FAR-DPO: Feasibility-Aware and Robust Direct Preference Optimization for Cyclic Peptide Design
Authors: Guofeng Zhang, Rong Han, Xiaoyu Wang, Zhiyun Li, Zongbo Han, Xiaohong Liu, Guangyu Wang
Organizations: Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Cyclic peptides are emerging as promising molecular scaffolds in drug discovery due to their high binding affinity and structural stability. However, extending generative models from linear to cyclic peptide design remains challenging, as cyclization sharply restricts the feasible design space through coupled geometric and biophysical constraints. Moreover, limited training data has led existing approaches to rely largely on zero-shot generation or post hoc filtering, resulting in low yields of feasible designs and limited control over multi-objective trade-offs. To address these limitations, we propose FAR-DPO (Feasibility-Aware and Robust Direct Preference Optimization), an architecture-agnostic framework that steers generative models toward structurally and biophysically feasible cyclic peptide designs, particularly for challenging targets. FAR-DPO integrates feasibility-aware preference construction with difficulty-aware group-robust optimization. Specifically, it constructs within-target preference pairs through feasibility-gated multi-objective dominance and adaptively reweights predefined difficulty groups according to their current preference losses. On the CPSea LNR benchmark, under a fixed generation budget, FAR-DPO increases overall success rate from 46.89% to 57.79% on PepGLAD and from 47.96% to 49.57% on PepFlow. These gains also extend to the hardest target quartile and are accompanied by more favorable best-per-target binding scores. Together, these results demonstrate FAR-DPO's effectiveness in improving feasibility and target-wise robustness.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of FAR-DPO. (A) Feasibility gates filter generated candidates to form an offline feasible pool. Within each pocket, tolerance-aware dominance is used to construct preference pairs, and frozen pocket-difficulty groups provide their group labels. (B) FAR-DPO is trained on these pairs using group-balanced sampling, reference-relative pair scoring with preferred-candidate anchoring, and loss-adaptive group reweighting. (C) Under identical pockets, sampling budget, and feasibility criteria, the aligned policy increases jointly feasible yield across target-difficulty groups.
Figure 2: Final Success across frozen difficulty groups. The panels use PepGLAD- (top) and PepFlow-defined (bottom) groups; Bars show target-macro results over 14 targets per group, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 3: Low-budget Final Pass@ K for PepGLAD (top) and PepFlow (bottom). Pass@ K is the target-macro probability of obtaining at least one Final candidate among K samples, evaluated over 56 targets.
Config.
Final ↑
Q4 ↑
Raw@10 Vina ↓
Raw@10 dG ↓
JS ↓
Clash ↓
PepGLAD
46.89
40.00
-5.123
-16.830
0.1596
0.3420
R1: IID/ERM/0
46.14
37.43
-5.604
-16.755
0.1424
0.2805
R2: GB/ERM/0
49.21
43.86
-5.669
-17.554
0.1437
0.2844
R3: GB/ERM/.2
50.32
43.14
-5.578
-17.638
0.1429
0.2832
R5: GB/ GDRO/0
52.77
46.71
-5.726
-16.954
0.1429
0.2549
FAR-DPO
57.79
50.36
−5.579
−17.383
0.1425
0.2592
Table 3: Optimization variants on PepGLAD. Final and Q4 are percentages. Raw@10 Vina and Raw@10 dG denote the target-macro conditional expected-best dG scores, respectively. Configurations use sampler/aggregation/anchor: GB denotes group-balanced sampling and GDRO denotes Group DRO. All preference variants use DPO.
Figure 4: Independent Final-pass designs for 5LM1: (a) PepGLAD, (b) FAR-DPO–PepGLAD; and 3BRH: (c) PepFlow, (d) FAR-DPO–PepFlow. Base/FAR peptides are blue/orange; receptors gray; 4 Å interface residues cyan; cyclization bonds green. Fixed topology-wise best-Vina selection was used.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Backbone
Generated candidates
Final preference pairs
Training preference pairs
Validation preference pairs
PepGLAD
192,000
90,408
85,912
4,496
PepFlow
192,000
92,099
87,494
4,605
Appendix
Table 4: Preference dataset sizes for the two generative backbones.
Setting
PepGLAD
PepFlow
Preference error surrogate
Sequence latent + structure latent
Translation + rotation
Stochastic repeats per preference pair
1
2
β / λanc
15 / 0.2
1 / 0.1
Optimizer / learning rate
AdamW / 1×10−5
Adam / 1×10−5
Adam β1 / β2 / ϵ
0.9 / 0.999 / 1×10−8
0.9 / 0.999 / 1×10−8
Weight decay
0.01
0
Appendix
Table 5: Training settings for PepGLAD and PepFlow.
Method
Final ↑
Q4 ↑
Raw ↓
JS ↓
Clash ↓
Base
46.89
40.00
-5.123
0.1596
0.3420
R1
46.14
37.43
-5.604
0.1424
0.2805
R2
49.21
43.86
-5.669
0.1437
0.2844
R3
50.32
43.14
-5.578
0.1429
0.2832
R4 (IPO)
52.18
46.79
-5.173
0.1595
0.3349
R5
52.77
46.71
-5.726
0.1429
0.2549
Appendix
Table 6: PepGLAD optimization configurations and main results. Final and Q4 are percentages; Raw denotes Raw@10 Vina, JS denotes Interface JS, and Clash denotes Legacy Clash/residue.
