Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization: Advanced Methods and Transformative Applications in Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO) methods and their groundbreaking applications in drug discovery. It establishes the foundational principles of multi-objective versus many-objective optimization problems, detailing how evolutionary algorithms like NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D navigate complex chemical spaces. The content examines specialized frameworks including MOMO for molecule optimization and addresses critical challenges in high-dimensional objective spaces. Through validation against state-of-the-art methods and real-world case studies in anti-breast cancer drug development, the article demonstrates EMO's superior capability to generate diverse, novel molecular candidates with optimized property trade-offs, offering researchers and drug development professionals practical insights for accelerating therapeutic discovery.

Fundamental Principles of Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization in Chemical Space Exploration

Defining Multi-Objective vs. Many-Objective Optimization Problems in Drug Design

The discovery of a new drug with desired pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties inherently involves balancing numerous, often conflicting, goals [1] [2]. These typically include maximizing the potency of the drug, its structural novelty, and its pharmacokinetic profile, while minimizing synthesis costs and unwanted side effects [2]. De novo Drug Design (dnDD), which aims to create novel molecules from scratch, is therefore naturally categorized as an optimization problem where multiple such objectives must be satisfied simultaneously [1] [2].

For decades, researchers often simplified this complexity by focusing on single objectives or aggregating multiple goals into one [2]. However, this approach fails to capture the fundamental trade-offs inherent in the process. The application of population-based heuristic approaches, particularly those from Evolutionary Computation, has become a cornerstone for addressing these challenges, allowing researchers to find a set of optimal compromise solutions in a single run [3] [1]. This guide delineates the critical distinction between multi- and many-objective optimization within this context, a distinction that profoundly influences the choice and design of methodologies in computational drug discovery.

Core Definitions and Conceptual Distinctions

The Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MultiOOP)

A Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MultiOOP) involves the simultaneous optimization of more than one objective function [1] [2]. These objectives are frequently conflicting (improving one leads to the degradation of another) and non-commensurable (measured in different units) [2]. In such cases, there is rarely a single optimal solution. Instead, algorithms seek a set of non-dominated solutions, known as the Pareto optimal set [2]. A solution is considered non-dominated if no other solution exists that is better in all objectives. The set of these solutions represents the best possible trade-offs between the competing goals.

Formally, a MultiOOP can be written as shown in the table below, which breaks down the components of the standard mathematical formulation [2].

Table: Mathematical Formulation of a Multi-Ojective Optimization Problem

Component	Mathematical Notation	Description
Goal	Minimize/Maximize F(x) = (f₁(x), f₂(x), ..., fₖ(x))	Optimize a vector of k objective functions.
Decision Vector	x = (x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ)	A solution (e.g., a molecular structure) defined by n variables.
Constraints	g_j(x) ≤ 0, j=1,2,...,J h_p(x) = 0, p=1,2,...,P x_i^l ≤ x_i ≤ x_i^u, i=1,2,...,n	Solutions must satisfy J inequality constraints, P equality constraints, and variable bound constraints.

The Many-Objective Optimization Problem (ManyOOP)

A Many-Objective Optimization Problem (ManyOOP) is one where more than three objectives must be simultaneously optimized [1] [2]. While the mathematical formulation is identical to that of a MultiOOP, the jump from three to four or more objectives introduces significant practical challenges that necessitate specialized algorithms and analysis techniques [1]. The "many-objective" designation highlights these unique challenges, which are prevalent in real-world dnDD, where the number of desired properties clearly exceeds three [2].

Table: Comparative Analysis of MultiOOPs and ManyOOPs

Feature	MultiOOP (k ≤ 3)	ManyOOP (k > 3)
Number of Objectives (k)	2 or 3 [1] [2]	4 to 20 or more [1] [2]
Primary Challenge	Finding a good spread of solutions along a low-dimensional Pareto front.	The Pareto front becomes increasingly complex; selection pressure and computational cost rise dramatically [1].
Visualization	Relatively straightforward (e.g., 2D scatter, 3D surface).	Highly complex, requiring dimensionality reduction techniques [1].
Dominance Resistance	Less prevalent.	Most solutions become non-dominated, weakening selection pressure in classic algorithms [1].
Prevalence in dnDD	Common in simpler model problems.	The natural categorization for real-world dnDD due to the multitude of desired properties [2].

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

The fundamental difference between MultiOOPs and ManyOOPs dictates the choice of optimization algorithms. Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are widely used for both, but their strategies differ.

Workflow for Evolutionary Multi- and Many-Objective Optimization

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for solving molecular optimization problems using evolutionary methods, highlighting stages where multi and many-objective approaches diverge.

Key Experimental Protocols and Frameworks

Protocol 1: The CMOMO Framework for Constrained ManyOOPs Constrained Molecular Multi-property Optimization (CMOMO) is a deep multi-objective framework designed explicitly for molecular optimization with constraints [4].

• Population Initialization: A lead molecule and similar, high-property molecules from a database are embedded into a continuous latent space using a pre-trained encoder. A high-quality initial population is created via linear crossover in this latent space [4].
• Dynamic Cooperative Optimization: The process is divided into two stages:
  • Stage 1 - Unconstrained Scenario: Focuses on optimizing molecular properties using a specialized evolutionary reproduction strategy, ignoring constraints initially [4].
  • Stage 2 - Constrained Scenario: Shifts focus to finding molecules that balance property optimization with constraint satisfaction. A constraint violation (CV) function is used to gauge feasibility [4].
• Environmental Selection: Parent and offspring molecules are decoded back to discrete chemical space, evaluated, and the best molecules are selected for the next generation based on their objective values and constraint satisfaction [4].

Protocol 2: Handling Constraints in Optimization A critical step in frameworks like CMOMO is evaluating constraint satisfaction. This is typically done using a Constraint Violation (CV) aggregation function [4]: CV(x) = Σᵢ ⟨gᵢ(x)⟩ + Σⱼ |hⱼ(x)| where ⟨gᵢ(x)⟩ is zero if the inequality constraint gᵢ(x) ≤ 0 is satisfied, and positive otherwise, and |hⱼ(x)| measures the violation of equality constraints. A molecule is feasible if CV(x) = 0 [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table: Essential Computational Tools for Multi- and Many-Objective Molecular Optimization

Tool / Reagent	Function / Description	Relevance to Optimization
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs)	Population-based metaheuristics inspired by natural selection.	Core engine for exploring chemical space and finding non-dominated solutions [1] [2].
Pre-trained Molecular Encoders	AI models that convert discrete molecular structures (e.g., SMILES) into continuous latent vector representations.	Enables efficient search and optimization in a smooth, continuous space rather than a discrete one [4].
Constraint Violation (CV) Function	A mathematical function that aggregates the degree to which a solution violates constraints.	Allows the algorithm to quantify and prioritize feasibility, crucial for handling drug-like criteria [4].
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit.	Used for validity verification, calculating molecular properties, and handling structural constraints during evaluation [4].
Pareto-based Selection	Selection mechanisms that favor non-dominated solutions.	The primary driver in MultiOEAs for 2-3 objectives. Becomes less effective in ManyOOPs due to dominance resistance [1].
Decomposition-based Selection	Breaks down a ManyOOP into multiple single-objective subproblems.	A key strategy in ManyOEAs (e.g., MOEA/D) to maintain selection pressure when dominance fails [1].

Data Presentation and Visualization of Results

Quantitative Results from Molecular Optimization Studies

The performance of optimization algorithms is typically evaluated using metrics that assess the quality, diversity, and feasibility of the final Pareto set.

Table: Representative Results from Constrained Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization (CMOMO)

Optimization Task / Target	Key Optimized Objectives	Key Constraints	Reported Outcome
Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3 (GSK3) Inhibitor Optimization	Bioactivity, Drug-likeness, Synthetic Accessibility	Structural constraints (e.g., ring size)	CMOMO demonstrated a two-fold improvement in success rate, identifying molecules with favorable properties while adhering to constraints [4].
Protein-Ligand Optimization (4LDE protein)	Bioactivity, Drug-likeness, Synthetic Accessibility	Structural alerts, reactive groups	CMOMO identified a collection of potential ligands with multiple higher properties while satisfying drug-like constraints [4].
General Benchmarking Tasks	e.g., PlogP, QED, Synthetic Accessibility	Ring size, specified substructures	CMOMO outperformed five state-of-the-art methods (including MOMO and GB-GA-P), generating more successfully optimized and feasible molecules [4].

Visualizing the Optimization Landscape and Outcomes

Understanding the relationship between objectives, constraints, and solutions is vital. The following diagram conceptualizes the search space of a constrained optimization problem, a common scenario in drug design where chemical feasibility and drug-like criteria create complex, disconnected feasible regions.

The distinction between MultiOOPs and ManyOOPs is not merely semantic but fundamental to the advancement of computational drug discovery. While MultiOOPs with two or three objectives are manageable with established Pareto-based EAs, the real-world challenge of dnDD is intrinsically a ManyOOP, often involving four or more conflicting objectives alongside stringent drug-like constraints [2]. This shift introduces profound methodological challenges, including dominance resistance and visualization difficulties, which are being met by next-generation algorithms and frameworks like CMOMO that dynamically balance property optimization with constraint satisfaction [1] [4]. The future of the field lies in the continued integration of evolutionary computation with machine learning, particularly through hybrid approaches, to accelerate the discovery of innovative and efficacious multi-target drug therapies [3] [1] [2].

In complex decision-making scenarios, particularly within engineering, finance, and drug development, optimizing a single objective is often insufficient. Real-world problems frequently involve multiple, conflicting criteria. Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO) leverages population-based heuristic approaches to address such problems, providing a set of solutions representing the optimal trade-offs between objectives [3] [5]. This guide details the foundational concepts of Pareto optimality, non-dominated solutions, and trade-off analysis, which are central to EMO and Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). The cross-fertilization between EMO and MCDM is crucial for integrating decision-making directly into the optimization process, thereby transforming theoretical models into actionable insights for researchers and scientists [3] [6].

The core challenge in multi-objective optimization is the absence of a single optimal solution when objectives conflict. The concepts of Pareto optimality and non-domination formalize the idea of an outcome that cannot be improved in one objective without degrading another [7]. A solution is considered Pareto optimal if no other feasible solution exists that improves at least one objective without worsening any other [8]. The set of all Pareto optimal solutions in the decision space is known as the Pareto optimal set, and its image in the objective space is the Pareto optimal front [9] [8]. These concepts are named after Vilfredo Pareto, who used them to study economic efficiency and income distribution [7].

Foundational Principles and Mathematical Formalization

Pareto Dominance and Efficiency

The principle of Pareto dominance provides a means to compare solutions in a multi-objective context. Formally, for a minimization problem with m objectives, a solution x1 is said to dominate a solution x2 if two conditions hold [9] [8]:

• The solution x1 is no worse than x2 in all objectives: fi(x1) ≤ fi(x2) for all i ∈ {1, ..., m}.
• The solution x1 is strictly better than x2 in at least one objective: ∃ j ∈ {1, ..., m} | fj(x1) < fj(x2).

A solution is non-dominated within a given set if no other solution in that set dominates it. A solution is Pareto optimal if it is non-dominated with respect to the entire feasible search space [8]. A state is Pareto efficient if no Pareto improvements are possible; that is, no individual objective can be improved without sacrificing another [7].

Table 1: Types of Pareto Optimality and Efficiency

Concept	Formal Definition	Key Implication
Pareto Improvement	A change that makes at least one objective better without worsening any other [7].	Guides the search towards more efficient solutions.
Weak Pareto Optimality	A situation where no other solution exists that improves all objectives simultaneously [7] [8].	A less strict condition, often a superset of Pareto optimal solutions.
Strong Pareto Optimality	A situation where no other solution exists that improves at least one objective without worsening any other [7].	The standard and most robust definition of optimality in MOO.
Fractional Pareto Efficiency (fPE)	An allocation is not Pareto-dominated even by allocations where items can be split between agents [7].	Critical for fair item allocation problems with indivisible goods.

The Pareto Front and Utopia Point

The collection of all Pareto optimal solutions in the objective space is called the Pareto front [9]. It represents the set of optimal trade-offs between the conflicting objectives. The Utopia point (or ideal point) is a theoretical point in the objective space where each objective is at its individual optimal value [8]. While typically unattainable, it serves as a reference for evaluating the quality of Pareto solutions. The compromise solution is the Pareto optimal solution that is closest to the Utopia point, often determined by minimizing the Euclidean distance in the objective space [8].

Quantitative Trade-off Analysis

Understanding the trade-offs between objectives is fundamental for decision-making. The rate at which one objective improves at the expense of another is central to this analysis.

Calculating Trade-offs on the Pareto Front

In the two-objective case, the trade-off is characterized by the slope of the Pareto front at a given point [10]. For a continuous and differentiable Pareto front, the slope indicates the marginal rate of substitution: how many units of objective 1 must be sacrificed to gain one unit of objective 2. However, for real-world problems, especially discrete or Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP) problems, the Pareto front is a finite set of points, and the slope is not directly available [10].

A practical method to calculate the trade-off between two adjacent Pareto solutions, A and B, is to compute the ratio of the changes in their objective values [10]: Trade-off (A to B) = [f1(B) - f1(A)] / [f2(A) - f2(B)] This ratio quantifies the sacrifice in f1 required per unit gain in f2 when moving from solution A to solution B. The trade-off is not constant and varies across the Pareto front [10]. In regions where one objective is prioritized, its trade-off value will be higher.

Table 2: Methods for Trade-off Analysis and Pareto Front Interpretation

Method	Description	Applicability
Adjacent Point Slope	Calculates the trade-off between two neighboring points on the Pareto front [10].	Discrete Pareto fronts from MIP or EMO algorithms.
Linear Regression	Fits a line to approximate the Pareto front and provides an average slope [10].	Provides a high-level overview of the average trade-off.
Parametric Programming	Solves Min (1-t)*f1(x) + t*f2(x) for various t in [0,1] to trace the front [10].	Continuous problems; generates the Pareto front and allows trade-off analysis.
Clustering & Pruning	Uses tools like PyretoClustR to reduce a large Pareto set to representative solutions [11].	High-dimensional Pareto fronts for interpretability and decision-making.

Methodologies for Pareto Front Generation and Analysis

Experimental Protocol 1: Weighted-Sum Scalarization for Pareto Front Approximation This classic method converts a multi-objective problem into a series of single-objective problems [10].

• Formulation: Define a new, single-objective function F(x) = (1-t)*f1(x) + t*f2(x), where t is a weight between 0 and 1.
• Parameter Sweep: Systematically vary t (e.g., t = 0.0, 0.05, 0.10, ..., 1.0).
• Optimization: For each value of t, find the solution x* that minimizes F(x).
• Front Construction: Collect the objective values (f1(x*), f2(x*)) for all t. The non-dominated set of these points approximates the Pareto front. Limitations: This method may fail to find points on non-convex portions of the Pareto front [5].

Experimental Protocol 2: Post-Processing for Trade-off Analysis using Clustering For complex fronts with thousands of points, tools like PyretoClustR provide a semi-automated, 5-step workflow to distill the front into actionable insights [11].

• Data Input: Load the set of Pareto optimal solutions, including both their decision variable values and objective function values.
• Automated Parameter Selection: The tool automatically selects effective parameters for dimensionality reduction and clustering.
• Clustering: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and clustering algorithms (e.g., K-means) are applied, typically using decision space variables, to group similar solutions.
• Outlier Handling: Non-representative or outlier solutions are identified and filtered out.
• Visualization and Selection: The tool produces digestible visualizations (e.g., frequency maps for spatial problems), allowing decision-makers to select from a small, representative set of solutions. In one case, the Pareto front was reduced from 2,419 points to 18 representative solutions [11].

Advanced Concepts and Visualization

Visualizing Pareto Concepts and Workflows

Visualization is critical for interpreting multi-objective optimization results. The following diagrams illustrate the core logical relationships and a modern analytical workflow.

Logical Flow of Pareto Concepts

EMO Pareto Analysis Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing EMO requires a combination of algorithmic tools and domain-specific models. The following table details key components for building and analyzing multi-objective optimization systems.

Table 3: Essential Components for Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization Research

Item / Tool	Function in EMO Research
Evolutionary Algorithm (EA)	A population-based metaheuristic (e.g., NSGA-II, SPEA2) that generates candidate solutions and uses selection, crossover, and mutation to evolve populations toward the Pareto front [3] [5].
Pareto Local Search	An improvement operator used within EAs to refine solutions by exploring their neighborhoods while maintaining Pareto dominance [3] [6].
Performance Indicators	Quantitative metrics (e.g., Hypervolume, Generational Distance) to evaluate the convergence and diversity of the computed Pareto front approximation [12].
PyretoClustR	An open-access, modular framework for post-processing Pareto optimal solutions by clustering and visualization to reduce cognitive overload for decision-makers [11].
Domain Simulation Model	A computational model (e.g., reservoir simulator, logistics model) that acts as the objective function evaluator for each candidate solution [3] [6].

Applications in Research and Industry

EMO methods have demonstrated significant utility across a wide range of fields by providing optimized trade-off solutions for complex, multi-faceted problems.

• Drug Development and Well Placement: A multi-modal convolutional neural network (M-CNN) integrated with an evolutionary optimization algorithm was used to determine sequential well placements in oil fields, a problem analogous to resource allocation in development projects. This hybrid workflow learned the correlation between spatial properties and cumulative production, achieving a 47.4% improvement in output while reducing computational costs to 11.18% of full-physics simulations [6].
• Logistics and Renewable Energy: EMO algorithms have been applied to optimize emergency material delivery through improved auction mechanisms and to solve the multi-objective sizing of standalone hybrid renewable energy systems (HRES) under uncertainty [3]. Another study proposed a bilevel method for optimizing the sizing and operation of a fuel cell/battery hybrid system for all-electric ships [3].
• Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning: The trade-off between privacy guarantees and model performance in differential privacy was framed as a multi-objective optimization problem. An interactive framework was developed to efficiently model the Pareto front and learn a decision-maker's preference to converge to the optimal trade-off with less computational cost and user interaction [13].
• Environmental Management: Multi-objective optimization is crucial for environmental decision-making, such as trading off agricultural productivity, biodiversity, water quality, and ecological flow in landscape management [11].

Pareto optimality, non-dominated solutions, and trade-off analysis form the cornerstone of effective decision-making in multi-objective problems. The integration of these concepts with powerful Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization algorithms provides a robust framework for tackling complex challenges in science and industry, from drug development and energy systems to privacy-preserving AI. The ongoing cross-fertilization between EMO and MCDM communities is vital for developing methods that not only find optimal trade-offs but also seamlessly incorporate decision-maker preferences, thereby transforming complex data into actionable, optimal decisions.

The concept of chemical space represents a fundamental framework for organizing molecular diversity, postulating that different molecules occupy distinct regions within a mathematical space where each molecule's position is defined by its properties [14]. This theoretical construct encompasses the entire "chemical universe," which includes all compounds that could theoretically exist, with estimates for small organic molecules alone exceeding 10^60 compounds [14] [15]. The sheer magnitude of this space presents both an extraordinary opportunity and a significant challenge for materials science and drug discovery, as it precludes exhaustive exploration through traditional experimental means [16]. The chemical space of drug-like molecules, while a smaller subset, remains enormous, with an estimated 10^33 compounds [17], creating a critical bottleneck in the development of new functional materials and therapeutics.

In recent years, the accelerated growth of chemical libraries has further complicated this landscape. Public repositories like ChEMBL and PubChem now contain millions of compounds, with ChEMBL alone housing over 2.4 million compounds and 20 million bioactivity measurements [14]. However, research indicates that merely increasing the number of molecules in a library does not necessarily translate to greater chemical diversity [14]. This paradox highlights the essential challenge in chemical space exploration: efficiently navigating its complexity to identify regions of interest without being overwhelmed by its scale. The field has responded by developing sophisticated computational approaches that can guide this exploration, with evolutionary algorithms emerging as particularly powerful tools for this multi-criteria optimization challenge.

Evolutionary Algorithms for Navigating Chemical Space

Multi-Objective Optimization in Chemical Discovery

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) represent a class of population-based optimization techniques inspired by biological evolution that have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in navigating chemical space [16] [17]. These algorithms operate by evaluating the fitness of molecules in a population, then selecting the fittest candidates as "parents" to generate "children" that carry forward desirable characteristics to subsequent generations [16]. In the context of chemical discovery, this approach allows researchers to efficiently search vast molecular landscapes for candidates with optimized properties, balancing multiple objectives such as efficacy, toxicity, and synthesizability [15].

The application of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) is particularly valuable in chemical design, where researchers must typically balance competing objectives. Algorithms such as NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D have shown promising results in drug design applications [17]. These algorithms employ techniques like fast non-dominated sorting to separate solutions into fronts based on domination criteria, with the first front containing non-dominated solutions that form the Pareto-optimal set [17]. This approach allows medicinal chemists to explore trade-offs between multiple molecular properties simultaneously, rather than sequentially optimizing single parameters.

Molecular Representation: SELFIES vs. SMILES

A critical aspect of applying evolutionary algorithms to chemical space exploration is the representation of molecular structures in a computable format. Traditional approaches have relied on the Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES), which represents molecules as chains of atoms with parentheses denoting branching and number pairs indicating ring closures [17]. However, SMILES representations suffer from a significant limitation: randomly generated or recombined strings frequently produce chemically invalid structures, reducing search efficiency.

The relatively recent development of SELF-referencing Embedded Strings (SELFIES) addresses this limitation through a formal grammar-based approach where derivation rules ensure that every symbol combination corresponds to a chemically valid graph [17]. This guarantee of chemical validity enables more efficient exploration of chemical space within evolutionary algorithms, as every candidate molecule generated through crossover and mutation operations represents a feasible structure. Studies comparing the two representation systems have demonstrated that SELFIES significantly outperforms SMILES in evolutionary optimization tasks, particularly in maintaining population diversity and discovering novel candidate molecules [17].

Advanced Methodologies for Chemical Space Exploration

Crystal Structure Prediction-Informed Evolutionary Algorithms

A significant advancement in chemical space exploration has been the integration of crystal structure prediction (CSP) within evolutionary algorithms [16]. Traditional approaches to chemical space exploration have largely focused on molecular properties in isolation, ignoring the often substantial effects of molecular arrangement in crystal structures on material properties [16]. This limitation is particularly problematic for organic molecular semiconductors, where charge carrier mobilities are highly sensitive to crystal packing [16].

The CSP-informed evolutionary algorithm (CSP-EA) represents a paradigm shift by incorporating crystal structure prediction into the fitness evaluation of candidate molecules [16]. This approach employs fully automated CSP from a line notation description of the molecule through structure generation, lattice energy minimization, and property assessment [16]. The methodology enables the evolutionary algorithm to optimize materials properties based on predicted crystal structures rather than molecular properties alone, leading to the identification of molecules with significantly higher predicted electron mobilities [16].

Table 1: CSP Sampling Schemes for Evolutionary Algorithms

Sampling Scheme	Space Groups Sampled	Structures per Group	Computational Cost (core-hours/molecule)	Low-Energy Structures Recovered	Global Minima Located
SG14-500	1 (P21/c)	500	<5	25.7%	12/20
SG14-2000	1 (P21/c)	2000	<5	33.9%	15/20
Sampling A	10 (biased)	2000	~80	73.4%	18/20
Top10-2000	10 (even)	2000	~169	77.1%	19/20
Comprehensive	25	10,000	~2533	100%	20/20

Efficient CSP Sampling Strategies

Given the computational expense of comprehensive crystal structure prediction, researchers have developed efficient sampling schemes that balance completeness with computational cost [16]. These strategies leverage the uneven occupation of space groups for observed crystal structures of organic molecules, with nearly 40% of structures with one molecule in the asymmetric unit occurring in the P21/c space group [16].

Effective sampling schemes employ low-discrepancy, quasi-random sampling of structural degrees of freedom, focusing on the most commonly observed space groups [16]. Benchmark studies on 20 representative molecules have demonstrated that reduced sampling schemes can recover 73.4-77.1% of low-energy crystal structures (within 7.2 kJ mol−1 of the global minimum) at less than 7% of the computational cost of comprehensive sampling [16]. This efficiency makes CSP-informed evolutionary algorithms computationally feasible for exploring thousands of molecules during evolutionary searches.

CSP-EA Workflow: Crystal structure prediction guides evolutionary search

Quantitative Assessment of Chemical Space Diversity

Tools for Measuring Chemical Diversity

As chemical libraries continue to expand rapidly, quantitative assessment of chemical diversity has become increasingly important. Traditional similarity indices based on pairwise molecular comparisons scale as O(N²) when comparing N molecules, creating computational bottlenecks for large libraries [14]. To address this challenge, researchers have developed innovative tools like iSIM (intrinsic Similarity), which calculates the average Tanimoto similarity of a library in O(N) time by arranging all fingerprints in a matrix and summing column elements [14].

The iSIM framework enables efficient analysis of chemical space by calculating the iSIM Tanimoto (iT) value, which corresponds to the average of all distinct pairwise Tanimoto comparisons [14]. Lower iT values indicate more diverse compound collections, providing a global indicator of library diversity [14]. Complementary to this approach, the BitBIRCH clustering algorithm provides granular insights into chemical space structure by grouping compounds based on Tanimoto similarity using a tree structure to reduce computational complexity [14].

Time Evolution of Chemical Libraries

Analysis of chemical library evolution over time reveals intriguing patterns in chemical space expansion. Studies examining releases of major databases like ChEMBL, DrugBank, and PubChem have employed iSIM and BitBIRCH to assess whether increasing compound counts translate to greater diversity [14]. These investigations have identified which specific library releases contributed most significantly to diversity and which regions of chemical space they expanded [14].

The concept of complementary similarity has proven valuable in these analyses, allowing researchers to identify molecules central to a library (medoid-like compounds with low complementary similarity) versus peripheral outliers (with high complementary similarity) [14]. By tracking how these regions evolve over time, researchers gain unprecedented insights into the formation of new chemical spaces, enabling more strategic design of compound libraries with specific functions [14].

Research Applications and Case Studies

Multi-Objective Drug Molecule Optimization

Recent advances in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms have demonstrated significant success in drug molecule optimization. The MoGA-TA algorithm represents one such approach, incorporating Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance calculations and a dynamic acceptance probability population update strategy [15]. This method employs decoupled crossover and mutation operations within chemical space, with the crowding distance calculation specifically designed to better capture molecular structural differences, enhance search space exploration, maintain population diversity, and prevent premature convergence [15].

Experimental evaluations of MoGA-TA across six benchmark tasks from the GuacaMol platform have demonstrated its superiority over standard NSGA-II and other comparative methods [15]. The algorithm significantly improves optimization efficiency and success rates across diverse objectives including Tanimoto similarity, topological polar surface area (TPSA), logP, molecular weight, number of rotatable bonds, and specific biological activities [15].

Table 2: Multi-Objective Optimization Tasks in Drug Discovery

Task Name	Target Molecule	Optimization Objectives	Key Metrics
Fexofenadine	Fexofenadine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP	Thresholded similarity (0.8), MaxGaussian TPSA (90, 10), MinGaussian logP (4, 2)
Pioglitazone	Pioglitazone	Tanimoto similarity (ECFP4), molecular weight, rotatable bonds	Gaussian similarity (0, 0.1), Gaussian weight (356, 10), Gaussian bonds (2, 0.5)
Osimertinib	Osimertinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4, ECFP6), TPSA, logP	Thresholded similarity (0.8), MinGaussian similarity (0.85, 2), MaxGaussian TPSA (95, 20), MinGaussian logP (1, 2)
Ranolazine	Ranolazine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP, fluorine count	Thresholded similarity (0.7), MaxGaussian TPSA (95, 20), MaxGaussian logP (7, 1), Gaussian fluorine (1, 1)
Cobimetinib	Cobimetinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4, ECFP6), rotatable bonds, aromatic rings, CNS	Thresholded similarity (0.7), MinGaussian similarity (0.75, 0.1), MinGaussian bonds (3, 1), MaxGaussian rings (3, 1)
DAP kinases	DAPk1, DRP1, ZIPk	DAPk1, DRP1, ZIPk inhibition, QED, logP	Multiple kinase inhibition profiles with drug-likeness

Neural Network Potentials for Energetic Materials

In the domain of energetic materials, neural network potentials (NNPs) have emerged as powerful tools for exploring chemical space with density functional theory (DFT)-level accuracy but significantly reduced computational cost [18]. The EMFF-2025 model represents a general NNP for C, H, N, O-based high-energy materials (HEMs) that leverages transfer learning with minimal data from DFT calculations [18].

This approach integrates principal component analysis (PCA) and correlation heatmaps to map the chemical space and structural evolution of HEMs across temperatures [18]. Surprisingly, EMFF-2025 has revealed that most HEMs follow similar high-temperature decomposition mechanisms, challenging conventional views of material-specific behavior [18]. The model achieves remarkable accuracy, with mean absolute errors for energy predominantly within ± 0.1 eV/atom and forces mainly within ± 2 eV/Å [18], demonstrating the potential of machine learning approaches to uncover fundamental patterns in chemical space.

MOEA Optimization Cycle: Multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for chemical space

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Chemical Space Exploration

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Key Applications
Evolutionary Algorithms	NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D, MoGA-TA	Multi-objective optimization of molecular structures	De novo molecular design, lead optimization, property balancing
Molecular Representations	SELFIES, SMILES, Molecular Graphs	Encoding chemical structures for computational processing	Evolutionary operations, chemical space mapping, generative models
Crystal Structure Prediction	CSP Sampling Schemes, Lattice Energy Minimization	Predicting stable crystal forms and their properties	Materials design, polymorphism assessment, solid-state properties
Similarity & Diversity Metrics	iSIM, Tanimoto Coefficient, BitBIRCH	Quantifying molecular similarity and library diversity	Chemical space analysis, library design, diversity optimization
Neural Network Potentials	EMFF-2025, DP-CHNO-2024	Machine learning force fields with DFT-level accuracy	Molecular dynamics, property prediction, reaction mechanisms
Chemical Databases	ChEMBL, PubChem, DrugBank	Source of bioactive compounds and property data	Benchmarking, training data, chemical space reference
Fingerprint Systems	ECFP, FCFP, AP, MAP4	Molecular representation for similarity searching	Virtual screening, clustering, structure-activity relationships
Visualization Tools	Dimensionality Reduction, Chemical Space Maps	2D/3D projection of high-dimensional chemical space	Library analysis, diversity assessment, pattern recognition

Emerging Frontiers in Chemical Space Exploration

The field of chemical space exploration continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging frontiers promising to enhance our ability to navigate molecular complexity. The development of universal molecular descriptors represents a particularly important direction, as current descriptors are often optimized for specific chemical subspaces [19]. Initiatives like MAP4 fingerprints and molecular quantum numbers aim to create structure-inclusive, general-purpose descriptors capable of accommodating entities ranging from small molecules to biomolecules [19]. Similarly, neural network embeddings from chemical language models show promise in encoding chemically meaningful representations that can reconstruct molecular structures or predict properties [19].

Another significant frontier involves addressing the pH-dependent nature of chemical space, particularly for bioactive compounds where ionization states profoundly impact solubility, permeability, and binding [19]. Current chemical space analyses typically assume neutral charge states, potentially misrepresenting the actual bioactive species under physiological conditions [19]. Developing approaches that incorporate pH-dependent protonation states will more accurately model biologically relevant chemical space.

The complexity of chemical space presents both extraordinary challenges and opportunities for scientific discovery. Through the strategic integration of evolutionary algorithms, crystal structure prediction, machine learning potentials, and diversity metrics, researchers have developed sophisticated approaches to navigate this vast molecular landscape. These methods enable the efficient exploration of regions with desired functionalities while avoiding exhaustive enumeration of all possible compounds.

The continuing evolution of these computational approaches promises to accelerate the discovery of novel materials and therapeutics while deepening our fundamental understanding of molecular structure-property relationships. As these methods mature and integrate more sophisticated physical models and experimental data, they will increasingly guide experimental efforts toward the most promising regions of chemical space, transforming the paradigm of materials and drug discovery from empirical screening to rational design.

Evolutionary Algorithms vs Traditional Single-Objective Approaches

In computational optimization, two predominant paradigms are traditional single-objective approaches and evolutionary algorithms. Single-objective optimization focuses on improving a sole performance criterion, while evolutionary algorithms (EAs), particularly multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs), simultaneously handle multiple, often conflicting objectives. This technical guide examines the core principles, comparative performance, and practical applications of these methodologies within evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) research, providing researchers and drug development professionals with evidence-based insights for algorithm selection.

The fundamental distinction lies in problem formulation. Single-objective optimization seeks a single optimal solution, whereas MOEAs generate a set of Pareto-optimal solutions representing trade-offs between objectives [20] [21]. This capacity makes MOEAs particularly valuable for complex real-world problems where balancing multiple criteria is essential, such as drug discovery [22] [23] and engineering design [24] [21].

Theoretical Foundations and Algorithmic Characteristics

Single-Objective Optimization Approaches

Traditional single-objective algorithms optimize a solitary objective function, potentially subject to constraints. These methods include both mathematical programming techniques and metaheuristics. In scenarios involving multiple criteria, common single-objective strategies include:

• Weighted Sum Approach: Combines multiple objectives into a single scalar function using predetermined weights [21]
• ε-Constraint Method: Optimizes one primary objective while treating others as constraints [24]
• Lexicographic Ordering: Prioritizes objectives by importance, optimizing sequentially [21]

These methods require prior knowledge to set weights or constraints, which may bias results and overlook alternative trade-offs [20] [25]. Single-objective metaheuristics like Genetic Algorithms (GAs), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Differential Evolution (DE) explore solution spaces effectively but face challenges with premature convergence when dealing with complex multi-modal landscapes [24].

Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms

MOEAs manage multiple objectives simultaneously using population-based search mechanisms. Key algorithmic families include:

• Dominance-based MOEAs (e.g., NSGA-II, SPEA2) utilize Pareto dominance relationships to drive selection [25] [21]
• Decomposition-based MOEAs (e.g., MOEA/D) break the multi-objective problem into multiple single-objective subproblems [25]
• Indicator-based MOEAs use quality metrics like hypervolume to guide the search [25]

MOEAs inherently maintain population diversity, helping avoid local optima traps that commonly plague single-objective approaches [20]. This diversity preservation occurs through mechanisms such as fitness sharing, clustering, and crowding distance computations [20] [21]. The simultaneous optimization of multiple objectives enables MOEAs to discover the entire Pareto front in a single run, providing decision-makers with comprehensive understanding of available trade-offs [20] [21].

Performance Comparison and Quantitative Analysis

Benchmarking Results on Standard Problems

Comprehensive evaluations on established benchmarks reveal distinct performance patterns between approaches. The Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2020 (CEC'2020) multi-objective benchmark suite provides standardized assessment metrics.

Table 1: Performance Metrics Comparison on CEC'2020 Benchmarks

Algorithm	Hypervolume (HV)	Inverted Generational Distance (IGD)	Spacing	Maximum Spread
MOPO [21]	0.785	0.021	0.035	0.915
NSGA-II [21]	0.712	0.038	0.051	0.874
MOPSO [21]	0.698	0.045	0.062	0.832
MOGWO [21]	0.734	0.029	0.042	0.891
MOSMA [21]	0.751	0.025	0.039	0.903

Experimental data demonstrates that modern MOEAs consistently outperform single-objective approaches applied to scalarized problems across multiple metrics. The Multi-Objective Parrot Optimizer (MOPO) shows particular strength in hypervolume (0.785) and inverted generational distance (0.021), indicating superior convergence and diversity [21].

Application-Specific Performance

Table 2: Application Performance Comparison Across Domains

Application Domain	Algorithm Type	Key Performance Findings	Reference
Knapsack Problem	MOEA	Competitive with SOEAs, especially for strongly correlated/large instances	[20]
Drug Discovery (REvoLd)	MOEA	869-1622× improvement in hit rates vs. random screening	[22] [23]
RF Accelerating Structures	Single-objective with constraints	Effective for highly constrained engineering problems	[24]
Helical Coil Spring Design	MOPO	Superior performance across 6 metrics vs. 7 state-of-art algorithms	[21]

In specific applications like the bi-objective knapsack problem, MOEAs compete effectively with single-objective evolutionary algorithms (SOEAs) applied to individual objectives, particularly for challenging instances with strong correlations between objectives or large problem sizes [20]. For RF accelerating structure optimization, single-objective approaches with constraint handling remain effective when reformulating multi-objective problems with dominant primary objectives [24].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Bi-Objective Knapsack Problem

Objective: Compare MOEA and SOEA performance on combinatorial optimization [20]

Problem Formulation:

• Items: J = {1,...,n}
• Weights: w_j ∈ N*
• Profits: c_jk ∈ N₀ for objectives k ∈ {1,2}
• Constraint: ∑wjxj ≤ W
• Objectives: max f₁(x) = ∑cj₁xj, max f₂(x) = ∑cj₂xj

Instances: Varying sizes (50-500 items), tightness ratios [0.11, 0.92] [20]

Algorithms:

• MOEAs: Three standard multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
• SOEAs: Two single-objective evolutionary algorithms applied independently to each objective

Evaluation: SOEAs run twice (once per objective), results compared to MOEA endpoint solutions [20]

Protocol 2: REvoLd for Drug Discovery

Objective: Efficiently screen ultra-large make-on-demand compound libraries (20B+ molecules) [22] [23]

Algorithm Parameters:

• Initial population: 200 ligands
• Generations: 30
• Advancement rate: 50 individuals per generation
• Multiple independent runs recommended for diversity

Key Mechanisms:

• Enhanced crossover between fit molecules
• Low-similarity fragment mutation
• Reaction-switching mutation
• Secondary optimization round excluding top performers

Evaluation Metrics: Hit rate improvement vs. random selection, computational efficiency [22]

Protocol 3: SSMAF Framework Evaluation

Objective: Enhance MOEA efficiency using single-objective assistance [25]

Framework Structure:

• Phase 1: Sequential Search Mechanism (SSM)
  • Corner solution search for each objective
  • Standard solution detection
  • Diversity Search Method (DSM) with crowding assessment
• Phase 2: Conventional MOEA application
  • Utilizes Phase 1 results as initial population
  • Enhances distribution and convergence

Benchmarking: 42 test problems, 4 real-world applications [25]

Key Innovation: Sequential rather than parallel single-objective optimization preserves inter-objective solutions [25]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Evolutionary Optimization Research

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
MOCOlib [20]	Benchmark instance collection	Multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems
CEC'2020 Benchmarks [21]	Standardized performance testing	Algorithm validation and comparison
Rosetta Software Suite [22] [23]	Flexible protein-ligand docking	Drug discovery and virtual screening
Enamine REAL Space [22] [23]	Ultra-large compound library (20B+ molecules)	Structure-based drug design
Python Optimization Stack (NumPy, Pandas, Matplotlib) [24]	Data processing, analysis, and visualization	Custom algorithm implementation and evaluation

Discussion and Implementation Guidelines

Key Trade-offs and Selection Criteria

Algorithm selection depends critically on problem characteristics and research goals:

Choose MOEAs when:

• Comprehensive trade-off analysis is required
• Decision-maker preferences are not predetermined
• Problem structure suggests diverse Pareto-optimal solutions
• Computational resources permit population-based optimization

Choose Single-Objective when:

• Clear primary objective dominates other criteria
• Well-defined constraints reduce feasible space significantly
• Computational efficiency is paramount
• Prior domain knowledge informs weighting schemes [24]

Emerging Trends and Hybrid Approaches

Recent research demonstrates the effectiveness of hybrid methodologies that combine strengths of both approaches:

• SSMAF Framework: Uses sequential single-objective search to initialize MOEAs, improving convergence and diversity [25]
• PriMO Algorithm: Integrates multi-objective expert priors into Bayesian optimization, achieving 10× speedups [26]
• Multi-objectivization: Transforms single-objective problems into multi-objective formulations to overcome local optima [20]

The integration of machine learning with evolutionary optimization shows particular promise, using surrogate models to reduce computational costs while maintaining solution quality [3] [24] [6].

Evolutionary algorithms and traditional single-objective approaches offer complementary strengths for optimization challenges. MOEAs provide comprehensive trade-off analysis and inherent diversity maintenance, while single-objective methods deliver computational efficiency for well-understood problems with clear priorities. For drug development professionals and researchers, hybrid frameworks that strategically combine both paradigms represent the most promising direction, leveraging single-objective intensification for rapid convergence while maintaining multi-objective diversification for comprehensive exploration. As optimization challenges grow in complexity and scale, particularly in domains like drug discovery [22] [23] and renewable energy systems [3] [6], the thoughtful integration of these approaches will be essential for addressing modern multi-criteria decision-making problems.

The exploration of chemical space, estimated to contain over 10^60 molecules, represents one of the most formidable challenges in modern science [27]. Efficient navigation of this vast space is crucial for accelerating discoveries in drug development and materials science. Within this context, evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) algorithms have emerged as powerful tools for molecular design, capable of simultaneously optimizing multiple, often competing, molecular properties [3]. The performance of these algorithms, however, is fundamentally constrained by the choice of molecular representation—the method by which chemical structures are encoded for computational processing.

For decades, the Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) has served as the predominant representation in cheminformatics [28] [29]. Yet, the advent of sophisticated machine learning and optimization approaches has exposed significant limitations in SMILES-based workflows. Consequently, SELF-referencIng Embedded Strings (SELFIES) was developed as a robust alternative designed specifically for modern computational applications [30] [31].

This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of both representation systems, focusing on their mechanistic foundations, limitations, and advantages within EMO research frameworks. We further present quantitative performance comparisons and experimental protocols to inform researchers and drug development professionals in selecting appropriate representations for their specific optimization challenges.

Fundamental Concepts of Molecular Representation

The Role of Representation in Optimization

In evolutionary multi-criteria optimization, the representation scheme directly influences critical algorithmic aspects:

• Search Space Definition: The representation defines the universe of possible molecules the algorithm can explore.
• Variation Operators: Mutation and crossover operations must be tailored to the representation to generate valid offspring.
• Fitness Landscape: The smoothness and connectivity of the chemical space depend on how molecules are encoded, affecting optimization trajectory.

Types of Computational Representations

Molecular representations generally fall into three categories:

• String-based: SMILES, SELFIES, and DeepSMILES represent molecular graphs as linear strings of characters [32].
• Graph-based: Explicitly represent atoms as nodes and bonds as edges in a graph structure [33].
• Algebraic Data Types: A novel approach implementing multigraphs of electron valence information for enhanced representational capacity [32].

SMILES Representation: Limitations and Challenges

Technical Foundation of SMILES

The SMILES notation represents molecular structures using ASCII strings that encode atomic constituents, bonding patterns, branching, and ring structures through a specific grammar [28] [29]. For instance, benzene can be represented as "c1ccccc1" in SMILES. The system employs several key syntactic elements:

• Atoms: Represented by their chemical symbols.
• Bonds: Single, double, triple, and aromatic bonds denoted by -, =, #, and :, respectively.
• Branches: Enclosed in parentheses ().
• Rings: Indicated by numerical labels at ring closure points.

Despite its widespread adoption, SMILES exhibits several critical limitations that impair its effectiveness in EMO applications.

Syntactic and Semantic Limitations

Table 1: Core Limitations of SMILES Representation

Limitation Category	Technical Description	Impact on EMO Performance
Syntactic Invalidity	Complex grammar rules lead to invalid strings when characters are altered [29].	High proportion of invalid individuals wastes computational resources and disrupts optimization.
Non-Uniqueness	Single molecule can have multiple valid SMILES strings [33].	Complicates fitness evaluation and diversity maintenance through redundant sampling.
Limited Stereochemistry	Handles only a limited array of stereochemistry types [33].	Restricts exploration of spatially sensitive molecular properties critical to drug activity.
Aromaticity Ambiguity	No standard for handling aromaticity [33].	Introduces inconsistency in molecular interpretation and property prediction.
Representational Gaps	Struggles with organometallics, multi-center bonds, and resonant structures [32].	Limits chemical space exploration to traditional organic molecules.

Impact on Generative Models and Optimization

The fragile syntax of SMILES presents particular challenges for evolutionary algorithms. When mutation and crossover operators are applied to SMILES strings, they frequently generate syntactically invalid offspring that do not correspond to chemically valid molecules. Studies indicate that typical SMILES-based generative models produce invalid outputs approximately 10% of the time [27]. This high failure rate severely compromises optimization efficiency, as significant computational effort is expended evaluating and processing invalid candidates.

Furthermore, the non-local dependencies in SMILES grammar mean that small modifications can dramatically alter molecular structure, creating a discontinuous fitness landscape that hinders gradual optimization [31].

SELFIES Representation: Advantages and Mechanisms

Technical Innovation of SELFIES

SELFIES addresses the fundamental limitations of SMILES through a novel encoding scheme based on formal grammar and finite state automata [31]. Each SELFIES string functions as a self-contained program that guarantees both syntactic and semantic validity when compiled to a molecular graph. The key innovations include:

• Localized Representation: Non-local features (rings and branches) are represented by their length indicators rather than distant paired markers [31].
• State-Based Derivation: The derivation process maintains state information about atom valences, enforcing physical constraints throughout string compilation [31].
• Bracket-Based Tokens: All units are enclosed in square brackets, preventing improper tokenization and ensuring atomicity of operations.

For example, benzene encoded in SELFIES appears as [C][=C][C][=C][C][=C][Ring1][Branch1_2], where ring and branch symbols are followed by explicit length parameters.

Advantages for Evolutionary Optimization

Table 2: Advantages of SELFIES for EMO Applications

Advantage	Technical Foundation	EMO Benefit
100% Robustness	Formal grammar guarantees all strings correspond to valid molecules [31].	Eliminates computational waste from invalid candidates; enables unconstrained variation operators.
Smoother Latent Space	More continuous mapping from representation to chemical space [34].	Enables more effective gradient-based and evolutionary search strategies.
Enhanced Exploration	Random mutations consistently produce valid molecules [31].	Facilitates broader exploration of chemical space while maintaining valid solutions.
Simplified Algorithm Design	No need for complex validity checks or repair mechanisms [31].	Reduces implementation complexity and computational overhead.

Counterintuitive Benefit: The Invalid SMILES Advantage

Recent research provides a nuanced perspective on invalid SMILES generation. Counterintuitively, the ability to produce invalid SMILES may actually benefit language models by providing a self-corrective mechanism that filters low-likelihood samples [27]. Invalid SMILES are typically sampled with significantly higher loss values than valid SMILES, suggesting that their removal acts as an intrinsic quality filter [27]. This finding has important implications for EMO, as it suggests that SMILES-based approaches with appropriate filtering mechanisms can remain competitive despite their inherent limitations.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Experimental Framework and Metrics

Rigorous benchmarking studies have evaluated SMILES and SELFIES across multiple performance dimensions relevant to EMO applications:

• Validity Rate: Percentage of generated strings that correspond to valid molecular structures.
• Novelty: Percentage of generated molecules not present in the training data.
• Diversity: Structural variety of generated molecules, often measured by Tanimoto similarity.
• Fréchet ChemNet Distance: Measures similarity between generated and training molecular distributions.
• Property Optimization: Effectiveness in generating molecules with desired physicochemical properties.

Comparative Performance Data

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of SMILES vs. SELFIES in Generative Tasks

Performance Metric	SMILES Performance	SELFIES Performance	Experimental Context
Validity Rate	~90.2% [27]	100% [31]	Language model trained on ChEMBL dataset
Fréchet ChemNet Distance	Significantly better match to training set [27]	Inferior distribution matching [27]	Comparison on ChEMBL and GDB-13 datasets
Novelty Rate	>99% [27]	Typically higher than SMILES [27]	Training on chemically diverse datasets
Distribution Learning	Superior	Inferior	Measured by similarity to training set properties [27]
Invalid Sample Filtering	Provides intrinsic low-likelihood filtering [27]	Not applicable (all samples valid)	Analysis of loss distributions

Tokenization Performance

Recent advances in tokenization methods further illuminate the relative strengths of each representation. Atom Pair Encoding (APE), a novel tokenization approach designed specifically for chemical languages, significantly outperforms traditional Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) when applied to SMILES representations [28]. In classification tasks using BERT-based models on HIV, toxicology, and blood-brain barrier penetration datasets, SMILES with APE tokenization achieved superior ROC-AUC scores by better preserving contextual relationships among chemical elements [28].

Integration with Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization

Workflow Implementation

The integration of molecular representations within EMO frameworks follows a structured workflow that can be visualized as follows:

Molecular Optimization Workflow

This diagram illustrates the critical role of representation selection in determining the necessity and placement of validity checking within the optimization cycle. For SMILES representations, the validity check is essential, whereas SELFIES representations eliminate this requirement.

Variation Operator Design

The choice of representation dramatically affects how variation operators are implemented:

SMILES-Compatible Operators:

• Mutation: Character-level modifications requiring post-variation validity checks
• Crossover: Substring exchange between parent strings often producing invalid offspring
• Constraints: Require domain knowledge to design chemically-aware operations

SELFIES-Compatible Operators:

• Mutation: Arbitrary token modifications guaranteed to produce valid molecules
• Crossover: Exchange of SELFIES tokens between parents without validity concerns
• Constraints: Physical valency constraints embedded in representation itself

Experimental Protocol for Representation Evaluation

Researchers can implement the following experimental protocol to evaluate SMILES and SELFIES for specific EMO applications:

• Dataset Preparation:

  • Select appropriate chemical database (e.g., ChEMBL, GDB-13)
  • Preprocess to standardized format (canonicalization, normalization)
  • Split into training/validation/test sets (80/10/10 ratio)

• Representation Conversion:

  • Convert all structures to both SMILES and SELFIES
  • Implement appropriate tokenization (character-level, BPE, or APE)

• Algorithm Implementation:

  • Configure EMO algorithm (NSGA-II, MOEA/D, etc.)
  • Implement representation-specific variation operators
  • Define multi-objective fitness function (e.g., QED, synthetic accessibility, target affinity)

• Evaluation Metrics:

  • Track validity rates across generations
  • Measure hypervolume and coverage of Pareto front
  • Compute chemical diversity of solutions
  • Assess convergence speed and computational efficiency

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Tools and Libraries for Molecular Representation Research

Tool Name	Type	Function	Implementation Considerations
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular I/O, fingerprint generation, property calculation [29]	Supports both SMILES and SELFIES; essential for preprocessing and evaluation
SELFIES Python Library	Specialized Library	Conversion between SMILES and SELFIES formats [31]	Simple installation via pip; comprehensive documentation available
Transformer Models	Neural Architecture	Sequence processing for molecular generation and optimization [28]	Compatible with both representations; benefits from advanced tokenization
STONED Algorithm	Combinatorial Generator	Efficient chemical space exploration using SELFIES [31]	High-throughput generation without neural network training
Genetic Algorithm Framework	Optimization Library	Implementation of evolutionary operators and selection mechanisms	Requires representation-specific variation operator design

Future Research Directions and Emerging Alternatives

Extensions of String-Based Representations

Future developments in molecular representations for EMO include several promising directions:

• Robust Languages for Large Domains: Extending SELFIES to represent larger chemical domains, including polymers and inorganic compounds [30].
• Interpretable Representations: Enhancing human and machine interpretability of molecular strings for better hypothesis generation [30] [34].
• Integrated 3D Information: Incorporating spatial coordinates to enable structure-based property prediction [32].
• Benchmark Development: Creating more challenging benchmarks for generative molecular design, including ADMET properties and synthesizability [34].

Beyond Strings: Algebraic Data Types

A emerging alternative to both SMILES and SELFIES involves representing molecules as Algebraic Data Types (ADTs) in functional programming languages [32]. This approach implements the Dietz representation via multigraphs of electron valence information and can optionally include 3D coordinate data [32]. The ADT framework offers several advantages:

• Type Safety: Guarantees structural validity at the type system level
• Extended Representational Capacity: Handles organometallics, multi-center bonds, and resonant structures
• Integration with Probabilistic Programming: Enables seamless incorporation with Bayesian machine learning

While this approach requires more fundamental changes to existing cheminformatics pipelines, it represents a promising direction for complex optimization scenarios requiring representation of exotic chemical structures.

The selection of molecular representation system fundamentally constrains the performance and applicability of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization in chemical discovery. While SMILES offers the advantage of established infrastructure and unexpected benefits through intrinsic invalidity filtering, its syntactic fragility and representational limitations present significant challenges for EMO applications. SELFIES addresses many of these limitations through its guaranteed validity and smoother latent space organization, enabling more robust implementation of variation operators.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the optimal choice depends on specific application requirements. SMILES may remain suitable for optimization tasks with robust validity checking mechanisms, while SELFIES offers distinct advantages for applications requiring extensive exploration of chemical space or simplified algorithm design. Emerging approaches, particularly Algebraic Data Types, promise to further expand the horizons of molecular optimization by addressing representational gaps in current string-based approaches.

As EMO methodologies continue to evolve in sophistication, the development of more expressive and robust molecular representations will play a critical role in unlocking novel chemical space and accelerating the discovery of next-generation therapeutic compounds.

EMO Methodologies and Real-World Drug Discovery Applications

Evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for solving complex problems involving multiple, conflicting objectives across various scientific and engineering disciplines. Within this field, three algorithm families have established themselves as foundational frameworks: the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III (NSGA-III), and the Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition (MOEA/D). These population-based heuristic approaches have proven particularly valuable in domains ranging from drug discovery to sustainable agriculture, where balancing competing criteria is essential [3].

The fundamental principle underlying these algorithms is their ability to identify a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, representing the best possible trade-offs between conflicting objectives. A solution is considered Pareto-optimal if no objective can be improved without worsening at least one other objective [35] [36]. This article provides an in-depth technical examination of these core algorithmic frameworks, focusing on their practical implementations, recent enhancements, and applications within computational pharmacology and related fields.

Core Algorithmic Frameworks

NSGA-II: The Benchmark Algorithm

NSGA-II has remained one of the most widely applied MOEAs due to its efficient mechanism for sorting Pareto-optimal solutions. The algorithm employs a fast non-dominated sorting approach to categorize solutions based on their dominance relationships, where one solution dominates another if it is superior in at least one objective and not worse in all others [35]. A key innovation in NSGA-II is its crowding distance mechanism, which maintains diversity among solutions by estimating the density of solutions surrounding a particular point in objective space, thereby preventing premature convergence to narrow regions of the solution space [35].

The algorithm begins by initializing a population of candidate solutions randomly. Each solution is represented as a vector of decision variables corresponding to the problem domain. The population size is predefined, and the algorithm uses the concept of non-dominance to classify solutions into multiple fronts. The first front comprises solutions not dominated by any other solutions, with subsequent fronts containing solutions dominated only by those in preceding fronts [35].

NSGA-III: Many-Objective Optimization

NSGA-III extends the capabilities of NSGA-II to effectively handle optimization problems with four or more objectives, often referred to as "many-objective" problems. While retaining the fundamental non-dominated sorting approach of its predecessor, NSGA-III replaces the crowding distance operator with a niche-preservation mechanism that uses a set of predefined reference points distributed across the objective space [37]. This enables the algorithm to maintain better population diversity in high-dimensional objective spaces where traditional diversity maintenance mechanisms become ineffective.

Recent enhancements to NSGA-III have focused on improving search efficiency during iterations. The NSGA-III/NG algorithm incorporates novel neighbor and guidance strategies that consider single individuals as starting points for generating better solutions in each iteration. Experimental results on standard test sets (ZDT, DTLZ, and WFG) demonstrate that this approach improves convergence speed by 12.54% and enhances the accuracy of non-dominated solution sets by 3.67% compared to standard NSGA-III [37].

MOEA/D: Decomposition-Based Approach

MOEA/D represents a fundamentally different approach by decomposing a multi-objective optimization problem into multiple single-objective subproblems. The algorithm optimizes these subproblems simultaneously, with each subproblem corresponding to a specific region of the Pareto front through an aggregation function (typically weighted sum or Tchebycheff approach) [38]. A significant advantage of MOEA/D is the relative ease of incorporating local search operators using well-developed single-objective optimization techniques [38].

The MOEA/D-NG variant incorporates neighbor and guidance strategies similar to those in NSGA-III/NG, demonstrating performance superior to MOEA/D-CMA, MOEA/D-DE, and CMOEA/D algorithms on standard test problems [37]. This improvement stems from enhanced search capabilities that more efficiently navigate complex solution spaces.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D

Feature	NSGA-II	NSGA-III	MOEA/D
Core Mechanism	Non-dominated sorting with crowding distance	Non-dominated sorting with reference points	Decomposition into single-objective subproblems
Optimal Objective Scope	2-3 objectives	4+ objectives (many-objective)	2+ objectives
Diversity Maintenance	Crowding distance	Niche-preservation with reference points	Weight vectors
Key Strength	Efficient Pareto approximation	Handling high-dimensional objectives	Local search integration
Computational Complexity	O(MN²)	O(MN²)	O(N) per cycle

Table 2: Recent Enhanced Variants and Performance Improvements

Algorithm Variant	Enhancement Strategy	Reported Performance Gain	Application Domain
NSGA-III/NG	Neighbor and guidance strategies	12.54% faster convergence, 3.67% better solution accuracy [37]	General optimization test sets (ZDT, DTLZ, WFG)
MOEA/D-NG	Neighbor and guidance strategies	Superior to MOEA/D-CMA, MOEA/D-DE, CMOEA/D [37]	General optimization test sets
Fuzzy-Expert-NSGA-II	Fuzzy expert systems with hybrid adaptive local search	HV = 0.892, 23% profit increase in agricultural planning [39]	Agricultural systems optimization
MOSWO	Spider-wasp predatory dynamics	11% higher hypervolume, 30% faster convergence [36]	Drug therapy design

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Algorithm Enhancement Protocol

Recent research has introduced sophisticated enhancement strategies for core MOEA frameworks. The development of NSGA-III/NG and MOEA/D-NG followed a structured experimental protocol:

• Problem Formulation: Define the multi-objective optimization problem with explicit objective functions and constraints.
• Strategy Design: Develop neighbor and guidance strategies that consider individual solutions as starting points for generating improved solutions within single iterations.
• Algorithm Integration: Incorporate new strategies into the base NSGA-III and MOEA/D frameworks.
• Benchmark Testing: Evaluate enhanced algorithms on standard test sets (ZDT, DTLZ, and WFG) against baseline algorithms.
• Performance Metrics: Quantify improvements in convergence speed, solution accuracy, and hypervolume indicators.
• Statistical Validation: Apply statistical tests to confirm significance of performance improvements [37].

Drug Design Optimization Protocol

In pharmaceutical applications, MOEAs follow specialized experimental protocols:

• Molecular Representation: Employ appropriate molecular representations such as SELFIES (Self-referencing Embedded Strings) or SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) to encode chemical structures [40].
• Objective Definition: Define relevant pharmacological objectives including quantitative estimate of drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), binding affinity (docking scores), and ADMET properties (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, toxicity) [40] [41].
• Constraint Incorporation: Implement drug-like constraints including structural alerts, ring size restrictions, and synthetic feasibility criteria [4].
• Algorithm Execution: Apply MOEAs to explore chemical space and identify Pareto-optimal compounds.
• Validation: Verify predicted properties through synthetic experimentation or high-fidelity simulation [42].

The Multi-Objective Spider-Wasp Optimizer (MOSWO) exemplifies a novel bioinspired approach, emulating cooperative predation dynamics between spiders and wasps. This algorithm employs a dynamic population-partitioning strategy inspired by predator-prey interactions to enable efficient Pareto frontier discovery. Validation experiments demonstrate MOSWO's superiority over state-of-the-art methods, achieving 11% higher hypervolume scores, 8% lower inverted generational distance scores, and 30% faster convergence [36].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for MOEA Implementation in Drug Design

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
SELFIES	Molecular string representation ensuring syntactic validity	Chemical space exploration in MOEA-based drug design [40]
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit for molecular manipulation	Validity verification, property calculation, and structural analysis [4]
GOLD Docking	Molecular docking software for binding affinity prediction	Objective function evaluation in structure-based drug design [42]
QED Metric	Quantitative estimate of drug-likeness	Optimization objective for candidate drug prioritization [42]
ADMET Predictors	Machine learning models for pharmacokinetic properties	Multi-objective optimization constraints [41]
Reference Point Set	Predefined distribution of points in objective space	Diversity maintenance in NSGA-III for many-objective problems [37]

Performance Analysis and Benchmarking

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Rigorous evaluation of MOEA performance employs standardized metrics:

• Hypervolume (HV) Indicator: Measures the volume of objective space dominated by the obtained solutions, with higher values indicating better performance [39].
• Inverted Generational Distance (IGD): Quantifies convergence and diversity by calculating the average distance from reference points to the nearest solution [36].
• Spread (Δ): Evaluates the distribution of solutions across the Pareto front [36].
• Constraint Satisfaction Rate: Percentage of solutions satisfying all problem constraints [39].

Enhanced algorithms demonstrate significant improvements across these metrics. For instance, the Fuzzy-Expert-NSGA-II algorithm achieves a hypervolume of 0.892 and a constraint satisfaction rate of 1.2% in agricultural planning applications, substantially outperforming standard NSGA-II, MOPSO, and MOEA/D [39].

Comparative Analysis of Core Algorithms

Empirical studies reveal distinct performance characteristics for each algorithm family:

NSGA-II excels in problems with 2-3 objectives, providing efficient approximation of Pareto fronts with good diversity maintenance through its crowding distance mechanism. However, its performance degrades in many-objective problems due to the loss of selection pressure [35].

NSGA-III demonstrates superior performance in many-objective optimization (4+ objectives) through its reference point-based approach. The NSGA-III/NG variant shows particular strength in convergence speed, achieving 12.54% faster convergence than standard NSGA-III while maintaining solution diversity [37].

MOEA/D offers computational efficiency through its decomposition approach, particularly when incorporating local search operators. The algorithm's performance depends heavily on the choice of aggregation function and weight vector distribution [38]. MOEA/D-NG shows marked improvement over baseline MOEA/D and its variants (MOEA/D-CMA, MOEA/D-DE, CMOEA/D) across standard test problems [37].

Applications in Drug Discovery and Development

Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization

Drug discovery represents an ideal application domain for MOEAs due to the inherent multi-objective nature of compound optimization. Pharmaceutical candidates must simultaneously satisfy multiple criteria including potency, selectivity, metabolic stability, safety, and synthetic accessibility [42]. The CMOMO (Constrained Molecular Multi-objective Optimization) framework exemplifies this approach, addressing molecular optimization as a constrained multi-objective problem with explicit handling of drug-like constraints [4].

CMOMO employs a two-stage optimization process that first solves unconstrained multi-objective scenarios to identify molecules with promising properties, then considers both properties and constraints to identify feasible molecules possessing desired characteristics. This approach demonstrates a two-fold improvement in success rate for glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3) inhibitor optimization, successfully identifying molecules with favorable bioactivity, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and adherence to structural constraints [4].

Anti-Cancer Drug Candidate Selection

Comprehensive MOEA frameworks have been developed specifically for anti-cancer drug candidate selection. These systems integrate:

• Feature Selection: Unsupervised spectral clustering to identify molecular descriptors with comprehensive information expression capability [41].
• Relationship Mapping: Machine learning algorithms (particularly CatBoost) to construct quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models between molecular descriptors and biological activities [41].
• Multi-Objective Optimization: Improved AGE-MOEA algorithms to identify optimal value ranges for molecular descriptors corresponding to multiple optimization objectives [41].

This integrated approach enables direct selection of drug candidates by systematically exploring trade-offs between biological activity (PIC₅₀) and ADMET properties, addressing limitations of traditional methods that consider these objectives in isolation [41].

STELLA: Fragment-Based Drug Design

The STELLA (Systematic Tool for Evolutionary Lead optimization Leveraging Artificial intelligence) framework exemplifies advanced MOEA application in fragment-based drug design. STELLA combines an evolutionary algorithm for fragment-based chemical space exploration with clustering-based conformational space annealing for efficient multi-parameter optimization [42].

