ChemRL-GEM: Geometry Enhanced Molecular Representation Learning for Property Prediction

Xiaomin Fang, Lihang Liu, Jieqiong Lei, Donglong He, Shanzhuo Zhang, Jingbo Zhou, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang

Main figure for ChemRL-GEM: Geometry Enhanced Molecular Representation Learning for Property Prediction

Abstract

Effective molecular representation learning is of great importance to facilitate molecular property prediction, which is a fundamental task for the drug and material industry. Recent advances in graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown great promise in applying GNNs for molecular representation learning. Moreover, a few recent studies have also demonstrated successful applications of self-supervised learning methods to pre-train the GNNs to overcome the problem of insufficient labeled molecules. However, existing GNNs and pre-training strategies usually treat molecules as topological graph data without fully utilizing the molecular geometry information. Whereas, the three-dimensional (3D) spatial structure of a molecule, a.k.a molecular geometry, is one of the most critical factors for determining molecular physical, chemical, and biological properties. To this end, we propose a novel Geometry Enhanced Molecular representation learning method (GEM) for Chemical Representation Learning (ChemRL). At first, we design a geometry-based GNN architecture that simultaneously models atoms, bonds, and bond angles in a molecule. To be specific, we devised double graphs for a molecule: The first one encodes the atom-bond relations; The second one encodes bond-angle relations. Moreover, on top of the devised GNN architecture, we propose several novel geometry-level self-supervised learning strategies to learn spatial knowledge by utilizing the local and global molecular 3D structures. We compare ChemRL-GEM with various state-of-the-art (SOTA) baselines on different molecular benchmarks and exhibit that ChemRL-GEM can significantly outperform all baselines in both regression and classification tasks. For example, the experimental results show an overall improvement of $8.8\

Proposed method: ChemRL-GEM

Benchmark Results

Tested on 8 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
HIMP
0.8740 ±0.0050
2
GINE w/ VN
0.8720 ±0.0030
3
NaiveGINe+ K=3 w/ VN
0.8700 ±0.0040
14
GCN
0.8400 ±0.0040
254
N-Gram_RF
0.7430 ±0.0040
This paper
#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
23
D-MPNN
0.9060 ±0.0060
This paper
43
N-Gram_XGB
0.8750 ±0.0270
This paper
109
N-Gram_RF
0.7750 ±0.0400
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
17
ChemRL-GEM
0.6720 ±0.0040
This paper
24
N-Gram_RF
0.6680 ±0.0070
This paper
42
N-Gram_XGB
0.6550 ±0.0070
This paper
66
GIN
0.6403 ±0.0104
91
PretrainGNN
0.6270 ±0.0080
This paper
157
AttentiveFP
0.6060 ±0.0320
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
GeomGCL
0.7630
2
LiGhT DeepGPT
0.7570 ±0.0110
3
CoMPT
0.7550
8
AttentiveFP
actual #8 vs paper #135 127 places worse
0.7430
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #135 127 places worse
paper 0.6370 ±0.0020
paper 0.6370 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.1060
14
GCN
0.7350 ±0.0020
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
Graphormer-SPIS
0.4840 ±0.0050
2
Graphormer-SPD
0.4920 ±0.0040
3
conan-FGW
0.5140 ±0.0190
5
GAT
actual #5 vs paper #135 130 places worse
0.5520 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #135 130 places worse
paper 1.5560 ±0.0850
paper 1.5560 ±0.0850 Δ at pub 0.9020 Δ today 1.0040
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #115 108 places worse
0.5640 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #115 108 places worse
paper 1.2110 ±0.0520
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 1.2110 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.2410 Δ today 0.6470
10
AttentiveFP
actual #10 vs paper #63 53 places worse
0.5780
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #63 53 places worse
paper 0.8770 ±0.0290
paper 0.8770 ±0.0290 Δ today 0.2990
18
GraphSAGE
0.6010 ±0.0080
25
GIN
actual #25 vs paper #92 67 places worse
0.6260 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #92 67 places worse
paper 1.0670 ±0.0510
paper 1.0670 ±0.0510 Δ at pub 0.4020 Δ today 0.4410
27
D-MPNN
actual #27 vs paper #91 64 places worse
0.6350 ±0.0270
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #91 64 places worse
paper 1.0500 ±0.0080
paper 1.0500 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.4150
44
ChemRL-GEM
0.7980 ±0.0290
This paper
45
Geometry+Graph
0.7980 ±0.0290
This paper
46
Graph
0.8150 ±0.0250
This paper
51
Geometry
0.8250 ±0.0170
This paper
55
GeoGNN
0.8320 ±0.0100
This paper
59
Context+Graph
0.8370 ±0.0270
This paper
66
GROVER_large
0.8950 ±0.0170
This paper
82
GROVER_base
0.9830 ±0.0900
This paper
95
N-Gram_RF
1.0740 ±0.1070
This paper
96
N-Gram_XGB
1.0830 ±0.0820
This paper
100
PretrainGNN
1.1000 ±0.0060
This paper
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.3540 ±0.0530
2
ECFP-4 + RF
0.5600 ±0.0660
3
GPSE + GPS
0.6820
12
D-MPNN
actual #12 vs paper #54 42 places worse
1.0100 ±0.0640
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #54 42 places worse
paper 2.0820 ±0.0820
13
AttentiveFP
actual #13 vs paper #54 41 places worse
1.0340
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #54 41 places worse
paper 2.0730 ±0.1830
paper 2.0730 ±0.1830 Δ today 1.0390
37
Geometry
1.7010 ±0.1470
This paper
40
GeoGNN
1.8570 ±0.0710
This paper
43
Geometry+Graph
1.8760 ±0.0940
This paper
44
ChemRL-GEM
1.8770 ±0.0940
This paper
45
Graph
1.9500 ±0.0690
This paper
48
Context+Graph
1.9820 ±0.0980
This paper
58
GROVER_base
2.1760 ±0.0520
This paper
65
GROVER_large
2.2720 ±0.0510
This paper
69
GIN
2.3460 ±0.1220
This paper
77
GCN
actual #77 vs paper #101 24 places worse
2.6180 ±0.2980
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #101 24 places worse
paper 3.1740 ±0.3080
paper 3.1740 ±0.3080 Δ today 0.5560
80
N-Gram_RF
2.6880 ±0.0850
This paper
85
PretrainGNN
2.7640 ±0.0020
This paper
95
GAT
actual #95 vs paper #108 13 places worse
2.9420 ±0.5910
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #108 13 places worse
paper 3.5590 ±0.0500
paper 3.5590 ±0.0500 Δ today 0.6170
119
GTransformer
4.4800 ±0.1550
This paper
123
N-Gram_XGB
5.0610 ±0.7440
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere