Cited by 849Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceSynthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds

Molecular Sets (MOSES): A Benchmarking Platform for Molecular Generation Models

Open access
Polykovskiy, Daniil, Zhebrak, Alexander, Sanchez-Lengeling, Benjamin, Golovanov, Sergey, Tatanov, Oktai, Belyaev, Stanislav, Kurbanov, Rauf, Artamonov, Aleksey +8 more·2020·Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract

Generative models are becoming a tool of choice for exploring the molecular space. These models learn on a large training dataset and produce novel molecular structures with similar properties. Generated structures can be utilized for virtual screening or training semi-supervized predictive models in the downstream tasks. While there are plenty of generative models, it is unclear how to compare and rank them. In this work, we introduce a benchmarking platform called Molecular Sets (MOSES) to standardize training and comparison of molecular generative models. MOSES provides training and testing datasets, and a set of metrics to evaluate the quality and diversity of generated structures. We have implemented and compared several molecular generation models and suggest to use our results as reference points for further advancements in generative chemistry research. The platform and source code are available at https://github.com/molecularsets/moses .

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 · 10.3389/fphar.2020.565644

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • The MOSES dataset comprises 1,936,962 molecular structures, divided into training, testing, and scaffold datasets containing 1.6 million, 176,000, and 176,000 molecules respectively.

    “The MOSES dataset comprises a total of 1,936,962 molecular structures, which are subsequently divided into training, testing, and scaffold datasets, containing 1.6 million, 176,000, and 176,000 molecules respectively.”

    From PCF-VAE: posterior collapse free variational autoencoder for de novo drug design (2025) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Dataset section reports three non-overlapping splits of 1,584,664 training, 176,075 test, and 176,226 scaffold-test molecules, supporting the rounded split sizes. Those counts sum to 1,936,965, three more than the claimed total of 1,936,962; the total is not stated in the available passage. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mature software tools now exist to run generative models on conventional computers, and community-accepted benchmarks enable systematic assessment of generated small molecules considering predicted activity, novelty, validity, and diversity.

    “Mature software tools now exist to run generative models on conventional computers,154,157 and community-accepted benchmarks enable the systematic assessment of generated small-molecules, considering not only their predicted activity but also their novelty, validity, and diversity.158,159”

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: 4

  1. Duvenaud D. K. Maclaurin D. Iparraguirre J. Bombarell R. Hirzel T. Aspuru-Guzik A. (2015). “ Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints,” in Advances in neural information processing systems 28. Editors Cortes C. Lawrence N. D. Lee D. D. Sugiyama M. Garnett R. (New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.), 2224– 2232.
  2. Karras T. Aila T. Laine S. Lehtinen J. (2018). Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation,” in International conference on learning representations ICLR 1– 26.
  3. Kusner M. J. Paige B. Hernández-Lobato J. M. (2017). “ Grammar variational autoencoder,”in Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning. Editors Precup D. Teh Y. W. (Sydney, Australia: Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Vol. 70 1945– 1954.
  4. Polykovskiy D. Zhebrak A. Sanchez-Lengeling B. Golovanov S. Tatanov O. Belyaev S. (2018a). Molecular sets (moses): a benchmarking platform for molecular generation models. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12823. PMC7775580 33390943 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Polykovskiy, D., Zhebrak, A., Sanchez-Lengeling, B., Golovanov, S., Tatanov, O., Belyaev, S., Kurbanov, R., Artamonov, A., Aladinskiy, V., Veselov, M., Kadurin, A., Johansson, S., Chen, H., Nikolenko, S., Aspuru-Guzik, A., & Zhavoronkov, A.
Affiliations
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
Corresponding author
  • Polykovskiy, Daniil
  • Nikolenko, Sergey
  • Zhavoronkov, Alex
Venue
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Published
2020-12-18
Volume
11
Pages
565644-565644
ISSN
1663-9812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2903425689
Cited by
849
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 159 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 118 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 14 · 2017: 1
FWCI
42.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Pharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Globus Services
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 › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds
Keywords
molecular generative models, benchmarking platform, Moses, molecular generation, generative chemistry, model comparison, evaluation metrics, virtual screening, molecular property prediction

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