In comparative studies focusing on PDK1 inhibitors, STELLA generated 217% more hit candidates with 161% more unique scaffolds compared to REINVENT 4, achieving more advanced Pareto fronts. When optimizing 16 properties simultaneously, STELLA consistently outperformed control methods by achieving better average objective scores and exploring broader regions of chemical space [42].

Future Directions and Research Challenges

Despite significant advances, several challenges remain in the practical application of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D frameworks:

• Dynamic Adaptation: Most current applications rely on static models without incorporating real-time data fluctuations, limiting practical applicability in dynamic environments [35].
• Constraint Handling: Effective management of complex constraints remains challenging, particularly when constraint boundaries are ambiguous or time-varying [4].
• Computational Scalability: As optimization problems expand geographically and in complexity, existing MOEAs face scalability issues when solving high-dimensional, large-scale problems [35].
• Integration with Machine Learning: Promising research directions include hybrid approaches combining MOEAs with machine learning for surrogate modeling, reducing computational costs of expensive function evaluations [3].

Future developments will likely focus on adaptive algorithms capable of self-adjusting their search strategies during optimization, hybrid frameworks leveraging both evolutionary and gradient-based approaches, and improved constraint-handling mechanisms for complex real-world applications [35] [3] [4].

NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D represent foundational algorithms in evolutionary multi-criteria optimization with demonstrated effectiveness across diverse application domains, particularly in drug discovery and development. While each algorithm employs distinct strategies for maintaining population diversity and selection pressure, they share the common goal of identifying high-quality Pareto-optimal solutions balancing multiple competing objectives.

Recent enhancements incorporating neighbor and guidance strategies, fuzzy expert systems, and bioinspired mechanisms have significantly improved algorithmic performance, enabling more efficient exploration of complex solution spaces. The continued integration of these algorithms with machine learning approaches and advanced constraint-handling techniques promises to further expand their applicability to increasingly complex real-world optimization challenges.

As computational resources grow and algorithmic innovations continue to emerge, NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D and their enhanced variants are poised to play an increasingly critical role in solving complex multi-objective optimization problems across scientific and engineering disciplines, accelerating discoveries in pharmaceutical development and beyond.

Molecular optimization, the process of fine-tuning the structure of a lead compound to improve its properties while maintaining its structural features, represents a critical bottleneck in drug development [43]. This process inherently requires balancing multiple conflicting objectives—such as enhancing biological activity while maintaining drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and safety profiles—making it fundamentally a multi-objective optimization problem [2] [44]. Traditional single-objective approaches face significant limitations in this domain, as they require aggregating multiple properties into a single fitness function with predefined weights, which often fails to capture the complex trade-offs between objectives and typically yields a single optimal solution rather than diverse candidate molecules [44].

Within the broader context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) research, population-based heuristic approaches have emerged as powerful tools for addressing such complex problems with multiple conflicting criteria [3]. The EMO field has recognized the necessity of integrating decision-making processes and fostering cross-fertilization between EMO and multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) communities [3]. This integration has stimulated engagement with user communities across various domains, including drug discovery [3].

The MOMO framework (Multi-Objective Molecule Optimization) represents a significant advancement in this field, employing a specially designed Pareto-based multi-property evaluation strategy to guide evolutionary search in an implicit chemical space [44]. This approach effectively addresses the critical challenge of generating diverse, novel, and high-property molecules that simultaneously optimize multiple drug properties, thereby enhancing the likelihood of successful lead compound optimization [44].

Theoretical Foundation: Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization

Fundamental Principles of Multi-Objective Optimization

A multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) can be formally defined as minimizing/maximizing a vector of k (≥ 2) objective functions [2]:

In molecular optimization, the decision vector x represents a molecular structure, while the objective functions fᵢ(x) correspond to various molecular properties such as drug-likeness, biological activity, and synthetic accessibility [2] [41]. When these objectives conflict—as commonly occurs in drug design—no single optimal solution exists that simultaneously optimizes all objectives. Instead, solutions represent trade-offs between competing goals [2].

The concept of Pareto optimality provides the mathematical foundation for comparing these trade-off solutions [2]. For two decision vectors x₁ and x₂ in decision space Ω, x₁ dominates x₂ (denoted as x₁ ≻ x₂) if x₁ is not worse than x₂ across all objectives and is strictly better in at least one objective [45]. A solution is Pareto optimal if no other solution dominates it, and the set of all Pareto-optimal solutions constitutes the Pareto set, with its mapping in objective space forming the Pareto front [45].

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are particularly well-suited for multi-objective optimization problems due to their population-based nature, which enables approximating the entire Pareto set in a single run [2]. Unlike classical search methods that aggregate objective functions, EAs maintain a diverse population of solutions that evolve toward the Pareto front through iterative application of selection, crossover, and mutation operations [2] [43].

Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) can be broadly categorized based on their selection mechanisms [2]:

• Pareto-based methods (e.g., NSGA-II, NSGA-III) use non-dominated sorting and diversity preservation techniques
• Decomposition-based methods (e.g., MOEA/D) break down the multi-objective problem into multiple single-objective subproblems
• Indicator-based methods (e.g., IBEA) use performance indicators to guide selection

The MOMO framework builds upon these established EMO principles while addressing the specific challenges of molecular optimization in implicit chemical spaces [44].

The MOMO Framework: Architecture and Components

Problem Formulation in Molecular Optimization

In the context of lead compound optimization, MOMO formulates the task as a multi-objective optimization problem where each property of a molecule serves as a separate objective function [44]. Formally, given a lead molecule x with properties p₁(x),...,pₘ(x), the goal is to generate an optimized molecule y with properties p₁(y),...,pₘ(y) satisfying pᵢ(y) ≻ pᵢ(x) for i=1,2,...,m, while maintaining structural similarity sim(x,y) > δ [43]. The similarity constraint preserves essential structural features of the lead compound while delineating the chemical space to be explored [43].

Core Framework Components

The MOMO framework integrates two innovative components that distinguish it from conventional molecular optimization approaches [44]:

Implicit Chemical Space Construction

MOMO employs a self-supervised codec to construct an implicit chemical space and acquire continuous representations of molecules [46] [44]. This approach transforms discrete molecular representations into a continuous latent space, enabling more efficient exploration and optimization compared to direct manipulation of discrete molecular structures [44]. The implicit space construction leverages deep learning techniques to capture complex chemical patterns and relationships, providing a structured landscape for evolutionary search [43].

Pareto-Based Multi-Property Evaluation

MOMO incorporates a specially designed Pareto-based multi-property evaluation strategy at the molecular sequence level to guide the evolutionary search [44]. This strategy enables simultaneous optimization of multiple molecular properties without requiring predefined weightings or aggregations, effectively addressing the challenge of balancing conflicting objectives [44]. By maintaining a diverse population of non-dominated solutions throughout the optimization process, MOMO approximates the Pareto front in a single run, providing researchers with multiple candidate molecules representing different trade-offs between optimized properties [44].

Workflow and Implementation

Diagram 1: MOMO Framework Workflow showing the iterative optimization process in implicit chemical space.

Experimental Design and Methodological Protocols

Benchmark Tasks and Evaluation Metrics

MOMO's performance has been rigorously evaluated across multiple benchmark tasks and real-world optimization problems [44]. The experimental design encompasses:

4.1.1 Benchmark Optimization Tasks

• Multi-property molecule optimization tasks: Evaluating simultaneous optimization of drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and biological activity [44]
• Similarity-constrained optimization: Maintaining structural similarity (Tanimoto similarity > 0.4) while improving target properties [43]
• Real-world discovery problems: Validation on four challenging tasks from practical drug discovery scenarios [44]

4.1.2 Performance Metrics

• Diversity: Distribution of solutions within the solution set in objective space [44]
• Novelty: Structural novelty of optimized molecules relative to existing public databases [44]
• Property optimization: Improvement in target molecular properties [44]
• Success rate: Proportion of successfully optimized molecules meeting all criteria [44]

Comparative Experimental Protocol

The experimental protocol for validating MOMO involves comparison against five state-of-the-art methods across two benchmark multi-property molecule optimization tasks [44]:

• Methodology comparison: MOMO is compared with RL-based, EA-based, and deep learning-based molecular optimization approaches [44]
• Task complexity scaling: Evaluation includes optimization of more than two properties to assess scalability [44]
• Statistical significance testing: Performance differences are quantitatively assessed for statistical significance [44]
• Case study analysis: Detailed examination of specific molecule optimization pathways [44]

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for MOMO Evaluation

Metric Category	Specific Measures	Evaluation Method	Significance Threshold
Optimization Performance	Property improvement, Success rate	Comparison to baseline methods	Statistical significance (p < 0.05)
Solution Quality	Diversity, Novelty	Chemical space analysis, Database comparison	Substantial improvement over alternatives
Practical Utility	Real-world task performance	Application to genuine discovery problems	Meaningful advancement for drug discovery

Implementation Details

4.3.1 Evolutionary Algorithm Parameters

• Population size: Typically ranges from 100 to 1000 individuals, depending on problem complexity [44]
• Selection mechanism: Tournament selection or environmental selection based on Pareto dominance [44]
• Genetic operators: customized crossover and mutation operations adapted for implicit chemical space [44]
• Termination criteria: Based on convergence metrics or maximum number of generations [44]

4.3.2 Implicit Space Configuration

• Latent dimension: Typically 64 to 256 dimensions, balancing representational capacity and computational efficiency [44]
• Training data: Self-supervised learning on molecular datasets [46]
• Similarity constraints: Tanimoto similarity threshold δ typically set to 0.4 [43]

Results and Performance Analysis

Quantitative Performance Assessment

MOMO demonstrates superior performance compared to five state-of-the-art methods across multiple benchmark tasks [44]. The quantitative assessment reveals:

5.1.1 Multi-Property Optimization Performance Experimental results on two benchmark multi-property molecule optimization tasks show that MOMO markedly outperforms comparison methods in terms of diversity, novelty, and optimized properties [44]. The advantage is particularly pronounced for molecules requiring optimization of more than two properties, demonstrating MOMO's scalability to complex optimization scenarios [44].

5.1.2 Success Rate and Efficiency Notably, MOMO demonstrates a two-fold improvement in success rate for specific optimization tasks, successfully identifying molecules with favorable bioactivity, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and adherence to structural constraints [47]. This substantial improvement in success rate significantly enhances the efficiency of the molecular optimization process.

Table 2: MOMO Performance Comparison Across Molecular Optimization Tasks

Optimization Task	Comparison Methods	Key Performance Advantages	Statistical Significance
Benchmark Task 1	5 state-of-the-art methods	Superior diversity, novelty, and property optimization	p < 0.01
Benchmark Task 2	RL-based, EA-based, DL-based approaches	Enhanced performance on >2 property optimization	p < 0.05
GSK3β Inhibition	Specialized optimization methods	Two-fold improvement in success rate	p < 0.01
Real-World Tasks	Domain-specific approaches	Practical applicability validated	Qualitative assessment

Case Study: GSK3β Inhibitor Optimization

A particularly compelling demonstration of MOMO's capabilities comes from its application to glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK3β) inhibitor optimization [47]. In this practical task:

5.2.1 Optimization Objectives

• Bioactivity: Enhanced inhibition of GSK3β target
• Drug-likeness: Improved physicochemical properties
• Synthetic accessibility: Maintained feasible synthesis pathways
• Structural constraints: Adherence to specific molecular frameworks

5.2.2 Experimental Outcomes MOMO achieved a two-fold improvement in success rate compared to existing methods, successfully identifying molecules with favorable bioactivity, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and adherence to structural constraints [47]. This case study validates MOMO's practical utility in real-world drug discovery scenarios and demonstrates its ability to address complex, constrained optimization problems.

Successful implementation of the MOMO framework requires several key computational resources and methodological components. The following table details the essential "research reagents" for molecular optimization using MOMO:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for MOMO Implementation

Resource Category	Specific Components	Function in Optimization Process	Implementation Notes
Molecular Representations	SELFIES strings [17], Morgan fingerprints [43]	Enable valid molecular representation and similarity calculation	SELFIES guarantees chemical validity [17]
Property Prediction	QED [17] [43], Synthetic Accessibility (SA) [17], Bioactivity assays [41]	Quantitative evaluation of optimization objectives	Some properties require specialized prediction models [41]
Evolutionary Algorithms	NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D [17]	Multi-objective optimization backbone	Selection depends on problem characteristics [17]
Implicit Space Models	Self-supervised codec [46], VAE architectures [44]	Construct continuous chemical space for efficient search	Requires appropriate training data [44]
Similarity Metrics	Tanimoto similarity [43]	Maintain structural relationship to lead compound	Threshold typically set at 0.4 [43]

Integration with Broader Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization Research

The MOMO framework represents a significant contribution to the broader field of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization research, particularly in addressing many-objective optimization problems (ManyOOPs) with four or more objectives [2]. Its development reflects several important trends in EMO research:

Advancement of Many-Objective Optimization

Drug design intrinsically involves various objectives to optimize, clearly more than three, placing it in the category of many-objective optimization problems [2]. MOMO addresses the fundamental challenges of many-objective optimization:

• Solution selection pressure: Maintenance of diverse non-dominated solutions [2]
• Visualization and decision-making: Provision of multiple Pareto-optimal candidates for expert selection [2]
• Computational efficiency: Efficient exploration of high-dimensional objective spaces [44]

Hybrid Algorithmic Approaches

MOMO exemplifies the growing trend of hybrid approaches in EMO research, combining the strengths of evolutionary algorithms with machine learning techniques [3] [43]. Specifically, it integrates:

• Evolutionary search mechanisms for global exploration of chemical space [44]
• Deep learning-based representations for efficient chemical space modeling [43]
• Self-supervised learning for latent space construction without extensive labeled data [46]

Application-Driven Methodological Development

The development of MOMO follows the pattern observed in evolutionary multi-criteria optimization research, where real-world applications drive methodological innovations [3]. The framework addresses specific challenges in molecular optimization while contributing generalizable advances to the broader EMO field:

• Dynamic constraint handling: Balancing multi-property optimization and constraint satisfaction through staged processes [47]
• Latent space fragmentation: Evolutionary reproduction strategies for effective molecule generation [47]
• Pareto-based evaluation: Multi-property assessment without predefined weightings [44]

Diagram 2: Integration of MOMO within broader Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization research, showing bidirectional influence between theoretical foundations and practical applications.

The MOMO framework represents a significant advancement in molecular optimization by effectively addressing the multi-objective nature of lead compound enhancement. Through its innovative combination of implicit chemical space exploration and Pareto-based multi-property evaluation, MOMO enables simultaneous optimization of multiple molecular properties while maintaining structural similarity to lead compounds [44]. The framework's demonstrated performance advantages—particularly its two-fold improvement in success rates for specific optimization tasks [47]—highlight its potential to substantially accelerate drug discovery efforts.

Future research directions in this area include several promising avenues [43]:

• Integration with advanced generative models: Combining evolutionary approaches with diffusion models and other advanced generative architectures [48]
• Cross-domain transfer learning: Leveraging knowledge across molecular domains (small molecules, peptides, antibodies) [48]
• Interactive decision-making tools: Developing visualization and selection interfaces for Pareto-optimal molecule sets [2]
• Automated constraint handling: Advanced techniques for dynamically balancing objectives and constraints [47]

As evolutionary multi-criteria optimization research continues to evolve, frameworks like MOMO will play an increasingly important role in bridging the gap between theoretical optimization advances and practical drug discovery applications. By providing researchers with diverse sets of high-quality candidate molecules representing different trade-offs between conflicting objectives, MOMO and similar approaches have the potential to transform the molecular optimization process and accelerate the development of novel therapeutics.

The design of novel therapeutic compounds necessitates the simultaneous optimization of multiple, often competing, molecular properties. Identifying molecules that balance potency, metabolic stability, and safety presents a fundamental challenge in drug discovery, a challenge further intensified by growing interest in compounds capable of engaging multiple biological targets [49]. Evolutionary Multi-criteria Optimization (EMO) provides a powerful computational framework to address this, enabling the exploration of chemical space to identify molecules that represent optimal trade-offs between conflicting objectives such as Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED), Synthetic Accessibility (SA), and specific biological activities [3].

This technical guide examines the integration of EMO methods with benchmark platforms like GuacaMol to advance multi-property molecular optimization. We delve into the core methodologies, experimental protocols, and practical applications that are shaping this field, providing researchers with a structured approach to navigating the complex landscape of constrained molecular design.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Metrics

Core Optimization Objectives

In a typical multi-property optimization scenario, each property is treated as a distinct objective. The problem can be mathematically formulated as finding a molecule ( x^* ) that optimizes a vector of objectives ( F(x) = (f1(x), f2(x), ..., fm(x)) ), often subject to constraints ( gj(x) \leq 0 ) and ( h_k(x) = 0 ) that represent strict drug-like criteria [4]. Rather than identifying a single optimal solution, EMO methods aim to discover a set of Pareto-optimal molecules representing the best possible trade-offs among the competing objectives.

The most critical molecular properties in this optimization process include:

• QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness): A quantitative metric that combines several physicochemical properties to estimate a compound's overall drug-likeness. Higher QED scores (closer to 1.0) indicate more favorable drug-like properties [50].

• SA (Synthetic Accessibility) Score: A measure that estimates the ease with which a molecule can be synthesized. Lower SA scores indicate compounds that are more readily synthesizable [50].

• GuacaMol Benchmark Tasks: A standardized benchmarking platform that defines specific multi-objective optimization tasks based on known drugs, incorporating similarity metrics, physicochemical properties, and biological activities to evaluate algorithm performance [15].

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization Frameworks

Population-based evolutionary approaches have emerged as particularly effective for navigating complex molecular search spaces. These methods maintain a diverse population of candidate solutions that evolve through iterative application of genetic operators such as crossover and mutation, guided by selection pressure toward the Pareto frontier [3]. The integration of EMO with multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) has further enhanced the practical utility of these approaches by incorporating decision-maker preferences into the optimization process [3].

Advanced frameworks like CMOMO (Constrained Molecular Multi-property Optimization) explicitly address the challenge of satisfying stringent drug-like constraints while optimizing multiple properties. These methods often employ dynamic constraint handling strategies that initially focus on property optimization before shifting attention to constraint satisfaction, effectively balancing these competing concerns [4].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

GuacaMol Benchmark Tasks

The GuacaMol framework provides standardized tasks for evaluating multi-property optimization algorithms. The table below summarizes key benchmark tasks and their respective optimization objectives:

Table 1: GuacaMol Benchmark Tasks for Multi-Property Optimization

Task Name	Reference Compound	Optimization Objectives	Scoring Functions & Modifiers
Fexofenadine	Fexofenadine	1. Tanimoto similarity (AP)2. TPSA3. logP	Thresholded (0.8)MaxGaussian (90, 10)MinGaussian (4, 2)
Pioglitazone	Pioglitazone	1. Tanimoto similarity (ECFP4)2. Molecular weight3. Number of rotatable bonds	Gaussian (0, 0.1)Gaussian (356, 10)Gaussian (2, 0.5)
Osimertinib	Osimertinib	1. Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4)2. Tanimoto similarity (FCFP6)3. TPSA4. logP	Thresholded (0.8)MinGaussian (0.85, 2)MaxGaussian (95, 20)MinGaussian (1, 2)
Ranolazine	Ranolazine	1. Tanimoto similarity (AP)2. TPSA3. logP4. Number of fluorine atoms	Thresholded (0.7)MaxGaussian (95, 20)MaxGaussian (7, 1)Gaussian (1, 1)
Cobimetinib	Cobimetinib	1. Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4)2. Tanimoto similarity (ECFP6)3. Number of rotatable bonds4. Number of aromatic rings5. CNS	Thresholded (0.7)MinGaussian (0.75, 0.1)MinGaussian (3, 1)MaxGaussian (3, 1)—

These benchmarks employ various molecular fingerprints (ECFP, FCFP, AP) and property calculations implemented through RDKit, with modifiers that normalize scores to the [0,1] interval [15].

Algorithm Performance Comparison

Recent studies have evaluated various optimization algorithms against these benchmarks. The following table summarizes the performance of key algorithms across multiple metrics:

Table 2: Algorithm Performance on Multi-Property Optimization Tasks

Algorithm	Core Approach	Key Features	Reported Advantages
CMOMO [4]	Deep Multi-Objective Evolutionary Framework	Two-stage dynamic constraint handling; Latent vector fragmentation-based reproduction	Two-fold improvement in success rate for GSK3 optimization; Effective balance of properties and constraints
MoGA-TA [15]	Improved Genetic Algorithm	Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance; Dynamic acceptance probability population update	Enhanced population diversity; Prevents premature convergence; Improved success rate
ScafVAE [50]	Scaffold-Aware Variational Autoencoder	Bond scaffold-based generation; Perplexity-inspired fragmentation; Surrogate model augmentation	High chemical validity; Expanded accessible chemical space; Accurate property prediction
TransDLM [51]	Diffusion Language Model	Text-guided optimization; Transformer-based architecture; Chemical nomenclature as semantic representation	Reduced error propagation; Improved structural retention; Implicit property embedding

Workflow for Multi-Property Molecular Optimization

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for multi-property molecular optimization integrating EMO principles with benchmark evaluation:

Advanced Methodologies and Implementation

Scaffold-Aware Generation with ScafVAE

ScafVAE represents a significant advancement in graph-based molecular generation by introducing a scaffold-aware variational autoencoder framework. Its innovative bond scaffold-based generation approach first assembles fragments without specifying atom types (creating "bond scaffolds") before decorating them with atom types to produce valid molecules [50]. This method effectively bridges the gap between atom-based and fragment-based approaches, preserving the high chemical validity of fragment-based methods while expanding accessible chemical space.

The model employs perplexity-inspired fragmentation, where bond perplexity estimated by a pre-trained masked graph model serves as an indicator for bond breaking, enabling data-driven derivation of optimal fragmentation points [50]. For optimization, ScafVAE utilizes a lightweight surrogate model with task-specific machine learning modules that can be rapidly adapted to new properties, augmented through contrastive learning and molecular fingerprint reconstruction to enhance prediction accuracy [50].

Constrained Optimization with CMOMO

The CMOMO framework specifically addresses the challenge of constrained multi-property optimization by dividing the process into two cooperative stages:

• Unconstrained Scenario: Initial optimization focuses primarily on enhancing target properties without strict constraint enforcement.
• Constrained Scenario: Subsequent optimization balances both property enhancement and constraint satisfaction.

This dynamic approach employs a latent vector fragmentation-based evolutionary reproduction (VFER) strategy that operates in a continuous latent space, enhancing search efficiency [4]. The method begins with population initialization through linear crossover between a lead molecule's latent vector and similar high-property molecules from a constructed bank library. Offspring molecules are then decoded to chemical space for property evaluation, with invalid molecules filtered out before population update [4].

Tanimoto-Enhanced Genetic Algorithm (MoGA-TA)

MoGA-TA improves upon traditional NSGA-II by incorporating Tanimoto similarity into the crowding distance calculation, better capturing structural differences between molecules and maintaining population diversity [15]. The algorithm employs a dynamic acceptance probability strategy that balances exploration and exploitation during evolution - encouraging broader chemical space exploration in early generations while progressively focusing on retaining superior individuals in later stages [15].

This approach has demonstrated particular effectiveness on GuacaMol benchmark tasks, outperforming standard NSGA-II and GB-EPI across multiple metrics including success rate, dominating hypervolume, and geometric mean [15].

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Multi-Property Optimization

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Optimization
RDKit [15]	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, validity checking	Property calculation (TPSA, logP), similarity metrics, molecular validation
GuacaMol [15]	Benchmarking Platform	Standardized evaluation of generative models	Performance assessment on predefined multi-objective tasks
ChEMBL Database [15]	Chemical Database	Repository of bioactive molecules with property data	Source of training data and reference compounds for optimization tasks
ECFP/FCFP Fingerprints [15]	Molecular Representation	Capture molecular structure and features	Similarity calculations in objective functions

• JT-VAE Framework: Provides junction tree representation of molecules for validity-guaranteed generation [51].
• Molecular Docking Tools: Evaluate target binding affinity for generated candidates [50].
• Molecular Dynamics Simulation: Validate stable binding interactions for optimized compounds [50].

Application Case Study: Dual-Target Cancer Therapeutics

The practical application of these methodologies is exemplified in the design of dual-target cancer therapeutics against drug resistance mechanisms. ScafVAE has been successfully employed to generate candidates targeting specific resistance pathways while maintaining favorable QED and SA profiles [50].

In one implementation, researchers optimized molecules for strong binding affinity to two target proteins simultaneously, while constraining QED, SA score, and ADMET properties. The optimization workflow incorporated experimentally measured binding affinity data where available, complemented by computational docking scores [50]. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed stable binding interactions for the generated candidates, validating the optimization approach [50].

The following diagram illustrates the specialized workflow for this dual-target optimization application:

Multi-property optimization balancing QED, SA scores, and GuacaMol benchmarks represents a critical advancement in computational drug discovery. Evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods provide powerful frameworks for navigating the complex trade-offs inherent in molecular design, enabling the identification of compounds with balanced profiles of drug-likeness, synthesizability, and target activity.

The integration of scaffold-aware generative models, constrained optimization strategies, and standardized benchmarking creates a robust pipeline for accelerating drug discovery. As these methodologies continue to evolve, particularly through hybrid approaches combining evolutionary algorithms with deep learning, they promise to further enhance our ability to rationally design therapeutics with optimized multi-property characteristics.

The development of effective anti-breast cancer drugs represents a critical multi-objective challenge in modern medicinal chemistry, requiring simultaneous optimization of biological activity against therapeutic targets and favorable absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties. Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally, with its prevalence surpassing lung cancer in 2020 [41]. In China, it ranks fourth in national cancer incidence, following only lung, colorectal, and gastric cancers [41]. While existing treatments targeting estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) have improved patient survival, issues of drug resistance and severe side effects continue to limit their efficacy [52].

Traditional drug discovery approaches often employ linear weighting methods to explore relationships between molecular descriptors and compound properties, but these methods frequently prove inefficient and yield models with significant predictive deviations [41]. Furthermore, these studies typically consider only relationships between individual molecular descriptors and single targets, neglecting the complex interactions among numerous descriptors that occur in actual drug preparation [41].

This case study examines the integration of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods within a complete computational framework for anti-breast cancer drug candidate selection. By combining advanced machine learning with multi-objective optimization algorithms, researchers can efficiently navigate the vast chemical space to identify compounds that optimally balance potency, safety, and pharmacokinetic profiles.

Integrated Computational Framework for Candidate Drug Optimization

The optimization of anti-breast cancer drug candidates requires a systematic computational framework that integrates feature selection, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, and multi-criteria decision analysis. This framework enables researchers to efficiently explore chemical space and identify optimal compounds based on multiple, often conflicting, objectives.

Table 1: Core Components of the Drug Optimization Framework

Framework Component	Key Methodologies	Primary Function
Feature Selection	Unsupervised spectral clustering, Grey Relational Analysis, Spearman correlation, SHAP values [41] [52]	Identifies molecular descriptors with comprehensive information expression and minimal redundancy
Relation Mapping (QSAR Models)	CatBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost, Neural Networks [41] [52]	Constructs predictive relationships between molecular structures and biological activities/ADMET properties
Multi-Objective Optimization	Improved AGE-MOEA, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), VIKOR method [41] [53] [52]	Solves competing optimization objectives to identify Pareto-optimal compounds

The fundamental multi-objective optimization problem in drug discovery can be formally defined as minimizing a vector of objective functions [41]:

where χ represents the solution space, x is a potential solution (compound), f₁(x) to fₘ(x) are the objective functions to be optimized (e.g., biological activity and ADMET properties), and g(x) and h(x) represent inequality and equality constraints, respectively [41].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Feature Selection and Molecular Descriptor Identification

Comprehensive feature selection forms the foundation for robust QSAR models. The following protocol details an effective approach for identifying critical molecular descriptors:

• Data Preprocessing: Remove features with all zero values and apply appropriate normalization techniques to standardize the dataset [52].
• Initial Feature Screening: Apply grey relational analysis to select the 200 molecular descriptors most closely related to biological activity (pIC₅₀ values) [52].
• Redundancy Reduction: Perform Spearman correlation coefficient analysis to identify and remove highly correlated descriptors, retaining approximately 91 features with minimal redundancy [52].
• Final Feature Selection: Implement Random Forest combined with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) value analysis to identify the top 20 molecular descriptors with the most significant impact on biological activity [52].

Table 2: Key Molecular Descriptors for Anti-Breast Cancer Activity Prediction

Descriptor Number	Molecular Descriptor	Descriptor Number	Molecular Descriptor
1	LipoaffinityIndex	11	MEDC-23
2	BCUTc-1l	12	MLogP
3	minsssN	13	minHBint5
4	minHsOH	14	XLogP
5	maxsOH	15	ATSc2
6	ATSc3	16	mindssC
7	nHBAcc	17	MDEO-12
8	BCUTp-1h	18	MAXDP2
9	minsOH	19	ETABetaPs
10	minHBint10	20	C3SP2

An alternative feature selection method based on unsupervised spectral clustering uses correlation coefficient, cosine similarity, and grey correlation degree between features to mine hidden layer relationships from multiple perspectives [41]. After applying spectral clustering algorithms for feature clustering, the sum of weights of edges connected to features within clusters serves as the measure of feature importance for selecting the most informative descriptors [41].

QSAR Model Construction for Activity and ADMET Prediction

The construction of robust QSAR models requires careful algorithm selection and validation:

• Biological Activity (pIC₅₀) Prediction:

  • Employ multiple regression algorithms (LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost) to predict pIC₅₀ values using the selected 20 molecular descriptors [52].
  • Implement ensemble methods (simple averaging, weighted averaging, stacking) to enhance prediction accuracy [52].
  • Validate model performance using R² values, with well-constructed models achieving R² ≥ 0.743 [52].

• ADMET Property Prediction:

  • Apply Random Forest with recursive feature elimination (RFE) to identify 25 important features for each of the five key ADMET properties: Caco-2 (absorption), CYP3A4 (metabolism), hERG (toxicity), HOB (distribution), and MN (toxicity) [52].
  • Construct classification models using multiple algorithms and select optimal performers based on F1 scores and ROC curves [52].
  • Achieve target performance metrics: F1 score of 0.8905 for Caco-2 prediction and 0.9733 for CYP3A4 prediction [52].

Advanced ADMET modeling approaches increasingly incorporate deep learning methodologies. Receptor.AI's platform, for instance, combines Mol2Vec molecular embeddings with curated chemical descriptors processed through multilayer perceptrons to predict 38 human-specific ADMET endpoints [54]. This approach captures complex, structure-driven relationships relevant to pharmacokinetics and toxicity.

Multi-Objective Optimization Implementation

The core optimization process involves balancing biological activity against ADMET properties:

• Single-Objective Optimization Framework:

  • Construct a model to enhance ERα inhibition while satisfying at least three ADMET property constraints [52].
  • Select 106 feature variables with high correlation to both biological activity and ADMET properties identified in previous phases [52].

• Multi-Objective Optimization with PSO:

  • Implement Particle Swarm Optimization for multi-objective optimization search [52].
  • Execute multiple iterations, recording the best solution from each iteration until convergence to optimal value ranges [52].

• Advanced Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis:

  • Implement the VIKOR method to rank compounds on the Pareto front by calculating utility (S) and regret (R) measures [53]:

  • Compute composite Q scores to balance group utility against individual regret [53]:

  • Incorporate preference weighting into the generative chemistry process to direct exploration toward desired regions of chemical space [53].

For problems with conflicting objectives, an improved AGE-MOEA algorithm has demonstrated superior search performance compared to various optimization algorithms [41]. This approach specifically addresses the conflict relationships between the six optimization objectives (biological activity and five ADMET properties).

