Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 125 references

Molecular Machine Learning in Chemical Process Design

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 Molecular machine learning has matured enough to be embedded in chemical process design, allowing molecules and processes to be designed together.

desk verdict A clear, well-grounded roadmap for coupling molecular ML with process design; its central promise rests on a generalization capability that the paper identifies as an open problem but does not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20527 v2 pith:ICD4IO64 submitted 2025-08-28 physics.chem-ph cs.LG

Jan G. Rittig , Manuel Dahmen , Martin Grohe , Philippe Schwaller , Alexander Mitsos This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcs.LG
keywords molecularmachinelearningchemicalprocessdesigncomputer-aidedandgraphneuralnetworkstransformerspropertypredictiongenerativehybridphysics-informedmodels
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 perspective argues that molecular machine learning has reached the point where it can do more than predict properties of known chemicals: it should be embedded in process design and optimization. The authors review graph neural networks, transformers, and matrix completion methods that predict properties of pure components and mixtures—often outperforming established thermodynamic models such as UNIFAC and COSMO-RS—and argue these models can evaluate molecules never seen in training. The payoff would be computer-aided molecular and process design (CAMPD), where molecular structure and process structure become joint degrees of freedom and novel solvents, working fluids, or products are found together with the process that uses them. The authors also identify the preconditions: better data collection and benchmarks, physics-informed and hybrid architectures, uncertainty quantification, and experimental validation, ideally with industry.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the learnable molecule-to-vector encoding: a molecular representation (SMILES or SELFIES string, or a graph) is fed to a graph neural network or transformer, which produces a continuous latent vector from which properties are predicted. Because the encoding is learned end-to-end from structure to property, the vector captures structure-property relations and permits predictions for molecules not in the training set. The paper's process-scale proposal rides on this same vector: either the trained model is embedded directly into an optimization formulation, or the model is hybridized with a semi-empirical equation of state by predicting its parameters, letting process simulation software consume ML predictions without architectural change.

What would settle it

Train a graph neural network and a transformer on a standard chemical-engineering property dataset, then test them on a held-out set of molecules deliberately chosen to be structurally distant from the training set, and compare mean error against UNIFAC and COSMO-RS on the same molecules. If the ML models do not beat these baselines on such out-of-distribution structures, the generalization advantage that underwrites ML-CAMPD is not there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that integrating learned molecular representations into process-scale models will advance chemical process engineering by removing the current restriction that process optimization only considers molecules with known property data. The paper states that molecular ML models 'enable predictions for molecules not included in model training' and can outperform group contribution and quantum-thermodynamics methods like UNIFAC and COSMO-RS, while also exploring chemical space through generative models. On this basis, the authors advocate for ML-driven CAMPD, in which the molecular structure becomes a degree of freedom in process design, either by embedding trained GNN and transformer models into optimization formulations or by sequential workflows that propose molecules, predict their properties, and evaluate the process. They also present hybrid models—ML predicting parameters of semi-empirical equations such as PC-SAFT—as a near-term route to use molecular ML inside existing simulation software.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that molecular ML models stay accurate for molecules they were never trained on; if their predictions degrade outside the training distribution, the proposed ML-driven design of novel molecules and processes would be unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Process simulators could evaluate molecules with no experimental data, so design would no longer be restricted to a list of known species with fitted thermodynamic parameters.
  • Hybrid models that predict PC-SAFT or NRTL parameters from molecular structure could bring ML accuracy into existing simulation workflows without modifying the process model.
  • Molecular structure could become an explicit optimization variable in process design, enabling simultaneous rather than sequential selection of molecules and processes.
  • The same property-prediction models could be reused across operating conditions and molecule types, widening feasible temperature-pressure ranges in process optimization.
  • Benchmarks and industry collaboration would be needed to test thermodynamic consistency and generalization before ML-driven CAMPD sees industrial use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if learned molecular embeddings are combined with multi-task training across thermodynamic properties, the data bottleneck for niche chemical-engineering properties could shrink, because shared latent structure would transfer information between properties.
  • Inference: an immediate testable extension is a head-to-head benchmark comparing ML-driven CAMPD proposals against exhaustive enumeration over a known-molecule library for the same separation process, measuring which finds a better solvent or flowsheet.
  • Inference: the review's own caution about order-invariance of transformers for mixtures suggests that architectures with built-in permutation invariance, or data augmentation, should be compared on process-relevant mixture properties before deployment.
  • Inference: if uncertainty quantification matures to provide reliable intervals on property predictions, process optimization could treat ML predictions as distributions and carry uncertainty into design decisions, which the paper mentions as needed but does not develop.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective argues that molecular machine learning (ML) has reached the point where it should be integrated into chemical process design and optimization, a direction the authors call ML-driven computer-aided molecular and process design (ML-CAMPD). The paper reviews molecular representations (SMILES, SELFIES, graphs), model architectures (GNNs, transformers, matrix completion), and their applications to pure-component and mixture properties. It then outlines research directions: physics-informed and hybrid models, data collection and curation, benchmarks, foundation models, explainability, uncertainty quantification, and similarity analysis. It discusses molecular design with generative models and global optimization over trained ML models, and finally proposes integration at the process scale, including sequential workflows that iterate between molecular proposal, property prediction, and process optimization. The authors call for open benchmarks, industry collaboration, and experimental validation of ML-designed molecules.

Significance. If the roadmap succeeds, this perspective identifies a promising path toward simultaneous design of molecules and processes, which could accelerate discovery of sustainable solvents, fuels, and working fluids. The paper's strengths are its broad and current coverage of molecular ML methods, its explicit identification of practical bottlenecks (data scarcity, physical consistency, uncertainty, extrapolation), and its concrete calls for benchmarks and industry collaboration. As a perspective, it does not introduce new quantitative results, but it provides a valuable synthesis and a research agenda. The authors are appropriately cautious in several places, acknowledging that many claims remain to be validated in practice.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5] The proposed ML-CAMPD workflows, especially the sequential workflow citing Bosetti et al., use ML-predicted properties inside process design formulations. For novel molecules proposed by generative models, these predictions will carry substantial uncertainty. Section 3 discusses uncertainty quantification as a general research direction, but the paper never connects UQ to the process-scale workflows: it does not discuss how prediction uncertainty should propagate into process optimization, whether UQ should be used as a rejection filter before process evaluation, or whether robust optimization over prediction intervals is envisioned. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because without a treatment of uncertainty, the proposed acceleration could select molecules based on unreliable property values. I recommend adding a short paragraph in Section 5 (or a cross-reference to Section 3) that explicitly proposes how UQ methods could be integrated into ML-CAMPD, for example by screening candidate molecules using calibrated prediction intervals before full process evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The phrase "given some kind of structural similarity to the molecules used for training" is vague. Since the manuscript repeatedly relies on generalization to novel molecules, it would help to specify whether the authors mean Tanimoto similarity in fingerprint space, distance in learned latent space, or a related measure, and to cite studies that characterize how prediction error scales with such similarity.
  2. [Section 1] The sentence "These ML methods have achieved high prediction accuracies, outperforming well-established methods... such as UNIFAC and COSMO-RS" is too broad. The cited comparisons are property-specific and dataset-specific; please qualify the statement, e.g., "for the prediction of activity coefficients and solvation free energies on benchmark datasets."
  3. [Figure 1] The SELFIES and SMILES strings in Figure 1 are difficult to read in the PDF; consider enlarging the font or using a clearer rendering so that the representation distinction is visible.
  4. [Section 3] The manuscript advocates creating benchmarks in collaboration with the chemical industry. It would strengthen the discussion to mention practical mechanisms, such as federated learning or anonymized benchmark curation, which are briefly referenced later and could be more explicitly linked to the benchmark proposal.
  5. [References] Reference [28] is listed as "in preparation" and Reference [67] is a PhD thesis; please check whether these can be replaced by peer-reviewed, publicly accessible sources before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-referential argument.

full rationale

This manuscript is a perspective and literature review rather than a derivation or modeling study: it contains no equations that are fitted to data, no parameter estimation, and no prediction that is constructed from its own inputs. The central claims are explicitly framed as expectations and research directions (e.g., "We anticipate that the integration of ML for molecular property prediction and design with process design and optimization bears large potential"), not as results derived from a closed chain of definitions. The paper does cite work by its own authors, but these citations are used as examples of existing molecular ML capabilities (e.g., GNNs for activity coefficients, ML-SAFT parameter prediction) alongside many external references, and none of the stated conclusions reduces to a self-citation as its sole justification. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed empirical pattern is imported from the authors' prior work to make a choice forced. The acknowledged limitations, such as data scarcity and the need for benchmarks and experimental validation, are presented as open research needs rather than hidden premises. Therefore, under the stated rubric, there is no circularity of the kind that the analysis targets.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its central claims rest on three domain assumptions: that ML generalizes to novel molecules, that more data improves performance, and that embedding ML in optimization is computationally feasible. These are reasonable but not proven within the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ML models trained on sufficiently large and diverse datasets can generalize to novel molecules not seen in training.
    The paper's thesis depends on this generalization, e.g., Section 2 states that ML 'enable predictions for molecules not included in model training'. If this fails, ML-CAMPD for novel molecules collapses.
  • domain assumption Data scarcity is the major limiting factor, and additional curated data will improve ML performance.
    The paper repeatedly emphasizes data collection as the key enabler (Section 3). This is a plausible assumption but not proven within the paper.
  • domain assumption Integrating ML models into process optimization formulations is computationally feasible at scale.
    Section 5 acknowledges this is currently impractical for more than a few atoms, yet the thesis assumes it will become feasible. This is a forward-looking assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Molecular Machine Learning in Chemical Process Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICD4IO64

@misc{pith2026250820527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Molecular Machine Learning in Chemical Process Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICD4IO64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20527}
}
read the original abstract

We present a perspective on molecular machine learning (ML) in the field of chemical process engineering. Recently, molecular ML has demonstrated great potential in (i) providing highly accurate predictions for properties of pure components and their mixtures, and (ii) exploring the chemical space for new molecular structures. We review current state-of-the-art molecular ML models and discuss research directions that promise further advancements. This includes ML methods, such as graph neural networks and transformers, which can be further advanced through the incorporation of physicochemical knowledge in a hybrid or physics-informed fashion. Then, we consider leveraging molecular ML at the chemical process scale, which is highly desirable yet rather unexplored. We discuss how molecular ML can be integrated into process design and optimization formulations, promising to accelerate the identification of novel molecules and processes. To this end, it will be essential to create molecule and process design benchmarks and practically validate proposed candidates, possibly in collaboration with the chemical industry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of molecular machine learning approaches for property prediction: The molecule is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of molecular machine learning approaches for predicting mixture properties at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of research areas and directions for molecular ML in chemical process engineering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of hybrid and physics-informed approaches to combine physicochemical knowledge with molecular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Greenman, Yunsie Chung, Shih-Cheng Li, David E

    Esther Heid, Kevin P. Greenman, Yunsie Chung, Shih-Cheng Li, David E. Graff, Florence H. Vermeire, Haoyang Wu, William H. Green, and Charles J. McGill. Chemprop: A machine learning package for chemical property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(1):9–17, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry

    Patrick Reiser, Marlen Neubert, André Eberhard, Luca Torresi, Chen Zhou, Chen Shao, Houssam Metni, Clint van Hoesel, Henrik Schopmans, Timo Sommer, and Pascal Friederich. Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry. Communications Materials, 3(1):93, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Gibbs–helmholtz graph neural network: capturing the temperature dependency of activity coefficients at infinite dilution

    Edgar Ivan Sanchez Medina, Steffen Linke, Martin Stoll, and Kai Sundmacher. Gibbs–helmholtz graph neural network: capturing the temperature dependency of activity coefficients at infinite dilution. Digital Discovery, 2:781–798, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Schweidtmann, Jan G

    Artur M. Schweidtmann, Jan G. Rittig, Andrea König, Martin Grohe, Alexander Mitsos, and Manuel Dahmen. Graph neural networks for prediction of fuel ignition quality. Energy & Fuels, 34(9):11395–11407, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Vermeire and William H

    Florence H. Vermeire and William H. Green. Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments. Chemical Engineering Journal, 418:129307, August 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    A smile is all you need: predicting limiting activity coefficients from SMILES with natural language processing

    Benedikt Winter, Clemens Winter, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. A smile is all you need: predicting limiting activity coefficients from SMILES with natural language processing. Digital Discovery, 1:859–869, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Fabian Jirasek, Rodrigo A. S. Alves, Julie Damay, Robert A. Vandermeulen, Robert Bamler, Michael Bortz, Stephan Mandt, Marius Kloft, and Hans Hasse. Machine learning in thermodynamics: Prediction of activity coefficients by matrix completion. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 11(3):981–985, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Jones, and John M

    Aage Fredenslund, Russell L. Jones, and John M. Prausnitz. Group-contribution estimation of activity coefficients in nonideal liquid mixtures. AIChE Journal, 21(6):1086–1099, 1975

    1975

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    COSMO-RS: An alternative to simulation for calculating thermodynamic properties of liquid mixtures

    Andreas Klamt, Frank Eckert, and Wolfgang Arlt. COSMO-RS: An alternative to simulation for calculating thermodynamic properties of liquid mixtures. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering , 1(1):101–122, jun 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Thermodynamics-consistent graph neural networks

    Jan G Rittig and Alexander Mitsos. Thermodynamics-consistent graph neural networks. Chemical Science, 15(44):18504–18512, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    HANNA: hard- constraint neural network for consistent activity coefficient prediction

    Thomas Specht, Mayank Nagda, Sophie Fellenz, Stephan Mandt, Hans Hasse, and Fabian Jirasek. HANNA: hard- constraint neural network for consistent activity coefficient prediction. Chemical science, 15(47):19777–19786, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Generative models for molecular discovery: Recent advances and challenges

    Camille Bilodeau, Wengong Jin, Tommi Jaakkola, Regina Barzilay, and Klavs F Jensen. Generative models for molecular discovery: Recent advances and challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(5):e1608, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Elton, Zois Boukouvalas, Mark D

    Daniel C. Elton, Zois Boukouvalas, Mark D. Fuge, and Peter W. Chung. Deep learning for molecular design - A review of the state of the art. Molecular Systems Design and Engineering, 4(4):828–849, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Machine learning-aided generative molecular design

    Yuanqi Du, Arian R Jamasb, Jeff Guo, Tianfan Fu, Charles Harris, Yingheng Wang, Chenru Duan, Pietro Liò, Philippe Schwaller, and Tom L Blundell. Machine learning-aided generative molecular design. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(6):589–604, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Autonomous, multiproperty-driven molecular discovery: From predictions to measurements and back

    Brent A Koscher, Richard B Canty, Matthew A McDonald, Kevin P Greenman, Charles J McGill, Camille L Bilodeau, Wengong Jin, Haoyang Wu, Florence H Vermeire, Brooke Jin, et al. Autonomous, multiproperty-driven molecular discovery: From predictions to measurements and back. Scien...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Continuous-molecular targeting for integrated solvent and process design

    André Bardow, Klaas Steur, and Joachim Gross. Continuous-molecular targeting for integrated solvent and process design. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 49(6):2834–2840, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Babi, and Rafiqul Gani

    Lei Zhang, Deenesh K. Babi, and Rafiqul Gani. New vistas in chemical product and process design. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 7:557–582, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A hierarchical method to integrated solvent and process design of physical CO2 absorption using the saft-γ m ie approach

    Jakob Burger, Vasileios Papaioannou, Smitha Gopinath, George Jackson, Amparo Galindo, and Claire S Adjiman. A hierarchical method to integrated solvent and process design of physical CO2 absorption using the saft-γ m ie approach. AIChE Journal, 61(10):3249–3269, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Henri Renon and J. M. Prausnitz. Local compositions in thermodynamic excess functions for liquid mixtures. AIChE Journal, 14(1):135–144, 1968

    1968

  12. [20]

    Perturbed-chain SAFT: An equation of state based on a perturbation theory for chain molecules

    Joachim Gross and Gabriele Sadowski. Perturbed-chain SAFT: An equation of state based on a perturbation theory for chain molecules. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 40(4):1244–1260, 2001. 11 Rittig et al. A preprint

    2001

  13. [21]

    Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Manuel Dahmen, and Alexander Mitsos. Graph neural networks for temperature-dependent activity coefficient prediction of solutes in ionic liquids. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 171:108153, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Graph neural networks for the prediction of infinite dilution activity coefficients

    Edgar Ivan Sanchez Medina, Steffen Linke, Martin Stoll, and Kai Sundmacher. Graph neural networks for the prediction of infinite dilution activity coefficients. Digital Discovery, 1:216–225, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Pooling solvent mixtures for solvation free energy predictions

    Roel J Leenhouts, Nathan Morgan, Emad Al Ibrahim, William H Green, and Florence H Vermeire. Pooling solvent mixtures for solvation free energy predictions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 513:162232, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Self-referencing embedded strings (selfies): A 100% robust molecular string representation

    Mario Krenn, Florian Häse, AkshatKumar Nigam, Pascal Friederich, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik. Self-referencing embedded strings (selfies): A 100% robust molecular string representation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 1(4):045024, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    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 Computer Sciences, 28(1):31–36, 1988

    1988

  18. [26]

    Rittig, Qinghe Gao, Manuel Dahmen, Alexander Mitsos, and Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Qinghe Gao, Manuel Dahmen, Alexander Mitsos, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Graph neural networks for the prediction of molecular structure–property relationships. In Dongda Zhang and Ehecatl Antonio Del Río Chanona, editors, Machine Learning and Hybrid Modelling fo...

    2023

  19. [27]

    word2vec, node2vec, graph2vec, x2vec: Towards a theory of vector embeddings of structured data

    Martin Grohe. word2vec, node2vec, graph2vec, x2vec: Towards a theory of vector embeddings of structured data. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 1–16, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Jan Pavsek, Tai Tan, Manuel Dahmen, Alexander Mitsos, and Jan G. Rittig. Deepgraphnet for predicting state-dependencies of thermodynamic properties. in preparation, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Coley, Regina Barzilay, William H

    Connor W. Coley, Regina Barzilay, William H. Green, Tommi S. Jaakkola, and Klavs F. Jensen. Convolutional embedding of attributed molecular graphs for physical property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 57(8):1757–1772, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Extended-connectivity fingerprints

    David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 50(5):742–754, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    A review of molecular representation in the age of machine learning

    Daniel S Wigh, Jonathan M Goodman, and Alexei A Lapkin. A review of molecular representation in the age of machine learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(5):e1603, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Geometric deep learning on molecular representations

    Kenneth Atz, Francesca Grisoni, and Gisbert Schneider. Geometric deep learning on molecular representations. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(12):1023–1032, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A hitchhiker’s guide to geometric GNNs for 3D atomic systems

    Alexandre Duval, Simon V Mathis, Chaitanya K Joshi, Victor Schmidt, Santiago Miret, Fragkiskos D Malliaros, Taco Cohen, Pietro Lio, Yoshua Bengio, and Michael Bronstein. A hitchhiker’s guide to geometric GNNs for 3D atomic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07511, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    General purpose models for the chemical sciences

    Nawaf Alampara, Anagha Aneesh, Martiño Ríos-García, Adrian Mirza, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Ali Asghar Aghajani, Meiling Sun, Gordan Prastalo, and Kevin Maik Jablonka. General purpose models for the chemical sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07456, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    A graph representation of molecular ensembles for polymer property prediction

    Matteo Aldeghi and Connor W Coley. A graph representation of molecular ensembles for polymer property prediction. Chemical Science, 13(35):10486–10498, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    BigSMILES: a structurally-based line notation for describing macromolecules

    Tzyy-Shyang Lin, Connor W Coley, Hidenobu Mochigase, Haley K Beech, Wencong Wang, Zi Wang, Eliot Woods, Stephen L Craig, Jeremiah A Johnson, Julia A Kalow, et al. BigSMILES: a structurally-based line notation for describing macromolecules. ACS Central Science, 5(9):1523–1531, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing

    Yudong Cao, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan P Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D Johnson, Mária Kieferová, Ian D Kivlichan, Tim Menke, Borja Peropadre, Nicolas PD Sawaya, et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chemical Reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    AIMNet2: a neural network potential to meet your neutral, charged, organic, and elemental-organic needs

    Dylan M Anstine, Roman Zubatyuk, and Olexandr Isayev. AIMNet2: a neural network potential to meet your neutral, charged, organic, and elemental-organic needs. Chemical Science, 16(23):10228–10244, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    A practical guide to machine learning interatomic potentials–status and future

    Ryan Jacobs, Dane Morgan, Siamak Attarian, Jun Meng, Chen Shen, Zhenghao Wu, Clare Yijia Xie, Julia H Yang, Nongnuch Artrith, Ben Blaiszik, et al. A practical guide to machine learning interatomic potentials–status and future. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Scien...

    2025

  32. [40]

    3DReact: Geometric deep learning for chemical reactions

    Puck van Gerwen, Ksenia R Briling, Charlotte Bunne, Vignesh Ram Somnath, Ruben Laplaza, Andreas Krause, and Clemence Corminboeuf. 3DReact: Geometric deep learning for chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(15):5771–5785, 2024. 12 Rittig et al. A preprint

    2024

  33. [41]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Schoenholz, Patrick F

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 70, pages 1263–1272, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Transformers are graph neural networks

    Chaitanya K Joshi. Transformers are graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22084, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Where did the gap go? Reassessing the long-range graph benchmark

    Jan Tönshoff, Martin Ritzert, Eran Rosenbluth, and Martin Grohe. Where did the gap go? Reassessing the long-range graph benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00367, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Self- supervised graph transformer on large-scale molecular data

    Yu Rong, Yatao Bian, Tingyang Xu, Weiyang Xie, Ying Wei, Wenbing Huang, and Junzhou Huang. Self- supervised graph transformer on large-scale molecular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12559–12571, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    On the scalability of gnns for molecular graphs

