ProtoMol: Enhancing Molecular Property Prediction via Prototype-Guided Multimodal Learning

Yingxu Wang, Kunyu Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Nan Yin, Siwei Liu, Eran Segal

Main figure for ProtoMol: Enhancing Molecular Property Prediction via Prototype-Guided Multimodal Learning

Abstract

Multimodal molecular representation learning, which jointly models molecular graphs and their textual descriptions, enhances predictive accuracy and interpretability by enabling more robust and reliable predictions of drug toxicity, bioactivity, and physicochemical properties through the integration of structural and semantic information. However, existing multimodal methods suffer from two key limitations: (1) they typically perform cross-modal interaction only at the final encoder layer, thus overlooking hierarchical semantic dependencies; (2) they lack a unified prototype space for robust alignment between modalities. To address these limitations, we propose ProtoMol, a prototype-guided multimodal framework that enables fine-grained integration and consistent semantic alignment between molecular graphs and textual descriptions. ProtoMol incorporates dual-branch hierarchical encoders, utilizing Graph Neural Networks to process structured molecular graphs and Transformers to encode unstructured texts, resulting in comprehensive layer-wise representations. Then, ProtoMol introduces a layer-wise bidirectional cross-modal attention mechanism that progressively aligns semantic features across layers. Furthermore, a shared prototype space with learnable, class-specific anchors is constructed to guide both modalities toward coherent and discriminative representations. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that ProtoMol consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across a variety of molecular property prediction tasks.

Proposed method: ProtoMol

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values 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
This paper
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
This paper
3
MemGNN
0.9070
4
Tri_SGD
0.9030 ±0.0100
This paper
42
S-CGIB
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.8650 ±0.0080
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.8650 ±0.0080

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8650 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0004
43
GIN
0.8646 ±0.0081
44
MDFCL
0.8640 ±0.0100
This paper
61
Uni-Mol
actual #61 vs paper #61
0.8570 ±0.0020
actual #61 vs paper #61
paper 0.8570 ±0.0020
paper 0.8570 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0760
82
GraphSAGE
actual #82 vs paper #253 171 places worse
0.8451
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #253 171 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0140
paper 0.7430 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.1021
98
GraphLoG
actual #98 vs paper #238 140 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #98 vs paper #238 140 places worse
paper 0.7660 ±0.0100
paper 0.7660 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0690 Δ today 0.0690
102
SMILES-BERT
0.8330 ±0.0330
This paper
130
MGSSL
actual #130 vs paper #130
0.8203 ±0.0379
best reported
actual #130 vs paper #130
paper 0.8200 ±0.0380

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8200 ±0.0380 Δ at pub 0.0003
134
MICRO-Graph
actual #134 vs paper #296 162 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #134 vs paper #296 162 places worse
paper 0.6360 ±0.0160
paper 0.6360 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.1830
145
SMILES2vec
0.8140 ±0.0360
This paper
147
MoAMa
actual #147 vs paper #147
0.8132 ±0.0106
best reported
actual #147 vs paper #147
paper 0.8130 ±0.0110

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8130 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0002
152
GROVE
actual #152 vs paper #152
0.8113 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #152 vs paper #152
paper 0.8110 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8110 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0003
172
GraphFP
actual #172 vs paper #172
0.8030 ±0.0310
actual #172 vs paper #172
paper 0.8030 ±0.0310

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8030 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0002
180
SimSGT
actual #180 vs paper #180
0.7980 ±0.0130
actual #180 vs paper #180
paper 0.7980 ±0.0130

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7980 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0005
213
GraphCL
actual #213 vs paper #223 10 places worse
0.7820 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #223 10 places worse
paper 0.7780 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7780 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0040
224
DGI
actual #224 vs paper #224
0.7780 ±0.0050
actual #224 vs paper #224
paper 0.7780 ±0.0050

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7780 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0190
243
GraphPT
0.7600 ±0.0050
This paper
248
JOAOv2
actual #248 vs paper #253 5 places worse
0.7549 ±0.0127
best reported
actual #248 vs paper #253 5 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7440 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0109
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