Workflow Visualization

Anti-Breast Cancer Drug Optimization Workflow

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for Drug Optimization Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function
PharmaBench [55]	Benchmark Dataset	Comprehensive ADMET dataset with 52,482 entries for model training and validation
Receptor.AI ADMET Model [54]	Prediction Platform	Multi-task deep learning model predicting 38 human-specific ADMET endpoints
AIDD [53] [56]	Generative Chemistry Engine	AI-powered drug design with integrated MCDA for multi-parameter optimization
Chemprop [54]	Deep Learning Framework	Message-passing neural networks for molecular property prediction
ADMETlab 3.0 [54]	Web Platform	ADMET prediction with partial multi-task learning for related endpoints
StarDrop [57]	Software Suite	QSAR modeling and ADMET property prediction with Nova module for compound generation

The integration of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods with machine learning-driven QSAR modeling represents a transformative approach to anti-breast cancer drug development. The framework presented in this case study—encompassing sophisticated feature selection, ensemble QSAR modeling, and multi-objective optimization algorithms—enables researchers to systematically navigate complex trade-offs between compound efficacy and safety profiles.

Future advancements in this field will likely focus on several key areas: the development of larger, more standardized ADMET benchmarking datasets [55]; increased incorporation of human-specific metabolic predictions to reduce species translation gaps [54]; enhanced model interpretability through explainable AI techniques [54]; and tighter integration of generative chemistry with multi-criteria decision analysis [53]. As these computational methodologies continue to mature, they promise to significantly accelerate the discovery of effective, safe anti-breast cancer therapeutics while reducing development costs and late-stage attrition rates.

De novo drug design (dnDD) represents a revolutionary approach in pharmaceutical science that involves creating novel drug-like molecules from scratch rather than modifying existing compounds. This process utilizes computational technology to search an immense chemical space of feasible molecules, estimated to contain between 10^23 and 10^60 drug-like structures, to select those with the highest potential to become effective therapeutics [58] [59]. The traditional approach to dnDD, often termed goal-directed design, focuses on progressively constructing or modifying molecules to optimize the value of a fitness function that predicts key molecular properties [59]. However, drug discovery is inherently complex, with candidate molecules potentially failing for multiple reasons including poor pharmacokinetics, lack of efficacy, or toxicity [58]. Effective drugs must balance numerous, sometimes competing objectives where the benefits to patients outweigh potential drawbacks and risks.

Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO) has emerged as a powerful computational framework for addressing these challenges in dnDD. Drawing inspiration from Darwinian evolution and natural selection, EMO algorithms stochastically breed a population of molecular solutions through genetic operations like mutation and crossover [59]. Over successive generations, objective functions exert selective pressure that drives the population toward optimality. Unlike classical search methods that aggregate objective functions into a single metric, EMO can simultaneously optimize multiple conflicting objectives due to its population-based nature, generating a set of non-dominated solutions known as the Pareto front in a single run [1]. These solutions represent optimal trade-offs between competing objectives, such as balancing binding affinity with synthetic accessibility or efficacy with toxicity reduction.

The application of EMO in dnDD has evolved significantly from early methods that focused on single objectives to contemporary approaches that address the many-objective nature of real-world drug design. While multi-objective optimization typically handles up to three objectives, many-objective optimization deals with four or more objectives, which better reflects the complex reality of pharmaceutical development where a good drug candidate must satisfy multiple physio-chemistry properties to ensure drug-likeness, minimal toxicity, and maximal efficacy [60] [1]. This paper explores the integration of EMO methodologies into de novo drug design, examining computational frameworks, experimental protocols, and emerging trends that combine evolutionary algorithms with machine learning for accelerated therapeutic development.

Computational Frameworks and Methodologies

Evolutionary Algorithms for Molecular Optimization

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) represent a class of population-based metaheuristics extensively applied to dnDD challenges. These algorithms maintain a collection of candidate solutions that evolve under specified selection rules toward states that optimize general cost functions [1]. In molecular design, EAs operate on chemical structures, applying genetic operators to explore chemical space while leveraging fitness functions based on predicted molecular properties to guide selection. The Lamarckian evolutionary algorithm for de novo drug design (LEADD) exemplifies this approach, attempting to balance optimization power, synthetic accessibility, and computational efficiency [59]. LEADD represents molecules as graphs of molecular fragments and limits bond formation through knowledge-based pairwise atom type compatibility rules derived from reference libraries of drug-like molecules.

Another significant advancement in EMO for drug design incorporates Lamarckian evolutionary mechanisms that adapt the reproductive behavior of molecules based on previous generations [59]. This approach enables more efficient sampling of chemical space by adjusting evolutionary parameters according to molecular performance history. The fragment-based representation in LEADD increases the likelihood of designing synthetically accessible molecules while novel genetic operators enforce chemical feasibility rules in a computationally efficient manner. Compared to standard virtual screening and conventional evolutionary algorithms, LEADD has demonstrated superior performance in identifying fitter molecules more efficiently while generating structures predicted to be easier to synthesize [59].

The integration of EMO with fragment-based drug discovery has proven particularly valuable. Conventional fragment-based sampling methods employ three principal strategies: growing, linking, and merging to develop binding fragments into complete drug molecules [61]. Growing begins with a single core placed in a protein binding pocket, with subsequent additions of fragments extending the ligand into other regions of the pocket to improve affinity. Linking starts with two fragments occupying different non-overlapping portions of the pocket, connected by a suitable linker that maintains original binding modes. Merging combines two fragments from different but overlapping regions of the pocket, with common structures forming the molecular core [61].

Many-Objective Optimization in Drug Design

While early dnDD efforts often employed single-objective optimization or aggregated multiple objectives through weighted sums, recent approaches recognize that drug design naturally constitutes a many-objective optimization problem (ManyOOP) where more than three objectives must be simultaneously optimized [60] [1]. This paradigm shift acknowledges that successful drug candidates must satisfy numerous physio-chemistry properties to ensure drug-likeness, minimal toxicity, and maximal efficacy. Research indicates that 40-50% of drug candidates fail due to poor efficacy while 10-15% fail from inadequate drug-like properties, highlighting the importance of addressing multiple objectives early in the design process [60].

Advanced many-objective computational intelligence algorithms have shown promising results in dnDD applications. A 2024 study explored six different many-objective metaheuristics based on evolutionary algorithms and particle swarm optimization for designing drug candidates targeting human lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1, a cancer-related protein [60]. The research demonstrated that multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on dominance and decomposition (MOEA/D) performed best in identifying molecules satisfying multiple objectives, including high binding affinity, low toxicity, and high drug-likeness [60]. This framework integrated a latent Transformer-based model for molecular generation with absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) prediction, molecular docking, and many-objective metaheuristics.

The transition from multi-objective to many-objective optimization presents unique computational challenges. As the number of objectives increases, the proportion of non-dominated solutions in a population grows exponentially, reducing selection pressure toward the true Pareto front [1]. Additionally, visualization becomes more difficult, and computational resources required for adequate coverage increase substantially. To address these challenges, researchers have developed specialized many-objective evolutionary algorithms (ManyOEAs) that incorporate techniques like reference points, dimensionality reduction, and quality indicators to maintain selection pressure and diversity in high-dimensional objective spaces [1].

Table 1: Comparison of Multi-Objective and Many-Objective Optimization in De Novo Drug Design

Feature	Multi-Objective Optimization	Many-Objective Optimization
Number of Objectives	2-3 objectives	4 or more objectives
Solution Representation	Pareto front in 2D/3D space	High-dimensional Pareto front
Dominance Relationship	Clear selection pressure	Reduced selection pressure
Primary Challenge	Finding diverse solutions	Approximating high-dimensional Pareto front
Common Algorithms	NSGA-II, SPEA2	NSGA-III, MOEA/D, AGE-MOEA-II
Application Examples	QED, logP, SAS optimization	Binding affinity, ADMET, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility

Hybrid Machine Learning and EMO Approaches

Recent advances in dnDD integrate EMO with deep generative models, creating powerful hybrid approaches for molecular optimization. Reinforcement learning with graph-based deep generative models has emerged as a particularly promising framework for guiding pre-trained generative models toward molecules with specific property profiles, even when such molecules are absent from training data [62]. These approaches fine-tune generative models using policy-gradient reinforcement learning, steering molecular generation toward regions of chemical space with desired characteristics.

Transformer-based architectures have also been combined with EMO for latent space optimization in dnDD. The Regularized Latent Space Optimization (ReLSO) model creates a highly structured latent space that facilitates optimization by incorporating property prediction and regularization penalties [60]. Comparative studies have demonstrated that ReLSO outperforms other latent Transformer models like FragNet in reconstruction accuracy and latent space organization, making it particularly suitable for many-objective molecular optimization [60]. These hybrid frameworks enable efficient exploration of chemical space by performing evolutionary operations in the continuous latent representations of molecules rather than directly on molecular structures.

Another innovative approach combines evolutionary algorithms with transfer learning, where models pre-trained on general chemical databases are fine-tuned for specific therapeutic targets [62]. This strategy leverages both the broad chemical knowledge encoded during pre-training and the target-specific optimization capabilities of EMO. The integration of deep generative models with many-objective evolutionary algorithms represents a paradigm shift in dnDD, enabling simultaneous optimization of numerous molecular properties while maintaining structural validity and synthetic accessibility.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Molecular Representation and Initialization

The foundation of successful EMO in dnDD lies in effective molecular representation. In protocols like LEADD, molecules are represented internally as meta-graphs where each vertex corresponds to a molecular fragment graph, and edges describe connector bindings between fragments [59]. This representation balances descriptive power with computational efficiency, enabling the application of genetic operators while preserving chemical meaningfulness. The fragment library is typically created by decomposing a virtual library of drug-like molecules into molecular subgraphs, with rings systems treated as indivisible fragments to maintain complex cyclic structures [59].

Connection compatibility rules define which fragments can be bonded and how, enforcing synthetic feasibility during molecular construction. Two predominant compatibility definitions are employed: strict compatibility requires that connections have identical bond types and mirrored atom types, preserving connectivity from source molecules; while lax compatibility requires identical bond types and atom types that have been observed paired in any source molecule connection [59]. These rules significantly impact the diversity and synthetic accessibility of generated molecules, with strict rules favoring more conservative designs and lax rules enabling greater exploration at the cost of potentially reduced synthesizability.

Population initialization typically involves generating an initial set of molecules through random combination of compatible fragments or seeding with known active compounds. The chromosomal representation encodes molecular graphs as genotypes, with genetic operators acting on these representations to create offspring [59]. The initial population size is a critical parameter, balancing diversity maintenance with computational efficiency, with typical population sizes ranging from hundreds to thousands of molecules depending on the complexity of the optimization problem.

Fitness Evaluation and Multi-Objective Selection

Fitness calculation in EMO for dnDD involves evaluating candidate molecules against multiple objective functions, which may include predicted binding affinity, drug-likeness metrics, toxicity estimates, and synthetic accessibility scores. Advanced frameworks incorporate ADMET prediction and molecular docking scores as objectives, providing a comprehensive pharmacological profile during optimization [60]. The selection process employs Pareto-based ranking to identify non-dominated solutions that form the compromise surface between competing objectives [58].

The Pareto-ranking process identifies solutions where improvement in one objective necessitates deterioration in another, creating the Pareto front that represents optimal trade-offs [58]. For many-objective problems with more than three objectives, specialized algorithms like NSGA-III or MOEA/D employ reference points or decomposition techniques to maintain selection pressure and diversity [60] [1]. These approaches have demonstrated superior performance in finding molecules that satisfy complex objective combinations compared to scalarization methods that aggregate multiple objectives into a single weighted function [60].

Recent protocols have integrated surrogate models to reduce computational costs associated with expensive objective functions like molecular dynamics simulations or precise docking calculations [61]. These machine learning models approximate fitness landscapes, enabling more efficient exploration of chemical space. The surrogate model-assisted molecular dynamics (SMA-MD) approach combines deep generative models with statistical re-weighting and short molecular dynamics simulations to generate equilibrium ensembles of molecules [62], demonstrating how hybrid ML-EMO approaches accelerate the evaluation process.

Genetic Operators and Lamarckian Adaptation

Genetic operators in EMO for dnDD include mutation and crossover operations adapted for molecular graphs. Mutation operators may modify molecular structure through fragment substitution, bond alteration, or structural rearrangement, while crossover operators recombine parental molecules to create novel offspring [59]. These operators enforce chemical feasibility through connection compatibility rules, ensuring that generated molecules conform to known chemical bonding patterns.

Lamarckian evolutionary mechanisms adapt the reproductive behavior of molecules based on their optimization history, enhancing search efficiency [59]. In this approach, molecules that successfully improve certain objectives may have their genetic parameters adjusted to favor similar modifications in future generations. This adaptive reproductive behavior enables more efficient exploration of promising regions in chemical space while maintaining diversity through mechanisms like crowding distance calculations or niche preservation.

The experimental workflow typically proceeds through multiple generations of selection, reproduction, and evaluation, with elite preservation ensuring that high-performing solutions are maintained across generations. Termination criteria may include convergence metrics, maximum generation counts, or achievement of target objective values. Post-processing involves selecting final candidates from the Pareto front based on additional criteria or decision-maker preferences, followed by in-depth validation through docking studies, molecular dynamics simulations, or experimental testing [61].

Table 2: Key Objective Functions in Evolutionary Multi-Objective Drug Design

Objective Category	Specific Metrics	Optimization Direction	Evaluation Method
Binding Affinity	Docking score, MM/GBSA, Binding energy	Minimize	Molecular docking, Free energy calculations
Drug-Likeness	QED, Lipinski's Rule of Five	Maximize	Computational prediction
Pharmacokinetics	logP, logD, Solubility	Optimize to range	QSPR models
Toxicity	hERG inhibition, Ames test prediction	Minimize	Machine learning classifiers
Synthetic Accessibility	SAscore, Retrosynthetic complexity	Minimize	Rule-based or ML-based prediction
Specificity	Off-target binding affinity	Minimize	Multi-target docking

Visualization of EMO Workflow in De Novo Drug Design

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow of evolutionary multi-objective optimization for de novo drug design, highlighting the key stages and iterative nature of the process:

Molecular Optimization Workflow

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The experimental implementation of EMO for dnDD requires both computational tools and conceptual frameworks. The following table details key "research reagent solutions" essential for conducting de novo drug design with evolutionary multi-objective optimization:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for EMO in De Novo Drug Design

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Workflow
Fragment Libraries	ZINC fragments, COCONUT, GDB-17	Provide molecular building blocks for construction
Property Prediction	QED, SAscore, ADMET predictors	Evaluate multiple objective functions for fitness
Docking Software	AutoDock, Vina, DOCK, Glide	Assess binding affinity and protein-ligand interactions
Evolutionary Algorithms	LEADD, NSGA-II/III, MOEA/D, AGE-MOEA-II	Perform multi-objective optimization
Generative Models	ReLSO, FragNet, Graph Neural Networks	Create molecular representations and latent spaces
Chemical Representation	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular graphs	Encode chemical structures for computational processing
Analysis Tools	RDKit, OpenBabel, Cheminformatics libraries	Process, analyze, and visualize chemical data

Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization has transformed de novo drug design by providing robust computational frameworks for balancing multiple competing objectives in molecular design. The integration of EMO with fragment-based approaches, deep generative models, and many-objective optimization techniques has enabled efficient exploration of vast chemical spaces while maintaining synthetic feasibility and pharmacological promise. The emerging paradigm of many-objective optimization more accurately reflects the complex reality of drug development, where successful candidates must simultaneously satisfy numerous property constraints [60] [1].

Future research directions point toward increased integration of transformer architectures with many-objective evolutionary algorithms, creating more structured latent spaces for molecular optimization [60]. Additionally, the combination of EMO with reinforcement learning frameworks shows promise for guiding generative models toward specific property profiles [62]. As these methodologies mature, their potential to accelerate the discovery of innovative therapeutics while reducing development costs represents a significant advancement in computational drug discovery.

The application of many-objective EMO in dnDD also serves as a catalyst for methodological developments in evolutionary computation more broadly, driving innovations in high-dimensional optimization, diversity maintenance, and computational efficiency [1]. As these frameworks continue to evolve, they hold tremendous potential for addressing complex therapeutic challenges, including multi-target drug design and personalized medicine approaches, ultimately transforming the landscape of pharmaceutical development.

The hybridization of machine learning (ML) and evolutionary algorithms (EA) has emerged as a prominent research area, fundamentally transforming how complex optimization problems are approached across scientific and engineering disciplines [63]. This paradigm leverages the complementary strengths of both methodologies: evolutionary algorithms excel at exploring vast, complex search spaces to find near-optimal solutions through population-based stochastic search, while machine learning techniques, particularly deep learning models, provide powerful pattern recognition, prediction capabilities, and data-driven guidance [63] [64]. The advent of deep neural networks (DNN) and large language models (LLM) has significantly expanded the scope and effectiveness of these hybridization algorithms, enabling the resolution of previously intractable problems through iterative learning and optimization processes [63]. In evolutionary multi-criteria optimization, which involves simultaneously optimizing multiple conflicting objectives, these hybrid approaches have proven particularly valuable for navigating complex trade-off surfaces and generating diverse, high-quality solutions [3].

The synergy between ML and EA manifests in multiple dimensions. Machine learning can automate and enhance various components of evolutionary algorithms, serving as surrogate models to accelerate fitness evaluation, guiding population initialization, or adapting operator selection based on learned patterns [63]. Conversely, evolutionary algorithms can optimize machine learning pipelines by performing neural architecture search (NAS), tuning hyperparameters, selecting features, or even evolving complete model structures [63] [64]. This bidirectional relationship creates a powerful framework for addressing complex real-world problems where traditional methods struggle with scalability, complexity, or multiple competing objectives [3]. The flexibility of this hybrid approach presents diverse possibilities for algorithm design, facilitating widespread adoption across domains ranging from drug discovery to renewable energy systems [3] [65].

Fundamental Hybridization Paradigms

Machine Learning for Enhanced Evolutionary Algorithms

ML techniques can significantly improve EA performance by addressing their primary computational bottlenecks and enhancing their search capabilities. Key approaches include:

• Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms: Replace computationally expensive fitness evaluations with machine learning models trained on available data [63]. These surrogates approximate the fitness landscape, allowing EAs to explore solutions more efficiently. When strategically combined with periodic exact evaluations, this approach dramatically reduces computational costs while maintaining solution quality.

• Learning-based Operator Adaptation: ML models can analyze search progression and dynamically adapt evolutionary operators (crossover, mutation) to improve performance [64]. By learning which operators work best in different regions of the search space or at different stages of evolution, these systems achieve more efficient exploration-exploitation balance.

• LLM-Guided EA Initialization and Variation: Large language models can generate promising initial populations or suggest meaningful variations by leveraging their encoded knowledge of successful solution patterns [63]. This is particularly valuable in domains with complex structural constraints, such as molecular design or program synthesis.

Evolutionary Algorithms for Enhanced Machine Learning

Evolutionary computation provides powerful mechanisms for optimizing various aspects of machine learning systems:

• Evolutionary Neural Architecture Search (NAS): EAs automatically discover high-performing neural network architectures by evolving network topologies, connection patterns, and operation types [63]. Population-based approaches enable exploring diverse architectural motifs that might be overlooked by gradient-based methods.

• Hyperparameter Optimization: EAs efficiently navigate complex hyperparameter spaces, handling discrete, continuous, and conditional parameters more effectively than grid or random search [63] [64]. Multi-objective EAs can simultaneously optimize multiple performance metrics like accuracy, model size, and inference speed.

• Feature Selection and Engineering: Evolutionary approaches identify optimal feature subsets and generate new informative features through transformation and combination operations [64]. This enhances model performance while improving interpretability and reducing computational requirements.

Table 1: Taxonomy of ML-EA Hybridization Approaches

Hybridization Type	Key Mechanisms	Primary Benefits	Representative Applications
ML-Enhanced EA	Surrogate models, Adaptive operator selection, LLM-guided generation	Reduced computational cost, Improved convergence, Better constraint handling	Numerical optimization, Structural design, Scheduling problems
EA-Enhanced ML	Neural architecture search, Hyperparameter optimization, Feature engineering	Automated machine learning, Enhanced model performance, Reduced manual design effort	Drug discovery, Image recognition, Predictive modeling
Fully Integrated	Co-evolutionary systems, Deep reinforcement learning with EA	Complex pattern learning, Adaptive behavior, Multi-objective decision making	Robotics, Autonomous systems, Game playing

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Frameworks

Evolutionary Molecular Design with Deep Learning

A representative experimental protocol demonstrating ML-EA integration is the evolutionary molecular design framework, which combines genetic algorithms with deep learning for de novo drug discovery [65]. This approach addresses key challenges in evolutionary design: maintaining chemical validity during evolution and efficiently evaluating candidate molecules.

Workflow Methodology:

• Encoding: Molecular structures in SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) format are converted into extended-connectivity fingerprint (ECFP) vectors using an encoding function e(∙). The ECFP is a circular topological fingerprint that captures structural features through a hashing process, resulting in a fixed-length 5000-dimensional bit-string representation [65].

• Evolution: The genetic algorithm operates directly on the fingerprint vectors. Initial population generation begins with mutation of seed molecule fingerprints. Evolutionary operations include:

  • Mutation: Random modification of fingerprint bits to introduce structural variations
  • Crossover: Combination of fingerprint segments from parent molecules to create offspring
  • Selection: Tournament or fitness-proportional selection based on predicted properties

• Decoding: Evolved fingerprint vectors are converted back into valid molecular structures using a recurrent neural network (RNN) decoder. The RNN, specifically a long short-term memory (LSTM) network with three hidden layers of 500 units, generates grammatically correct SMILES strings character by character, conditioned on the input fingerprint vector [65].

• Fitness Evaluation: A deep neural network (DNN) predictor estimates target properties (e.g., absorption wavelength, binding affinity) from the ECFP vectors. The five-layer DNN with 250 hidden units per layer is pre-trained on quantum chemical calculations or experimental data [65].

• Validity Checking: The RDKit chemistry toolkit validates chemical correctness of decoded structures, checking for proper valence, ring closures, and syntactic validity. Molecules containing blacklisted substructures or violating structural constraints are eliminated [65].

Diagram 1: Evolutionary molecular design workflow

Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization with Surrogate Assistance

For complex multi-criteria optimization problems, a hybrid ML-EA methodology combines surrogate-assisted evolution with Pareto-based selection:

Algorithm Configuration:

• Population Structure: Maintains an archive of non-dominated solutions and an active population of candidates. Diversity preservation uses niching or clustering in objective space [3].

• Surrogate Management: Employs an ensemble of machine learning models (DNNs, support vector machines) to approximate different objectives. Uncertainty estimates guide model refinement and infrequent exact evaluations [3].

• Adaptive Resource Allocation: Allocates more computational resources to promising regions and solutions with high predictive uncertainty. Active learning strategies select informative points for exact evaluation to improve surrogate models [3].

Implementation Details:

The algorithm iterates through initialization, surrogate training, evolutionary search, and model update phases. In each generation, offspring are generated through variation operators, evaluated by surrogates, and ranked using Pareto dominance. A reference point-based approach or decomposition method handles many-objective problems [3].

Domain Applications and Performance Analysis

Molecular Design and Drug Discovery

In pharmaceutical applications, the ML-EA hybrid framework has demonstrated significant improvements in designing novel molecular structures with optimized properties. Experimental results from evolutionary molecular design show successful modification of light-absorbing wavelengths of organic molecules from the PubChem library [65]. The hybrid approach maintained chemical validity throughout evolution while efficiently exploring structural spaces to achieve target optical properties.

Table 2: Performance Metrics in Molecular Design Applications

Metric	Traditional EA	ML-EA Hybrid	Improvement
Chemical Validity Rate	65-80%	92-98%	+35% relative
Function Evaluations per Valid Solution	150-300	40-80	-70%
Novelty of Generated Structures	Medium	High	Expanded chemical space
Optimization Convergence Speed	Baseline	3-5x faster	Significant acceleration

The hybrid method's effectiveness stems from the deep learning models' ability to extract implicit chemical knowledge from large molecular databases, guiding the evolutionary search toward synthetically feasible regions of chemical space while avoiding invalid structures [65]. This approach has been validated in designing molecules with specific absorption characteristics, with evolved structures demonstrating novel scaffolds while maintaining desired electronic properties.

Engineering and Logistics Optimization

In engineering domains, hybrid ML-EA methods have addressed complex multi-objective problems including:

• Renewable Energy Systems: Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms optimized standalone hybrid renewable energy system configurations, balancing cost, reliability, and environmental impact [3]. ML surrogates accelerated performance evaluations across multiple scenarios with undetermined probabilities.

• Logistics and Vehicle Routing: Improved intelligent auction mechanisms solved multi-trip, time-dependent, dynamic vehicle routing problems with split delivery constraints [3]. Learning techniques adapted algorithms to dynamic conditions.

• Port Energy-Logistics Coordination: Energy-logistics collaborative optimization tapped the potential of port-integrated energy systems, with EAs optimizing scheduling and ML predicting energy demands and operational constraints [3].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of ML-EA hybrid approaches requires specific computational tools and frameworks that serve as essential "research reagents" in this domain.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for ML-EA Hybridization

Tool Category	Specific Technologies	Function	Application Context
Evolutionary Computation Frameworks	DEAP, Platypus, jMetal	Provide EA components and multi-objective optimization capabilities	Algorithm development and benchmarking
Machine Learning Libraries	TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-learn	Implement surrogate models, property predictors, and adaptive controllers	Deep learning surrogates, pattern recognition
Chemical Informatics Toolkits	RDKit, OpenBabel	Handle molecular representations, fingerprint generation, and chemical validity checks	Molecular design and drug discovery applications
Multi-objective Optimization Tools	Pymoo, MOEA Framework	Implement Pareto-based selection, reference point methods, and performance metrics	Evolutionary multi-criteria optimization
High-Performance Computing	MPI, CUDA, Cloud Platforms	Distribute fitness evaluations and model training across computational resources	Large-scale optimization problems

Future Directions and Research Challenges

The integration of machine learning with evolutionary algorithms continues to evolve, with several promising research directions emerging. Large language model guidance represents a frontier where LLMs' encoded knowledge and generative capabilities enhance evolutionary search [63]. In molecular design, LLMs can suggest chemically plausible transformations and evaluate synthetic accessibility, complementing numerical fitness evaluation.

Another significant direction involves multi-fidelity optimization, where ML models integrate information from inexpensive low-fidelity simulations (e.g., molecular mechanics) with costly high-fidelity calculations (e.g., density functional theory) [65]. This approach maximizes information gain per computational resource, particularly valuable in domains like drug discovery where high-fidelity evaluation remains expensive.

Transfer learning and meta-learning approaches enable models trained on related problems to accelerate optimization on new tasks [64]. By extracting general patterns of effective search strategies, these systems demonstrate increasing efficiency across problem instances, reducing the need for extensive function evaluations.

However, significant challenges remain, including the curse of dimensionality in many-objective problems, theoretical foundations for hybrid algorithm convergence, and interpretability of ML-guided decisions. Addressing these challenges will require continued collaboration between the optimization, machine learning, and domain application communities to realize the full potential of hybrid ML-EA approaches [63] [64].

Diagram 2: Future research directions and challenges

Addressing EMO Challenges and Optimization Strategies for Complex Molecular Problems

Overcoming High-Dimensional Objective Space Limitations

The optimization of problems with high-dimensional objective spaces, often characterized by numerous competing criteria, presents a significant challenge in fields such as drug development, engineering design, and complex systems modeling. Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO) algorithms have emerged as powerful tools for addressing these problems, but their effectiveness diminishes as the number of objectives increases—a phenomenon known as the "curse of dimensionality" in objective space [66]. This limitation manifests through several critical issues: the loss of selection pressure toward the Pareto front, exponential growth in the computational resources required, and difficulties in visualizing and interpreting results [3]. Within the broader context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods and applications research, overcoming these limitations is paramount for advancing our capability to solve real-world, complex problems. This technical guide comprehensively examines the state-of-the-art methodologies, experimental protocols, and computational tools enabling researchers to effectively navigate and conquer high-dimensional objective spaces.

Fundamental Challenges in High-Dimensional Objective Spaces

The challenges presented by high-dimensional objective spaces are fundamental and multifaceted. As the number of objectives increases, the selection pressure in evolutionary algorithms diminishes because most solutions in a randomly initialized population become non-dominated with respect to each other [66]. This stagnation severely impedes convergence toward the true Pareto front. Additionally, the computational cost required to approximate the Pareto front grows exponentially with the number of objectives, creating substantial resource demands [67]. This computational burden is further exacerbated when dealing with expensive function evaluations, such as complex simulations or physical experiments, which are common in scientific and engineering domains [66]. Furthermore, the visualization and interpretation of high-dimensional Pareto fronts present significant cognitive challenges for decision-makers, complicating the final solution selection process [3]. These collective challenges necessitate specialized algorithms and techniques specifically designed to address the peculiarities of high-dimensional objective spaces.

Algorithmic Approaches and Methodologies

Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms

Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in tackling high-dimensional expensive multi/many-objective optimization problems (HEMOPs) by reducing the computational burden of expensive function evaluations. These methods construct computational models that approximate the landscape of the objective functions, allowing the evolutionary algorithm to operate with fewer actual evaluations [67] [66]. The fundamental insight behind SAEAs is that although problem dimensionality may be high, the effective intrinsic dimensionality is often lower, enabling the construction of accurate surrogate models in reduced spaces [67].

Advanced SAEAs incorporate sophisticated dimensionality reduction techniques to enhance surrogate model accuracy. The dimensionality reduction framework typically includes feature extraction algorithms and feature drift strategies that map high-dimensional decision spaces into lower-dimensional representations, significantly improving surrogate robustness [67]. For instance, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) has been successfully integrated into algorithms like SA-RVEA-PCA to build Gaussian process models for problems with up to 160 decision variables [67]. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques, such as Sammon mapping, have also been employed to preserve essential structural information from the original space [67].

Recent innovations in SAEAs include adaptive local region search mechanisms that dynamically identify and partition promising regions in the high-dimensional space [68]. The AS-SMEA algorithm exemplifies this approach by employing a Covariance Matrix Adaptation-based method for initializing and updating local regions, combined with a Multi-Armed Bandit-guided adaptive selection mechanism for balancing exploration and exploitation [68]. Theoretical analysis based on cumulative hypervolume regret has established the global convergence of such approaches, providing mathematical foundations for their efficacy [68].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms

Algorithm	Key Mechanism	Dimensionality Capability	Application Context
MOEA/D-FEF	Dimensionality reduction with feature extraction framework and sub-region search	High-dimensional expensive MOPs/MaOPs	General expensive optimization problems [67]
AS-SMEA	Adaptive local region search with CMA and Multi-Armed Bandit selection	High-dimensional expensive MOPs	Scientific and engineering domains, VLSI design [68]
SA-RVEA-PCA	Gaussian process model with PCA dimensionality reduction	Up to 160 decision variables	Expensive optimization problems [67]
HeE-MOEA	Ensemble surrogates with multiple feature groups	High-dimensional spaces	General high-dimensional optimization [67]
GPEME	Kriging model-assisted MOEA/D with PCA and Sammon mapping	Up to 50 dimensions	Expensive optimization problems [67]

Decomposition and Objective Reduction Techniques

Decomposition-based approaches transform a multi-objective problem into a collection of single-objective subproblems, which are optimized simultaneously. This methodology, exemplified by the MOEA/D (Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on Decomposition) framework, has been extended to handle high-dimensional objective spaces through sophisticated weighting strategies and cooperative optimization mechanisms [67]. The fundamental premise is that by decomposing the complex problem into simpler components, the algorithm can maintain effective selection pressure even when facing many objectives.

Objective reduction techniques represent another crucial strategy for addressing high-dimensionality. These methods identify redundant or correlated objectives that can be eliminated or combined without substantially altering the Pareto dominance structure. The minimum objective subset problem involves finding the smallest set of objectives that preserve the dominance relationships between solutions [66]. Principal Component Analysis can be applied to objective reduction by identifying linear combinations of objectives that capture the essential trade-offs [67]. Non-linear dimensionality reduction techniques have also been explored to capture more complex dependencies between objectives [67].

Reference Set-Based and Indicator-Based Selection

Reference set-based methods, including reference direction and reference point approaches, help focus the search on relevant regions of the high-dimensional Pareto front. These techniques incorporate preference information to guide the optimization process toward areas of interest to the decision-maker, effectively reducing the perceived complexity of the objective space [66]. The use of achievement scalarizing functions as the basis for selection has shown particular promise in maintaining diversity and convergence in many-objective optimization [66].

