Hierarchical Molecular Representation Learning via Fragment-Based Self-Supervised Embedding Prediction

Jiele Wu, Haozhe Ma, Zhihan Guo, Thanh Vinh Vo, Tze-Yun Leong

Main figure for Hierarchical Molecular Representation Learning via Fragment-Based Self-Supervised Embedding Prediction

Abstract

Graph self-supervised learning (GSSL) has demonstrated strong potential for generating expressive graph embeddings without the need for human annotations, making it particularly valuable in domains with high labeling costs such as molecular graph analysis. However, existing GSSL methods mostly focus on node- or edge-level information, often ignoring chemically relevant substructures which strongly influence molecular properties. In this work, we propose Graph Semantic Predictive Network (GraSPNet), a hierarchical self-supervised framework that explicitly models both atomic-level and fragment-level semantics. GraSPNet decomposes molecular graphs into chemically meaningful fragments without predefined vocabularies and learns node- and fragment-level representations through multi-level message passing with masked semantic prediction at both levels. This hierarchical semantic supervision enables GraSPNet to learn multi-resolution structural information that is both expressive and transferable. Extensive experiments on multiple molecular property prediction benchmarks demonstrate that GraSPNet learns chemically meaningful representations and consistently outperforms state-of-the-art GSSL methods in transfer learning settings.

Proposed method: GraSPNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#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
0.5640 ±0.0150
74
SimSGT
actual #74 vs paper #115 41 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #115 41 places worse
paper 1.2130 ±0.0320
79
GraphCL
actual #79 vs paper #124 45 places worse
0.9590 ±0.0470
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #124 45 places worse
paper 1.3900 ±0.3630

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 1.3900 ±0.3630 Δ at pub 0.4310 Δ today 0.4310
105
JOAO
actual #105 vs paper #141 36 places worse
1.1200
best reported
actual #105 vs paper #141 36 places worse
paper 1.9780 ±0.0290
paper 1.9780 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.8580 Δ today 0.8580
109
GraSPNet
1.1610 ±0.0370
This paper
113
MGSSL
actual #113 vs paper #148 35 places worse
1.1790 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #148 35 places worse
paper 2.9360 ±0.0710
paper 2.9360 ±0.0710 Δ at pub 1.7570
114
ContextPred
actual #114 vs paper #145 31 places worse
1.1960 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #114 vs paper #145 31 places worse
paper 2.1900 ±0.0260
paper 2.1900 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.9940
119
GROVE
1.2370 ±0.4030
This paper
140
GraphFP
actual #140 vs paper #144 4 places worse
1.9350
best reported
actual #140 vs paper #144 4 places worse
paper 2.1360 ±0.0960
148
EdgePred
2.3680 ±0.0700
This paper
149
Infomax
2.9530 ±0.0490
This paper
150
AttrMasking
2.9540 ±0.0870
This paper
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.3540 ±0.0530
2
ECFP-4 + RF
0.5600 ±0.0660
3
GPSE + GPS
0.6820
20
GraSPNet
1.2320 ±0.0500
This paper
46
SimSGT
1.9530 ±0.0380
This paper
69
GIN
2.3460 ±0.1220
75
GraphFP
2.5280 ±0.0160
This paper
82
GROVE
2.7120 ±0.3270
This paper
90
MGSSL
actual #90 vs paper #94 4 places worse
2.8400 ±0.1900
best reported
actual #90 vs paper #94 4 places worse
paper 2.9400 ±0.0510

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 2.9400 ±0.0510 Δ at pub 0.1000
96
Infomax
3.0330 ±0.0260
This paper
98
ContextPred
actual #98 vs paper #102 4 places worse
3.0570 ±0.1700
best reported
actual #98 vs paper #102 4 places worse
paper 3.1950 ±0.0580

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 3.1950 ±0.0580 Δ at pub 0.1380
101
GraphCL
3.1660 ±0.0270
This paper
102
EdgePred
3.1920 ±0.0230
This paper
104
JOAO
3.2820 ±0.0020
This paper
114
AttrMasking
4.0230 ±0.0390
This paper
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
MemGNN
0.5560 ±0.0230
2
ProtoS-L2
0.5800 ±0.0160
3
ProtoW-L2
0.6040 ±0.0140
7
GCN
0.6550 ±0.0360
17
ContextPred
actual #17 vs paper #92 75 places worse
0.7020 ±0.0200
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #92 75 places worse
paper 1.0530 ±0.0480
paper 1.0530 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.3510
21
JOAO
actual #21 vs paper #93 72 places worse
0.7080
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #93 72 places worse
paper 1.0930 ±0.0970
paper 1.0930 ±0.0970 Δ at pub 0.3850 Δ today 0.3850
24
GraphCL
actual #24 vs paper #90 66 places worse
0.7140 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #90 66 places worse
paper 1.0140 ±0.0180
47
SimSGT
actual #47 vs paper #64 17 places worse
0.7710 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #64 17 places worse
paper 0.8350 ±0.0370

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8350 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.0640
59
GraSPNet
0.8130 ±0.0520
This paper
63
GROVE
0.8230 ±0.0270
This paper
73
MGSSL
actual #73 vs paper #93 20 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #93 20 places worse
paper 1.1060 ±0.0770
paper 1.1060 ±0.0770 Δ at pub 0.2370
87
Infomax
0.9700 ±0.0230
This paper
88
AttrMasking
0.9820 ±0.0520
This paper
93
EdgePred
1.0850 ±0.0610
This paper
102
GraphFP
1.3710 ±0.0580
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere