LRGB

Peptides-struct

Graph Regression PyG dataset page ↗PyG ↗

Structure

15,535Graphs
151Nodes
307Edges
11Classes
9Node Feature Dim
3Edge Feature Dim

Coverage

232Results
1Variants
43Papers
11-target graph regression Predict 11 graph-level geometric descriptors computed from each peptide’s 3D structure. Inputs use OGB’s nine categorical atom fields and three categorical bond fields derived from SMILES. Evaluated by MAE.

Dataset details

Task

Predict 11 graph-level geometric descriptors computed from each peptide’s 3D structure. The targets cover three mass-weighted inertias, three valence-weighted inertias, three principal-axis lengths, sphericity, and distance from a best-fit plane; each target is standardized to zero mean and unit variance.

Data

The 15,535 peptides are the same SATPdb-derived molecules used by Peptides-func. Nodes are non-hydrogen atoms and edges are covalent bonds, giving much larger molecular graphs than typical small-molecule benchmarks.

Features

Inputs use OGB’s nine categorical atom fields and three categorical bond fields derived from SMILES. Although the targets were computed from 3D peptide structures, neither coordinates nor other 2D/3D structural information are included in the input graphs.

Splits and evaluation

Peptides-struct uses the same fixed 70%/15%/15% stratified split as Peptides-func, where stratification is based on pooled combinations of the functional labels. The primary score is the unweighted mean absolute error across the 11 standardized targets; per-target R-squared is supplementary.

Quirks and pitfalls

The task asks a model to infer global 3D properties from covalent connectivity without a supplied conformation. Target standardization is part of the benchmark, so MAE on unstandardized physical quantities is not comparable. The split is stratified by function rather than structural scaffold, and correlated geometric targets must not be treated as independent datasets.

Sources

SOTA Progression

new SOTA matches SOTA at that time other proposed result other baseline result

Leaderboard

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ± 0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ± 0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ± 0.0014
4
UniGCN
0.2425 ± 0.0009
5
GIN
0.2429 ± 0.0019
6
Wide U. GCN
0.2429 ± 0.0007
7
AMP
0.2431 ± 0.0004
8
GatedGCN
0.2431 ± 0.0020
9
CSNN
0.2432 ± 0.0004
10
count-based molecular fingerprints
0.2432
11
Chimera
0.2433 ± 0.0006
12
DeGTA
0.2437 ± 0.0014
13
TT
0.2438
14
Unitary GCN
0.2445 ± 0.0009
15
S2GCN+PE
0.2447 ± 0.0007
16
S^2 GCN + PE
0.2447 ± 0.0032
17
G-ViT
0.2449 ± 0.0016
18
Graph ViT
0.2449 ± 0.0016
19
All-In
0.2449 ± 0.0012
20
GAPH ViT
0.2449 ± 0.0016
21
PPGT
0.2450 ± 0.0017
22
HOD-GNN
0.2450 ± 0.0011
Oct 2025 Oct '25
23
TANGO-GatedGCN
0.2451 ± 0.0006
24
MGT+WavePE
0.2453 ± 0.0025
25
GRIT+RRWP
0.2454 ± 0.0010
26
GRED
0.2455 ± 0.0013
27
HDSE
0.2457 ± 0.0013
28
GatedGCN+PE+VN_G
0.2458 ± 0.0006
29
GRAMA_GatedGCN
0.2459 ± 0.0020
30
RDKit
0.2459
31
GRIT
0.2460 ± 0.0012
32
Lie UniGCN
0.2460 ± 0.0011
33
LR-GWN
0.2462 ± 0.0006
34
FragNet
0.2462 ± 0.0021
35
BuNN
0.2463 ± 0.0012
36
GECO
0.2464 ± 0.0009
37
HyMN
0.2464 ± 0.0013
Oct 2025 Oct '25
38
GPSE + GPS
0.2464 ± 0.0025
Oct 2025 Oct '25
39
GatedGCN+PE-ViT
0.2465 ± 0.0015
40
PH-DGN
0.2465 ± 0.0020
41
S2GCN
0.2467 ± 0.0019
42
S^2GCN
0.2467 ± 0.0019
43
NeuralWalker
0.2468 ± 0.0005
44
R-method
0.2470 ± 0.0010
45
LGSM
0.2470 ± 0.0019
46
GatedGCN + noPE
0.2470 ± 0.0005
47
NBA
0.2472 ± 0.0008
48
GatedGCN+LapPE
0.2472 ± 0.0003
49
GatedGCN + WLPE
0.2473 ± 0.0012
50
GINE
0.2473 ± 0.0017
SOTA performance set a new SOTA at the time matched the SOTA at the time