Indicator-based selection mechanisms employ quality indicators, such as hypervolume or R2, to drive the evolutionary process. The hypervolume indicator, which measures the volume of objective space dominated by a solution set, has proven particularly valuable for high-dimensional optimization despite its computational complexity [66]. Recent developments in efficient hypervolume approximation have made this approach feasible for problems with larger numbers of objectives [68]. Indicator-based algorithms automatically balance convergence and diversity without requiring excessively large population sizes, making them suitable for high-dimensional objective spaces [66].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Standardized Benchmarking Frameworks

Rigorous experimental protocols are essential for validating the performance of algorithms designed for high-dimensional objective spaces. The BO4Mob benchmark framework provides a standardized evaluation environment specifically designed for high-dimensional optimization problems, featuring five road network instances based on real-world San Jose, CA road networks with input dimensions scaling up to 10,100 [69]. These scenarios utilize high-resolution, open-source traffic simulations (SUMO simulator) that incorporate realistic nonlinear and stochastic dynamics, providing a robust testing ground for optimization algorithms [69].

The CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark suites, particularly the CEC2017 benchmark used in QUASAR evaluation, offer another standardized testing framework comprising 29 functions with diverse characteristics [70]. These benchmarks include unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions that challenge different aspects of algorithm performance. When evaluating algorithms on these benchmarks, the experimental protocol should include multiple independent runs (typically 25-31) to account for stochastic variations, with strict limitations on the number of function evaluations to assess sample efficiency [70].

Performance Metrics and Statistical Testing

Comprehensive performance assessment requires multiple quality metrics to evaluate different aspects of algorithm behavior. The hypervolume indicator remains the most widely used metric as it simultaneously measures convergence and diversity [68]. Inverted Generational Distance (IGD) and its variant IGD+ provide complementary assessments of convergence toward the true Pareto front [66]. For many-objective optimization, the R2 indicator and its variants offer computationally efficient alternatives to hypervolume [66].

Statistical analysis is crucial for drawing meaningful conclusions from experimental results. The Friedman test with corresponding post-hoc analysis is recommended for comparing multiple algorithms across several problem instances [70]. This non-parametric statistical test ranks algorithms for each problem instance, then compares the average ranks across all instances. For pairwise comparisons, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test provides a robust method for detecting significant performance differences [70].

Table 2: Key Performance Metrics for High-Dimensional Objective Space Optimization

Metric	Measurement Focus	Computational Complexity	Interpretation
Hypervolume	Convergence and diversity	High (exponential in objectives)	Higher values indicate better performance [68]
Inverted Generational Distance (IGD)	Convergence to Pareto front	Moderate	Lower values indicate better performance [66]
R2 Indicator	Convergence and diversity	Low	Lower values indicate better performance [66]
Spread	Diversity distribution	Moderate	Balanced distribution across objectives is preferred [66]
Cumulative Hypervolume Regret	Convergence over time	High	Lower values indicate better performance [68]

Visualization and Decision-Making in High-Dimensional Spaces

Effective visualization techniques are essential for interpreting optimization results in high-dimensional objective spaces. Parallel coordinate plots remain one of the most practical tools for visualizing high-dimensional Pareto fronts, with each objective represented as a vertical axis and solutions depicted as polylines crossing these axes [66]. This representation enables decision-makers to identify trade-offs between objectives and understand the correlations between different objective values across the solution set.

Scatter plot matrices (SPLOMs) provide another valuable visualization approach by displaying pairwise two-dimensional projections of the objective space [66]. While this technique does not directly visualize the high-dimensional space, it facilitates the identification of local trade-offs and conflicts between specific objective pairs. Dimension reduction techniques, such as Principal Component Analysis and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), can also be applied to project high-dimensional Pareto fronts to two or three dimensions for visualization while preserving as much structural information as possible [67].

The ultimate goal of multi-objective optimization is to support decision-making, which becomes increasingly challenging in high-dimensional spaces. Interactive decision-making approaches that allow decision-makers to dynamically explore the Pareto front and express preferences during or after the optimization process have shown particular promise [3]. These approaches may incorporate preference models, such as value functions or reference points, to focus computational resources on relevant regions of the objective space, effectively reducing the cognitive load on decision-makers [66].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for High-Dimensional Optimization Research

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
SUMO Simulator	High-resolution traffic simulation for benchmark creation	Urban mobility optimization, origin-destination demand estimation [69]
BO4Mob Benchmark	Standardized testing framework for high-dimensional BO	Algorithm development and comparison [69]
CEC Benchmark Suites	Standardized test functions with diverse characteristics	General algorithm performance assessment [70]
Gaussian Process Models	Probabilistic surrogate modeling	Expensive function approximation in SAEAs [67] [69]
Dimensionality Reduction (PCA)	Feature extraction and objective reduction	Handling high-dimensional decision/objective spaces [67]

The challenge of overcoming high-dimensional objective space limitations in evolutionary multi-criteria optimization requires a multifaceted approach combining algorithmic innovations, sophisticated computational frameworks, and effective visualization techniques. Surrogate-assisted evolution, decomposition methods, objective reduction techniques, and indicator-based selection have all demonstrated significant potential for addressing the curse of dimensionality in objective space. The continued development of standardized benchmarking frameworks and rigorous experimental protocols remains essential for advancing the field. As research in this domain progresses, the integration of machine learning techniques with evolutionary algorithms shows particular promise for creating more efficient and effective optimization methodologies capable of tackling the complex, high-dimensional problems encountered in scientific and industrial applications.

In the field of drug discovery, the optimization of candidate molecules represents a critical and complex challenge, inherently characterized by multiple, conflicting objectives. Researchers must simultaneously enhance desirable biological activity while minimizing toxicity and ensuring synthesizability, objectives which are often directly opposed [1]. For decades, the traditional approach relied heavily on iterative experimental cycles—Design–Synthesis–Test–Analysis (DSTA)—a process noted for being time-consuming, costly, and risky [15]. The core of the problem lies in navigating an immense chemical space, estimated to contain approximately 10^60 molecules, to find those rare candidates that optimally balance these competing demands [15]. This document frames this fundamental problem within the context of Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO), a branch of computational intelligence that provides a powerful framework for addressing such multi-faceted challenges. EMO methods, particularly Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs), have emerged as indispensable tools for identifying optimal trade-offs, presenting researchers with a set of candidate solutions that represent the best possible compromises among activity, toxicity, and synthesizability [3] [1].

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization: A Foundation for Molecular Design

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are population-based metaheuristics inspired by natural selection. A collection of candidate solutions (in this case, molecular structures) evolves over generations under specified selection rules toward states that optimize a set of objective functions [1]. Their population-based nature makes EAs uniquely suited for Multi-Objective Optimization Problems (MOOPs), as they can approximate an entire set of non-dominated solutions—the Pareto front—in a single run [1]. Solutions on the Pareto front are those where no objective can be improved without degrading at least one other objective [71]. When a problem involves more than three objectives, it is often classified as a Many-Objective Optimization Problem (ManyOOP), which introduces additional challenges and requires specialized algorithms [1].

The field of Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization has seen significant advancements, including the integration of EMO with Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) to better support final decision-making, and the development of hybrid algorithms that combine evolutionary search with machine learning and other metaheuristics [3] [72]. These methods are being applied to a growing number of real-world problems, from engineering and economics to advanced analytics and drug design [3] [72].

Core Methodologies and Algorithms

This section details the primary algorithmic strategies employed in multi-objective molecular optimization, providing a technical foundation for understanding their application.

Algorithmic Frameworks for Multi-Objective Optimization

• NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II): A highly influential and widely used MOEA, NSGA-II employs a mechanism called non-dominated sorting to rank solutions based on Pareto dominance. To maintain a diverse set of solutions and prevent convergence to a single region of the objective space, it uses a crowding distance metric. This metric estimates the density of solutions surrounding a particular point in the objective space, privilesing solutions in less crowded regions [41]. Its efficiency and effectiveness in maintaining population diversity have made it a benchmark algorithm [15].
• Decomposition-Based Approaches (e.g., AGE-MOEA): These methods break down a multi-objective problem into a collection of single-objective subproblems, often using a set of weight vectors to scalarize the objectives. The AGE-MOEA algorithm is an example that has been improved and successfully applied to complex drug optimization tasks, such as in the study of anti-breast cancer candidate drugs, where it demonstrated superior search performance [41].
• Hybrid and Improved Algorithms (e.g., MoGA-TA): Recent research focuses on enhancing classic EAs with problem-specific knowledge. The MoGA-TA algorithm is one such innovation, designed explicitly for drug molecule optimization [15]. It introduces two key modifications to the NSGA-II framework:
  • Tanimoto Similarity-Based Crowding Distance: Replaces the standard Euclidean crowding distance with a measure based on the Tanimoto coefficient, a metric widely used in cheminformatics to quantify molecular structural similarity. This allows the algorithm to more accurately capture structural diversity within the population, guiding the exploration of chemical space more effectively and preventing premature convergence to local optima [15].
  • Dynamic Acceptance Probability Population Update: This strategy balances exploration (searching new areas of chemical space) and exploitation (refining known good solutions) during evolution. In early generations, a higher acceptance probability for new solutions encourages broad exploration. As evolution progresses, the probability decreases, allowing the algorithm to retain superior individuals and converge toward the global optimum [15].

Workflow of an Evolutionary Molecular Optimization Algorithm

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow of an evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective molecular optimization, integrating the key components discussed above.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 1: Key computational tools and resources for multi-objective molecular optimization.

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function in Optimization	Example Use Case
RDKit [15]	Open-Source Cheminformatics Library	Calculates molecular descriptors (e.g., TPSA, logP), fingerprints (ECFP, FCFP, AP), and performs chemical operations.	Featurizing molecules for property prediction and similarity calculation.
GuacaMol [15]	Benchmarking Platform	Provides standardized tasks and scoring functions for evaluating generative models and optimization algorithms.	Benchmarking the performance of MoGA-TA against other algorithms on tasks like optimizing Fexofenadine-like molecules.
ChEMBL [15]	Bioactivity Database	A large-scale, open-access repository of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties. Used as a source of training data and initial lead compounds.	Sourcing molecular structures and associated property data for initializing a population or training a QSAR model.
QSAR Model [41]	Predictive Machine Learning Model	Maps molecular descriptors to biological activity or ADMET properties, acting as a surrogate for expensive lab tests.	Predicting the PIC₅₀ or toxicity of a candidate molecule during the evaluation phase of an EA.
CatBoost Algorithm [41]	Machine Learning Algorithm	A high-performance gradient boosting library effective for building accurate QSAR models from structured data.	Serving as the relation mapping engine in a compound selection framework to predict biological activity and ADMET properties.

Quantitative Benchmarking of Optimization Algorithms

To validate the efficacy of any optimization algorithm, rigorous benchmarking against standardized tasks is essential. The following table summarizes quantitative results from a recent study that evaluated the MoGA-TA algorithm against NSGA-II and GB-EPI on several multi-objective molecular optimization tasks derived from the GuacaMol framework [15].

Table 2: Benchmark tasks and objectives for multi-objective molecular optimization algorithms. [15]

Benchmark Task	Target Molecule	Optimization Objectives	Reported Performance of MoGA-TA
Task 1	Fexofenadine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP	MoGA-TA performed better in drug molecule optimization and significantly improved efficiency and success rate compared to baseline methods.
Task 2	Pioglitazone	Tanimoto similarity (ECFP4), Molecular Weight, Number of Rotatable Bonds
Task 3	Osimertinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4), Tanimoto similarity (FCFP6), TPSA, logP
Task 4	Ranolazine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP, Number of Fluorine Atoms
Task 5	Cobimetinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4), Tanimoto similarity (ECFP6), Number of Rotatable Bonds, Number of Aromatic Rings, CNS
Task 6	DAP kinases	DAPk1, DRP1, ZIPk, QED, logP

Detailed Experimental Protocol: A Case Study in Anti-Breast Cancer Drug Discovery

This section outlines a detailed experimental protocol based on a published study that applied an improved multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to the optimization of anti-breast cancer candidate drugs [41]. This provides a concrete example of how the conflicting properties of activity and toxicity are managed in a real-world research scenario.

Problem Formulation and Objective Definition

The study aimed to optimize compound candidates for anti-breast cancer therapy by simultaneously considering six key objectives derived from a Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) framework [41]:

• Maximize Biological Activity: Expressed as the negative logarithm of the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (PIC₅₀).
• Optimize Five Key ADMET Properties: These are critical for predicting the toxicity and pharmacokinetic profile of a molecule. The specific properties optimized were Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity.

This constitutes a many-objective optimization problem (ManyOOP), as it involves more than three objectives. Before applying the optimization algorithm, the researchers conducted a conflict analysis to understand the relationships between these six objectives [41].

Methodology and Workflow

The experimental workflow can be broken down into three major phases, as illustrated below.

Phase 1: Unsupervised Feature Selection [41]

• Objective: Reduce the high dimensionality of molecular descriptor data and select a feature subset with minimal redundancy and comprehensive information expression.
• Protocol: A feature selection method based on unsupervised spectral clustering was employed. The process involved:
  • Constructing a feature correlation matrix using multiple metrics (correlation coefficient, cosine similarity, grey correlation degree).
  • Applying a spectral clustering algorithm to group correlated features into clusters.
  • Within each cluster, selecting the most important feature based on the sum of the weights of its connected edges.

Phase 2: QSAR Relation Mapping [41]

• Objective: Build accurate predictive models that map the selected molecular descriptors to the six objective functions (PIC₅₀ and five ADMET properties).
• Protocol: Multiple machine learning algorithms were compared. The CatBoost algorithm was ultimately selected due to its superior prediction performance for this specific task, establishing the crucial relationship between a compound's structure and its properties.

Phase 3: Multi-Objective Optimization [41]

• Objective: Find the values of the important molecular descriptors that yield the best possible trade-offs between the six objectives.
• Protocol: The AGE-MOEA was improved and applied to solve this optimization problem. The algorithm was chosen for its high efficiency and was modified to enhance its search performance in this specific high-dimensional objective space. The output is a Pareto set of candidate compounds, each representing a different trade-off between high biological activity and favorable ADMET properties (low toxicity).

The challenge of managing the conflicting molecular properties of activity, toxicity, and synthesizability is a central problem in modern drug discovery. Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization provides a powerful, principled framework for addressing this challenge. As demonstrated by algorithms like MoGA-TA and the application in anti-breast cancer drug discovery, EMOs are capable of efficiently navigating the vast chemical space to identify a diverse set of Pareto-optimal candidate molecules. The integration of EMOs with machine learning for QSAR modeling, sophisticated feature selection, and specialized genetic operators represents the cutting edge of computational drug design. Future research in this field is likely to focus on tackling problems with an even greater number of objectives (many-objective optimization), deeper integration of generative AI models, and the development of more efficient hybrid algorithms, further accelerating the discovery of innovative and efficacious drug therapies [3] [1].

Solution Diversity Maintenance in Many-Objective Optimization

Many-objective optimization problems (MaOPs), characterized by the simultaneous optimization of four or more conflicting objectives, present significant challenges in evolutionary computation. Within the context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO), maintaining a diverse set of solutions is paramount, as the Pareto optimal set for MaOPs can be exponentially large and complex. Solution diversity ensures that decision-makers, particularly in applied fields like drug development, have access to a wide range of viable trade-off options rather than a cluster of similar solutions. As the number of objectives increases, traditional diversity maintenance mechanisms from multi-objective optimization often degrade, leading to populations that converge to small regions of the Pareto front or fail to adequately represent the available trade-offs. This paper examines the specific challenges of diversity maintenance in MaOPs, reviews current algorithmic strategies, provides detailed methodological implementations, and demonstrates applications within drug discovery, framing this discussion within broader research on evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods.

The Diversity Challenge in Many-Objective Search Spaces

The core challenge in many-objective optimization stems from the geometric properties of high-dimensional spaces. As the number of objectives increases, the volume of the objective space grows exponentially, while the proportion of space occupied by Pareto-optimal solutions becomes increasingly sparse. This sparsity means that randomly generated solutions or those mutated with standard operators have a diminishing probability of remaining non-dominated with respect to the population. Consequently, the selection pressure toward the Pareto front weakens, and the driving force for diversity diminishes.

In mathematical terms, a many-objective optimization problem can be formulated as: Minimize F(x) = (f₁(x), f₂(x), ..., fₖ(x))ᵀ where k ≥ 4 subject to x ∈ Ω where x is the decision vector, Ω is the decision space, and F: Ω → Rᵏ consists of k objective functions [2]. The Pareto dominance relation becomes increasingly ineffective as a selection criterion when k grows large, as virtually all solutions in a population become non-dominated with respect to each other [2]. This phenomenon fundamentally undermines the diversity preservation mechanisms that work effectively in two or three-objective problems.

Table 1: Key Challenges in Many-Objective Diversity Maintenance

Challenge	Mathematical Description	Impact on Diversity
Dominance Resistance	Proportion of non-dominated solutions approaches 100% as objectives increase	Loss of selection pressure, convergence stagnation
Distance Concentration	Distances between solutions become increasingly similar in high-dimensional space	Ineffective discrimination based on crowding distance
Visualization Difficulty	Pareto front exists in >3-dimensional space	Challenging decision-maker comprehension and solution selection
Computational Expense	Sampling Pareto front requires exponentially more solutions	Practical limitations on population size and search iterations

Algorithmic Approaches for Diversity Maintenance

Decomposition-Based Methods

Decomposition-based approaches address MaOPs by breaking them into a collection of single-objective subproblems. The Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition (MOEA/D) represents a seminal work in this category, maintaining diversity through an a priori definition of weight vectors that guide the population toward diverse regions of the Pareto front [17]. These weight vectors ensure an even distribution of search effort across the objective space, with each subproblem focusing on a specific region. The collaborative optimization of these subproblems, with information sharing between neighboring subproblems, enables a well-distributed approximation of the Pareto front while maintaining computational efficiency compared to Pareto-based approaches.

Indicator-Based Methods

Indicator-based evolutionary algorithms employ quality indicators to guide the search process, with the hypervolume indicator being particularly valuable for diversity maintenance. The hypervolume measures the volume of the objective space dominated by a solution set relative to a reference point, simultaneously rewarding convergence and diversity. Algorithms like SMS-EMOA and HypE use the hypervolume contribution as their selection criterion, inherently preserving diverse solutions that contribute to expanding the dominated space [2]. While computationally expensive for high-dimensional objectives, recent advancements have improved the scalability of these approaches.

Reference Set-Based Methods

The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III (NSGA-III) represents a significant advancement in reference set-based approaches, specifically designed for MaOPs [17]. Unlike its predecessor NSGA-II which uses crowding distance in the objective space, NSGA-III employs a systematic reference point system to ensure diversity across many objectives. The algorithm associates population members with reference points distributed across a hyperplane, then uses niche preservation operations to maintain membership in underrepresented regions. This approach effectively maintains diversity even when the number of objectives renders traditional crowding distance measures ineffective.

Novel Diversity Mechanisms

Recent research has introduced specialized diversity mechanisms tailored for specific domains. In drug discovery, the MoGA-TA algorithm incorporates Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance calculations to maintain structural diversity among candidate molecules [15]. This approach recognizes that in molecular optimization, structural diversity often correlates with functional diversity in the objective space. Similarly, other recent approaches have explored adaptive niche sizes, novel distance metrics, and hybrid methods combining multiple diversity preservation strategies.

Table 2: Diversity Maintenance Mechanisms in Selected Algorithms

Algorithm	Primary Diversity Mechanism	Key Parameters	Strengths	Limitations
NSGA-III	Reference point association and niche preservation	Number of reference points, division number	Systematic diversity, scalable to many objectives	Dependent on proper reference point distribution
MOEA/D	Decomposition via weight vectors	Weight vector generation method, neighborhood size	Efficient, convergence properties	Weight vector sensitivity, uneven distribution possible
SMS-EMOA	Hypervolume contribution	Reference point selection	Direct quality measure, automatic balance	Computational complexity with many objectives
MoGA-TA	Tanimoto similarity crowding	Similarity threshold, acceptance probability	Domain-specific diversity	Specialized for molecular applications

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Reference Point Generation in NSGA-III

The generation of reference points is critical to NSGA-III's diversity performance. The standard method uses a structured reference point creation on a normalized hyperplane:

• Normalization: Perform adaptive normalization of the population members using the current ideal point and extreme points to map objectives to a common scale.
• Structured Reference Points: Generate reference points uniformly distributed on the unit hyperplane using Das and Dennis's systematic approach:
  • For M objectives and p divisions, the number of reference points H is given by: H = C(M+p-1, p)
  • Each reference point has coordinates of the form (a₁/p, a₂/p, ..., aₘ/p) where aᵢ are non-negative integers and Σaᵢ = p
• Association Operation: Associate each population member with the nearest reference point using perpendicular distance measurement.
• Niche Preservation: When truncating the population, prioritize individuals associated with underrepresented reference points to maintain diversity.

Tanimoto Diversity Measurement Protocol

For molecular optimization problems, structural diversity can be maintained using Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance:

• Fingerprint Generation: Convert each molecule to its extended-connectivity fingerprint (ECFP4) or other structural representation using cheminformatics tools like RDKit [15].
• Similarity Calculation: Compute the pairwise Tanimoto similarity between all population members. The Tanimoto coefficient between molecules A and B is calculated as: T(A,B) = |A ∩ B| / |A ∪ B| where |A ∩ B| represents the number of common fingerprint bits and |A ∪ B| represents the total number of unique bits in both fingerprints.
• Crowding Assignment: For each solution, identify the k-nearest neighbors based on Tanimoto similarity and assign a crowding distance inversely proportional to the average similarity to these neighbors.
• Selection Preference: During survival selection, prefer solutions with higher Tanimoto crowding distances to maintain structurally diverse molecules.

Hypervolume Contribution Calculation

The hypervolume indicator simultaneously measures convergence and diversity. The protocol for calculating hypervolume contribution is:

• Reference Point Selection: Establish a sufficiently bad reference point that is dominated by all Pareto-optimal solutions.
• Hypervolume Calculation: Compute the hypervolume of the entire population using algorithms like Walking Fish Group (WFG) or HV4D for higher-dimensional spaces.
• Contribution Determination: For each solution, calculate its exclusive contribution to the total hypervolume by computing the difference between the hypervolume of the entire set and the hypervolume without that solution.
• Selection Application: Use these contribution values to make selection decisions, preferentially retaining solutions with larger contributions.

Application in Drug Discovery and Design

The pharmaceutical industry represents a prime application domain for many-objective optimization, where drug candidates must simultaneously optimize numerous properties including efficacy, safety, and synthesizability. In de novo drug design (dnDD), molecules are generated from scratch while optimizing multiple conflicting objectives such as target binding affinity, solubility, metabolic stability, toxicity, and synthetic accessibility [2]. This inherently constitutes a many-objective optimization problem, often with four or more critical objectives.

Evolutionary algorithms have demonstrated particular success in this domain due to their ability to handle complex search spaces and produce diverse solution sets. The MoGA-TA algorithm exemplifies this approach, specifically addressing the diversity challenge in molecular optimization through Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance [15]. This method maintains structurally diverse molecules throughout the optimization process, which is critical for exploring the vast chemical space and providing medicinal chemists with distinct lead candidates for further investigation.

In practice, multi-objective optimization in drug discovery typically employs specific molecular representations to facilitate evolutionary operations. The SELFIES (SELF-referencing Embedded Strings) representation has gained prominence due to its guarantee of generating syntactically valid molecular structures, unlike the more traditional SMILES representation [17]. This property makes SELFIES particularly valuable for maintaining diversity, as it eliminates invalid offspring that would otherwise reduce the effective genetic diversity of the population.

Diagram 1: Drug Optimization Workflow

Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Many-Optimization Experiments

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Context
RDKit	Cheminformatics toolkit for molecular manipulation	Fingerprint generation, similarity calculation, property prediction in molecular optimization
SELFIES	Molecular representation ensuring syntactic validity	Genetic representation in evolutionary drug design [17]
GuacaMol	Benchmark suite for molecular optimization tasks	Performance evaluation and comparison of optimization algorithms [15]
JMetal	Framework for multi-objective optimization with metaheuristics	Implementation and testing of NSGA-III, MOEA/D, and other algorithms
PlatEMO	MATLAB-based platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization	Algorithm development and testing with standardized benchmarks
Hypervolume Calculator	Computational tool for hypervolume indicator calculation	Performance assessment in diversity maintenance

Future Research Directions

The field of diversity maintenance in many-objective optimization continues to evolve with several promising research directions. Machine learning integration represents a particularly fertile area, where surrogate models can predict diversity potential or approximate the Pareto front structure to guide search efforts more efficiently [3]. Additionally, adaptive mechanisms that dynamically adjust diversity preservation strategies based on search progression show promise for handling the varying diversity requirements throughout the optimization process.

In domain-specific contexts like drug discovery, the development of specialized diversity metrics that incorporate domain knowledge—such as the Tanimoto similarity approach—will likely yield significant improvements. These metrics can maintain diversity in ways that directly align with the practical needs of domain experts, ensuring that solution sets contain genuinely distinct alternatives rather than minor variations.

Diagram 2: Solution Diversity Research Landscape

Maintaining solution diversity in many-objective optimization represents a fundamental challenge with significant implications for practical applications, particularly in complex domains like drug discovery. As evolutionary multi-criteria optimization continues to mature, the development of effective diversity maintenance mechanisms remains critical for generating solution sets that truly represent the trade-offs available in high-dimensional objective spaces. The integration of domain knowledge into diversity preservation, coupled with advanced algorithmic strategies like reference set methods and indicator-based approaches, provides a promising path forward. For researchers and practitioners in drug development and other applied fields, these advances translate to more effective computational tools capable of navigating complex design spaces and delivering diverse, high-quality candidate solutions for further investigation and development.

Chemical Validity Constraints and Molecular Representation Challenges

The pursuit of novel therapeutic compounds is fundamentally a complex multi-criteria optimization problem. Researchers must simultaneously balance numerous, often competing, objectives—such as enhancing biological efficacy, improving pharmacokinetic properties, reducing toxicity, and maintaining synthetic accessibility—while navigating a chemical space estimated to contain over 10^60 molecules [15]. Within this framework, chemical validity constraints form the foundational boundary conditions that any candidate molecule must satisfy to be considered a viable entity. These constraints ensure that generated molecular structures are not only synthetically accessible but also adhere to the fundamental rules of chemical stability and bonding.

The representation of molecules—the translation of chemical structures into computationally tractable formats—directly determines how effectively artificial intelligence and optimization algorithms can explore this vast chemical space [73] [74]. Molecular representation challenges emerge from the inherent complexity of encoding three-dimensional molecular information into formats suitable for machine learning models, often creating a bottleneck in the drug discovery pipeline [73]. This technical guide examines these critical constraints and representation paradigms within the context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) methods, providing researchers with both theoretical foundations and practical methodologies to advance molecular design.

Molecular Representation Methods: Foundations and Technical Specifications

Molecular representation serves as the critical bridge between chemical structures and computational analysis, directly influencing the performance of predictive models and optimization algorithms [74].

Traditional Representation Schemas

Traditional approaches rely on expert-defined rules and feature extraction methods [73] [74]:

• String-Based Representations: The Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) provides a compact string encoding of molecular structure using ASCII characters, representing atoms, bonds, branching, and cyclicity through a specific grammar [74]. While computationally efficient, SMILES strings can represent invalid molecular structures if syntax rules are violated and often lack direct correspondence to molecular geometry [73].
• Molecular Fingerprints: These include structure-based fingerprints like extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFP) that encode molecular substructures as fixed-length bit vectors, enabling rapid similarity comparison and database searching [73] [74]. Although valuable for similarity searching, they capture predefined structural features rather than learning task-specific representations from data [74].

AI-Driven Representation Paradigms

Deep learning approaches automatically learn feature representations from molecular data, capturing complex structure-property relationships [73] [74]:

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Natively represent molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges, explicitly encoding molecular topology. GNNs employ message-passing mechanisms where nodes aggregate feature information from their neighbors, effectively learning representations that capture local chemical environments [73].
• 3D-Aware Geometric Representations: Methods such as 3D Infomax incorporate spatial molecular geometry by utilizing distance and angle information between atoms, providing critical information for modeling molecular interactions and conformational behavior [73]. These equivariant models offer physically consistent, geometry-aware embeddings that extend beyond static topological graphs [73].
• Language Model-Based Approaches: Transformers adapted for molecular representation treat SMILES or SELFIES strings as specialized chemical language, tokenizing them at atomic or substructural levels. Each token is mapped into a continuous vector and processed by architectures like BERT to capture contextual relationships within molecular sequences [74].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Molecular Representation Methods

Representation Type	Structural Encoding	3D Awareness	Primary Applications	Key Limitations
SMILES Strings	Linear sequence of characters	None	Molecular generation, storage	Syntax violations, no spatial information
Molecular Fingerprints	Hashed substructure patterns	None	Similarity searching, QSAR	Predefined features, limited flexibility
Graph Neural Networks	Node-edge topology	Limited (2D)	Property prediction, reaction modeling	Limited geometric awareness in basic forms
3D Geometric Models	Spatial coordinates & distances	Explicit	Molecular interactions, conformational analysis	Higher computational cost
Transformer Models	Tokenized sequence	None	Molecular generation, translation	Limited spatial awareness

Chemical Validity Constraints: Definition and Implementation

Chemical validity constraints represent logical conditions that must be fulfilled for molecular structures to be considered chemically plausible and stable [75]. When defined explicitly, these constraints improve the portability, adaptability, and reusability of molecular design workflows by making implicit chemical assumptions explicit [75].

Fundamental Validity Constraint Categories

• Structural Validity Constraints: Ensure proper atom connectivity, appropriate valency, and realistic bond formation. These constraints prevent physically impossible structures where atoms exceed their typical bonding capacities or form unstable ring systems [73] [15].
• Synthetic Accessibility Constraints: Enforce realistic synthetic pathways and available starting materials, addressing the critical challenge that many computationally generated molecules may be theoretically possible but practically unsynthesizable [76].
• Property-Based Constraints: Define acceptable ranges for key molecular properties including drug-likeness (QED), hydrophobicity (LogP), polar surface area (TPSA), and structural complexity [15] [76].
• Biological Activity Constraints: Specify required interactions with target proteins or avoidance of off-target effects, often expressed as affinity thresholds for particular biological targets [76].

Constraint Implementation in Evolutionary Frameworks

In evolutionary multi-criteria optimization algorithms, validity constraints are typically implemented through:

• Penalty Functions: Modifying fitness scores based on constraint violation severity
• Constrained Operators: Designing mutation and crossover operations that inherently preserve chemical validity
• Repair Mechanisms: Correcting invalid structures during or after generation
• Feasibility Checks: Filtering candidate molecules against validity rules before evaluation

Integration with Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) play a crucial role in drug molecule optimization, particularly in multi-objective design where they demonstrate exceptional performance [15]. These algorithms efficiently manage multiple optimization objectives concurrently, utilizing evaluation techniques such as non-dominated sorting and crowding distance for molecule selection [15].

Evolutionary Algorithm Frameworks for Molecular Optimization

The MoGA-TA algorithm represents an advanced implementation that integrates multi-objective optimization capabilities with Tanimoto coefficient similarity measures [15]. This approach calculates Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance and incorporates a dynamic population updating strategy to adjust acceptance probability for molecular optimization [15]. The algorithm is specifically designed to optimize multiple objectives concurrently, including enhancing efficacy, reducing toxicity, increasing solubility, and improving other performance metrics [15].

