Koji, and Inokuchi Akihiro. Kernels for graphs. MIT Press , page 18, 2004

2004
[56]

Graph kernels -a synthesis note on positive definiteness graph kernels -a synthesis note on positive definiteness, 2012

Cornelia Metzig, Gilles Bisson, Cecile Amblard, and Mirta Gordon. Graph kernels -a synthesis note on positive definiteness graph kernels -a synthesis note on positive definiteness, 2012

2012
[57]

Graph kernels: a survey

Giannis Nikolentzos, Giannis Siglidis, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. Graph kernels: a survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 72:943--1027, 11 2021

2021
[58]

Min-max kernels, 2015

Ping Li. Min-max kernels, 2015

2015
[59]

Joshua Swamidass, Jonathan M Chen, Jocelyne Bruand, Peter Phung, Liva Ralaivola, and Pierre Baldi

S. Joshua Swamidass, Jonathan M Chen, Jocelyne Bruand, Peter Phung, Liva Ralaivola, and Pierre Baldi. Kernels for small molecules and the prediction of mutagenicity, toxicity and anti-cancer activity. ResearchGate , 21:i359--i368, 01 2005

2005
[60]

Literature review: Graph kernels in chemoinformatics, 2022

James Young. Literature review: Graph kernels in chemoinformatics, 2022

2022
[61]

Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time, 01 2016

L\'aszl\'o Babai. Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time, 01 2016

2016
[62]

Graph kernels and applications in chemoinformatics, 2007

Jean-Philippe Vert. Graph kernels and applications in chemoinformatics, 2007

2007
[63]

Introduction to rkhs, and some simple kernel algorithms, 2019

Arthur Gretton. Introduction to rkhs, and some simple kernel algorithms, 2019

2019
[64]

22 : Hilbert space embeddings of distributions

Eric Xing, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, and Zhiguang Huo. 22 : Hilbert space embeddings of distributions
[65]

Graph kernels for molecular structure-activity relationship analysis with support vector machines

Pierre Mahe, Nobuhisa Ueda, Tatsuya Akutsu, Jean-Luc Perret, and Jean-Philippe Vert. Graph kernels for molecular structure-activity relationship analysis with support vector machines. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 45:939--951, 05 2005

2005
[66]

P. Jaccard. Jaccard, p. (1912). the distribution of the flora of the alpine zone. new phytologist, 11, 37-50. - references - scientific research publishing, 2015

1912
[67]

an elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction

T.T Tanimoto. "an elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction", 2019

2019
[68]

The hypervolume indicator

Andreia P Guerreiro, Carlos M Fonseca, and Luís Paquete. The hypervolume indicator. ACM Computing Surveys , 54:1--42, 07 2021

2021
[69]

A multicriteria generalization of bayesian global optimization

Michael Emmerich, Kaifeng Yang, Andre Deutz, Hao Wang, and Carlos M Fonseca. A multicriteria generalization of bayesian global optimization. Springer optimization and its applications , pages 229--242, 01 2016

2016
[70]

A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume

Lyndon While, P Hingston, Luciano Barone, and S Huband. A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , 10:29--38, 02 2006

2006
[71]

An improved dimension-sweep algorithm for the hypervolume indicator

Carlos M Fonseca and Manuel Luis Paquete, Lopez-Ibanez. An improved dimension-sweep algorithm for the hypervolume indicator. IEEE Explore , 09 2006

2006
[72]

Emmerich, K.C

M.T.M. Emmerich, K.C. Giannakoglou, and B. Naujoks. Single- and multiobjective evolutionary optimization assisted by gaussian random field metamodels. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , 10:421--439, 08 2006

2006
[73]

Multi-objective bayesian global optimization using expected hypervolume improvement gradient

Kaifeng Yang, Michael Emmerich, Andre Deutz, and Thomas Back. Multi-objective bayesian global optimization using expected hypervolume improvement gradient. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation , 44:945--956, 02 2019

2019
[74]

Lebesgue measure on the real line, 1997

G Meisters. Lebesgue measure on the real line, 1997

1997
[75]

The measure of pareto optima applications to multi-objective metaheuristics

M Fleischer. The measure of pareto optima applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. Lecture notes in computer science , pages 519--533, 01 2003

2003
[76]

Fonseca, and Manuel Lopez-Ibanez

Luis Paquete, Carlos M. Fonseca, and Manuel Lopez-Ibanez. An optimal algorithm for a special case of klee's measure problem in three dimensions. Core.ac.uk , 2024

2024
[77]

Chemical substructures that enrich for biological activity

Justin Klekota and Frederick P Roth. Chemical substructures that enrich for biological activity. Computer applications in the biosciences , 24:2518--2525, 11 2008

2008
[78]

Scikit-fingerprints: easy and efficient computation of molecular fingerprints in python, 07 2024

Jakub Adamczyk and Piotr Ludynia. Scikit-fingerprints: easy and efficient computation of molecular fingerprints in python, 07 2024

2024
[79]

Tripp, Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, Andreas Bender, and Sergio Bacallado

Miguel Garcia-Ortegon, Gregor Simm, Austin J. Tripp, Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, Andreas Bender, and Sergio Bacallado. Dockstring: easy molecular docking yields better benchmarks for ligand design, 2021

2021
[80]

Evaluating predictive uncertainty challenge, 2006

Joaquin Quinonero-Candela, Carl Rasmussen, Fabian Sinz, Olivier Bousquet, and Bernhard Scholkopf. Evaluating predictive uncertainty challenge, 2006

2006
[81]

A new algorithm for adaptive multidimensional integration

G Peter Lepage. A new algorithm for adaptive multidimensional integration. ScienceDirect , 05 2024

2024
[82]

Actually sparse variational gaussian processes, 04 2023

Harry Cunningham, Daniel Augusto De Souza, So Takao, Mark Van Der Wilk, and Marc Deisenroth. Actually sparse variational gaussian processes, 04 2023

2023
[83]

Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse gaussian processes, 04 2009

Michalis Titsias. Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse gaussian processes, 04 2009

2009
[84]

Variational fourier features for gaussian processes

James Hensman, Nicolas Durrande, and Arno Solin. Variational fourier features for gaussian processes. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18:1--52, 2018

2018
[85]

Max-value entropy search for multi-objective bayesian optimization

Syrine Belakaria, Aryan Deshwal, and Janardhan Rao Doppa. Max-value entropy search for multi-objective bayesian optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

2019
[86]

Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization, 01 2024

Sebastian Ament, Samuel Daulton, David Eriksson, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization, 01 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sample efficiency matters: A benchmark for practical molecular optimization, 10 2024

Wenhao Gao, Tianfan Fu, Jimeng Sun, and Connor Coley. Sample efficiency matters: A benchmark for practical molecular optimization, 10 2024

2024

[2] [2]

Diagnosing and fixing common problems in bayesian optimization for molecule design, 2024

Austin Tripp and Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato. Diagnosing and fixing common problems in bayesian optimization for molecule design, 2024

2024

[3] [3]

Grammar variational autoencoder, 2017

Matt J Kusner, Brooks Paige, and Jose Miguel Hernandez-Lobato. Grammar variational autoencoder, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation, 03 2019

Wengong Jin, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation, 03 2019

2019

[5] [5]

Molgan: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs

Nicola De Cao and Thomas Kipf. Molgan: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs. arXiv:1805.11973 [cs, stat] , 09 2022

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

All smiles variational autoencoder, 06 2019

Zaccary Quadrant, Artem Cherkasov, Jason Tyler, and Rolfe Quadrant. All smiles variational autoencoder, 06 2019

2019

[7] [7]

Molecular fingerprint vae, 2021

Andrea Karlova, Wim Dehaen, and Daniel Svozil. Molecular fingerprint vae, 2021

2021

[8] [8]

Molecular fingerprints for robust and efficient ml-driven molecular generation, 10 2022

Ruslan Tazhigulov, Joshua Schiller, Jacob Oppenheim, and Max Winston. Molecular fingerprints for robust and efficient ml-driven molecular generation, 10 2022

work page 2022