NeurIPS 2023

A new perspective on building efficient and expressive 3D equivariant graph neural networks

Weitao Du, Yuanqi Du, Limei Wang, Dieqiao Feng, Guifeng Wang, Shuiwang Ji, Carla P. Gomes, Zhixin Ma

Main figure for A new perspective on building efficient and expressive 3D equivariant graph neural networks

Abstract

Geometric deep learning enables the encoding of physical symmetries in modeling 3D objects. Despite rapid progress in encoding 3D symmetries into Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), a comprehensive evaluation of the expressiveness of these networks through a local-to-global analysis lacks today. In this paper, we propose a local hierarchy of 3D isomorphism to evaluate the expressive power of equivariant GNNs and investigate the process of representing global geometric information from local patches. Our work leads to two crucial modules for designing expressive and efficient geometric GNNs; namely local substructure encoding (LSE) and frame transition encoding (FTE). To demonstrate the applicability of our theory, we propose LEFTNet which effectively implements these modules and achieves state-of-the-art performance on both scalar-valued and vector-valued molecular property prediction tasks. We further point out the design space for future developments of equivariant graph neural networks. Our codes are available at.

Proposed method: LEFTNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 7 baseline values reported too low

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

Quantum Chemistry

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
QHNet
0.0000
2
QHNetV2
0.0000
3
PhiSNet
0.0000
5
BOTNet
actual #5 vs paper #118 113 places worse
0.0007
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #118 113 places worse
paper 2.3000
7
NequIP
actual #7 vs paper #118 111 places worse
0.0009
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #118 111 places worse
paper 2.3000
14
Allegro
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
0.0046
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
paper 2.3000
46
SchNet
actual #46 vs paper #105 59 places worse
0.0500
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #105 59 places worse
paper 0.3100
48
MACE
actual #48 vs paper #118 70 places worse
0.0507
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #118 70 places worse
paper 2.2000
paper 2.2000 Δ today 2.1493
52
SphereNet
actual #52 vs paper #94 42 places worse
0.1470
actual #52 vs paper #94 42 places worse
paper 0.1470
paper 0.1470 Δ at pub 0.0620 Δ today 0.0950
51
SpookyNet
actual #51 vs paper #102 51 places worse
0.0520
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #102 51 places worse
paper 0.2580
61
sGDML
actual #61 vs paper #98 37 places worse
0.0600
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #98 37 places worse
paper 0.2000
paper 0.2000 Δ at pub 0.1400
64
DimeNet++
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
0.0640
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
paper 0.1870
paper 0.1870 Δ at pub 0.1230 Δ today 0.1230
97
FCHL
actual #97 vs paper #121 24 places worse
0.1820
best reported
actual #97 vs paper #121 24 places worse
paper 6.2000
paper 6.2000 Δ at pub 6.0180
117
LEFTNet
2.1000
This paper
121
ACE
6.1000
This paper
125
ANI
16.6000
This paper
126
GAP
17.7000
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere