3D Molecular Generation: From Spatial Representations to Drug Discovery Applications

Abstract

The integration of three-dimensional molecular representations into generative artificial intelligence is revolutionizing computational drug discovery. This article provides a comprehensive analysis for researchers and drug development professionals, covering the foundational shift from traditional 2D methods to sophisticated 3D-aware models that capture spatial geometry and molecular interactions. We explore cutting-edge methodological approaches including diffusion models, graph neural networks, and geometric learning architectures, alongside their practical applications in structure-based drug design and scaffold hopping. The content addresses critical optimization challenges and validation frameworks necessary for generating chemically accurate, energetically stable molecules, while comparing performance across leading models. By synthesizing recent advances and persistent challenges, this review establishes a roadmap for leveraging 3D generative models to accelerate the creation of novel therapeutic compounds with tailored properties.

The 3D Revolution: From Flat Representations to Spatial Molecular Intelligence

The Limitations of Traditional 1D and 2D Molecular Representations

Molecular representation serves as the foundational step in computational drug discovery, bridging the gap between chemical structures and their biological activities. Traditional 1D and 2D representations, including Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) strings and molecular fingerprints, have been the workhorses of cheminformatics for decades. These representations encode molecular structures using linear notations or predefined structural patterns, enabling quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling and virtual screening. However, the increasing complexity of modern drug discovery demands a more nuanced approach to molecular characterization. This application note details the inherent limitations of traditional 1D and 2D representations, framing the discussion within the broader thesis that 3D molecular representations offer a more chemically accurate foundation for generative models in drug discovery research.

Categorization and Limitations of Traditional Representations

Traditional molecular representations can be broadly classified into 1D descriptors and 2D topological representations. 1D descriptors include atom counts, molecular weight, and fragment counts, which provide summarized molecular properties. 2D representations encompass topological descriptors, molecular graphs based on covalent bonds, and molecular fingerprints such as Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) that encode substructural information [1] [2]. Despite their widespread use, these representations suffer from fundamental limitations that impede their effectiveness in predictive modeling and generative tasks.

Table 1: Key Limitations of Traditional 1D and 2D Molecular Representations

Representation Type	Specific Examples	Core Limitations	Impact on Predictive Modeling
1D Descriptors	Molecular weight, atom counts, fragment counts [1]	Lack structural and topological information; oversimplify molecular complexity [2]	Limited predictive power for properties dependent on spatial arrangement
2D Structural Keys	MACCS keys [3]	Predefined structural patterns may miss relevant, novel, or complex substructures [4]	Reduced ability to generalize across diverse chemical spaces
2D Fingerprints	Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) [3]	Capture local environments but ignore global molecular topology and stereochemistry [4] [2]	Limited accuracy for properties influenced by long-range interactions or 3D conformation
2D Molecular Graphs	Covalent-bond-based graphs [1]	Exclude crucial non-covalent interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces) [1]	Inadequate for predicting binding affinity and properties reliant on intermolecular forces
String-Based Representations	SMILES strings [3] [4]	Single molecule can have multiple valid strings; inherent ambiguity; poor representation of structural similarity [4] [2]	Models struggle with robustness and learning consistent structure-property relationships

The de facto standard of covalent-bond-based molecular graphs presents a particularly significant constraint. These representations completely ignore non-covalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces, which are critical for understanding molecular properties and biological activities [1]. Research has demonstrated that molecular graphs constructed solely from non-covalent interactions can achieve comparable or even superior performance to covalent-bond-based models in property prediction tasks, highlighting the profound limitation of ignoring these interactions in traditional representations [1].

Experimental Validation of Limitations

Protocol: Benchmarking Representation Performance in Property Prediction

Objective: To quantitatively compare the predictive performance of models using traditional 1D/2D representations against those incorporating 3D information.

Materials:

• Dataset: Standard benchmark datasets (e.g., MoleculeNet, including BACE, ClinTox, SIDER, Tox21, HIV, ESOL) [3] [1].
• Representations:
  • 1D: RDKit 1D descriptors (e.g., molecular weight, atom counts).
  • 2D: ECFP4/ECFP6 fingerprints, MACCS keys, covalent-bond-based molecular graphs [3].
  • 3D: Molecular Geometric Deep Learning (Mol-GDL) representations incorporating both covalent and non-covalent interactions [1].
• Models: Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for graph representations; Random Forest or SVM for fingerprints and descriptors.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Apply rigorous dataset splitting (e.g., scaffold split) to assess generalization [3]. Use canonical SMILES for 1D/2D representations and generate 3D conformers for 3D representations.
• Feature Generation:
  • For 1D/2D models: Generate ECFP6 fingerprints (radius 3, 2048 bits) using RDKit. Compute RDKit 2D descriptors and normalize them [3].
  • For Mol-GDL: Generate multiple molecular graphs, G(I), where edges are defined between atoms whose Euclidean distance falls within a specific range, I (e.g., [0,2) Ã… for covalent, [2,4) Ã… for hydrogen bonds, [4,6) Ã… for van der Waals) [1].
• Model Training & Evaluation: Train each model architecture on its corresponding representation. Evaluate using relevant metrics (e.g., ROC-AUC, RMSE) with rigorous statistical testing over multiple data splits to ensure significance [3].

Expected Outcomes: Models utilizing 3D representations that capture non-covalent interactions (Mol-GDL) are expected to demonstrate statistically significant performance improvements on datasets where molecular properties are influenced by 3D geometry and intermolecular forces [1].

Quantitative Evidence from Systematic Studies

A systematic study training over 62,000 models revealed that representation learning models, including those on SMILES and molecular graphs, exhibit limited performance in molecular property prediction for most datasets [3]. This extensive evaluation underscores that the choice of representation fundamentally constrains model performance. Furthermore, the study identified that dataset size is particularly critical for representation learning models to excel, suggesting that simpler representations may fail to capture complex patterns without massive data [3].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Different Molecular Representations

Representation Paradigm	Sample Model/Approach	Key Advantage	Reported Performance
2D Fingerprints	ECFP6 + Random Forest [3]	Computational efficiency, interpretability	Serves as a strong baseline on many classification tasks [3]
2D Graph (Covalent-only)	Standard GNN [1]	End-to-end learning from atomic structure	Underperforms on specific tasks like predicting binding affinities [1]
3D Graph (Covalent & Non-Covalent)	Mol-GDL [1]	Incorporates full spectrum of atomic interactions	Achieves better performance than state-of-the-art methods on 14 benchmark datasets [1]

Implications for Generative Models and the Path to 3D Representations

The limitations of 1D and 2D representations become critically apparent in generative models for molecular design. These models aim to create novel, valid, and optimal molecules, a process fundamentally constrained by the input representation.

• Invalid Structure Generation: Generative models operating on SMILES strings or 2D graphs often produce molecules with invalid valencies or chemically implausible structures. This is because the representation does not explicitly encode chemical stability rules [5]. Evaluating the raw output of these models using a corrected molecule stability metric—which checks for valid valencies based on a chemically accurate lookup table—reveals high failure rates, a problem masked by previous, flawed evaluation protocols [5].
• Inefficient Exploration of Chemical Space: Traditional representations struggle to facilitate "scaffold hopping," the discovery of novel core structures with similar biological activity. Methods relying on 2D fingerprints or molecular descriptors are limited by predefined rules and struggle to capture the subtle, non-linear relationships that define bioactivity, unlike modern AI-driven representations that learn continuous embeddings for a more effective exploration of chemical space [4].
• The Critical Need for 3D Information: Properties such as binding affinity, solubility, and reactivity are profoundly influenced by a molecule's 3D geometry, conformational dynamics, and non-covalent interaction networks. Generative models founded on 3D representations are inherently better equipped to design molecules with tailored properties and realistic geometries [1] [5]. The move toward 3D generative models, such as diffusion models trained on 3D structures, addresses these fundamental limitations by learning the true physical and chemical landscape that molecules inhabit [6] [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Molecular Representation Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Note
RDKit	Cheminformatics Software	Generation of 1D/2D descriptors, fingerprints, and molecular graphs [3]	Open-source; essential for preprocessing and feature extraction for traditional QSAR.
GEOM-drugs	Dataset	Large-scale, high-accuracy dataset of molecular conformations [5]	Critical benchmark for developing and evaluating 3D molecular generative models.
GFN2-xTB	Quantum Chemical Method	Efficient computation of molecular geometries and energies [5]	Used for energy-based evaluation of generated 3D structures, ensuring chemical accuracy.
MDGen	Generative AI Model	Simulates molecular dynamics from a single 3D frame [6]	An early proof-of-concept for predicting molecular motion, connecting static structures to dynamics.
Triolein (Standard)	Triolein (Standard), CAS:41755-78-6, MF:C57H104O6, MW:885.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Micrococcin P1	Micrococcin P1, MF:C48H49N13O9S6, MW:1144.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Workflow Diagrams

Logical flow: Limitations of 2D representations and their impacts.

Experimental workflow: Multi-scale 3D molecular representation.

The transition from two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) molecular representation marks a fundamental shift in computational drug design, moving from abstract connectivity to physically realistic models of molecular behavior. While 2D representations depict atoms and bonds as graph nodes and edges, 3D representations incorporate the precise spatial arrangement of atoms, providing a more accurate and biologically relevant model of molecular structure [8]. This spatial accuracy is paramount because biological activity is governed not by topological diagrams, but by 3D molecular interactions within the binding pockets of protein targets. The incorporation of 3D geometry allows generative models to explicitly consider structural feasibility, steric constraints, and complementary surface shapes, thereby generating novel compounds with higher binding affinity and improved drug-like properties [9] [10].

The application of geometric deep learning has been a key enabler for leveraging 3D structural information in generative models. These techniques generalize deep neural networks to non-Euclidean data like molecular graphs and surfaces, allowing models to learn from 3D coordinates and conformations [9] [11]. By incorporating fundamental physical symmetries—including rotation, translation, and permutation invariance—these models can generate molecules that are not only chemically valid but also spatially optimized for their target environments [11]. This paradigm shift from ligand-based to structure-based drug design represents a significant advancement in exploring the vast chemical space, which theoretically contains 10^23 to 10^60 feasible compounds, of which only approximately 10^8 have been synthesized and characterized [8].

Key 3D Molecular Representation Methods

Selecting an appropriate molecular representation is crucial for training effective geometric deep learning models in structure-based drug design. The representation scheme serves as the input interface that determines how structural information is encoded and processed [9]. Current approaches can be broadly categorized into three main paradigms, each with distinct advantages and computational considerations.

Table 1: Comparison of 3D Molecular Representation Methods

Representation	Data Structure	Key Features	Common Algorithms	Primary Applications
3D Grids	Voxels	Euclidean data structure; Captures electron density & atomic occupancy	3D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)	Molecular property prediction, Binding affinity estimation
3D Surfaces	Meshed polygons	Encodes chemical & geometric features on molecular surface; Shape-focused	Surface-based neural networks	Protein-protein interaction prediction, Binding site identification
3D Graphs	Nodes (atoms) & edges (bonds)	Non-Euclidean; Preserves relational information with spatial coordinates	Equivariant Graph Neural Networks (EGNNs)	De novo molecular generation, Molecular dynamics simulation

Each representation offers unique advantages for different aspects of drug discovery. 3D grids utilize a Euclidean data structure that is easily processed by standard convolutional networks, making them suitable for tasks like binding affinity prediction [9]. 3D surfaces, typically meshed into polygons, excel at capturing shape complementarity and are particularly valuable for studying protein-protein interactions and binding site characterization [9]. However, for generative tasks in structure-based drug design, 3D graphs have emerged as the most powerful representation, as they naturally preserve both relational information (atom connectivity) and spatial coordinates, enabling more accurate molecular generation [9] [10].

Quantitative Performance of 3D Molecular Generation Models

Rigorous evaluation of 3D generative models requires multiple metrics to assess the quality, novelty, and practical utility of generated molecules. The performance advantages of models incorporating 3D geometry are demonstrated across various benchmarks, from structural validity to binding affinity.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Leading 3D Molecular Generation Models

Model	Architecture	Vina Score (↑)	QED (↑)	Synthetic Accessibility (↑)	Novelty (↑)	Stability (↑)	PB-Validity (↑)
DiffGui	Equivariant Diffusion	-8.92	0.67	0.71	0.98	0.99	0.95
Pocket2Mol	E(3)-Equivariant Autoregressive	-8.45	0.61	0.69	0.95	0.92	0.89
GraphBP	SE(3)-Equivariant	-8.21	0.59	0.65	0.93	0.90	0.85
TargetDiff	Equivariant Diffusion	-8.68	0.63	0.68	0.96	0.95	0.91

Superior performance across key metrics demonstrates the advantage of 3D-aware generation. The Vina Score (estimated binding affinity) shows models generating molecules with stronger predicted target binding [10]. QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness) and Synthetic Accessibility scores indicate practical pharmaceutical utility [10]. High Novelty scores confirm these models explore new chemical space rather than reproducing training data [8]. Stability and PoseBusters Validity metrics demonstrate that 3D-generated structures are both chemically valid and structurally plausible [10].

Experimental Protocol: Structure-Based Molecular Generation with DiffGui

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item	Function/Application	Specifications
CrossDocked2020 Dataset	Training data for structure-based models	~22.5 million protein-ligand structures with binding poses
PDBbind Dataset	Model training and evaluation	Curated protein-ligand complexes with experimentally measured binding data
AlphaFold2	Protein structure prediction	Generates target structures when experimental data unavailable
OpenBabel Toolkit	Chemical format interconversion	Handles molecular file format conversion and basic cheminformatics
RDKit	Cheminformatics operations	Molecular manipulation, property calculation, and validation
AutoDock Vina	Binding affinity estimation	Molecular docking and scoring of protein-ligand interactions

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: Data Preparation and Preprocessing

• Download and filter the CrossDocked2020 dataset, retaining high-quality structures with binding pose RMSD < 2.0 Ã… and sequence identity < 30% to reduce redundancy [10].
• For each protein-ligand complex, define the binding pocket as all residues with heavy atoms within 8.0 Ã… of any heavy atom in the cognate ligand [10].
• Represent each ligand as a 3D graph with nodes (atoms) characterized by atom types, 3D coordinates, and edges (bonds) with bond types.

Step 2: Model Initialization and Configuration

• Initialize the DiffGui model architecture with an E(3)-equivariant graph neural network containing 128 hidden dimensions and 6 message passing layers [10].
• Configure the bond diffusion module to explicitly model both atoms and bonds concurrently, with noise schedules divided into two phases: bond type diffusion followed by atom type and position perturbation [10].
• Set property guidance parameters for binding affinity (Vina Score), drug-likeness (QED), and synthetic accessibility (SA) with guidance weights of 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2 respectively [10].

Step 3: Model Training Protocol

• Train the model for 500,000 iterations with a batch size of 32 protein-ligand complexes using the Adam optimizer with learning rate 0.001 [10].
• Implement a dual-phase forward diffusion process: in phase one, gradually perturb bond types toward prior distribution while minimally disrupting atom types and positions; in phase two, perturb atom types and positions to their prior distributions [10].
• Use a masked learning objective that randomly masks portions of the molecular graph during training to enhance model robustness [10].

Step 4: Molecular Generation and Sampling

• For a given target protein pocket, initialize the generation process with random noise for atom types, positions, and bond types.
• Perform the reverse diffusion process for 500 steps, progressively denoising atom positions, atom types, and bond types while incorporating property guidance at each step [10].
• Use classifier-free guidance to steer generation toward molecules with optimal binding affinity and drug-like properties [10].

Step 5: Validation and Analysis

• Assess generated molecules for chemical validity using RDKit and PoseBusters validation tools [10].
• Calculate key molecular properties including quantitative estimate of drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and octanol-water partition coefficient (LogP) [10].
• Evaluate binding poses through molecular docking with AutoDock Vina and analyze protein-ligand interaction fingerprints [10].

Advanced Applications and Future Directions

The integration of 3D geometry with generative models enables several advanced applications in drug discovery. For de novo drug design, models like PocketFlow and DiffGui can generate novel, target-aware compounds from scratch, significantly expanding the explorable chemical space [8] [10]. In lead optimization, these models can suggest structural modifications to improve binding affinity or drug-like properties while maintaining core molecular scaffolds [10]. Emerging applications include molecular dynamics generation, where models like MDGen can simulate molecular motion and conformational changes, providing insights into binding kinetics and mechanism of action [6].

Future developments in 3D molecular generation will likely focus on several key areas. Multi-objective optimization will become more sophisticated, simultaneously balancing binding affinity, selectivity, toxicity, and pharmacokinetic properties [10]. Geometric foundation models pretrained on diverse molecular datasets will enable more data-efficient fine-tuning for specific target classes [12]. The integration of synthesis planning directly into generation pipelines will ensure that proposed molecules are not only effective but also synthetically accessible [12]. Finally, temporal modeling of molecular dynamics will evolve from static snapshots to full dynamic simulations, capturing the essential motions that govern molecular recognition and function [6].

The transition from two-dimensional to three-dimensional molecular representations marks a pivotal advancement in computational drug discovery and materials science. While traditional representations like SMILES strings and molecular fingerprints provide a foundational framework for computational analysis, they fall short of capturing the rich spatial information that dictates molecular interactions, biological activity, and physicochemical properties [4]. The inherent three-dimensional nature of molecular systems necessitates representations that explicitly encode spatial relationships, conformational flexibility, and electronic properties to enable accurate predictive modeling and generative design.

This application note details three principal 3D molecular representation formats—atomic coordinate systems, molecular graphs, and volumetric maps—that form the cornerstone of modern generative models in structural bioinformatics and computer-aided drug design. Each format offers distinct advantages for specific computational tasks, from high-throughput virtual screening to generative chemistry and protein-ligand interaction prediction. By providing standardized protocols for data preparation, model implementation, and experimental validation, this document serves as a practical guide for researchers implementing these representations within generative AI workflows for drug development.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Molecular Representation Formats

Table 1: Technical Specifications of Core 3D Molecular Representation Formats

Representation Format	Data Structure	Dimensionality	Spatial Information Capture	Common Computational Applications	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations
Atomic Coordinate Systems	Set of Cartesian (x, y, z) coordinates per atom	N×3 matrix (N = number of atoms)	Explicit atomic positions	Molecular dynamics, docking, structure alignment, conformational analysis	Direct physical interpretation, compatibility with force fields	No explicit bonding information, conformation-dependent
3D Molecular Graphs	Graph with nodes (atoms) and edges (bonds) with spatial attributes	Node features: N×F, Edge features: M×G, Coordinates: N×3	Atomic connectivity with spatial arrangement	Geometric deep learning, property prediction, molecular generation	Incorporates both structural and spatial relationships	Fixed topology in static representations
Volumetric Maps	3D grid of voxel intensity values	D×H×W tensor (D, H, W = grid dimensions)	Electron density, molecular surfaces, interaction fields	Cryo-EM analysis, molecular surface detection, binding site prediction	Uniform structure for CNN processing, captures continuous fields	Discrete sampling artifacts, memory intensive at high resolutions

Table 2: Performance Characteristics for Generative Modeling Tasks

Representation Format	Generative Model Compatibility	Computational Complexity	Representation Fidelity	Implementation in Research	Handling of Molecular Flexibility
Atomic Coordinate Systems	Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Normalizing Flows	Low to Moderate	High (exact atomic positions)	High (widely adopted)	Explicit (through multiple conformers)
3D Molecular Graphs	Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Geometric GANs	Moderate to High	High (structural + spatial)	Emerging (increasing adoption)	Limited in static graphs
Volumetric Maps	3D Convolutional Networks, Voxel-based GANs	High (memory-intensive)	Medium (resolution-dependent)	Specialized applications	Implicit (through density fields)

Atomic Coordinate Systems

Technical Foundation

Atomic coordinate systems represent molecular structures as collections of points in three-dimensional space, with each atom described by its Cartesian (x, y, z) coordinates relative to a common origin. This explicit positioning makes coordinate representations fundamentally interchangeable with experimental structural data from X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and cryo-electron microscopy [13]. The Protein Data Bank (PDB) file format serves as the standard repository for such coordinate data, providing atomic-level structural information for over 230,000 biomacromolecules alongside experimental metadata and annotation [13].

The mathematical simplicity of coordinate representations enables direct computation of physically meaningful properties including interatomic distances, bond angles, torsion angles, and molecular surface areas. This computational accessibility facilitates the application of physics-based scoring functions in molecular docking and allows for straightforward structural alignment through root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) calculations. The explicit spatial encoding critically underpins the calculation of molecular interaction fields and pharmacophore features essential to structure-based drug design.

Experimental Protocol: Preparation for Generative Modeling

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Source Data: Experimentally determined structures from RCSB PDB or computed structure models from AlphaFold Database [13]
• Processing Tools: Molecular visualization software (Mol*, PyMOL, ChimeraX) [13] [14]
• Programming Environment: Python with libraries (NumPy, RDKit, OpenBabel)
• Validation Tools: Molecular mechanics validation (energy minimization, steric clash detection)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Sourcing and Quality Assessment

  • Retrieve target structures from RCSB PDB (https://www.rcsb.org) or predicted structures from AlphaFold Database
  • Validate structural integrity using Mol* visualization: inspect electron density maps, residue fit quality, and structural completeness [13]
  • For cryo-EM structures, assess resolution annotations and map quality metrics

• Structure Preprocessing and Standardization

  • Remove crystallographic water molecules and non-biological ions unless critical for analysis
  • Add missing hydrogen atoms appropriate for physiological pH (7.4) using Mol* or RDKit
  • Generate biological assemblies rather than asymmetric units when studying functional oligomers [13]
  • Separate protein chains from ligands and cofactors for targeted analysis

• Coordinate System Alignment and Normalization

  • Align structures to a common reference frame through structural superposition on conserved cores
  • Center molecular system at origin (0,0,0) to simplify subsequent rotational and translational operations
  • Apply rotational invariance through data augmentation (random rotations during training)

• Conformational Sampling for Flexible Systems

  • Generate diverse conformational ensembles using molecular dynamics simulations or conformer generation algorithms
  • For generative applications, cluster conformations to capture representative structural diversity
  • Annotate conformations by energy levels to prioritize biologically relevant states

• Format Conversion for Model Input

  • Export standardized Cartesian coordinates as NumPy arrays or PyTorch tensors
  • Preserve atomic element information and residue mapping in separate feature arrays
  • Implement custom data loaders with on-the-fly augmentation for deep learning applications

3D Molecular Graphs

Technical Foundation

3D molecular graphs combine the explicit connectivity information of traditional molecular graphs with spatial geometric information, creating a unified representation that captures both structural topology and three-dimensional arrangement [15]. In this representation, atoms correspond to nodes with feature vectors encoding element type, hybridization state, and partial charge, while chemical bonds form edges characterized by bond type, conjugation, and stereochemistry [4]. The critical enhancement in 3D molecular graphs is the association of each node with its spatial coordinates (x, y, z), enabling geometric deep learning models to capture distance-dependent and angle-dependent molecular properties.

This representation format has demonstrated exceptional utility in molecular property prediction tasks where both electronic and steric factors influence target properties. The explicit encoding of molecular connectivity allows models to learn directly from the fundamental representation used by chemists, providing strong inductive biases for generalization across chemical space. Geometric graph neural networks (GNNs) operating on these representations can learn rotationally equivariant transformations, ensuring consistent predictions regardless of molecular orientation in 3D space [15].

Experimental Protocol: Implementation for Geometric Deep Learning

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Graph Construction: RDKit, OpenBabel, or PyG (PyTorch Geometric)
• Deep Learning Framework: PyTorch Geometric, DGL-LifeSci, TensorFlow-GNN
• Pre-trained Models: Platforms offering transfer learning capabilities (3D Infomax, KPGT) [15]
• Visualization Tools: NetworkX, PyMOL, custom visualization utilities

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Graph Construction from Molecular Structures

  • Convert molecular file formats (PDB, SDF, MOL2) to graph representations using RDKit or OpenBabel
  • Node feature engineering: encode atom type, degree, hybridization, formal charge, aromaticity, chirality
  • Edge feature specification: define bond type, conjugation, ring membership, and spatial distance
  • For 3D graphs, extract and store atomic coordinates as node positional attributes

• Graph Standardization and Validation

  • Implement canonical atom ordering to ensure consistent graph representation across conformers
  • Validate molecular connectivity against chemical rules (valency, bond formation)
  • For large biomolecules, consider hierarchical graph construction with residue-level and atom-level granularity

• Data Augmentation for Improved Generalization

  • Apply random 3D rotations to enforce rotational invariance in downstream tasks
  • Implement stochastic edge dropping and node feature masking for self-supervised pre-training
  • For conformational ensembles, sample multiple states to capture molecular flexibility

• Geometric Graph Neural Network Implementation

  • Select appropriate GNN architecture: Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs), SE(3)-Transformers, or Tensor Field Networks
  • Implement equivariant operations that respect 3D symmetries (translational, rotational invariance)
  • Configure readout functions for graph-level predictions: global pooling, hierarchical pooling, or virtual nodes

• Model Training and Interpretation

  • Utilize pre-training strategies on large unlabeled molecular datasets (3D Infomax, KPGT) [15]
  • Fine-tune on target properties with appropriate regularization for limited labeled data
  • Implement explainability techniques: node attribution methods, attention visualization, and subgraph identification

Volumetric Maps

Technical Foundation

Volumetric maps represent molecular structures and properties as three-dimensional grids of voxel intensity values, transforming discrete atomic representations into continuous scalar fields [16]. This representation format is particularly suited for capturing electron density distributions, molecular surfaces, and interaction potential fields that extend beyond atomic centers. Each voxel in the grid stores a value representing a specific molecular property at that spatial location, creating a uniform data structure compatible with 3D convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and other grid-based processing architectures.

The foundation of volumetric representation lies in the sampling of continuous 3D space into discrete elements. For binary volumetric data, voxel values simply indicate occupancy (0 for background, 1 for the object), while multivalued volumetric data can represent continuous properties such as electron density, electrostatic potential, or hydrophobicity [16]. The resolution of the grid critically determines the trade-off between representational fidelity and computational requirements, with higher resolutions capturing finer structural details at the cost of increased memory consumption. Volumetric representations naturally accommodate data from experimental techniques including cryo-electron microscopy (3DEM), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, where the fundamental data is already in volumetric form [13] [16].

Experimental Protocol: Generation and Processing

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Volume Generation Tools: ChimeraX, PyMOL, VMD, or custom Python scripts
• Processing Libraries: NumPy, SciPy, TensorFlow/PyTorch with 3D CNN support
• Specialized Hardware: GPU acceleration with sufficient VRAM for 3D convolutions
• Visualization Platforms: Mol* for web-based visualization, PyMOL for publication-quality rendering [13] [14]

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Grid Definition and Spatial Discretization

  • Define grid dimensions and resolution based on molecular size and required detail (typical resolution: 0.5-1.0 Ã…ngstroms/voxel)
  • Center the grid on the region of interest (binding site, entire protein, or molecular surface)
  • Set voxel values using Gaussian functions centered on atomic positions or through explicit property calculation

• Molecular Property Mapping to Volumetric Grid

  • For shape representation: use hard-sphere models (van der Waals radii) or Gaussian-smoothed atomic densities
  • For electrostatic properties: calculate Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatic potentials at each grid point
  • For interaction fields: compute hydrophobic, hydrogen-bonding, or steric potential maps
  • Implement trilinear interpolation for smooth transitions between voxels [16]

• Data Standardization and Preprocessing

  • Normalize voxel intensities across datasets (z-score normalization or min-max scaling)
  • Apply spatial transformations for data augmentation: translation, rotation, and scaling
  • For deep learning applications, implement on-disk storage of precomputed volumes with lazy loading

• 3D Convolutional Neural Network Architecture

  • Design encoder-decoder architectures for segmentation or U-Net variants for volumetric regression
  • Implement 3D convolutional, pooling, and upsampling operations with appropriate padding
  • Utilize anisotropic kernels when spatial sampling rates differ along axes
  • Incorporate skip connections to preserve spatial information through network layers

• Application-Specific Processing and Analysis

  • For generative modeling: implement 3D Generative Adversarial Networks (3D-GAN) or Voxel Diffusion Models
  • For binding site prediction: process electron density maps from cryo-EM with appropriate resolution filters [13]
  • For molecular docking: convert output volumes back to atomic coordinates through clustering and centroid detection

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Materials

Table 3: Critical Software Tools and Data Resources for 3D Molecular Representation Research

Tool/Resource Name	Category	Primary Function	Representation Compatibility	Access Method	Key Applications in Research
RCSB PDB	Data Repository	Archive of experimentally determined 3D structures	Atomic Coordinates, Volumetric Maps	Web portal, API download	Source of ground-truth structural data for training and validation [13]
Mol*	Visualization Tool	Web-based 3D visualization of biomolecules	Atomic Coordinates, Volumetric Maps	Web browser, standalone application	Structure validation, quality assessment, and presentation [13]
PyMOL	Molecular Graphics	Publication-quality molecular visualization and analysis	Atomic Coordinates, Volumetric Maps	Desktop application, Python API	Structure analysis, image generation, and structural biology research [14] [17]
RDKit	Cheminformatics	Open-source cheminformatics and machine learning	Atomic Coordinates, 3D Molecular Graphs	Python library	Molecular graph construction, descriptor calculation, and conformer generation
PyTorch Geometric	Deep Learning Framework	Geometric deep learning extensions for PyTorch	3D Molecular Graphs	Python library	Implementation of graph neural networks for molecules and materials [15]
ChimeraX	Molecular Visualization	Next-generation visualization and analysis	Atomic Coordinates, Volumetric Maps	Desktop application	Cryo-EM density analysis, structure-model fitting, and structure comparison [14]
AlphaFold Database	Data Resource	Repository of predicted protein structures	Atomic Coordinates	Web portal, API download	Source of high-accuracy predicted structures for proteins without experimental data [13]
SU5408	SU5408, CAS:210303-54-1, MF:C18H18N2O3, MW:310.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
BC-1382	BC-1382, MF:C23H29N3O5S, MW:459.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The strategic selection and implementation of 3D molecular representation formats—atomic coordinate systems, 3D molecular graphs, and volumetric maps—establish the foundational framework for advanced generative models in drug discovery and molecular design. Each representation offers complementary strengths: coordinate systems provide direct physical interpretability, molecular graphs capture connectivity with spatial relationships, and volumetric maps enable uniform processing of continuous molecular fields.

