Papers › Interpreting GFlowNets for Drug Discovery: What probes can and cannot show
Interpreting GFlowNets for Drug Discovery: What probes can and cannot show
Amirtha Varshini A S, Duminda S. Ranasinghe, Hok Hei Tam
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Generative Flow Networks (GFlowNets) construct molecules through sequential decisions, but their internal policies remain opaque, limiting adoption in drug discovery, where chemists need interpretable rationales for proposed structures. We present a control-validated interpretability study of SynFlowNet, a synthesis-aware GFlowNet trained with a drug-likeness (QED) reward. Our framework combines gradient saliency and counterfactual edits, an undercomplete factor analysis, and an overcomplete BatchTopK sparse autoencoder, evaluated with shuffled-label controls, RDKit-descriptor baselines, a scaffold-disjoint split, cross-seed stability, and an architecture-matched untrained network. These controls materially change the interpretation. Physicochemical properties and functional groups are highly decodable from SynFlowNet embeddings, but an untrained network with the same architecture performs essentially as well as the trained policy (drug-likeness within 0.005 and marginally better molecular-size decoding). Thus, this decodability reflects graph architecture and atom featurization rather than representations acquired through policy training. The surviving conclusions are narrower: the overcomplete autoencoder reconstructs embeddings better than a matched undercomplete baseline at comparable sparsity; chemically enriched substructure detectors, including per-halogen and boron features, emerge in individual runs, although only a small subset of dictionary directions is stable across seeds; and zeroing individual features produces property-specific effects on probe decoding. Beyond SynFlowNet, this study provides a reusable control protocol for molecular-model interpretability, separating learned structure from signals supplied by architecture and input representation. High probe scores alone should not be treated as evidence of learned chemistry.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2511.19264")
Code
Syntology Ran 3 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 3 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from amirtha-montai/synflownet_public. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
df38a2a53c2245a1 · report
ab980e61bdbb4f18 · report
425fedca2e094a06 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2511.19264, was issued in November 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections