Cited by 1,923Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceGraph theory and applications

Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Prediction

Open access
Yang, Kevin, Swanson, Kyle, Jin, Wengong, Coley, Connor, Eiden, Philipp, Gao, Hua, Guzman-Perez, Angel, Hopper, Timothy +7 more·2019·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Advancements in neural machinery have led to a wide range of algorithmic solutions for molecular property prediction. Two classes of models in particular have yielded promising results: neural networks applied to computed molecular fingerprints or expert-crafted descriptors and graph convolutional neural networks that construct a learned molecular representation by operating on the graph structure of the molecule. However, recent literature has yet to clearly determine which of these two methods is superior when generalizing to new chemical space. Furthermore, prior research has rarely examined these new models in industry research settings in comparison to existing employed models. In this paper, we benchmark models extensively on 19 public and 16 proprietary industrial data sets spanning a wide variety of chemical end points. In addition, we introduce a graph convolutional model that consistently matches or outperforms models using fixed molecular descriptors as well as previous graph neural architectures on both public and proprietary data sets. Our empirical findings indicate that while approaches based on these representations have yet to reach the level of experimental reproducibility, our proposed model nevertheless offers significant improvements over models currently used in industrial workflows.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00237

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Duvenaud D. K.; Maclaurin D.; Iparraguirre J.; Bombarell R.; Hirzel T.; Aspuru-Guzik A.; Adams R. P. Convolutional Networks on Graphs for Learning Molecular Fingerprints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, 2224– 2232.
  2. Gilmer J.; Schoenholz S. S.; Riley P. F.; Vinyals O.; Dahl G. E. Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning 2017, 70, 1263– 1272.
  3. Li Y.; Tarlow D.; Brockschmidt M.; Zemel R. Gated Graph Sequence Neural Networks. 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05493. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05493 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). · arXiv
  4. Bruna J.; Zaremba W.; Szlam A.; LeCun Y. Spectral Networks and Locally Connected Networks on Graphs. 2013, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6203. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6203 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). · arXiv
  5. Battaglia P.; Pascanu R.; Lai M.; Rezende D. J. Interaction Networks for Learning about Objects, Relations and Physics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, 4502– 4510.
  6. Hamilton W.; Ying Z.; Leskovec J. Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, 1024– 1034.
  7. Henaff M.; Bruna J.; LeCun Y. Deep Convolutional Networks on Graph-Structured Data. 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05163. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05163 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). · arXiv
  8. Dai H.; Dai B.; Song L. Discriminative Embeddings of Latent Variable Models for Structured Data. International Conference on Machine Learning 2016, 2702– 2711.
  9. Lei T.; Jin W.; Barzilay R.; Jaakkola T. Deriving Neural Architectures from Sequence and Graph Kernels. 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.09037. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09037 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). · arXiv
  10. Kusner M. J.; Paige B.; Hernández-Lobato J. M. Grammar Variational Autoencoder. 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01925. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01925 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). · arXiv
  11. Schütt K.; Kindermans P.-J.; Felix H. E. S.; Chmiela S.; Tkatchenko A.; Müller K.-R. SchNet: A Continuous-Filter Convolutional Neural Network for Modeling Quantum Interactions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, 991– 1001.
  12. Faber F. A.; Hutchison L.; Huang B.; Gilmer J.; Schoenholz S. S.; Dahl G. E.; Vinyals O.; Kearnes S.; Riley P. F.; von Lilienfeld O. A. Machine Learning Prediction Errors Better than DFT Accuracy. 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05532. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05532 (accessed Aug 6, 2019). 28926232 · arXiv
  13. Paszke A.; Gross S.; Chintala S.; Chanan G.; Yang E.; DeVito Z.; Lin Z.; Desmaison A.; Antiga L.; Lerer A. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems; 2017.
  14. Cortes C.; Vapnik V. Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning 1995, 20, 273– 297. 10.1007/BF00994018. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, K., Swanson, K., Jin, W., Coley, C., Eiden, P., Gao, H., Guzman-Perez, A., Hopper, T., Kelley, B., Mathea, M., Palmer, A., Settels, V., Jaakkola, T., Jensen, K., & Barzilay, R.
Affiliations
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • BASF (Germany) (DE)
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
  • Amgen Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141, United States
  • Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States
Corresponding author
Yang, Kevin
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2019-07-30
Volume
59
Issue
8
Pages
3370-3388
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W2966357564
Cited by
1,923
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 415 · 2025: 391 · 2024: 348 · 2023: 302 · 2022: 195 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 9
FWCI
80.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Novartis
  • BASF
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARO W911NF-16-2-0023)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Amgen
  • Machine Learning for Pharmaceutical Discovery and Synthesis Consortium
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Graph theory and applications
Keywords
molecular property prediction, graph convolutional networks, molecular fingerprints, molecular descriptors, benchmarking, reproducibility
MeSH terms
Computer Graphics, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review