Future methodological developments will likely focus on hybrid representation strategies that combine the computational efficiency of graphs with the expressive power of volumetric data. Emerging research in geometric deep learning, equivariant neural networks, and cross-modal representation learning promises to further bridge these complementary approaches [15]. The integration of physical priors and experimental constraints into these representations will enhance their biological relevance and predictive accuracy, ultimately accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic compounds and functional materials through generative AI approaches.

In computational chemistry and drug discovery, the accurate representation of molecular systems in three-dimensional space is fundamental to predicting properties and generating novel structures. The 3D geometrical conformation of a molecule is a primary determinant of its thermodynamic properties, reactivity, and biological activity [18]. Molecular systems exhibit fundamental spatial symmetries—their energy remains invariant under global rotations and translations, while vectorial properties such as dipole moments transform predictably [19]. Equivariant neural networks have emerged as powerful computational frameworks that explicitly preserve these physical symmetries, offering strong inductive biases that enhance both the accuracy and data efficiency of molecular machine learning models [19] [18].

For generative models in particular, enforcing consistent transformation behavior between model inputs and outputs is not merely an academic exercise but a practical necessity. Models that disregard these symmetries require extensive data augmentation and often fail to generalize to unseen molecular configurations [10]. The integration of equivariance principles represents a significant advancement over traditional approaches, enabling more chemically accurate and physically plausible molecular generation [10] [5].

Theoretical Foundations of Equivariance

Mathematical Framework of Group Equivariance

Symmetries in physical systems are formally described using group theory. A symmetry group G consists of a set of transformations under which the properties of a system remain invariant or transform predictably. In the context of 3D molecular systems, the most relevant groups are E(3) (the Euclidean group of rotations, translations, and reflections) and its special subgroups O(3) and SO(3) [19].

A function φ : V → W is equivariant under group G if for any transformation g ∈ G, the following relation holds:

ρ_out(g) φ(x) = φ(ρ_in(g) x)

where ρ_in and ρ_out are group representations describing how the transformation g acts on the input space V and output space W, respectively [19]. This mathematical property ensures that transformations applied to the input system result in predictable, consistent transformations in the output.

Representations of O(3) in Molecular Systems

For the O(3) group of rotations and reflections in ℝ³, representations describe how different geometric entities transform. A vector v transforms under R ∈ O(3) as:

(Rv)_i = Σ_j R_ij v_j

Higher-order Cartesian tensors transform according to more complex representations [19]. Critically, one may distinguish between tensors and pseudotensors which behave differently under reflection transformations [19]. These representations can be decomposed into irreducible representations which form the building blocks for equivariant neural network operations.

Table 1: Key Symmetry Groups in Molecular Machine Learning

Group	Transformations	Molecular Properties Affected
Translation	Spatial displacement	Energy (invariant), Dipole moment (covariant)
Rotation	Spatial reorientation	Energy (invariant), Polarizability (covariant)
Reflection	Mirror operations	Energy (invariant), Chirality-sensitive properties
Permutation	Atom reindexing	All molecular properties (invariant)

Implementation Approaches for Equivariance

Tensor Field Networks

Traditional equivariant neural networks often rely on specialized tensor operations that explicitly constrain network operations to respect symmetry transformations. These tensor field networks typically employ spherical harmonics and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to guarantee equivariance in the computation of messages between atoms [19].

The tensor product convolution for message passing in such networks takes the form:

m_{ij,m₃}^{(l₃)} = [f_j^{(l₁)} ⊗ ℛ(r_ij)Y^{(l₂)}(r̂_ij)]_{m₃} = Σ_{m₁=-l₁}^{l₁} Σ_{m₂=-l₂}^{l₂} C_{m₁l₁,m₂l₂}^{m₃l₃} f_{j,m₁}^{(l₁)} ℛ(r_ij) Y_{m₂}^{(l₂)}(r̂_ij)

where Y^{(lâ‚‚)} are spherical harmonics, â„›(r_ij) is a radial embedding of interatomic distance, and C are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients [19]. While mathematically elegant, these operations can be computationally demanding and require specialized implementation.

Local Canonicalization Framework

A more recent approach called local canonicalization provides a lightweight and efficient alternative for enforcing exact equivariance [19]. The key insight is to predict an equivariant local frame R_i at each node i based on the input geometry. The geometric features are then transformed from the global coordinate system into these local frames, creating invariant representations that can be processed by standard neural networks.

The message passing in this framework follows:

f_i^{(k)} = ⨁_{j∈N(i)} ϕ^{(k)}(ρ_f(R_iR_j^{-1})f_j^{(k-1)}, R_i(x_i-x_j)))

where the critical component is the transformation of messages between local frames of neighboring nodes [19]. This approach transfers the complexity from specialized tensor operations to the prediction of local reference frames, often resulting in improved runtime while maintaining competitive accuracy.

Learned Equivariant Representations

An emerging direction explores learning the transformation behavior directly from data rather than enforcing strict mathematical constraints. Instead of using predefined representation matrices ρ_f(R_iR_j^{-1}), this approach employs MLPs to learn the effect of frame transitions:

ρ_f(R_iR_j^{-1})f_j ⇒ MLP(R_iR_j^{-1}, f_j)

This provides flexibility for the model to adapt transformation behavior to specific tasks, potentially discovering more efficient or effective representations than those derived purely from group theory [19].

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating Equivariant Models

Benchmark Datasets and Evaluation Metrics

Rigorous evaluation of equivariant models requires standardized datasets and chemically meaningful metrics. The QM9 dataset remains a foundational benchmark, containing 134,000 small organic molecules with up to 9 heavy atoms, each with quantum chemical properties calculated using density functional theory (DFT) [18]. For generative tasks, the GEOM-drugs dataset provides molecular conformations that have become a standard benchmark for 3D molecular generative models [5].

Table 2: Key Evaluation Metrics for Equivariant Generative Models

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Chemical Interpretation
Geometric Quality	Bond length RMSD, Angle RMSD, Dihedral RMSD	Measures deviation from realistic molecular geometry
Chemical Validity	Atom stability, Molecular stability, RDKit validity	Assesses adherence to chemical rules and constraints
Energy Evaluation	GFN2-xTB energy, Relative conformation energy	Evaluates physical plausibility and stability
Property Prediction	HOMO-LUMO gap, Dipole moment, Polarizability	Tests accuracy in predicting quantum chemical properties
Symmetry Preservation	Equivariance error, Invariance error	Quantifies adherence to symmetry principles

Recent research has identified critical flaws in commonly used evaluation protocols, particularly in valency calculation methods for aromatic systems [5]. Implementing chemically accurate evaluation requires careful construction of valency lookup tables and appropriate treatment of aromatic bonds.

Protocol: Evaluating Equivariance in Generative Models

Objective: Quantitatively assess the equivariance properties and chemical accuracy of 3D molecular generative models.

Materials:

• Processed benchmark dataset (QM9 or GEOM-drugs)
• Equivariant generative model implementation
• Quantum chemistry computation environment (GFN2-xTB)
• Chemical informatics toolkit (RDKit)

Procedure:

• Dataset Preparation:

  • Apply standardized train/validation/test splits
  • For GEOM-drugs, exclude molecules where GFN2-xTB calculations fracture the original molecule [5]
  • Construct chemically accurate valency lookup tables from the training set

• Equivariance Testing:

  • Apply random SE(3) transformations to input structures
  • Generate molecules from both original and transformed inputs
  • Compute equivariance error: ε = ||T(f(x)) - f(T(x))||
  • Repeat for multiple transformation samples

• Generation and Validation:

  • Generate a statistically significant sample (typically 5000+ molecules)
  • Compute atom stability and molecular stability using corrected valency definitions
  • Calculate energy-based metrics using consistent theory levels (GFN2-xTB recommended) [5]

• Analysis:

  • Compare distributions of key geometric parameters (bonds, angles, dihedrals) with reference data
  • Evaluate property prediction accuracy on quantum chemical properties
  • Assess sample diversity and novelty

Application in 3D Molecular Generation

Equivariant Diffusion Models

Diffusion-based generative models have shown remarkable success in 3D molecular generation when combined with equivariant architectures. DiffGui, a recently developed target-conditioned E(3)-equivariant diffusion model, exemplifies this approach by integrating both atom and bond diffusion with property guidance [10].

The model operates through a forward process that gradually adds noise to both atom positions and bond types, and a reverse process that employs an E(3)-equivariant graph neural network to denoise and generate realistic molecular structures [10]. This approach explicitly models the interdependencies between atoms and bonds, addressing the common problem of ill-conformations in generated molecules.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Equivariant Molecular Research

Tool/Category	Specific Implementation	Function in Research
Equivariant Network Libraries	Tensor Frames [19], e3nn	Provides building blocks for equivariant neural networks
Molecular Generation Frameworks	DiffGui [10], Pocket2Mol	Target-aware 3D molecular generation with equivariance
Quantum Chemistry Calculators	GFN2-xTB [5], ORCA	Provides reference data and energy evaluation
Chemical Informatics	RDKit, OpenBabel	Molecular manipulation, validation, and analysis
Benchmark Datasets	QM9 [18], GEOM-drugs [5]	Standardized evaluation and comparison
Geometric Learning	PyTorch Geometric, Deep Graph Library	Graph neural network infrastructure

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant progress, several challenges remain in the application of equivariance to 3D molecular representations. Current evaluation methodologies still exhibit limitations, particularly in the treatment of aromatic systems and the consistency of energy evaluations [5]. The development of more chemically rigorous benchmarking practices is essential for meaningful progress.

Future research directions include the development of more expressive equivariant representations that can capture complex molecular symmetries beyond Euclidean transformations, as well as methods that can efficiently scale to larger molecular systems. The integration of equivariant principles with large language models and cross-modal learning represents another promising frontier [12].

As the field matures, emphasis on chemically accurate evaluation and real-world applicability will be crucial for translating these advanced computational approaches into practical tools for drug discovery and materials design.

The concept of "chemical space" represents the multidimensional expanse encompassing all possible small organic molecules and materials, a theoretical domain estimated to contain between 10^23 to 10^60 feasible compounds [8]. This space is formally defined as a chemical descriptor vector space where each molecule is represented by numerical descriptors encoding its properties and structure [8]. However, only approximately 10^8 compounds have ever been synthesized, covering merely a tiny fraction of this vast theoretical space [8]. This disparity presents both a fundamental challenge and a remarkable opportunity for scientific discovery, particularly in fields like drug development and materials science where identifying novel compounds with predetermined properties is essential.

The exploration of this uncharted territory has been revolutionized by the emergence of 3D molecular generation models that explicitly incorporate spatial structural information [8] [20]. Unlike traditional 1D (e.g., SMILES strings) or 2D (molecular graphs) representations, 3D models capture the spatial arrangement of atoms, providing a more accurate and physiologically relevant representation that directly influences molecular properties and interactions [8]. This capability is particularly valuable for structure-based drug design, as it allows for the direct validation of generated molecules against target protein pockets [8]. The transition to 3D representations marks a significant advancement in our ability to navigate chemical space efficiently, moving beyond the limitations of prior knowledge and existing compound libraries to generate truly novel candidate molecules with desirable pharmacological profiles [8].

Foundational Concepts and Representations

Molecular Representation Schemes

The choice of molecular representation serves as the crucial input interface for generative models and fundamentally shapes their exploration capabilities. The transition from 2D to 3D molecular representation involves capturing the full structural complexity of molecules beyond topological connectivity [8].

• 3D Structural Representations: These incorporate the spatial arrangement of atoms in three-dimensional space, providing accurate information about molecular shape, stereochemistry, and conformational properties. This category includes:
  • Atomic Coordinates: Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) for each atom [21].
  • Internal Coordinates: Bond lengths, angles, and dihedral angles [21].
  • Volumetric Grids: 3D grids encoding electron density or atomic properties [22].
• Textual Representations: Natural language descriptions of chemical compositions or crystal systems that can be processed by large language models. For example, Chemeleon uses textual inputs like "ZnTiO3, trigonal" to guide crystal structure generation [23].
• Graph Representations: Molecular graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges, which can be extended with 3D spatial information [8].
• Descriptor Vectors: Numerical vectors encoding molecular properties, such as the 42 Molecular Quantum Numbers (MQNs) that count atom types, bond types, polar groups, and topological features [24].

Table 1: Key 3D Molecular Representation Methods

Representation Type	Data Structure	Key Advantages	Common Applications
Atomic Coordinates	Cartesian vectors (x, y, z)	Direct spatial representation; Physically intuitive	Structure-based drug design; Conformational analysis
Volumetric Grids	3D density grids	Invariant to rotation/translation; Standardized input for CNNs	Deep generative models; Property prediction [22]
Equivariant Graphs	Graphs with 3D coordinates	Preserves symmetry relationships; Rich structural information	SE(3)-equivariant models; Crystal structure prediction
Internal Coordinates	Bond lengths, angles, dihedrals	Natural for chemical systems; Reduced dimensionality	Autoregressive generation; Molecular dynamics

The Scale of Chemical Space

Quantifying chemical space reveals the tremendous challenge and opportunity facing researchers. The known chemical space, documented in public databases, represents only an infinitesimal fraction of what is theoretically possible [24].

Table 2: Scale of Chemical Space Exploration

Space Category	Estimated Size	Description	Examples
Theoretically Possible	10^23 - 10^60 molecules	All stable small organic molecules obeying physical laws	GDB-17 enumerates 166 billion organic molecules up to 17 atoms [24]
Known/Synthesized	~10^8 molecules	Compounds reported in literature and databases	PubChem (32.5M), ChemSpider (26M), ZINC (21M) [24]
Drug-Like Region	~10^12 molecules	Subset meeting drug-like property criteria	Rule-of-5 compliant compounds; Orally bioavailable space
Bioactive Region	Unknown but sparse	Molecules with specific biological activity	ChEMBL (1.1M bioactive molecules) [24]

The mapping and visualization of this multidimensional space typically employ dimensionality reduction techniques. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of molecular descriptor vectors (such as MQNs) allows projections of chemical space where molecules of increasing size distribute concentrically, with axes representing molecular rigidity and polarity [24]. This cartographic approach enables researchers to identify clustering of bioactive compounds and navigate toward promising regions [24].

Generative Strategies for 3D Molecular Exploration

Architectural Approaches

Several sophisticated generative strategies have emerged for exploring 3D chemical space, each with distinct advantages and implementation considerations.

Autoregressive Models assemble molecular structures sequentially, atom by atom, with each placement conditioned on the previously placed atoms. The conditional G-SchNet (cG-SchNet) architecture exemplifies this approach, factorizing the conditional distribution of molecular structures and using a focus token to localize atom placement [21]. This method guarantees E(3) equivariance—ensuring model outputs respect the symmetry of 3D Euclidean space—by approximating position distributions through distances to existing atoms [21].

Diffusion Models employ a forward process that gradually adds random noise to molecular structures over multiple steps, transitioning them toward complete randomness, followed by a learned reverse process that iteratively denoises random initial states to reconstruct plausible molecular structures [23]. The Chemeleon model implements classifier-free guidance, where text embeddings from a pre-trained encoder condition the denoising process, enabling targeted generation based on textual descriptions like "ZnTiO3, trigonal" [23].

Hybrid Rule-Based/Evolutionary Approaches, such as the Systemic Evolutionary Chemical Space Explorer (SECSE), combine rule-based molecular transformations with genetic algorithms [25]. SECSE uses a library of over 3000 transformation rules (growing, mutation, bioisostere, and reaction rules) and employs docking scores as fitness functions to evolve molecules that optimally fit target protein pockets [25].

Conditional Generation for Targeted Exploration

Conditional generative models have dramatically enhanced the precision of chemical space navigation by enabling inverse design—the direct generation of structures with specified properties. cG-SchNet learns conditional distributions depending on structural or chemical properties, allowing sampling of 3D molecular structures that match target characteristics such as HOMO-LUMO gap, polarizability, or atomic composition [21]. This approach permits joint targeting of multiple properties without retraining and effectively explores sparsely populated regions of chemical space that are inaccessible to unconditional models [21].

The Chemeleon framework demonstrates how cross-modal learning bridges textual and structural representations [23]. Its Crystal CLIP component employs contrastive learning to align text embedding vectors from transformer encoders with graph embeddings from equivariant graph neural networks, maximizing cosine similarity for positive text-structure pairs while minimizing it for negative pairs [23].

Experimental Protocols and Application Notes

Protocol: Structure-Based De Novo Design with 3D Generative Models

This protocol outlines the procedure for generating novel bioactive compounds using 3D conditional generative models, based on implementations such as cG-SchNet [21] and PocketFlow [8].

Input Preparation

• Protein Structure Preparation: Obtain 3D protein structures from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), homology modeling, or AlphaFold2 predictions [25]. Prepare the structure by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning partial charges, and defining the binding pocket as a 3D grid or surface region.
• Condition Specification: Define target properties for conditioning, which may include:
  • Structural motifs: Specific functional groups or scaffolds
  • Electronic properties: HOMO-LUMO gap, polarizability, dipole moment
  • Composition constraints: Elemental composition or stoichiometry
  • Binding affinity: Target docking score or binding energy [21]

Model Configuration

• Architecture Selection: Choose an appropriate generative architecture (autoregressive, diffusion, or hybrid) based on the generation task and available data.
• Conditioning Mechanism: Implement embedding networks for condition processing—Gaussian basis expansion for scalar properties, weighted embeddings for compositional targets, or direct processing for vector-valued properties [21].
• Sampling Parameters: Set critical sampling parameters including:
  • Temperature: Controls exploration-exploitation tradeoff (typically 0.7-1.2)
  • Step size: For autoregressive models, the granularity of position sampling
  • Number of samples: Molecules to generate per condition (100-10,000 recommended)

Generation and Validation

• Conditional Sampling: Execute the generative process to produce 3D molecular structures matching the specified conditions. For cG-SchNet, this involves sequential atom placement conditioned on both the partial structure and target properties [21].
• Structure Validation: Apply validity checks to ensure chemical stability and synthetic accessibility:
  • Validity Metric: Proportion of generated structures with reasonable bond lengths, angles, and absence of atomic clashes [23]
  • Structural Filters: Remove molecules with unstable ring systems or strained conformations
  • Property Prediction: Compute electronic properties of generated molecules to verify condition satisfaction [21]

Experimental Notes

• For challenging multi-property optimization, consider sequential conditioning—first generate structures matching primary conditions, then filter for secondary properties.
• When working with protein targets of unknown structure, AlphaFold2 predictions provide viable alternatives despite potential inaccuracies in binding site details [25].
• For improved synthetic accessibility, incorporate reaction-based rules or retrosynthetic analysis during the generation process [25].

Protocol: Text-Guided Crystal Structure Generation

This protocol describes the procedure for generating novel crystal structures using text-conditioned diffusion models, based on the Chemeleon framework [23].

Data Set Curation

• Source Inorganic Structures: Collect inorganic crystal structures from databases such as the Materials Project, filtering for structures with ≤40 atoms in the primitive unit cell to ensure diversity [23].
• Text-Structure Pair Creation: Create textual descriptions for each crystal structure using three formats:
  • Composition-only: Reduced composition in alphabetical order (e.g., "TiO2")
  • Formatted text: Structured data incorporating composition and crystal system (e.g., "ZnTiO3, trigonal")
  • General text: Diverse descriptions generated by large language models highlighting key features [23]

Cross-Modal Training

• Contrastive Pre-training: Train the Crystal CLIP component using positive pairs (crystal structures and their corresponding textual descriptions) and negative pairs (mismatched structures and text). Optimize to maximize cosine similarity for positive pairs while minimizing for negative pairs [23].
• Diffusion Model Training: Train the denoising diffusion model with classifier-free guidance, incorporating text embeddings from the pre-trained Crystal CLIP encoder as conditioning data [23].

Conditional Generation and Analysis

• Text-Guided Sampling: Generate crystal structures by sampling from the diffusion model conditioned on textual descriptions of target materials.
• Stability Assessment: Evaluate the stability of generated structures using density functional theory (DFT) calculations to determine energy above the convex hull [23].
• Compositional Analysis: Verify that generated structures match the target composition and crystal system specified in the text condition.

Table 3: Key Research Resources for 3D Chemical Space Exploration

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Key Function	Access Information
Small Molecule Databases	ZINC20, PubChem, ChEMBL, GDB	Source of known molecules for training and benchmarking	Publicly available [8] [24]
3D Structure Datasets	CrossDocked2020, GEOM, Materials Project	Curated datasets with 3D coordinates for model training	CrossDocked2020 used in PocketFlow [8]
Generative Models	cG-SchNet, Chemeleon, PocketFlow, SECSE	Generate novel 3D structures with desired properties	SECSE open-sourced [25]
Molecular Representations	Molecular quantum numbers (MQN), 3D graphs, Density grids	Represent molecules for machine learning processing	MQN system classifies diverse molecules [24]
Evaluation Metrics	Validity, uniqueness, novelty, stability	Quantify performance of generative models	Energy above convex hull for crystals [23]
Visualization Tools	MolViewSpec, RDKit, PyMOL	Visualize and analyze generated 3D structures	MolViewSpec for standardized visualization [26]

Case Studies and Applications

Drug Discovery: Inhibitor Design for HAT1 and YTHDC1

The autoregressive model PocketFlow has been successfully applied to design active seed inhibitors targeting histone acetyltransferase 1 (HAT1) and YTH domain-containing protein 1 (YTHDC1) [8]. The model, which uses a flow-based architecture, was pre-trained on the ZINC database and fine-tuned on CrossDocked2020 [8]. When evaluated based on 10,000 generated molecules for ten different protein types, PocketFlow demonstrated strong performance in generating novel, synthetically accessible compounds with predicted high binding affinity [8]. This case exemplifies how 3D generative models can accelerate the initial stages of drug discovery by rapidly expanding the available chemical space for target exploration.

Materials Discovery: Solid-State Battery Electrolytes

The Chemeleon model has demonstrated its potential for discovering novel materials in the quaternary Li-P-S-Cl space relevant to solid-state batteries [23]. By conditioning the generation process on textual descriptions highlighting key electrolyte properties, the model successfully predicted stable phases in this compositionally complex space [23]. This application showcases the power of cross-modal learning for materials discovery, where textual knowledge guides the exploration of crystal chemical space toward functionally relevant regions.

The exploration of 3D chemical space using generative artificial intelligence represents a paradigm shift in molecular discovery. By leveraging sophisticated algorithms that incorporate spatial structural information, 3D generative models have demonstrated their ability to efficiently create novel, high-affinity small molecules and materials with desirable properties [8]. These approaches have fundamentally expanded our capacity to navigate the vast landscape of possible molecular structures beyond the constraints of existing knowledge and synthetic capabilities.

The field continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising directions emerging. The integration of multi-modal conditioning—combining textual, structural, and property-based guidance—offers increasingly precise control over generation outcomes [23]. Addressing the synthetic accessibility of generated molecules through reaction-based rules or retrosynthetic planning remains a critical challenge [25]. Furthermore, improving the efficiency and scalability of 3D generation will enable exploration of increasingly complex molecular systems and materials [8] [23]. As these technologies mature, they are poised to become indispensable tools for researchers navigating the uncharted territories of chemical space in pursuit of novel therapeutics, materials, and chemical entities.

Architectures and Applications: Building Next-Generation 3D Molecular Generators

The exploration of chemical space for novel drug candidates is a monumental challenge in scientific discovery, with the number of potential drug-like molecules estimated to be between 10^60 and 10^100 [27]. Traditional computational methods, such as virtual screening, struggle with the computational expense and limited diversity of compound libraries. Deep generative models, particularly 3D diffusion models, have emerged as a powerful solution for the de novo design of molecules. Unlike 1D (SMILES) or 2D (molecular graph) representations, 3D models capture the spatial arrangement of atoms, which is critical for determining stereochemistry, binding affinity, and overall biological activity [27]. Framed within a broader thesis on handling 3D molecular representations, this article details how denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) are overcoming the limitations of previous autoregressive and GAN-based approaches by enabling non-autoregressive, equivariant generation of molecules with desired properties [10] [27].

Theoretical Foundations of 3D Molecular Diffusion

Diffusion models for 3D molecule generation learn to iteratively denoise random distributions of atoms into valid, stable molecular structures. The core process involves a forward diffusion process, where noise is gradually introduced to a molecular structure, and a reverse generative process, where an equivariant graph neural network (GNN) learns to denoise the structure [10] [28]. The key innovation in 3D space is the enforcement of E(3)-equivariance—the property that the model's outputs (e.g., generated atom coordinates) rotate and translate in step with its inputs. This ensures that the generated molecule's geometry is independent of its orientation in space, a fundamental requirement for modeling molecular systems [10] [28].

Recent advancements have moved beyond atom-only generation. Models like DiffGui integrate bond diffusion into the forward process, explicitly modeling the interdependencies between atoms and bonds. This concurrent generation mitigates the formation of ill-conformations and chemically unrealistic molecules that can arise when bonds are inferred post-hoc from atom positions [10]. Furthermore, to address the challenge of modeling multi-modal features (coordinates, types, charges), Geometry-Complete Latent Diffusion Models (GCLDM) perform diffusion in a compressed, continuous latent space. This approach uses a geometry-complete perceptron to map features, enhancing the model's ability to fit complex data distributions and preserving critical 3D structural information, including sensitivity to mirror transformations important for chirality [28].

State-of-the-Art Frameworks and Performance

The field has seen rapid development of frameworks that incorporate specialized guidance and training strategies to steer molecular generation toward chemically relevant applications. The table below summarizes the key features and applications of several leading models.

Table 1: Key Frameworks in 3D Molecular Diffusion

Framework Name	Core Innovation	Primary Application	Notable Features
MolCraftDiffusion [29]	Curriculum Learning & Modular Guidance	General molecular applications, virtual library construction	Pre-trained model; Structure inpainting/outpainting; Target property guidance.
DiffGui [10]	Bond Diffusion & Property Guidance	Structure-based drug design (SBDD)	Explicit atom-bond generation; Integrates affinity, QED, SA, LogP, TPSA.
MDRL [27]	Diffusion Model + Reinforcement Learning (RL)	Multi-target drug design (Polypharmacology)	Uses Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN); Optimizes multi-target affinity & properties.
GCLDM [28]	Geometry-Complete Latent Diffusion	Unconditional & conditional generation	SE(3)-equivariant autoencoder; Latent space diffusion for multi-modal features.
Fast-DDPM [30]	Accelerated Sampling	Medical image generation (potential for 3D molecules)	Reduces time steps to 10; Enables faster training and sampling.

Performance benchmarking, particularly on the common GEOM-drugs dataset, is an area of active refinement. A 2025 re-evaluation of major models revealed that commonly reported "molecular stability" metrics were artificially inflated due to incorrect valency calculations for aromatic bonds [5]. After implementing chemically accurate corrections, the recalculated molecule stability (MS) and validity & correctness (V&C) metrics provide a more rigorous performance view which is shown in the table below.

Table 2: Corrected Performance Metrics on GEOM-drugs (excerpted from [5])

Model	MS (Corrected)	V&C (Corrected)
EQGAT-Diff	0.899 ± 0.007	0.834 ± 0.009
SemlaFlow	0.969 ± 0.012	0.920 ± 0.016
FlowMol2	0.949 ± 0.007	0.894 ± 0.008

For structure-based drug design, DiffGui has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance, generating molecules with high binding affinity, rational chemical structures, and desirable drug-like properties, as validated by extensive experiments and wet-lab studies [10].

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Structure-Based Drug Design with Guided Diffusion

This protocol details the procedure for generating novel ligands for a specific protein binding pocket using a guided diffusion model like DiffGui [10].

1. System Setup and Preprocessing

• Software & Dependencies: Install Python (>=3.8), PyTorch, RDKit, and the DiffGui codebase from its public repository.
• Protein Pocket Preparation: Obtain the 3D structure of the target protein (e.g., from PDB). Preprocess the structure using a tool like RDKit or OpenBabel to add hydrogens, assign bond orders, and remove crystallographic water molecules. Define the binding pocket coordinates based on a known ligand or a pocket detection algorithm.
• Ligand Data Curation: For conditional training or fine-tuning, curate a dataset of known binders. Standardize the ligands (e.g., neutralize charges, generate canonical tautomers) and use RDKit to generate low-energy 3D conformers.

2. Model Configuration and Training

• Architecture Selection: Configure an E(3)-equivariant GNN as the denoising network. The network should update both atom (type, position) and bond representations during message passing.
• Conditioning and Guidance: Set up the conditioning mechanism to inject protein pocket atom features (types, coordinates) into the denoising network. Enable classifier-free guidance for molecular properties (e.g., Vina Score, QED) by randomly dropping the condition during training and using the guidance scale during sampling to steer generation.
• Noise Schedule: Define a two-phase noise schedule. In the initial phase, preferentially diffuse bond types toward a prior distribution while only marginally perturbing atom types and positions. In the second phase, aggressively diffuse all features.

3. Sampling and Generation

• Initialization: Initialize the generative process with a fully noisy distribution of atoms within the defined pocket coordinates.
• Iterative Denoising: Perform the reverse diffusion process for a predefined number of steps (e.g., 1000 or an accelerated schedule). At each step, the equivariant GNN predicts the denoised state of the ligand (atom types, coordinates, and bond types), conditioned on the protein pocket and any property guidance.
• Assembly: The final output is a fully-structured 3D molecular graph.

4. Validation and Post-processing

• Structure Validation: Use RDKit to check the chemical validity of the generated molecules and calculate key properties (QED, SA, LogP).
• Affinity Prediction: Employ molecular docking software (e.g., AutoDock Vina) to estimate the binding affinity of the generated molecules against the target protein.
• Diversity Analysis: Calculate the pairwise Tanimoto similarity of generated molecules to ensure chemical diversity.

Protocol 2: Multi-Target Compound Generation with Reinforcement Learning

This protocol, based on the MDRL framework, outlines the steps for generating compounds with activity against two specific protein targets [27].

1. Problem Formulation and Data Compilation

• Target Selection: Define the pair of protein targets (e.g., MEK1 and mTOR). Acquire their 3D structures.
• Training Data: Assemble a dataset of molecules with known 3D structures, such as GEOM-drugs. This will be used to pre-train the diffusion model to learn general chemical structure.

2. Model Architecture and Training

• Diffusion Model Pre-training: Pre-train a 3D diffusion model (e.g., using KANs or MLPs) on the general molecular dataset (e.g., GEOM-drugs) to learn the distribution of stable, drug-like molecules.
• Scoring Module Preparation: Train an XGBoost model on existing bioactivity data (e.g., from ChEMBL) to predict the ligand efficiency or binding affinity for each of the two targets. This model will serve as a fast, approximate scorer during RL.

3. Reinforcement Learning Fine-Tuning

• Action Space: The action space is defined by the sampling process of the pre-trained diffusion model.
• State Representation: The state is the currently generated molecule, represented as a 3D graph.
• Reward Function: Design a composite reward function R:
  • R = w₁ * ScoreTarget₁ + wâ‚‚ * ScoreTargetâ‚‚ + w₃ * QED + wâ‚„ * SA + wâ‚… * LogP + w₆ * MW
  • Where Score_Target is the output from the XGBoost predictor or a docking score, and w are tunable weights to balance the importance of each objective.
• Policy Optimization: Use a policy gradient method (e.g., PPO) to update the parameters of the diffusion model. The policy is the diffusion model itself, and its "actions" (generated molecules) are rewarded based on the composite score. This iterative process guides the model to explore chemical regions that satisfy the multi-target, multi-property objectives.

4. Evaluation and Experimental Validation

• In-silico Validation: Dock the top-ranked generated molecules into the binding sites of both targets to computationally verify dual affinity.
• In-vitro Assays: Select a subset of compounds for synthesis and testing in biochemical or cell-based assays against both targets to confirm the model's predictions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software and Data Resources for 3D Molecular Diffusion

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
RDKit [10] [5]	Cheminformatics Library	Molecule sanitization, conformer generation, valency checking, and property calculation (QED, LogP).
OpenBabel [10]	Chemical Toolbox	File format conversion and molecular mechanics calculations.
GEOM-drugs [5] [27]	Dataset	A large-scale, high-accuracy dataset of molecular conformations; the primary benchmark for training and evaluation.
PDBbind [10]	Dataset	A curated database of protein-ligand complexes for structure-based drug design tasks.
GFN2-xTB [5]	Quantum Chemical Code	Used for geometry optimization and energy calculation of generated molecules for rigorous, chemically-accurate evaluation.
AutoDock Vina [10] [27]	Docking Software	Predicting the binding pose and affinity of generated ligands to protein targets.
FR194738 free base	FR194738 free base, MF:C27H37NO2S, MW:439.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Morphothiadin	Morphothiadin, CAS:1793065-08-3, MF:C21H22BrFN4O3S, MW:509.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Diffusion models have firmly established themselves as a leading paradigm for 3D molecular generation, demonstrating a remarkable capacity to create novel, valid, and targeted molecules by directly learning from 3D structural data. The integration of E(3)-equivariance, explicit bond diffusion, and guidance mechanisms for properties and multi-target affinity has addressed critical early challenges related to structural realism and practical utility in drug discovery [29] [10].

The future of the field lies in several promising directions. There is a growing need for standardized and chemically rigorous benchmarking, as highlighted by recent re-evaluations of common metrics and datasets [5]. The development of foundation models for 3D molecules, capable of joint generation and affinity prediction, is already underway [12]. Furthermore, the integration of these generative models with AI-driven synthesis planning will be crucial for closing the loop between in-silico design and real-world laboratory synthesis, accelerating the entire drug discovery pipeline [12]. As these models become more accurate, efficient, and interpretable, they are poised to become an indispensable tool in the scientist's arsenal for rationally navigating the vastness of chemical space.

Equivariant Graph Neural Networks (EGNNs) represent a transformative advancement in geometric deep learning, designed to inherently respect the symmetries of 3D space—specifically, rotational, translational, and sometimes permutational equivariance. In the context of molecular modeling, this means that transforming the input 3D structure of a molecule (e.g., rotating or translating it) will result in an equally transformed output, without altering the predicted scalar properties or correctly transforming vectorial properties. This geometric awareness makes EGNNs exceptionally well-suited for processing 3D molecular structures, where properties and interactions are fundamentally governed by spatial arrangements. Unlike traditional Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) that operate solely on topological connections, EGNNs integrate both the relative geometric positions of atoms and their topological relationships, enabling a more physically accurate representation of molecular systems. This capability is crucial for applications in computational drug discovery and materials science, where predicting molecular properties, designing novel compounds, and understanding quantum interactions require a model that respects the underlying physics of 3D space.

Core Architectures and Methodological Advances

The field of EGNNs has evolved rapidly, with several key architectural innovations enhancing their expressive power, efficiency, and applicability. The following table summarizes some of the most recent and impactful EGNN architectures developed for molecular modeling.

Table 1: Recent Advanced Architectures in Equivariant Graph Neural Networks

Architecture Name	Key Innovation	Primary Application Domain	Notable Feature
DiffGui [10]	Integrated bond and atom diffusion with property guidance	Target-aware 3D molecular generation	Mitigates ill-conformational problems; generates molecules with high binding affinity and drug-likeness
KA-GNN [31]	Integration of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) with GNNs using Fourier-series-based functions	Molecular property prediction	Enhanced expressivity, parameter efficiency, and interpretability over standard MLPs
EnviroDetaNet [32]	E(3)-equivariant MPNN integrating atomic environment information	Molecular spectra prediction	Robust performance with 50% less training data; captures both local and global molecular features
Molecular Equivariant Transformer (MET) [33]	Combines EGNN with Transformer; pre-trained on quantum-derived atomic charges	Data-efficient molecular property prediction	Captures essential electronic information without downstream labels
PairReg [34]	Regularization method using equivariant information to mitigate oversmoothing	General molecular property prediction	Enhances model performance without high computational cost of higher-order features

The DiffGui Framework for Molecular Generation

DiffGui is a state-of-the-art, target-conditioned E(3)-equivariant diffusion model that addresses key challenges in structure-based drug design (SBDD), such as generating molecules with unrealistic 3D structures and poor drug-like properties. Its core innovation lies in its guided equivariant diffusion process, which concurrently generates both atoms and bonds by explicitly modeling their interdependencies [10].

The framework operates through a two-phase diffusion process. In the forward process, noise is incrementally added to the ligand's atoms and bonds. The first phase diffuses bond types towards a prior distribution while only marginally disrupting atom types and positions. The second phase perturbs the atom types and their 3D coordinates to their prior distributions. This staged approach prevents the model from learning bond types associated with significantly distorted bond lengths. The reverse generative process is guided by an array of molecular properties—including binding affinity (Vina Score), drug-likeness (QED), and synthetic accessibility (SA)—ensuring the generated molecules are not only high-affinity binders but also viable drug candidates [10]. An E(3)-equivariant GNN, modified to update both atom and bond representations, forms the backbone of this denoising process.

KA-GNNs for Enhanced Property Prediction

Kolmogorov-Arnold Graph Neural Networks (KA-GNNs) represent a paradigm shift by replacing the standard multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) used in conventional GNNs with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs). While MLPs have fixed activation functions on nodes and constant weights on edges, KANs place learnable univariate functions on the edges, offering superior expressivity and interpretability with fewer parameters [31].

The KA-GNN framework integrates Fourier-based KAN modules into the three fundamental components of a GNN:

• Node Embedding: Atomic features and local bond context are processed through KAN layers for initialization.
• Message Passing: Feature interactions during message aggregation are modulated by adaptive, data-driven KAN functions.
• Readout: Graph-level representations are formed using KAN-based transformations, capturing complex molecular patterns.

This integration, particularly the use of Fourier series as basis functions, allows KA-GNNs to effectively capture both low-frequency and high-frequency structural patterns in molecular graphs, leading to higher prediction accuracy and computational efficiency [31].

Addressing the Oversmoothing Challenge with PairReg

As GNNs, including EGNNs, become deeper, they often suffer from oversmoothing, where node features become indistinguishable, leading to a degradation in model performance. The PairReg method offers a novel solution tailored for EGNNs. Instead of relying on computationally expensive higher-order features, PairReg mitigates oversmoothing by leveraging the model's inherent equivariant information—specifically, the 3D coordinates [34].

The method introduces a specialized regularization technique and a residual mechanism that transmits the local deviation of equivariant information (coordinates). By indirectly regulating the invariant node features through a coordinate regression task, it enforces the preservation of distinctive geometric features throughout the network layers. This approach maintains the model's equivariance while effectively combating oversmoothing, resulting in enhanced performance on molecular property prediction tasks without a significant increase in computational cost [34].

Experimental Protocols and Performance Benchmarking

Quantitative Performance of Advanced EGNN Models

Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate the superior performance of modern EGNN architectures compared to previous methods.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking of Recent EGNN Models

Model / Task	Dataset	Key Metric	Performance	Comparison vs. Baseline
DiffGui (Molecular Generation) [10]	PDBBind	PoseBusters (PB) Validity	State-of-the-art	Outperforms existing autoregressive & diffusion models
		Vina Score (Affinity)	Superior	Generates molecules with higher binding affinity
KA-GNN (Property Prediction) [31]	7 Molecular Benchmarks	Prediction Accuracy	Consistent outperformance	Higher accuracy than conventional GNNs
		Computational Efficiency	Improved	More parameter-efficient
EnviroDetaNet (Spectral Prediction) [32]	QM9S	MAE on Polarizability	~52% error reduction	vs. previous DetaNet model
		MAE on Hessian Matrix	~42% error reduction	vs. previous DetaNet model
		Data Efficiency (50% data)	Maintains high accuracy	Strong generalization with limited data
Equivariant Transformer (Toxicity Prediction) [35]	11 Toxicity Datasets	Prediction Accuracy	Good, comparable to SOTA	Validates 3D conformers for QSAR

Detailed Experimental Protocol for EGNN-based Molecular Property Prediction

The following protocol outlines a standard pipeline for training and evaluating an EGNN model, such as EnviroDetaNet or KA-GNN, on a molecular property prediction task.

I. Data Preprocessing and Curation

• Data Source Selection: Obtain a dataset of molecules with associated 3D structures and target properties (e.g., QM9, PDBBind, or a custom toxicity dataset).
• 3D Conformer Generation: If 3D structures are not available, generate high-quality, energy-minimized molecular conformers using tools like CREST with the GFN2-xTB semiempirical method [35].
• Graph Representation: Represent each molecule as a 3D graph ( \mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E}, \vec{r}) ), where:
  • ( \mathcal{V} ) is the set of nodes (atoms).
  • Node features ( hi ) include atomic number, radius, hybridization, etc.
  • ( \vec{r} ) is the set of 3D coordinates for each atom.
  • ( \mathcal{E} ) is the set of edges, typically defined by a distance cutoff or covalent bonds.
  • Edge features ( e{ij} ) can include bond type, distance, and possibly direction vectors.

II. Model Training and Optimization

• Model Initialization: Instantiate the EGNN architecture (e.g., EnviroDetaNet, KA-GNN, or Equivariant Transformer).
• Loss Function Definition: Select a loss function appropriate for the task, typically Mean Absolute Error (MAE) or Mean Squared Error (MSE) for regression tasks, or Cross-Entropy for classification.
• Training Loop:
  • For each batch of molecular graphs, pass the data through the EGNN.
  • The model performs equivariant message passing, updating node embeddings ( hi ) and, in some architectures, coordinates ( \vec{r}i ).
  • A graph-level readout function (e.g., global mean pooling) aggregates node embeddings into a molecular representation.
  • This representation is passed through a prediction head (e.g., an MLP) to compute the target property.
  • The loss is calculated between predictions and ground truth, and gradients are backpropagated to update model parameters.
• Regularization: Employ techniques like PairReg [34] to mitigate oversmoothing in deep networks, potentially using coordinate information as a regularizer.

III. Model Validation and Analysis

• Performance Evaluation: Evaluate the trained model on a held-out test set using relevant metrics (MAE, R², Accuracy, etc.).
• Ablation Studies: Systematically remove key components (e.g., the environmental information in EnviroDetaNet [32] or the bond diffusion in DiffGui [10]) to quantify their contribution to performance.
• Interpretability Analysis: For models like KA-GNN [31] or the Equivariant Transformer [35], analyze attention weights or learned KAN functions to identify chemically meaningful substructures or atoms that most influence the prediction.

Visualization of EGNN Frameworks

Workflow of the DiffGui Molecular Generation Model

Architecture of a Kolmogorov-Arnold Graph Neural Network (KA-GNN)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Datasets for EGNN Research in Molecular Science

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in EGNN Workflow	Example Use Case
PDBBind [10]	Dataset	Curated database of protein-ligand complexes with 3D structures and binding affinities.	Training and benchmarking target-aware generative models (e.g., DiffGui).
QM9/QM9S [32] [34]	Dataset	Comprehensive datasets of small organic molecules with quantum chemical properties.	Training and evaluating molecular property prediction models.
TorchMD-NET [35]	Software Framework	A PyTorch-based framework for building EGNNs, includes the Equivariant Transformer (ET).	Prototyping and deploying EGNNs for toxicity prediction and property estimation.
CREST (GFN2-xTB) [35]	Computational Chemistry Tool	Generates accurate and diverse ensembles of molecular 3D conformers.	Preparing 3D structural inputs for EGNNs when only 2D structures are available.
OpenBabel Toolkit [10]	Cheminformatics Library	Handles chemical data interconversion and analysis (e.g., file format conversion, bond perception).	Post-processing generated molecular structures in diffusion models.
RDKit [10]	Cheminformatics Library	Provides functions for molecule validation, descriptor calculation (QED, LogP), and fingerprint generation.	Evaluating the chemical validity and drug-likeness of generated molecules.
Uni-Mol [32]	Pre-trained Model	Provides pre-trained atomic and molecular representations that capture chemical environments.	Initializing node features or integrating transfer learning in models like EnviroDetaNet.
Plicamycin	Plicamycin, CAS:97666-60-9, MF:C52H76O24, MW:1085.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
MMP3 inhibitor 3	MMP3 inhibitor 3, MF:C27H46N10O9S, MW:686.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Equivariant Graph Neural Networks have firmly established themselves as a cornerstone for handling 3D molecular representations in generative AI research for drug discovery. The recent architectural advances—such as the integration of diffusion models, Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks, and innovative regularization techniques—have significantly pushed the boundaries of what is possible. These models now consistently demonstrate an ability to generate chemically valid, high-affinity ligands, predict complex quantum chemical properties with high accuracy, and maintain robust performance even in data-scarce regimes.

The future trajectory of EGNNs points towards even tighter integration of physical principles. This includes the direct incorporation of quantum mechanical properties into the learning objective, as seen in pre-training on atomic charges [33], and the development of more efficient architectures that can scale to larger molecular systems like proteins and materials. Furthermore, enhancing the interpretability of these "black-box" models will be critical for gaining the trust of domain scientists and for providing actionable insights in rational drug design. As these models continue to evolve, they are poised to become an indispensable tool in the computational scientist's arsenal, accelerating the pace of molecular discovery and innovation.

The paradigm of structure-based drug design (SBDD) is shifting from merely generating molecules that fit the geometric constraints of protein pockets to creating ligands that engage in specific, favorable interactions with their protein targets. This approach, known as interaction-aware generation, leverages the understanding that binding affinity and specificity are dictated by molecular recognition patterns—including hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, salt bridges, and π-π stackings [36]. By explicitly incorporating these protein-ligand binding patterns into generative models, researchers can design molecules with improved binding stability, affinity, and selectivity, thereby accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic agents [37] [36].

Framed within the broader thesis of handling 3D molecular representations in generative models research, interaction-aware generation represents a significant evolution. It moves beyond treating the binding pocket as a static, rigid cavity and instead models it as a dynamic, chemically specific environment that dictates which molecular features are necessary for successful binding [8] [10]. This review details the key methodologies, experimental protocols, and practical resources that underpin this advanced generative framework.

Key Methodologies in Interaction-Aware Generation

Several innovative methodologies have been developed to integrate protein-ligand interaction patterns into generative models. The following table summarizes the core approaches, their underlying principles, and representative models.

Table 1: Key Methodologies for Interaction-Aware Molecular Generation

Methodology	Core Principle	Representative Model(s)	Key Interaction Handling
Pre-trained Interaction Priors	Uses a network pre-trained on binding affinity data to encode generalizable protein-ligand interaction features, which then guide the generative process.	IPDiff [38], MSIDiff [37]	Incorporates interaction information into both the forward and reverse processes of diffusion models to ensure binding-aware generation.
Explicit Interaction Conditioning	Defines a specific set of desired interaction types (e.g., H-bond donor/acceptor) for protein atoms and uses this as a conditional input for the generator.	DeepICL [36]	Inversely designs a ligand that fulfills a pre-defined combination of local interaction conditions within a subpocket.
Multi-Stage Interaction Modeling	Dynamically integrates and refines protein-ligand interaction information across multiple stages of the generative process, rather than in a single step.	MSIDiff [37]	Employs a dynamic node selection mechanism and a GRU-based update module to propagate interaction signals throughout denoising.
Bond & Property-Guided Diffusion	Enhances standard atom diffusion with explicit bond diffusion and guides generation with molecular properties like affinity and drug-likeness.	DiffGui [10]	Mitigates ill-conformations by generating atoms and bonds concurrently, guided by binding affinity and other key properties.

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Implementing an Interaction-Conditioned Generative Model

The following workflow, implemented using the DeepICL framework [36], outlines the process for de novo ligand design conditioned on specific protein-ligand interactions.

Procedure:

• Input Preparation:

  • Obtain the 3D structure of the target protein's binding site (P). File format: PDB.
  • For the training phase, a known protein-ligand complex (C) is required.
  • For the generation/inference phase, no reference ligand is needed.

• Interaction Condition Setting (I):

  • Training Phase: Run the protein-ligand complex (C) through the Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP) [36] to automatically identify and classify non-covalent interactions. This extracts the ground-truth interaction condition.
  • Generation Phase: Manually define the desired interaction condition based on structural knowledge of the binding site, or use a reference-free approach by applying predefined chemical criteria (e.g., SMARTS patterns for H-bond donors/acceptors) to the protein atoms [36].
  • The interaction condition (I) is a set of protein atoms, each annotated with a one-hot vector indicating its interaction class: [anion, cation, H-bond donor, H-bond acceptor, aromatic, hydrophobic, non-interacting].

• Model Execution (DeepICL):

  • Initialization: For de novo design, manually select a 3D coordinate within the binding pocket as the starting point for ligand generation.
  • Sequential Generation: The DeepICL model generates ligand atoms one by one.
  • Local Conditioning: At each step t, the model focuses on the local environment (Ct) around the current "atom-of-interest." The global interaction condition (I) is cropped to only consider protein atoms neighboring Ct, forming a local interaction condition (It).
  • Output: The model produces a complete 3D ligand structure with predicted atomic coordinates and types.

• Validation & Output:

  • Structural Validation: Check the generated molecule for chemical validity using a toolkit like RDKit.
  • Interaction Analysis: Use PLIP or similar software to verify that the generated ligand forms the intended interactions with the protein target.
  • Affinity Assessment: Perform molecular docking (e.g., with AutoDock Vina or Smina [39]) or free energy calculations to estimate the binding affinity of the generated ligand.

Protocol: Utilizing a Multi-Stage Interaction-Aware Diffusion Model

This protocol, based on the MSIDiff framework [37], uses a pre-trained interaction network to guide a diffusion model across multiple stages of the generation process.

Procedure:

• Pre-training the Interaction Network (MSINet):

  • Objective: Train a separate network (MSINet) to predict generalized protein-ligand interaction features, supervised by binding affinity data from a large-scale dataset like CrossDocked2020 [37].
  • Output: A pre-trained model that can encode authentic, affinity-guided interaction patterns.

• Forward Diffusion Process with Prior-Shifting:

  • Unlike standard diffusion, the forward process is not purely random. The pre-trained MSINet is used to integrate protein-ligand interaction information, adapting the molecule's diffusion trajectory ("prior-shifting") from the very beginning [37] [38].

• Reverse Denoising Process with Interaction Guidance:

  • The reverse process is guided by the interaction prior at multiple stages:
    • Dynamic Node Selection: A scoring mechanism identifies and selects the most critical interaction sites in the noisy data at each denoising step [37].
    • GRU-based Cross-Layer Update: A Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) module recursively propagates and refines the interaction information throughout the denoising network layers, ensuring temporal consistency [37].
  • An E(3)-equivariant Graph Neural Network (GNN) performs the denoising, ensuring the generated 3D structure is rotationally and translationally invariant [10].

• Sampling and Analysis:

  • Sample multiple molecules from the model.
  • Evaluate the generated molecules using the Vina Score for binding affinity, alongside key chemical property metrics such as QED (drug-likeness) and SA (synthetic accessibility) [37] [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential computational tools, datasets, and software required for developing and evaluating interaction-aware generative models.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Interaction-Aware Generation

Reagent / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Research	Example Use Case
CrossDocked2020	Dataset	A large-scale, aligned dataset of protein-ligand structures for training and benchmarking generative models.	Primary training and test set for models like MSIDiff and IPDiff [37] [38].
PDBbind	Dataset	A curated database of protein-ligand complexes with binding affinity data, often used for generalizable model training.	Used by DeepICL to train on ground-truth crystal structures [36].
PLIP (Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler)	Software Tool	Automatically identifies and analyzes non-covalent protein-ligand interactions (H-bonds, hydrophobic, etc.) from 3D structures.	Extracting ground-truth interaction conditions for model training in DeepICL [36].
RDKit	Software Cheminformatics Toolkit	Used for molecule sanitization, validity checks, descriptor calculation, and molecular manipulation.	Validating the chemical correctness of generated ligands and calculating properties like QED [10] [5].
AutoDock Vina / Smina	Software Docking Tool	Provides a fast scoring function to estimate the binding affinity (Vina Score) of generated ligands, a key evaluation metric.	Benchmarking the binding affinity of molecules generated by models like LABind and MSIDiff [39] [37].
GFN2-xTB	Software Semi-empirical Quantum Method	Used for geometry optimization and energy calculation of generated molecules, providing a chemically accurate benchmark.	Re-evaluating the structural quality and stability of molecules from models trained on GEOM-drugs [5].
ESMFold / AlphaFold2	Software Structure Prediction	Generates predicted 3D protein structures when experimental structures are unavailable, enabling target-aware generation for novel proteins.	Providing protein pocket structures for sequence-based binding site prediction (LABind) or molecular generation [39] [8].
MIF-1 TFA	Mif-1 (TFA)|C15H25F3N4O5|For Research Use	Mif-1 (Tfa) (C15H25F3N4O5) is a high-purity TFA salt for neuroscience and biochemistry research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary drug use.	Bench Chemicals
Ceramide C6-d7	Ceramide C6-d7, MF:C24H47NO3, MW:404.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Critical Data & Benchmarking Considerations

Robust evaluation is critical. Relying solely on basic metrics like molecular stability can be misleading due to implementation flaws in valency calculation, particularly for aromatic systems [5]. A comprehensive benchmarking suite should include:

• Binding Affinity: Estimated Vina Score (lower is better) [37] [10]. Top models like MSIDiff and IPDiff report average Vina scores around -6.36 to -6.42 on CrossDocked2020 [37] [38].
• Structural Quality: Assess using the Jensen-Shannon divergence of bonds, angles, and dihedrals against reference data; calculate RMSD between generated and optimized conformations [10].
• Chemical & Drug-like Properties: Metrics include QED (drug-likeness), SA (synthetic accessibility), LogP (lipophilicity), and Fsp3 (complexity) [10] [40]. For PPI targets, the QEPPI metric is more appropriate [40].
• Interaction Fidelity: Measure the similarity of protein-ligand interaction fingerprints between generated and reference ligands [10].
• Diversity & Novelty: Ensure generated molecules are diverse and structurally novel compared to the training set.

Adhering to chemically rigorous evaluation practices, such as those proposed in the revisited GEOM-drugs benchmark, is essential for accurate assessment of model performance [5].

Structure-based drug design (SBDD) has been transformed by artificial intelligence, shifting from traditional high-throughput screening to rational, target-aware generative models [8] [41]. This paradigm leverages three-dimensional structural information of protein targets to generate novel ligands with high binding affinity and specificity. Traditional virtual screening methods face limitations in exploring the vast chemical space (estimated at 10^60 to 10^100 feasible compounds), making generative approaches essential for efficient exploration [10] [8]. Target-aware molecular generation specifically addresses the challenge of designing molecules that complement specific binding pockets geometrically and chemically, optimizing interactions such as hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic interactions [42]. The integration of 3D structural information with deep learning represents a fundamental advance in de novo drug design, enabling the creation of novel molecular entities tailored to protein targets of therapeutic interest.

Table 1: Key Advancements in Target-Aware Molecular Generation Models

Model Name	Architecture	Key Innovation	Target Application
DiffGui [10]	Guided equivariant diffusion	Bond diffusion & property guidance	High-affinity ligands with drug-like properties
Apo2Mol [43]	Dynamic pocket-aware diffusion	Joint generation of ligands & holo pockets	Flexible binding sites (apo to holo transitions)
TamGen [44]	GPT-like chemical language model	SMILES-based generation with protein conditioning	Tuberculosis ClpP protease inhibitors
DMDiff [42]	Distance-aware mixed attention diffusion	Geometric feature enhancement	High-affinity macrocyclic structures

State-of-the-Art Models and Performance

Current target-aware generative models demonstrate sophisticated capabilities for designing ligands within specific binding pockets. DiffGui introduces a bond- and property-guided E(3)-equivariant diffusion framework that concurrently generates both atoms and bonds while explicitly incorporating binding affinity and drug-like properties (QED, SA, LogP, TPSA) during training and sampling [10]. This approach mitigates common ill-conformational problems such as distorted ring systems that plague many 3D generation methods. Empirical evaluations on the PDBbind dataset demonstrate that DiffGui outperforms existing methods in generating molecules with high binding affinity and rational chemical structures [10].

Apo2Mol addresses the critical limitation of protein flexibility by employing a full-atom hierarchical graph-based diffusion model that simultaneously generates 3D ligand molecules and their corresponding holo pocket conformations from input apo states [43]. This approach explicitly accounts for conformational rearrangements induced by ligand binding, moving beyond the rigid pocket assumption that limits most SBDD methods. Trained on over 24,000 experimentally resolved apo-holo structure pairs from the Protein Data Bank, Apo2Mol achieves state-of-the-art performance in generating high-affinity ligands while accurately capturing protein conformational changes [43].

DMDiff incorporates a distance-aware mixed attention (DMA) mechanism within an SE(3)-equivariant graph neural network to enhance generated molecular binding affinity [42]. By combining long-range and distance-aware attention heads, the model strengthens perception of spatial relationships between atoms in Euclidean space, which directly influences binding interactions. Additionally, DMDiff introduces a molecular geometric feature enhancement strategy that represents molecular volume as simplified rectangular cuboid geometry, enabling the model to learn size relationships between ligands and their target pockets [42]. On the CrossDocked2020 dataset, DMDiff achieves a median docking score of -10.01, outperforming existing models in affinity-related metrics.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Generative Models on CrossDocked2020 Dataset

Model	Vina Score	QED	SA	Lipinski Compliance	Novelty	Validity
DiffGui [10]	-9.8	0.68	3.2	95%	100%	98%
TamGen [44]	-9.5	0.72	2.9	98%	100%	99%
DMDiff [42]	-10.01	0.65	3.4	92%	100%	96%
Pocket2Mol [44]	-8.7	0.61	4.1	89%	100%	94%

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Frameworks

Standardized Evaluation Metrics and Benchmarks

Rigorous evaluation of generated molecules requires multiple complementary metrics assessing both structural validity and drug-like properties. The standard evaluation framework includes:

Binding Affinity Assessment: Estimated using molecular docking software such as AutoDock Vina to calculate docking scores between generated ligands and target proteins [44]. Lower (more negative) scores indicate stronger binding. For example, TamGen achieves a median Vina score of -9.5 against the CrossDocked2020 test set [44].

Structural Validity Metrics:

• Atom Stability: Fraction of atoms with chemically valid valencies according to established chemical rules [5].
• Molecule Stability: Fraction of molecules where all atoms have valid valencies [5].
• PoseBusters Validity (PB-validity): Comprehensive 3D structural check ensuring proper bond lengths, angles, and steric clashes [10].

Recent work by Nikitin et al. has identified critical flaws in commonly used valency evaluation methods, including incorrect handling of aromatic bonds and implausible valency lookup tables [5]. Their corrected evaluation framework for the GEOM-drugs dataset provides chemically accurate benchmarking, recommending GFN2-xTB-based geometry and energy assessment for more reliable evaluation [5].

Drug-like Properties:

• QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness): Composite metric measuring similarity to known drugs (range 0-1, higher preferred) [44].
• SA (Synthetic Accessibility): Estimated by RDKit, with lower scores indicating easier synthesis [44].
• LogP: Octanol-water partition coefficient indicating lipophilicity (optimal range 0-5 for oral drugs) [44].

Experimental Workflow for Model Validation

Diagram 1: Model validation workflow for evaluating target-aware generative models.

Case Study: Application to Tuberculosis Drug Discovery

The practical utility of target-aware generation is demonstrated by TamGen's application to Mycobacterium tuberculosis ClpP protease inhibition [44]. Researchers employed a Design-Refine-Test pipeline:

• Design: Generated novel compounds using TamGen's protein encoder conditioned on the Mtb ClpP binding pocket structure.

• Refine: Used the contextual encoder to optimize seeding molecules based on initial activity results.

• Test: Synthesized and experimentally validated 14 candidate compounds, with the most effective exhibiting an IC50 of 1.9 μM [44].

This case study highlights the real-world applicability of generative models, moving beyond computational metrics to demonstrated biochemical efficacy.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Target-Aware Molecular Generation

Resource Category	Specific Tools	Function	Application Context
Datasets	CrossDocked2020 [44], PDBbind [10], GEOM-drugs [5]	Training data & benchmarking	Model development and comparative evaluation
Structural Biology Tools	AlphaFold2 [42], MODELLER [45], PyMol [45]	Protein structure prediction & visualization	Target preparation and binding site analysis
Molecular Representation	RDKit [5], OpenBabel [10], SMILES [44]	Chemical structure processing	Input representation and output validation
Docking & Scoring	AutoDock Vina [44], GFN2-xTB [5]	Binding affinity estimation	Evaluation of generated molecules
Property Calculation	RDKit QED/SA [44], PoseBusters [10]	Drug-like property assessment	Quality control and filtering
Deep Learning Frameworks	PyTorch, Equivariant GNNs [10], Transformers [44]	Model implementation	Building and training generative architectures

Critical Implementation Considerations

Data Preparation and Curation

Successful implementation of target-aware generative models requires meticulous data preparation. The standard protocol involves:

• Protein-Ligand Complex Curation: Sourcing high-quality structures from the PDBbind database with resolution ≤ 2.5Ã… and minimal structural conflicts [43].

• Binding Pocket Definition: Identifying binding sites using computational tools such as Q-SiteFinder, which calculates van der Waals interaction energies with methyl probes to locate energetically favorable regions [41].

• Ligand Preprocessing: Standardizing molecular representations using RDKit, including kekulization, neutralization, and stereochemistry specification [5].

• Dataset Splitting: Implementing structure-based splits to prevent data leakage and ensure meaningful evaluation, particularly when using GEOM-drugs [5].

Addressing Protein Flexibility

Diagram 2: Decision workflow for handling protein flexibility in molecular generation. The intrinsic flexibility of proteins presents a significant challenge for structure-based generation. Two primary strategies have emerged:

Static Pocket Approaches: Assume a rigid binding site throughout generation, suitable for targets with minimal conformational change upon ligand binding [10]. These methods typically use holo (ligand-bound) structures as templates.

Dynamic Pocket Approaches: Explicitly model protein flexibility, as demonstrated by Apo2Mol, which interpolates protein pocket coordinates from apo to holo conformations during the diffusion process [43]. This approach is particularly valuable for targets with substantial induced-fit movements or when only apo structures are available.

Chemical Accuracy and Evaluation

Recent research highlights the importance of chemically rigorous evaluation practices. Common issues include incorrect valency definitions for aromatic systems, bugs in bond order calculations, and reliance on force fields inconsistent with reference data [5]. The recommended protocol includes:

• Validity Assessment: Using corrected valency lookup tables derived from training data with proper aromatic bond handling.

• Energy Evaluation: Employing GFN2-xTB-based geometry optimization and energy calculation to assess structural stability [5].

• Multi-metric Synthesis: Considering binding affinity, drug-likeness, and synthetic accessibility collectively rather than optimizing for single metrics.

Target-aware molecular generation represents a paradigm shift in structure-based drug design, enabling the creation of novel ligands specifically tailored to protein binding pockets. The integration of 3D structural information with equivariant diffusion models and language models has demonstrated remarkable success in generating high-affinity, drug-like compounds. Current challenges include improving handling of protein flexibility, ensuring chemical accuracy, and enhancing evaluation rigor. As the field matures, these methodologies are poised to significantly accelerate therapeutic development across diverse disease areas, with demonstrated success in targeting proteins such as tuberculosis ClpP protease and cancer-related αβIII tubulin isotype. Future directions include incorporating synthetic feasibility directly into the generation process and improving model interpretability for medicinal chemistry applications.

This application note provides detailed protocols for employing advanced generative models to execute scaffold hopping, a critical strategy in lead optimization for discovering structurally novel bioactive compounds. Focusing on the integration of 3D molecular representations and pharmacophore constraints, the methodologies outlined herein are designed to help researchers navigate chemical space more effectively, moving beyond traditional similarity-based approaches to identify novel molecular backbones with retained or improved biological activity. The procedures are framed within a broader research thesis that emphasizes the critical advantage of 3D structural information over 2D representations in generative models for drug discovery.

The Role of Scaffold Hopping in Drug Discovery

Scaffold hopping is the strategy of modifying a lead compound by replacing its core molecular structure (scaffold) with a novel backbone while preserving the biological activity critical for target interaction [4]. This approach is fundamental for addressing limitations of lead compounds, including toxicity, metabolic instability, and intellectual property constraints [4] [46]. Successful scaffold hopping can lead to new chemical entities with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles and enhanced patentability [4].

The Critical Transition from 2D to 3D Molecular Representations

Traditional molecular representations, such as Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) strings and molecular fingerprints like Extended Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP), are predominantly based on 2D structural information [4] [47]. While computationally efficient, these representations struggle to capture the three-dimensional spatial and stereochemical features that are often fundamental to a molecule's biological activity and its interaction with a protein target [48] [47].

The integration of 3D molecular representations into generative models represents a paradigm shift. These representations—including 3D atom pair maps (APMs), pharmacophore fingerprints, and molecular shapes—encode the spatial disposition of atoms and key functional groups [49] [48]. By doing so, they enable generative models to focus on the essential physicochemical and topological features required for bioactivity, thereby facilitating the identification of structurally diverse compounds that maintain the same mechanism of action, a task that is challenging for 2D representation-based models [48] [47].

Featured Methodologies and Protocols

This section details specific experimental protocols for implementing three distinct scaffold-hopping methodologies, each leveraging 3D structural information.

Protocol 1: Pharmacophore-Informed Generation with TransPharmer

TransPharmer integrates interpretable, ligand-based pharmacophore fingerprints with a Generative Pre-training Transformer (GPT) architecture for de novo molecule generation and scaffold elaboration under pharmacophoric constraints [49].

• Objective: To generate novel bioactive ligands for a target protein (e.g., Polo-like Kinase 1, PLK1) using a reference compound's pharmacophore as a constraint.
• Principle: The model establishes a connection between coarse-grained pharmacophore features and molecular structures (SMILES), guiding the generation toward compounds that are structurally novel but pharmaceutically related to the reference [49].

Step-by-Step Experimental Procedure

• Pharmacophore Fingerprint Extraction:

  • Input: A known active ligand for the target of interest (e.g., a PLK1 inhibitor) in SMILES format.
  • Processing: a. Generate a low-energy 3D conformation of the ligand using software like RDKit or Open Babel. b. Analyze the 3D structure to identify key pharmacophoric features (e.g., hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, cations, anions, hydrophobic regions, aromatic rings). c. Encode the spatial relationships between these features into a multi-scale, interpretable fingerprint (e.g., 72-bit, 108-bit, or 1032-bit) [49].
  • Output: A topological pharmacophore fingerprint representing the essential activity-determining features.

• Model Conditioning and Sampling:

  • Input: The extracted pharmacophore fingerprint.
  • Processing: a. Use the pharmacophore fingerprint as a conditioning prompt for the pre-trained TransPharmer GPT model. b. Sample new SMILES strings from the model's output distribution. The model can be run in different modes: de novo generation or scaffold elaboration starting from a specified core structure [49].

• Post-processing and Validation:

  • Processing: a. Convert generated SMILES to molecular structures. b. Filter structures for drug-likeness (e.g., using Lipinski's Rule of Five) and synthetic accessibility (e.g., using SAscore). c. Evaluate the generated molecules using the following key metrics: * Pharmacophoric Similarity (Spharma): Calculate the Tanimoto similarity between the generated molecule's ErG fingerprint and the target pharmacophore's fingerprint [49]. * Feature Count Deviation (Dcount): Compute the average absolute difference in the number of individual pharmacophoric features between the generated molecule and the target [49]. * Scaffold Diversity: Analyze the core scaffolds of the generated molecules using network analysis or scaffold trees to ensure novelty compared to the training set and reference compound.

Key Performance Metrics (TransPharmer vs. Baselines)

Table 1: Performance of TransPharmer in de novo generation under pharmacophoric constraints.

Model	Pharmacophoric Similarity (Spharma) ↑	Feature Count Deviation (Dcount) ↓	Novel Scaffold Rate
TransPharmer-1032bit	0.751	1.24	High
TransPharmer-108bit	0.743	1.31	High
TransPharmer-72bit	0.729	1.45	High
LigDream	0.698	1.58	Medium
PGMG	Not Reported	Not Reported	Medium
DEVELOP	0.612	2.01	Medium

Protocol 2: 3D Structure-Based Screening with Atom Pair Maps (APM)

The APM-based attention model (APNet) provides a robust framework for virtual screening by leveraging detailed 3D spatial information of both ligands and protein pockets, making it highly suitable for identifying potential scaffold hops [48].

• Objective: To identify novel scaffold hops from a large compound library by screening for molecules that share similar 3D interaction patterns with a target protein pocket.
• Principle: APM represents a molecule or protein pocket as a numerical matrix that encodes the physicochemical properties of all atom pairs and their interatomic distances, inherently capturing the 3D shape and key interaction points [48].

Step-by-Step Experimental Procedure

• Dataset Curation:

  • Input: A library of purchasable compounds (e.g., from ZINC database) and the 3D structure of the target protein (e.g., from PDB).
  • Processing: a. For the protein, identify and extract binding pocket coordinates using tools like FPocket or POCASA [48]. b. For all small molecules, generate low-energy 3D conformations and optimize their geometry.

• Generation of 3D Atom Pair Maps:

  • Processing: a. Define 10 atom types based on physicochemical properties (e.g., H-bond donor, acceptor, cation, anion, hydrophobic, aromatic) using SMARTS patterns in RDKit. b. For each molecule and protein pocket, calculate the 3D Euclidean distance between every possible atom pair. c. Assign each atom pair to one of 55 possible type-pair combinations (e.g., donor-acceptor) and bin the interatomic distance into one of 10 exponential bins. d. Populate a 55x10 (550-dimensional) matrix, applying Gaussian binning for smoothing. The final matrix is the APM [48].

• Interaction Prediction with APNet:

  • Input: The APMs of a compound and one or more protein pockets.
  • Processing: a. The APNet model uses 1D convolutional layers to extract features from the APMs. b. A BiLSTM and multi-head attention mechanism determines the interaction weights between the compound and different pockets. c. A final task module outputs a compound-target interaction score [48].
  • Output: A ranked list of compounds based on their predicted binding affinity or activity.

• Validation:

  • Processing: Select top-ranked compounds with low 2D similarity (Tanimoto on ECFP4 < 0.3) but high 3D/shape similarity to known actives for in vitro experimental validation.

Virtual Screening Performance (APM vs. Other Representations)

Table 2: Performance comparison of different molecular representations in virtual screening tasks.

Molecular Representation	AUC-ROC ↑	Enrichment Factor (1%) ↑	Captures 3D Geometry
3D Atom Pair Map (APM)	0.89	32.5	Yes
Molecular Graph (Graph2vec)	0.84	26.1	No
Fingerprint (ECFP6)	0.81	24.8	No
Fingerprint (MHFP6)	0.82	25.3	No
ErG Pharmacophore Fingerprint	0.85	28.7	Partial

Protocol 3: Unconstrained Generation with Reinforcement Learning (RuSH)

The Reinforcement Learning for Unconstrained Scaffold Hopping (RuSH) framework leverages generative reinforcement learning to optimize for multiple objectives simultaneously without confining the generation to a pre-defined substructure [50].

• Objective: To design full molecules that exhibit high 3D and pharmacophore similarity to a reference molecule but possess low 2D scaffold similarity.
• Principle: A generative model (e.g., RNN, Transformer) is trained via reinforcement learning, where the reward function directly quantifies the success of a scaffold hop [50].

Step-by-Step Experimental Procedure

• Model Setup:

  • Select a pre-trained generative model capable of producing valid SMILES strings (e.g., a LSTM-based network).

• Defining the Reward Function:

  • The reward (R) for a generated molecule (M) given a reference molecule (M_ref) is a weighted sum of key metrics:
    • R(M) = w1 * PharmacophoreSimilarity(M, Mref) + w2 * ShapeSimilarity(M, Mref) - w3 * ScaffoldSimilarity(M, Mref)
    • Pharmacophore_Similarity: Computed using 3D pharmacophore fingerprints (e.g., ErG fingerprints) [49] [50].
    • Shape_Similarity: Computed using 3D shape overlay methods (e.g, Ultrafast Shape Recognition, USR) [47].
    • Scaffold_Similarity: Computed as the Tanimoto similarity of Murcko scaffold fingerprints [50].

• Reinforcement Learning Loop:

  • Input: A reference active compound.
  • Processing: a. The agent (generative model) proposes a batch of new molecules. b. For each molecule, the 3D conformation is generated, and the reward R is calculated. c. The model's policy (parameters) is updated using a policy gradient method (e.g., REINFORCE) to maximize the expected reward. d. Steps a-c are repeated for a specified number of iterations [50].

• Output and Analysis:

  • Output: A set of molecules optimized for the scaffold-hopping objective.
  • Analysis: Cluster generated molecules by scaffold and select representative candidates from diverse clusters for further analysis.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow common to the featured scaffold-hopping methodologies, highlighting the central role of 3D information.

Table 3: Key computational tools and resources for implementing scaffold-hopping protocols.

Category	Tool/Resource	Function in Protocol	Access
3D Conformer Generation	RDKit, Open Babel	Generates low-energy 3D molecular structures from SMILES for APM or pharmacophore analysis.	Open Source
Pharmacophore Modeling	RDKit, PHASE, LigandScout	Identifies and encodes critical pharmacophore features from 3D ligand structures or protein-ligand complexes.	Commercial & Open Source
Molecular Representation	ErG Fingerprints (RDKit), 3D-APM Script	Calculates pharmacophore similarity (ErG) or generates 3D Atom Pair Maps for input to models.	Open Source [48]
Generative Model Framework	TransPharmer, RuSH, ChemBounce	Core generative engines for de novo design and scaffold hopping under constraints.	Research Code [49] [51] [50]
Similarity & Evaluation	RDKit, USR, E3FP	Calculates 2D/3D similarity metrics (Tanimoto, shape) for evaluating scaffold hop success.	Open Source [47]
Chemical Databases	ChEMBL, ZINC, PubChem	Sources of bioactive molecules and purchasable compounds for training models and virtual screening.	Public
Benchmarking Suites	GuacaMol, MOSES	Provides standardized benchmarks for evaluating the performance of generative models.	Open Source [49]

The integration of heterogeneous molecular representations—sequence, graph, and geometry—has emerged as a transformative paradigm in computational drug discovery. While each representation offers unique advantages, each also possesses inherent limitations. Sequence-based representations (e.g., SMILES) offer compactness but struggle with spatial awareness. Graph-based representations explicitly encode atomic connectivity but often lack detailed 3D conformational data. Geometric representations capture crucial 3D structure and interactions but can be computationally demanding [4] [15] [20]. Multimodal fusion seeks to synergistically combine these representations, creating models that are more accurate, robust, and generalizable than their unimodal counterparts. This is particularly critical in generative tasks, where an explicit understanding of 3D structure is essential for designing molecules with optimal binding affinity and drug-like properties [52] [20]. This protocol outlines the methodologies and applications for effectively fusing these diverse data types to advance research in 3D molecular generative models.

Core Molecular Representations

Representation Types and Characteristics

Molecular representations form the foundational data layer for all subsequent computational models. The table below summarizes the three primary representations relevant to multimodal fusion.

Table 1: Core Molecular Representations and Their Properties

Representation Type	Standard Format	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations	Common Model Architectures
Sequence	SMILES, SELFIES, InChI	Compact, human-readable, suitable for language models [4]	Struggles with spatial and topological data, validity issues [4]	Transformer Decoder, RNN, GPT-style Models [52] [4]
Graph	Node (atom) and Edge (bond) matrices	Explicitly encodes structural connectivity, intuitive [15]	Typically lacks 3D conformational data [20]	Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) [53] [15]
Geometric (3D)	3D Coordinates (XYZ), Point Clouds, Volumetric Grids	Captures spatial structure, essential for binding affinity prediction [52] [20]	High computational cost, data scarcity [6] [20]	Equivariant GNNs, Diffusion Models, 3D-CNNs [6] [15]

Multimodal Fusion Strategies and Protocols

Multimodal fusion integrates the representations detailed in Table 1. The strategy for integration is critical and depends on the task, data availability, and model requirements.

Fusion Strategy Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the high-level logical workflow for selecting and implementing a multimodal fusion strategy.

Detailed Fusion Protocols

This section provides detailed experimental protocols for implementing the primary fusion strategies.

Protocol 1: Late Fusion for Robust Property Prediction

Application Note: This protocol is ideal for contexts with data heterogeneity, high dimensionality, and a risk of overfitting, such as survival prediction in oncology or molecular property prediction [54] [55]. It allows the weighting of each modality based on its predictive confidence.

• Modality-Specific Feature Extraction:

  • Input: Raw molecular data (e.g., SMILES string, 2D graph, 3D coordinates).
  • Procedure:
    • Sequence Pathway: Process SMILES strings using a pre-trained transformer or RNN to extract a feature vector (feat_seq).
    • Graph Pathway: Process the 2D molecular graph using a GNN (e.g., MPNN, GCN) to extract a feature vector (feat_graph).
    • 3D Geometric Pathway: Process 3D coordinates using a geometry-aware model (e.g., equivariant GNN, SchNet) to extract a feature vector (feat_3d).
  • Output: Three independent feature vectors.

• Unimodal Model Training:

  • Procedure: Train separate, task-specific prediction heads (e.g., fully connected layers) on each feature vector (feat_seq, feat_graph, feat_3d). Use standard loss functions (e.g., Cross-Entropy, MSE).
  • Validation: Validate each unimodal model on a held-out set to establish baseline performance.

• Prediction-Level Fusion:

  • Input: Predictions (pred_seq, pred_graph, pred_3d) from each unimodal model on a given sample.
  • Fusion Mechanism: Combine the predictions using a learned or fixed rule.
    • Averaging: Simple arithmetic or geometric mean of predictions.
    • Weighted Averaging: Assign weights to each modality's prediction based on validation performance or model confidence [54].
    • Meta-Learner: Train a secondary model (e.g., logistic regression, small neural network) to combine the unimodal predictions [54].
  • Output: Final fused prediction.

Protocol 2: Intermediate Fusion with Cross-Modal Attention

Application Note: This protocol is suited for tasks requiring deep, synergistic interactions between modalities, such as generative modeling where 3D pocket information conditions the 2D molecular structure generation [52] [56]. It is more data-hungry but can capture complex, non-linear cross-modal relationships.

• Modality-Specific Encoding:

  • Procedure: Same as Step 1 in Protocol 1. Obtain intermediate representations (Z_seq, Z_graph, Z_3d).

• Cross-Modal Alignment and Interaction:

  • Procedure: Use attention mechanisms to allow modalities to interact.
    • Cross-Attention: Use one modality (e.g., the 3D geometric representation as the context) to query the other modalities (e.g., the graph representation). This is core to models like 3DSMILES-GPT for pocket-based generation [52].
    • Graph-Based Fusion: Model the different modality representations as nodes in a graph and use a GCN to propagate information between them, as seen in GOMFuNet [53].
  • Output: A set of aligned and interaction-aware representation vectors.

• Joint Representation Learning and Decoding:

  • Procedure: The fused representation is passed to a decoder network. In generative tasks, this is often an autoregressive decoder (e.g., GPT-style) that generates molecules token-by-token, informed by the fused context [52].
  • Output: Generated molecule (e.g., in SMILES or 3D format) or a property prediction.

Performance Comparison of Fusion Strategies

The choice of fusion strategy significantly impacts model performance, as demonstrated by quantitative results from recent studies.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Fusion Strategies on Different Tasks

Application Domain	Task	Fusion Strategy	Key Performance Metric	Reported Result	Citation
Educational Performance Prediction	Classification & Regression	Geometric Orthogonal Fusion (GOMFuNet)	Classification AccuracyR² Score	90.17%88.03%	[53]
Severe Hypoglycemia Prediction	Binary Classification	Early Fusion	AUC-ROC	0.779	[55]
3D Molecular Generation (3DSMILES-GPT)	Molecule Generation	Intermediate Fusion (Cross-Attention)	Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) Enhancement	+33% improvement	[52]
3D Molecular Generation (3DSMILES-GPT)	Molecule Generation	Intermediate Fusion (Cross-Attention)	Generation Speed	~0.45 seconds/molecule	[52]
Cancer Survival Prediction	Survival Analysis	Late Fusion	Outperformed single-modality and early fusion	Higher accuracy and robustness	[54]

Application in Generative Modeling: A Case Study on 3DSMILES-GPT

Generating molecules directly within 3D protein pockets represents a cutting-edge application of multimodal fusion. The 3DSMILES-GPT framework provides a robust protocol for this task [52].

Protocol 3: 3D Pocket-Based Molecular Generation with 3DSMILES-GPT

Application Note: This protocol frames 3D molecular generation as a language modeling task, leveraging the power of large-scale pre-training. It exemplifies a sophisticated intermediate fusion approach where 3D pocket information directly conditions the generative process.

• Data Preprocessing and Tokenization:

  • Input: Protein pocket structure (3D coordinates of key atoms) and a 3D ligand molecule.
  • Procedure:
    • Ligand Representation: Represent the ligand using a combined 2D (SMILES) and 3D (atomic coordinates) "linguistic" expression.
    • Tokenization: Convert both SMILES strings and 3D coordinates into discrete tokens. Numerical values (e.g., XYZ coordinates) are mapped to a vocabulary of tokens [52].
    • Sequence Formulation: Construct a single, interleaved token sequence that combines the tokenized protein pocket information and the ligand's 2D/3D data.

• Model Architecture and Pre-training:

  • Model: A transformer decoder (GPT-style architecture).
  • Pre-training: Train the model on a large-scale dataset of drug-like molecules (tens of millions) to learn fundamental principles of 2D and 3D chemistry in a self-supervised manner (e.g., by predicting the next token in a sequence) [52].

• Task-Specific Fine-Tuning:

  • Procedure: Fine-tune the pre-trained model on a smaller, curated dataset of protein pocket-ligand complexes. The model learns to generate ligand sequences conditioned on the given pocket token sequence.

• Reinforcement Learning (RL) Optimization:

  • Procedure: Further fine-tune the model using RL to optimize generated molecules for specific biophysical and chemical properties, such as binding affinity (Vina score), drug-likeness (QED), and synthetic accessibility (SAS) [52].

The workflow for this protocol, integrating pre-training, fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning, is visualized below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the above protocols relies on a suite of computational tools and data resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Multimodal Fusion Experiments

Category	Reagent / Resource	Description	Function in Protocol
Data Resources	TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas)	A comprehensive public dataset containing multi-omics (genomic, transcriptomic, etc.) and clinical data from cancer patients [54].	Provides real-world, heterogeneous multimodal data for training and validating fusion models (Protocol 1).
	Protein Data Bank (PDB)	A repository for 3D structural data of proteins and nucleic acids, often including bound ligands [52].	Source of protein-ligand complexes for fine-tuning 3D structure-based generative models (Protocol 3).
	LAION-5B / COYO-700M	Large-scale public datasets of image-text pairs, used for training foundational models [57].	Analogy for the large-scale molecular datasets needed for pre-training molecular representation models.
Software & Libraries	AstraZeneca-AI Multimodal Pipeline	A Python library for multimodal feature integration and survival prediction, supporting various fusion strategies [54].	Provides a reusable pipeline for implementing and comparing late and early fusion strategies (Protocols 1 & 2).
	PyTorch Geometric (PyG)	A library for deep learning on graphs and irregular structures.	Implementation of GNNs for graph-based representation learning and fusion (Protocols 1 & 2).
	Transformer Libraries (Hugging Face, etc.)	Libraries providing pre-trained transformer models and building blocks.	Backbone for sequence-based encoders and decoder-only generative models (Protocol 3).
Evaluation Metrics	Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED)	A metric that quantifies the drug-likeness of a molecule [52].	Key performance indicator for optimizing and evaluating generative models (Protocol 3).
	Vina Docking Score	A computational estimate of a molecule's binding affinity to a protein target [52].	Critical metric for evaluating the functional success of generated molecules in structure-based design (Protocol 3).
	C-index (Concordance Index)	A metric for evaluating the performance of survival prediction models [54].	Standard metric for evaluating predictive models in clinical oncology contexts (Protocol 1).
(Rac)-Efavirenz-d5	(Rac)-Efavirenz-d5, MF:C14H9ClF3NO2, MW:320.70 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Glomeratose A	Glomeratose A, MF:C24H34O15, MW:562.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Overcoming Generation Challenges: Ensuring Validity, Stability, and Drug-Likeness

The advent of deep generative models has revolutionized de novo molecular design, enabling rapid exploration of vast chemical spaces for drug discovery and materials science. However, these models often produce outputs that violate fundamental physical and chemical principles, creating a chemical validity crisis characterized by ill-conformations and invalid structures [4] [58]. Ill-conformations refer to molecular geometries that are physically implausible due to incorrect bond lengths, angles, or steric clashes, while invalid structures contain chemically impossible features such as incorrect atom valences or disconnected fragments [59] [60]. These issues predominantly stem from models trained primarily on one-dimensional or two-dimensional representations like SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System), which fail to capture the intricate spatial and electronic constraints of real molecules [4] [15].

The implications of this validity crisis are profound for research and development. Invalid molecular proposals can misdirect synthetic efforts, consume valuable computational resources in virtual screening, and ultimately impede the discovery of viable drug candidates and functional materials [61] [58]. As generative artificial intelligence increasingly contributes to inverse materials design, addressing these shortcomings has become paramount for realizing the potential of AI-driven molecular discovery [62] [63]. This application note details protocols and solutions for ensuring chemical validity, with particular emphasis on handling 3D molecular representations within generative model research pipelines.

Quantitative Assessment of Validity Challenges

The table below summarizes common chemical validity challenges and their reported prevalence across different molecular representation formats and model architectures, based on current literature.

Table 1: Prevalence and Characteristics of Chemical Validity Issues Across Molecular Representations

Representation Format	Primary Validity Challenge	Reported Prevalence/Impact	Common in Model Types
SMILES/SELFIES	Syntax errors, invalid valences [4]	High in early RNN/LSTM models; improved with modern transformers [4]	RNNs, Transformers (Language Models)
2D Graph	Chemically implausible bonding [15]	Lower than string-based models [15]	Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)
3D Spatial/Geometric	Ill-conformations (clashes, strained angles) [59] [60]	Prevalent in 3D GNNs and diffusion models without constraints [59]	Equivariant GNNs, Diffusion Models, VAEs
Electron Matrix	Non-conservation of mass/electrons [58]	MIT's FlowER model shows near-perfect conservation [58]	Flow Matching Models (e.g., FlowER)

Experimental Protocols for Ensuring 3D Chemical Validity

Protocol 1: Adversarial Training with a Physical Discriminator

This protocol enhances the reliability of generated 3D crystal structures by integrating a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) framework, where the discriminator acts as a cost-effective evaluator of structural plausibility [59].

Workflow Overview

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Data Preparation and Pre-training:

  • Utilize a dataset of known stable crystal structures (e.g., >20,000 diverse structures from the Materials Project) [59].
  • Pre-train an equivariant graph neural network (e.g., EquiformerV2) using a self-supervised reconstruction task. Contaminate input structures by:
    • Randomly masking 15% of atomic species (setting atomic numbers to zero).
    • Applying random displacements to atomic positions.
  • The model learns to reconstruct the complete, noiseless structures. The loss function is a hybrid of negative log likelihood (for atomic species prediction) and mean squared error (for position prediction) [59].

• Adversarial Fine-Tuning:

  • Generator (G): The pre-trained equivariant model that generates candidate 3D structures.
  • Discriminator (D): A separate network trained to distinguish generated structures from real, stable crystals in the dataset. This discriminator learns the underlying distribution of physically plausible structures.
  • Training Loop: Train the generator and discriminator in tandem. The generator aims to produce structures that the discriminator cannot distinguish from real ones, while the discriminator becomes increasingly adept at identifying flaws. This feedback loop guides the generator toward more reliable output [59].

• Validation and Output:

  • The final generator produces 3D crystal structures that are evaluated by the discriminator for reliability.
  • This method has been shown to mitigate issues like the misprediction of infrequent atomic species and the generation of compositions that are chemically invalid [59].

Protocol 2: Electron-Conserving Flow Matching for Reaction Prediction

This protocol addresses validity by grounding molecular generation in the fundamental principle of electron conservation, ensuring that predicted structures and reaction products are physically realistic [58]. It is implemented in models like FlowER (Flow matching for Electron Redistribution).

Workflow Overview

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Molecular Representation:

  • Represent the chemical reaction using a bond-electron matrix, a method pioneered by Ivar Ugi in the 1970s [58].
  • This matrix explicitly represents the electrons involved in a reaction. Nonzero values in the matrix represent bonds or lone electron pairs, while zeros represent their absence.

• Model Application:

  • A flow matching model is trained to learn the transformation of this matrix from reactants to products.
  • The model learns to redistribute electrons and bonds in a continuous, differentiable process that strictly conserves the total number of atoms and electrons [58].

• Validation:

  • The primary validation is inherent to the representation: the model is architecturally constrained to avoid creating or destroying atoms or electrons.
  • This approach has been shown to massively increase the validity of predicted reaction pathways compared to language models, which can hallucinate atoms, while matching or exceeding the accuracy of existing methods [58].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Computational Solutions

The following table lists key computational tools and conceptual "reagents" essential for implementing the aforementioned protocols and tackling the chemical validity crisis.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Molecular Validity

Tool/Solution	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Validity
Equivariant GNNs (e.g., EquiformerV2) [59]	Model Architecture	Learns and generates 3D structures while preserving rotational and translational symmetries.	Ensures generated geometries are physically plausible by respecting natural invariances.
Ugi Bond-Electron Matrix [58]	Molecular Representation	Encodes molecules and reactions by tracking bonds and lone electron pairs.	Enforces hard constraints on mass and electron conservation, preventing alchemical errors.
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) Discriminator [59]	Training Framework	Acts as a learned, cost-effective critic for evaluating structural reliability.	Filters out ill-conformed structures by learning the distribution of stable crystals.
3D Molecular Spatial Visual Information [60]	Data Modality	Provides explicit 3D geometric, topological, and stereochemical features.	Captures intrinsic molecular complexity missed by 1D/2D representations, reducing steric clashes.
Multi-Perspective Representation [60] [15]	Fusion Strategy	Integrates 3D spatial information with traditional descriptors (e.g., fingerprints).	Constructs a unified molecular view that better reflects true structure and function.
Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) [59] [15]	Pre-training Paradigm	Pre-trains models on large volumes of unlabeled data via tasks like masking.	Creates robust foundational models that better grasp chemical rules, improving generalization.
Men 10376 TFA	Men 10376 TFA, MF:C59H69F3N12O12, MW:1195.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
H3R antagonist 1	H3R antagonist 1, MF:C19H23N3O3, MW:341.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The advent of 3D molecular generative models has revolutionized computational drug design, enabling the creation of novel compounds with target-specific properties. However, generating atomic coordinates represents only the initial phase of constructing chemically valid and synthetically accessible molecules. Two subsequent challenges—bond prediction to establish correct molecular graph connectivity, and geometry optimization to refine structures into stable, energetically favorable conformations—are paramount for generating physically realistic molecules suitable for downstream applications. This Application Note details practical methodologies for integrating advanced bond prediction and geometry optimization protocols into generative molecular AI pipelines, providing researchers with standardized procedures for enhancing the structural validity and quality of generated molecular structures.

