Soft causal learning for generalized molecule property prediction: An environment modeling perspective

Limin Li, Zhen-Qiang Zhou, Kuo Yang, Wenjie Du, Pengkun Wang, Yang Wang

Main figure for Soft causal learning for generalized molecule property prediction: An environment modeling perspective

Abstract

Learning on molecule graphs has become an increasingly important topic in AI for science, which takes full advantage of AI to facilitate scientific discovery. Existing solutions on modeling molecules utilize Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to achieve representations, but they mostly fail to adapt models to out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. Although recent advances on OOD-oriented graph learning have discovered the invariant rationale on graphs, they still ignore three important issues, i.e., 1) the expanding atom patterns regarding environments on graphs lead to failures of invariant rationale-based models, 2) the associations between discovered molecular subgraphs and corresponding properties are complex where causal substructures cannot fully interpret the labels, and 3) the interactions between environments and invariances can influence with each other and thus are challenging to be modeled. To this end, we propose a soft causal learning framework, to tackle the unresolved molecule OOD challenge, from the perspective of negatively modeling the molecule environments and bypassing the invariant subgraphs. Specifically, we first incorporate chemistry theories into our graph growth generator to imitate expanded environments and then devise a GIB-based objective to disentangle environment from whole graphs and finally introduce a cross-attention-based soft causal interaction, which allows dynamic interactions between environments and invariances. We perform extensive experiments on seven datasets by imitating different kinds of OOD generalization scenarios. Extensive comparison, ablation experiments as well as visualized case studies demonstrate well generalization ability of our proposal.

Proposed method: CauEMO

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
5
CauEMO
0.9692 ±0.0136
This paper
6
GALA
0.9676 ±0.0170
This paper
8
GSAT
actual #8 vs paper #8
0.9637 ±0.0215
actual #8 vs paper #8
paper 0.9637 ±0.0215
paper 0.9637 ±0.0215 Δ at pub 0.1549
13
IGM
0.9604 ±0.0201
This paper
14
DIR
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.9601 ±0.0224
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.9601 ±0.0224

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9601 ±0.0224 Δ at pub 0.0651
17
CIGA
0.9577 ±0.0123
This paper
27
IB-Subgraph
0.9433 ±0.0644
This paper
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8942 ±0.0563

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8942 ±0.0563 Δ at pub 0.0388
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #498 435 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #498 435 places worse
paper 0.8375 ±0.0474
paper 0.8375 ±0.0474 Δ at pub 0.0845
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
464
Graph-SAGE
0.8460 ±0.0534
This paper

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
MAGPrompt+
0.9432 ±0.0238
2
CamS-LLaMA
0.9420
3
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9400 ±0.0210
34
GIN
actual #34 vs paper #244 210 places worse
0.8875 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #244 210 places worse
paper 0.6646 ±0.0200
38
GCN
actual #38 vs paper #268 230 places worse
0.8810 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #268 230 places worse
paper 0.6534 ±0.0194
paper 0.6534 ±0.0194 Δ at pub 0.2276
57
GraphSAGE
0.8304 ±0.0038
95
CauEMO
0.7231 ±0.0102
This paper
114
GSAT
actual #114 vs paper #173 59 places worse
0.6913 ±0.0202
actual #114 vs paper #173 59 places worse
paper 0.6913 ±0.0202

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6913 ±0.0202 Δ at pub 0.0065
121
IGM
0.7103 ±0.0079
This paper
140
GALA
0.7021 ±0.0131
This paper
158
DIR
0.6973 ±0.0154
This paper
164
CIGA
0.6965 ±0.0132
This paper
198
IB-Subgraph
0.6812 ±0.0112
This paper
282
Graph-SAGE
0.6416 ±0.0283
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
66
GIN
actual #66 vs paper #228 162 places worse
0.6403 ±0.0104
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #228 162 places worse
paper 0.5624 ±0.0164
125
GCN
actual #125 vs paper #237 112 places worse
0.6150 ±0.0250
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #237 112 places worse
paper 0.5212 ±0.0203
paper 0.5212 ±0.0203 Δ at pub 0.0938
186
CauEMO
0.5990 ±0.0128
This paper
202
GSAT
0.5919 ±0.0103
This paper
203
GALA
0.5904 ±0.0130
This paper
204
CIGA
0.5895 ±0.0122
This paper
205
DIR
0.5881 ±0.0184
This paper
212
IGM
0.5823 ±0.0143
This paper
216
IB-Subgraph
0.5771 ±0.0214
This paper
227
GraphSAGE
0.5670 ±0.0010
237
Graph-SAGE
0.5252 ±0.0169
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