journal article·2025-07Open access

Trustworthy Inverse Molecular Design via Alignment with Molecular Dynamics

Kevin Tirta Wijaya, Navid Ansari, Hans‐Peter Seidel, Vahid Babaei

Advanced Science· Volume 12· Issue 27

Abstract

Abstract Data‐driven inverse molecular design (IMD) has attracted significant attention in recent years. Despite the remarkable progress, existing IMD methods lag behind in terms of trustworthiness , as indicated by their misalignment to the ground‐truth function that models the molecular dynamics. Here, TrustMol, an IMD method built to be trustworthy is proposed by inverting a reliable molecular property predictor. TrustMol first constructs a latent space with a novel variational autoencoder (VAE) and trains an ensemble of property predictors to learn the mapping from the latent space to the property space. The training samples for the ensemble are obtained from a new reacquisition method to ensure that the samples are representative of the latent space. To generate a desired molecule, TrustMol optimizes a latent design by minimizing both the predictive error and the uncertainty quantified by the ensemble. As a result, TrustMol achieves state‐of‐the‐art performance in terms of IMD accuracy, and more importantly, it is aligned with the ground‐truth function that indicates trustworthiness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation · Computational Drug Discovery Methods

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Max Planck Institute for Informatics Saarland Informatic Campus 66123 Saarbruecken Germany

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/s41560-018-0147-710.1038/s41560-018-0147-7 ↗
2. 10.1038/s41560-020-0567-z10.1038/s41560-020-0567-z ↗
3. 10.1038/nature1371310.1038/nature13713 ↗
4. 10.1038/s41586-020-2577-110.1038/s41586-020-2577-1 ↗
5. Ansari N. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2022 · 35 · 867510.52202/068431-0631 ↗
6. Luo S. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2021 · 34 · 6229
7. Y.Luo S.Ji inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).2022.
8. Gebauer N. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2019 · 32
9. Garcia Satorras V. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2021 · 34 · 4181
10. E.Hoogeboom V. G.Satorras C.Vignac M.Welling inInternational conference on machine learning.PMLR New York2022 pp.8867–8887.
11. M.Xu A. S.Powers R. O.Dror S.Ermon J.Leskovec inInternational Conference on Machine Learning PMLR New York2023 pp.38592–38610.
12. 10.1021/acscentsci.7b0057210.1021/acscentsci.7b00572 ↗
13. P.Eckmann K.Sun B.Zhao M.Feng M.Gilson R.Yu inInternational Conference on Machine Learning PMLR New York2022 pp.5777–5792.
14. Z.‐Q. J.Xu Y.Zhang T.Luo Y.Xiao Z.Ma arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.065232019.
15. N.Rahaman A.Baratin D.Arpit F.Draxler M.Lin F.Hamprecht Y.Bengio A.Courville inInternational Conference on Machine Learning PMLR New York2019 pp.5301–5310.
16. D. P.Kingma M.Welling arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.61142013.
17. 10.1088/2632-2153/aba94710.1088/2632-2153/aba947 ↗
18. NIST Computational chemistry comparison and benchmark database https://cccbdb.nist.gov/diplistx.asp#NISThydrocarbon(accessed: January2024).
19. 10.1021/jm020155c10.1021/jm020155c ↗
20. RDKitOpen‐source cheminformatics 2023 https://www.rdkit.org.
21. Smith D. G. · J. Chem. Phys. · 2020 · 152 · 18
22. Lakshminarayanan B. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2017 · 30
23. B.Settles2009.
24. P. I.Frazier arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.028112018.
25. B.Trabucco X.Geng A.Kumar S.Levine inInternational Conference on Machine Learning PMLR New York2022 pp.21658–21676.
26. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b0057710.1021/acs.jctc.7b00577 ↗
27. 10.1002/minf.20150010510.1002/minf.201500105 ↗
28. 10.1039/D2DD00003B10.1039/D2DD00003B ↗
29. 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c0048710.1021/acs.jcim.2c00487 ↗
30. 10.1038/sdata.2014.2210.1038/sdata.2014.22 ↗
31. Paszke A. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2019 · 32
32. I.Loshchilov F.Hutter arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.051012017.
33. I.Loshchilov F.Hutter arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.039832016.
34. V. G.Satorras E.Hoogeboom M.Welling inInternational conference on machine learning PMLR New York2021 pp.9323–9332.
35. 10.1214/aoms/117772969410.1214/aoms/1177729694 ↗
36. 10.1021/ar50020a00210.1021/ar50020a002 ↗
37. Kubinyi H. · 1993
38. 10.1016/S0031-6865(97)00042-310.1016/S0031-6865(97)00042-3 ↗
39. 10.1007/BF0012440810.1007/BF00124408 ↗
40. 10.1021/ci00024a00310.1021/ci00024a003 ↗
41. 10.1021/ci980209k10.1021/ci980209k ↗
42. Bengio E. · Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. · 2021 · 34
43. 10.1186/s13321-024-00812-510.1186/s13321-024-00812-5 ↗
44. 10.1186/s13321-017-0235-x10.1186/s13321-017-0235-x ↗
45. 10.1107/S056773947600187310.1107/S0567739476001873 ↗
46. E.Zitzler L.Thiele inInternational conference on parallel problem solving from nature Springer Berlin1998 pp.292–301.10.1007/BFb0056872 ↗
47. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.299056710.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567 ↗