Improving Molecular Contrastive Learning via Faulty Negative Mitigation and Decomposed Fragment Contrast

Yuyang Wang, Rishikesh Magar, Chen Liang, Amir Barati Farimani

Main figure for Improving Molecular Contrastive Learning via Faulty Negative Mitigation and Decomposed Fragment Contrast

Abstract

Deep learning has been a prevalence in computational chemistry and widely implemented in molecule property predictions. Recently, self-supervised learning (SSL), especially contrastive learning (CL), gathers growing attention for the potential to learn molecular representations that generalize to the gigantic chemical space. Unlike supervised learning, SSL can directly leverage large unlabeled data, which greatly reduces the effort to acquire molecular property labels through costly and time-consuming simulations or experiments. However, most molecular SSL methods borrow the insights from the machine learning community but neglect the unique cheminformatics (e.g., molecular fingerprints) and multi-level graphical structures (e.g., functional groups) of molecules. In this work, we propose iMolCLR: improvement of Molecular Contrastive Learning of Representations with graph neural networks (GNNs) in two aspects, (1) mitigating faulty negative contrastive instances via considering cheminformatics similarities between molecule pairs; (2) fragment-level contrasting between intra- and inter-molecule substructures decomposed from molecules. Experiments have shown that the proposed strategies significantly improve the performance of GNN models on various challenging molecular property predictions. In comparison to the previous CL framework, iMolCLR demonstrates an averaged 1.3\

Proposed method: iMolCLR

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 12 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
actual #14 vs paper #296 282 places worse
0.8400 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #296 282 places worse
paper 0.7090 ±0.0260
paper 0.7090 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.1310
18
AttentiveFP
actual #18 vs paper #44 26 places worse
0.8350
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #44 26 places worse
paper 0.8070 ±0.0200

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8070 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0280
24
GIN
actual #24 vs paper #263 239 places worse
0.8290 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #263 239 places worse
paper 0.7400 ±0.0080
paper 0.7400 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0890
62
iMolCLR
0.7990 ±0.0060
This paper
67
MolCLR
0.7980 ±0.0070
This paper
93
D-MPNN
0.7890 ±0.0130
This paper
96
Hu et al.
0.7870 ±0.0040
This paper
135
GraphSAGE
0.7744 ±0.0038
146
SchNet
0.7720 ±0.0230
This paper
155
N-GRAM
0.7690 ±0.0270
This paper
298
MGCN
0.7070 ±0.0160
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
9
MolCLR
0.8900 ±0.0030
This paper
12
iMolCLR
0.8850 ±0.0050
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 ±0.0530

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8530 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.0120 Δ today 0.0250
21
N-GRAM
0.8760 ±0.0350
This paper
43
GIN
actual #43 vs paper #280 237 places worse
0.8646 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #280 237 places worse
paper 0.7010 ±0.0540
paper 0.7010 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.1600 Δ today 0.1636
45
AttentiveFP
0.8630 ±0.0150
This paper
55
Hu et al.
0.8590 ±0.0080
This paper
64
GCN
actual #64 vs paper #267 203 places worse
0.8540 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #267 203 places worse
paper 0.7160 ±0.0200
paper 0.7160 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0760 Δ today 0.1380
82
GraphSAGE
0.8451
239
SchNet
actual #239 vs paper #239
0.7660 ±0.0110
actual #239 vs paper #239
paper 0.7660 ±0.0110

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7660 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0160
258
MGCN
0.7340 ±0.0300
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
26
D-MPNN
actual #26 vs paper #58 32 places worse
0.8120 ±0.0380
actual #26 vs paper #58 32 places worse
paper 0.8120 ±0.0380
28
N-GRAM
0.9120 ±0.0300
This paper
31
AttentiveFP
0.9080 ±0.0500
This paper
34
GIN
actual #34 vs paper #256 222 places worse
0.8875 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #256 222 places worse
paper 0.6580 ±0.0450
38
GCN
actual #38 vs paper #107 69 places worse
0.7180 ±0.0090
actual #38 vs paper #107 69 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0090
prev best: Molecule Attention Transformer (NeurIPS 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7180 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.1630
52
MGCN
0.8500 ±0.0640
This paper
53
SchNet
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.8480 ±0.0220
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.8480 ±0.0220

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8480 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.0010
57
GraphSAGE
0.8304 ±0.0038
65
iMolCLR
0.7640 ±0.0070
This paper
78
MolCLR
0.7360 ±0.0050
This paper
125
Hu et al.
0.7080 ±0.0150
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
8
iMolCLR
0.9540 ±0.0110
This paper
11
AttentiveFP
0.9330 ±0.0200
This paper
12
MolCLR
0.9320 ±0.0170
This paper
19
GCN
actual #19 vs paper #216 197 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #216 197 places worse
paper 0.6250 ±0.0280
paper 0.6250 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.2880
23
D-MPNN
actual #23 vs paper #23
0.9060 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #23
paper 0.9050 ±0.0530

