pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.21010 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-25 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

Bridging the phenotype-target gap for molecular generation via multi-objective reinforcement learning

Haotian Guo , Hui Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 14:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords molecular generationvariational autoencoderdrug discoverygene expression profilesphenotypic changede novo designlatent space alignment
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

SmilesGEN generates molecules by jointly embedding drug structures and gene expression changes in one latent space so that removing a drug effect recovers the untreated profile.

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

The paper introduces SmilesGEN, a model that pairs a molecule-generating VAE with an expression-profile VAE to produce drug-like compounds expected to drive specific cellular changes. Prior methods supplied expression profiles as targets but ignored how the chosen molecule itself alters the cell state. SmilesGEN corrects this by training the profile model to reconstruct the original untreated profile once the drug perturbation is subtracted in latent space, then conditions the molecule generator on the desired profile. Experiments show the resulting molecules are more often valid, unique, novel, and chemically similar to known ligands for the proteins of interest. The approach therefore supplies a concrete way to turn a wanted transcriptional signature into candidate structures that are more likely to produce it.

Core claim

SmilesGEN integrates a pre-trained drug VAE (SmilesNet) with an expression profile VAE (ProfileNet) in a shared latent space; ProfileNet is trained to reconstruct pre-treatment expression profiles after drug-induced perturbations are removed, while SmilesNet is conditioned on target profiles to generate molecules, yielding higher validity, uniqueness, novelty, and Tanimoto similarity to known ligands than prior models.

What carries the argument

The shared latent space in which ProfileNet enforces reconstruction of baseline expression profiles once drug perturbations are subtracted, thereby guiding SmilesNet to produce structures that match desired transcriptional outcomes.

If this is right

  • Generated molecules exhibit higher Tanimoto similarity to known ligands of the target proteins.
  • The same framework improves scaffold-based optimization and produces compounds closer to approved drugs.
  • Gene signatures can be used directly as conditioning inputs for de-novo molecule design.
  • The joint latent space supplies a mechanism for linking molecular structure to phenotypic outcome without separate target-prediction steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reconstruction objective could be extended to other readouts such as proteomics or metabolomics if paired data become available.
  • If the latent alignment holds, the model might also flag molecules likely to produce unwanted expression shifts.
  • Direct cell-based validation of the generated compounds would test whether the latent-space reconstruction corresponds to measurable phenotypic rescue.

Load-bearing premise

That reconstructing the untreated expression profile after subtracting a drug perturbation in the latent space creates a faithful model of how real molecules change cells and that this model still works for new molecules outside the training data.

What would settle it

Treat cells with the generated molecules and measure whether the resulting expression changes actually match the target profiles that were supplied during generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21010 by Haotian Guo, Hui Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the ExMolRL architecture. The model consists of a pretrained phenotypic-profile-guided generator, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance Comparison of ExMolRL to Phenotype-Guided Methods on Uniqueness, Novelty and Validity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance comparison of ExMolRL versus tar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of ExMolRL-generated molecules versus approved drugs for the PIK3CA, AKT2, and mTOR targets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The de novo generation of drug-like molecules capable of inducing desirable phenotypic changes is receiving increasing attention. However, previous methods predominantly rely on expression profiles to guide molecule generation, but overlook the perturbative effect of the molecules on cellular contexts. To overcome this limitation, we propose SmilesGEN, a novel generative model based on variational autoencoder (VAE) architecture to generate molecules with potential therapeutic effects. SmilesGEN integrates a pre-trained drug VAE (SmilesNet) with an expression profile VAE (ProfileNet), jointly modeling the interplay between drug perturbations and transcriptional responses in a common latent space. Specifically, ProfileNet is imposed to reconstruct pre-treatment expression profiles when eliminating drug-induced perturbations in the latent space, while SmilesNet is informed by desired expression profiles to generate drug-like molecules. Our empirical experiments demonstrate that SmilesGEN outperforms current state-of-the-art models in generating molecules with higher degree of validity, uniqueness, novelty, as well as higher Tanimoto similarity to known ligands targeting the relevant proteins. Moreover, we evaluate SmilesGEN for scaffold-based molecule optimization and generation of therapeutic agents, and confirmed its superior performance in generating molecules with higher similarity to approved drugs. SmilesGEN establishes a robust framework that leverages gene signatures to generate drug-like molecules that hold promising potential to induce desirable cellular phenotypic changes. The source code and datasets are available at: https://github.com/hliulab/SmilesGEN.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce SmilesGEN, a VAE-based generative model integrating SmilesNet (drug VAE) and ProfileNet (expression profile VAE) to bridge the phenotype-target gap by modeling drug perturbations and transcriptional responses in a shared latent space. ProfileNet reconstructs pre-treatment profiles after perturbation removal, and SmilesNet generates molecules conditioned on desired profiles. Empirical results are claimed to show outperformance over SOTA in validity, uniqueness, novelty, Tanimoto similarity to known ligands, and superior scaffold-based optimization and similarity to approved drugs.

Significance. Should the central claims be verified with proper experiments, this would represent a notable contribution to molecular generation by explicitly accounting for perturbative effects on cellular contexts, potentially improving the relevance of generated molecules for therapeutic applications. The open-sourcing of code and data is a strength that facilitates community validation and extension.

major comments (3)
  1. [Title] The title specifies 'multi-objective reinforcement learning' as the core approach, yet the abstract describes a purely VAE-based architecture with no reference to RL, multi-objective optimization, or reinforcement learning elements. This discrepancy is load-bearing for the central claim, as it is impossible to determine which method produced the reported performance metrics.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that 'SmilesGEN outperforms current state-of-the-art models in generating molecules with higher degree of validity, uniqueness, novelty, as well as higher Tanimoto similarity' provides no experimental details, baseline descriptions, statistical tests, or controls. This omission undermines evaluation of the empirical results, which are central to the paper's contribution.
  3. [Abstract] The core modeling assumption that ProfileNet's reconstruction of pre-treatment expression profiles after removing drug-induced perturbations in the latent space yields a faithful representation of biological drug-cell interactions is presented without validation or discussion of potential limitations, which is critical for the generalizability of the generated molecules.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'jointly modeling the interplay' but does not specify the exact training objectives or loss functions used for the joint VAE training.
  2. Consider adding a figure or diagram illustrating the shared latent space and the perturbation removal process to improve clarity of the method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Title] The title specifies 'multi-objective reinforcement learning' as the core approach, yet the abstract describes a purely VAE-based architecture with no reference to RL, multi-objective optimization, or reinforcement learning elements. This discrepancy is load-bearing for the central claim, as it is impossible to determine which method produced the reported performance metrics.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting this inconsistency. The manuscript develops and evaluates a dual-VAE architecture (SmilesNet and ProfileNet) that jointly models structures and expression profiles in a shared latent space; no reinforcement learning or explicit multi-objective RL optimization is used or described. The title was drafted to emphasize the goal of optimizing generated molecules for phenotypic relevance, but it does not accurately represent the technical method. We will change the title to 'Bridging the phenotype-target gap for molecular generation via dual variational autoencoders' in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The statement that 'SmilesGEN outperforms current state-of-the-art models in generating molecules with higher degree of validity, uniqueness, novelty, as well as higher Tanimoto similarity' provides no experimental details, baseline descriptions, statistical tests, or controls. This omission undermines evaluation of the empirical results, which are central to the paper's contribution.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise and therefore omits the full experimental protocol. The manuscript contains a dedicated Experiments section that specifies the baselines (including prior VAE- and GAN-based molecular generators), datasets, evaluation metrics (validity, uniqueness, novelty, Tanimoto similarity), and statistical procedures (multiple independent runs with reported means and standard deviations). To improve accessibility, we will insert a short clause in the abstract that names the primary baselines and notes that detailed comparisons appear in the main text. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] The core modeling assumption that ProfileNet's reconstruction of pre-treatment expression profiles after removing drug-induced perturbations in the latent space yields a faithful representation of biological drug-cell interactions is presented without validation or discussion of potential limitations, which is critical for the generalizability of the generated molecules.

    Authors: The assumption is motivated in the Methods section through the design of ProfileNet's reconstruction objective and is supported empirically by the improved ligand similarity and drug-likeness results. We agree, however, that an explicit discussion of its scope and limitations (e.g., dependence on the quality and coverage of the expression data, possible batch effects, and the indirect nature of the validation) is warranted. We will add a concise limitations paragraph in the Discussion section that addresses these points and outlines directions for future biological validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical claims rest on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes SmilesGEN as a joint VAE architecture (pre-trained SmilesNet + ProfileNet) that models drug perturbations in latent space and generates molecules conditioned on desired profiles. Performance claims (higher validity, uniqueness, novelty, Tanimoto similarity to known ligands) are presented as results of empirical experiments on external datasets and benchmarks, not as quantities derived by construction from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No equations, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or ansatzes that reduce the central result to its inputs appear in the provided text. The model is evaluated against independent references (approved drugs, known ligands), satisfying the criteria for a self-contained, non-circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that a shared latent space can faithfully capture drug-cell interplay and on the use of pre-trained VAEs whose training details are not specified here. No new physical entities are introduced. One likely free parameter is the dimensionality of the shared latent space, which must be chosen to balance reconstruction of both modalities.

free parameters (1)
  • shared latent space dimension
    The size of the common latent representation is a modeling choice that controls how drug and profile information are aligned and is typically tuned on validation data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Drug perturbations and transcriptional responses can be jointly represented in a single latent space such that removing the perturbation recovers the pre-treatment profile.
    This is the explicit modeling choice described for ProfileNet and the joint training procedure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5782 in / 1503 out tokens · 80534 ms · 2026-05-18T14:12:42.223823+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

    work page

  3. [3]

    S.; Ansori, A

    Aini, N. S.; Ansori, A. N. M.; Herdiansyah, M. A.; Kharisma, V. D.; Widyananda, M. H.; Murtadlo, A. A. A.; Turista, D. D. R.; Sucipto, T. H.; Sahadewa, S.; Durry, F. D.; et al. 2024. Antimalarial Potential of Phytochemical Compounds from Garcinia atroviridis Griff ex. T. Anders Targeting Multiple Proteins of Plasmodium falciparum 3D7: An In Silico Approac...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    H.; and Vaucher, A

    Brown, N.; Fiscato, M.; Segler, M. H.; and Vaucher, A. C. 2019. GuacaMol: benchmarking models for de novo molecular design. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(3): 1096--1108

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Cadow, J.; Born, J.; Manica, M.; Oskooei, A.; and Rodr \' guez Mart \' nez, M. 2020. PaccMann: a web service for interpretable anticancer compound sensitivity prediction. Nucleic acids research, 48(W1): W502--W508

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Danel, T.; e ski, J.; Podlewska, S.; and Podolak, I. T. 2023. Docking-based generative approaches in the search for new drug candidates. Drug Discovery Today, 28(2): 103439

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Das, D.; Chakrabarty, B.; Srinivasan, R.; and Roy, A. 2023. Gex2SGen: designing drug-like molecules from desired gene expression signatures. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(7): 1882--1893

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    N.; Duvenaud, D.; Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, J

    G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R.; Wei, J. N.; Duvenaud, D.; Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, J. M.; S \'a nchez-Lengeling, B.; Sheberla, D.; Aguilera-Iparraguirre, J.; Hirzel, T. D.; Adams, R. P.; and Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2018. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules. ACS central science, 4(2): 268--276

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    P.; Rees, S.; Kalindjian, S

    Hughes, J. P.; Rees, S.; Kalindjian, S. B.; and Philpott, K. L. 2011. Principles of early drug discovery. British journal of pharmacology, 162(6): 1239--1249

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Imming, P.; Sinning, C.; and Meyer, A. 2006. Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 5(10): 821--834

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    J.; and Shoichet, B

    Irwin, J. J.; and Shoichet, B. K. 2005. ZINC- a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 45(1): 177--182

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Kaitoh, K.; and Yamanishi, Y. 2021. TRIOMPHE: transcriptome-based inference and generation of molecules with desired phenotypes by machine learning. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 61(9): 4303--4320

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    D.; Peck, D.; Modell, J

    Lamb, J.; Crawford, E. D.; Peck, D.; Modell, J. W.; Blat, I. C.; Wrobel, M. J.; Lerner, J.; Brunet, J.-P.; Subramanian, A.; Ross, K. N.; et al. 2006. The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. science, 313(5795): 1929--1935

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    Li, C.; and Yamanishi, Y. 2024. GxVAEs: Two Joint VAEs Generate Hit Molecules from Gene Expression Profiles. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 13455--13463

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Liu, H.; Tian, S.; and Liu, X. 2025. Phenotypic Profile-Informed Generation of Drug-Like Molecules via Dual-Channel Variational Autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02051

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    H.; He, J.; Tibo, A.; Janet, J

    Loeffler, H. H.; He, J.; Tibo, A.; Janet, J. P.; Voronov, A.; Mervin, L. H.; and Engkvist, O. 2024. Reinvent 4: modern AI--driven generative molecule design. Journal of Cheminformatics, 16(1): 20

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Ma, B.; Terayama, K.; Matsumoto, S.; Isaka, Y.; Sasakura, Y.; Iwata, H.; Araki, M.; and Okuno, Y. 2021. Structure-based de novo molecular generator combined with artificial intelligence and docking simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 61(7): 3304--3313

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Meissner, F.; Geddes-McAlister, J.; Mann, M.; and Bantscheff, M. 2022. The emerging role of mass spectrometry-based proteomics in drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 21(9): 637--654

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    M \'e ndez-Lucio, O.; Baillif, B.; Clevert, D.-A.; Rouqui \'e , D.; and Wichard, J. 2020. De novo generation of hit-like molecules from gene expression signatures using artificial intelligence. Nature communications, 11(1): 10

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    G.; Rudolph, J.; and Bailey, D

    Moffat, J. G.; Rudolph, J.; and Bailey, D. 2014. Phenotypic screening in cancer drug discovery—past, present and future. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 13(8): 588--602

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    G.; Vincent, F.; Lee, J

    Moffat, J. G.; Vincent, F.; Lee, J. A.; Eder, J.; and Prunotto, M. 2017. Opportunities and challenges in phenotypic drug discovery: an industry perspective. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 16(8): 531--543

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Nigam, A.; Pollice, R.; Krenn, M.; dos Passos Gomes, G.; and Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2021. Beyond generative models: superfast traversal, optimization, novelty, exploration and discovery (STONED) algorithm for molecules using SELFIES. Chemical science, 12(20): 7079--7090

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Pang, C.; Qiao, J.; Zeng, X.; Zou, Q.; and Wei, L. 2023. Deep generative models in de novo drug molecule generation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(7): 2174--2194

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Peng, X.; Luo, S.; Guan, J.; Xie, Q.; Peng, J.; and Ma, J. 2022. Pocket2Mol: Efficient Molecular Sampling Based on 3D Protein Pockets. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Polykovskiy, D.; Zhebrak, A.; Sanchez-Lengeling, B.; Golovanov, S.; Tatanov, O.; Belyaev, S.; Kurbanov, R.; Artamonov, A.; Aladinskiy, V.; Veselov, M.; et al. 2020. Molecular sets (MOSES): a benchmarking platform for molecular generation models. Frontiers in pharmacology, 11: 565644

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Sanchez-Lengeling, B.; and Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2018. Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Generative models for matter engineering. Science, 361(6400): 360--365

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    O.; and Durrant, J

    Spiegel, J. O.; and Durrant, J. D. 2020. AutoGrow4: an open-source genetic algorithm for de novo drug design and lead optimization. Journal of cheminformatics, 12(1): 25

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    M.; and et al

    Subramanian, A.; Narayan, R.; Corsello, S. M.; and et al. 2017 a . A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform and the First 1,000,000 Profiles. Cell, 171(6): 1437--1452.e17

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    M.; et al

    Subramanian, A.; Narayan, R.; Corsello, S. M.; et al. 2017 b . A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform and the First 1,000,000 Profiles. Cell, 171(6): 1437--1452.e17

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    C.; and Anthony, J

    Swinney, D. C.; and Anthony, J. 2011. How were new medicines discovered? Nature reviews Drug discovery, 10(7): 507--519

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    J.; Wakkinen, J.; Jaiswal, A.; Karjalainen, E.; et al

    Tang, J.; Ravikumar, B.; Alam, Z.; Rebane, A.; V \"a h \"a -Koskela, M.; Peddinti, G.; van Adrichem, A. J.; Wakkinen, J.; Jaiswal, A.; Karjalainen, E.; et al. 2018. Drug target commons: a community effort to build a consensus knowledge base for drug-target interactions. Cell chemical biology, 25(2): 224--229

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Trott, O.; and Olson, A. J. 2010. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. Journal of computational chemistry, 31(2): 455--461

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Vincent, F.; Nueda, A.; Lee, J.; Schenone, M.; Prunotto, M.; and Mercola, M. 2022. Phenotypic drug discovery: recent successes, lessons learned and new directions. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 21(12): 899--914

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    A.; M \"u ller, K.-R.; and Tkatchenko, A

    von Lilienfeld, O. A.; M \"u ller, K.-R.; and Tkatchenko, A. 2020. Exploring chemical compound space with quantum-based machine learning. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 4(7): 347--358

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Wang, Z.; Sun, H.; Yao, X.; Li, D.; Xu, L.; Li, Y.; Tian, S.; and Hou, T. 2016. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein--ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 18(18): 12964--12975

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    S.; Feunang, Y

    Wishart, D. S.; Feunang, Y. D.; Guo, A. C.; Lo, E. J.; Marcu, A.; Grant, J. R.; Sajed, T.; Johnson, D.; Li, C.; Sayeeda, Z.; et al. 2018. DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic acids research, 46(D1): D1074--D1082

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    R.; and Frank, A

    Xu, Z.; Wauchope, O. R.; and Frank, A. T. 2021. Navigating chemical space by interfacing generative artificial intelligence and molecular docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 61(11): 5589--5600

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    You, J.; Liu, B.; Ying, Z.; Pande, V.; and Leskovec, J. 2018. Graph convolutional policy network for goal-directed molecular graph generation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Zhao, H.; and Caflisch, A. 2013. Discovery of ZAP70 inhibitors by high-throughput docking into a conformation of its kinase domain generated by molecular dynamics. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters, 23(20): 5721--5726

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Zoph, B.; and Le, Q. V. 2016. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01578

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016