NeurIPS 2023

Molecule Joint Auto-Encoding: Trajectory Pretraining with 2D and 3D Diffusion

Weitao Du, Jiujiu Chen, Xuecang Zhang, Zhiming Ma, Shengchao Liu

Main figure for Molecule Joint Auto-Encoding: Trajectory Pretraining with 2D and 3D Diffusion

Abstract

Recently, artificial intelligence for drug discovery has raised increasing interest in both machine learning and chemistry domains. The fundamental building block for drug discovery is molecule geometry and thus, the molecule's geometrical representation is the main bottleneck to better utilize machine learning techniques for drug discovery. In this work, we propose a pretraining method for molecule joint auto-encoding (MoleculeJAE). MoleculeJAE can learn both the 2D bond (topology) and 3D conformation (geometry) information, and a diffusion process model is applied to mimic the augmented trajectories of such two modalities, based on which, MoleculeJAE will learn the inherent chemical structure in a self-supervised manner. Thus, the pretrained geometrical representation in MoleculeJAE is expected to benefit downstream geometry-related tasks. Empirically, MoleculeJAE proves its effectiveness by reaching state-of-the-art performance on 15 out of 20 tasks by comparing it with 12 competitive baselines.

Proposed method: MoleculeJAE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 10 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
50
GeoSSL-DDM
actual #50 vs paper #107 57 places worse
0.0510
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #107 57 places worse
paper 0.3570
paper 0.3570 Δ at pub 0.3060
57
GeoSSL-RR
actual #57 vs paper #109 52 places worse
0.0520
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #109 52 places worse
paper 0.3930
paper 0.3930 Δ at pub 0.3410
65
GeoSSL-InfoNCE
actual #65 vs paper #109 44 places worse
0.0660
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #109 44 places worse
paper 0.3950
paper 0.3950 Δ at pub 0.3290
66
GeoSSL-EBM-NCE
actual #66 vs paper #107 41 places worse
0.0730
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #107 41 places worse
paper 0.3730
paper 0.3730 Δ at pub 0.3000
71
Distance Prediction
actual #71 vs paper #109 38 places worse
0.0900
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #109 38 places worse
paper 0.3960
paper 0.3960 Δ at pub 0.3060
78
Angle Prediction
actual #78 vs paper #109 31 places worse
0.1050
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #109 31 places worse
paper 0.4470
paper 0.4470 Δ at pub 0.3420
82
3D InfoGraph
actual #82 vs paper #109 27 places worse
0.1140
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #109 27 places worse
paper 0.4150
paper 0.4150 Δ at pub 0.3010
83
GraphMVP
actual #83 vs paper #107 24 places worse
0.1166
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #107 24 places worse
paper 0.3770
paper 0.3770 Δ at pub 0.2604
88
3D Infomax
actual #88 vs paper #108 20 places worse
0.1296
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #108 20 places worse
paper 0.3880
paper 0.3880 Δ at pub 0.2584
106
MoleculeJAE
0.3450
This paper
107
Type Prediction
actual #107 vs paper #109 2 places worse
0.3490
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #109 2 places worse
paper 0.4020
paper 0.4020 Δ at pub 0.0530
108
random init
0.3800
This paper
109
GeoSSL-DDM-1L
0.3910
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)