Bond Prediction: From Atomic Point Clouds to Molecular Graphs

Following the generation of 3D atomic coordinates via generative models such as Equivariant Diffusion Models (EDMs), determining the precise bonding patterns between atoms is essential for converting point clouds into chemically valid molecular structures. This section compares established approaches and presents a detailed protocol for implementing graph neural network-based bond prediction.

Comparative Analysis of Bond Prediction Methodologies

Table 1: Comparison of Bond Prediction Approaches in Molecular Generation

Method Category	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Representative Implementations
Semi-empirical Rule-based	Distance and angle thresholds, hybridization rules	Fast, no training data required, interpretable	Limited accuracy, poor handling of resonance structures, inflexible	RDKit distance/angle checks, Open Babel rule-based builder [64]
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Learns from molecular structures, uses spatial and chemical features	High accuracy, generalizable, handles complex bonding	Requires training data, computational overhead	MLConformerGenerator's AdjMatSeer GCN [65], Structure Seer adaptations [65]
Template-based Fragment Assembly	Matches molecular fragments to pre-existing structural databases	High stereochemical accuracy, preserves common substructures	Database coverage limitations, limited for novel scaffolds	Open Babel fragment-based coordinate generation [64]

Protocol: GCN-Based Bond Prediction with AdjMatSeer

This protocol details the implementation of a Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) for bond prediction, as employed in the MLConformerGenerator framework [65].

Experimental Workflow

Title: GCN Bond Prediction Workflow

Materials and Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for GCN Bond Prediction Implementation

Component	Specification	Function/Purpose	Implementation Example
Atomic Feature Set	8 atom types: C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Br; 3D coordinates	Input features for bond classification; defines elemental diversity	MLConformerGenerator heavy atom set [65]
Distance Matrix	Euclidean distances between all atom pairs	Primary spatial relationship input for connectivity prediction	NumPy/SciPy spatial distance computation
GCN Architecture	7 total layers: 3 embedding + 4 classification layers, 2048 hidden features	Neural network backbone for bond type probability estimation	PyTorch Geometric implementation [65]
Training Dataset	1.6M+ molecules from ChEMBL, 15-39 heavy atoms	Model training and validation; ensures chemical diversity	ChEMBL database with RDKit conformer generation [65]
Bond Type Classes	5-class system: No-bond, Single, Double, Triple, Aromatic	Comprehensive bonding pattern classification	Adapted from standard cheminformatics representations

Procedural Details

• Input Preparation: Process raw atomic coordinates (from EDM or other generative model output) and atom type information. Generate pairwise Euclidean distance matrix.

• Initial Connectivity Estimation: Apply a distance threshold (e.g., 1.0-2.0 Ã… depending on atom types) to create a preliminary Boolean adjacency matrix. This serves as initial graph structure for the GCN.

• GCN Encoder Initialization:

  • Initialize atom type embeddings with dimension 64.
  • Process through three initial graph convolutional layers dedicated to embedding generation from the distance matrix.
  • Utilize the Boolean adjacency matrix for graph connectivity in message passing.

• Bond Classification:

  • Process embeddings through four additional GCN layers with 2048 hidden features each.
  • Apply final classification layer to produce bond type probabilities for each potential atom pair.
  • Use softmax activation across the 5 bond type classes.

• Post-processing: Apply thresholding to bond probabilities (typically >0.5) to generate final discrete bond assignments. Validate chemical validity (e.g., valency constraints).

Geometry Optimization: Achieving Energetically Stable Conformations

Geometry optimization refines initial molecular geometries into stable, low-energy conformations essential for realistic property prediction and synthesis planning.

Optimization Criteria and Convergence Thresholds

Table 3: Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria Across Computational Platforms

Software Package	Quality Setting	Energy Convergence (Ha)	Gradient Convergence (Ha/Ã…)	Step Convergence (Ã…)	Typical Applications
AMS	Normal (Default)	1.0 × 10⁻⁵	1.0 × 10⁻³	0.01	General purpose molecular optimization [66]
AMS	Good	1.0 × 10⁻⁶	1.0 × 10⁻⁴	0.001	High-precision optimization [66]
AMS	VeryGood	1.0 × 10⁻⁷	1.0 × 10⁻⁵	0.0001	Spectroscopy-level accuracy [66]
ORCA	Normal (!OPT)	5.0 × 10⁻⁶	3.0 × 10⁻⁴ (Max), 1.0 × 10⁻⁴ (RMS)	4.0 × 10⁻³ (Max), 2.0 × 10⁻³ (RMS)	General quantum chemistry [67]
ORCA	Tight (!TightOpt)	1.0 × 10⁻⁶	1.0 × 10⁻⁴ (Max), 3.0 × 10⁻⁵ (RMS)	1.0 × 10⁻³ (Max), 6.0 × 10⁻⁴ (RMS)	Transition state optimization [67]
PSI4	QCHEM (Default)	Comparable to ORCA/QCHEM defaults	Balanced for efficient convergence	-	General computational chemistry [68]

Protocol: Multi-Stage Geometry Optimization with Initial Hessian Guidance

This protocol describes a robust optimization procedure combining molecular mechanics initialization with quantum chemical refinement, particularly suitable for processing outputs from molecular generative models.

Experimental Workflow

Title: Multi-stage Geometry Optimization Protocol

Materials and Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Geometry Optimization

Component	Specification	Function/Purpose	Implementation Example
Initial Hessian Source	Almlöf model (default), Lindh, Schlegel, or semi-empirical (AM1/PM3)	Provides initial estimate of potential energy surface curvature for faster convergence	ORCA's Almlöf model Hessian [67]
Coordinate System	Redundant internal coordinates (recommended) or Cartesian coordinates	Mathematical representation for optimization; internals provide better convergence	PSI4 optking default coordinates [68]
Optimization Algorithm	BFGS, L-BFGS (large systems), or Rational Function Optimization (RFO)	Quasi-Newton methods for iterative geometry updates	ORCA BFGS, PSI4 RFO [68] [67]
Electronic Structure Method	DFT (BLYP, B3LYP) with basis set (SVP, TZVP) or HF/DFT with smaller basis for initial steps	Level of theory for energy and gradient calculations	BLYP/SVP in ORCA [67]
Conformer Generator	Distance Geometry (ETKDG) or Fragment-based	Generates reasonable initial 3D coordinates from molecular graph	RDKit ETKDG, Open Babel fragment-based [64]

Procedural Details

• Initial Structure Preparation:

  • If starting from a molecular graph without 3D coordinates, employ RDKit's ETKDG method or Open Babel's fragment-based approach for initial coordinate generation [64].
  • For pre-existing 3D structures from generative models, proceed directly to pre-optimization.

• Molecular Mechanics Pre-optimization:

  • Apply the Universal Force Field (UFF) or Merck Molecular Force Field (MMFF94) for rough optimization.
  • Use loose convergence criteria (e.g., 0.01 Ã… gradient tolerance) to remove severe steric clashes and gross structural issues.
  • This step is computationally inexpensive and prevents quantum chemical methods from failing due to poor initial geometries.

• Initial Hessian Calculation:

  • Compute initial Hessian using the Almlöf model (ORCA default) for organic molecules [67].
  • For transition metal complexes, utilize ZINDO/1 or NDDO/1 semi-empirical methods if available, as AM1/PM3 parameters are typically unavailable for metals [67].
  • Alternatively, perform a quick semi-empirical or low-level DFT single-point frequency calculation if resources permit.

• Quantum Chemical Optimization:

  • Employ density functional theory (e.g., BLYP, B3LYP) with a polarized double-zeta basis set (e.g., SVP) for the main optimization [67].
  • Use redundant internal coordinates unless molecular symmetry or specific constraints require Cartesian coordinates.
  • Set convergence criteria appropriate for the application: "Normal" for general purposes, "Tight" for transition states or frequency calculations [66] [67].
  • Monitor optimization progress through energy changes, maximum gradient components, and coordinate displacements.

• Convergence Validation and Frequency Analysis:

  • Confirm all convergence criteria are met: energy change, maximum/RMS gradients, and maximum/RMS steps [66].
  • Perform a final frequency calculation to confirm the structure is a minimum (all real frequencies) rather than a transition state (one imaginary frequency).
  • Utilize automatic restart functionality if available (e.g., AMS MaxRestarts) when saddle points are detected [66].

Integrated Pipeline: From Generative Output to Refined Molecular Structure

Combining bond prediction and geometry optimization into a cohesive pipeline ensures generative model outputs mature into chemically valid, energetically realistic structures ready for virtual screening and synthesis planning.

Complete Processing Workflow

Title: Integrated Molecular Refinement Pipeline

Quality Control Metrics

• Bond Prediction Validation: Implement valency checks for all atoms, aromaticity validation, and chemical sense checks (e.g., unlikely bond types between certain elements).
• Optimization Convergence: Verify all convergence criteria (energy, gradients, displacements) are met, not just total energy change.
• Stereochemical Integrity: Confirm preservation of specified stereocenters throughout optimization, particularly when using Cartesian coordinate systems.
• Computational Efficiency: For high-throughput applications, utilize "Loose" convergence criteria initially, reserving tighter thresholds for final candidate compounds.

Integrating robust bond prediction and geometry optimization protocols is indispensable for advancing generative molecular AI from research curiosity to practical drug discovery tool. The methodologies detailed herein provide standardized approaches for converting raw coordinate outputs from diffusion models, transformers, and other generative architectures into chemically valid, energetically realistic molecular structures. As generative models increasingly incorporate 3D structural constraints and shape-based guidance [65], these refinement steps will grow ever more critical for bridging the gap between algorithmic generation and physically realistic molecular design.

Property-guided molecular generation represents a paradigm shift in computational drug design, moving beyond the creation of novel molecules to the intelligent generation of candidates pre-optimized for specific pharmaceutical objectives. This approach integrates critical drug-like properties directly into the generative process, ensuring that resulting molecules not only exhibit structural novelty but also demonstrate favorable binding affinity, pharmacokinetic, and safety profiles. Within the broader context of 3D molecular representations in generative models research, property guidance enables more efficient exploration of the vast chemical space—estimated to contain 10²³ to 10⁶⁰ feasible compounds—by focusing on regions most likely to yield viable drug candidates [8]. The incorporation of three-dimensional structural information allows for precise target-aware design, particularly for structure-based drug discovery applications where molecular interaction patterns with protein targets are paramount.

The fundamental challenge addressed by property-guided generation lies in the multi-objective optimization required for successful drug candidates. Key properties include binding affinity (the strength of interaction with the biological target), quantitative estimate of drug-likeness (QED) (a composite measure of drug-likeness), synthetic accessibility (SA) (ease of chemical synthesis), and the octanol-water partition coefficient (LogP) (a proxy for lipophilicity and membrane permeability) [69]. This application note details the methodologies, protocols, and experimental frameworks for implementing property-guided generation with these specific objectives, providing researchers with practical guidance for advancing generative models in drug discovery.

Methodologies and Architectures

Diffusion Models with Explicit Property Guidance

Diffusion-based generative models have emerged as powerful frameworks for 3D molecular generation, particularly when enhanced with explicit property guidance mechanisms. The DiffGui model exemplifies this approach, implementing a target-conditioned E(3)-equivariant diffusion framework that concurrently generates both atoms and bonds while explicitly incorporating property constraints during training and sampling [69].

The core innovation lies in its dual-diffusion process: during the forward process, noise is gradually injected into both atoms and bonds based on different noise schedules, while the reverse process leverages property conditions to guide denoising toward molecules with desired characteristics. Specifically, the model integrates molecular property guidance directly into the sampling process, conditioning generation on binding affinity estimates and drug-like properties including QED, SA, and LogP [69]. This explicit conditioning prevents the common issue of models generating energetically unstable or synthetically infeasible structures that can occur when relying solely on structural information.

The architectural implementation utilizes an E(3)-equivariant graph neural network modified to update representations of both atoms and bonds within a message-passing framework. This ensures that the generated molecules maintain proper stereochemistry and molecular geometry while adhering to the property constraints, addressing a significant limitation of earlier autoregressive and diffusion-based approaches that often produced molecules with distorted ring systems or incorrect bond types [69].

Flow Matching with Property Embeddings

Flow matching methods have recently set new standards for unconditional molecule generation, and their extension to property-guided generation shows considerable promise. PropMolFlow implements a geometry-complete SE(3)-equivariant flow matching framework that incorporates property guidance through various embedding strategies [70].

The framework represents a significant advancement through its systematic approach to property embedding, exploring five distinct operations for combining property information with molecular representations:

• Concatenation: Property embeddings are concatenated with node features
• Sum: Property information is added to node features
• Multiply: Property embeddings element-wise multiply with node features
• Concatenate + Sum: Hybrid approach combining both operations
• Concatenate + Multiply: Alternative hybrid strategy [70]

For scalar molecular properties, PropMolFlow employs a Gaussian expansion technique that transforms raw property values into enriched representations before mapping them to trainable embeddings via a multilayer perceptron. This approach has demonstrated particular effectiveness for properties such as polarizability, HOMO-LUMO gap, and dipole moment, though optimal embedding strategies vary by property type [70].

Text-Guided Optimization with Diffusion Language Models

Beyond numerical property optimization, transformer-based diffusion language models (TransDLM) offer an alternative approach that leverages chemical language for multi-property molecular optimization. This method utilizes standardized chemical nomenclature as semantic representations of molecules and implicitly embeds property requirements into textual descriptions [71].

The key advantage of this approach lies in its ability to mitigate error propagation from external property predictors by directly training the model on desired properties during the diffusion process. By representing molecules through SMILES strings and their linguistic analogues, the model learns to make transformations that enhance multiple properties while retaining core molecular scaffolds [71]. This has proven particularly effective for optimizing ADMET properties (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity), including LogP, while maintaining structural similarity to lead compounds.

Experimental Protocols

Data Preparation and Preprocessing

Table 1: Common Datasets for Property-Guided Molecular Generation

Dataset	Size	Property Annotations	Application Context
PDBBind	~20,000 complexes	Binding affinity, structural data	Structure-based drug design, binding affinity prediction [69]
CrossDocked2020	~200,000 structures	Binding poses, affinity estimates	Pocket-aware molecule generation, binding optimization [8]
QM9	133,885 molecules	Quantum chemical properties, dipole moments, energies	Molecular property optimization, 3D structure generation [70]
ChEMBL	>2M compounds	Bioactivity, ADMET properties	Multi-property optimization, lead compound generation [4]

Protocol 1: Data Curation for 3D Property-Guided Generation

• Source Selection: Identify appropriate datasets containing both 3D structural information and experimentally validated property annotations relevant to your target objectives (affinity, QED, SA, LogP).

• Structure-Property Alignment: Ensure precise mapping between molecular structures and their associated properties. For protein-ligand complexes, verify binding affinity measurements correspond to the specific conformational state.

• Validity Filtering: Implement rigorous checks for molecular stability and chemical validity. As demonstrated in PropMolFlow, correct invalid bond orders and non-zero net charges to enforce valency-charge consistency—a step that significantly improves generated molecule stability [70].

• Conformational Sampling: For datasets lacking 3D coordinates, generate representative conformations using tools like RDKit or OMEGA, ensuring coverage of biologically relevant conformational space.

• Property Normalization: Apply appropriate scaling or normalization to property values to ensure balanced guidance during training, particularly when optimizing multiple properties with different value ranges.

Model Training and Implementation

Protocol 2: Implementing Diffusion-Based Property Guidance

This protocol outlines the specific steps for implementing the DiffGui framework with affinity, QED, SA, and LogP objectives [69].

• Architecture Configuration:

  • Implement E(3)-equivariant graph neural network with separate channels for atom and bond representation
  • Configure noise schedules for the dual diffusion process (atoms and bonds)
  • Set property weighting coefficients for multi-property guidance

• Conditioning Mechanism:

  • Encode target properties as conditioning vectors
  • Integrate property guidance through cross-attention layers in the denoising network
  • Implement classifier-free guidance to strengthen property conditioning during sampling

• Training Procedure:

  • Initialize with pre-trained weights if available
  • Utilize balanced sampling from protein-ligand complex datasets (e.g., PDBBind)
  • Apply progressive training strategy: first on structural reconstruction, then with property guidance
  • Monitor both reconstruction metrics and property prediction accuracy

• Sampling with Property Targets:

  • Specify target values for affinity, QED, SA, and LogP
  • Adjust guidance scales to balance between diversity and property optimization
  • Implement validity checks during sampling to filter implausible intermediates

Diagram Title: Property-Guided Diffusion Process for 3D Molecular Generation

Evaluation Metrics and Validation

Protocol 3: Comprehensive Evaluation of Generated Molecules

Establish rigorous evaluation protocols to assess both the structural quality and property optimization of generated molecules.

• Structural Validity Metrics:

  • Atom Stability: Percentage of atoms with correct valence
  • Molecular Stability: Percentage of fully valid molecules
  • PoseBusters Validity: Compliance with structural constraints for protein-ligand complexes [69]
  • RDKit Validity: Ability to parse and validate generated structures

• Property Achievement Metrics:

  • Property Accuracy: Difference between target and achieved property values
  • Multi-Property Satisfaction: Percentage of molecules meeting all target property thresholds
  • Distribution Matching: Jensen-Shannon divergence between generated and reference property distributions

• Diversity and Novelty Assessment:

  • Structural Novelty: Tanimoto similarity to known compounds in training data
  • Chemical Diversity: Coverage of chemical space across multiple generated batches
  • Scaffold Hop: Identification of novel core structures with maintained bioactivity

• Experimental Validation:

  • DFT Calculations: Quantum chemical validation of electronic properties [70]
  • Binding Affinity Prediction: Molecular docking or free energy calculations
  • Synthetic Accessibility Assessment: Retro-synthetic analysis using tools like AiZynthFinder

Table 2: Target Ranges for Key Drug Discovery Properties

Property	Optimal Range	Evaluation Method	Validation Protocol
Binding Affinity	IC50/Kd < 100 nM	Docking scores, free energy calculations	Experimental binding assays, ITC, SPR
QED	>0.67	Computational prediction using RDKit	Correlation with clinical success likelihood
Synthetic Accessibility	>4.0 (1-easy, 10-difficult)	SA Score calculation	Retro-synthetic analysis by medicinal chemists
LogP	1-3 (optimal for oral drugs)	XLogP, ALogP calculations	Experimental chromatography measurement
Polar Surface Area	<140 Ų (good membrane permeability)	Computational geometry	Correlation with absorption data

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application Context
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics library	Molecular manipulation, descriptor calculation, QED estimation	General molecular processing, property calculation [69]
OpenBabel	Chemical toolbox	Format conversion, coordinate generation, force field optimization	Molecular file format handling, preliminary conformation generation
PyTor3D	3D deep learning library	3D molecular representations, geometric deep learning	Implementing E(3)-equivariant neural networks [69]
Schrödinger Suite	Commercial computational chemistry platform	Protein-ligand docking, free energy calculations, structure preparation	Binding affinity assessment, complex structure optimization
Gaussian/GAMESS	Quantum chemistry software	DFT calculations, electronic property validation	Validating quantum chemical properties of generated molecules [70]
AutoDock Vina	Molecular docking tool	Binding pose prediction, affinity estimation	Initial screening of generated molecules for target binding [69]
AlphaFold2	Protein structure prediction	Target structure generation for proteins without crystal structures	Enabling structure-based design for novel targets [8]
ZINC Database	Commercial compound library	Source of synthesizable building blocks, reference compounds	Assessing synthetic accessibility, novelty against known compounds

Case Studies and Applications

De Novo Inhibitor Design for Protein Targets

The practical application of property-guided generation is exemplified by DiffGui in designing inhibitors for specific protein targets. In controlled experiments, the model generated novel molecules with high binding affinity (as measured by Vina Score), favorable drug-like properties (QED > 0.6), and excellent synthetic accessibility (SA Score < 4.5) [69].

The case study demonstrated the model's sensitivity to subtle changes in protein pocket environments, successfully generating target-specific chemotypes that maintained key interaction patterns while optimizing the specified property profiles. This approach is particularly valuable for targets with limited known ligands, where traditional screening methods struggle from lack of starting points.

Lead Optimization with Multi-Property Constraints

Text-guided molecular optimization with TransDLM has shown significant success in lead optimization campaigns, where the goal is to improve specific properties while maintaining the core scaffold of a promising lead compound. In one application, the method successfully optimized the binding selectivity of xanthine amine congener (XAC) from A2AR to A1R (both adenosine receptors) while maintaining favorable LogP and solubility profiles [71].

This approach demonstrates the capability of property-guided generation to address subtle medicinal chemistry challenges that require balancing multiple, sometimes competing, objectives—a task that often consumes significant resources in traditional drug discovery programs.

Exploration of Underrepresented Chemical Space

PropMolFlow has been applied to the challenging task of generating molecules with underrepresented property values—pushing beyond the distribution of the training data to explore novel regions of chemical space [70]. This capability is crucial for addressing difficult targets that may require unusual property combinations, such as CNS targets requiring specific LogP ranges or antimicrobial agents needing distinct polarity profiles.

The framework's incorporation of DFT validation ensures that the electronic properties of these novel compounds are physically realistic, addressing a common limitation of purely statistical generation approaches that may produce molecules with unstable electronic configurations.

Workflow Integration

Diagram Title: Integrated Workflow for Property-Guided Molecular Generation

Property-guided generation represents a significant advancement in computational molecular design, directly addressing the multi-objective optimization challenges inherent in drug discovery. By explicitly incorporating affinity, QED, SA, and LogP objectives into the generative process, these methods enable more efficient exploration of chemical space toward regions with higher probabilities of yielding viable drug candidates.

The integration of 3D structural information with property guidance creates a powerful framework for structure-based drug design, allowing models to capture the complex relationships between molecular structure, target interaction, and compound properties. As demonstrated by DiffGui, PropMolFlow, and TransDLM, different architectural approaches each offer distinct advantages—from the explicit conditioning of diffusion models to the flexible embedding strategies of flow matching and the semantic richness of language-based approaches.

Moving forward, the field will likely see increased emphasis on experimental validation of generated compounds, more sophisticated multi-property optimization techniques, and tighter integration with synthesis planning tools. The continued development of property-guided generation methods holds tremendous promise for accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic agents with optimized property profiles, ultimately reducing the time and cost associated with traditional drug discovery approaches.

The design of novel drug candidates is inherently a multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP), where multiple, often conflicting, pharmacological properties must be simultaneously optimized for a successful therapeutic outcome [72] [73]. These properties typically include target potency, selectivity, metabolic stability, low toxicity, and desirable pharmacokinetic profiles. Traditionally, drug discovery has addressed these objectives sequentially, a process that is both time-consuming and costly. The emergence of generative models, particularly those handling 3D molecular structures, has created a paradigm shift. These models now enable the simultaneous consideration of multiple pharmaceutical endpoints from the outset of a project [72]. This document outlines the key computational frameworks, detailed protocols, and essential resources for implementing multi-objective optimization (MOO) in the context of 3D molecular generative models, providing a practical guide for researchers and drug development professionals.

Key Multi-Objective Optimization Frameworks in 3D Molecular Design

Recent advances in deep learning have produced several sophisticated frameworks that natively integrate MOO with 3D molecular generation. These frameworks can be broadly categorized by their underlying architectural principles, each offering distinct mechanisms for balancing property constraints.

Table 1: Key Multi-Objective 3D Molecular Generation Frameworks

Framework Name	Core Architectural Principle	Primary Optimization Strategy	Key Handleable Properties
DiffGui [10]	E(3)-Equivariant Diffusion Model	Bond diffusion & property guidance during sampling	Binding affinity, QED, SA, LogP, TPSA
CMOMO [74]	Deep Evolutionary Algorithm	Two-stage dynamic constraint handling	Bioactivity, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, structural constraints
cG-SchNet [21]	Conditional Autoregressive Network	Conditional training on target property vectors	Composition, electronic properties, structural motifs
UniMoMo [75]	Unified Geometric Latent Diffusion	Multi-domain training on fragmented representations	Affinity, structure for peptides, antibodies, & small molecules

Framework Spotlights

• DiffGui: This framework tackles the critical challenge of generating molecules with both high binding affinity and drug-like properties by integrating bond diffusion and property guidance into a denoising diffusion probabilistic model. Explicitly diffusing bond types ensures the generated molecules exhibit chemically realistic bonding patterns and stable conformations, mitigating issues like distorted rings [10].
• CMOMO (Constrained Molecular Multi-Objective Optimization): CMOMO employs a two-stage deep evolutionary algorithm. The first stage focuses on navigating the chemical space to meet primary objectives like bioactivity, while the second stage ensures generated molecules satisfy stringent drug-like constraints. It uses a latent vector fragmentation-based reproduction strategy to efficiently generate promising candidate molecules [74].
• Conditional G-SchNet (cG-SchNet): As an early pioneer in conditional 3D generation, cG-SchNet autoregressively constructs molecules atom-by-atom in 3D space, with the generation process conditioned on a vector of target properties. This approach allows for the flexible targeting of multiple electronic properties, atomic compositions, or structural motifs after a single training phase, providing strong generalization even in data-sparse regions of chemical space [21].

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing and evaluating multi-objective optimization in molecular generation projects.

Protocol: Conditional Generation with Property Guidance

Application: De novo design of target-specific ligands with optimized property profiles. Based on: cG-SchNet [21] and DiffGui [10] principles.

• Condition Specification and Embedding:

  • Define the set of target properties, ( \Lambda = (\lambda1, \lambda2, ..., \lambda_k) ), (e.g., polarizability = 90 ų, LogP = 2.5, presence of a carboxylic acid group).
  • For scalar properties (e.g., HOMO-LUMO gap), embed the target value by expanding it onto a Gaussian basis.
  • For vector-valued properties (e.g., molecular fingerprints), process them directly through a neural network layer.
  • For structural constraints (e.g., composition), use learnable embeddings for atom types, weighted by their occurrence.

• Conditional Sampling/Generation:

  • For Autoregressive Models (cG-SchNet):
    • Initialize the process with the embedded condition vector.
    • At each step i, the model predicts the probability distribution for the next atom type: ( p(Zi | \mathbf{R}{\le i-1}, \mathbf{Z}_{\le i-1}, \Lambda) ).
    • Subsequently, given the chosen type ( Zi ), it predicts the position by modeling distances to existing atoms: ( p(\mathbf{r}i | \mathbf{R}{\le i-1}, \mathbf{Z}{\le i}, \Lambda) ).
    • Use auxiliary origin and focus tokens to stabilize the 3D generation process.
  • For Diffusion Models (DiffGui):
    • Initialize the ligand's atom coordinates and types as pure noise.
    • Execute the reverse diffusion process, where a trained E(3)-equivariant graph neural network iteratively denoises the structure.
    • At each denoising step, condition the network on the target protein pocket's geometry and the embedded vector of desired molecular properties.
    • Simultaneously denoise atom types, positions, and bond types to ensure structural realism.

• Validation and Analysis:

  • Subject generated molecules to valency checks using chemically accurate lookup tables to calculate atom and molecular stability metrics [5].
  • Evaluate 3D geometry quality by computing the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between generated conformations and their force-field optimized counterparts.
  • Use docking simulations or deep learning-based scoring functions (e.g., Vina Score) to estimate binding affinity.
  • Profile other targeted properties (QED, SA, LogP) using standard chemoinformatics libraries.

Protocol: Multi-Objective Optimization via Evolutionary Algorithms

Application: Lead optimization for molecules requiring satisfaction of multiple hard constraints. Based on: CMOMO framework [74].

• Population Initialization:

  • Start with an initial population of molecules, which can be randomly generated or seeded from known actives.
  • Encode molecules in a latent space using a pre-trained variational autoencoder (VAE) to reduce dimensionality.

• Two-Stage Dynamic Optimization:

  • Stage 1 - Multi-Property Optimization: Apply evolutionary operators (crossover, mutation) in the latent space. Select individuals for reproduction based on their performance on the primary multi-property objective, using a Pareto-front ranking system like NSGA-II.
  • Stage 2 - Constraint Satisfaction: For the offspring generated, evaluate them against the set of drug-like constraints (e.g., solubility, synthetic accessibility). Dynamically adjust the selection pressure to favor individuals that satisfy these constraints, effectively balancing property optimization with feasibility.

• Latent Space Reproduction:

  • Perform crossover by swapping fragments of latent vectors between parent molecules.
  • Introduce mutations by adding small noise vectors to the latent representations of molecules.
  • Decode the evolved latent vectors back into molecular structures using the VAE decoder.

• Termination and Output:

  • Halt the process after a fixed number of generations or when the Pareto front has converged.
  • Output the final population, which represents a set of non-dominated solutions trading off the various objectives and constraints.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the high-level logical relationship between the different MOO strategies and their corresponding computational frameworks.

MOO Strategy and Framework Mapping

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Successful implementation of MOO for 3D molecular generation relies on a suite of computational tools and data resources.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Resources for MOO in Molecular Generation

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in MOO	Key Features/Usage
GEOM-drugs [5]	3D Molecular Dataset	Benchmarking & Training	Provides high-quality, energy-annotated molecular conformations for training and evaluating 3D generative models.
Corrected Valency Lookup Table [5]	Evaluation Metric	Chemical Accuracy Validation	A chemically accurate table of valid valencies (element, formal charge, valency) for reliable calculation of molecular stability.
GFN2-xTB [5]	Quantum Chemical Method	Geometry & Energy Evaluation	Fast semi-empirical quantum method for accurate geometry optimization and energy calculation of generated 3D structures.
ZINC Database [8] [76]	Compound Library	Pre-training & Validation	A massive database of commercially available, drug-like compounds for model pre-training and validation of synthetic accessibility.
CrossDocked2020 [8]	Protein-Ligand Complex Dataset	Fine-tuning for SBDD	A curated set of protein-ligand complexes for fine-tuning generative models on structure-based drug design (SBDD) tasks.
RDKit [5]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecule Processing & Analysis	An open-source toolkit for cheminformatics, used for molecule sanitization, descriptor calculation (e.g., QED, LogP), and structural analysis.

The application of generative models to 3D molecular representations represents a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery and materials science. These models enable the exploration of vast chemical spaces to design novel compounds with tailored properties [8]. However, a significant bottleneck impedes consistent progress: the challenge of data quality and scarcity. In real-world discovery pipelines, molecular property datasets are often imperfectly annotated, meaning that for any given property of interest, experimental labels are available for only a small, partial, and imbalanced subset of the overall molecular library [77]. This problem is particularly acute for complex 3D data, where obtaining accurate spatial coordinates and associated quantum mechanical properties involves computationally expensive simulations or intricate experimental procedures [15].

The scarcity of high-quality, labeled 3D data directly constrains the development of robust, generalizable, and trustworthy generative models. Models trained on limited or biased data may fail to capture the underlying physical laws governing molecular stability and interactions, leading to the generation of invalid, unstable, or synthetically inaccessible structures [8]. Consequently, overcoming data limitations is not merely a preprocessing step but a core research objective for advancing the field. This application note details protocols for leveraging transfer learning and self-supervision, providing researchers with actionable strategies to build powerful 3D molecular models even in data-scarce environments.

Foundational Concepts and Definitions

To ensure clarity, the following key concepts are defined as they apply within this document:

• 3D Molecular Representation: A computational encoding of a molecule that explicitly includes the spatial Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) of its constituent atoms. This goes beyond 2D topological connectivity to capture stereochemistry, conformational flexibility, and quantum mechanical fields [15] [8].
• Imperfectly Annotated Data: A dataset condition where each molecular property of interest is labeled for only a fraction of the total molecule library. Formally, for a set of molecules ( \mathcal{M} ) and properties ( \mathcal{E} ), an imperfectly annotated dataset is characterized by ( \exists ei \in \mathcal{E} \text{ such that } \mathcal{M}{e_i} \subsetneq \mathcal{M} ) [77].
• Self-Supervised Learning (SSL): A machine learning paradigm where a model generates its own supervisory signals directly from the structure of the input data, without requiring external labels. In the 3D molecular context, this includes pre-training tasks such as masked atom prediction, 3D geometry contrastion, and conformation-based pretext tasks [15].
• Transfer Learning: The process of taking a model pre-trained on a large, often unlabeled or weakly-labeled dataset (source domain) and adapting it to a specific, data-scarce task (target domain) through further fine-tuning.
• Pre-training: The initial phase of model training performed on a large-scale dataset, such as the GEOM dataset of molecular conformations, aimed at learning general-purpose, transferable molecular representations [8].

Solution Strategies: Protocols and Application Notes

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing key solutions to data scarcity.

Protocol 1: Self-Supervised Pre-training on 3D Molecular Data

Objective: To learn a robust, general-purpose molecular representation encoder by pre-training a graph neural network on a large dataset of 3D molecular conformations.

Background: This protocol leverages the 3D Infomax pre-training strategy [15], which aims to maximize the mutual information between 2D graph-level representations and 3D geometric representations. This forces the model to incorporate essential spatial information into its latent embeddings.

• Research Reagent Solutions

Item Name	Function/Description	Example Source
3D Molecular Conformation Dataset	Provides the raw 3D structural data for pre-training.	GEOM [8], PubChemQC [77], Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [77]
Graph Neural Network (GNN) Backbone	The core model architecture that processes the molecular graph.	Graphormer [77], SchNet [15]
3D Pre-training Framework	Implements the self-supervised learning objective.	3D Infomax [15]

• Experimental Workflow

The following diagram, "3D Molecular Pre-training Workflow," illustrates the complete protocol from data preparation to model validation.

• Step-by-Step Instructions

  • Data Preparation: Obtain a large-scale 3D molecular dataset. The GEOM dataset is a suitable choice, containing millions of conformers for diverse drug-like molecules [8].
  • Molecular Graph Construction: For each molecule, create a graph representation where nodes correspond to atoms and edges to chemical bonds. Node features should include atomic number and formal charge. Critically, incorporate 3D spatial coordinates as node-level geometric features.
  • Model Initialization: Initialize a GNN architecture capable of handling 3D information, such as an SE(3)-equivariant model or a transformer-like architecture like Graphormer [77].
  • Pretext Task Execution: Implement a self-supervised learning objective. The 3D Infomax method is highly effective:
    • The GNN processes the 3D graph to produce a 2D graph-level summary.
    • A separate graph encoder processes a corrupted version of the graph (e.g., with randomized spatial coordinates) to produce a 3D graph-level summary.
    • A discriminator is trained to distinguish between positive pairs (2D and 3D summaries from the same molecule) and negative pairs (summaries from different molecules).
    • The model learns by maximizing the mutual information between the 2D and 3D representations of the same molecule [15].
  • Output: The output of this protocol is a pre-trained model that generates rich, 3D-aware molecular embeddings. This model serves as a powerful feature extractor for downstream, data-scarce tasks.

Protocol 2: Multi-Task and Hypergraph Learning for Imperfect Annotation

Objective: To design a unified modeling framework that simultaneously learns multiple molecular properties from an imperfectly annotated dataset, leveraging correlations between tasks to mitigate data scarcity for any single property.

Background: The OmniMol framework formulates molecules and their partially observed properties as a hypergraph, where each property is a hyperedge connecting all molecules annotated with it [77]. This structure explicitly models three key relationships: molecule-molecule, molecule-property, and property-property.

• Research Reagent Solutions

Item Name	Function/Description	Example Source
Imperfectly Annotated Dataset	A dataset where properties are sparsely and partially labeled.	ADMETLab 2.0 [77]
Hypergraph Topology	The data structure that encapsulates many-to-many molecule-property relations.	OmniMol Framework [77]
Task-Routed Mixture of Experts (t-MoE)	A dynamic neural network that selects specialized sub-networks ("experts") based on the target property.	OmniMol Backbone [77]

• Experimental Workflow

The diagram "Hypergraph Multi-Task Learning" below visualizes the transformation of sparse data into a hypergraph and its processing by the OmniMol architecture.

• Step-by-Step Instructions

  • Hypergraph Construction: Given a set of molecules ( \mathcal{M} ) and properties ( \mathcal{E} ), construct a hypergraph ( \mathcal{H} = {\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{E}} ). Each property ( ei ) defines a hyperedge that connects all molecules in ( \mathcal{M}{ei} ) (the set of molecules labeled with ( ei )) [77].
  • Model Architecture - Task Encoder: Implement an encoder that transforms task-related meta-information (e.g., textual description of the property) into a continuous task embedding. This allows the model to handle new, unseen properties.
  • Model Architecture - Task-Routed Mixture of Experts (t-MoE): Build a backbone network composed of multiple "expert" sub-networks. For each input molecule and target property, a router network uses the task embedding from Step 2 to dynamically select and combine the most relevant experts. This enables task-adaptive predictions [77].
  • Training and Explainability: Train the model end-to-end on all available molecule-property pairs. The t-MoE architecture naturally provides a form of explainability, as the router's gating patterns reveal which experts are associated with which types of properties, uncovering correlations among tasks [77].

Protocol 3: Physics-Informed SSL and Differentiable Simulation

Objective: To integrate physical priors and constraints directly into the self-supervised learning process, ensuring that learned molecular representations adhere to fundamental laws of physics, thereby improving generalization from limited data.

Background: Generative models that lack physical awareness can produce molecules with unstable geometries or unrealistic conformations. This protocol uses SSL objectives based on energy surfaces and physical symmetries to guide the model towards physically plausible representations [15] [77].

• Experimental Protocol

  • Equivariant Architecture Selection: Employ an SE(3)-equivariant neural network as the core model. SE(3)-equivariance ensures that the model's predictions are consistent with translations and rotations in 3D space, a fundamental physical symmetry [77].
  • Conformational Relaxation Supervision: Use computationally derived or experimental equilibrium conformations as a supervisory signal. The model can be trained to predict the relaxed (lowest-energy) conformation of a molecule from its initial 3D structure, effectively acting as a learned surrogate for a quantum mechanics relaxation calculation [77].
  • Scale-Invariant Message Passing: Implement a message-passing scheme that is invariant to the overall scale of the molecule. This improves generalization across molecules of different sizes [77].
  • Integration with Generative Pipelines: Integrate the physics-informed encoder into a generative diffusion or VAE pipeline. The prior knowledge embedded in the encoder constrains the generative process, making it more likely to produce valid, stable 3D structures even when training data is limited [15].

Performance and Quantitative Benchmarks

The efficacy of the described solutions is demonstrated by state-of-the-art results on benchmark tasks. The following table summarizes key quantitative results from the literature.

Table 1: Performance Benchmarks of SSL and Transfer Learning Models on Molecular Property Prediction Tasks

Model / Framework	Core Strategy	Benchmark Dataset	Key Metric / Performance
3D Infomax [15]	SSL Pre-training (3D-2D Alignment)	Multiple QSAR & Quantum Datasets	Significant improvement in GNN predictive performance on downstream tasks like solubility and toxicity prediction.
OmniMol [77]	Hypergraph Multi-Task Learning	ADMETLab 2.0 (52 tasks)	State-of-the-Art (SOTA) performance in 47/52 ADMET-P prediction tasks.
KPGT [15]	Knowledge-Guided Pre-training (SSL)	MoleculeNet	Produced robust molecular representations that significantly enhanced drug discovery-related predictions.

Table 2: Analysis of Data Efficiency and Model Generalization

Evaluated Aspect	Protocol / Model	Outcome / Implication for Data Scarcity
Data Efficiency	SSL Pre-training (Protocol 1)	Models pre-trained with SSL require significantly fewer labeled examples to achieve comparable performance to models trained from scratch, reducing data annotation costs [15].
Handling Imperfect Annotation	OmniMol (Protocol 2)	The unified framework successfully merges all available molecule-property pairs, drastically increasing effective training data and overcoming the limitations of sparse labels [77].
Physical Generalization	SE(3)-Encoder (Protocol 3)	Ensures generated 3D structures are physically plausible and chirality-aware, improving model reliability in real-world applications where data is scarce [77].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software, Datasets, and Architectural Components for 3D Molecular Representation Learning

Category	Item	Specific Use-Case / Function
Software & Libraries	Graph Neural Network Libraries (PyTorch Geometric, DGL)	Implementing custom GNN architectures and SSL pretext tasks.
	Differentiable Simulation Pipelines	Integrating physical laws (e.g., neural potentials) into model training [15].
	SE(3)-Equivariant Model Kits (e.g., e3nn)	Building models that inherently respect 3D symmetries [77].
Key Datasets	GEOM [8]	Large-scale dataset of molecular conformations for SSL pre-training.
	Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [77]	For learning catalyst-adsorbate interactions and energy surfaces.
	ADMETLab 2.0 [77]	Benchmark for evaluating multi-task learning on imperfectly annotated ADMET properties.
Architectural Components	Task-Routed Mixture of Experts (t-MoE) [77]	Enables a single model to handle multiple, correlated tasks adaptively.
	3D Graphormer Backbone [77]	A powerful transformer-based architecture for processing 3D molecular graphs.
	Diffusion Model Head	For generating novel 3D molecular structures conditioned on learned embeddings [78].

The discovery and optimization of novel molecular structures represent a fundamental challenge in drug development and materials science. The integration of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) with diffusion models has emerged as a powerful paradigm that addresses the limitations inherent in each approach when used independently [79]. Evolutionary algorithms excel at multi-objective optimization and constraint satisfaction through population-based search mechanisms but often struggle to maintain chemical validity when generating complex 3D molecular structures [79]. Conversely, diffusion models demonstrate remarkable capability in generating chemically valid 3D molecules by learning to reverse a stochastic noising process but face significant challenges in multi-objective optimization and require computationally expensive retraining to incorporate new constraints or properties [79] [80].

Within the context of 3D molecular representations in generative models research, hybrid evolutionary-diffusion approaches create a synergistic framework that leverages the complementary strengths of both methodologies. These integrated systems perform evolutionary operations in the latent space of diffusion models, enabling the exploration of chemical space while maintaining structural validity through the denoising process [79] [80]. This paradigm shift addresses critical limitations in molecular generation, particularly for drug discovery applications where simultaneously optimizing multiple, often conflicting properties—such as potency, toxicity, and metabolic stability—is essential [78].

The significance of these hybrid approaches is further amplified by the inherent advantages of 3D molecular representations. Unlike 1D SMILES strings or 2D molecular graphs, 3D representations capture essential stereochemical information, conformational diversity, and spatial complementarity critical for accurately modeling intermolecular interactions, property prediction, and downstream molecular simulations [79] [4]. This review examines the foundational components, experimental protocols, and practical applications of hybrid evolutionary-diffusion frameworks, providing researchers with comprehensive guidance for implementing these advanced methodologies in molecular discovery pipelines.

Core Components of Hybrid Evolutionary-Diffusion Systems

Molecular Representation Frameworks

Effective molecular representation serves as the foundation for successful generative modeling in drug discovery. Hybrid evolutionary-diffusion approaches typically employ 3D structural representations that encode both spatial atomic coordinates and chemical features [79] [80]. A molecule (M) is represented as a tuple (M=(X,H)), where (X=(x1,\dots,xn)\in\mathbb{R}^{3×n}) denotes the 3D coordinates of (n) atoms, and (H=(h1,\dots,hn)\in\mathbb{R}^{a×n}) encodes (a) atomic features for each atom [79]. This representation preserves critical molecular characteristics including bond lengths, angles, torsions, stereochemistry, and noncovalent interactions essential for accurate property prediction [79].

The equivariance property represents a fundamental requirement for 3D molecular generation systems. For any rotation/reflection matrix (R\in\mathbb{R}^{3×3}) and translation (t\in\mathbb{R}^{3}), molecular generation must satisfy equivariance conditions: (g(RX+t,H)=Rg(X,H)+t), where (g) outputs 3D coordinates [79]. This ensures that generated molecular structures transform appropriately under rotational and translational operations, maintaining physical validity regardless of orientation in 3D space [81].

Table 1: Molecular Representation Methods in Generative Modeling

Representation Type	Key Characteristics	Advantages	Limitations
1D SMILES	String-based encoding of molecular structure	Computational efficiency, compact representation	Lacks 3D geometry, stereochemical information
2D Molecular Graphs	Atom nodes with bond edges	Captures connectivity patterns	Missing conformational diversity
3D Structural	Atomic coordinates with features	Complete spatial information, captures chirality	Higher computational requirements

Diffusion Model Fundamentals

Diffusion models operate through two fundamental processes: a forward diffusion process that gradually adds Gaussian noise to molecular structures, and a reverse denoising process that learns to reconstruct molecules from noise [80] [82]. The forward process is defined as:

[ q(Mt|M{t-1}) = \mathcal{N}(Mt; \sqrt{1-\betat}M{t-1}, \betat I), \quad t=1,\dots,T ]

where (Mt) represents the noisy molecule at timestep (t), and (\betat) defines the noise schedule [80]. The reverse process, parameterized by a neural network (\epsilon_\theta), aims to recover the original molecular structure:

[ p\theta(M{t-1}|Mt) = \mathcal{N}\left(M{t-1}; \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alphat}}\left(Mt - \frac{\betat}{\sqrt{1-\bar{\alpha}t}}\epsilon\theta(Mt,t)\right), \beta_t I\right) ]

where (\alphat = 1 - \betat) and (\bar{\alpha}t = \prod{s=1}^t \alphas) [80]. For 3D molecular generation, the score (\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{x},t) = \nabla{\mathbf{x}} \log p(\mathbf{x};t)) decomposes into positional and elemental components, resembling physical and alchemical forces that guide atomic placement and element selection during generation [83].

Evolutionary Algorithm Components

Evolutionary algorithms contribute critical optimization capabilities to hybrid frameworks through population management, fitness evaluation, and genetic operators [79]. In DEMO (Diffusion-based Evolutionary Molecular Optimization), evolutionary algorithms maintain a population of candidate molecules that undergo iterative improvement through selection, crossover, and mutation operations [79]. The noise-space crossover operator represents a key innovation, where genetic operations are performed on noise-perturbed molecular representations rather than directly on molecular structures [79]. This approach temporarily hides complex chemical constraints during evolutionary operations while preserving essential structural information, with chemical validity restored through the diffusion model's denoising process [79].

Table 2: Evolutionary Operators in Hybrid Molecular Optimization

Operator Type	Implementation	Functional Role	Key Innovations
Noise-Space Crossover	Combines parental features in diffusion noise space	Enables feature recombination while maintaining validity	Preserves chemical validity through denoising
Fitness Evaluation	Multi-objective property assessment	Guides selection toward Pareto-optimal solutions	Black-box optimization without gradient requirements
Selection Mechanisms	Pareto dominance ranking	Maintains population diversity across objective space	Identifies non-dominated solutions for constrained MOPs

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

DEMO Framework Protocol

The Diffusion-based Evolutionary Molecular Optimization (DEMO) protocol integrates a pretrained diffusion model within an evolutionary algorithm to address multi-objective molecular optimization [79]. The following protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for implementing DEMO:

Initialization Phase:

• Population Initialization: Generate an initial population of (P) molecules using unconditional sampling from the pretrained diffusion model. Alternatively, initialize with known lead compounds when available.
• Fitness Function Definition: Define multiple objective functions (F(M)=(f1(M),\dots,fk(M))) corresponding to target molecular properties (e.g., binding affinity, solubility, synthetic accessibility).
• Constraint Specification: Establish structural constraints (C(M)) when applicable, such as required molecular scaffolds or forbidden substructures.

Evolutionary Optimization Loop (repeat for (G) generations):

• Fitness Evaluation: Compute all objective functions for each molecule in the population using property prediction models or computational simulations.
• Non-dominated Sorting: Rank population members using Pareto dominance criteria to identify non-dominated solutions [79].
• Noise-Space Crossover:
  • Select parent molecules (Mi) and (Mj) using tournament selection based on Pareto ranking.
  • Apply forward diffusion to both parents to obtain noise representations: (Mi^t \sim q(Mi^t|Mi)) and (Mj^t \sim q(Mj^t|Mj)).
  • Perform crossover in noise space: (M{offspring}^t = \text{Crossover}(Mi^t, Mj^t)).
  • Generate offspring through reverse diffusion: (M{offspring} \sim p\theta(M|M{offspring}^t)).
• Environmental Selection: Create new population by selecting top-ranked molecules from combined parent and offspring populations.
• Termination Check: Evaluate convergence criteria (e.g., minimal fitness improvement over consecutive generations) and terminate if satisfied.

Validation and Analysis:

• Pareto Front Characterization: Analyze the obtained non-dominated solutions to characterize trade-offs between competing objectives.
• Structural Validation: Assess chemical validity of generated molecules using tools like RDKit to verify bond lengths, angles, and structural stability.
• Diversity Assessment: Evaluate structural and property diversity across the Pareto front to ensure comprehensive exploration of chemical space.

EGD Framework Protocol

Evolutionary Guidance in Diffusion (EGD) implements a training-free guidance approach that embeds evolutionary operators directly into the diffusion sampling process [80]. The protocol enables multi-objective optimization without additional model retraining:

Preparation Phase:

• Model Selection: Load a pretrained unconditional 3D molecular diffusion model (e.g., EDM or GEOLDM).
• Guidance Configuration: Define property predictors and corresponding target values for optimization.
• Evolutionary Parameters: Set population size, number of generations, and genetic operator probabilities.

Evolutionary Guidance Process:

• Initial Sampling: Generate an initial population of (N) molecules through unconditional diffusion sampling.
• Iterative Refinement (for each generation): a. Property Prediction: Evaluate all molecules against target properties using pre-trained predictors. b. Fitness Assignment: Compute fitness scores based on multi-objective optimization goals. c. Parent Selection: Select molecules for reproduction using fitness-proportional selection. d. Evolutionary Operations:
  • Apply noise-space crossover to combine fragments from selected parent molecules.
  • Perform mild mutations through partial noising and denoising. e. Denoising with Guidance: Use the diffusion model's reverse process to generate valid offspring structures while incorporating evolutionary guidance.
• Population Update: Combine parent and offspring populations, applying elitism to preserve high-fitness solutions.

Performance Assessment:

• Convergence Monitoring: Track fitness improvement across generations to assess optimization progress.
• Quality Metrics: Evaluate validity, uniqueness, and novelty of generated molecules.
• Multi-objective Analysis: Visualize Pareto front progression and solution diversity.

Performance Evaluation Metrics

Rigorous evaluation of hybrid evolutionary-diffusion approaches requires comprehensive assessment across multiple dimensions:

Optimization Performance:

• Hypervolume Indicator: Measures the volume of objective space dominated by the obtained Pareto front, quantifying both convergence and diversity.
• Inverted Generational Distance (IGD): Computes the average distance from reference Pareto front points to the nearest solution in the obtained set.
• Success Rate: Percentage of generated molecules satisfying all target property thresholds and structural constraints.

Molecular Quality:

• Validity Rate: Proportion of generated molecules that represent chemically valid structures with proper bond lengths, angles, and atom configurations.
• Uniqueness: Percentage of novel structures not present in the training dataset.
• Novelty: Structural distance between generated molecules and known reference compounds.

Computational Efficiency:

• Time per Generation: Average computation time required for each evolutionary iteration.
• Sample Efficiency: Number of function evaluations needed to reach target performance thresholds.
• Scaling Behavior: Computational requirements as functions of molecular size and population count.

Table 3: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Hybrid Methods

Method	Success Rate (%)	Validity Rate (%)	Multi-objective Performance (Hypervolume)	Computational Time (Relative)
DEMO	92.5	95.8	0.78	1.0x
EGD	88.3	93.2	0.72	0.8x
Conditional Diffusion	76.4	96.1	0.65	1.5x
Traditional EA	62.7	41.3	0.59	1.2x

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of hybrid evolutionary-diffusion approaches requires specific computational tools and frameworks. The following table details essential components for establishing these methodologies in research environments:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Hybrid Evolutionary-Diffusion Experiments

Reagent Category	Specific Tools/Models	Function	Implementation Notes
Diffusion Models	EDM [80], GEOLDM [80]	Generates valid 3D molecular structures	Pretrained on QM9 or GEOM-Drugs datasets
Property Predictors	Random Forests, GNNs [4]	Evaluates molecular properties for fitness assignment	Should be fast and accurate for high-throughput screening
Evolutionary Frameworks	DEAP, JMetal	Provides evolutionary algorithm infrastructure	Customized for noise-space operations
Molecular Representations	3D Coordinate Systems [79]	Encodes molecular structure for processing	Includes both Cartesian coordinates and atomic features
Similarity Kernels	MACE descriptors [83]	Enables zero-shot generation and guidance	Provides local chemical environment comparisons
Validation Tools	RDKit, OpenBabel	Assesses chemical validity and properties	Critical for filtering and analysis steps

Application Notes for Molecular Discovery

Scaffold Hopping and Bioisostere Replacement

Hybrid evolutionary-diffusion approaches demonstrate particular utility in scaffold hopping applications, where the goal is to identify novel molecular cores that maintain biological activity while improving other properties [4]. The EGD framework enables controlled scaffold replacement through fragment-biased generation, allowing researchers to specify structural constraints while optimizing multiple objective properties [80]. Implementation involves:

• Anchor Fragment Definition: Specify the required molecular scaffold or substructure that must be preserved in generated molecules.
• Evolutionary Bias Incorporation: Modify fitness functions to reward molecules retaining the target scaffold while optimizing other properties.
• Diversity Maintenance: Implement niching mechanisms to ensure exploration of diverse scaffold modifications rather than convergence to a single solution.

This approach has demonstrated 8.5% average per-iteration improvement across six molecular attributes while generating novel scaffolds not present in training data [80].

Multi-objective Lead Optimization

Lead optimization represents an ideal application for hybrid evolutionary-diffusion methods, where multiple property objectives must be balanced simultaneously [79] [78]. The DEMO framework efficiently explores Pareto-optimal trade-offs between conflicting objectives such as potency, metabolic stability, and solubility [79]. Key implementation considerations include:

• Objective Prioritization: Establish relative importance weights for different properties based on therapeutic requirements.
• Constraint Handling: Incorporate structural constraints (e.g., fixed ring systems) or property constraints (e.g., molecular weight limits) through penalty functions or constrained domination principles.
• Iterative Refinement: Employ an interactive optimization approach where medicinal chemists provide feedback on generated molecules to guide subsequent evolutionary iterations.

Experimental results demonstrate that DEMO successfully captures the Pareto front of learned property distributions, effectively overcoming a key limitation of using diffusion models alone [79].

Structurally Constrained Generation

Many drug discovery scenarios require generating molecules that incorporate specific structural fragments while optimizing properties [80]. Hybrid approaches address this challenge through several mechanisms:

• Fragment Initialization: Seed the initial population with molecules containing the target structural fragment.
• Crossover Biasing: Preferentially select parents containing the target fragment for reproduction.
• Fitness Rewards: Augment fitness functions with additional terms that reward retention of the target structure.

The SiMGen approach extends this capability through similarity kernels that enable shape control via point cloud priors and fragment-biased generation without additional training [83]. This method has proven particularly effective for generating molecular linkers between known binding fragments [83].

Future Directions and Development Opportunities

The integration of evolutionary algorithms with diffusion models represents an emerging paradigm with significant potential for advancement. Promising research directions include:

Large-Scale Molecular Generation: Current methods primarily focus on small drug-like molecules, but extending these approaches to macromolecular systems including peptides and proteins would dramatically expand their utility [81]. This requires addressing scaling challenges through hierarchical generation strategies and improved computational efficiency.

Reaction-Aware Generation: Incorporating synthetic accessibility directly into the optimization process represents a critical advancement for practical drug discovery [78]. Future frameworks could integrate retrosynthesis prediction models into fitness evaluation to ensure generated molecules are synthetically feasible.

Active Learning Integration: Implementing closed-loop optimization systems that combine hybrid evolutionary-diffusion generation with automated synthesis and testing would accelerate empirical validation cycles [78]. Such systems would enable continuous model refinement based on experimental results.

Multimodal Representation Learning: Enhancing molecular representations with additional data modalities such as protein binding site information, assay results, and clinical outcomes would enable more biologically relevant generation [4]. This approach could yield molecules optimized for complex polypharmacological profiles.

As hybrid evolutionary-diffusion methodologies continue to mature, they hold the potential to transform molecular discovery from a largely empirical process to a rational, engineering-based discipline capable of systematically exploring chemical space to identify optimized compounds for therapeutic applications.

Benchmarks and Performance: Evaluating 3D Molecular Generation Models

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI)-based generative models has revolutionized the exploration of chemical space in drug design, enabling the rapid creation of novel molecular structures with desired properties [8]. The multidimensional expanse of chemical space, theoretically encompassing 10^23 to 10^60 feasible compounds, remains largely unexplored, with only approximately 10^8 compounds synthesized to date [8]. Within this context, three-dimensional (3D) molecular generation models have emerged as particularly powerful tools, as they explicitly incorporate structural information about target proteins, leading to more rational drug design [8]. However, the ability to generate molecules is insufficient without robust frameworks for evaluating the quality, diversity, and practicality of these computational outputs. This application note establishes critical evaluation metrics—validity, stability, uniqueness, and novelty—as essential components for assessing 3D molecular generative models, providing researchers with standardized protocols for their implementation within a comprehensive model evaluation framework.

Defining the Critical Metrics

The evaluation of 3D molecular generative models relies on four cornerstone metrics that collectively describe the chemical correctness, structural integrity, and diversity of generated molecules.

Validity quantifies adherence to fundamental chemical rules and structural realism. It encompasses multiple dimensions: atom stability measures the proportion of atoms with correct valences, molecular stability assesses the energetic favorability of 3D conformations, RDKit validity checks for syntactic correctness and the ability to parse SMILES strings, and PoseBusters validity (PB-validity) evaluates the physical plausibility of protein-ligand binding poses [84] [10]. High validity is prerequisite for synthetic accessibility and biological relevance.

Stability specifically refers to the geometric rationality of generated 3D structures. It is frequently evaluated by calculating the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) between generated geometries and their energy-minimized counterparts, with lower values indicating more stable conformations [10]. Stability also encompasses the assessment of key structural parameters—bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles—often using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence to measure how closely their distributions match those of known stable reference molecules [84] [10].

Uniqueness measures diversity within a set of generated molecules, calculated as the proportion of non-identical structures in the output [84]. It ensures models generate a diverse chemical space rather than repeatedly producing similar structures. Discrete uniqueness uses binary distance functions, while continuous uniqueness employs real-valued distance functions to quantify the degree of similarity between all pairs of generated molecules [85].

Novelty assesses how different generated molecules are from the training data, calculated as the proportion of generated structures not present in the training set [84]. This metric indicates a model's capacity for true innovation rather than merely memorizing and reconstructing known compounds. Discrete novelty provides a binary measure, while continuous novelty quantifies the degree of dissimilarity using minimum distance to any training set molecule [85].

Table 1: Core Definitions of Critical Evaluation Metrics

Metric	Definition	Primary Significance	Common Evaluation Methods
Validity	Adherence to chemical rules and structural realism	Practical utility and synthetic feasibility	Atom stability, Molecular stability, RDKit validity, PoseBusters validity
Stability	Geometric rationality and energetic favorability of 3D conformations	Likelihood of existence in biological conditions	RMSD to minimized structure, JS divergence of structural parameters
Uniqueness	Diversity within the set of generated molecules	Chemical space exploration efficiency	Proportion of duplicate molecules, Average pairwise distance
Novelty	Dissimilarity from the training dataset	Capacity for de novo discovery	Proportion of molecules not in training set, Minimum distance to training set

Quantitative Benchmarking of Current Models

Comprehensive benchmarking studies reveal significant variations in performance across state-of-the-art 3D molecular generative models. A systematic evaluation of nine diffusion-based models trained on QM9 and GEOM-Drugs datasets demonstrates that nearly all models perform worse on 3D metrics compared to 2D metrics, highlighting persistent challenges in accurate 3D spatial modeling [84]. Most generated 3D structures exhibit significant deviations from energy-minimized references, with performance declining particularly for larger, more complex molecules [84].

Among these models, MiDi and EQGAT-diff consistently outperform others, with MiDi showing particularly robust performance across multiple metrics [84]. The recently introduced DiffGui model also demonstrates state-of-the-art performance by addressing key challenges through bond diffusion and property guidance, resulting in improved validity and stability metrics [10].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of 3D Molecular Generative Models Across Critical Metrics

Model	Validity (RDKit)	Stability (RMSD)	Uniqueness	Novelty	Key Characteristics
EDM	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Equivariant diffusion; structural redundancy issues [84]
GCDM	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Reinforced geometric constraints [84]
MolDiff	High	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Explicit atom-bond constraints [84]
EQGAT-diff	High	High	High	High	Consistent top performer [84]
GEOLDM	Moderate	Low	High	High	Latent space mapping for diversity [84]
MDM	Moderate	Moderate	High	High	Distributional controlling variable [84]
MiDi	High	High	High	High	End-to-end differentiable; robust performance [84]
MolFM	High	High	Moderate	Moderate	Equivariant Flow Matching [84]
JODO	High	Moderate	High	High	Diffusion graph transformer [84]
DiffGui	High (PB-validity)	High	High	High	Bond diffusion & property guidance [10]

Advanced Metric Methodologies and Protocols

Enhanced Assessment of Uniqueness and Novelty

Traditional binary assessment methods for uniqueness and novelty have significant limitations. The prevalent dsmat (StructureMatcher) function returns a Boolean value (True/False) without quantifying the degree of similarity, failing to distinguish between compositional and structural differences, and lacking Lipschitz continuity against atomic coordinate perturbations [85].

Advanced approaches employ continuous distance functions that provide more nuanced evaluations. For compositional comparison, the Magpie fingerprint distance (dmagpie) calculates the Euclidean distance between 145 elemental and stoichiometric attributes [85]. For structural assessment, the Average Minimum Distance (damd) computes the L∞ distance between vectors where each element represents the mean distance from an atom to its k-th nearest neighbor, averaged over all atoms in a primitive unit cell [85]. These continuous functions enable more sensitive and informative evaluations of model performance.

Protocols for Stability Assessment

Comprehensive stability evaluation requires a multi-faceted approach. The following protocol ensures rigorous assessment:

• Conformational Optimization: Generate 3D molecular structures and subject them to energy minimization using force fields (e.g., MMFF94) or quantum mechanical methods (e.g., DFT) [84].
• RMSD Calculation: Calculate RMSD between pre-optimized and post-optimized atomic coordinates to quantify conformational deviation using established tools like RDKit or OpenBabel [10].
• Structural Parameter Distribution: Analyze distributions of bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles for generated molecules [84] [10].
• Statistical Comparison: Compute Jensen-Shannon divergence between distributions of generated molecules and reference datasets (e.g., FDA-approved drugs) to quantify distributional similarity [84] [10].
• Stability Scoring: Classify molecules as stable if RMSD < 0.5 Ã… and JS divergence < 0.05 for key structural parameters, though these thresholds may vary by application [10].

Experimental Protocol for Comprehensive Model Evaluation

A standardized experimental framework enables comparable assessments across different generative models:

• Data Preparation: Utilize standardized datasets such as QM9 (∼130k small organic molecules) for fundamental benchmarking or GEOM-Drugs for more complex drug-like structures [84].
• Model Training & Sampling: Train generative models on curated datasets, then sample a sufficient number of molecules (typically 10,000) to ensure statistical significance in evaluation [84].
• Metric Computation:
  • Validity: Process generated structures with RDKit to determine syntactic validity; use PoseBusters for protein-ligand complex validity [10].
  • Stability: Perform energy minimization and calculate RMSD values; analyze structural parameter distributions [10].
  • Uniqueness: Employ continuous distance functions (dmagpie for composition, damd for structure) to calculate pairwise differences within generated sets [85].
  • Novelty: Compute minimum distances between generated molecules and training set using the same continuous distance functions [85].
• Benchmarking: Compare results against reference models and established baselines to contextualize performance [84].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software Tools and Databases for Metric Evaluation

Tool/Database	Type	Primary Function in Evaluation	Application Context
RDKit	Software	Chemical validity checking, structural analysis, and descriptor calculation	Fundamental cheminformatics toolkit for validity assessment [10]
PyMOL	Software	3D structure visualization and analysis	Visual validation of generated 3D conformations [86]
PoseBusters	Software	Validation of protein-ligand complex structures	Assessment of binding pose validity and steric compatibility [10]
QM9 Dataset	Database	Benchmark dataset of 130k small organic molecules	Training and benchmarking for fundamental molecular generation [84]
GEOM-Drugs	Database	Dataset of drug-like molecules with complex structures	Benchmarking for realistic drug discovery applications [84]
PDBbind	Database	Curated protein-ligand complexes with binding data	Evaluation of target-aware molecular generation [10]
Magpie	Algorithm	Compositional fingerprint generation	Continuous uniqueness and novelty assessment [85]
AMD	Algorithm	Structural fingerprint generation	Continuous structural similarity analysis [85]

Implementation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive evaluation workflow for 3D molecular generative models, integrating all critical metrics into a standardized assessment pipeline:

The critical evaluation metrics of validity, stability, uniqueness, and novelty form an essential framework for advancing 3D molecular generative models in drug discovery. As benchmark studies demonstrate, current models exhibit varying strengths across these metrics, with challenges remaining in achieving consistent 3D structural accuracy, particularly for complex molecules [84]. The implementation of continuous distance functions for uniqueness and novelty [85], combined with rigorous stability assessment through JS divergence of structural parameters [10], represents significant methodological progress. For researchers, prioritizing a balanced optimization across all four metrics—rather than excelling in any single dimension—is crucial for developing generative models that truly expand the explorable chemical space with synthetically accessible, novel, and structurally sound molecular candidates. Standardized application of these evaluation protocols will enable more meaningful comparisons across models and accelerate the development of next-generation AI tools for rational drug design.

Within the rapidly evolving field of molecular machine learning, the ability to accurately generate and evaluate three-dimensional molecular structures is paramount for advancing scientific discovery and drug development. Generative models for 3D molecular structures have shown significant promise in constructing novel molecules, enabling efficient exploration of vast chemical space by learning patterns from existing molecular data [5] [87]. The reliability of these models, however, is fundamentally dependent on the chemical accuracy and rigorous implementation of the benchmark datasets and evaluation protocols used for their training and validation. This application note provides a detailed examination of three critical benchmark datasets—GEOM-Drugs, QM9, and CrossDocked2020—framed within the broader thesis of handling 3D molecular representations in generative models research. We summarize quantitative performance data, outline detailed experimental methodologies, and provide essential practical recommendations to guide researchers and drug development professionals in their experimental design and model evaluation practices.

Dataset Specifications and Performance Benchmarks

Core Dataset Profiles

Table 1: Core Specifications of Molecular Benchmark Datasets

Dataset	Chemical Space	# Entries	3D Information	Primary Applications
GEOM-Drugs	Drug-like molecules	~400,000 conformers	GFN2-xTB optimized geometries & energies	3D molecular generation, conformer energy assessment [88] [5] [87]
QM9	Small organic molecules (C, H, O, N, F) with ≤9 heavy atoms	~133,000-134,000	DFT (B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p)) optimized geometries	Quantum property prediction, generative model benchmarking [89] [90]
CrossDocked2020	Protein-ligand complexes	22.5 million poses	Docked ligand poses in binding pockets	Protein-ligand scoring, binding affinity prediction, pose selection [91] [92]

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Select Generative Models on GEOM-Drugs and QM9

Model	Category	Training Set	Molecular Stability (GEOM-Drugs)	Property Prediction MAE (QM9)
MiDi	DDPM	QM9, GEOM-Drugs	High (exact values corrected in [87])	N/A [84]
EQGAT-diff	DDPM	QM9, GEOM-Drugs	0.899 ± 0.007 (corrected)	N/A [84] [87]
MolFM	Equivariant Flow Matching	QM9	N/A	Competitive with state-of-art [84]
JODO	SDE	QM9, GEOM-Drugs	0.963 ± 0.005 (corrected)	N/A [84] [87]

Experimental Protocols for 3D Molecular Generation and Evaluation

Protocol 1: Evaluating 3D Generative Models on GEOM-Drugs

Objective: To benchmark the performance of 3D molecular generative models using the GEOM-Drugs dataset with chemically accurate metrics.

Materials:

• Reprocessed GEOM-Drugs dataset (kekulized form)
• GFN2-xTB quantum chemistry package
• RDKit cheminformatics toolkit
• Custom evaluation scripts from https://github.com/isayevlab/geom-drugs-3dgen-evaluation

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Download the refined GEOM-Drugs split that excludes molecules where GFN2-xTB calculations fractured the original molecule [87].
  • Kekulize all molecular structures to remove aromaticity ambiguity in valency calculations [87].

• Model Training:

  • Train generative models on the processed dataset. Ensure the model generates both atomic coordinates and molecular graphs.
  • For diffusion models, standard hyperparameters from original publications may be used (e.g., EDM, MiDi) [84].

• Generation and Evaluation:

  • Generate a minimum of 5,000 molecules for statistically significant evaluation [87].
  • Calculate the following metrics:
    • Molecular Stability: Use the corrected valency computation where aromatic bonds contribute appropriately to valency (not rounded to 1). Employ the chemically accurate valency lookup table indexed by (element, number of aromatic bonds, formal charge, valency) [5] [87].
    • Geometry and Energy Assessment: Optimize generated structures with GFN2-xTB and calculate relative energies compared to reference data. This provides an interpretable, physics-based quality measure [88].

• Interpretation:

  • Compare molecular stability scores against corrected benchmarks (Table 2). A score >0.9 is considered state-of-the-art after metric corrections [87].
  • Analyze energy distributions; chemically valid structures should have energies near the GFN2-xTB optimized references.

Protocol 2: Property Prediction Benchmarking on QM9

Objective: To train and evaluate machine learning models for quantum chemical property prediction using the QM9 dataset.

Materials:

• QM9 dataset (including extensions if needed, e.g., QM9-NMR, GW-QM9)
• Machine learning framework (PyTorch, TensorFlow, or JAX)
• Graph neural network or transformer model implementation

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:
  • Obtain QM9 dataset with 13 core quantum-chemical properties including atomization energies, HOMO/LUMO energies, dipole moments, and vibrational frequencies [89].
  • For extended tasks, consider QM9 derivatives with additional properties: QM9-NMR for NMR shieldings, GW-QM9 for GW-level HOMO/LUMO energies, or Hessian QM9 for vibrational analyses [89].

• Model Implementation:

  • Implement appropriate architectures:
    • Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Use message-passing neural networks (MPNNs) with edge networks and set2set readouts [89].
    • Equivariant Models: For 3D-aware tasks, use SE(3)-equivariant architectures like QHNet for Hamiltonian prediction [89].
    • Kernel Methods: Implement FCHL or SOAP descriptors with kernel ridge regression for competitive performance [89].

• Training and Evaluation:

  • Apply clustered cross-validation splits to assess generalization to new molecular scaffolds [92].
  • Train models to minimize mean absolute error (MAE) with respect to chemical accuracy targets.
  • For out-of-distribution (OOD) evaluation, use the BOOM benchmark methodology, holding out tail ends of property value distributions [93].

• Interpretation:

  • Compare MAE values against chemical accuracy thresholds (e.g., 1 kcal/mol for energy properties).
  • State-of-the-art GNNs should achieve MAEs below 0.1 eV for HOMO-LUMO gap prediction [89].
  • Analyze OOD performance degradation; even top models show 3x higher error on OOD vs. in-distribution data [93].

Protocol 3: Protein-Ligand Docking with CrossDocked2020 and Gnina

Objective: To perform molecular docking and binding affinity prediction using the CrossDocked2020 dataset and Gnina docking framework.

Materials:

• CrossDocked2020 v1.3 dataset (corrected for ligand-receptor misalignment)
• Gnina 1.3 molecular docking software
• PyTorch-enabled GPU for accelerated scoring

Procedure:

• Data Preparation:
  • Use the updated CrossDocked2020 v1.3 dataset which addresses ligand and receptor misalignment problems present in earlier versions [91].
  • For standardized benchmarking, use the provided training/test splits to ensure fair comparison across methods [92].

• Docking Configuration:

  • Set up Gnina with the retrained CNN scoring functions:
    • Use the default ensemble of three models for optimal pose prediction [91].
    • For high-throughput screening, employ knowledge-distilled models to reduce computational cost by ~6x while maintaining similar performance [91].
  • For covalent docking:
    • Specify the ligand atom using a SMARTS expression and the receptor atom by chain, residue ID, and atom name [91].
    • Use the OpenBabel GetNewBondVector heuristic for reasonable initial ligand placement.

• Execution and Analysis:

  • Run docking with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling for conformational sampling.
  • Score resulting poses with CNN scoring functions for both pose quality (<2Ã… RMSD classification) and binding affinity prediction [92].
  • Evaluate performance using:
    • Pose prediction accuracy (AUC)
    • Binding affinity prediction (RMSD, Pearson R)
    • Virtual screening enrichment (ROC-AUC)

• Interpretation:

  • The best ensemble CNN models achieve RMSD of 1.42 and Pearson R of 0.612 for affinity prediction on CrossDocked2020 [92].
  • Knowledge-distilled models reduce docking time from 458s to 72s on CPU while maintaining similar performance [91].

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Molecular Modeling Benchmarking Workflow. This workflow illustrates the parallel evaluation pathways for the three primary benchmark datasets, highlighting dataset-specific protocols converging to comprehensive performance analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access
GFN2-xTB	Quantum Chemistry Package	Geometry optimization and energy calculation for molecular structures [88] [87]	https://xtb-docs.readthedocs.io/
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular manipulation, kekulization, valency checking, and descriptor calculation [5] [87]	https://www.rdkit.org/
Gnina	Molecular Docking Software	Protein-ligand docking with CNN-based scoring functions, including covalent docking [91]	https://github.com/gnina/gnina
libmolgrid	Library	Generation of 3D atomic density grids for CNN-based scoring functions [92]	https://github.com/gnina/libmolgrid
GEOM-Drugs Processing Scripts	Evaluation Code	Corrected evaluation metrics and dataset processing for GEOM-Drugs [88] [87]	https://github.com/isayevlab/geom-drugs-3dgen-evaluation

Critical Considerations and Best Practices

Addressing Evaluation Pitfalls in GEOM-Drugs

Recent research has uncovered critical flaws in the evaluation protocols for 3D molecular generative models, particularly concerning the molecular stability metric [5] [87]. A widespread bug in valency calculation—where aromatic bond contributions were incorrectly rounded to 1 instead of the appropriate 1.5—has propagated through multiple publications, artificially inflating stability scores [87]. This issue was further compounded by the use of chemically implausible entries in valency lookup tables, such as allowing neutral carbon with valency 3 [87]. Researchers must adopt the corrected evaluation framework, which includes fixed valency computation and a chemically accurate lookup table, to ensure proper model assessment [88].

Out-of-Distribution Generalization

The BOOM benchmark reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle with out-of-distribution generalization, with average OOD errors approximately 3x larger than in-distribution errors [93]. This has profound implications for molecular discovery campaigns aiming to explore novel chemical spaces. To address this limitation, researchers should:

• Implement clustered cross-validation splits that separate training and test sets by molecular scaffolds [92]
• Utilize the BOOM benchmark methodology for OOD evaluation by holding out tail ends of property distributions [93]
• Consider equivariant architectures with higher inductive biases for tasks with simple, specific properties, as they demonstrate better OOD performance [93]

Dataset Selection Guidelines

Choose datasets aligned with your specific research objectives:

• GEOM-Drugs is optimal for evaluating 3D generative models on drug-like molecules, provided the corrected evaluation framework is used [88] [87]
• QM9 remains the gold standard for quantum property prediction but is limited to small molecules with ≤9 heavy atoms [89]
• CrossDocked2020 is essential for structure-based tasks including docking and binding affinity prediction, with the v1.3 update addressing previous quality issues [91] [92]

This application note has provided detailed protocols and performance benchmarks for three essential datasets in 3D molecular representation research. The critical importance of chemically rigorous evaluation practices cannot be overstated, particularly in light of recently identified flaws in previous evaluation methodologies. By adopting the corrected metrics for GEOM-Drugs, implementing robust OOD evaluation strategies, and selecting datasets appropriate for specific research questions, the scientific community can accelerate progress in reliable 3D molecular generation and property prediction. These protocols provide researchers with the necessary framework to conduct chemically accurate evaluations, ultimately supporting advances in computational drug discovery and materials design.

The adoption of three-dimensional (3D) molecular generative models represents a paradigm shift in accelerated drug discovery, enabling the exploration of vast chemical spaces encompassing 10²³ to 10⁶⁰ feasible compounds [8]. However, the field's progress is critically hampered by standardized evaluation protocols that contain fundamental chemical inaccuracies [5]. These flaws mischaracterize model performance, misleading the research community and obstructing the development of truly robust generative algorithms. This application note delineates the identified critical flaws in current validation methodologies, provides a chemically rigorous assessment framework, and offers detailed protocols for its implementation, framed within the broader context of handling 3D molecular representations in generative models research.

Critical Flaws in Current Validation Protocols

Recent investigations have uncovered systematic errors in the benchmarking of 3D molecular generative models, primarily centered on the widely used GEOM-drugs dataset [5].

The Molecular Stability Metric Crisis

The "molecular stability" metric, which measures the fraction of generated molecules where all atoms possess chemically valid valencies, is a cornerstone of model evaluation. Valency, defined as the sum of bond orders of an atom's covalent bonds, is governed by fundamental chemical constraints such as the octet rule [5]. However, a critical implementation bug has propagated through several influential models:

• Source of the Error: The original implementation in the MiDi model calculated valency contributions for all aromatic bonds as 1 instead of the chemically accurate value of 1.5 [5].
• Consequence: This error resulted in the creation of a valency "lookup table" containing chemically implausible entries, such as neutral carbon with a valency of 3 and neutral nitrogen with a valency of 2 [5].
• Impact: This flaw artificially inflates molecular stability scores, masking generative model failures and presenting an inaccurate picture of model performance. The erroneous code has been reused in several subsequent works, including EQGAT-Diff, SemlaFlow, Megalodon, and FlowMol [5].

Limitations in 3D Structure Evaluation

Beyond valency metrics, the evaluation of generated 3D structures themselves often lacks chemical rigor:

• Oversimplified Geometry Checks: Many studies rely on oversimplified atom-atom distance lookup tables to assess the validity of generated 3D structures [5].
• Inconsistent Energy Evaluations: The use of energy calculations at different levels of theory than the training data provides inconsistent measures of conformational quality [5].
• Opaque Metrics: An over-reliance on distribution-based metrics, such as the Jensen-Shannon divergence for bonds, angles, and dihedrals, though useful, can be difficult to interpret chemically and may not directly correlate with functional drug properties [10].

A Framework for Chemically Accurate Assessment

To address these flaws, a new evaluation framework is proposed, centered on chemical accuracy, consistency, and interpretability.

Corrected Molecular Stability Metric

The corrected molecular stability assessment involves two key actions [5]:

• Fixing Aromatic Bond Valency Calculation: Implement correct valency computation where aromatic bonds contribute 1.5 to the total valency count.
• Recomputing the Valency Lookup Table: Construct a new, chemically accurate lookup table derived from the refined GEOM-drugs dataset, excluding all implausible entries.

Table 1: Impact of Corrected Stability Metric on Model Performance

Model	Original MS (Faulty)	Corrected MS (Arom=1.5)	Validity & Correctness (V&C)
EQGAT-Diff	0.935 ± 0.007	0.451 ± 0.006	0.834 ± 0.009
JODO	0.981 ± 0.001	0.517 ± 0.012	0.879 ± 0.003
Megalodon-quick	0.961 ± 0.003	0.496 ± 0.017	0.900 ± 0.007
SemlaFlow	0.980 ± 0.012	0.608 ± 0.027	0.920 ± 0.016
FlowMol2	0.959 ± 0.007	0.594 ± 0.009	0.942 ± 0.006

Note: MS = Molecular Stability. Metrics computed on 5000 generated molecules. Data sourced from re-evaluation studies [5].

Energy-Based Geometry Validation

A robust, energy-based methodology is recommended for an chemically interpretable assessment of generated 3D geometries [5]:

• Level of Theory: Use the GFN2-xTB semi-empirical quantum mechanical method to compute the energy of generated molecular conformations.
• Benchmarking: Compare these energies against a reference distribution derived from the refined GEOM-drugs test set conformations.
• Objective: This directly evaluates the physical realism and stability of the generated 3D structures.

Integration of Property and Interaction Guidance

To ensure generated molecules are not only chemically valid but also therapeutically relevant, advanced models like DiffGui incorporate guided generation [10]:

• Property Guidance: Explicitly guides the generative process based on key drug-like properties, including Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED), Synthetic Accessibility (SA), and Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (LogP).
• Interaction Guidance: Utilizes estimated binding affinity (Vina Score) to bias generation toward molecules with high target affinity.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing the Corrected Stability Metric

Objective: To accurately calculate the molecular stability metric for a set of generated molecules. Materials: A set of generated molecules (in SDF or similar format), RDKit or OpenBabel toolkits, refined valency lookup table. Steps:

• Molecule Input: Load the generated molecules using a cheminformatics toolkit.
• Bond Order Perception: Perform kekulization to assign explicit single, double, and triple bonds. For aromatic systems, ensure the toolkit correctly handles fractional bond order representation (e.g., 1.5 for aromatic bonds).
• Valency Calculation: For each atom, calculate valency as the sum of the orders of all its bonds. For aromatic bonds, use a contribution of 1.5.
• Stability Check: For each atom, query the refined lookup table with the tuple (element, formal charge, calculated valency). If the tuple exists, the atom is stable.
• Metric Aggregation: Calculate "Atom Stability" as the fraction of all atoms with valid valencies. Calculate "Molecular Stability" as the fraction of molecules where all atoms have valid valencies.

Protocol 2: GFN2-xTB Energy Benchmarking

Objective: To evaluate the conformational energy distribution of generated molecules against a reference dataset. Materials: Set of generated molecule 3D structures; refined GEOM-drugs test set; GFN2-xTB software. Steps:

• Data Preparation: Extract a random sample of conformers from the refined GEOM-drugs test set. Filter the generated molecules to include only those passing the corrected stability metric.
• Geometry Optimization: Perform a preliminary geometry optimization on all structures (reference and generated) using the GFN2-xTB method.
• Single Point Energy Calculation: Calculate the single point energy for each optimized conformation.
• Data Analysis: Plot the distributions of energies for both the reference and generated sets. Statistically compare the distributions (e.g., using Wasserstein distance) to quantify how well the generated molecules approximate the physical realism of the reference conformers.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Molecular Generation

Reagent / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Validation
GEOM-drugs Dataset	Dataset	Foundational benchmark of drug-like molecules and conformers for training and evaluation [5].
CrossDocked2020	Dataset	Curated set of protein-ligand complexes used for fine-tuning target-aware models [8] [10].
RDKit	Software	Cheminformatics toolkit for molecule manipulation, kekulization, and basic property calculation [5].
GFN2-xTB	Software	Semi-empirical quantum mechanical method for fast, accurate geometry optimization and energy calculation [5].
OpenBabel	Software	Tool for converting chemical file formats and assembling molecules from atom coordinates [10].
Refined Valency Table	Data	Chemically accurate lookup table defining valid valencies for (element, charge) pairs [5].
PDBbind	Dataset	Provides experimental protein-ligand structures and binding data for model testing [10].

Protocol 3: Holistic Model Evaluation

Objective: To perform a comprehensive assessment of a 3D molecular generative model using multiple complementary metrics. Materials: A generative model; test protein pockets (e.g., from PDBbind or CrossDocked2020); required software tools. Steps:

• Molecule Generation: Generate a sufficient number of molecules (e.g., 10,000) conditioned on a set of target protein pockets.
• Basic Metrics Calculation:
  • Corrected Stability: Calculate using Protocol 1.
  • Validity: Calculate the fraction of molecules that can be sanitized by RDKit.
  • Uniqueness: Measure the fraction of unique molecules within the generated set.
  • Novelty: Measure the fraction of generated molecules not found in the training set.
• 3D Geometry Assessment:
  • Perform energy-based benchmarking using Protocol 2.
  • Calculate Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) between generated geometries and their force-field optimized counterparts to assess local strain.
• Property and Affinity Profiling:
  • Use tools like RDKit to calculate key drug-like properties (QED, SA, LogP).
  • Use molecular docking (e.g., AutoDock Vina) to estimate binding affinity (Vina Score).

The pursuit of chemically accurate assessment is not a mere technical refinement but a fundamental requirement for the maturation of 3D molecular generative models. The flaws identified in current validation protocols, particularly concerning the molecular stability metric, have significantly skewed the perceived performance of state-of-the-art models. The framework and detailed protocols provided herein—centered on a corrected stability metric, energy-based geometry validation, and holistic multi-metric evaluation—establish a path toward rigorous, chemically grounded benchmarking. Adopting these practices will enable researchers to make true apples-to-apples comparisons between models, accurately identify areas for improvement, and ultimately accelerate the development of reliable generative tools that can consistently produce novel, valid, and therapeutically viable molecules for drug discovery.

The exploration of chemical space for novel drug candidates is a central challenge in modern drug discovery. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful tool to address this, with 3D molecular generation models leading a paradigm shift from traditional screening to the de novo design of molecules. Unlike their 1D or 2D counterparts, 3D models explicitly incorporate the spatial arrangement of atoms and their complementarity to protein targets, which is crucial for predicting biological activity [8]. Among the various architectures, diffusion models, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and autoregressive models have established themselves as the dominant paradigms. Each offers a unique set of trade-offs in generation quality, computational efficiency, and applicability to structure-based drug design [10] [94] [95]. This Application Note provides a comparative analysis of these state-of-the-art approaches, supplemented with structured experimental data, detailed protocols, and essential toolkits for researchers.

Comparative Performance Analysis of 3D Molecular Generation Models

The performance of generative models is multi-faceted, evaluated on criteria such as the physical plausibility of generated structures, their drug-like properties, and computational efficiency. The table below summarizes the key characteristics and reported performance of the three model families.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 3D Molecular Generative Model Families

Feature	Diffusion Models	Autoregressive Models	GANs
Core Principle	Iterative denoising from noise to a coherent 3D structure [10]	Sequential, atom-by-atom addition to build a molecule [95]	Adversarial game between a generator and a discriminator [94]
Typical Molecular Representation	3D graph/point cloud	Ordered sequence of atoms with types and coordinates [95]	3D molecular topologies and types [94]
Strengths	High-quality, diverse outputs; Strong performance on 3D metrics like binding affinity [10]	Fast inference; Flexible, variable-size generation (e.g., scaffold completion) [95]	Efficient generation of diverse, focused ligand libraries [94]
Key Weaknesses	Computationally intensive/slow sampling; Can produce distorted ring structures [96] [10]	Error propagation from sequential generation; Unnatural generation order [10]	Unstable training dynamics; Mode collapse [97]
Reported Vina Score (Binding Affinity)	State-of-the-art performance, e.g., DiffGui [10]	Competitive performance, e.g., Quetzal [95]	High enrichment vs. virtual screening, e.g., TopMT-GAN [94]
Reported Quality/Stability	Can exhibit significant deviations from energy-minimized references [96]	High molecular stability, e.g., Quetzal [95]	Generates molecules with precise 3D poses [94]
Inference Speed	Slower due to iterative denoising steps	Fast, e.g., Quetzal significantly faster than diffusion models [95]	Efficient for large-scale library generation [94]

Beyond these core model types, hybrid and alternative architectures are also being explored. For instance, transformer-based language models like 3DSMILES-GPT tokenize 3D structures, enabling very fast generation (e.g., ~0.45 seconds per molecule) while maintaining strong performance on affinity and drug-likeness metrics [52].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Representative State-of-the-Art Models

Model (Architecture)	Reported Vina Score (kcal/mol) ↓	Quality / Stability	Uniqueness	Inference Time (s/molecule)
DiffGui (Diffusion) [10]	Outperforms existing methods	High PB-Validity, rational structures	High	Not Specified
Quetzal (Autoregressive) [95]	Competitive with SOTA diffusion	High molecular stability	High	Significantly faster than diffusion
TopMT-GAN (GAN) [94]	High binding affinity (enrichment)	Precise 3D poses	Diverse	Efficient for large libraries
3DSMILES-GPT (Transformer) [52]	State-of-the-art	Physically plausible conformations	High	~0.45

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking 3D Generative Models

To ensure reproducible and comparable evaluation of 3D molecular generative models, follow this standardized experimental protocol.

Protocol 1: Standardized Model Benchmarking

Objective: To quantitatively evaluate and compare the performance of different generative models on fixed test sets of protein pockets.

Materials & Datasets:

• PDBbind [10]: A curated dataset of protein-ligand complexes with experimentally measured binding data, commonly used for training and evaluation.
• CrossDocked2020 [52]: A large, docked dataset of protein-ligand complexes used for fine-tuning and benchmarking models.
• QM9 & GEOM-Drugs [96] [95]: Datasets of small organic molecules and drug-like molecules with computed geometric and electronic properties, used for foundational model training and evaluation.

Procedure:

• Model Training & Fine-tuning: Pre-train models on a large-scale dataset of drug-like molecules (e.g., ZINC). Subsequently, fine-tune the model on a curated dataset of protein-ligand complexes, such as CrossDocked2020.
• Conditional Generation: For a held-out test set of protein pockets, use each model to generate a fixed number of candidate molecules (e.g., 100-1,000 per pocket).
• Post-processing: Convert the raw model outputs (e.g., point clouds, sequences) into full molecular structures with bonds and formal charges using toolkits like RDKit.
• Evaluation & Metric Calculation: For each generated molecule, compute the following metrics and compare their distributions across models:
  • Binding Affinity: Estimate using molecular docking software like AutoDock Vina.
  • Drug-Likeness: Calculate the Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED).
  • Synthetic Accessibility: Compute the Synthetic Accessibility Score (SA).
  • Structural Validity: Determine the percentage of RDKit-valid and PoseBusters-valid molecules.
  • Novelty & Diversity: Assess the uniqueness of generated molecules and their similarity to known ligands.
  • 3D Geometry Quality: Evaluate the Jensen-Shannon divergence of bond, angle, and dihedral distributions against reference data [10].

Protocol 2: Assessing a Diffusion Model for De Novo Design

Objective: To apply the DiffGui diffusion model [10] for generating novel ligands with high binding affinity and desired properties for a specific protein target.

Materials:

• Target Protein: The 3D atomic coordinate file (e.g., .pdb format) of the protein of interest, with a defined binding pocket.
• Pre-trained DiffGui Model: Available from the original publication's code repository.
• Property Guidance Weights: Pre-defined coefficients for steering the generation towards desired properties (Vina Score, QED, SA, LogP).

Procedure:

• Pocket Preparation: Process the target protein structure to select and define the specific binding pocket residues.
• Conditional Generation: Run the DiffGui sampling process, inputting the target pocket and property guidance conditions.
• Iterative Denoising: The model executes the reverse diffusion process, iteratively denoising a random initial state into a complete molecular structure. This process integrates bond diffusion and property guidance at each step to ensure chemical validity and desired attributes [10].
• Output Collection: The model outputs the generated molecule as a set of atoms with 3D coordinates, bond types, and predicted properties.
• Validation: Subject the top-ranked generated molecules to experimental validation through wet-lab synthesis and binding assays.

Diagram 1: DiffGui de novo workflow.

Protocol 3: Assessing an Autoregressive Model for Scaffold Completion

Objective: To use the Quetzal autoregressive model [95] for a scaffold completion task, generating a full molecule based on a provided core fragment and a target pocket.

Materials:

• Target Protein & Pocket: The 3D structure of the target.
• Core Fragment: A molecular scaffold or fragment (e.g., in .sdf or .xyz format) to be completed.
• Pre-trained Quetzal Model.

Procedure:

• Input Preparation: The core fragment is provided as the initial "prefix" to the model (a:i, x:i).
• Sequential Generation: The model autoregressively predicts the next atom's type a_i+1 and its continuous 3D coordinates x_i+1, conditioned on the protein pocket and the existing prefix structure [95].
• Stopping Criterion: The generation continues until the model predicts a [stop] token or a maximum atom limit is reached.
• Output: A complete molecule incorporating the original scaffold.

Diagram 2: Autoregressive scaffold completion.

Table 3: Essential Resources for 3D Molecular Generation Research

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
RDKit	Software Library	Cheminformatics toolkit for molecule manipulation, validation, and descriptor calculation [10].
AutoDock Vina	Software	Molecular docking tool for rapid estimation of binding affinity [10] [52].
PDBbind	Dataset	Curated database for benchmarking; provides ground truth binding affinities [10].
CrossDocked2020	Dataset	Large, aligned dataset for training and testing structure-based models [52].
QM9/GEOM-Drugs	Dataset	Benchmark datasets for evaluating 3D molecular generation quality [96] [95].
OpenBabel	Software Library	Tool for converting chemical file formats and assigning bond types from coordinates [10].
PyTor	Software Framework	Deep learning framework commonly used for implementing and training generative models.
Equivariant GNNs	Model Architecture	Neural networks that preserve rotational and translational symmetry, crucial for 3D data [10].

Application Notes

Energy-based validation is a critical methodology for assessing the quality, stability, and feasibility of molecular conformations generated by 3D deep generative models. By quantifying the intrinsic energetic properties of molecular structures, researchers can filter and prioritize generated candidates with higher potential for successful experimental validation, thereby accelerating the drug discovery pipeline.

Core Principles and Significance

The foundational principle of energy-based validation rests on quantifying the intrinsic underlying conformational energy landscapes of molecular structures [98]. This approach evaluates the energetic favorability of generated conformations by analyzing:

• Energy Gap (δE): The energy difference between the native-like (closed) state and the average non-native states [98]
• Energy Roughness (δE): The width of the energy distribution of non-native states, representing topological complexity [98]
• Configurational Entropy (S): The size of the accessible conformational space [98]

These parameters combine into a dimensionless landscape topography measure Λ that dictates both thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility of molecular conformations [98]. For generative models in drug design, this provides a physical basis for evaluating whether generated structures represent biologically plausible configurations with sufficient stability for functional binding.

Application to Generative Molecular Design

In the context of 3D molecular generative frameworks, energy-based validation enables interaction-guided drug design inside target binding pockets [99]. This approach addresses critical challenges in AI-driven drug discovery:

• Generalization Beyond Training Data: By leveraging universal patterns of protein-ligand interactions as physical prior knowledge, models can maintain performance even with limited experimental data [99]
• Binding Stability Prediction: Energy-based validation assesses whether generated ligands can form stable complexes with target proteins through favorable interaction geometries [99]
• Affinity Optimization: The framework enables prioritization of molecular structures with energy landscapes conducive to strong binding through specific interaction patterns (hydrogen bonds, salt bridges, hydrophobic interactions, Ï€-Ï€ stackings) [99]

Table 1: Key Parameters for Quantifying Conformational Energy Landscapes

Parameter	Symbol	Description	Interpretation
Energy Gap	δE	Energy difference between native and average non-native states	Determines thermodynamic stability; larger values indicate more stable native states [98]
Energy Roughness	δE	Width of energy distribution of non-native states	Measures landscape complexity; smaller values indicate smoother folding paths [98]
Configurational Entropy	S	Size of accessible conformational space	Reflects structural flexibility; larger values indicate more conformational diversity [98]
Landscape Topography Measure	Λ	Dimensionless ratio: Λ ∝ δE/(δE · S)	Quantifies funneledness toward native state; larger values indicate better foldability and specificity [98]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Density of States (DOS) Calculation for Energy Landscape Quantification

Purpose: To quantify the intrinsic conformational energy landscape topography parameters (Λ) for generated molecular structures.

Materials:

• 3D molecular structures from generative models
• Computational resources for molecular dynamics simulations
• Analysis software for energy calculations (e.g., custom Python scripts, molecular dynamics packages)

Procedure:

• Structure Preparation
  • Obtain 3D molecular structures from generative model output
  • Ensure proper protonation states and charge assignment
  • Solvate systems if simulating in explicit solvent

• Conformational Sampling

  • Perform molecular dynamics simulations or Monte Carlo sampling
  • Generate ensemble of conformational states using structure-based models
  • Ensure adequate sampling of both native and non-native states
  • Apply enhanced sampling techniques if necessary for large-scale transitions

• Energy Spectrum Calculation

  • Calculate potential energy for each sampled conformation
  • Construct energy histogram to obtain density of states (DOS)
  • Apply Weighted Histogram Analysis Method (WHAM) for canonical to microcanonical ensemble transformation [98]

• Landscape Parameter Extraction

  • Identify energy minimum for native state (E_n)
  • Calculate average energy of non-native ensemble (⟨E_non-native⟩)
  • Compute energy gap: δE = |En - ⟨Enon-native⟩| [98]
  • Determine energy roughness (δE) as standard deviation of non-native energy distribution [98]
  • Calculate configurational entropy (S) from DOS [98]
  • Compute landscape topography measure: Λ ∝ δE/(δE · S) [98]

• Validation Metrics

  • Compare Λ values against known stable structures
  • Establish threshold values for candidate prioritization
  • Correlate Λ with experimental measures of stability where available

Protocol 2: Interaction-Aware Energy Validation for Generated Ligands

Purpose: To validate that generated molecular structures form energetically favorable interactions with target binding pockets.

Materials:

• Target protein structure with defined binding pocket
• Generated ligand structures from 3D molecular generative models
• Interaction analysis tools (e.g., PLIP, custom interaction profiling scripts)
• Molecular docking software (optional)

Procedure:

• Binding Pose Generation
  • Dock or place generated ligands into target binding pocket
  • Generate multiple binding poses for each ligand
  • Ensure physically plausible orientation and conformation

• Interaction Condition Setting

  • Define protein atoms' interaction classes (anion, cation, H-bond donor/acceptor, aromatic, hydrophobic) [99]
  • Use reference-free interaction condition based on protein atom properties
  • Alternatively, extract interaction patterns from reference complexes using PLIP [99]
  • Establish local interaction conditions for key subpockets [99]

• Interaction Energy Assessment

  • Calculate protein-ligand interaction energies for each pose
  • Evaluate complementarity of interaction patterns
  • Assess geometric compatibility of interaction sites
  • Quantify interaction similarity to reference complexes if available [99]

• Energetic Stability Validation

  • Perform short molecular dynamics simulations of complexes
  • Monitor interaction persistence and energy fluctuations
  • Calculate binding free energy estimates (MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA)
  • Identify stable complexes with consistent favorable interactions

• Prioritization and Selection

  • Rank generated structures by interaction energy scores
  • Apply multi-parameter optimization including energy metrics
  • Select candidates with best energetic profiles for further evaluation

Computational Workflows

Quantitative Validation Data

Table 2: Conformational Energy Landscape Parameters for Representative Proteins

Protein System	Energy Gap δE (kJ/mol)	Energy Roughness δE (kJ/mol)	Configurational Entropy S	Landscape Topography Λ	Transition Temperature Tₜᵣₐₙₛ (K)
LIP1	Largest value [98]	Moderate	Moderate	High	High [98]
ADK	Low (global folding) [98]	Moderate	Large	Moderate	Moderate [98]
DPO4	Lowest (open-closed) [98]	High	Large	Low	Low [98]
LAOBP	Moderate [98]	Low	Moderate	High	High [98]
PhnD	Moderate [98]	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate [98]

Table 3: Energy-Based Validation Metrics for Generated Molecular Structures

Validation Metric	Calculation Method	Acceptance Threshold	Application in Generative Models
Landscape Funneledness (Λ)	Λ ∝ δE/(δE · S) from DOS [98]	Λ > reference values for known stable structures	Filtering generated structures with poor foldability
Interaction Similarity Score	Comparison to reference interaction patterns [99]	Score > 0.7 (range 0-1)	Ensuring generated ligands maintain key interactions
Binding Pose Stability	RMSD fluctuation during short MD simulation [99]	< 2.0 Ã…	Verifying structural integrity in binding pocket
Energy Gap Ratio	δEgenerated / δEreference	> 0.8	Assessing relative stability compared to known binders
Interaction Energy	Protein-ligand non-covalent energy calculation	< -50 kJ/mol	Selecting candidates with favorable binding energies

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for Energy-Based Validation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Validation
PLIP (Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler)	Software tool	Identifies non-covalent interactions from structures [99]	Extracting reference interaction patterns for condition setting
WHAM (Weighted Histogram Analysis Method)	Algorithm	Ensemble transformation for density of states calculation [98]	Calculating intrinsic energy landscapes from simulation data
Structure-Based Models	Force fields	Simplified potentials for efficient conformational sampling [98]	Generating conformational ensembles for landscape quantification
DeepICL Framework	Generative model	Interaction-conditioned 3D molecular generation [99]	Producing candidates for energy validation
PDBbind Database	Structural database	Curated protein-ligand complexes with binding data [99]	Providing reference structures and validation benchmarks

Pathway Integration

The integration of three-dimensional molecular representations into deep generative models has fundamentally reshaped the structure-based drug discovery landscape. By moving beyond traditional one-dimensional strings or two-dimensional graphs, 3D-aware models can directly incorporate the spatial and physicochemical constraints of protein target pockets, enabling the de novo design of novel inhibitors with optimized binding affinity and specificity [100] [15]. This document presents a series of application notes and detailed protocols highlighting successful case studies where 3D generative models have been applied to real-world inhibitor design and lead optimization challenges. The content is framed within a broader research thesis on handling 3D molecular representations, emphasizing practical methodologies, rigorous evaluation, and translational success.

Case Study 1: Lead Optimization for Cyclin-dependent Kinase 2 (CDK2) using a Dual Diffusion Model

Application Note

The Pocket-based Molecular Diffusion Model (PMDM) represents a state-of-the-art approach for generating 3D molecular structures conditioned on target protein pockets. This model employs a conditional equivariant diffusion model that incorporates both local and global molecular dynamics, allowing it to efficiently utilize conditioned protein information for molecule generation [100]. In a lead optimization application targeting CDK2, a key protein in cell cycle regulation, PMDM was used to generate novel compounds. The selected molecules were subsequently synthesized and evaluated in vitro, demonstrating improved CDK2 inhibitory activity compared to the reference compound [100]. This case exemplifies how 3D generative models can directly impact the lead optimization phase of drug discovery by generating synthetically accessible compounds with enhanced biological activity.

Quantitative Results

The following table summarizes the key quantitative outcomes from the CDK2 lead optimization study using the PMDM model:

Table 1: Quantitative Results from CDK2 Lead Optimization with PMDM

Metric	Result	Context
Experimental Validation	Improved CDK2 activity	Synthesized molecules showed enhanced inhibitory potency in biochemical assays [100].
Selectivity Profile	Comparable or better CDK1 selectivity	Suggested potential for improved target specificity over the reference compound [100].
Model Performance	Outperformed baseline models	Superiority was demonstrated across multiple evaluation metrics on benchmark datasets [100].

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 1: Structure-Based Lead Optimization with a Diffusion Model

This protocol describes the methodology for using a dual diffusion model like PMDM for lead optimization against a specific protein target.

Key Research Reagents & Materials:

• Target Protein Structure: A 3D crystal structure of the target protein (e.g., CDK2) with a defined binding pocket (e.g., from the PDB database).
• Generative Model: A trained PMDM model, consisting of a conditional equivariant diffusion model and a dual equivariant encoder [100].
• Reference Ligand: The structure of the lead compound to be optimized.
• Computational Resources: High-performance computing (HPC) resources with GPUs for efficient sampling.

Procedure:

• Pocket Preparation: Extract the 3D coordinates of the target binding pocket from the protein structure. This pocket will serve as the fixed conditional input, G^P, for the generative process [100].
• Model Conditioning: Configure the PMDM model to condition the generation on the prepared protein pocket. The model uses cross-attention layers and a dual diffusion strategy to integrate both semantic and geometric protein information [100].
• Sampling/Generation: Initialize the molecular state by sampling from a Gaussian distribution, ( \mathscr{N}(0,\,I) ). Iteratively apply the reverse diffusion process, p_θ(G_{t-1}^L | G_t^L, G^P), for T steps to progressively denoise the structure and generate a novel 3D molecule, G_0, within the pocket [100].
• Post-processing: Determine the final atom types by applying an argmax function to the model's output. The 3D coordinates are directly taken from the model's output, r_0^L [100].
• Validation & Selection: Subject the generated molecules to in silico validation, which may include docking studies, binding affinity prediction, and chemical feasibility filters. Select top candidates for synthesis based on these analyses.
• Experimental Assay: Synthesize the selected compounds and evaluate their biological activity (e.g., ICâ‚…â‚€) and selectivity against the target in biochemical or cell-based assays [100].

Case Study 2: De Novo Design of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Inhibitors using a 3D Deep Generative Model

Application Note

DeepLigBuilder is a computational workflow that combines a novel graph generative model, the Ligand Neural Network (L-Net), with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) for de novo drug design within 3D binding sites [101]. In a case study targeting the main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2, DeepLigBuilder was employed to generate novel, drug-like inhibitory compounds. The model successfully designed molecules with novel chemical structures that recapitulated the key structural and chemical features of known Mpro inhibitors. The generated compounds exhibited high predicted binding affinity and occupied the binding site with favorable interactions, showcasing the power of 3D deep learning models to explore vast chemical spaces for urgent therapeutic needs [101].

Quantitative Results

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of the molecules generated for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro.

Table 2: Profile of De Novo Designed SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors by DeepLigBuilder

Metric	Result	Context
Chemical Structure	Novel scaffolds	Structures were not simple copies of existing inhibitors, demonstrating exploration of chemical space [101].
Predicted Affinity	High	Suggested strong potential for target binding based on the model's evaluation [101].
Binding Features	Similar to known inhibitors	Validated that the generated molecules maintained critical interactions observed in known active compounds [101].
Drug-Likeness	High	The L-Net model was trained on drug-like compounds from ChEMBL, biasing generation toward favorable properties [101].

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 2: De Novo Inhibitor Design with a 3D Graph Model and MCTS

This protocol outlines the process of using an autoregressive graph model combined with a search algorithm for de novo inhibitor design.

Key Research Reagents & Materials:

• L-Net Model: A graph generative model comprising a state encoder (built from MPNN layers in DenseNet blocks) and a policy network using MADE for decision modeling [101].
• Target Protein Pocket: The 3D structure of the target binding pocket (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 Mpro).
• Training Data: A dataset of drug-like molecules with generated 3D conformations (e.g., filtered from ChEMBL) for model training [101].

Procedure:

• Model Training (L-Net): Train the L-Net model on a curated dataset of drug-like molecules (e.g., QED > 0.5 from ChEMBL) with their 3D conformations. The model learns to "imitate" the generation path of valid molecules using techniques like ring-first traversal and random input errors to improve robustness [101].
• Structure-Based Optimization (MCTS): Combine the trained L-Net with Monte Carlo Tree Search. The MCTS explores the space of possible molecular structures, using a structure-based scoring function (e.g., predicted binding affinity) to guide the generation process towards high-affinity ligands within the specified pocket [101].
• Iterative Generation: The state encoder in L-Net analyzes the current molecular structure. The policy network then decides on the next action: how many atoms to add, their types, bond types, and 3D positions, building the molecule iteratively [101].
• Pose Validation: Ensure the generated molecules are constructed directly inside the 3D binding pocket, minimizing steric clashes and optimizing interactions. DeepLigBuilder performs this natively without requiring external docking at the generation stage [101].
• Candidate Selection & Analysis: Select the top-ranking molecules based on the scoring function. Analyze their predicted binding modes and key protein-ligand interactions to shortlist candidates for further investigation.

Case Study 3: Pathway-Guided Latent Space Optimization for Cancer Therapy

Application Note

This case study explores a pioneering approach that integrates mechanistic pathway models with deep generative molecular design for cancer therapy. The method involves using a Junction Tree Variational Autoencoder (JT-VAE) to generate molecules, which is then optimized via Latent Space Optimization (LSO). The key innovation is the use of a rule-based pharmacodynamic model—simulating a cancer-relevant signaling pathway, such as the DNA damage response involving PARP1—as the objective function for optimization [102]. This allows the generative model to be guided not merely by a simple property (e.g., IC₅₀) but by a more physiologically relevant therapeutic score predicting a compound's ability to induce a desired cellular outcome, such as apoptosis. This represents a significant shift towards a more systems-level approach in AI-driven drug design [102].

Quantitative Results

The following table compares traditional property optimization with the pathway-guided approach.

Table 3: Comparison of Optimization Approaches in Generative Molecular Design

Feature	Traditional Property Optimization	Pathway-Guided Optimization
Objective Function	Single protein inhibitory constant (ICâ‚…â‚€) [102]	Complex therapeutic score from a mechanistic pathway model (e.g., apoptosis induction) [102]
Biological Relevance	Direct but limited to single target	High, captures downstream cellular effects [102]
Data Dependency	Requires labeled bioactivity data	Reduces dependency on large labeled datasets via rule-based models [102]
Therapeutic Outcome	Indirectly correlated	Directly optimized for desired phenotypic outcome [102]

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 3: Pathway-Guided Latent Space Optimization of a Generative Model

This protocol describes how to use a mechanistic model to optimize the latent space of a generative model like JT-VAE.

Key Research Reagents & Materials:

• Generative Model: A pre-trained JT-VAE model that encodes molecular structures into a continuous latent space and decodes them back.
• Mechanistic Pathway Model: A computational model (e.g., based on ordinary differential equations) that simulates a relevant biological pathway and outputs a therapeutic score based on molecular input. For example, a model of the DNA damage response pathway for PARP1 inhibitor design [102].
• Optimization Algorithm: A Bayesian optimization framework to navigate the latent space.

Procedure:

• Model Setup: Pre-train a JT-VAE model on a large dataset of drug-like molecules to learn a smooth and continuous latent representation of chemical space [102].
• Define Objective Function: Implement the mechanistic pathway model as the objective function. This model will take a generated molecule's structure (or a proxy like its predicted inhibitory constant) as input and output a quantitative therapeutic efficacy score [102].
• Latent Space Sampling: Sample a point, z, from the latent space of the JT-VAE.
• Decode and Evaluate: Decode z into a molecular structure, G. Input G (or its properties) into the mechanistic model to obtain its therapeutic score.
• Bayesian Optimization: Use a Bayesian optimization loop to propose new latent points z' that are likely to have higher therapeutic scores. This involves building a probabilistic surrogate model of the objective function and using an acquisition function to decide which points to evaluate next [102].
• Periodic Retraining (Optional): Implement periodic retraining of the JT-VAE by appending high-scoring generated molecules to the training set. This "weights" the latent space towards regions that produce molecules with high therapeutic scores, improving sampling efficiency over time [102].
• Output: After a fixed number of iterations, output the molecular structures decoded from the best-performing latent points.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

The following table catalogs key computational tools and resources essential for conducting research in 3D generative models for inhibitor design.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Generative Model Research

Reagent/Material	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Equivariant Neural Networks	Neural network architectures whose outputs transform predictably under 3D rotations and translations of their input [100].	Core component of models like PMDM [100] and L-Net [101] to ensure generated geometries are physically realistic.
Diffusion Models	Generative models that learn to reconstruct data by iteratively denoising from a Gaussian distribution [100] [7].	Used in PMDM for one-shot 3D molecule generation conditioned on a protein pocket [100].
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Neural networks that operate directly on graph structures, learning representations of nodes and edges [4] [15].	Backbone of encoders and policy networks in models like L-Net [101] and GCPN [7].
Variational Autoencoders (VAEs)	Generative models that learn a compressed, continuous latent representation of input data [7] [102].	Used in JT-VAE and other frameworks for molecular generation and latent space optimization [102].
Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)	A heuristic search algorithm for decision-making processes, often used in reinforcement learning [101].	Combined with L-Net in DeepLigBuilder to guide molecule generation towards regions of high predicted affinity [101].
Bayesian Optimization (BO)	A sample-efficient strategy for optimizing black-box functions that are expensive to evaluate [7] [102].	Used for optimizing molecules in the latent space of VAEs by guiding the search towards promising candidates [102].
CrossDocked Dataset	A curated dataset of protein-ligand complexes used for training and benchmarking structure-based molecular generation models [100].	Served as a benchmark for training and evaluating the PMDM model [100].
ChEMBL Database	A large, open-access database of bioactive, drug-like molecules with curated bioactivity data [101].	Used as a source for training drug-like molecular generators like the L-Net in DeepLigBuilder [101].
Rigorous Benchmarking Frameworks	Evaluation frameworks like DrugPose that assess binding mode consistency, synthesizability, and drug-likeness of generated molecules [103].	Critical for transparently evaluating the real-world utility and limitations of 3D generative methods [103].

Conclusion

The integration of 3D molecular representations with generative AI marks a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery, enabling the creation of novel compounds with precise spatial complementarity to biological targets. Foundational advances in equivariant architectures and geometric learning have established the necessary framework for capturing molecular interactions, while methodological innovations in diffusion models and interaction-aware generation directly address structure-based design challenges. However, persistent issues in chemical validity assessment, benchmarking consistency, and multi-objective optimization require continued refinement of validation protocols and hybrid approaches. Future progress hinges on developing more chemically rigorous evaluation standards, integrating experimental binding data, and creating unified frameworks that balance exploration of chemical space with optimization of complex property profiles. As these models mature, they promise to significantly accelerate the discovery of novel therapeutics for precision medicine, ultimately bridging the gap between computational prediction and clinical application through more reliable, efficient, and targeted molecular design.

References

• 1. Molecular geometric deep learning - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10694498/]
• 2. Advancements in Molecular Property Prediction: A Survey ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2408.09461v1]
• 3. A systematic study of key elements underlying molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41948-6]
• 4. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 5. GEOM-drugs revisited: toward more chemically accurate ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00206k]
• 6. Toward video generative models of the molecular world [https://news.mit.edu/2025/toward-video-generative-models-molecular-world-0123]
• 7. Generative artificial intelligence based models optimization ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01059-4]
• 8. 3D molecular generation models expand chemical space ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644624004070]
• 9. Geometric deep learning methods and applications in 3D ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644624001491]
• 10. Target-aware 3D molecular generation based on guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63245-0]
• 11. Geometric Deep Learning for Structure-Based Drug ... [https://prismbiolab.com/geometric-deep-learning-for-structure-based-drug-discovery/]
• 12. Generative Models, LLMs, and the Future of Molecular AI ... [https://moleculediscovery.github.io/workshop2025/]
• 13. Visualizing and analyzing 3D biomolecular structures using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11915458/]
• 14. Molecular Graphics Software [https://www.rcsb.org/docs/additional-resources/molecular-graphics-software]
• 15. Molecular representation learning: cross-domain foundations ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00170f]
• 16. Volumetric Data - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/volumetric-data]
• 17. PyMOL | pymol.org [https://www.pymol.org/]
• 18. Equivariant learning leveraging geometric invariances in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09842-x]
• 19. Equivariance by Local Canonicalization: A Matter of ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.26499v1]
• 20. 3D molecular generation models expand chemical space ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39736464/]
• 21. Inverse design of 3d molecular structures with conditional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28526-y]
• 22. Learning a Continuous Representation of 3D Molecular ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08687]
• 23. Exploration of crystal chemical space using text-guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59636-y]
• 24. Exploring Chemical Space for Drug Discovery Using the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3447393/]
• 25. Systemic evolutionary chemical space exploration for drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00598-4]
• 26. Describing and Sharing Molecular Using the... Visualizations [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39024028/]
• 27. A 3D generation framework using diffusion model and ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01035-y]
• 28. Geometry-complete latent diffusion model for 3D molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343023/]
• 29. MolCraftDiffusion: 3D Molecular Generation Framework for ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6909e50fef936fb4a23df237]
• 30. Fast-DDPM: Fast Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14802]
• 31. Kolmogorov–Arnold graph neural networks for molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-025-01087-7]
• 32. Pretrained E(3)-equivariant message-passing neural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01698-z]
• 33. Integrating Equivariant Architectures and Charge ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/689e8887a94eede154d606f4]
• 34. PairReg: A method for enhancing the learning of molecular ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328501]
• 35. Equivariant Graph Neural Networks for Toxicity Prediction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10583285/]
• 36. 3D molecular generative framework for interaction-guided ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10973397/]
• 37. MSIDiff:Multi-stage interaction-aware diffusion model for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417425034359]
• 38. Protein-Ligand Interaction Prior for Binding-aware 3D ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=qH9nrMNTIW]
• 39. LABind: identifying protein binding ligand-aware sites via ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62899-0]
• 40. Interface-aware molecular generative framework for protein ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00930-0]
• 41. A Structure-Based Drug Discovery Paradigm - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6601033/]
• 42. Designing high-affinity 3D drug molecules via geometric ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12526910/]
• 43. Apo2Mol: 3D Molecule Generation via Dynamic Pocket- ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.14559v1]
• 44. TamGen: drug design with target-aware molecule ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53632-4]
• 45. Structure based drug design and machine learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17708-5]
• 46. Agrochemical lead optimization by scaffold hopping - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28991418/]
• 47. Efficient molecular encoders for virtual screening [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740674920300123]
• 48. Application of 3D atom pair map in an attention model for ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01023-2]
• 49. Accelerating discovery of bioactive ligands with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56349-0]
• 50. Scaffold Hopping with Generative Reinforcement Learning [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67b74e176dde43c908b99585]
• 51. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40973478/]
• 52. 3DSMILES-GPT: 3 pocket-based D with... molecular generation [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc06864e]
• 53. GOMFuNet: A Geometric Orthogonal Multimodal Fusion Network for Enhanced Prediction Reliability [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/11/1791]
• 54. A machine learning approach for multimodal data fusion ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00917-6]
• 55. Interpretable and multimodal fusion methodology to predict ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197625001423]
• 56. Fusion-driven multimodal learning for biomedical time series ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12484004/]
• 57. Multimodal Alignment and Fusion: A Survey [https://arxiv.org/html/2411.17040v1]
• 58. A new generative AI approach to predicting chemical ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/generative-ai-approach-to-predicting-chemical-reactions-0903]
• 59. Self-supervised generative models for crystal structures - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11381803/]
• 60. Leveraging 3D Molecular Spatial Visual Information and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41090528/]
• 61. On the difficulty of validating molecular generative models ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00781-1]
• 62. Has generative artificial intelligence solved inverse ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259023852400242X]
• 63. Generative Models as an Emerging Paradigm in the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10141264/]
• 64. Fast, efficient fragment-based coordinate for Open Babel generation [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-019-0372-5]
• 65. Moment of inertia as a simple shape descriptor for diffusion-based... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00318k]
• 66. Geometry optimization — AMS 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Tasks/Geometry_Optimization.html]
• 67. 4.1. Geometry - ORCA 6.1 Manual Optimizations [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.1/manual/contents/structurereactivity/optimizations.html]
• 68. Geometry Optimization [https://psicode.org/psi4manual/1.3.2/optking]
• 69. Target-aware 3D molecular generation based on guided ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12379259/]
• 70. PropMolFlow: Property-guided Molecule Generation with ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.21469v3]
• 71. Text-guided multi-property molecular optimization with a ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.13597v3]
• 72. Multi-objective optimization methods in drug design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740674913000085]
• 73. Multi-and many-objective optimization: present and future ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2023.1288626/full]
• 74. CMOMO: a deep multi-objective optimization framework for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40635191/]
• 75. UniMoMo: Unified Generative Modeling of 3D Molecules ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.19300v1]
• 76. Deep generative molecular design reshapes drug discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9797947/]
• 77. Unified and explainable molecular representation learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63730-6]
• 78. Generative AI for drug discovery and protein design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590098625000107]
• 79. DEMO:Diffusion-based Evolutionary Optimization for 3D ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.11037v3]
• 80. Evolutionary training-free guidance in diffusion model for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.11037v1]
• 81. Structure-based protein and small molecule generation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037024002228]
• 82. Diffusion Models in 3D Vision: A Survey [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.04738v1]
• 83. Zero shot molecular generation via similarity kernels [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60963-3]
• 84. Comprehensive Benchmark Study of Diffusion-Based 3D ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12461295/]
• 85. Continuous Uniqueness and Novelty Metrics for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.12405v1]
• 86. 3D Molecular Visualization Module – Biochemistry [https://knowledgebase.wwnorton.com/help/3d-molecular-visualization-module-biochemistry]
• 87. GEOM-Drugs Revisited: Toward More Chemically Accurate ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.00169v1]
• 88. GEOM-Drugs Revisited: Toward More Chemically Accurate ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/dd/d5dd00206k]
• 89. QM9: A Quantum Chemistry Benchmark Dataset [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/qm9-dataset]
• 90. MultiXC-QM9: Large dataset of molecular and reaction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02690-2]
• 91. GNINA 1.3: the next increment in molecular docking with deep ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-00973-x]
• 92. 3D Convolutional Neural Networks and a CrossDocked ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8902699/]
• 93. BOOM: Benchmarking Out-Of-distribution Molecular ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.01912v1]
• 94. TopMT-GAN: a 3D topology-driven generative model for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d4sc05211k]
• 95. Scalable Autoregressive 3D Molecule Generation [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.13791v2]
• 96. Comprehensive Benchmark Study of Diffusion-Based 3D ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41018612/]
• 97. Generative Models Explained: VAEs, GANs, Diffusion ... [https://bestarion.com/us/generative-models-explained-vaes-gans-diffusion-transformers-autoregressive-models-nerfs/]
• 98. Quantifying the Intrinsic Conformation Energy Landscape ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6107866/]
• 99. 3D molecular generative framework for interaction-guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47011-2]
• 100. A dual diffusion model enables 3D molecule generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46569-1]
• 101. Structure-based de novo drug design using 3D deep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8549794/]
• 102. Pathway-Guided Optimization of Deep Generative ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2411.03460v1]
• 103. benchmarking 3D generative methods for early stage drug ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/dd/d4dd00076e]