    Maciej Sypetkowski, Frederik Wenkel, Farimah Poursafaei, Nia Dickson, Karush Suri, Philip Fradkin, and Dominique Beaini. On the scalability of gnns for molecular graphs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:19870–19906, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Molecular graph transformer: stepping beyond alignn into long-range interactions

    Marco Anselmi, Greg Slabaugh, Rachel Crespo-Otero, and Devis Di Tommaso. Molecular graph transformer: stepping beyond alignn into long-range interactions. Digital Discovery, 3(5):1048–1057, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Machine learning methods for small data challenges in molecular science

    Bozheng Dou, Zailiang Zhu, Ekaterina Merkurjev, Lu Ke, Long Chen, Jian Jiang, Yueying Zhu, Jie Liu, Bengong Zhang, and Guo-Wei Wei. Machine learning methods for small data challenges in molecular science. Chemical Reviews, 123(13):8736–8780, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Machine learning in polymer research

    Wei Ge, Ramindu De Silva, Yanan Fan, Scott A Sisson, and Martina H Stenzel. Machine learning in polymer research. Advanced Materials, 37(11):2413695, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Computer-aided molecular design of ionic liquids as advanced process media: a review from fundamentals to applications

    Zhen Song, Jiahui Chen, Jie Cheng, Guzhong Chen, and Zhiwen Qi. Computer-aided molecular design of ionic liquids as advanced process media: a review from fundamentals to applications. Chemical Reviews, 124(2):248–317, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    GRAPPA–A hybrid graph neural network for predicting pure component vapor pressures

    Marco Hoffmann, Hans Hasse, and Fabian Jirasek. GRAPPA–A hybrid graph neural network for predicting pure component vapor pressures. Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, page 100750, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    A machine learning workflow for molecular analysis: application to melting points

    Ganesh Sivaraman, Nicholas E Jackson, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Álvaro Vázquez-Mayagoitia, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Venkatram Vishwanath, and Juan J De Pablo. A machine learning workflow for molecular analysis: application to melting points. Machine Learning: Science and Technolog...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Lansford, Klavs F

    Joshua L. Lansford, Klavs F. Jensen, and Brian C. Barnes. Physics–informed transfer learning for out–of–sample vapor pressure predictions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 48(4):e202200265, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    PUFFIN: A path-unifying feed-forward interfaced network for vapor pressure prediction

    Vinicius Viena Santana, Carine Menezes Rebello, Luana P Queiroz, Ana Mafalda Ribeiro, Nadia Shardt, and Idelfonso BR Nogueira. PUFFIN: A path-unifying feed-forward interfaced network for vapor pressure prediction. Chemical Engineering Science, 286:119623, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Understanding the language of molecules: predicting pure component parameters for the PC-SAFT equation of state from SMILES, 2025

    Benedikt Winter, Philipp Rehner, Timm Esper, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. Understanding the language of molecules: predicting pure component parameters for the PC-SAFT equation of state from SMILES, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Predicting critical micelle concentrations for surfactants using graph convolutional neural networks

    Shiyi Qin, Tianyi Jin, Reid C Van Lehn, and Victor M Zavala. Predicting critical micelle concentrations for surfactants using graph convolutional neural networks. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 125(37):10610– 10620, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Graph neural networks for surfactant multi-property prediction

    Christoforos Brozos, Jan G Rittig, Sandip Bhattacharya, Elie Akanny, Christina Kohlmann, and Alexander Mitsos. Graph neural networks for surfactant multi-property prediction. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 694:134133, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Machine learning for toxicity prediction using chemical structures: Pillars for success in the real world

    Srijit Seal, Manas Mahale, Miguel García-Ortegón, Chaitanya K Joshi, Layla Hosseini-Gerami, Alex Beatson, Matthew Greenig, Mrinal Shekhar, Arijit Patra, Caroline Weis, et al. Machine learning for toxicity prediction using chemical structures: Pillars for success in the real wo...

    2025

  51. [59]

    Human-and machine-centred designs of molecules and materials for sustainability and decarbonization

    Jiayu Peng, Daniel Schwalbe-Koda, Karthik Akkiraju, Tian Xie, Livia Giordano, Yang Yu, C John Eom, Jaclyn R Lunger, Daniel J Zheng, Reshma R Rao, et al. Human-and machine-centred designs of molecules and materials for sustainability and decarbonization. Nature Reviews Material...

    2022

  52. [60]

    Machine learning-supported solvent design for lignin-first biore- fineries and lignin upgrading

    Laura König-Mattern, Edgar I Sanchez Medina, Anastasia O Komarova, Steffen Linke, Liisa Rihko-Struckmann, Jeremy S Luterbacher, and Kai Sundmacher. Machine learning-supported solvent design for lignin-first biore- fineries and lignin upgrading. Chemical Engineering Journal, 49...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Predicting the temperature-dependent CMC of surfactant mixtures with graph neural networks

    Christoforos Brozos, Jan G Rittig, Elie Akanny, Sandip Bhattacharya, Christina Kohlmann, and Alexander Mitsos. Predicting the temperature-dependent CMC of surfactant mixtures with graph neural networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 198:109085, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    Van Lehn, and Victor M

    Shiyi Qin, Shengli Jiang, Jianping Li, Prasanna Balaprakash, Reid C. Van Lehn, and Victor M. Zavala. Capturing molecular interactions in graph neural networks: a case study in multi-component phase equilibrium. Digital Discovery, 2(1):138–151, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Rittig, Kobi C

