Preprint scanner project / Issue 2026-08-05

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 / 304 reviewed Jul 29, 2026–Aug 4, 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 2026-08-05

Highlights from this week

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Structure-free, site-resolved contrastive learning extends small-molecule discovery beyond the reach of structure-based modeling

Ptarmigan-1 contrastively co-embeds protein residues and candidate small molecules from sequence and two-dimensional chemistry, avoiding explicit pose construction. The authors report that it matches or exceeds docking and co-folding models at covalent, cryptic, and disordered sites, and screens 3.4 billion compounds across the human proteome in under a day. A residue-resolved, pose-free index could extend virtual screening to targets where structural pockets are unavailable or poorly defined.

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

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Implicit Machine Learning Force Fields Accelerate Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Implicit force fields replace explicit neural-network stacks with self-consistent fixed-point equations whose intermediate representations can be reused between molecular-dynamics steps. The authors report two- to five-fold reductions in compute and memory across invariant, Cartesian-equivariant, and spherical-tensor graph networks. The speedup preserves atomistic resolution and the original integration timestep, opening longer trajectories and larger systems without spatial or temporal coarse graining.

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

Preprint—not peer reviewed

When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design

The framework audits surrogate-driven search by reserving true evaluations for every certified conclusion, then derives rank-preservation and query-complexity conditions for when a model may act as an oracle. Across 432 surrogate fits over six task-regime conditions, the authors report that the audit statistic tracked deployed search performance at Spearman rank correlation 0.80-0.99, while audited screening reduced certified oracle cost by a measured factor of 25. The result turns trust in a surrogate into an auditable design condition, separating the model's role in proposing candidates from the true evaluations required to certify them.

AI–chemistryAI–materials Datasets + benchmarksSurrogate modeling
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Seed-Guided De Novo Design Expands the Structural Diversity of Antitoxin Protein Binders

The method guides diffusion-based protein-backbone generation with PDB-derived seed fragments selected for geometric complementarity to the target surface. The authors report that screening 1,402 designs produced multiple functional binders, including nanomolar-to-low-micromolar variants and one with neutralization comparable to the native antitoxin peptide. Surface-complementing seeds expand the structural and contact patterns available to generative binder design at difficult multi-site interfaces.

AI–biochemistry Biomolecular designGenerative designProtein engineering
Abstract brief CC BY Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Fast and Accurate Foundation Models for Equivariant Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials

The work develops a family of equivariant foundation potentials in the NequIP and Allegro architectures, together with infrastructure for training on ultra-large datasets. The authors report leading inference speed, strong scaling, and high accuracy across materials discovery, thermal conductivity, and near-equilibrium mechanical and thermodynamic benchmarks. The analysis shifts attention from architecture alone toward the diversity and consistency of the energy surfaces used to train universal potentials.

AI–chemistryAI–materials Atomistic modelingFoundation modelsNeural potentials
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

Conditional grain-graph diffusion for property-guided inverse design of polycrystalline microstructures

The method couples a grain graph neural-network surrogate for stress prediction with conditional reverse diffusion over alpha-phase fraction, elastic modulus, and yield-stress targets. Across four target regimes, the authors report that finite-element checks of the five best candidates reached a maximum absolute relative error of 1.0%, while diffusion used 32 evaluations per input graph rather than approximately 40,000 for the search baselines. Generating microstructures directly at prescribed properties reduces the search burden while retaining topology and crystallographic checks for physical consistency.

AI–materials Generative designMaterials representationSurrogate modeling
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

SE(3)-MeanFlow: Few-Step Protein Backbone Generation on Lie Groups

SE(3)-MeanFlow extends MeanFlow to protein-frame Lie-group geometry and derives closed-form average-velocity targets for simulation-free training. The authors report matched or better backbone generation than flow-matching baselines using several times fewer sampling steps, with the largest gains in the few-step regime. Few-step generation directly targets the network-evaluation bottleneck in high-throughput protein design while making the associated diversity tradeoff explicit.

AI–biochemistry Biomolecular designGenerative design
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

A Unified Graph Neural Network Framework for Non-Equilibrium Carrier and Lattice Dynamics Driven by Electric Fields

EFR-GNN predicts energies, forces, Born effective charge tensors, atom-resolved charges and magnetic moments, and supports long-time field-driven molecular dynamics that track localized electronic states. In hole-doped MgO, GaAs, and superionic alpha-AgI, the authors report field-driven polaron, phonon, and ionic dynamics that agree with a nearest-neighbor model, experiment, and temperature-dependent mobility. A single field-aware potential can therefore connect atomistic motion, electronic response, and localized-carrier dynamics over the long trajectories needed for finite-temperature materials simulations.

AI–materials Atomistic modelingElectronic structureNeural potentials
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

ED-DiT: Physics-Guided Diffusion Pretraining for Transferable Molecular Representations from Electron Density

ED-DiT learns transferable molecular representations by reconstructing corrupted and masked electron-density fields while using an electron-number consistency constraint to preserve total electronic mass. The authors report that electron-density prediction RMSE fell from 2.2474 to 1.3753 and exceeded the available baseline. Pretraining on a physical field gives one encoder access to molecular properties, spin state, retrieval, and density generation rather than a single downstream label.

AI–chemistry Electronic structureFoundation modelsMolecular representation
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint

Preprint—not peer reviewed

DASH: Decoupled Adaptive Surrogate - Acquisition Harness for Automated Bayesian Optimization

DASH decouples surrogate selection from acquisition control by scoring surrogates for predictive reliability, uncertainty calibration, and ranking consistency, then reallocating acquisition-function quotas before an LLM chooses from the resulting shortlist. Across four chemical optimization tasks, the authors report 12.51% better trajectory-level Acceleration Factor and 5.00% better endpoint Enhancement Factor than the strongest AutoBO baseline, with ablations supporting complementary contributions from all components. The separation gives automated optimization a way to adapt model reliability and search behavior independently as campaign feedback accumulates.

AI–chemistry Scientific agentsSurrogate modeling
Abstract brief CC0 Preprint