MAGNet: Motif-Agnostic Generation of Molecules from Scaffolds
graph generative models;2d molecules
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See the "Weaknesses" section above for specific questions.

If my questions/concerns are addressed, I would consider raising my score.
(S1): The authors address an important problem of molecule generation, and identify a reasonable gap in the capabilities of prior models that they then try to address. The proposed approach is motivated clearly. 

 

(S2): The paper is generally well-written. The experiments are conducted across various setups that are common/relevant in this domain. While the empirical performance isn't across-the-board amazing, MAGNet seems to be a generally capable model with good performance overall, while improving on top of previous models in some settings, as well as enabling new capabilities (e.g. more ways to condition the generation on partial information).
This paper proposes a new way to address chunk-based molecule generation. Instead of using fully specified molecular subgraphs (motifs) similarly to prior work, the authors instead abstract out motifs to their connectivity skeletons, which allows for a smaller vocabulary to cover a wider range of possible motif realizations. The authors then show a factorization of the generative procedure that first builds the scaffold by assembling these motif skeletons and then gradually fills in the atom features. The approach is verified on standard generation and optimization benchmarks, showing decent performance.
(W1): The authors argue the most direct comparison is to other OS models, and focus on that angle. Setting aside the fact that MAGNet is not purely one-shot as the scaffold multiset `S` is decoded sequentially and autoregressively, even if we agree MAGNet is OS, is there any inherent value that comes from being an OS model? One thing that comes to mind would be faster inference, as stepwise generation models can be expensive due to repeatedly encoding the current partial graph. So, is MAGNet more efficient than sequential decoding models, e.g. MoLeR? 

 

(W2): More interesting conditioning settings depicted in Figure 5 could be explained in more detail. The partial molecule induces a partial scaffold multiset `S`; do you then use this partial multiset and continue generating to get a full multiset, then connect the scaffolds while forcing those of the connections that are implied from the conditioning? I assume extending the multiset `S` with further scaffolds cannot directly take into account the fact that some of the scaffold connections (or scaffold instantiations into specific motifs) are already known from the conditioning, because during training the scaffold multiset extension subnetwork assumes only a multiset of generic scaffolds is known. Could this be an issue causing the model to add scaffolds that don't fit well with the partial molecule? 

=== Nitpicks === 

Below I list nitpicks (e.g. typos, grammar errors), which did not have a significant impact on my review score, but it would be good to fix those to improve the paper further. 

- Line 147: Denoting the join node as `j` could be an index clash given that the scaffolds being considered are denoted as `i` and `j` earlier in the sentence. 

- Line 155: "factories" -> "factorize" 

- Line 309: missing space
Yes
None
No ethics review needed.
I'll be honest here. I really liked this paper and I was going to recommend clear acceptance until I understood that MAGnet was an AR model "disguised" as an OS model. From that point onward, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was framed as OS only because, if put in the AR category, the results would become not so impressive (although still good). I really hope this was an unintentional mistake or misinterpretation by the authors. That's a shame in my opinion, since I believe the proposal is original and the evaluation was very thorough, the technical side of this paper is almost flawless. 

I will be recommending rejection of this paper for the moment, because in this form too many claims made in this paper stem from an incorrect premise. However, I am willing to hear from the authors why they consider MAGnet one-shot instead of sequential and will re-evaluate whether I could reconsider my judgment after the rebuttal phase.
- using scaffolds instead of motifs qualifies as an innovative proposal, which could be of value to the community
- experimental evaluation is extensive in both depth (many baselines) and width (two benchmarks)
The paper presents MAGnet, a generative model for molecules. MAGnet is based on scaffolds (an abstraction of molecular fragments without atom and bond information, just the graph structure), which are introduced to factorize of the molecule distribution. MAGnet is a VAE-like architecture which generates new molecules by first predicting a scaffold set and its connectivity from latent space, then by predicting the atom and bond types for each scaffold, and finally by adding leaf nodes. Experiments show good performances in comparison with several baselines, on standard benchmarks such as GuacaMol and MOSES.
throughout the paper, MAGnet is considered a one-shot (OS) molecule generator, when in fact it is auto-regressive (AR). Appendix B.2 states that the set of scaffolds is generated auto-regressively, so I cannot understand how it could be considered one-shot. According to the definition by Zhu et al. (2022):


    Sequential generation refers to generating graphs in a set of consecutive steps, usually done nodes by nodes and edges by edges. One-shot generation, instead, refers to generating the node feature and edge feature matrices in one single step.