    Jan G. Rittig, Kobi C. Felton, Alexei A. Lapkin, and Alexander Mitsos. Gibbs–Duhem-informed neural networks for binary activity coefficient prediction. Digital Discovery, 2(6):1752–1767, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Machine learning of thermophysical properties

    Fabian Jirasek and Hans Hasse. Machine learning of thermophysical properties. Fluid Phase Equilibria , 549:113206, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Neural recommender system for the activity coefficient prediction and UNIFAC model extension of ionic liquid–solute systems.AIChE Journal, 67(4):e17171, 2021

    Guzhong Chen, Zhen Song, Zhiwen Qi, and Kai Sundmacher. Neural recommender system for the activity coefficient prediction and UNIFAC model extension of ionic liquid–solute systems.AIChE Journal, 67(4):e17171, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    Spt-nrtl: A physics- guided machine learning model to predict thermodynamically consistent activity coefficients

    Benedikt Winter, Clemens Winter, Timm Esper, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. Spt-nrtl: A physics- guided machine learning model to predict thermodynamically consistent activity coefficients. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 568:113731, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Graph machine learning for molecular property prediction and design

    Jan Gerald Rittig. Graph machine learning for molecular property prediction and design. PhD thesis, Dissertation, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    Learning 3D representations of molecular chirality with invariance to bond rotations

    Keir Adams, Lagnajit Pattanaik, and Connor W Coley. Learning 3D representations of molecular chirality with invariance to bond rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04383, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Schweidtmann, Jan G

    Artur M. Schweidtmann, Jan G. Rittig, Jana M. Weber, Martin Grohe, Manuel Dahmen, Kai Leonhard, and Alexander Mitsos. Physical pooling functions in graph neural networks for molecular property prediction. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 172:108202, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Combining machine learning with physical knowledge in thermodynamic modeling of fluid mixtures

    Fabian Jirasek and Hans Hasse. Combining machine learning with physical knowledge in thermodynamic modeling of fluid mixtures. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 14:31–51, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Ml-saft: a machine learning framework for pcp-saft parameter prediction

    Kobi C Felton, Lukas Raßpe-Lange, Jan G Rittig, Kai Leonhard, Alexander Mitsos, Julian Meyer-Kirschner, Carsten Knösche, and Alexei A Lapkin. Ml-saft: a machine learning framework for pcp-saft parameter prediction. Chemical Engineering Journal, page 151999, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Predicting PC-SAFT pure-component pa- rameters by machine learning using a molecular fingerprint as key input

    Jonas Habicht, Christoph Brandenbusch, and Gabriele Sadowski. Predicting PC-SAFT pure-component pa- rameters by machine learning using a molecular fingerprint as key input. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 565:113657, February 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Germann, and Nicholas Lubbers

    David Rosenberger, Kipton Barros, Timothy C. Germann, and Nicholas Lubbers. Machine learning of consistent thermodynamic models using automatic differentiation. Physical Review. E, 105(4-2):045301, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    ENFORCE: Nonlinear constrained learning with adaptive-depth neural projection

    Giacomo Lastrucci and Artur M Schweidtmann. ENFORCE: Nonlinear constrained learning with adaptive-depth neural projection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06774, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Physics-informed neural networks with hard nonlinear equality and inequality constraints

    Ashfaq Iftakher, Rahul Golder, and MM Hasan. Physics-informed neural networks with hard nonlinear equality and inequality constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08124, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Development of a helmholtz free energy equation of state for fluid and solid phases via artificial neural networks

    Gustavo Chaparro and Erich A Müller. Development of a helmholtz free energy equation of state for fluid and solid phases via artificial neural networks. Communications Physics, 7(1):406, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    A review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry

    Mayk Caldas Ramos, Christopher J Collison, and Andrew D White. A review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry. Chemical Science, 2025

    2025

  70. [78]

    ChemPile: A 250GB diverse and curated dataset for chemical foundation models

    Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Martiño Ríos-García, Mohamed Abdelalim, Jack Butler, Bethany Connolly, Tunca Dogan, Marianna Nezhurina, Bünyamin ¸ Sen, Santosh Tirunagari, et al. ChemPile: A 250GB diverse and curated dataset for chemical foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Federated learning in chemical engineering: A tutorial on a framework for privacy-preserving collaboration across distributed data sources

    Siddhant Dutta, Iago Leal de Freitas, Pedro Maciel Xavier, Claudio Miceli de Farias, and David E Bernal Neira. Federated learning in chemical engineering: A tutorial on a framework for privacy-preserving collaboration across distributed data sources. Industrial & Engineering C...

    2025

  72. [80]

    Federated learning from molecules to processes: A perspective

    Jan G Rittig and Clemens Kortmann. Federated learning from molecules to processes: A perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18525, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules

    Raghunathan Ramakrishnan, Pavlo O Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O Anatole von Lilienfeld. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules. Scientific Data, 1(1):140022, 2014. 14 Rittig et al. A preprint

    2014

  74. [82]

    Enumeration of 166 billion organic small molecules in the chemical universe database GDB-17

    Lars Ruddigkeit, Ruud van Deursen, Lorenz C Blum, and Jean-Louis Reymond. Enumeration of 166 billion organic small molecules in the chemical universe database GDB-17. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 52(11):2864–2875, 2012

    2012

  75. [83]

    Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Cr...

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction

    Kevin Yang, Kyle Swanson, Wengong Jin, Connor Coley, Philipp Eiden, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Timothy Hopper, Brian Kelley, Miriam Mathea, et al. Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 59(8):3370–3388, 2019

    2019

  77. [85]

    ChemBERTa: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction

    Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. ChemBERTa: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09885, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Descriptor-based foundation models for molecular property prediction

    Jackson Burns, Akshat Zalte, and William Green. Descriptor-based foundation models for molecular property prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15792, 2025

    2025

  79. [87]

    Exploring data augmentation: Multi-task methods for molecular property prediction

    Muhammad bin Javaid, Timo Gervens, Alexander Mitsos, Martin Grohe, and Jan G Rittig. Exploring data augmentation: Multi-task methods for molecular property prediction. Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 109253, 2025

    2025

  80. [88]

    Molecular property prediction in the ultra-low data regime

    Basem A Eraqi, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Shashank S Nagaraja, and S Mani Sarathy. Molecular property prediction in the ultra-low data regime. Communications Chemistry, 8(1):201, 2025

    2025

  81. [89]

    Towards foundational models for molecular learning on large-scale multi-task datasets

    Dominique Beaini, Shenyang Huang, Joao Alex Cunha, Zhiyi Li, Gabriela Moisescu-Pareja, Oleksandr Dymov, Samuel Maddrell-Mander, Callum McLean, Frederik Wenkel, Luis Müller, et al. Towards foundational models for molecular learning on large-scale multi-task datasets. arXiv prep...

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    MiniMol: A parameter-efficient foundation model for molecular learning

    Kerstin Kläser, Bła ˙zej Banaszewski, Samuel Maddrell-Mander, Callum McLean, Luis Müller, Ali Parviz, Shenyang Huang, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. MiniMol: A parameter-efficient foundation model for molecular learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14986, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Explainable machine learning for property predictions in compound optimization

    Raquel Rodríguez-Pérez and Jürgen Bajorath. Explainable machine learning for property predictions in compound optimization. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 64(24):17744–17752, 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    Wellawatte, Heta A

    Geemi P. Wellawatte, Heta A. Gandhi, Aditi Seshadri, and Andrew D. White. A perspective on explanations of molecular prediction models. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    Explainability in graph neural networks: A taxonomic survey

    Hao Yuan, Haiyang Yu, Shurui Gui, and Shuiwang Ji. Explainability in graph neural networks: A taxonomic survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(5):5782–5799, 2023

    2023

  86. [94]

    Global concept explanations for graphs by contrastive learning

    Jonas Teufel and Pascal Friederich. Global concept explanations for graphs by contrastive learning. In World Conference on Explainable Artificial Intelligence, pages 184–208. Springer, 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Hierarchical matrix completion for the prediction of properties of binary mixtures

    Dominik Gond, Jan-Tobias Sohns, Heike Leitte, Hans Hasse, and Fabian Jirasek. Hierarchical matrix completion for the prediction of properties of binary mixtures. Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 109122, 2025

    2025

  88. [96]

    From contrastive to abductive explanations and back again

    Alexey Ignatiev, Nina Narodytska, Nicholas Asher, and Joao Marques-Silva. From contrastive to abductive explanations and back again. In International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 335–355. Springer, 2020

    2020

  89. [97]

    Wellawatte, Aditi Seshadri, and Andrew D

    Geemi P. Wellawatte, Aditi Seshadri, and Andrew D. White. Model agnostic generation of counterfactual explanations for molecules. Chemical Science, 13(13):3697–3705, 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Lior Hirschfeld, Kyle Swanson, Kevin Yang, Regina Barzilay, and Connor W. Coley. Uncertainty quantification using neural networks for molecular property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 60(8):3770–3780, 2020

    2020

  91. [99]

    Uncertainty quantifica- tion for molecular property predictions with graph neural architecture search

    Shengli Jiang, Shiyi Qin, Reid C Van Lehn, Prasanna Balaprakash, and Victor M Zavala. Uncertainty quantifica- tion for molecular property predictions with graph neural architecture search. Digital Discovery, 3(8):1534–1553, 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Bayesian uncertainty quantification of graph neural networks using stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Qinghe Gaoa, Daniel C Miedemaa, Yidong Zhaob, Jana M Weberc, Qian Taob, and Artur M Schweidtmanna. Bayesian uncertainty quantification of graph neural networks using stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Systems and Control Transactions, pages 1360–1364, 2025. 15 Rittig...

    2025

  93. [101]

    McGill, Florence H

    Esther Heid, Charles J. McGill, Florence H. Vermeire, and William H. Green. Characterizing uncertainty in machine learning for chemistry. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(13):4012–4029, 2023

    2023

  94. [102]

    Explainable graph neural networks in chemistry: Combining attribution and uncertainty quantification

    Leonid Komissarov, Nenad Manevski, Katrin Groebke Zbinden, and Lisa Sach-Peltason. Explainable graph neural networks in chemistry: Combining attribution and uncertainty quantification. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2025

    2025

  95. [103]

    Improving counterfactual truthfulness for molecular property prediction through uncertainty quantification

    Jonas Teufel, Annika Leinweber, and Pascal Friederich. Improving counterfactual truthfulness for molecular property prediction through uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02606, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

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

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

    2023

  97. [105]

    Rittig, Martin Ritzert, Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Martin Ritzert, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Stefanie Winkler, Jana M. Weber, Philipp Morsch, Karl Alexander Heufer, Martin Grohe, Alexander Mitsos, and Manuel Dahmen. Graph machine learning for design of high–octane fuels. AIChE Journal, 69(4):e17971, 2023

    2023

  98. [106]

    Artificial intelligence for novel fuel design

    S Mani Sarathy and Basem A Eraqi. Artificial intelligence for novel fuel design. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 40(1-4):105630, 2024

    2024

  99. [107]

    Inverse design of copolymers including stoichiometry and chain architecture

    Gabriel V ogel and Jana M Weber. Inverse design of copolymers including stoichiometry and chain architecture. Chemical Science, 16(3):1161–1178, 2025

    2025

  100. [108]

    GraphXForm: graph transformer for computer-aided molecular design

    Jonathan Pirnay, Jan G Rittig, Alexander B Wolf, Martin Grohe, Jakob Burger, Alexander Mitsos, and Dominik G Grimm. GraphXForm: graph transformer for computer-aided molecular design. Digital Discovery, 4(4):1052– 1065, 2025

    2025

  101. [109]

    Generative molecular design with steerable and granular synthesizability control

    Jeff Guo, Víctor Sabanza-Gil, Zlatko Jon ˇcev, Jeremy S Luterbacher, and Philippe Schwaller. Generative molecular design with steerable and granular synthesizability control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08774, 2025

    2025

  102. [110]

    ASKCOS: Open-source, data-driven synthesis planning

    Zhengkai Tu, Sourabh J Choure, Mun Hong Fong, Jihye Roh, Itai Levin, Kevin Yu, Joonyoung F Joung, Nathan Morgan, Shih-Cheng Li, Xiaoqi Sun, et al. ASKCOS: Open-source, data-driven synthesis planning. Accounts of Chemical Research, 58(11):1764–1775, 2025

    2025

  103. [111]

    Mixed-integer optimisation of graph neural networks for computer-aided molecular design

    Tom McDonald, Calvin Tsay, Artur M Schweidtmann, and Neil Yorke-Smith. Mixed-integer optimisation of graph neural networks for computer-aided molecular design. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 185:108660, 2024

    2024

  104. [112]

    Optimizing over trained GNNs via symmetry breaking

    Shiqiang Zhang, Juan Campos, Christian Feldmann, David Walz, Frederik Sandfort, Miriam Mathea, Calvin Tsay, and Ruth Misener. Optimizing over trained GNNs via symmetry breaking. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 44898–44924, 2023

    2023

  105. [113]

    Deterministic global optimization for sample-efficient molecular design with generative machine learning

    Jan G Rittig, Malte Franke, and Alexander Mitsos. Deterministic global optimization for sample-efficient molecular design with generative machine learning. AI for Accelerated Materials Design-NeurIPS 2024, 2024

    2024

  106. [114]

    A novel machine learning-based optimization approach for the molecular design of solvents

    Zihao Wang, Teng Zhou, and Kai Sundmacher. A novel machine learning-based optimization approach for the molecular design of solvents. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, volume 51, pages 1477–1482. Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  107. [115]

    COSMO-CAMD: A framework for optimization-based computer-aided molecular design using COSMO-RS

    Jan Scheffczyk, Lorenz Fleitmann, Annett Schwarz, Matthias Lampe, André Bardow, and Kai Leonhard. COSMO-CAMD: A framework for optimization-based computer-aided molecular design using COSMO-RS. Chemical Engineering Science, 159:84–92, 2017

    2017

  108. [116]

    Challenges and opportunities for computer-aided molecular and process design approaches in advancing sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing

    Claire S Adjiman and Amparo Galindo. Challenges and opportunities for computer-aided molecular and process design approaches in advancing sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 47:101073, 2025

    2025

  109. [117]

    An overview of computer-aided molecular and process design

    Ashfaq Iftakher, Mohammed Sadaf Monjur, and MM Faruque Hasan. An overview of computer-aided molecular and process design. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 95(3):315–333, 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Molecule superstructures for computer-aided molecular and process design

    Philipp Rehner, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. Molecule superstructures for computer-aided molecular and process design. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 8(4):488–499, 2023

    2023

  111. [119]

    Integrated design of solvent-antisolvent mixtures and crystallization processes powered by machine learning

    Luca Bosetti, Benedikt Winter, Johanna Lindfeld, and André Bardow. Integrated design of solvent-antisolvent mixtures and crystallization processes powered by machine learning. Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 109272, 2025

    2025

  112. [120]

    OMLT: Optimization & machine learning toolkit

    Francesco Ceccon, Jordan Jalving, Joshua Haddad, Alexander Thebelt, Calvin Tsay, Carl D Laird, and Ruth Misener. OMLT: Optimization & machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(349):1–8, 2022

    2022

  113. [121]

    Schweidtmann, Linus Netze, and Alexander Mitsos

    Artur M. Schweidtmann, Linus Netze, and Alexander Mitsos. MeLOn - Machine Learning Models for Optimiza- tion. 2021. URL: https://git.rwth-aachen.de/avt-svt/public/MeLOn (accessed on 01.08.2025). 16 Rittig et al. A preprint

    2021

  114. [122]

    Generative artificial intelligence in chemical engineering

    Artur M Schweidtmann. Generative artificial intelligence in chemical engineering. Nature Chemical Engineering, 1(3):193–193, 2024

    2024

  115. [123]

    Schweidtmann

    Qinghe Gao and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Deep reinforcement learning for process design: Review and perspective. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 44:101012, 2024

    2024

  116. [124]

    Deep reinforcement learning enables conceptual design of processes for separating azeotropic mixtures without prior knowledge

    Quirin Göttl, Jonathan Pirnay, Jakob Burger, and Dominik G Grimm. Deep reinforcement learning enables conceptual design of processes for separating azeotropic mixtures without prior knowledge. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 194:108975, 2025

    2025

  117. [125]

    Multi-agent systems for chemical engineering: A review and perspective

    Sophia Rupprecht, Qinghe Gao, Tanuj Karia, and Artur M Schweidtmann. Multi-agent systems for chemical engineering: A review and perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07880, 2025. 17

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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