Table 2: Benchmark Molecular Optimization Tasks and Performance Metrics

Benchmark Task	Optimization Objectives	Constraints	Success Metrics	Reported Performance
Fexofenadine Optimization	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP	Thresholded similarity (0.8), MaxGaussian TPSA (90, 10), MinGaussian logP (4, 2)	Property satisfaction, structural diversity	MoGA-TA outperforms NSGA-II and GB-EPI [15]
Osimertinib Optimization	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4, ECFP6), TPSA, logP	Thresholded similarity (0.8), MinGaussian similarity (0.85, 2), MaxGaussian TPSA (95, 20), MinGaussian logP (1, 2)	Multi-property optimization, similarity preservation	Enhanced efficiency and success rate [15]
Multi-Constraint Generation (TSMMG)	Functional groups, QED, SA, target affinity, ADMET	Various thresholds for QED (>0.6), SA (<4), specific functional groups	Validity rate, success ratio across constraints	>99% validity, 68-82% success for 2-4 constraints [76]

Advanced Multi-Constraint Optimization Methodologies

The Teacher-Student Multi-Constraint Molecular Generation (TSMMG) framework addresses the challenge of generating molecules that satisfy multiple, diverse constraints simultaneously [76]. This approach formulates molecular generation as a natural language-based instruction following task, where the model generates molecules based on text descriptions specifying combinations of structural features, physicochemical properties, and biological activities [76].

The experimental workflow for TSMMG involves:

• Knowledge Extraction: A substantial dataset of molecules is collected from publicly available molecular libraries and analyzed by advanced molecular parsing tools and models ("teachers") that extract structural details, physicochemical properties, binding affinities, and ADMET attributes [76].
• Training Data Construction: The extracted knowledge is organized into text descriptions paired with corresponding molecules, creating a mapping from natural language constraints to molecular structures [76].
• Model Training: The "student" model (TSMMG) is trained using the knowledge obtained in the previous step, creating a direct mapping from natural language to molecular language [76].
• Constraint-Based Generation: When presented with a text description containing multiple constraints, TSMMG generates novel molecules that fulfill these textual descriptions [76].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmark Evaluation Framework for Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization

Comprehensive evaluation of molecular optimization algorithms requires standardized benchmarking protocols. The following methodology, adapted from MoGA-TA evaluation procedures, provides a robust framework for comparative analysis [15]:

Experimental Setup:

• Data Source: Utilize molecules from the ChEMBL database as the foundation for optimization tasks.
• Algorithm Configuration: Implement Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance calculations and dynamic acceptance probability population update strategies.
• Molecular Representation: Employ SMILES strings decoded to molecular graphs for property calculation using RDKit software package (version 2022.09).
• Evaluation Metrics: Assess performance using success rate, dominating hypervolume, geometric mean, and internal similarity metrics.

Procedure:

• Task Definition: Select specific multi-objective optimization tasks from established benchmarks (e.g., Fexofenadine, Osimertinib, Ranolazine optimization).
• Scoring Functions: Calculate objective scores including Tanimoto similarity (using ECFP, FCFP, or AP fingerprints), TPSA, logP, molecular weight, and specific biological activities.
• Score Normalization: Map raw scores to the [0, 1] interval using appropriate modifier functions (Thresholded, Gaussian, MinGaussian, MaxGaussian).
• Algorithm Execution: Implement decoupled crossover and mutation strategies within chemical space, continuing optimization until predefined stopping conditions are met.
• Performance Assessment: Compare generated molecules against reference compounds using defined success metrics and statistical significance testing.

Multi-Constraint Molecular Generation Protocol

For complex multi-constraint generation tasks, the TSMMG framework provides an alternative methodology centered on natural language instructions [76]:

Experimental Setup:

• Model Architecture: Implement transformer-based decoder architecture trained on text-molecule pairs.
• Training Data: Construct large-scale dataset by extracting molecular knowledge from specialized tools and models ("teachers").
• Constraint Categorization: Define constraint types including functional groups (structural), LogP/QED/SA (physicochemical), DRD2/GSK3 (activity), and BBB/HIA (ADMET properties).

Procedure:

• Task Formulation: Define multi-constraint tasks by concatenating single-constraint tasks using the "+" operator (e.g., FG+DRD2+QED).
• Prompt Design: Create natural language instructions specifying required constraints (e.g., "Generate molecules with carbonyl group, DRD2 > 0.5, and QED > 0.6").
• Molecule Generation: Execute TSMMG model inference to generate novel molecules from text prompts.
• Validation: Assess molecular validity using standard chemical validation tools and measure success ratio as the percentage of generated molecules satisfying all specified constraints.
• Zero-Shot Testing: Evaluate model adaptability by testing on constraint combinations not encountered during training.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Molecular Representation and Optimization

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit	Molecular manipulation, fingerprint generation, property calculation	Core infrastructure for molecular representation and property calculation [15]
ChEMBL Database	Publicly available bioactivity database	Source of molecular structures and associated bioactivity data	Training data for predictive models and benchmark optimization tasks [15]
ECFP/FCFP Fingerprints	Structural representation method	Molecular similarity assessment, substructure pattern encoding	Similarity evaluation in optimization tasks and virtual screening [15]
3D Infomax	Geometric learning framework	3D molecular structure representation and pre-training	Enhancing predictive performance of GNNs using 3D molecular geometry [73]
Transformer Architectures	Deep learning model	Sequence processing, molecular generation from text prompts	Multi-constraint molecular generation via natural language instructions [76]
NSGA-II	Evolutionary algorithm	Multi-objective optimization with non-dominated sorting	Baseline comparison for molecular optimization algorithms [15]
Tanimoto Coefficient	Similarity metric	Quantitative molecular similarity measurement	Crowding distance calculation in MoGA-TA and similarity-based optimization [15]

The integration of advanced molecular representations with explicit chemical validity constraints within evolutionary multi-criteria optimization frameworks represents a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery. By addressing the fundamental challenges of molecular representation—including 3D geometric awareness, multi-modal data integration, and constraint satisfaction—researchers can significantly accelerate the exploration of chemical space while ensuring generated molecules adhere to critical chemical and biological requirements. The experimental protocols and methodologies presented in this guide provide a foundation for developing more robust, efficient, and effective molecular optimization systems. As these approaches continue to evolve, they hold the potential to dramatically reduce the time and cost associated with drug discovery while enabling the identification of novel therapeutic compounds with optimized property profiles.

Computational Efficiency Strategies for Large-Scale Chemical Space Exploration

The exploration of vast chemical spaces, estimated to contain over 10^60 drug-like molecules, represents one of the most significant challenges and opportunities in modern computational drug discovery and materials science [77]. This expansive universe of possible compounds dwarfs the size of even the largest commercially available chemical libraries, which currently contain billions to trillions of make-on-demand molecules [78]. The fundamental challenge lies in developing computational strategies that can efficiently navigate this immense complexity to identify compounds with desired properties, whether for therapeutic applications or materials functionality.

Within this context, evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) has emerged as a powerful framework for addressing the inherent multi-objective nature of chemical discovery, where researchers must simultaneously optimize multiple, often competing, molecular properties [3]. The EMO research community has recognized the necessity of integrating decision-making processes directly into optimization frameworks, leading to increased cross-fertilization between EMO and multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies [3]. This integration is particularly valuable for drug discovery, which inherently represents a multi-criteria optimization problem involving the balancing of efficacy, safety, and synthetic feasibility considerations [53].

Recent advances in computational methods have dramatically improved our ability to explore these expansive chemical spaces efficiently. This technical guide examines the most impactful strategies being deployed to accelerate chemical space exploration, focusing on machine learning acceleration, evolutionary algorithms informed by crystal structure prediction, combinatorial docking approaches, and multi-criteria decision analysis frameworks.

Machine Learning-Accelerated Virtual Screening

Workflow and Implementation

Traditional structure-based virtual screening using molecular docking has faced computational bottlenecks when applied to multi-billion-scale compound libraries. A promising solution combines machine learning classification with docking to create an efficient filtering workflow [77]. This approach uses a classifier trained to identify top-scoring compounds based on molecular docking of a representative subset (e.g., 1 million compounds) to the target protein.

The core innovation lies in applying the conformal prediction (CP) framework to make reliable selections from ultralarge libraries, drastically reducing the number of compounds requiring explicit docking calculations [77]. The Mondrian CP framework provides class-specific confidence levels that ensure validity for both majority and minority classes, making it particularly suited for virtual screening applications where active compounds represent a small fraction of the total library.

Table 1: Performance of Machine Learning-Guided Docking for Different Protein Targets

Target Protein	Library Size	Training Set Size	Optimal Significance Level (εopt)	Sensitivity	Computational Reduction Factor
A2A adenosine receptor	234 million	1 million	0.12	0.87	~10x
D2 dopamine receptor	234 million	1 million	0.08	0.88	~12x
8-protein benchmark average	11 million	1 million	Varies by target	0.85-0.90	>100x

Experimental Protocol and Validation

Classifier Training Protocol:

• Data Preparation: Conduct molecular docking screens against target proteins using a diverse subset of 1-10 million compounds from the chemical library
• Feature Representation: Encode compounds using molecular descriptors (Morgan fingerprints, continuous data-driven descriptors, or transformer-based representations)
• Model Training: Train multiple independent classifiers (CatBoost, deep neural networks, or RoBERTa) using 80% of the data for training and 20% for calibration
• Performance Validation: Assess models using sensitivity, precision, efficiency, and prediction error rate metrics on held-out test sets
• Hyperparameter Optimization: Fine-tune class imbalance handling and number of aggregated models to maximize performance [77]

Application to Ultralarge Libraries:

• CP Application: Apply the trained conformal predictor to the entire multi-billion compound library using the optimal significance level (εopt)
• Virtual Active Set Identification: Select compounds predicted as "virtual actives" based on controlled error rates
• Docking Verification: Perform explicit molecular docking only on the reduced virtual active set (typically 5-15% of the original library)
• Experimental Testing: Purchase and test top-ranked compounds to validate binding activity [77]

This workflow has demonstrated remarkable efficiency in practical applications. When applied to a library of 3.5 billion compounds, the protocol reduced the computational cost of structure-based virtual screening by more than 1,000-fold while successfully identifying ligands for G protein-coupled receptors, important therapeutic targets [77].

Evolutionary Algorithms with Crystal Structure Prediction

Integrating Materials Property Prediction

For materials discovery applications, the properties of interest often depend strongly on a molecule's crystal packing, not just its molecular structure. This presents a unique challenge for evolutionary algorithms, as performing complete crystal structure prediction (CSP) for every candidate molecule in an evolutionary search would be computationally prohibitive [16]. Recent advances have addressed this limitation through the development of CSP-informed evolutionary algorithms (CSP-EA) that incorporate fast, automated CSP within the fitness evaluation step.

The key innovation lies in balancing the completeness of CSP sampling with computational feasibility. Rather than performing exhaustive CSP for each candidate molecule, reduced sampling schemes can be employed that maintain predictive accuracy while dramatically reducing computational costs [16].

Table 2: Efficiency of Different CSP Sampling Schemes for Evolutionary Algorithms

Sampling Scheme	Space Groups Sampled	Structures per Space Group	Global Minima Found (%)	Low-Energy Structures Recovered (%)	Computational Cost (Core-Hours/Molecule)
SG14-500	1 (P21/c)	500	60%	25.7%	<5
SG14-2000	1 (P21/c)	2000	75%	33.9%	~15
Sampling A	5 (biased by frequency)	2000	85%	73.4%	~70
Top10-2000	10 (most frequent)	2000	90%	77.1%	~169
Comprehensive	25 most common	10,000	100%	100%	2533

CSP-EA Implementation Methodology

Evolutionary Algorithm Framework:

• Initialization: Create initial population of candidate molecules with diverse structural features
• Fitness Evaluation: For each molecule, perform automated crystal structure prediction using balanced sampling schemes
• Selection and Reproduction: Apply selection pressure based on predicted materials properties, favoring molecules with superior crystal packing characteristics
• Genetic Operations: Implement mutation and crossover operations that maintain chemical feasibility
• Iteration: Repeat for multiple generations until convergence or computational budget exhausted [16]

Efficient CSP Sampling Protocol:

• Space Group Selection: Focus on the most frequently observed space groups for organic molecules (e.g., P21/c, P-1, P212121)
• Quasi-Random Sampling: Apply low-discrepancy, quasi-random sampling of structural degrees of freedom to efficiently explore the lattice energy surface
• Structure Generation: Generate trial crystal structures within selected space groups (typically 500-2000 structures per space group)
• Lattice Energy Minimization: Optimize all generated structures to identify low-energy minima
• Property Calculation: Calculate target properties (e.g., charge carrier mobility) for low-energy crystal structures [16]

This approach has demonstrated significant advantages over property-based optimization alone. In searches for organic semiconductor molecules with high electron mobilities, the CSP-informed EA outperformed searches based solely on molecular properties (such as reorganization energy) by identifying molecules whose crystal structures exhibited substantially higher predicted charge carrier mobility [16].

Combinatorial Docking of Chemical Spaces

Chemical Space Docking Methodology

Traditional molecular docking faces insurmountable computational challenges when applied to trillion-sized chemical spaces, as even the fastest docking methods cannot practically evaluate every possible compound. Chemical Space Docking addresses this limitation by combining docking with reaction-based search strategies that avoid full library enumeration [79]. This approach leverages the combinatorial nature of make-on-demand chemical libraries, which are constructed from available building blocks using validated chemical reactions.

The method operates by first docking building block fragments into the target protein's binding site, then combinatorially expanding only the most promising fragments into full products according to predefined reaction rules [79]. This hierarchical approach scales roughly with the number of reagents that span a chemical space, making it multiple orders of magnitude faster than traditional docking.

Experimental Protocol for Chemical Space Docking:

• Fragment Preparation:

  • Generate building block fragments from available chemical building blocks
  • Define reactive moieties for combinatorial expansion

• Fragment Docking:

  • Dock all building block fragments into the target binding site
  • Apply pharmacophore constraints to ensure meaningful binding modes
  • Score fragments using appropriate scoring functions (e.g., HYDE)
  • Select top fragments based on ligand efficiency, interaction quality, and linker geometry

• Combinatorial Expansion:

  • Apply reaction rules to expand selected fragments into full products
  • Generate all possible products combinatorially from selected fragments

• Product Docking and Selection:

  • Dock generated products using fragment poses as templates
  • Apply strain energy filtering and redocking with alternative methods
  • Cluster results and select diverse representatives for purchase and testing [79]

This methodology has demonstrated impressive experimental validation. In one application targeting ROCK1 kinase, researchers screened almost one billion commercially available compounds, purchased 69 predicted hits, and found that 27 (39%) had Ki values below 10 µM, with 13 compounds exhibiting submicromolar potency [79]. This high success rate demonstrates the effectiveness of the approach for identifying genuine bioactive molecules from immense chemical spaces.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Evolutionary Optimization

Decision-Making in Multi-Objective Molecular Design

Drug discovery inherently involves balancing multiple, often competing objectives, including potency, selectivity, ADMET properties, and synthetic feasibility. While evolutionary multi-criteria optimization can identify Pareto-optimal solutions, additional decision-making frameworks are needed to navigate these trade-offs effectively [53]. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides structured approaches for evaluating compounds across multiple criteria when perfect solutions do not exist.

The VIKOR method (VIšekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje) has emerged as a particularly valuable MCDA technique for drug discovery applications [53]. This method identifies compromise solutions by evaluating alternatives based on their closeness to the ideal solution, using an aggregate index that balances overall utility against maximum individual regret.

VIKOR Implementation Methodology:

• Define Decision Matrix: For each candidate compound ( xj ), record performance values ( fi(x_j) ) for all criteria ( i )

• Determine Ideal and Anti-Ideal Values: ( fi^* = \minj fi(xj) \quad \text{and} \quad fi^- = \maxj fi(xj) ) (for minimization objectives)

• Compute Utility and Regret Measures:

  • Utility: ( Sj = \sum{i=1}^n wi \frac{fi^* - fi(xj)}{fi^* - fi^-} )
  • Regret: ( Rj = \maxi \left[ wi \frac{fi^* - fi(xj)}{fi^* - fi^-} \right] ) where ( w_i ) reflects the relative importance of criterion ( i )

• Calculate Aggregate Q Values: ( Qj = v \frac{Sj - S^}{S^- - S^} + (1-v) \frac{Rj - R^*}{R^- - R^*} ) where ( S^* = \minj Sj ), ( S^- = \maxj Sj ), ( R^* = \minj Rj ), ( R^- = \maxj R_j ), and ( v ) is a preference parameter (typically 0.5 for balanced approach) [53]

This MCDA framework has been successfully integrated into the AIDD (AI-powered Drug Design) platform, allowing users to assign preference weights to various objective functions, which efficiently directs the generative chemistry process toward desired regions of chemical space [53] [56].

Integration with Evolutionary Algorithms

The combination of EMO and MCDA creates a powerful framework for navigating complex chemical spaces:

• EMO Phase: Identify non-dominated solutions across multiple objectives using evolutionary algorithms
• MCDA Phase: Apply decision-making tools to rank and select from Pareto-optimal solutions based on stakeholder preferences
• Iterative Refinement: Use selection results to guide subsequent evolutionary searches toward more promising regions of chemical space [3]

This integrated approach is particularly valuable for drug discovery, where decision-makers must balance conflicting objectives according to evolving project priorities and constraints.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Large-Scale Chemical Space Exploration

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Solutions	Key Functionality	Application Context
Chemical Spaces	Enamine REAL Space, ZINC15, eXplore	Provide access to billions of make-on-demand compounds	Virtual screening target libraries [77] [78] [79]
Docking Software	FlexX, FRED, SeeSAR	Molecular docking and pose evaluation	Structure-based virtual screening [79]
Machine Learning Libraries	CatBoost, Deep Neural Networks, RoBERTa	Compound classification and activity prediction	ML-accelerated screening [77]
CSP Software	Fully automated CSP pipelines	Crystal structure prediction and property calculation	Materials discovery [16]
Evolutionary Algorithm Platforms	Custom CSP-EA implementations	Population-based chemical space exploration	Multi-objective molecular optimization [16]
MCDA Tools	VIKOR, TOPSIS, AHP	Multi-criteria decision analysis and compound ranking	Decision support in lead optimization [53]
Chemical Descriptors	Morgan Fingerprints, CDDD, RoBERTa Encodings	Molecular representation for machine learning	Feature generation for QSAR/models [77]
Similarity Search Tools	FTrees, SpaceLight, SpaceMACS	Ultra-large chemical space similarity screening	Ligand-based virtual screening [78]

The computational efficiency strategies discussed in this guide represent paradigm shifts in how researchers explore vast chemical spaces. Machine learning-accelerated screening reduces computational requirements by orders of magnitude while maintaining high sensitivity for identifying active compounds. Evolutionary algorithms informed by crystal structure prediction enable materials discovery with consideration of solid-state properties previously inaccessible to computational optimization. Chemical space docking approaches leverage combinatorial library structures to screen billions of compounds without exhaustive enumeration. Finally, multi-criteria decision analysis provides essential frameworks for navigating the complex trade-offs inherent in molecular optimization.

These methodologies are particularly powerful when integrated within evolutionary multi-criteria optimization frameworks, allowing researchers to efficiently navigate the tremendous complexity of chemical space while balancing multiple design objectives. As chemical libraries continue to grow toward trillions of compounds, these computational efficiency strategies will become increasingly essential for drug discovery and materials development, enabling researchers to focus experimental resources on the most promising regions of chemical space.

Handling Expensive Property Evaluations Through Surrogate Modeling

Surrogate modeling is an engineering method employed when an outcome of interest cannot be easily measured or computed directly, typically due to prohibitive computational cost or time requirements. Instead, an approximate mathematical model of the outcome is constructed and used as a substitute [80]. In engineering design and scientific research, problems often require numerous simulations or experiments to evaluate objectives and constraints as functions of design variables. For instance, aerodynamic simulations for aircraft wing optimization or molecular dynamics simulations for force field parameterization in drug development can take hours or even days for a single evaluation [80] [81]. This high computational burden makes routine tasks like design optimization, sensitivity analysis, and "what-if" analysis impractical, as they may require thousands or millions of evaluations. Surrogate models address this challenge by providing computationally inexpensive approximations that mimic the behavior of the original, expensive simulation as closely as possible [80] [82].

These models are constructed using a data-driven, bottom-up approach that relies solely on the input-output behavior of the original system, without assumptions about its inner workings—a methodology also known as behavioral or black-box modeling [80]. The fundamental challenge in surrogate modeling is generating a model that is as accurate as possible while using the fewest number of expensive simulation evaluations possible [80]. In the context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods, surrogate modeling becomes particularly valuable, as it enables the application of population-based algorithms to problems where fitness evaluations would otherwise be computationally prohibitive [83] [84].

Surrogate Modeling Methodology and Workflow

The Generic Surrogate Modeling Workflow

The process of surrogate modeling follows a systematic, iterative workflow comprising several key stages, which may be interleaved iteratively to refine model accuracy [80] [82]. This workflow is depicted in Figure 1 and elaborated in the subsequent sections.

Figure 1. Generic Surrogate Modeling Workflow. This diagram illustrates the iterative process of developing and refining a surrogate model, from initial sampling through active learning [80] [82].

Sampling (Design of Experiments)

The process begins with careful selection of samples from the design parameter space, a practice known as Design of Experiments (DOE) [82]. The goal is to generate initial training data that efficiently represents the design space. Space-filling sampling schemes are preferred as they distribute samples evenly across the parameter space, providing representatives of the input-output relationship from all regions. The Latin Hypercube Scheme is one of the most famous space-filling sampling techniques [82]. The number and location of samples significantly impact surrogate accuracy, with various DOE techniques catering to different error sources (e.g., noise in data or improper model form) [80].

Output Evaluations

Once training samples are determined, their corresponding output values are calculated by executing the expensive simulation or experiment at these sample points [82]. This step is typically the most computationally expensive part of the process. The pairs of selected training samples and their corresponding output values are assembled into the initial training dataset, forming the foundation for model construction.

Surrogate Model Construction and Training

Using the collected training data, the surrogate model is constructed by applying statistical or machine learning techniques [80] [82]. Established machine learning practices of model validation and selection are employed to guide the training process and address potential underfitting or overfitting. Advanced techniques such as bagging and boosting can further enhance surrogate model performance. The model parameters are optimized to achieve an appropriate bias-variance tradeoff [80].

Accuracy Appraisal and Active Learning

The accuracy of the surrogate model is appraised to determine if it meets requirements [80]. Since analysts often cannot foresee the number of samples needed for an accurate model a priori—as this depends on the complexity of the approximated input-output relationship—active learning is employed to enrich the training dataset progressively [82]. Specially crafted learning functions identify the next sample with the highest information value, typically targeting regions where the surrogate model is inaccurate or uncertain, or regions containing potentially optimal design parameters [82]. Once a new sample is identified, a new simulation run is performed, and the surrogate model is retrained on the enriched dataset. This process iterates until satisfactory accuracy is achieved [82].

Types of Surrogate Models

Various surrogate modeling approaches exist, each with distinct strengths and applicability depending on problem characteristics. The table below summarizes prominent surrogate model types and their key applications.

Table 1: Comparison of Prominent Surrogate Model Types [80] [84]

Model Type	Key Characteristics	Typical Applications
Polynomial Response Surfaces	Simple, linear in parameters; global behavior approximation	Initial approximations; low-dimensional problems
Kriging	Interpolates data exactly; provides uncertainty estimates	Spatial data; computer experiments
Gradient-Enhanced Kriging (GEK)	Incorporates gradient information for improved accuracy	Problems where derivatives are available
Radial Basis Functions	Mesh-free interpolation; good for scattered data	High-dimensional approximation
Support Vector Machines	Effective in high-dimensional spaces; versatile kernels	Classification and regression problems
Artificial Neural Networks	Universal approximators; handle complex nonlinearities	High-dimensional, highly nonlinear problems
Bayesian Networks	Probabilistic relationships; uncertainty quantification	Systems with inherent randomness or uncertainty
Random Forests	Ensemble method; robust to noise and outliers	Data with complex interactions

For problems where the nature of the true function is unknown a priori, it may not be clear which surrogate model will be most accurate. In such cases, multi-model approaches like the Adaptive Multi-Surrogate Enhanced Evolutionary Annealing Simplex (AMSEEAS) algorithm can be beneficial. AMSEEAS exploits the strengths of multiple surrogate models combined via a roulette-type mechanism, selecting a specific metamodel to activate in each iteration, ensuring flexibility against varying response surface geometries [85].

Advanced Frameworks and Experimental Protocols

Multi-Fidelity Optimization Framework for Pharmaceutical Applications

A novel surrogate-based optimization framework specifically designed for pharmaceutical process systems demonstrates the application of these methodologies in drug development [86]. This unified framework supports both single- and multi-objective optimization versions, addressing the pharmaceutical sector's growing dependence on advanced process modeling to streamline drug development and manufacturing workflows.

Experimental Protocol: Pharmaceutical Process Optimization

The protocol for applying surrogate-based optimization to pharmaceutical processes involves several methodical stages:

• Problem Formulation: Define optimization objectives relevant to pharmaceutical manufacturing, such as yield, purity, and process mass intensity (a sustainability metric) [86]. For multi-objective problems, these often represent competing goals that must be balanced.

• Data Generation: Using a high-fidelity dynamic system model of an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) manufacturing process, generate training data through carefully designed simulation experiments [86]. The computational expense of these simulations necessitates strategic sampling.

• Surrogate Construction: Build surrogate models approximating the relationship between process parameters and key performance metrics. The framework employs established surrogate modeling techniques to create computationally efficient approximations of the complex process behavior [86].

• Optimization Execution:

  • For single-objective optimization, utilize the surrogate to efficiently explore parameter space and identify improved parameter sets [86].
  • For multi-objective optimization, employ evolutionary algorithms coupled with surrogates to generate Pareto fronts, visualizing trade-offs between competing objectives [86].

• Validation and Analysis: Validate promising solutions using the original high-fidelity model. Perform sensitivity analysis to understand the impact of key variables on optimization outcomes [86].

In application, this framework achieved a 1.72% improvement in Yield and a 7.27% improvement in Process Mass Intensity for single-objective optimization, while the multi-objective framework achieved a 3.63% enhancement in Yield while maintaining high purity levels [86].

Gaussian Process Surrogate Framework for Force Field Optimization

Another sophisticated implementation employs Gaussian process (GP) surrogate modeling within a multi-fidelity optimization technique for force field parameter optimization, particularly challenging for molecular dynamics simulations [81].

Experimental Protocol: Force Field Parameterization

The protocol for this application involves a structured iterative process:

• Initial Sampling: Select an initial set of Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters and evaluate them at the "simulation level" by running molecular dynamics simulations to compute physical properties (e.g., densities, enthalpies of vaporization) for a training set of molecules [81]. This provides the ground truth data but is computationally expensive.

• Surrogate Construction: Build Gaussian process surrogate models that approximate physical properties as a function of LJ parameters [81]. These surrogates form a cheaper "surrogate level" for objective function evaluation.

• Global Optimization: Perform global optimization (e.g., using differential evolution) using the surrogate models to rapidly explore parameter space and propose candidate parameter sets [81]. The speed of surrogate evaluation makes extensive search feasible.

• Validation and Refinement: Validate promising candidate parameter sets at the simulation level. Use these new data points to refine and update the GP surrogate models, improving their accuracy in promising regions of parameter space [81].

• Iteration: Iterate between global optimization at the surrogate level and validation/refinement at the simulation level until convergence on an optimal parameter set [81].

This multi-fidelity approach allows for more global LJ parameter optimization against large training sets, finding improved parameter sets compared to purely simulation-based optimization by searching more broadly and escaping local minima [81].

Adaptive Switching Surrogate Model for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Community Detection

In complex network analysis, an Adaptive Switching Surrogate Model for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Community Detection Algorithm demonstrates how surrogate modeling enhances optimization in discrete domains [83].

Experimental Protocol: Community Detection in Networks

• Continuous Encoding: Employ a continuous encoding scheme that transforms the discrete community detection problem into a continuous optimization problem, effectively utilizing similarity between network nodes [83].

• Core Node Learning: Implement a core node learning method to identify central nodes in the network, compressing the sample space for surrogate models and ensuring initial population quality [83].

• Surrogate Model Adaptive Switching: During the multi-objective evolutionary optimization process, adaptively select the most appropriate surrogate model to establish the relationship between continuous coding and objective functions [83]. The framework can switch between different surrogate types based on their performance for the specific network.

• Model Update: Select elite individuals from the population to periodically update the surrogate model, ensuring its precision throughout the optimization process [83].

This approach effectively balances conflicting structural objectives in community detection (high intra-community connectivity and low inter-community connectivity) using a Pareto-based multi-objective strategy assisted by adaptive surrogates [83].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Surrogate Modeling Implementation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Reference
Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT)	Python Library	Provides collection of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions; emphasizes derivative support	[80]
FOQUS Framework	Software Platform	Supports multiple surrogate tools (ACOSSO, ALAMO, BSS-ANOVA) and workflow management for process optimization	[84]
AMSEEAS Algorithm	Python Package	Implements adaptive multi-surrogate optimization for time-expensive environmental problems	[85]
OpenFF Evaluator	Simulation Workflow Driver	Automates physical property simulations for force field training and validation	[81]
Surrogates.jl	Julia Package	Offers surrogate modeling tools including random forests, radial basis methods, and kriging	[80]
Gaussian Process Models	Modeling Technique	Provides probabilistic surrogates with inherent uncertainty quantification; suitable for data-sparse regimes	[81]
Latin Hypercube Sampling	Sampling Method	Generates space-filling experimental designs for efficient initial data collection	[82]
Differential Evolution	Optimization Algorithm	Performs global optimization efficiently when coupled with surrogate models	[81]

Integration with Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization

Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) represent an advanced class of optimization techniques that integrate evolutionary algorithms with surrogate models [84]. In traditional evolutionary algorithms, evaluating the fitness of candidate solutions often requires computationally expensive simulations or experiments. SAEAs address this by building surrogate models as computationally inexpensive approximations of the objective or constraint functions [84]. The surrogate model serves as a substitute during the evolutionary search, allowing the algorithm to quickly estimate the fitness of new candidate solutions, thereby dramatically reducing the number of expensive evaluations needed [84].

The typical SAEA process involves three main steps: (1) building the surrogate model using a set of initial sampled data points; (2) performing the evolutionary search using the surrogate model to guide selection, crossover, and mutation operations; and (3) periodically updating the surrogate model with new data points generated during the evolutionary process to improve its accuracy [84]. By balancing exploration (searching new areas in the solution space) and exploitation (refining known promising areas), SAEAs can efficiently find high-quality solutions to complex multi-criteria optimization problems that would be intractable with traditional approaches [84].

This approach is particularly valuable in evolutionary multi-objective optimization, where it enables the discovery of Pareto-optimal solutions for problems with competing objectives. The integration of surrogate modeling allows for effective navigation of complex fitness landscapes, making it possible to apply evolutionary computation to domains with computationally expensive fitness evaluations, including engineering design, drug development, and complex systems modeling [83] [84].

Benchmarking EMO Performance: Validation Metrics and Comparative Analysis

In the field of Evolutionary Multi-criteria Optimization (EMO), the ultimate goal is to approximate the Pareto-optimal set for problems involving multiple, often conflicting, objectives. The effectiveness of an EMO algorithm hinges on its ability to produce approximation sets that exhibit three key qualities: proximity (close convergence to the true Pareto front), diversity (a uniform and widespread distribution of solutions along the front), and pertinence (relevance to a decision-maker's preferences) [87]. Quantitative performance metrics are indispensable for objectively evaluating these qualities, guiding algorithm selection, and steering the optimization process itself.

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of three fundamental classes of metrics—Hypervolume, Diversity Measures, and Novelty Assessment—within the context of contemporary EMO research and applications. The drive for robust metrics has gained further urgency with the rise of many-objective optimization (problems with four or more objectives), where traditional selection pressures based on Pareto dominance become ineffective, and the computational cost of metrics like hypervolume can become prohibitive [87]. Furthermore, the integration of EMO with Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) underscores the need for metrics that not only gauge algorithmic performance but also aid in presenting a manageable set of high-quality solutions to a human decision-maker [3] [6].

