KDD 2021

MoCL: Data-driven Molecular Fingerprint via Knowledge-aware Contrastive Learning from Molecular Graph

Mengying Sun, Jing Xing, Huijun Wang, Bin Chen, Jiayu Zhou

Main figure for MoCL: Data-driven Molecular Fingerprint via Knowledge-aware Contrastive Learning from Molecular Graph

Abstract

Recent years have seen a rapid growth of utilizing graph neural networks (GNNs) in the biomedical domain for tackling drug-related problems. However, like any other deep architectures, GNNs are data hungry. While requiring labels in real world is often expensive, pretraining GNNs in an unsupervised manner has been actively explored. Among them, graph contrastive learning, by maximizing the mutual information between paired graph augmentations, has been shown to be effective on various downstream tasks. However, the current graph contrastive learning framework has two limitations. First, the augmentations are designed for general graphs and thus may not be suitable or powerful enough for certain domains. Second, the contrastive scheme only learns representations that are invariant to local perturbations and thus does not consider the global structure of the dataset, which may also be useful for downstream tasks. In this paper, we study graph contrastive learning designed specifically for the biomedical domain, where molecular graphs are present. We propose a novel framework called MoCL, which utilizes domain knowledge at both local- and global-level to assist representation learning. The local-level domain knowledge guides the augmentation process such that variation is introduced without changing graph semantics. The global-level knowledge encodes the similarity information between graphs in the entire dataset and helps to learn representations with richer semantics. The entire model is learned through a double contrast objective. We evaluate MoCL on various molecular datasets under both linear and semi-supervised settings and results show that MoCL achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

TU Dortmund

MUTAG

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use AUC only.

Sorted by AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUC ↑Paper
1
MoCL-DK-G(CL)
0.9690
This paper
2
MoCL+AttrMask-G(CL)
0.9620
This paper
3
MoCL-DK
0.9500
This paper
4
MoCL+AttrMask
0.9470
This paper
5
scratch
0.9180
This paper
6
mask_attributes
0.9160
This paper
7
subgraph
0.9140
This paper
9
masking
0.8260
This paper
10
ContextPred
0.8190
This paper
11
perturb_edge
0.7990
This paper
12
drop_node
0.7750
This paper
13
InfoGraph
0.7710
This paper
16
EdgePred
0.6220
This paper

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9930 ±0.0040
2
KA-GCN
0.9920 ±0.0050
3
KA-GAT
0.9910 ±0.0050
19
GCN
0.9130 ±0.0170
106
InfoGraph
actual #106 vs paper #247 141 places worse
0.7810
best reported
actual #106 vs paper #247 141 places worse
paper 0.4580
108
MICRO-Graph
actual #108 vs paper #145 37 places worse
0.7756 ±0.0156
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #145 37 places worse
paper 0.7350
115
ContextPred
actual #115 vs paper #243 128 places worse
0.7720 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #243 128 places worse
paper 0.5060
130
MoCL-DK-G(CL)
0.7500
This paper
133
MoCL+AttrMask-G(CL)
0.7470
This paper
154
MoCL-DK
0.7270
This paper
177
MoCL+AttrMask
0.6950
This paper
192
EdgePred
actual #192 vs paper #243 51 places worse
0.6730 ±0.0200
best reported
actual #192 vs paper #243 51 places worse
paper 0.5040
193
mask_attributes
0.6710
This paper
203
scratch
0.6470
This paper
210
drop_node
0.6350
This paper
213
perturb_edge
0.6300
This paper
222
subgraph
0.6030
This paper
229
masking
0.5810
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
KA-GAT
0.8470 ±0.0020
2
KA-GCN
0.8420 ±0.0010
3
GraphKAN
0.8370 ±0.0010
66
GIN
0.6403 ±0.0104
89
MoCL-DK-G(CL)
0.6280
This paper
97
MoCL+AttrMask-G(CL)
0.6250
This paper
100
MoCL+AttrMask
0.6230
This paper
103
ContextPred
actual #103 vs paper #240 137 places worse
0.6220 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #103 vs paper #240 137 places worse
paper 0.4980
106
mask_attributes
0.6210
This paper
117
MICRO-Graph
actual #117 vs paper #220 103 places worse
0.6170 ±0.0180
best reported
actual #117 vs paper #220 103 places worse
paper 0.5730
124
MoCL-DK
0.6150
This paper
159
scratch
0.6060
This paper
162
InfoGraph
actual #162 vs paper #240 78 places worse
0.6054 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #240 78 places worse
paper 0.5020
paper 0.5020 Δ today 0.1034
163
perturb_edge
0.6050
This paper
170
EdgePred
actual #170 vs paper #240 70 places worse
0.6040 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #240 70 places worse
paper 0.5020
paper 0.5020 Δ today 0.1020
210
subgraph
0.5830
This paper
217
drop_node
0.5770
This paper
221
masking
actual #221 vs paper #227 6 places worse
0.5730 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #221 vs paper #227 6 places worse
paper 0.5660

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5660 Δ today 0.0070
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere