Leveraging generative hallucination and biophysics-informed modeling for unified biomolecular sequence-structure co-design
Authors: Xuefeng Liu, Mingxuan Cao, Xiao Luo, Songhao Jiang, Tobin Sosnick, Jinbo Xu, Louis Maher, Rick Stevens
Organizations: Department of Medicine, University of Florida · Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago · Data Science Institute, University of Chicago · Department of Pathology, University of Chicago · Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago · Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago · Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic · Argonne National Laboratory
Biomolecular design underpins applications from molecular recognition to therapeutics and synthetic biology, yet de novo interaction design remains challenging-especially for DNA/RNA, underexplored non-protein modalities with scarce, heterogeneous complex data and sharper geometric and chemical constraints. We introduce MCTH (Monte Carlo Tree Hallucination), an inference-only framework that casts all-atom sequence-structure co-design as uncertainty-aware planning over hallucinated states from pretrained folding and inverse-folding models, with optional biophysical control within the same decision loop. MCTH treats these models as frozen black-box operators and uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to allocate a fixed inference budget across competing design trajectories, incorporating model confidence and uncertainty, as well as cross-expert consensus/disagreement when multiple predictors are available. Across protein-RNA, protein-DNA, protein-protein, and protein-ligand design, matched-budget experiments show that adaptive search improves over simpler sampling and cycling strategies, while held-out AlphaFold3 and Chai-1 evaluations demonstrate transfer beyond the search-time oracle. MCTH provides a shared planning layer across modalities while allowing task-specific folding, inverse-folding, and biophysical modules, requiring no fine-tuning or backpropagation through component models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The MCTH framework: search-guided sequence–structure co-design. Left: UCT-style Monte Carlo Tree Search performs global planning over states s=(S,X) via selection and backpropagation. Right: each expansion instantiates a hallucination–evaluation cycle that proposes new sequences (inverse folding), generates corresponding structures (diffusion-based hallucination), and evaluates candidates using model confidence signals (e.g., ipTM/pLDDT), which are then backed up to guide subsequent search. Confidence-guided masking is an optional refinement operator and is disabled in the minimal plug-and-play configuration used in this work.
Table 1: Protein–RNA aptamer design. Left: matched 100-candidate evaluation under the Boltz-2 search-time oracle. Right: independent AlphaFold3 re-scoring of final designs. Values are ipTM; higher is better.
Table 2: Protein–DNA aptamer design. Left: matched 100-candidate evaluation under the Boltz-2 search-time oracle; the two 7XVN chain-B cases are excluded because Boltz-2 collapses for all compared designs. Right: independent AlphaFold3 re-scoring on all 10 targets, under which the two chain-B cases are non-degenerate. Values are ipTM; higher is better.
Target
BoltzDesign1@100
ODesign@100
Complexa@100
MCTH @100
1DJS
0.758
0.944
0.907
0.933
1MOX
0.291
0.901
0.845
0.929
1XIW
0.884
0.940
0.946
0.946
2GY7
0.189
0.672
0.930
0.862
2IFG
0.527
0.730
0.356
0.806
3DI3
0.508
0.901
0.926
0.947
Table 3: Matched-budget protein-binder optimization on CaoData. All methods use up to 100 folding/evaluator calls per target. ODesign and Complexa candidates are evaluated under the common Boltz-2 refolding protocol, while BoltzDesign1 uses its native Boltz evaluation during optimization. † BoltzDesign1 mean is over 11 targets because 5U8R is unavailable. Values are best ipTM per target; higher is better.
Method
Outputs/target
Passing/valid
Pass rate
Targets ≥ 1 pass
Dual-expert MCTH
10
41/110
37.3%
8/11
RFDiffusion
10
22/110
20.0%
8/11
Table 5: Matched final-design yield under the same held-out binder-quality filter.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method family / example
Plans over seq.–struct. states
Multi-modality
Biophysics in-loop
Fine-tuning-free
Rosetta / MD-style optimization
×
Limited
✓
✓
RFdiffusion / ODesign
×
△
×
✓
ProteinMPNN / inverse folding
×
Limited
×
✓
BindCraft / BoltzDesign
△
Limited
△
✓
MCTD-ME
✓
Protein only
×
✓
MCTH
✓
✓
✓
✓
Appendix
Table 6: High-level comparison with related method families. A check mark indicates an explicit/core component, △ indicates partial or task-specific support, and × indicates absence.
Component
Parameter
Value
Tree search
Fold-call budget T
100
Expansion width K
4
Maximum tree depth Dmax
5
Maximum MCTS iterations
50
Fold calls per iteration
8
Early-stop patience
10 iterations without improvement
Appendix
Table 8: Main hyperparameters and configuration.
Variant
7WKP A → B
7YEW A → B
8GXB C → B
Mean
Δ vs. Full
MCTH (full)
0.902 ± 0.010
0.979 ± 0.002
0.858 ± 0.006
0.913
0.000
Exploration-off (cp=0)
0.756 ± 0.007
0.972 ± 0.002
0.791 ± 0.040
0.839
-0.073
Greedy cycling
0.750 ± 0.004
0.957 ± 0.003
0.646 ± 0.012
0.784
-0.129
Best-of- N random
0.752 ± 0.030
0.953 ± 0.001
0.629 ± 0.010
0.778
-0.135
Appendix
Table 12: Matched-budget ablation on RNA aptamer design. All values are mean ± standard deviation over three seeds.
Variant
7XVN A_N
7YUK A_C
8PMF A_B
Mean
Δ vs. Full
MCTH (full)
0.955 ± 0.002
0.946 ± 0.008
0.964 ± 0.005
0.955
0.000
Exploration-off (cp=0)
0.909 ± 0.011
0.904 ± 0.009
0.930 ± 0.009
0.914
-0.041
Greedy cycling
0.756 ± 0.014
0.909 ± 0.018
0.819 ± 0.006
0.828
-0.127
Best-of- N random
0.753 ± 0.010
0.900 ± 0.006
0.834 ± 0.005
0.829
-0.126
Appendix
Table 13: Matched-budget ablation on DNA aptamer design. All values are mean ± standard deviation over three seeds.
Variant
3DI3
4O3V
Mean
Δ vs. Full
MCTH (full)
0.912 ± 0.002
0.964 ± 0.002
0.938
0.000
Exploration-off (cp=0)
0.897 ± 0.008
0.954 ± 0.016
0.925
-0.013
Greedy cycling
0.901 ± 0.023
0.955 ± 0.013
0.928
-0.011
Best-of- N random
0.803 ± 0.005
0.900 ± 0.008
0.851
-0.087
Appendix
Table 14: Matched-budget ablation on protein–protein binder design. All values are mean ± standard deviation over three seeds.
Variant
Overall mean
Protein mean
RNA mean
DNA mean
MCTH (full)
0.935
0.938
0.913
0.955
Exploration-off (cp=0)
0.889
0.925
0.839
0.914
Greedy cycling
0.836
0.928
0.784
0.828
Best-of- N random
0.815
0.851
0.778
0.829
Appendix
Table 15: Summary of matched-budget ablations across all targets.
Variant
Final mean
Never improve
Avg. last improvement
MCTH (full)
0.935
0.0%
46.6
Exploration-off ( cp=0 )
0.889
61.9%
29.3
Greedy cycling
0.836
53.8%
23.5
Best-of- N
0.815
44.4%
33.3
Appendix
Table 16: Effective convergence at ϵ=0.002 under the matched folding-call budget. “Never improve” denotes runs with no improvement above ϵ after initialization.
Modality
n designs
Within-target ρ
95% CI
DNA aptamer
50
0.487
[0.29,0.67]
Protein binder
255
0.252
[0.05,0.46]
RNA aptamer
77
0.173
[−0.06,0.36]
Appendix
Table 17: Design-level agreement between Boltz-2 and AlphaFold3 interface scores. Correlations are computed within target and confidence intervals are obtained by bootstrap over targets.
Modality
Top-1 hit
Random
Prec.@25%
Random
DNA aptamer
0.600
0.200
0.600
0.200
Protein binder
0.167
0.053
0.427
0.241
RNA aptamer
0.286
0.091
0.143
0.273
Appendix
Table 18: Screening utility of Boltz-2 for selecting designs favored by the held-out predictor. Random columns give the corresponding chance-level expectation under the same target-level candidate-set sizes.
Archive
Passing/valid
Pass rate
Targets ≥1 pass
Dual-expert MCTH, top-5
27/55
49.1%
8/11
Dual-expert MCTH, top-10
41/110
37.3%
8/11
Dual-expert MCTH, top-25
84/275
30.5%
9/11
Appendix
Table 19: Final-archive yield for dual-expert MCTH. Candidates are ranked only by the in-loop joint reward before applying the held-out filter.
Method
Outputs/target
Passing/valid
Pass rate
Targets ≥1 pass
Dual-expert MCTH
10
41/110
37.3%
8/11
RFDiffusion
10
22/110
20.0%
8/11
Appendix
Table 20: Matched final-design yield using ten outputs per target and the same held-out binder-quality filter.
Target
Chai pass/10
Chai mean/best ipTM
AF2 mean/best ipTM
1DJS
1/10
0.327 / 0.594
0.166 / 0.278
1MOX
0/10
0.252 / 0.498
0.148 / 0.240
1XIW
6/10
0.540 / 0.808
0.536 / 0.840
2GY7
5/10
0.519 / 0.729
0.419 / 0.669
2IFG
2/10
0.288 / 0.700
0.259 / 0.783
3DI3
0/10
0.228 / 0.258
0.233 / 0.616
Appendix
Table 21: Per-target RFDiffusion held-out evaluation for the matched top-10 comparison. Mean/best values are computed over the ten outputs for each target.
Method
n
ΔGsep
ΔG/100A˚2
Packstat
Δ unsat H-bonds
MCTH
6
-71.2
-3.12
0.577
5.7
BindCraft
5
-65.7
-3.40
0.600
5.2
RFDiffusion
6
-54.2
-3.13
0.602
6.5
Appendix
Table 22: Oracle-independent Rosetta InterfaceAnalyzer evaluation of protein-binder designs. More negative interface energy and higher packstat are favorable; fewer buried unsatisfied hydrogen bonds are preferred.
Modality
Targets
Mean folding calls
Mean wall-clock
Protein binder
12
98.1
∼ 9.0 h
RNA aptamer
7
52.4
∼ 0.8 h
DNA aptamer
8
66.1
∼ 1.1 h
Appendix
Table 23: Realized compute for the main MCTH experiments. DNA reports the eight targets used in the non-degenerate Boltz-2 comparison. Wall-clock values are means from the corresponding run logs.
Fold call
1
5
10
25
50
100
Protein binder
0.614
0.724
0.768
0.803
0.830
0.864
Appendix
Table 24: Protein-binder performance as a function of folding-call budget. Values are mean held-forward best ipTM across targets.
The rapid evolution of generative models has unlocked new potentials in protein binder design, a pivotal task in structural biology, by facilitating end-to-end generation via joint sequence-structure modeling or hallucination. However, existing approaches are predominantly implemented under a single-target, single-state assumption, limiting their ability to model multi-target or multi-state interactions required for advanced function-oriented protein design. Here, we introduce Chamaileon, which unifies multi-target and multi-state binder design by formulating the problem as cross-context binding landscape modeling. The framework is underpinned by a training paradigm termed In-Context Complex Co-Design (I3CD) for context-aware sequence-structure co-modeling. During inference, we employ Mixture-of-Paths Sampling (MoPS), a scalable strategy that optimizes a single sequence across contexts while alleviating the scarcity of high-quality multi-conformational paired data. Extensive evaluation on our newly constructed benchmark, CROSS, demonstrates that Chamaileon effectively generates sequences adaptable to diverse conformational landscapes and multi-target requirements. The code is available on https://github.com/caohengyuan/Chamaileon.
Hengyuan Cao, Shizhuo Cheng, Mingxuan Liu +5
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Institute for Advanced Study Zhejiang University, Shanghai, China +1
Proteins are fundamental to biological processes, with their function determined by the complex interplay between the amino acid sequence and the three-dimensional structure. Developing generative models capable of understanding this intrinsically multi-modal relationship is crucial for fields like drug discovery and protein engineering. Existing models often rely on a multi-stage training process where autoencoders that tokenize data into latent representations are trained in a first stage. Secondly, a generative model is trained on the latent representation of the autoencoder(s), i.e., generative modeling in a latent space. We hypothesize that this multi-stage training is not necessary to obtain performant co-design models and thus present SimpleDesign, an effective multi-modal protein design model trained directly in the data space. SimpleDesign leverages a single-stage end-to-end objective that combines discrete cross-entropy for sequences and a regression objective for structures. In order to effectively model the difference in sequence and structure modalities, we develop a Mixture-of-Transformer architecture that allows modality-specific processing while keeping global self-attention over both modalities. We train SimpleDesign on over 2M sequence-structure pairs achieving strong performance across co-design and unconditional sequence/structure generation benchmarks.
We introduce RosettaSearch, an inference-time multi-objective optimization approach for backbone conditioned protein sequence design. We use large language models (LLMs) as a generative optimizer within a search algorithm capable of controlled exploration and exploitation, using rewards computed from RosettaFold3, a structure prediction model, under a strict computational budget. In a large-scale evaluation, we apply RosettaSearch to 400 suboptimal sequences generated by LigandMPNN (a state-of-the-art model trained for protein sequence design), recovering high-fidelity designs that LigandMPNN's single-pass decoding fails to produce. RosettaSearch's designs show improvements in structural fidelity metrics ranging between 18% to 68%, translating to a 2.5x improvement in design success rate. We observe that these gains in success rate are robust when RosettaSearch-designed sequences are evaluated with an independent structure prediction oracle (Chai-1) and generalize across two distinct LLM families (o4-mini and Gemini-3), with performance scaling consistently with reasoning capability. We further demonstrate that RosettaSearch improves the sequence fidelity of ProteinMPNN designs for de novo backbones from the Dayhoff atlas, showing that the approach generalizes beyond native protein structures to computationally generated backbones. We also demonstrate a multi-modal extension of RosettaSearch with vision-language models, where images of predicted protein structures are used as feedback to incorporate structural context to guide protein sequence generation. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale demonstration that LLMs can serve as effective generative optimizers for backbone-conditioned protein sequence design, yielding systematic gains without any model retraining.
Meghana Kshirsagar, Allen Nie, Ching-An Cheng +5
AI for Good, Microsoft Redmond · Google DeepMind · Google Research +3