Figure 5: (a) Final Success of the PepGLAD optimization variants on Q1–Q4 defined by Base PepGLAD; (b) Base PepFlow and FAR-DPO–PepFlow Final Success on Q1–Q4 defined by Base PepFlow. Points are target-macro means, and error bars are 95% target-bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 6: (a) Final Pass@ K under fixed budgets on LNR56; (b–c) fixed- N Matched- N analysis within the PepGLAD and PepFlow backbones. The vertical axes show FAR-DPO-minus-Base differences in expected-best Vina and Rosetta ΔG ; negative values favor FAR-DPO. The analysis uses 56 common targets for N=1,2,3 , 55 for N=5 , and 54 for N=10 ; for N=20 , PepGLAD and PepFlow use 51 and 52 targets, respectively.
Parameter
Value
Final ↑
Vina ↓
Rosetta ΔG↓
Rama allowed ↑
scRMSD Mainchain ↓
Diversity ↑
Novelty ↑
Learning rate η
3×10−6
51.09
-6.75
-23.61
72.9
2.71
0.626
0.122
5×10−6
51.46
-6.75
-23.35
72.5
2.74
0.615
0.123
7×10−6
50.88
-6.80
-23.24
72.2
2.74
0.616
0.123
Group-DRO temperature τ
0.5
53.12
-6.95
-23.26
70.1
2.63
0.610
0.124
2.0
52.89
-6.93
-23.89
69.3
2.60
0.629
0.124
3.0
52.64
-6.92
-23.65
69.7
2.61
0.615
0.122
Appendix
Table 7: PepGLAD training-parameter sensitivity. Final and Rama allowed are percentages, and scRMSD Mainchain is measured in Å. The remaining metrics follow the definitions in the main text. Lower values are better for Vina, Rosetta ΔG , and scRMSD; higher values are better for the other metrics. The final model from the main text is included only as a reference to the main experimental result and is not part of the controlled comparison within each parameter block.
Cyclic peptides represent a promising class of therapeutic compounds in modern drug discovery, often offering improved stability and binding affinity. However, the de novo design of cyclic peptides remains challenging because methods must identify pocket-adaptive cyclization patterns and linkage sites while simultaneously controlling drug-relevant properties. This challenge is particularly pronounced for recent generative models trained predominantly on linear peptide data, which may fail to capture cyclization-specific constraints. To address the limitation, we introduce APCyc, a target-aware de novo cyclic peptide generation framework that explicitly models cyclization and jointly optimizes multiple essential physicochemical properties. By using an expanded residue vocabulary and explicitly encoding cyclization-site and linkage-type information, APCyc learns cyclization-aware representations and leverages Bayesian posterior guidance to steer sampling toward cyclic peptides satisfying multiple property objectives. Experimental results demonstrate that our model learns target-dependent cyclization preferences, and enables effective and controllable multi-property optimization for cyclic peptide design. The source code of this paper is available at https://github.com/HKUSTGZ-ML4Health-Lab/APCyc.
Yifan Zhao, Lang Qin, Jintai Chen
AI Thrust The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China · AI-Peptide Drug Design Joint Laboratory The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China
Target-conditioned cyclic peptide design requires coordinating interfacial side chains with macrocyclic closure. Existing end-to-end generators concurrently update geometric and chemical variables from noise, assigning residues to disordered coordinates. Meanwhile, predictor-assisted workflows often get stuck in local traps because they lack feedback in the propose-and-filter stage and ignore 3D structural proposals during sequence search. To overcome the drawbacks of these two paradigms, we propose DC-FLOW, a staged generative framework built around Delayed-Coupling Flow Matching. In principle, DC-FLOW postpones sequence and side-chain activation until a target-conditioned backbone takes shape, resolving structural ambiguity before chemical assignment. Then, it feeds delayed activations back into the backbone, achieving co-evolution of backbone geometry and emerging residue identities by coupling their flows. This mechanism enables more reliable macrocyclic closure and favorable interface packing. For predictor-assisted workflows, DC-FLOW supplies 3D proposals with in-trajectory guidance, enabling cascaded test-time scaling to prune redundant backbones and terminate unpromising refinement early. Extensive experiments show that DC-FLOW improves cyclization fidelity, diversity, and interface energetics, substantially increasing the yield of confident cyclic peptide binders under a fixed final-candidate budget. Our code is available at https://github.com/mianqiu00/DCFlow.
Yitian Wang, Minjie Cheng, Yaning Cui +3
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · DP Technology · Cyclon Therapeutics +2
Generative models coupled with reinforcement learning (RL), such as REINVENT and PepINVENT, have emerged as a powerful framework for de novo molecular design. During the ideation process these generative frameworks utilize various predictive models as part of the optimization objectives. However, the utility of the predictive models can be limited by their domain of applicability. When RL is used to explore the chemical space with predictive models, it can suggest molecules that lie outside the predictor's domain of applicability. As a result, the predictions may become less reliable, potentially steering designs into high reward but also high uncertainty chemical spaces. This is particularly pronounced for cyclic peptides which show therapeutic promise due to their modifiability and large interaction surfaces but are understudied compared to small molecules. While passive membrane permeation in cyclic peptides has attracted interest, identifying optimal permeable designs remains challenging yet crucial for targeting intracellular sites. We present an RL-guided generative framework that designs permeable cyclic peptides using an uncertainty-aware permeability predictor as the scoring component. To address predictive uncertainty, especially impacted by novel chemistry, we integrate conformal prediction (CP) as our uncertainty quantification method. CP assesses designs based on the calibrated model under a user-defined confidence level. We demonstrate that rewarding generated peptides with CP-informed predictions improves both reliability and efficiency of peptide optimization process. This also discourages exploration outside the predictor's applicability domain. This approach bridges the gap between predictive uncertainty and RL-guided exploration, showing how generative modelling and conformal prediction can be combined for the first time.
Laura van Weesep, Sunay Chankeshwara, Leonardo De Maria +3
Molecular AI, Discovery Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden. · Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Sweden · Institute for Complex Molecular Systems (ICMS), Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. +3