This is very different from what it is stated in Section 2 of the MAGnet paper:

    Zhu et al. (2022) categorise the generation process further into sequential methods, building molecules per fragment while conditioning on a partial molecule.

to justify the fact that MAGnet is OS. According to the same paper that is cited, MAGnet belongs to the AR category. If MAGnet is AR, then most claims made in the paper need to be toned down or changed because it falls in the same category as MoLeR, which has usually comparable or better performances than MAGnet. For example, the claim "MAGnet is the best OS generator" no longer makes sense.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. My understanding of the experiments presented in Figure 1-a, Figure 3 and Figure 9 carried out (Section 5.1) is that the fragment-based approaches fail to reconstruct complex motifs that are absent from their fragment vocabulary by using atom-based tokens only. In contrast, MAGNet contained these structures in its scaffold vocabulary. Why haven't both methods used the same dataset to construct their fragment/scaffold vocabularies, without limiting fragment-based methods to only the top-K fragments (i.e. including all fragments). In this case, the modeling task from the fragment-based methods using a vast vocabulary of fragments would be more difficult, but the method wouldn't lack these important fragments such as big rings, preventing them from reconstructing specific molecules. Have experiments on the baselines been carried out by varying the value of "k" in the top-k fragment-based vocabularies to see how vocabulary size trades-off with learning complexity? It seems to me that this might be a point where a more appropriate tuning of the baseline's hyperparameters would make a difference. And if the main advantage of the proposed factorisation is that it removes the need for such tuning when constructing the fragment vocabulary, it would be interesting to discuss these considerations in the paper.
In general, I found the paper interesting and very well written. It clearly identifies a limitation of current fragment-based molecular generators in terms of expressivity, and present a well motivated solution based on a novel factorisation paradigm. I believe this is a good paper which brings significant contributions to fragment-based molecular generation approaches and for this reason I recommend that the paper should be accepted. I suggested some clarifications (see below) which I think would increase the clarity of the paper and complement the discussion on the limitations of the method and the general positioning of fragment-based and one-shot graph molecular generators.

A few specific notes:
1. The Related Work section is exhaustive.
2. The proposed method is clearly introduced and detailed. In particular Figures 2 and 6 effectively convey the hierarchy supporting this paradigm.
3. The experimental section is well structured and the authors compare to a large array of prior work and using several public datasets. The results effectively support the main claims made in the paper. In particular, the results presented in Figure 3, Figure 4 are compelling.
In this work, the authors aim to address a fundamental limitation of fragment-based molecular generators. The vocabulary of such models is defined as the union of common molecular fragments, obtained from datasets of known molecules, and individual atoms, which can be used to re-generate motifs that would not be listed under the available fragments. The authors argue that this choice of vocabulary creates an inherent tradeoff in the expressivity of the model. On the on hand, including more fragments quickly increases the vocabulary of the model, with the number of motif variation increasing exponentially with their size. On the other hand, learning to model missing fragments from individual atoms is a challenging task requiring even more training data and often leading to unrealistic molecular motifs. 

As a solution, the authors propose a coarse-to-fine-grained molecular generation paradigm centred around molecular scaffolds, rather than fragments, as the basic building block of the model's vocabulary. A single scaffold implicitly captures many similar fragments, allowing for a relatively small vocabulary size while retaining expressivity. The proposed model, MAGNet, a VAE-based molecular generator, operates on this multi-level factorisation paradigm, by first sampling scaffolds and only then specifying the atomic composition of the scaffolds, their joints and the leaf nodes as a successive step. They evaluate this approach on several benchmarks against a variety of baselines and show that the proposed method, with its more expressive vocabulary, can reliably generate complex molecular motifs, in addition to allow for latent code optimisation and interpolation.
1. One of the main limitation of fragment-based methods is the absence of synthesizability considerations in the framework design. This significantly limits the applicability of such methods since, to be tested in physical and biological assays, the proposed molecules either require individual and expansive custom synthesis plans or have to be replaced by available analogs, thus drastically under-utilizing the expressivity of the model. It would be interesting to further discuss the limitations of the proposed method w.r.t. synthesizability in the manuscript.
2. On line 371: "We do not report Novelty and Uniqueness, as almost all evaluated models achieve 100% on these metrics." if this claim is made, then the numbers should be presented (at least in Appendix). Same for the mention right after: "For the baselines DiGress, SM-LSTM, and CharVAE, which are not able to achieve 100% Validity, we sample until we obtain 10^4 valid molecules", it could be informative to include these numbers in appendix (validity rate for each method).
3. It would be useful to specify a bit more clearly how benchmarking on Guacamol is executed (lines 301-304 and 309-311). Is the model trained on ZINC and then evaluated on some reference set defined by Guacamol (Chembl)? Or is the model trained on Chembl molecules and compared to a test set also defined in Guacamol? While the provided references are useful, the description of the experiments should be standalone in the paper.
4. In the goal-directed evaluations, it would be interesting to compare MAGNet with methods specifically aimed at goal-directed molecular design such as RL and GFlownet based methods.

### Elements worth clarifying

1. Figure 1 could be made clearer by further explaining parts a), b) and c) in the caption.
2. The factorisation from graph to scaffold graph, and scaffold graph to molecular graphs, described in Section 3, would be clearer with a supporting Figure.
3. The main baselines (PS-VAE, MoLeR and MiCaM) could be described in greater details.
4. I found the discussion on novel conditioning capabilities very interesting (lines 469-476), however, even with this in mind, it is not clear to me what Figure 5 is showing or how it supports these claims. I think this figure could be improved to better support this discussion.

### Minor comments:

1. Typo on line 155, factorise*
2. Line 150: not sure that App C.6 is the intended link here (or how it relates to the sentence)?
3. Typo on line 302: to evaluate*
4. Error in Figure 3: based on the text and the caption itself, it seems to be that the graph columns B and C are mixed up in Figure 3.
5. I did not find the caption of Table 1 very natural to read. I would suggest simply specifying in parenthesis what underline and bold mean in the table, as opposed to underlining and bolding their description in the caption.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. 
Could the authors provide the **validity** of generated molecules? Are there specific metrics used to ensure that generated molecules are fully **connected**, given that some examples (such as in the bottom row of Figure 11) suggest molecules with broken structures?

2. 
A comparison with baseline methods in terms of **generation speed** would add valuable context for practical deployment. 

3. 
Could the authors clarify the **vocabulary size** difference between your approach and baseline models?
1. The paper tackles a significant issue in 2D molecular generation, and Figure 1a provides an illustrative example that emphasizes the limitations of current motif-based methods in generating novel molecular structures. This emphasis on structural diversity is both timely and impactful for the field.


2. Experimental results demonstrate an increase in generated structural diversity.
This paper addresses a critical limitation in substructure-based molecular generative models: the inability to capture the structural diversity in molecular space due to missing complex structures from the motif vocabulary. The authors propose a novel approach that employs a structural scaffold vocabulary, leaving atom and bond types to be predicted by the model. This approach is intended to enrich structural diversity, with specific metrics introduced to highlight the advantages of the proposed method.
1. **Limitations in Generating Novel Molecular Structures**

1.1 A primary concern is whether the proposed solution truly resolves the problem of generating novel molecular structures. As highlighted in Figure 1a, the generation of new substructures—particularly complex fused ring systems—appears challenging. Both the original motif approach and the scaffold motif proposed in this work seem constrained in their ability to construct unseen complex fused rings because they are hard to piece together using substructures in the vocabulary.

1.2 Furthermore, while the scaffold motif approach can potentially reduce vocabulary size, it still requires additional specification of bonds and atom types on rings, which might affect the validity of atom valence of the generated molecules. 

Thus, while the problem raised is compelling, the method appears to partially address, rather than fully resolve, this issue.

2. **Writing**

2.1 Overlap in Sections 3 and 4: Sections 3 and 4 present overlapping content, which could benefit from a clearer delineation. Specifically, Section 4 should focus more on detailing the network structures (architecture) within each module, and provide an illustration of the model structure. The high-level probability descriptions, already covered in Section 3, could be streamlined here.

2.2 Figure Captions: In Figure 3, the captions for panels (b) and (c) appear reversed.

2.3 References: The authors should thoroughly review the reference list for consistency. It is full of preprint references.  Accepted papers should reference their final publication locations rather than preprints (e.g. MiCaM and ShapeMol, etc). Please also check with repeated links and unusual endings with paper abbreviations (e.g. G-SchNet, JODO, etc.).

3. **Experimental Results**

While structural diversity has been enhanced, some important metrics, such as FCD and SA, appear to drop. Additionally, there is no mention of the validity rate of generated molecules in the table 1.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024magnet,
title={{MAGN}et: Motif-Agnostic Generation of Molecules from Scaffolds},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=5FXKgOxmb2},
note={under review}
}
Recent advances in machine learning for molecules exhibit great potential for facilitating drug discovery from in silico predictions.
Most models for molecule generation rely on the decomposition of molecules into frequently occurring substructures (motifs), from which they generate novel compounds. 
While motif representations greatly aid in learning molecular distributions, such methods fail to represent substructures beyond their known motif set, posing a fundamental limitation for discovering novel compounds.
To address this limitation and enhance structural expressivity, we propose to separate structure from features by abstracting motifs to scaffolds and, subsequently, allocating atom and bond types. 
To this end, we introduce a novel factorisation of the molecules' data distribution that considers the entire molecular context and facilitates learning adequate assignments of atoms and bonds to scaffolds. Complementary to this, we propose MAGNet, the first model to freely learn motifs. Importantly, we demonstrate that MAGNet's improved expressivity leads to molecules with more structural diversity and, at the same time, diverse atom and bond assignments.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
graph generative models 2d molecules
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/18db6e58953edc61190a85d710744e406948b1e9.pdf
applications to physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/d8d7f08e7fb6381b0d81089fe3f0f6165551760d.zip
MAGNet: Motif-Agnostic Generation of Molecules from Scaffolds
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission