Physics-Aware Auxiliary Losses Improve Out-of-Distribution Generalization of a GNN Synthesizability Filter

Machine-learning drug-discovery pipelines increasingly rely on generative models that propose molecules far from the data used to train downstream synthesizability filters. Existing filters (SAScore, SCScore, RAscore, DeepSA) are purely statistical and degrade in exactly this out-of-distribution (OOD) regime. We ask whether cheap, closed-form physical priors, used as auxiliary supervision on a graph neural network (GNN), improve OOD generalization. We add two auxiliary losses to a GINE backbone: a topological complexity regression supervised by the Bertz index, and a strain-energy soft penalty supervised by MMFF94 force-field energy. On a 65,177-molecule corpus (HIV, Tox21, COCONUT) labeled by SAScore thresholds we reproduce a strong in-distribution baseline, then evaluate a 4-way ablation (baseline / +complexity / +strain / +both) on a single-source OOD split (train on drug-like HIV+Tox21, test on COCONUT natural products), repeated over 5 seeds with paired bootstrap confidence intervals. All three physics-aware variants give a small but statistically significant OOD improvement over the baseline (mean OOD AUC 0.9774): +complexity Delta = +0.0060 (95% CI [+0.0023, +0.0102]), +strain Delta = +0.0032 ([+0.0008, +0.0052]), +both Delta = +0.0066 ([+0.0038, +0.0093]); every interval excludes zero, and the combination is best. The variants are indistinguishable in-distribution, so the effect is visible only under OOD evaluation. We are explicit that the effects are modest, and we report a cautionary methodological finding: a single-seed version of this experiment produced a qualitatively different (non-monotone) story that did not survive multi-seed evaluation.

The Metric Picks the Winner: Evaluation Choice Flips Model Rankings for Drug-Response Prediction in Unseen Chemistry

Predicting how a cell's transcriptome responds to a drug it has never seen is a core, hard problem in computational cell biology: recent benchmarks show complex models often fail to beat trivial baselines once test compounds are held out by chemistry. We study one cell line and assay, THP-1 cells profiled by DRUG-seq, scored by the active-compound weighted MSE(wMSE) of the VCPI prediction contest. We propose a staged approach: dumb baselines (untreated control and mean training-compound response) that the field keeps failing to beat; non-parametric retrieval (a Tanimoto-weighted average of a held-out compound's nearest training compounds); and a fusion stage combining a frozen chemistry embedding with retrieval-support features to predict the residual over the mean, with an uncertainty head and gene programs. On the released VCPI THP-1 drug-seq data (14,026 training compounds), under a Bemis-Murcko scaffold split, the model ranking inverts depending on the metric. Under an inverse-variance per-gene proxy, a regularized linear regression on Morgan fingerprints appears to win over the deep models, retrieval, and ChemBERTa -- the textbook "simple baselines win" result. But under the contest's true active-set metric (per-(gene, compound) Mejia weights, validated against the official scorer; mean baseline 0.535 vs the organizers' 0.507 reference), that reverses: the deep models win, our fusion decoder significantly beats the linear fingerprint baseline (-0.012 wMSE, paired bootstrap p < 10^-4), and the proxy's winner becomes the worst chemistry-aware predictor. Picking the metric picks the winner -- to our knowledge the first demonstration on real held-out drug chemistry of the metric-calibration effect established largely on genetic perturbation. We release a reproducible pipeline wired to the official scorer that emits a valid submission over the real 1064 x 12,995 grid.