Hypervolume Indicator

Theoretical Foundations

The hypervolume indicator (also known as the S-metric or Lebesgue measure) is a widely adopted unary quality indicator in EMO. It measures the volume of the objective space that is dominated by an approximation set and bounded by a reference point. Formally, for an approximation set A and a reference point r that is dominated by every point in A, the hypervolume is defined as the Lebesgue measure of the union of all hypercubes defined by the points in A and r [87]:

HV(A, r) = λ( ∪_{a∈A} {x | a ≺ x ≺ r} )

where λ denotes the Lebesgue measure, and ≺ denotes the Pareto dominance relation. A larger hypervolume value indicates a better set of solutions, as it implies better convergence (proximity) and a better spread of solutions (diversity) along the Pareto front.

Computational Considerations and Advanced Methods

A significant challenge with the hypervolume indicator is its computational cost, which grows exponentially with the number of objectives, making it particularly expensive for many-objective optimization problems [87]. To address this, researchers have developed efficient exact algorithms and approximation methods.

Recent advancements focus on reducing this cost through innovative selection mechanisms. The Hypervolume Adaptive Grid Algorithm (HAGA), for example, employs a two-phase strategy to avoid population-wide hypervolume calculations. It first uses a grid to broadly identify competitive regions in the objective space (broad phase) and then calculates contributing hypervolume only for solutions within the same grid cell (narrow phase), achieving a practical trade-off between accuracy and computational feasibility [87].

Table 1: Key Properties of the Hypervolume Indicator

Property	Description	Implication
Pareto Compliance	If set A dominates set B, then HV(A) > HV(B).	It is a reliable, fine-grained performance metric.
Completeness	Captures both proximity and diversity in a single scalar.	Provides a comprehensive quality assessment.
Reference Point Sensitivity	The value depends on the chosen reference point.	Requires careful selection to ensure meaningful comparisons.
Computational Complexity	O(n^(k-1)) for k>3, where n is the population size.	Becomes computationally intensive for many-objective problems.

Experimental Protocol for Hypervolume Calculation

Objective: To compute and compare the hypervolume indicator for different EMO algorithm outputs.

• Normalization: Normalize all objective function values in the approximation set(s) using a common reference set or known ideal/nadir points to ensure a consistent scale.
• Reference Point Selection: Choose a reference point r = (r1, r2, ..., rM) that is slightly worse than the worst values observed in each objective across all sets being compared. Common practice is to use a point like (1.1, 1.1, ..., 1.1) for normalized objectives.
• Calculation: a. For a given approximation set A, identify the non-dominated solutions. b. Use an established algorithm (e.g., Walking Fish Group (WFG) algorithm) or an efficient open-source implementation (e.g., in libraries like PyGMO or Platypus) to compute the hypervolume. c. The algorithm calculates the volume of the space dominated by the set A and bounded by the reference point r.
• Comparison: Compare the hypervolume values of different approximation sets. The set with the higher hypervolume is considered superior.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for evaluating algorithm performance using the hypervolume metric.

Diversity Measures

The Role of Diversity in EMO

Diversity characterizes the distribution of an approximation set in terms of its extent (range covered) and uniformity [87]. In many-objective optimization, maintaining diversity is critical but can conflict with convergence, making its quantitative assessment vital [87]. Poor diversity can lead to a biased representation of the Pareto front, offering the decision-maker only a limited set of similar alternatives.

Types of Diversity Measures

Diversity measures can be categorized based on what aspect of the distribution they assess.

• Spread Measures: These evaluate how well the solutions are distributed across the entire Pareto front. A common metric is the Spread (Δ), which measures the relative distance between consecutive solutions. A lower Δ value indicates a more uniform spread.
• Grid-Based Measures: These methods, such as the Adaptive Grid Algorithm (AGA), divide the objective space into hypercells. Diversity is then maintained by limiting the number of solutions permitted within each grid cell, thus preventing overcrowding in any particular region [87]. The Grid-based Evolutionary Algorithm (GrEA) uses concepts like grid dominance and grid difference to strengthen selection pressure and maintain diversity [87].
• Reference Vector-Based Measures: Algorithms like NSGA-III and MOEA/D use a set of reference vectors to decompose the objective space. Diversity is promoted by associating solutions with reference vectors and ensuring each vector has a representative solution, thereby encouraging a uniform distribution across the predefined directions [87].

Table 2: Common Diversity Assessment Metrics

Metric	Primary Focus	Calculation Method	Strengths	Weaknesses
Spread (Δ)	Uniformity	Measures the deviation of distances between neighboring solutions.	Intuitive; provides a single scalar.	Requires knowledge of extreme points; can be sensitive to outliers.
Spacing	Uniformity	Standard deviation of the distances from each solution to its nearest neighbor.	Simple to compute.	Does not measure the extent of the front.
Grid-Based (e.g., AGA)	Uniformity & Extent	Counts solutions per hypercell in a grid over the objective space.	Effective in maintaining diversity during selection.	Performance can be sensitive to the grid resolution.

Experimental Protocol for Diversity Assessment

Objective: To quantify the diversity of a non-dominated approximation set.

• Identify Non-Dominated Set: From the final population of an EMO algorithm, extract the set of non-dominated solutions, A.
• Normalization: Normalize the objective values of set A to a common scale (e.g., [0,1]) using the ideal and nadir points.
• Calculate Pairwise Distances: Compute a distance matrix for all solutions in set A. The distance can be Euclidean in the objective space.
• Compute Specific Metric: a. For Spacing: i. For each solution, find the minimum distance to any other solution in the set. ii. Calculate the mean of these minimum distances. iii. Spacing is the standard deviation of these minimum distances. b. For Spread (Δ): i. Find the extreme solutions in the set. ii. Calculate the distance between consecutive solutions (after sorting along each objective). iii. Compute the mean of these consecutive distances. iv. Δ is calculated using a formula that incorporates the deviation of these distances from the mean and the distances to the extreme points.
• Interpretation: A lower Spacing value indicates more uniform distribution. A lower Δ value (closer to 0) indicates a better and more uniform spread.

Novelty Assessment

Defining Novelty in Search

While hypervolume and diversity are well-established, Novelty Assessment is an emerging concept focused on promoting and measuring the discovery of solutions that are behaviorally or phenotypically different from previously known ones. Its primary function is to encourage exploration and prevent premature convergence by rewarding individuals that expand the boundaries of the discovered solution space. In practice, novelty is often quantified by measuring the dissimilarity of a solution to its neighbors in either the behavior space (a domain-specific mapping of solution characteristics) or the genotype space.

Application in EMO and Drug Discovery

In EMO, novelty can be integrated as an additional objective or a selection criterion to drive the population towards unexplored regions of the Pareto front, which is particularly useful in complex, multi-modal landscapes. The concept is highly relevant in application domains like drug discovery, where the goal is not only to find molecules with good binding affinity (a traditional objective) but also with novel scaffolds to circumvent existing patents or avoid known toxicity issues.

For instance, a 2025 study used deep graph networks to generate over 26,000 virtual analogs, leading to potent inhibitors with novel structures [88]. Assessing the novelty of these generated molecules compared to a known chemical library is a crucial step in evaluating the success of such an AI-driven discovery campaign.

Experimental Protocol for Novelty Assessment

Objective: To measure the novelty of a set of candidate solutions relative to an archive of known references.

• Define a Behavioral Distance Metric: Establish a domain-specific metric d(xi, xj) that quantifies the dissimilarity between two solutions. This could be the Euclidean distance in a reduced-dimensional behavior space, the Tanimoto distance between molecular fingerprints in drug discovery, or the Hamming distance for genetic sequences.
• Establish a Reference Archive: Compile an archive, R, of existing or previously known solutions. This archive serves as the baseline against which novelty is measured.
• Calculate Novelty per Solution: For each candidate solution ci in the set C, calculate its average distance to its k-nearest neighbors in the reference archive R. Novelty(ci) = (1/k) * Σ_{j=1 to k} d(ci, rj), where rj are the k-nearest neighbors of ci in R.
• Interpretation: A higher novelty score for a solution indicates that it is very different from the known solutions in the archive. The average novelty of the set C can be used as a global performance metric for a generative or optimization algorithm.

The following workflow summarizes the key steps involved in calculating a novelty score for a solution, highlighting the dependency on a well-defined behavioral distance metric and a reference archive.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section details key computational tools and methodologies that serve as essential "reagents" for experiments in evolutionary multi-criteria optimization.

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for EMO Performance Analysis

Tool / Method	Function in Analysis	Specific Use-Case
Hypervolume Calculator (e.g., WFG)	Computes the hypervolume indicator.	Quantifying overall convergence and diversity of a non-dominated set.
Reference Set	A set of Pareto-optimal solutions (or best-known approximation).	Providing a baseline for normalized metrics and performance comparison.
Distance Matrix Calculator	Computes pairwise distances between solutions in behavior or objective space.	Fundamental for calculating diversity and novelty metrics.
Grid-Based Selection Algorithm	Divides objective space into cells for diversity maintenance.	Implementing selection in algorithms like GrEA or for diversity analysis.
Behavioral Characterization Function	Maps a solution from variable space to a behavior space.	Enabling novelty assessment in a domain-relevant context.
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) Algorithm	Finds the k most similar items in a set for a given query.	Core component for calculating the novelty score of a solution.

The rigorous assessment of EMO algorithms through performance metrics is foundational to advancing the field. Hypervolume remains a gold-standard, Pareto-compliant metric, though its computational demands for many-objective problems necessitate efficient approximations like HAGA. Diversity measures, including spread and grid-based methods, are crucial for ensuring a well-distributed set of options for the decision-maker. Meanwhile, novelty assessment is emerging as a powerful concept for driving exploration and is finding practical utility in cutting-edge applications like AI-driven drug discovery, where the goal is to find not just optimal but also innovative solutions. Together, these metrics provide the necessary toolkit for developing, benchmarking, and applying evolutionary algorithms to the complex multi-criteria problems that define modern scientific and engineering challenges.

Molecular optimization, which aims to improve the properties of a lead compound by modifying its molecular structure, is a critical and challenging step in drug discovery [44]. In practice, this process requires the simultaneous optimization of multiple, often conflicting, molecular properties such as biological activity, drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and specific pharmacokinetic properties [44] [4]. Traditional single-objective optimization methods face significant limitations as they struggle to balance these competing requirements, often aggregating multiple properties into a single objective function with predetermined weights, which fails to capture the complex trade-offs between objectives [44] [41].

Within the context of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization, Pareto-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) have emerged as a powerful approach for addressing such challenges [3]. Unlike single-objective methods that yield a single optimal solution, MOEAs approximate the Pareto optimal solution set, providing researchers with multiple candidate molecules representing different trade-offs among the target properties [44] [3]. This capability is particularly valuable in drug discovery, where decision-makers can select compounds based on specific project requirements from a diverse set of optimized candidates.

Among these approaches, the Multi-Objective Molecule Optimization framework (MOMO) represents a significant advancement in the field [44]. This article provides a comprehensive technical analysis of MOMO's performance against state-of-the-art methods, demonstrating its superior capability in identifying diverse, novel, and high-property molecules through rigorous benchmarking and practical application case studies.

The MOMO Framework: Architecture and Methodology

Core Conceptual Innovation

MOMO addresses a fundamental bottleneck in molecular optimization: the difficulty in generating diverse, novel, and high-property molecules that simultaneously optimize multiple drug properties [44]. The framework employs a specially designed Pareto-based multiproperty evaluation strategy at the molecular sequence level to guide the evolutionary search in an implicit chemical space [44]. This approach allows MOMO to efficiently explore the vast chemical search space while maintaining structural features of the lead compound.

The key innovation of MOMO lies in its formulation of molecular optimization as a true multi-objective optimization problem rather than relying on weighted sum approaches [44]. By treating each property as an independent objective and leveraging Pareto dominance principles, MOMO eliminates the need to pre-specify the relative importance of different molecular properties, which is often difficult to determine a priori in drug discovery projects.

Technical Architecture and Workflow

The MOMO framework operates through a sophisticated workflow that combines evolutionary algorithms with continuous implicit space representation:

• Implicit Space Representation: MOMO first transforms discrete molecular representations (such as SMILES strings or molecular graphs) into a continuous implicit space using deep generative models [44]. This transformation enables more efficient exploration and manipulation of molecular structures compared to discrete optimization methods.

• Population Initialization: The optimization process begins with an initial population derived from the lead compound, often enhanced with similar molecules from chemical databases to increase diversity [4].

• Evolutionary Optimization Loop: The core of MOMO implements an iterative evolutionary process comprising:

  • Evaluation: Molecules are evaluated using multiple objective functions representing the target properties.
  • Selection: Individuals are selected based on Pareto dominance and diversity metrics.
  • Variation: New candidate molecules are generated through specialized evolutionary operators designed for molecular structures.

• Pareto Front Identification: Through successive generations, MOMO progressively approximates the Pareto front, ultimately delivering a set of non-dominated solutions representing optimal trade-offs among the target properties [44].

Table 1: Core Components of the MOMO Framework

Component	Implementation in MOMO	Advantage over Conventional Approaches
Solution Representation	Implicit chemical space via deep generative models [44]	Enables smooth transitions between molecular structures
Optimization Strategy	Pareto-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm [44]	Identifies multiple trade-off solutions in a single run
Property Evaluation	Multiproperty evaluation without aggregation [44]	Eliminates need for weight specification between properties
Search Mechanism	Evolutionary search with chemical-inspired operators [44]	Maintains chemical validity while exploring novel structures

Figure 1: MOMO Framework Workflow - The iterative process of multi-objective molecular optimization using evolutionary algorithms in implicit chemical space.

Advanced Extension: Constrained MOMO (CMOMO)

Building upon MOMO's foundation, researchers have developed CMOMO, a constrained multi-objective optimization framework that addresses the critical need to satisfy strict drug-like constraints during optimization [4]. CMOMO incorporates a dynamic constraint handling strategy that divides the optimization process into two stages:

• Unconstrained Scenario: Initially focuses on optimizing molecular properties without considering constraints to explore the full potential of the chemical space.

• Constrained Scenario: Subsequently applies constraints to identify feasible molecules that maintain desirable property values while adhering to drug-like criteria [4].

This two-stage approach enables CMOMO to effectively balance the often-conflicting goals of property optimization and constraint satisfaction, which is essential for generating viable drug candidates. The framework also introduces a latent vector fragmentation-based evolutionary reproduction strategy (VFER) to enhance optimization efficiency in the continuous implicit space [4].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Benchmarking Against State-of-the-Art Methods

MOMO has been rigorously evaluated against five state-of-the-art molecular optimization methods across multiple benchmark tasks [44]. The comparative analysis reveals MOMO's significant advantages in generating molecules with superior property profiles while maintaining structural diversity and novelty.

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Multiple Optimization Tasks

Method	Success Rate (%)	Diversity	Novelty	Multi-Property Optimization Capability
MOMO	Markedly higher	High	High	Excellent for >2 properties [44]
RL-based Methods	Low	Moderate	Low	Limited to 1-2 properties [44]
EA-based Methods	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Limited by discrete space search [44]
Deep Generative Models	Variable	High	High	Limited by training data requirements [44]
Single-Objective Aggregation	Low	Low	Low	Poor, requires weight specification [44]

The superiority of MOMO is particularly evident in complex optimization scenarios involving more than two target properties [44]. Where methods relying on single-objective aggregation or simple multi-property strategies struggle to simultaneously satisfy multiple constraints, MOMO's Pareto-based approach effectively explores trade-offs among competing objectives, resulting in a higher success rate for identifying viable candidate molecules.

Performance Metrics and Quantitative Assessment

Across two benchmark multi-property molecule optimization tasks, MOMO demonstrated marked outperformance compared to state-of-the-art methods in terms of three key metrics [44]:

• Diversity: MOMO generates molecules with significantly higher structural and property diversity, providing researchers with a broader range of candidate options for further development.

• Novelty: The molecules produced by MOMO exhibit greater structural novelty compared to existing compounds in chemical databases, increasing the likelihood of discovering truly innovative chemical matter.

• Optimized Properties: MOMO consistently achieves superior values across the target optimization properties, including drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and specific biological activity metrics.

In constrained optimization scenarios, CMOMO demonstrated particularly impressive results, achieving a two-fold improvement in success rate for the challenging glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3) optimization task [4]. The framework successfully identified molecules with favorable bioactivity, drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and adherence to structural constraints, highlighting the practical value of incorporating constraint handling directly into the multi-objective optimization process.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmark Experimental Setup

To ensure fair and reproducible comparison of molecular optimization methods, researchers have established standardized experimental protocols across several key dimensions:

Data Preparation and Chemical Space Definition

• Lead compounds are selected from publicly available chemical databases with known property profiles
• Molecular representations are standardized (SMILES strings, molecular graphs)
• Chemical space boundaries are defined based on structural similarity metrics [44] [4]

Evaluation Metrics and Assessment Methodology

• Success Rate: Percentage of generated molecules satisfying all target property thresholds
• Diversity: Measured using Tanimoto similarity or other molecular distance metrics
• Novelty: Percentage of generated molecules not present in reference databases
• Property Improvement: Magnitude of enhancement across target properties compared to lead compound [44]

Optimization Objectives and Constraints

• Common objectives include QED (drug-likeness), SA (synthetic accessibility), PlogP (lipophilicity), and specific biological activity scores
• Constraints may include structural alerts, ring size limitations, or presence/absence of specific substructures [4]

Case Study: GSK3 Inhibitor Optimization

The application of CMOMO to glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3) inhibitor optimization provides a compelling case study of the framework's capabilities in a practical drug discovery scenario [4]:

Experimental Protocol:

• Initialization: A known GSK3 inhibitor scaffold was used as the starting point for optimization
• Objectives: Simultaneous optimization of bioactivity, drug-likeness, and synthetic accessibility
• Constraints: Implementation of structural constraints to maintain kinase-directed pharmacophore features
• Optimization: Application of CMOMO's two-stage constrained optimization process
• Validation: Experimental testing of top-ranked molecules for GSK3 inhibition

Results: CMOMO achieved a two-fold improvement in success rate compared to conventional methods, generating viable candidate molecules with balanced property profiles while adhering to all structural constraints [4]. This case study demonstrates the practical impact of sophisticated multi-objective optimization in addressing real-world drug discovery challenges.

Successful implementation of multi-objective molecular optimization requires specialized computational tools and resources. The following table outlines key components of the research infrastructure supporting frameworks like MOMO:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Multi-Objective Molecular Optimization

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Optimization Workflow
Molecular Representations	SMILES strings, SELFIES, Molecular graphs [44]	Standardized encoding of chemical structures for computational processing
Property Prediction Tools	QSAR models, Deep learning predictors [41]	Efficient estimation of molecular properties without costly experimental measurement
Chemical Databases	PubChem, ChEMBL, ZINC [4]	Sources of initial compounds and reference structures for novelty assessment
Optimization Algorithms	Pareto-based MOEAs, NSGA-II, AGE-MOEA [44] [41]	Core optimization engines for identifying trade-off solutions
Chemical Space Mapping	Autoencoders, Variational autoencoders [44]	Construction of continuous implicit spaces for efficient molecular exploration
Validity Checking	RDKit, Chemical validation rules [4]	Ensuring generated molecules are chemically valid and synthetically feasible

Integration with Broader Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization Research

MOMO represents a significant contribution to the expanding field of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO), which addresses complex problems requiring simultaneous consideration of multiple performance criteria within multidisciplinary environments [3]. Since the mid-1990s, population-based heuristic approaches have been widely adopted in EMO research, supported by a rapidly growing body of literature and software tools [3].

The integration of decision-making processes into EMO frameworks has emerged as a key research direction, with increasing cross-fertilization between EMO and multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) communities [3] [6]. MOMO contributes to this integration by providing a set of Pareto-optimal solutions that enable informed decision-making by medicinal chemists and drug discovery scientists, who can apply domain expertise to select the most promising candidates from the generated solution set.

Recent advances in EMO methodologies have created new opportunities for enhancement of molecular optimization frameworks [3] [6]:

• Interactive Multi-objective Optimization: Involving domain experts in the optimization loop to guide search direction
• Hybrid EMO-MCDM Methodologies: Combining optimization power with sophisticated decision-making techniques
• Many-objective Optimization: Extending capabilities to handle larger numbers of simultaneous objectives (>4)
• Dynamic Multi-objective Optimization: Addressing scenarios where objectives or constraints evolve over time

Figure 2: MOMO in the Context of Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization - Integration of MOMO within the broader EMO and MCDM research landscape and its applications across diverse domains.

The Multi-Objective Molecule Optimization framework (MOMO) represents a significant advancement in computational approaches to molecular optimization, demonstrating consistent superiority over state-of-the-art methods across multiple benchmark tasks and practical applications. By leveraging Pareto-based evolutionary optimization in implicit chemical spaces, MOMO effectively addresses the fundamental challenge of balancing multiple, often conflicting molecular properties while maintaining structural diversity and novelty.

The framework's exceptional performance in complex optimization scenarios, particularly those involving more than two target properties, positions it as a valuable tool for accelerating drug discovery and materials development. The continued evolution of MOMO, including constrained optimization extensions like CMOMO and integration with emerging EMO methodologies, promises to further enhance its capabilities and practical impact.

As evolutionary multi-criteria optimization research continues to advance, with growing integration of machine learning techniques and decision-support systems, molecular optimization frameworks like MOMO are poised to play an increasingly important role in addressing complex design challenges across chemical and pharmaceutical domains.

Comparative Analysis of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D on Molecular Tasks

Evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods have become indispensable tools for tackling complex problems across various scientific domains. Within computational chemistry and drug design, these algorithms address a significant challenge: the efficient exploration of the vast chemical space to identify molecules with optimal, often conflicting, properties. This whitepaper presents a comparative analysis of three prominent Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs)—NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D—within the context of molecular design tasks. Molecular optimization, particularly for drug discovery, is inherently a multi-objective problem, requiring the simultaneous optimization of properties such as drug-likeness (QED), synthesizability (SA), and target-specific activity [17]. The performance of optimization algorithms on these tasks directly impacts the efficiency and success of research in fields such as computer-aided drug design (CADD). This analysis provides researchers and drug development professionals with a detailed understanding of the operational mechanisms, relative strengths, and weaknesses of each algorithm, supported by quantitative data and experimental protocols, to inform the selection and implementation of these powerful optimization strategies.

Algorithmic Foundations and Molecular Design Context

The application of MOEAs to molecular design requires a synergy between the algorithm's search strategy and the representation of the molecule itself. The core challenge lies in navigating a high-dimensional, complex search space to find molecules that balance multiple desirable properties.

Molecular Representation: SELFIES

A critical prerequisite for applying evolutionary algorithms to molecular design is the translation of a molecule's structure into a string representation that can be manipulated by genetic operators. While the Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) has been widely used, it suffers from a fundamental flaw: a high probability that randomly generated or modified strings will represent invalid chemical structures [17]. This leads to inefficient exploration of the chemical space.

To overcome this, recent studies have adopted SELF-referencing Embedded Strings (SELFIES). SELFIES utilizes a formal grammar-based method that guarantees every string, and every offspring generated through crossover and mutation, corresponds to a valid molecular graph [17]. This property makes it particularly effective for evolutionary exploration, as it eliminates the need for repair mechanisms or the evaluation of invalid individuals, thereby accelerating the search for promising drug candidates.

Core Algorithmic Frameworks

The three algorithms examined in this study employ distinct strategies for multi-objective optimization, which directly influence their performance on molecular tasks.

• NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II): This algorithm is a pioneer in Pareto-dominance-based MOEAs. Its core mechanisms are fast non-dominated sorting and crowding distance. The former ranks the population into hierarchical fronts based on Pareto dominance, providing selection pressure towards the optimal front. The latter acts as a density estimator to promote diversity within a front by favoring solutions located in less crowded regions of the objective space [89] [17].

• NSGA-III (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III): As an evolution of NSGA-II, NSGA-III is specifically designed for problems with more than three objectives, known as many-objective optimization problems. It replaces the crowding distance operator with a reference point-based niching strategy. A set of reference points, spread uniformly across the objective space, is provided to the algorithm. The selection process then aims to associate population members with these reference points, ensuring a diverse and well-distributed set of solutions across the entire Pareto front, which is crucial in high-dimensional objective spaces [89] [90].

• MOEA/D (Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on Decomposition): This algorithm takes a fundamentally different approach. It decomposes a multi-objective problem into a number of single-objective subproblems using a set of weight vectors and a scalarization function (e.g., Weighted Sum, Tchebycheff). Each subproblem is optimized simultaneously, with competition limited to solutions within a defined neighborhood based on the similarity of their weight vectors [89] [91]. This collaborative local optimization allows for efficient convergence.

The following workflow illustrates how these algorithms are typically applied to a molecular design problem, from initialization to the final Pareto-optimal set.

Experimental Protocols for Molecular Optimization

To ensure a fair and informative comparison of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D, a standardized experimental protocol must be followed. The following methodology outlines the key components, from benchmark tasks to performance assessment.

Benchmark Tasks and Objective Functions

Evaluations typically utilize established benchmark suites from the literature. A common approach is to use multi-objective tasks from the GuacaMol benchmark suite alongside established physicochemical metrics [17]. A standard experimental setup might involve optimizing for two or three of the following objectives simultaneously:

• Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED): A measure of a compound's overall drug-likeness based on a set of molecular descriptors. The goal is typically maximization.
• Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Score: An estimate of how easy a molecule is to synthesize, often scaled between 0 (hard to synthesize) and 1 (easy to synthesize). The goal is typically minimization (of the synthetic complexity).
• Specific GuacaMol Multi-Objective Tasks: The GuacaMol benchmark provides predefined multi-objective tasks that may involve optimizing for similarity to a target molecule while also optimizing other properties like activity or synthetic accessibility [17].

Algorithm Configuration and Parameters

For consistency, implementations from robust software libraries like pymoo are recommended [92]. The table below summarizes standard parameter settings for a comparative study.

Table 1: Standard Algorithm Parameters for Molecular Optimization

Algorithm	Population Size	Crossover	Mutation	Specific Parameters
NSGA-II	100	Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX)	Polynomial Mutation	-
NSGA-III	100 (Reference points adjusted accordingly)	Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX)	Polynomial Mutation	Number of Reference Points
MOEA/D	100	Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX)	Polynomial Mutation	Neighborhood Size (T=20), Decomposition Method (e.g., Tchebycheff)

Performance Evaluation Metrics

The quality of the obtained Pareto fronts is assessed using standardized performance metrics:

• Hypervolume (HV): Measures the volume of the objective space dominated by the obtained solutions and bounded by a reference point. It captures both convergence (how close the solutions are to the true Pareto front) and diversity (how well the solutions cover the front). A higher hypervolume indicates better overall performance.
• Inverted Generational Distance (IGD): Measures the average distance from each point on the true Pareto front to the nearest point in the obtained approximation set. A lower IGD value indicates better convergence and diversity.

Comparative Performance Analysis

The performance of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D can vary significantly based on the characteristics of the optimization problem, particularly the number of objectives.

Quantitative Performance on Standard Tasks

Recent empirical studies on benchmark functions and molecular tasks provide clear evidence of the relative strengths of these algorithms. The following table summarizes typical performance outcomes, highlighting the connection between algorithmic structure and effectiveness.

Table 2: Algorithm Performance Comparison on Different Problem Types

Problem Type	Key Metric	NSGA-II	NSGA-III	MOEA/D	Remarks
Bi-objective	Convergence Speed	Good	Comparable	Excellent	MOEA/D's decomposition leads to faster convergence [93].
Bi-objective	Solution Diversity	Good (but can lose spread)	Good	Good (depends on weights)	NSGA-II's crowding distance is effective in low dimensions [17].
Many-objective (>3)	Convergence	Poor	Good	Variable	NSGA-II's selection pressure fails; NSGA-III's reference points excel [90].
Many-objective (>3)	Diversity Maintenance	Poor	Excellent	Can lose diversity	NSGA-III's niching ensures a well-distributed front [17] [90].
Molecular Tasks (e.g., QED & SA)	Hypervolume	Good baseline	Superior	Good	NSGA-III shows converging behavior and finds more potential solutions [17].

A notable development is the enhancement of these base algorithms with novel search strategies. For instance, a "neighbor and guidance strategy" (NG) has been proposed to improve the search efficiency of both NSGA-III and MOEA/D. When applied to NSGA-III (creating NSGA-III/NG) and MOEA/D (creating MOEA/D-NG), this strategy demonstrated significant improvements, increasing convergence speed by 12.54% and the accuracy of the non-dominated solution set by 3.67% on standard test sets like ZDT, DTLZ, and WFG [37] [94]. This underscores that the core algorithms are a foundation that can be tailored for superior performance in specific domains like molecular design.

Successfully implementing these algorithms for molecular optimization requires a suite of computational "reagents." The following table lists essential components and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MOEA-based Molecular Design

Item Name	Function / Description	Example/Standard
SELFIES Representation	Guarantees 100% validity of generated molecular structures during evolution.	SELFIES library (Python)
GuacaMol Benchmark Suite	Provides standardized multi-objective tasks for fair algorithm comparison.	ChEMBL-based benchmark tasks
Molecular Property Predictors	Computational functions to evaluate objective values (QED, SA Score).	RDKit (QED calculation)
MOEA Software Framework	Provides robust, peer-reviewed implementations of optimization algorithms.	pymoo (Python), jMetal (Java)
Performance Metric Calculator	Tools to compute Hypervolume and IGD for quantifying results.	pymoo (performance indicators)

Discussion and Strategic Implementation

The comparative data reveals that there is no single "best" algorithm for all molecular tasks. The choice depends critically on the problem's dimensionality and the desired outcome.

• NSGA-II remains a strong, robust choice for bi-objective optimization problems. Its mechanism is intuitive, and it performs well when the number of objectives is low. However, its performance degrades significantly as the number of objectives increases because the proportion of non-dominated solutions in the population grows exponentially, causing a loss of selection pressure towards the true Pareto front [90].

• NSGA-III is the preferred algorithm for many-objective molecular problems (typically more than three objectives). Its use of reference points directly addresses the limitation of NSGA-II by explicitly maintaining diversity across a high-dimensional objective space. In drug design, where one might need to optimize for QED, SA, potency, selectivity, and metabolic stability simultaneously, NSGA-III is likely to find a more diverse and representative set of candidate molecules [17] [90].

• MOEA/D offers a unique approach that can be computationally very efficient, often converging faster than Pareto-based methods on problems with regular Pareto fronts. Its main weakness is that the diversity of its solutions is tied to the distribution of the pre-defined weight vectors. For complex Pareto fronts with sharp discontinuities or non-convex regions, MOEA/D can struggle to find solutions in underrepresented areas [91]. Its performance on molecular tasks can be enhanced by integrating problem-specific knowledge into the decomposition mechanism.

The following diagram synthesizes the decision logic for selecting an appropriate algorithm based on the problem characteristics and research goals.

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and MOEA/D underscores their complementary roles in tackling molecular optimization tasks. NSGA-II serves as a reliable baseline for problems with two or three objectives. In contrast, NSGA-III emerges as the algorithm of choice for the many-objective problems increasingly common in modern, holistic drug design. MOEA/D offers a powerful, decomposition-based alternative that promises high convergence speed, though its performance is sensitive to the shape of the Pareto front. The ongoing evolution of these algorithms, evidenced by the development of hybrid strategies like NSGA-III/NG, points towards a future of increasingly powerful and efficient optimization tools. For researchers in drug development, the strategic selection and potential enhancement of these algorithms, coupled with the mandatory use of robust molecular representations like SELFIES, will be crucial for accelerating the discovery of novel and effective therapeutic compounds.

Traditional drug discovery is an arduous, resource-intensive endeavor, historically taking between 10 to 15 years with costs often exceeding $1-2 billion, and with a dismally low probability of a candidate successfully navigating clinical trials to market approval [95] [96]. Key bottlenecks include the inefficient identification of druggable targets, costly high-throughput screening of vast chemical libraries, suboptimal lead optimization, and poorly designed clinical trials [96]. The process is further complicated by the need to balance multiple, often competing, molecular objectives such as efficacy, toxicity, solubility, and metabolic stability.

Evolutionary Multi-criteria Optimization (EMO) represents a paradigm shift in addressing these challenges. As a population-based heuristic approach, EMO algorithms are uniquely suited for navigating complex chemical landscapes and balancing multiple performance criteria within multidisciplinary environments [3]. In drug discovery, this translates to efficiently exploring the vast chemical space—estimated to contain approximately 10^60 molecules—to identify candidate compounds that optimally satisfy a spectrum of desirable physicochemical and biological properties [15]. By leveraging principles of non-dominated sorting and crowding distance calculations, EMO methods can generate a diverse Pareto front of solutions, providing medicinal chemists with a set of optimal trade-off candidates rather than a single sub-optimal molecule [15]. This review details the successful real-world application of these computational strategies, validating their transformative impact on modern pharmacology.

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization: Methodological Framework

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) play a crucial role in drug molecule optimization, particularly in multi-objective design where they demonstrate exceptional performance [15]. Their primary strength lies in robust global search capabilities that facilitate a thorough exploration of intricate chemical landscapes, all with minimal reliance on extensive prior knowledge or large-scale training datasets.

A key algorithm in this domain is the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), renowned for its efficiency and excellent ability to maintain population diversity [15]. It operates by selecting individuals through non-dominated sorting and crowding distance calculations, thereby guiding population evolution toward the Pareto front—the set of solutions where no objective can be improved without worsening another.

The Tanimoto coefficient is a critical metric in this process. Based on set theory, this coefficient measures the similarity between two molecules by quantifying the ratio of the intersection of their structural fingerprints to their union [15]. It provides a powerful tool for molecular similarity comparison, which is essential for tasks such as clustering, classification, and maintaining structural diversity during optimization.

Recent advances, such as the MoGA-TA algorithm, integrate the multi-objective optimization capabilities of NSGA-II with enhanced Tanimoto similarity-based crowding distance and a dynamic population update strategy [15]. This hybrid approach more accurately captures structural differences between molecules, preserves diverse molecular scaffolds, and balances exploration and exploitation during the evolutionary search process, effectively preventing premature convergence to local optima.

Quantitative Validation: Performance Benchmarking of EMO in Molecular Optimization

To objectively evaluate the performance of EMO methods in practical drug discovery settings, rigorous benchmarking against established standards is essential. The following table summarizes the experimental results of the MoGA-TA algorithm compared to NSGA-II and GB-EPI across six multi-objective molecular optimization tasks derived from the ChEMBL database [15].

Table 1: Benchmark Performance of MoGA-TA on Molecular Optimization Tasks

Task Name (Target Drug)	Optimization Objectives	Key Performance Findings
Fexofenadine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP	MoGA-TA demonstrated superior performance in success rate and diversity of solutions.
Pioglitazone	Tanimoto similarity (ECFP4), Molecular Weight, Number of Rotatable Bonds	Effectively balanced multiple structural and property constraints.
Osimertinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4, ECFP6), TPSA, logP	Significantly improved exploration of the chemical space while maintaining target similarity.
Ranolazine	Tanimoto similarity (AP), TPSA, logP, Number of Fluorine Atoms	Successfully optimized for four distinct objectives, outperforming comparator algorithms.
Cobimetinib	Tanimoto similarity (FCFP4, ECFP6), Rotatable Bonds, Aromatic Rings, CNS	MoGA-TA handled the complex five-objective task with high efficiency.
DAP Kinases	DAPk1, DRP1, ZIPk (biological activity), QED, logP	Generated molecules with enhanced target activity and improved drug-like properties (QED).

The experimental protocol for these benchmarks involved executing each algorithm for 30 independent runs with different random seeds [15]. Performance was assessed using metrics including success rate (the proportion of runs finding molecules meeting all target thresholds), dominating hypervolume (measuring the quality and spread of the Pareto front), and internal similarity (gauging molecular diversity within the final population). The results consistently demonstrated that MoGA-TA performed better in drug molecule optimization and significantly improved efficiency and success rate compared to the other methods, validating the effectiveness of its Tanimoto-based crowding and dynamic update strategy [15].

Real-World Applications: EMO and AI-Driven Clinical Successes

The theoretical advantages of EMO and related AI-driven approaches have been validated through tangible successes in clinical-stage drug development. Leading AI-native biotech firms have demonstrated remarkable acceleration in preclinical timelines, compressing processes that traditionally required 4-6 years into just 18-24 months [97] [96].

Table 2: Real-World Cases of AI and Computational Optimization in Drug Discovery

Company / Platform	Therapeutic Area	Achievement and Clinical Impact
Insilico Medicine	Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF)	AI-designed novel TNIK inhibitor (ISM001-055, named Rentosritib) advanced from target discovery to Phase I trials in 18 months; reported positive Phase IIa results [97] [98].
Exscientia	Oncology, Immunology	Algorithmically generated DSP-1181 for OCD was first AI-designed drug to enter Phase I trials. CDK7 inhibitor (GTAEXS-617) and LSD1 inhibitor (EXS-74539) in Phase I/II trials [97] [96].
Schrödinger	Immunology (TYK2 inhibition)	Physics-enabled design led to TYK2 inhibitor, Zasocitinib (TAK-279), advancing to Phase III clinical trials for psoriasis [97].
Recursion Pharmaceuticals	Diverse Indications	Automated high-throughput imaging combined with deep learning models identifies phenotypic changes for rapid drug repurposing and novel therapeutic discovery [96].
BenevolentAI	COVID-19, Immunology	AI-driven drug repurposing identified Baricitinib (a rheumatoid arthritis drug) as effective treatment for severe COVID-19, leading to emergency use authorization [95].

Detailed Workflow: Insilico Medicine's Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Drug

The development of Insilico Medicine's ISM001-055 provides a seminal case study for the integrated application of AI and optimization techniques. The workflow, depicted below, demonstrates a closed-loop, iterative process from target identification to candidate selection.

AI & EMO Drug Discovery Workflow

This process exemplifies the "design-make-test-analyze" cycle accelerated by computational intelligence. The multi-objective optimization in the lead optimization phase specifically balances criteria such as Tanimoto similarity to a reference structure, predicted binding affinity, solubility (logP), and polar surface area (TPSA) to arrive at a candidate molecule optimized for both efficacy and developmental viability [97] [15].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

The successful implementation of EMO and AI-driven discovery relies on a foundation of robust computational tools, software libraries, and data resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for EMO in Drug Discovery

Tool / Resource	Type	Function in Drug Discovery
RDKit	Open-Source Cheminformatics	Calculates molecular descriptors (e.g., TPSA, logP), handles fingerprinting (ECFP, FCFP), and facilitates molecular operations [15].
GuacaMol	Benchmarking Framework	Provides standardized tasks and metrics to objectively evaluate and compare generative models and optimization algorithms [15].
ChEMBL	Public Database	A manually curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties, used as a primary source of training and validation data [15].
AlphaFold	AI-based Structure Prediction	Predicts 3D protein structures with high accuracy, revolutionizing target identification and structure-based drug design [95] [98].
Automation & Cloud Platforms	Infrastructure	Robotics (e.g., Eppendorf, Tecan) and cloud infrastructure (e.g., AWS) enable high-throughput synthesis and testing, creating closed-loop design-make-test-learn cycles [97] [99].
NSGA-II / MoGA-TA	Optimization Algorithm	Core EMO algorithm for balancing multiple, competing objectives to generate a diverse Pareto front of candidate molecules [15].

The real-world validation presented herein unequivocally demonstrates that Evolutionary Multi-criteria Optimization and AI-driven platforms are no longer theoretical concepts but are actively reshaping the drug discovery landscape. The successful advancement of multiple AI-designed molecules into late-stage clinical trials—including Insilico Medicine's Rentosritib for IPF and Schrödinger's Zasocitinib for psoriasis—provides compelling evidence of their efficacy [97]. These platforms have consistently demonstrated an ability to compress pre-clinical timelines from years to months and to navigate the immense complexity of multi-objective molecular optimization with unprecedented efficiency [15] [96].

The future trajectory of the field points toward greater integration. The merger of companies like Recursion and Exscientia symbolizes a powerful convergence of biological data-rich phenomics with generative AI and automated chemistry [97]. As EMO algorithms continue to evolve, handling an ever-greater number of objectives with improved efficiency, and as cloud-based, automated platforms become more pervasive, the vision of optimization as an on-demand service is moving closer to reality. This synergistic progress promises to further de-risk development, enhance the quality of clinical candidates, and ultimately deliver better therapeutics to patients faster, solidifying the role of computational optimization as an indispensable pillar of modern drug discovery.

Benchmarking Against Reinforcement Learning and Deep Generative Models

The field of evolutionary multi-criteria optimization (EMO) continuously seeks robust methods for solving complex problems with multiple, conflicting objectives. In recent years, Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Deep Generative Models (GMs) have emerged as powerful, alternative approaches for navigation and design in high-dimensional spaces. This guide provides a technical framework for benchmarking EMO algorithms against these modern techniques, enabling researchers to quantitatively assess their relative strengths and limitations. Such comparative analysis is crucial for advancing the field of EMO, guiding algorithm selection for real-world applications like drug development, and identifying fruitful avenues for hybrid method development [100] [3] [101].

Core Concepts and Definitions

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO)

EMO utilizes population-based heuristic search, inspired by natural evolution, to approximate the Pareto-optimal set for a problem with multiple objectives. A solution is Pareto optimal if no objective can be improved without worsening another. The set of all such solutions forms the Pareto front, representing the optimal trade-offs [3] [102].

Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning (MORL)

MORL extends single-objective RL by introducing a vectorial reward function. The problem is formalized as a Multi-Objective Markov Decision Process (MOMDP), defined by the tuple <S, A, T, γ, μ, R>, where S is a set of states, A is a set of actions, T is a transition function, γ is a discount factor, μ is an initial state distribution, and R is a vectorial reward function returning a k-dimensional reward for k objectives [100]. The goal is to find policies that are efficient with respect to the vector of expected cumulative rewards.

Deep Generative Models (GMs) for Design

Deep generative models, such as Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and Character-level RNNs (CharRNNs), learn the underlying probability distribution of existing data (e.g., molecular structures). They can then generate novel, valid instances—such as new drug-like molecules or polymer structures—that optimize specific properties [101].

Benchmarking Framework and Metrics

A rigorous benchmark requires a clear definition of the problem domain, standardized performance metrics, and a detailed experimental protocol.

Problem Characterization and Selection

The complexity of the benchmark problems directly influences the insights gained from the study. Key features to consider include:

• Scale: The number of decision variables and objectives [100].
• Evaluation Cost: The computational expense of a single function evaluation [100] [101].
• Uncertainty: The presence of stochasticity in objectives or constraints, inherent in MOMDPs [100].
• Structure: The geometry and connectivity of the search space (e.g., sequence-based for polymers, graph-based for molecules) [101].

For MORL, standard MOMDP environments from the literature should be selected [100]. For generative design, real-world datasets are essential, such as the PolyInfo database for polymers or PubChem for small molecules [101].

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Performance must be evaluated across multiple dimensions. The following table summarizes key metrics applicable to EMO, MORL, and generative models.

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for Benchmarking

Metric Category	Metric Name	Description	Applicability
Convergence & Diversity	Hypervolume [100]	Measures the volume of objective space dominated by the solution set, relative to a reference point.	EMO, MORL
	Inverted Generational Distance (IGD)	Average distance from reference Pareto front points to the nearest solution in the approximation set.	EMO, MORL
Solution Set Quality	Fraction of Valid Uniques (fv, f10k) [101]	Proportion of generated solutions that are valid (fv) and unique within a sample (f10k).	GMs
	Nearest Neighbor Similarity (SNN) [101]	Measures how well the generated set mimics the diversity of the training data.	GMs
	Internal Diversity (IntDiv) [101]	Assesses the diversity of the generated set of solutions.	GMs
Distance to Reality	Fréchet ChemNet Distance (FCD) [101]	Measures the similarity between the distributions of generated and real molecules using a pre-trained neural network.	GMs (Molecules)

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Benchmarking EMOs on MORL Problems

This protocol evaluates how well EMO algorithms can find effective policies for MOMDPs [100].

• Problem Formulation: Define the MOMDP, specifying the state space S, action space A, and the vectorial reward function R.
• Algorithm Selection: Select a suite of representative EMO algorithms (e.g., NSGA-II, MOEA/D, SPEA2) and single-objective EAs using scalarization functions for comparison [100].
• Policy Representation: Choose a suitable representation for the policy π (e.g., neural network weights, a set of rules) that the EMO will optimize.
• Fitness Evaluation: For each policy (individual) in the EMO population, the fitness is its vector of value functions V^π. This is estimated by running multiple episodes in the MOMDP and calculating the cumulative discounted reward for each objective [100].
• Statistical Analysis: Execute multiple independent runs of each algorithm. Compare the resulting approximations of the Pareto front using metrics like hypervolume, supported by statistical significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) [100].

Protocol for Benchmarking EMOs against Deep Generative Models

This protocol compares the ability of EMOs and GMs to generate high-performing, novel designs, such as drug molecules [101].

• Dataset Curation: Assemble a dataset of known structures (e.g., active drug molecules, high-performance polymers) with associated property labels.
• Model Training & Setup:
  • Generative Models: Train models like VAE, AAE, ORGAN, CharRNN, and REINVENT on the curated dataset [101].
  • EMO Algorithms: Configure the EMO to operate directly in the design space (e.g., string or graph representations). The fitness function is a multi-objective function based on the properties of interest.
• Solution Generation:
  • GMs: Generate a large number of candidate structures (e.g., 10,000) from the trained models [101].
  • EMOs: Run the evolutionary algorithm to produce a population of candidate structures.
• Evaluation & Comparison: Analyze the generated sets from all methods using the metrics in Table 1 (e.g., validity, uniqueness, diversity, FCD). Additionally, evaluate the performance of the generated candidates on the target objectives to see which method better explores the high-performance regions of the design space [101].

Visualization of Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core benchmarking workflows using the standardized DOT language and color palette.

Diagram 1: EMO for MORL Benchmarking

Diagram 2: EMO vs Generative Models

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

This section details essential computational tools and resources for conducting the benchmarks.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Item Name	Function / Description	Relevance to Field
PolyInfo Database [101]	A database containing thousands of known polymer structures.	Serves as a source of real-world data for training generative models and validating approaches in material design.
PubChem [101]	A database of millions of small molecule compounds and their biological activities.	A critical resource for drug development professionals to obtain molecular data for benchmarking.
GDB-13 [101]	A database of over 900 million hypothetical, drug-like small molecules.	Provides a vast chemical space to test the ability of algorithms to explore beyond known data.
MOSES Platform [101]	A benchmarking platform (Molecular Sets) designed to standardize the training and comparison of generative models for small molecules.	Provides a set of standardized metrics and procedures to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons between models.
WordNet / BabelNet [103]	Online semantic graphs/ontologies that provide synset (synonym set) information.	Used in NLP-based representation learning for text-based problems, helping to solve issues of polysemy and synonymy.

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO) has established itself as a powerful methodology for addressing complex problems involving multiple, often conflicting, objectives. Within this field, three concepts—diversity, novelty, and property optimization—have emerged as critical pillars for evaluating algorithmic performance and solution quality. Diversity ensures a wide spread of solutions across the Pareto front, novelty drives the discovery of unexpected and innovative solutions, and property optimization guarantees that solutions meet specific performance criteria. The integration of these elements is particularly vital in domains like drug development, where a balanced set of candidate molecules with varied structures and optimal properties can significantly accelerate research.

This whitepaper, situated within a broader thesis on evolutionary multi-criteria optimization methods and applications, provides an in-depth technical analysis of recent experimental results in this domain. It is structured to offer researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals a clear understanding of the quantitative outcomes, detailed experimental protocols, and essential reagents that underpin advances in this field. The subsequent sections synthesize findings from state-of-the-art research, presenting summarized data in structured tables, detailing methodological workflows, and visualizing key processes to serve as a reference for future experimental design.

Key Experimental Findings and Quantitative Results

Recent experimental studies across various domains demonstrate the significant advancements achieved by modern EMO algorithms in balancing diversity, novelty, and property optimization. The quantitative results from these experiments are summarized in the tables below for direct comparison.

Table 1: Performance of Multi-Objective Optimization Frameworks in Molecular Design

Framework	Core Strategy	Key Metric	Reported Performance	Benchmark/Competitor Performance
CMOMO [4]	Two-stage dynamic constraint handling	Success Rate (GSK3 Task)	~2x Improvement (Exact multiplier not specified)	Baseline methods (e.g., MOMO, QMO)
		Successfully Optimized Molecules	Higher number with desired properties & constraints	Fewer successfully optimized molecules
Constrained Molecular Optimization [41]	Improved AGE-MOEA	Search Performance	Better search performance & richer solution features	NSGA-II, NSGA-2 (for high-dimensional problems)
MGF-IMM [104]	Multiobjective Generative Model	Diversity & Smoothness (Human Motions)	State-of-the-art performance, superior diversity	Surpassed latest in-betweening motion methods

Table 2: Diversity Optimization as a Bi-Objective Problem (Theoretical Study) [105]

Problem Domain	Optimization Approach	Quality-Diversity Trade-off	Key Insight
Maximum Coverage	Evolving a population of populations (via NSGA-II, SPEA2)	A range of trade-offs obtained	The method provides rich qualitative features and insights into the instance-induced trade-offs.
Maximum Cut	"	"	"
Minimum Vertex Cover	"	"	"

Table 3: Algorithmic Performance in Dynamic Environments (GPVS Algorithm) [106]

Test Scope	Comparison Algorithms	Key Strengths	Validated On
22 Test Functions	Classical DMOEAs	Effective & Robust in solving DMOPs	Test functions for Dynamic Multi-objective Optimization Problems (DMOPs)

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section outlines the specific methodologies employed in the key studies from which the above results were derived. These protocols can serve as a template for researchers seeking to replicate or build upon these experiments.

Protocol 1: Constrained Molecular Multi-Property Optimization with CMOMO

The CMOMO framework is designed for molecular optimization where multiple properties must be enhanced while adhering to strict drug-like constraints [4].

• Population Initialization:

  • Input: A lead molecule represented by a SMILES string.
  • Bank Library Construction: A library of high-property molecules similar to the lead compound is assembled from public databases.
  • Encoding: A pre-trained encoder embeds the lead molecule and all molecules from the Bank library into a continuous latent (implicit) space.
  • Linear Crossover: The latent vector of the lead molecule is crossed with the latent vector of each molecule in the Bank library to generate a high-quality initial population in the latent space.

• Dynamic Cooperative Optimization:

  • This process is executed in two scenarios: the unconstrained scenario (focusing on property optimization) and the constrained scenario (balancing properties and constraints).
  • VFER Strategy: The Vector Fragmentation-based Evolutionary Reproduction (VFER) strategy is applied to the latent population to efficiently generate offspring in the continuous implicit space.
  • Decoding & Evaluation: Parent and offspring latent vectors are decoded back into discrete molecular structures (SMILES) using a pre-trained decoder. The properties of these molecules are then evaluated using computational tools, and invalid molecules are filtered out.
  • Dynamic Constraint Handling: The optimization process begins in the unconstrained scenario to find molecules with good properties. The focus then shifts to the constrained scenario, where the Constraint Violation (CV) degree (see Eq. 2 in [4]) is calculated for each molecule. The algorithm uses a dynamic strategy to balance the search for high-property molecules with the need to satisfy all constraints, ultimately selecting feasible molecules with the desired property values.

Protocol 2: Anti-Breast Cancer Candidate Drug Optimization

This protocol outlines a complete QSAR-based framework for selecting anti-breast cancer drug candidates, focusing on multi-objective optimization [41].

• Feature Selection:

  • Input: High-dimensional molecular descriptor data.
  • Unsupervised Spectral Clustering: A feature selection method based on spectral clustering is applied to the correlation coefficient, cosine similarity, and grey correlation degree matrices between features. This groups correlated features.
  • Feature Importance Ranking: Within each cluster, the importance of a feature is measured by the sum of the weights of the edges connected to it in the similarity graph. The most important feature from each cluster is selected to form a final subset with low redundancy and comprehensive information.

• Relation Mapping (QSAR Model Training):

  • Algorithm Selection: Multiple machine learning algorithms are trained and compared to map the selected molecular descriptors to six optimization objectives: biological activity (PIC~50~) and five key ADMET properties.
  • Model Choice: The CatBoost algorithm is selected for the final relationship mapping due to its superior prediction performance compared to other tested algorithms.

• Multi-Objective Optimization:

  • Problem Formulation: The selection of optimal molecular descriptor values is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem (Eq. 1 in [41]), with the six QSAR models as objectives.
  • Conflict Analysis: The conflict relationships between the six objectives (e.g., between potency and a specific ADMET property) are analyzed.
  • Algorithm Execution: An improved version of the AGE-MOEA algorithm is employed to solve the optimization problem, searching for a Pareto-optimal set of molecular descriptor configurations that offer the best trade-offs among the six objectives.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key computational tools and resources essential for conducting experiments in evolutionary multi-objective optimization, particularly in the context of molecular design.

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item/Reagent	Function in Experiment	Specific Application Example
Pre-trained Molecular Encoder/Decoder [4]	Maps discrete molecular structures (e.g., SMILES) to/from a continuous latent vector space.	Enables efficient evolutionary operations (crossover, mutation) in a continuous space within frameworks like CMOMO.
RDKit	An open-source cheminformatics toolkit.	Used for validity verification of decoded molecules, calculating molecular descriptors, and handling chemical data.
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models	Computational models that predict biological activity and ADMET properties from molecular structure.	Serve as the objective functions for optimization in drug discovery pipelines [41].
CatBoost Algorithm	A machine learning algorithm based on gradient boosting on decision trees.	Used as the high-performance predictor for building the QSAR relationship mapping models [41].
Latent Vector Fragmentation (VFER) [4]	An evolutionary reproduction strategy designed for latent space optimization.	Effectively generates promising offspring molecules in the continuous implicit space of generative models.

Workflow and Signaling Pathway Diagrams

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflows of the primary experimental protocols discussed in this whitepaper.

Diagram 1: CMOMO Framework Workflow

Diagram 2: Drug Candidate Selection Workflow

Conclusion

Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization has emerged as a transformative methodology in drug discovery, demonstrating superior capability to navigate complex chemical spaces and identify diverse, novel molecular candidates with optimal property trade-offs. Through specialized frameworks like MOMO and established algorithms including NSGA-II/III and MOEA/D, EMO effectively addresses the fundamental challenge of optimizing multiple conflicting properties simultaneously—from biological activity and drug-likeness to synthesizability and safety profiles. The integration of robust molecular representations like SELFIES ensures chemical validity while advanced techniques for handling high-dimensional objectives enable practical application to real-world many-objective problems. As the field advances, the convergence of EMO with machine learning, multi-target therapeutic strategies, and enhanced decision-support systems promises to further accelerate the discovery of innovative, efficacious drug therapies. This powerful synergy positions EMO as an indispensable computational tool that will continue to reshape pharmaceutical development methodologies and catalyze fundamental advancements in biomedical research.

References

• 1. Multi-and many-objective optimization: present and future ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2023.1288626/full]
• 2. Multi-and many-objective optimization: present and future ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10773868/]
• 3. Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization: Methods and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/18/3025]
• 4. CMOMO: a deep multi-objective optimization framework for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240737/]
• 5. Fifty years of multi-objective optimization and decision ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221725004849]
• 6. Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization: Methods and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics/special_issues/Evol_Multi_Criteria_Optim]
• 7. Pareto efficiency [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency]
• 8. Pareto Optimality - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/pareto-optimality]
• 9. Multi-objective optimization. Part 1: Pareto dominance [https://medium.com/@deneb.acyg/multi-objective-optimization-part-1-pareto-dominance-64bb140d162a]
• 10. How to calculate the trade-off between objectives in multi- ... [https://or.stackexchange.com/questions/8322/how-to-calculate-the-trade-off-between-objectives-in-multi-objective-optimizatio]
• 11. Distilling the Pareto optimal front into actionable insights [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815225001926]
• 12. EMO 2025 - Home [https://emo2025.org/]
• 13. An Interactive Framework for Finding the Optimal Trade-off ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04290]
• 14. Growth vs. Diversity: A Time-Evolution Analysis of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11870478/]
• 15. Multi-Objective Drug Molecule Optimization Based on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12389091/]
• 16. Exploring organic chemical space for materials discovery ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65564-8]
• 17. Optimized Drug Design using Multi-Objective Evolutionary ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2405.00401v1]
• 18. EMFF-2025: a general neural network potential for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01809-w]
• 19. On the biologically relevant chemical space: BioReCS [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2025.1674289/full]
• 20. Comparison between Single and Multi-Objective ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/11/2018]
• 21. An efficient multi-objective parrot optimizer for global and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-88740-8]
• 22. Ultra-large library screening with an evolutionary algorithm ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01758-x]
• 23. Ultra-large library screening with an evolutionary algorithm in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41203805/]
• 24. Enhanced Single-Objective Optimization Algorithm with ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/18/9965]
• 25. A single-objective Sequential Search Assistance-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650225000744]
• 26. Multi-objective Hyperparameter Optimization in the Age of ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.08371v1]
• 27. Invalid SMILES are beneficial rather than detrimental to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00821-x]
• 28. and Comparing tokenization for enhanced chemical... SMILES SELFIES [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76440-8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=64ddb799-fb14-4158-97e4-a72eb7d6963c]
• 29. Reconstruction of lossless molecular from fingerprints representations [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00693-0]
• 30. SELFIES and the future of molecular string representations [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389922002069]
• 31. Molecular graph representations and SELFIES [https://aspuru.substack.com/p/molecular-graph-representations-and]
• 32. & SMILES have to go: SELFIES of Representation via... Molecules [https://arxiv.org/html/2501.13633v2]
• 33. SMILES vs. Graph representation in deep learning [https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/128149/smiles-vs-graph-representation-in-deep-learning]
• 34. SELFIES and the Future of Molecular String Representations [https://zontal.io/selfies-and-the-future-of-molecular-string-representations/]
• 35. Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in Waste Disposal ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/14/8/316]
• 36. Designing Effective Drug Therapies Using a Multiobjective ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12025240/]
• 37. New search strategy for multi-objective evolutionary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024169484]
• 38. Comparison between MOEA/D and NSGA-II on the Multi ... [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-88051-6_14]
• 39. A Fuzzy-Expert enhanced NSGA-II approach for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14488-w]
• 40. Optimized Drug Design using Multi-Objective Evolutionary ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00401]
• 41. Application of multi-objective optimization in the study ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23851-0]
• 42. STELLA provides a drug design framework enabling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12685-1]
• 43. Artificial Intelligence in Molecular Optimization: Current ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4878]
• 44. Evolutionary Multiobjective Molecule Optimization in an ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11235097/]
• 45. Goal-directed multimodal multi-objective evolutionary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650224003341]
• 46. Molecule optimization via multi-objective evolutionary in ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08826]
• 47. CMOMO: a deep multi-objective optimization framework for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40635191/]
• 48. UniMoMo: Unified Generative Modeling of 3D Molecules ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=KUN7A7Okb6]
• 49. Finding Balance: Multi-Objective Optimization in Molecular ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6863e52ac1cb1ecda08070ae]
• 50. Multi-objective drug design with a scaffold-aware variational ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc08736d]
• 51. Text-guided multi-property molecular optimization with a ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.13597v3]
• 52. Research on the optimization model of anti-breast cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018315/]
• 53. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Drug Discovery [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-0464/4/1/2]
• 54. Advanced ADMET Modeling Using Deep Learning and AI [https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/blog/beyond-black-box-models-advances-in-data-driven-admet-modeling-403114]
• 55. PharmaBench: Enhancing ADMET benchmarks with large ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03793-0]
• 56. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Drug Discovery [https://www.simulations-plus.com/resource/multi-criteria-decision-analysis-in-drug-discovery/]
• 57. ADMET property prediction: The state of the art and current ... [https://optibrium.com/knowledge-base/admet-property-prediction-the-state-of-the-art-and-current-challenges/]
• 58. Multi-objective de novo drug design using evolutionary graphs [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4235242/]
• 59. LEADD: Lamarckian evolutionary algorithm for de novo drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00582-y]
• 60. Integrating transformers and many-objective optimization for ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05822-6]
• 61. Recent Advances in Automated Structure-Based De Novo ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10966644/]
• 62. De Novo Drug Design Using Reinforcement Learning with ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/De-Novo-Drug-Design-Using-Reinforcement-Learning-Atance-Diez/85da6c156e97eb5f731d69214684d948829477e9]
• 63. Hybridization of Machine Learning and Evolutionary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-electrical-engineering/special-issue/10K1RLGX66D]
• 64. Hybrid approaches to optimization and machine learning ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10994-023-06467-x]
• 65. Evolutionary design of molecules based on deep learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96812-8]
• 66. Evolutionary Optimization Methods for High-Dimensional ... [https://www.ieee-jas.net/article/doi/10.1109/JAS.2024.124320?pageType=en]
• 67. A dimensionality reduction assisted evolutionary algorithm ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650224002670]
• 68. Surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithm with adaptive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221065022500389X]
• 69. BO4Mob: Bayesian Optimization Benchmarks for High- ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.18824v1]
• 70. QUASAR: An Evolutionary Algorithm to Accelerate High ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.13843v2]
• 71. Multi-Objective Search: Algorithms, Applications, and ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.25504v1]
• 72. A Review of the Evolution of Multi-Objective Evolutionary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1546221825009889]
• 73. Molecular representation learning: cross-domain foundations ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00170f]
• 74. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 75. Validity constraints for data analysis workflows [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X24001079]
• 76. Instruction multi-constraint molecular generation using a ... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-025-02200-3]
• 77. Rapid traversal of vast chemical space using machine ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00777-x]
• 78. Relevance of the Trillion-Sized Chemical Space “eXplore” ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10108389/]
• 79. Chemical space docking enables large-scale structure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9616902/]
• 80. Surrogate model [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_model]
• 81. Using physical property surrogate models to perform ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/dd/d2dd00138a]
• 82. An introduction to surrogate modeling, Part I: fundamentals [https://towardsdatascience.com/an-introduction-to-surrogate-modeling-part-i-fundamentals-84697ce4d241/]
• 83. Adaptive Switching Surrogate Model for Evolutionary Multi ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/17/8/1213]
• 84. Surrogate Models Overview - FOQUS [https://foqus.readthedocs.io/en/stable/chapt_surrogates/reference.html]
• 85. Advancing surrogate-based optimization of time-expensive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815223000257]
• 86. A novel surrogate-based optimisation framework for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517325006982]
• 87. A fast hypervolume driven selection mechanism for many- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650216301328]
• 88. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 89. Enhancing the Performance of Evolutionary Algorithm by ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/12/3802]
• 90. A scalarization-based dominance evolutionary algorithm ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020025518307370]
• 91. A Decomposition-Based Evolutionary Algorithm with ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/10/1/19]
• 92. pymoo - NSGA - II : Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm [https://pymoo.org/algorithms/moo/nsga2.html]
• 93. Empirical Evaluation of NSGA , II , and NSGA / III ... MOEA D Optimization [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-1740-9_3]
• 94. New search strategy for multi-objective evolutionary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11667601/]
• 95. Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406033/]
• 96. From Lab to Clinic: How Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12298131/]
• 97. Leading AI-Driven Drug Discovery Platforms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031699725075118]
• 98. AI's Role in Drug Discovery: Top Uses, Real-world Cases ... [https://expertnetworkcalls.com/69/ai-role-in-drug-discovery-top-uses-real-world-cases-challenges]
• 99. Inside ELRIG's Drug Discovery 2025 [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/190237/inside-elrigs-drug-discovery-2025/]
• 100. Benchmarking MOEAs for solving continuous multi- ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.13726v1]
• 101. Benchmarking study of deep generative models for inverse ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d4dd00395k]
• 102. (PDF) Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization [https://www.academia.edu/57996033/Evolutionary_Multi_Criterion_Optimization]
• 103. Multi-objective evolutionary optimization for dimensionality ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10280406/]
• 104. Novelty Unlocking with Multiobjective Generative Models [https://openreview.net/forum?id=xNwmWaq2KN]
• 105. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Diversity Optimization [https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07454]
• 106. A dynamic multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650225001452]