Preprint scanner project / Issue 2026-07-08

Useful Chemistry

A weekly review of arXiv, ChemRxiv, and bioRxiv for ai-enabled methodological advances. Up to twenty papers reviewed every week; a quiet week may publish none.

10 selected / 225 reviewed Jul 1, 2026–Jul 7, 2026
Groups
Group roll call
96 followed groups Research-group roll call
  • Milad Abolhasani Abolhasani Lab North Carolina State University Site ↗
  • Surl-Hee (Shirley) Ahn Ahn Lab University of California, Davis Site ↗
  • Mohammed AlQuraishi AlQuraishi Laboratory Columbia University Site ↗
  • Sayan Banerjee Banerjee Group University of Tennessee, Knoxville Site ↗
  • Christopher J. Bartel Bartel Research Group University of Minnesota Twin Cities Site ↗
  • Jan-Niklas Boyn Boyn Research Group University of Minnesota Twin Cities Site ↗
  • Ting Cao Cao Group University of Washington Site ↗
  • Timothy Cernak Cernak Lab University of Michigan Site ↗
  • Ming Chen Ming Chen Group Purdue University Site ↗
  • Po-Yen Chen Chen Research Group University of Maryland, College Park Site ↗
  • Bingqing Cheng Cheng Group University of California, Berkeley Site ↗
  • Brian Cleary Algorithmic Lens on Experimental Biology Laboratory Boston University Site ↗
  • Connor W. Coley Coley Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Yamil J. Colón Colón Group University of Notre Dame Site ↗
  • César de la Fuente Machine Biology Group University of Pennsylvania Site ↗
  • Julia Dshemuchadse Cape Crystal Cornell University Site ↗
  • Thomas P. Fay Fay Group University of California, Los Angeles Site ↗
  • Kara D. Fong Fong Lab California Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Thomas E. Gartner III Gartner Group Lehigh University Site ↗
  • Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli Learning Matter Massachusetts Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Jonathan Gootenberg Gootenberg Laboratory Harvard University Site ↗
  • Prashun Gorai 3D Materials Lab Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Site ↗
  • Diptarka Hait Hait Group Columbia University Site ↗
  • Brian Hie Laboratory of Evolutionary Design Stanford University Site ↗
  • Guoxiang Hu Hu Group Georgia Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Yong-Jie Hu Materials Computation and Informatics Group Drexel University Site ↗
  • Yifei Huang Huang Lab Pennsylvania State University Site ↗
  • Yunha Hwang Hwang Lab Massachusetts Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Nicholas E. Jackson AI for Materials Group University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Site ↗
  • William M. Jacobs Jacobs Group Princeton University Site ↗
  • Dipti Jasrasaria Jasrasaria Group University of Chicago Site ↗
  • Anupama Jha Jha Lab Yale University Site ↗
  • Kaiyi Jiang Jiang Lab Princeton University Site ↗
  • Adrian Jinich Jinich Lab University of California, San Diego Site ↗
  • Felipe Jornada Jornada Research Group Stanford University Site ↗
  • Kalli Kappel Kappel Lab University of California, Los Angeles Site ↗
  • Joshua Kretchmer Kretchmer Research Group Georgia Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Aditi S. Krishnapriyan Krishnapriyan Research Group University of California, Berkeley Site ↗
  • Sebastian Kube Kube Lab University of Wisconsin–Madison Site ↗
  • Heather J. Kulik Kulik Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Ambarish R. Kulkarni Kulkarni Research Group University of California, Davis Site ↗
  • Joseph S. Kwon Kwon Research Group The Ohio State University Site ↗
  • Joonho Lee Lee Group Harvard University Site ↗
  • Can Li Li Research Group Purdue University Site ↗
  • Wanlu Li Wanlu Li Research Group University of California, San Diego Site ↗
  • Rebecca K. Lindsey Lindsey Lab University of Michigan Site ↗
  • Ge Liu Ge Liu Group University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Site ↗
  • Yuanyue Liu Yuanyue Liu Group The University of Texas at Austin Site ↗
  • Yang Lu Lu Lab University of Wisconsin–Madison Site ↗
  • Jiankun Lyu Evnin Family Laboratory of Computational Molecular Discovery The Rockefeller University Site ↗
  • Cong Ma Cong Ma Lab University of Michigan Site ↗
  • Arkajit Mandal Mandal Group Texas A&M University Site ↗
  • Andrew J. Medford Medford Research Group Georgia Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Ilias Mitrai Systems and AI Lab The University of Texas at Austin Site ↗
  • Jeetain Mittal Mittal Group Texas A&M University Site ↗
  • Joel A. Paulson Paulson Lab University of Wisconsin–Madison Site ↗
  • Elisa Pieri Pieri Lab University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Site ↗
  • Doran Raccah MesoScience Lab The University of Texas at Austin Site ↗
  • Phillip Rauscher Rauscher Group New York University Site ↗
  • Wesley Reinhart Reinhart Group Pennsylvania State University Site ↗
  • Gabriel J. Rocklin Rocklin Lab Northwestern University Site ↗
  • Andrew S. Rosen Rosen Research Group Princeton University Site ↗
  • Grant M. Rotskoff Rotskoff Group Stanford University Site ↗
  • Janani Sampath Sampath Research Group University of Florida Site ↗
  • Elvira Sayfutyarova Sayfutyarova Group Pennsylvania State University Site ↗
  • Martin Seifrid Seifrid Group North Carolina State University Site ↗
  • Thomas P. Senftle Senftle Group Rice University Site ↗
  • Karthik Shekhar Shekhar Lab University of California, Berkeley Site ↗
  • Zachary M. Sherman Z Lab University of Washington Site ↗
  • Krishna Shrinivas Shrinivas Lab Northwestern University Site ↗
  • Rohit Singh Singh Lab Duke University Site ↗
  • Micheline Soley Soley Group University of Wisconsin–Madison Site ↗
  • Kevin V. Solomon Solomon Laboratory University of Delaware Site ↗
  • Jeff Spence Spence Lab University of California, San Francisco Site ↗
  • Kayla G. Sprenger Rational Design of Interfaces Lab University of Colorado Boulder Site ↗
  • Chong Sun Sun Lab Rutgers University–New Brunswick Site ↗
  • Yidan Sun Sun Lab Washington University in St. Louis Site ↗
  • Daniel Tabor Tabor Research Group Texas A&M University Site ↗
  • Ming Tang Mesoscale Materials Science Group Rice University Site ↗
  • Roel Tempelaar Tempelaar Team Northwestern University Site ↗
  • Erik Thiede Thiede Lab Cornell University Site ↗
  • Pratyush Tiwary Artificial Chemical Intelligence@Maryland University of Maryland, College Park Site ↗
  • Brian Trippe Trippe Lab Stanford University Site ↗
  • Alexander Urban Urban Research Group Columbia University Site ↗
  • David Van Valen Van Valen Lab California Institute of Technology Site ↗
  • Vojtech Vlcek Vlcek Group University of California, Santa Barbara Site ↗
  • Allon Wagner Wagner Lab University of California, Berkeley Site ↗
  • Shunzhi Wang Wang Lab New York University Site ↗
  • Michael A. Webb Webb Research Group Princeton University Site ↗
  • Mingjian Wen Wen Research Group University of Houston Site ↗
  • Hong-Zhou Ye Ye Group University of Maryland, College Park Site ↗
  • Shuwen Yue Yue Research Group Cornell University Site ↗
  • Daiwei (David) Zhang Daiwei Zhang Lab University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Site ↗
  • Hongbo Zhao Zhao Research Group University of California, San Diego Site ↗
  • Jian Zhou Zhou Lab University of Chicago Site ↗
  • Tianyu Zhu Zhu Group Yale University Site ↗

Issue 2026-07-08

Highlights from this week

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Agentic generation of verifiable rules for deterministic, self-expanding reaction classification

The authors present a multi-agent language-model pipeline that classifies reactions and writes rules under a verification loop. They report that a lightweight fingerprint classifier classifies unseen reactions while resolving chemistry more finely. This could make reaction classification adaptable to new chemistries.

AI–chemistry Reaction modelingScientific agents
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

AquaGen: Scaling generative models to molecular dynamics precision on thousands of atoms

AquaGen generates all-atom configurations with explicit solvent and periodic boundaries from a Boltzmann distribution. For absolute hydration free energy, the authors report estimates four to ten times faster than standard graphics-processor molecular dynamics with comparable accuracy. Generating ensembles at atomistic resolution keeps free-energy estimates connected to force-field evaluations and subsequent molecular dynamics.

AI–biochemistryAI–chemistryAI–materials Atomistic modelingGenerative design
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Spin-Weighted Spherical Harmonics Enable Complete and Scalable $\mathrm{E}(3)$-Equivariant Networks

The authors present SpinGTP, which generalizes scalar functions to spin-weighted spherical harmonics. They report accuracies comparable to full CGTP and superior performance for chiral materials and non-centrosymmetric geometries. This could broaden scalable modeling of three-dimensional atomistic systems.

AI–chemistryAI–materials Molecular representation
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

EquiFiLM: Charge-Conditioned Equivariant Force Fields via Feature-wise Linear Modulation

EquiFiLM adds an external conditioning signal to equivariant force fields through a per-layer modulation block acting on scalar channels. In charged liquid water, the authors report stable molecular dynamics and a charge-dependent first-shell response across the tested range. This provides a compact way to extend a foundation potential toward driven electronic conditions while preserving geometric symmetry.

AI–chemistryAI–materials Atomistic modelingNeural potentials
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

MARLIN: De Novo Molecular Structure Elucidation from Tandem Mass Spectra without a Ground-Truth Formula

MARLIN infers a molecular fingerprint from spectral peaks and generates candidate structures without supplying a molecular formula. On the NPLIB1 benchmark, the authors report that it was the strongest formula-free method across exact matches, structural distance, and fingerprint similarity. Formula-free structure elucidation could better match discovery settings where the identity of an unknown compound is genuinely open.

AI–chemistry Generative designMolecular representation
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Breaking the Synthesis Barrier for AI-Designed DNA Libraries

The authors introduce PGLD, which uses a synthesis-aware parametrization of stochastic DNA libraries. They report using PGLD to design a library to explore the mutation space of a broadly neutralizing influenza antibody. This could connect AI-based sequence design with high-throughput experimentation.

AI–biochemistry Generative designProtein engineering
Abstract brief CC BY Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

A Physics-Regulated Neural Framework for Learning 3D Grain Growth Dynamics

The authors train 3D-PRIMME on two successive time steps to learn three-dimensional grain-growth dynamics. They report that the learned operator retained kinetics and grain topology when applied to much larger domains without retraining. The local rule could make large-scale microstructure prediction more tractable when physical scaling behavior must be retained.

AI–materials Multiscale modelingSurrogate modeling
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Complex crystal structure prediction using ML-enhanced multi-minima iterative genetic algorithm

The multi-minima iterative genetic algorithm combines a learned interatomic potential with penalties intended to move the search beyond explored minima. Given composition alone, the authors report an orthorhombic structure for La5CoPb2 that exactly matched an independently determined diffraction structure. Searching global and competing metastable states could inform phase selection for unfamiliar materials compositions.

AI–materials Atomistic modelingGenerative designNeural potentials
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Improving Generalizability in Whole-Cell Antibiotic Discovery Through Active Learning

The authors evaluate three active-learning strategies for whole-cell bacterial bioactivity. They report a five-fold increase in experimental screening hit rate. This approach could help address data-acquisition bottlenecks in whole-cell antibiotic discovery.

AI–biochemistryAI–chemistry Molecular representation
Abstract brief CC BY Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Dyna-Mat: End-to-end benchmarking of foundation machine learning interatomic potentials in finite-temperature ensembles

Dyna-Mat supplies condensed-phase first-principles molecular-dynamics trajectories for testing foundation interatomic potentials at finite temperature. The authors report individual systems where small force errors nevertheless produced qualitative errors in predicted structure. Evaluating trajectories and observables alongside static errors can expose failures that matter during materials simulations.

AI–materials Atomistic modelingDatasets + benchmarksNeural potentials
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint