How Much Structural Information Large Scale Molecular Language Representations Can Capture?

Jerret Ross, Brian Belgodere, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Inkit Padhi, Youssef Mroueh, Payel Das

Main figure for How Much Structural Information Large Scale Molecular Language Representations Can Capture?

Abstract

Predicting the properties of a chemical molecule is of great importance in many applications, including drug discovery and material design. Machine learning-based models promise to enable more accurate and faster molecular property predictions than the current state-of-the-art techniques, such as Density Functional Theory calculations or wet-lab experiments. Various supervised machine learning models, including graph neural nets, have demonstrated promising performance in molecular property prediction tasks. However, the vast chemical space and the limited availability of property labels make supervised learning challenging, calling for learning a general-purpose molecular representation. Recently, unsupervised transformer-based language models pre-trained on large unlabeled corpus have produced state-of-the-art results in many downstream natural language processing tasks. Inspired by this development, we present molecular embeddings obtained by training an efficient transformer encoder model, MoLFormer, which uses rotary positional embeddings. This model employs a linear attention mechanism, coupled with highly distributed training, on SMILES sequences of 1.1 billion unlabeled molecules from the PubChem and ZINC datasets. Experiments show that utilizing the learned molecular representation outperforms existing baselines on downstream tasks, including supervised and self-supervised graph neural net baselines and language models, on several classification and regression tasks from ten benchmark datasets while performing competitively on two others. Further analyses, specifically through the lens of attention, demonstrate that MoLFormer trained on chemical SMILES indeed learns the spatial relationships between atoms within a molecule. These results provide encouraging evidence that the large-scale molecular language models can capture sufficient chemical and structural information to predict various distinct molecular properties, including quantum-chemical properties.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
9
MolCLR
0.8900
This paper
16
MoLFormer-XL
0.8821
This paper
20
D-MPNN
actual #20 vs paper #66 46 places worse
0.8780 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #66 46 places worse
paper 0.8530

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8530 Δ at pub 0.0120 Δ today 0.0250
21
N-GRAM
0.8760
This paper
39
rf
0.8670
This paper
43
GIN
0.8646 ±0.0081
49
SVM
0.8620
This paper
56
Hu, et al.
0.8590
This paper
62
GEM
0.8560
This paper
112
MoLFormer-Base
0.8280
This paper
150
GraphMVP-C
0.8120
This paper
258
MGCN
0.7340
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
MAGPrompt+
0.9432 ±0.0238
2
CamS-LLaMA
0.9420
3
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9400 ±0.0210
4
MoLFormer-XL
0.9370
This paper
26
D-MPNN
actual #26 vs paper #118 92 places worse
0.7120
actual #26 vs paper #118 92 places worse
paper 0.7120
28
N-GRAM
0.9120
This paper
30
MoLFormer-Base
0.9090
This paper
34
GIN
0.8875 ±0.0049
52
MGCN
0.8500
This paper
78
MolCLR
0.7360
This paper
85
SVM
actual #85 vs paper #85
0.7290
actual #85 vs paper #85
paper 0.7290
prev best: Molecule Attention Transformer (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.7290 Δ at pub 0.0060
92
rf
actual #92 vs paper #117 25 places worse
0.7250 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #92 vs paper #117 25 places worse
paper 0.7140
best at pub: Molecule Attention Transformer (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.7140 Δ at pub 0.0110
94
GraphMVP-C
0.7240
This paper
93
GEM
0.7240
This paper
127
Hu, et al.
0.7080
This paper
281
ChemBERTa
0.6430
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result