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9050 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0010
36
GIN
actual #36 vs paper #184 148 places worse
0.8810 ±0.0250
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #184 148 places worse
paper 0.6820 ±0.0370
paper 0.6820 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.1990
55
N-GRAM
0.8550 ±0.0370
This paper
98
Hu et al.
0.7890 ±0.0240
This paper
164
SchNet
actual #164 vs paper #164
0.7170 ±0.0420
best reported
actual #164 vs paper #164
paper 0.7150 ±0.0370

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7150 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
211
MGCN
0.6340 ±0.0420
This paper
238
GraphSAGE
0.5580 ±0.0620
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
KA-GAT
0.8470 ±0.0020
2
KA-GCN
0.8420 ±0.0010
3
GraphKAN
0.8370 ±0.0010
7
iMolCLR
0.6990 ±0.0150
This paper
14
MolCLR
0.6800 ±0.0110
This paper
46
Hu et al.
0.6520 ±0.0090
This paper
66
GIN
actual #66 vs paper #220 154 places worse
0.6403 ±0.0104
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #220 154 places worse
paper 0.5730 ±0.0160
82
D-MPNN
0.6320 ±0.0230
This paper
83
N-GRAM
0.6320 ±0.0050
This paper
125
GCN
actual #125 vs paper #235 110 places worse
0.6150 ±0.0250
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #235 110 places worse
paper 0.5360 ±0.0320
157
AttentiveFP
actual #157 vs paper #162 5 places worse
0.6060 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #162 5 places worse
paper 0.6050 ±0.0600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6050 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0010
227
GraphSAGE
0.5670 ±0.0010
232
MGCN
0.5520 ±0.0180
This paper
234
SchNet
actual #234 vs paper #235 1 place worse
0.5450 ±0.0380
best reported
actual #234 vs paper #235 1 place worse
paper 0.5390 ±0.0370

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5390 ±0.0370 Δ today 0.0060
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
Graphormer-SPIS
0.4840 ±0.0050
2
Graphormer-SPD
0.4920 ±0.0040
3
conan-FGW
0.5140 ±0.0190
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #126 119 places worse
0.5640 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #126 119 places worse
paper 1.4300 ±0.0500
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 1.4300 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.4600 Δ today 0.8660
10
AttentiveFP
actual #10 vs paper #61 51 places worse
0.5780
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #61 51 places worse
paper 0.8500 ±0.0600
paper 0.8500 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.2720
18
GraphSAGE
0.6010 ±0.0080
25
GIN
actual #25 vs paper #126 101 places worse
0.6260 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #126 101 places worse
paper 1.4500 ±0.0200
paper 1.4500 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.7850 Δ today 0.8240
27
D-MPNN
actual #27 vs paper #81 54 places worse
0.6350 ±0.0270
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #81 54 places worse
paper 0.9800 ±0.2600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9800 ±0.2600 Δ at pub 0.3450
90
SchNet
actual #90 vs paper #91 1 place worse
1.0450 ±0.0640
best reported
actual #90 vs paper #91 1 place worse
paper 1.0500 ±0.0600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 1.0500 ±0.0600 Δ today 0.0050
99
N-GRAM
1.1000 ±0.0300
This paper
102
MolCLR
1.1100 ±0.0100
This paper
108
iMolCLR
1.1300 ±0.0200
This paper
116
Hu et al.
1.2200 ±0.0200
This paper
120
MGCN
actual #120 vs paper #120
1.2660 ±0.1470
best reported
actual #120 vs paper #120
paper 1.2700 ±0.1500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 1.2700 ±0.1500 Δ today 0.0040
#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 #58 46 places worse
1.0100 ±0.0640
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #58 46 places worse
paper 2.1800 ±0.9100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 2.1800 ±0.9100 Δ at pub 0.0980 Δ today 1.1700
13
AttentiveFP
actual #13 vs paper #49 36 places worse
1.0340
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #49 36 places worse
paper 2.0300 ±0.4200
paper 2.0300 ±0.4200 Δ at pub 0.9960
55
iMolCLR
2.0900 ±0.0300
This paper
62
MolCLR
2.2000 ±0.2000
This paper
69
GIN
actual #69 vs paper #84 15 places worse
2.3460 ±0.1220
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #84 15 places worse
paper 2.7600 ±0.1800
paper 2.7600 ±0.1800 Δ at pub 0.4140
74
N-GRAM
2.5100 ±0.1900
This paper
77
GCN
actual #77 vs paper #90 13 places worse
2.6180 ±0.2980
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #90 13 places worse
paper 2.8700 ±0.1400

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 2.8700 ±0.1400 Δ at pub 0.2300 Δ today 0.2520
88
Hu et al.
2.8300 ±0.1200
This paper
103
SchNet
actual #103 vs paper #103
3.2150 ±0.7550
best reported
actual #103 vs paper #103
paper 3.2200 ±0.7600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 3.2200 ±0.7600 Δ today 0.0050
106
MGCN
actual #106 vs paper #106
3.3490 ±0.0970
best reported
actual #106 vs paper #106
paper 3.3500 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 3.3500 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.0010
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere