Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

MOL-Mamba: Enhancing Molecular Representation with Structural & Electronic Insights

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MOL-Mamba claims to outperform state-of-the-art baselines on eleven chemical-biological molecular datasets by fusing hierarchical structural reasoning with electronic descriptors.

desk verdict Mamba+GNN+descriptor fusion is a genuine new combination, but the SOTA claim rests on uncontrolled baseline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16483 v2 pith:C65YWRUE submitted 2024-12-21 cs.LG physics.chem-phq-bio.BM

Jingjing Hu , Dan Guo , Zhan Si , Deguang Liu , Yunfeng Diao , Jing Zhang , Jinxing Zhou , Meng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.chem-phq-bio.BM
keywords MOL-MambamolecularrepresentationlearningpropertypredictionMambastatespacemodelsgraphneuralnetworkselectronicdescriptorsself-supervisedpretraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MOL-Mamba is a self-supervised pretraining framework for molecular property prediction. Its central claim is that combining hierarchical structural reasoning with electronic information produces state-of-the-art results: a fragment-level graph neural network and an atom-level Mamba-Graph module capture structure, while a Mamba-Transformer fuser learns correlations between structure and molecular electronic descriptors. The framework is trained on the GEOM corpus with four joint losses, then fine-tuned on eleven MoleculeNet benchmarks, where the paper reports it outperforms existing GNN and graph-transformer baselines on most of them. If true, the contribution is a parameter-efficient recipe—6.98M parameters—that closes part of the gap between structure-only pretraining and multimodal fusion.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Mamba-Graph (MG) module: a GNN-initialized atom sequence, sorted by fragment membership and node degree, that passes through a Mamba selective state-space block whose SSM parameters are modulated by the adjacency and distance matrices (GraphSSM), followed by fragment-wise max-pooling. The Mamba-Transformer (MT) fuser then concatenates the resulting structure embedding with masked electronic descriptor tokens and reconstructs the mask, aligning the two modalities.

What would settle it

Retrain Uni-Mol, MOLEBLEND, GEM, and MolCLR on the same GEOM corpus with the same 8:1:1 splits and evaluation procedure described in the paper; if their mean ROC-AUC or RMSE values reach or exceed MOL-Mamba's reported numbers, the 'outperforms state-of-the-art' claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that MOL-Mamba outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across eleven chemical-biological molecular datasets. Its discovery is that a Mamba-enhanced graph learner can serve as the structural backbone and that fusing electronic descriptors through a Mamba-Transformer module adds complementary signal. Across seven classification and four regression benchmarks, the paper reports the best mean scores on eight of them, including Tox21 (81.3 ROC-AUC), MUV (89.0 ROC-AUC), BBBP (75.0 ROC-AUC), FreeSolv (1.02 RMSE), ESOL (0.63 RMSE), and Lipo (0.53 RMSE), while using fewer parameters and lower runtime than graph transformers such as Uni-Mol and MOLEBLEND.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that MOL-Mamba outperforms state-of-the-art methods assumes the baseline results in Tables 2 and 3, reported from their original papers under different pretraining corpora and settings, are directly comparable to results from MOL-Mamba's own protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the paper's protocol, MOL-Mamba reaches state-of-the-art mean scores on 8 of 11 MoleculeNet benchmarks, including Tox21 (81.3 ROC-AUC) and ESOL (0.63 RMSE).
  • The architecture runs at GNN-level cost (0.0012 s/molecule, 6.98M parameters) while outperforming graph transformers with 47.1M parameters.
  • Removing any of the four pretraining losses lowers performance, and removing the GraphSSM modulation causes the largest drop in the MG module's ablations.
  • The masked E-semantic fusion loss can be viewed as a self-supervised denoising task over electronic descriptors, which the paper shows improves feature separation in t-SNE error rates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension would be to vary the descriptor set (E-state, molecular property, quantum-chemical, charge) and the mask ratio to identify which electronic descriptors carry the predictive signal; the paper does not report such a breakdown.
  • The GraphSSM idea—modulating selective state-space parameters with graph adjacency and distance—may transfer to non-molecular graph tasks where long-range dependencies matter.
  • Because the baseline numbers are taken from the original papers, the claimed margins should be confirmed by re-running baselines under the same GEOM pretraining and identical splits before relying on them.
  • The fragment-based sorting could be replaced by other graph orderings (e.g., breadth-first or centrality) to test whether fragment membership is essential or only a convenient ordering heuristic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOL-Mamba, a self-supervised molecular representation learning framework that combines hierarchical structural reasoning (a fragment-level GNN and an atom-level Mamba-Graph with a custom GraphSSM) with an electronic descriptor stream fused through a Mamba-Transformer fuser. Four self-supervised losses are introduced: distribution-collaborative, structure, fragment, and masked e-semantic fusion. The method is evaluated on seven classification and four regression MoleculeNet benchmarks, with ablations over modules, losses, and MG components. The central claim is that MOL-Mamba outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across these datasets.

Significance. If the empirical claims are established, the paper would make a useful contribution to multimodal molecular pretraining: code is released, the internal ablations in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 3 coherently show that each component and each loss contributes, and Table 4 indicates a favorable parameter/runtime profile relative to graph transformers. The four-loss pretraining recipe and the fusion of electronic descriptors are interesting design choices. However, the headline comparison to state-of-the-art baselines is not currently controlled, and the paper's own tables contradict the strongest form of the SOTA claim. The central contribution therefore remains conditional on a corrected evaluation and a precise specification of the GSSM mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Performance Evaluation (Tables 2–3); Implementation Details] The headline comparison to state-of-the-art baselines is not controlled. The Implementation Details describe MOL-Mamba's pretraining on GEOM (50k molecules) and report 10-fold cross-validation averages, but no statement is made that any baseline was re-trained or re-evaluated under the same pretraining corpus, downstream splits, and evaluation procedure. The baseline entries appear to match numbers from the original papers, which used different pretraining data (e.g., Uni-Mol's large 3D conformer corpus, MolCLR's contrastive pretraining corpus, GROVER's larger dataset) and potentially different split and fold protocols. Since Tables 2 and 3 are the only evidence for the abstract's SOTA claim, the authors must either run a controlled comparison (same pretraining data, same splits, same number of folds, same evaluation) or explicitly document the source and protocol of every baseline number and justify comparability. Without this, the reported gaps cannot be attributed to MOL-Mamba's design.
  2. [Abstract; Introduction; Tables 2–3] The claim of outperforming state-of-the-art baselines across eleven datasets is not supported by the paper's own results. In Table 2, MOL-Mamba is below SchNet on BBBP (75.0 vs 84.8), below MolCLR on ClinTox (92.7 vs 93.2) and BACE (86.4 vs 89.0); in Table 3, it is below Uni-Mol on QM9 (MAE 0.007 vs 0.005). The statement of 'superior performance on 8 out of 11' is only defensible if the comparison is restricted to self-supervised/pretraining methods (in which case the losses are BBBP, Tox21, HIV, SIDER, MUV, FreeSolv, ESOL, and Lipo). The abstract and conclusion should state the comparison scope precisely and should not claim universal superiority across all eleven benchmarks.
  3. [Methodology, Algorithm 1 (GraphSSM)] Algorithm 1 is not a well-defined specification of the proposed GraphSSM. In line 8, Delta has shape b×l×d while A_G and D_G have shape l×l, so the elementwise product Delta ⊙ A_G ⊙ D_G is undefined without an additional assumption. In line 9, the parameter A of shape d×n is reassigned to a tensor of shape b×l×d×n while the summation over i,j is not defined for that tensor. In line 10, B of shape b×l×n and x of shape b×l×d are contracted as B_{jk} x_{ki} without specifying the summation indices or the roles of l and d. Because the GSSM is a central claimed contribution, this pseudocode must be rewritten with explicit shapes and summation conventions, or replaced by precise equations, before the method is reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methodology, Eqs. (2)–(5)] The notation for dimensions is inconsistent: V_A is R^{l×d_a} but F^G_A is written as R^{h×d_a}, and F^M_A is introduced as R^{H×d} with H never defined. Please unify the symbols for the number of atoms and the number of fragments throughout the paper.
  2. [Implementation Details] The loss weights (λ_d, λ_s, λ_f, λ_mask), mask ratio α, and temperature τ are stated without sensitivity analysis. Given that these hyperparameters are used to tune the pretraining objective, a small sensitivity study (or at least a stability discussion) would strengthen the claim that the four-loss recipe is robust.
  3. [Tables 2 caption] The caption states that both the best and the second-best self-supervised methods are marked in bold, which is ambiguous; please use distinct markers (e.g., bold for the overall best and underline for the best pretraining method) and state the convention clearly.
  4. [Experimental Settings, Datasets] The text says each dataset uses 'the recommended splitting method' with an 8:1:1 ratio, but it does not specify whether scaffold splitting or random splitting is used for each of the eleven datasets, nor how QM9 is split. Please state the exact split procedure to allow reproduction.
  5. [References] The reference list contains two entries for Luo, Shi, and Thost (2023a and 2023b) with identical titles; one should be corrected or removed.
  6. [Figure 3] The model is referred to as 'SE-Mamba' in Figure 3 but as MOL-Mamba elsewhere in the text; please use a single name consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pretraining losses are input-derived pretext tasks and downstream evaluation uses external benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's claimed contributions. The pretraining objectives L_d, L_s, L_f, and L_mask are all functions of the input molecule itself (Eqs. 6-10): L_d is a mutual-consistency loss between the fragment-GNN and Mamba-Graph views, L_s and L_f predict fragment-graph trunks and fragment ids obtained from the same molecular input via the PSM algorithm, and L_mask reconstructs randomly masked electronic descriptors that were computed from the input by ChemDes. None of these losses uses downstream labels, so the downstream MoleculeNet results are not forced by construction. The loss weights lambda and hyperparameters (tau, alpha) are tuning choices, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The self-citations in the paper (Hu et al. 2024a,b; Si et al. 2024) are peripheral related-work references and are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The only substantive weakness is experimental: Tables 2-3 do not specify that baselines were retrained under MOL-Mamba's GEOM pretraining and 10-fold protocol, so the SOTA comparison may not be apples-to-apples; that is a correctness/comparability concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard machine learning assumptions plus domain assumptions about the informativeness of ChemDes descriptors and PSM fragments, and a critical fairness assumption about the baseline comparisons. There are no new physical entities; the GraphSSM mechanism is a novel architecture component but not a postulated entity.

free parameters (6)
  • loss weight λd = 0.1
    Hand-set in Implementation Details; controls the structural distribution collaborative loss.
  • loss weight λs = 0.1
    Hand-set; controls the Lstructure loss for the MG module.
  • loss weight λf = 20.0
    Hand-set; the fragment loss dominates the objective, two orders of magnitude larger than the others.
  • loss weight λmask = 0.1
    Hand-set; controls the masked E-semantic fusion loss.
  • mask ratio α = 10%
    Hand-set for the E-semantic masking in Eq. 10.
  • temperature τ = 0.5
    Hand-set for soft label smoothing in Eq. 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 112 electronic descriptors computed by ChemDes capture the electronic properties of molecules relevant to downstream tasks.
    Section 'E-semantic Driven Structure & Electron Fusing' builds the whole electronic view on these descriptors; if they are uninformative, the fusion gain is spurious.
  • domain assumption Principal Subgraph Mining yields chemically meaningful, non-overlapping fragments that partition the molecule.
    Section 'Bi-Level Graph Collaboration Learning' relies on PSM to define fragment nodes VF; the quality of the fragment graph depends on that external algorithm.
  • domain assumption Baseline results from Tables 2 and 3 are directly comparable to MOL-Mamba's results.
    The experiments section lists baselines but does not state they were re-trained under MOL-Mamba's pretraining data and split protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper The GraphSSM update in Algorithm 1 is a valid state space discretization.
    The instruction Δ' = Δ ⊙ AG ⊙ DG is introduced without derivation, and the tensor dimensions in the subsequent lines are inconsistent as written.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MOL-Mamba: Enhancing Molecular Representation with Structural & Electronic Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C65YWRUE

@misc{pith2026241216483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MOL-Mamba: Enhancing Molecular Representation with Structural & Electronic Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C65YWRUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16483}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular representation learning plays a crucial role in various downstream tasks, such as molecular property prediction and drug design. To accurately represent molecules, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Graph Transformers (GTs) have shown potential in the realm of self-supervised pretraining. However, existing approaches often overlook the relationship between molecular structure and electronic information, as well as the internal semantic reasoning within molecules. This omission of fundamental chemical knowledge in graph semantics leads to incomplete molecular representations, missing the integration of structural and electronic data. To address these issues, we introduce MOL-Mamba, a framework that enhances molecular representation by combining structural and electronic insights. MOL-Mamba consists of an Atom & Fragment Mamba-Graph (MG) for hierarchical structural reasoning and a Mamba-Transformer (MT) fuser for integrating molecular structure and electronic correlation learning. Additionally, we propose a Structural Distribution Collaborative Training and E-semantic Fusion Training framework to further enhance molecular representation learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MOL-Mamba outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across eleven chemical-biological molecular datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pretraining framework of our approach MOL-Mamba (Molecular Mamba). It consists of three modules: fragment-level graph GNNF , atom-level structural reasoning Mamba-graph (MG), and a molecular structural & electronic Mamba-Transformer (MT) fuser. We implement two pretraining stages: molecular structure learning with the Distribution Collaborative Training, then E-semantic Fusion Training is conducted for molecular… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the Mamba-Graph (MG) module. It consists of the GNN layer and Mamba block. A novel graph node sorting strategy to exploit Mamba’s context-aware reasoning. A new GSSM mechanism is designed to adaptively select relevant information from the graph context. Two fragment-related loss constraints Lstructure and Lf ragment facilitate molecular structure learning of the MG module. Algorithm 1: Mamba block wi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MOL-Mamba with different module settings on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exemplary explanations for using MG and MT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Axelrod, S.; and Gomez-Bombarelli, R. 2022. GEOM, energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation. Scientific Data, 9(1): 185

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Behrouz, A.; and Hashemi, F. 2024. Graph mamba: Towards learning on graphs with state space models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08678

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Ding, Y.; Orvieto, A.; He, B.; and Hofmann, T. 2024. Recurrent Distance Filtering for Graph Representation Learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Dong, J.; Cao, D.; Miao, H.; Liu, S.; Deng, B.; Yun, Y.; Wang, N.; Lu, A.; Zeng, W.; and Chen, A. F. 2015. ChemDes: an integrated web-based platform for molecular descriptor and fingerprint computation. J. Cheminformatics, 7: 60:1--60:10

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Fang, X.; Liu, L.; Lei, J.; He, D.; Zhang, S.; Zhou, J.; Wang, F.; Wu, H.; and Wang, H. 2022 a . Geometry-enhanced molecular representation learning for property prediction. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(2): 127--134

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Fang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, H.; Zhuang, X.; Deng, S.; Zhang, W.; Qin, M.; Chen, Z.; Fan, X.; and Chen, H. 2022 b . Molecular Contrastive Learning with Chemical Element Knowledge Graph. In AAAI, 3968--3976

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    S.; Riley, P

    Gilmer, J.; Schoenholz, S. S.; Riley, P. F.; Vinyals, O.; and Dahl, G. E. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning, 1263--1272. PMLR

    2017

  2. [10]

    Gu, A.; and Dao, T. 2023. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hu, J.; Guo, D.; Li, K.; Si, Z.; Yang, X.; Chang, X.; and Wang, M. 2024 a . Unified Static and Dynamic Network: Efficient Temporal Filtering for Video Grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14174

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hu, J.; Guo, D.; Li, K.; Si, Z.; Yang, X.; and Wang, M. 2024 b . Maskable Retentive Network for Video Moment Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '24, 1476–1485. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400706868

    2024

  5. [13]

    S.; and Leskovec, J

    Hu, W.; Liu, B.; Gomes, J.; Zitnik, M.; Liang, P.; Pande, V. S.; and Leskovec, J. 2020. Strategies for Pre-training Graph Neural Networks. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings

    2017

  7. [15]

    Klicpera, J.; Gro , J.; and G \" u nnemann, S. 2020. Directional Message Passing for Molecular Graphs. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Kong, X.; Huang, W.; Tan, Z.; and Liu, Y. 2022. Molecule Generation by Principal Subgraph Mining and Assembling. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural ...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Le, T.; Winter, R.; No \'e , F.; and Clevert, D.-A. 2020. Neuraldecipher--reverse-engineering extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) to their molecular structures. Chemical science, 11(38): 10378--10389

    2020

  10. [18]

    Li, C.; Yao, J.; Su, J.; Liu, Z.; Zeng, X.; and Huang, C. 2023. LagNet: Deep Lagrangian Mechanics for Plug-and-Play Molecular Representation Learning. In AAAI, 5169--5177

    2023

  11. [19]

    Li, L.; Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; and Coster, A. 2024. STG-Mamba: Spatial-Temporal Graph Learning via Selective State Space Model. CoRR, abs/2403.12418

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Li, S.; Zhou, J.; Xu, T.; Dou, D.; and Xiong, H. 2022. GeomGCL: Geometric Graph Contrastive Learning for Molecular Property Prediction. In AAAI, 4541--4549

    2022

  13. [21]

    Liu, S.; Wang, H.; Liu, W.; Lasenby, J.; Guo, H.; and Tang, J. 2022. Pre-training Molecular Graph Representation with 3D Geometry. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Luo, S.; Chen, T.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, S.; Liu, T.; Wang, L.; and He, D. 2023. One Transformer Can Understand Both 2D & 3D Molecular Data. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Luo, Y.; Shi, L.; and Thost, V. 2023 a . Improving Self-supervised Molecular Representation Learning using Persistent Homology. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conf...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Luo, Y.; Shi, L.; and Thost, V. 2023 b . Improving Self-supervised Molecular Representation Learning using Persistent Homology. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conf...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Moriwaki, H.; Tian, Y.-S.; Kawashita, N.; and Takagi, T. 2018. Mordred: a molecular descriptor calculator. Journal of cheminformatics, 10: 1--14

    2018

  18. [26]

    Rogers, D.; and Hahn, M. 2010. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 50(5): 742--754

    2010

  19. [27]

    Rong, Y.; Bian, Y.; Xu, T.; Xie, W.; Wei, Y.; Huang, W.; and Huang, J. 2020. Self-Supervised Graph Transformer on Large-Scale Molecular Data. In Larochelle, H.; Ranzato, M.; Hadsell, R.; Balcan, M.; and Lin, H., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annua...

    2020

  20. [28]

    u tt, K.; Kindermans, P.; Felix, H. E. S.; Chmiela, S.; Tkatchenko, A.; and M \

    Sch \" u tt, K.; Kindermans, P.; Felix, H. E. S.; Chmiela, S.; Tkatchenko, A.; and M \" u ller, K. 2017. SchNet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural network for modeling quantum interactions. In Guyon, I.; von Luxburg, U.; Bengio, S.; Wallach, H. M.; Fergus, R.; Vishwanat...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Shen, A.; Yuan, M.; Ma, Y.; Du, J.; and Wang, M. 2024. Complementary multi-modality molecular self-supervised learning via non-overlapping masking for property prediction. Briefings Bioinform., 25(4)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Si, Z.; Liu, D.; Nie, W.; Hu, J.; Wang, C.; Jiang, T.; Yu, H.; and Fu, Y. 2024. Data-Based Prediction of Redox Potentials via Introducing Chemical Features into the Transformer Architecture. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(22): 8453--8463. PMID: 39513760

    2024

  23. [31]

    T.; and Jurs, P

    Stanton, D. T.; and Jurs, P. C. 1990. Development and use of charged partial surface area structural descriptors in computer-assisted quantitative structure-property relationship studies. Analytical Chemistry, 62(21): 2323--2329

    1990

  24. [32]

    N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Guyon, I.; von Luxburg, U.; Bengio, S.; Wallach, H. M.; Fergus, R.; Vishwanathan, S. V. N.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neura...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Wang, C.; Tsepa, O.; Ma, J.; and Wang, B. 2024. Graph-Mamba: Towards Long-Range Graph Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces. CoRR, abs/2402.00789

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wang, H.; Kaddour, J.; Liu, S.; Tang, J.; Lasenby, J.; and Liu, Q. 2023. Evaluating Self-Supervised Learning for Molecular Graph Embeddings. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Cao, Z.; and Barati Farimani, A. 2022. Molecular contrastive learning of representations via graph neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3): 279--287

    2022

  28. [36]

    N.; Gomes, J.; Geniesse, C.; Pappu, A

    Wu, Z.; Ramsundar, B.; Feinberg, E. N.; Gomes, J.; Geniesse, C.; Pappu, A. S.; Leswing, K.; and Pande, V. 2018. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning. Chemical science, 9(2): 513--530

    2018

  29. [37]

    Xiong, Z.; Wang, D.; Liu, X.; Zhong, F.; Wan, X.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Luo, X.; Chen, K.; Jiang, H.; et al. 2019. Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 63(16): 8749--8760

    2019

  30. [38]

    Xu, K.; Hu, W.; Leskovec, J.; and Jegelka, S. 2019. How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks? In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Yang, S.; Li, Z.; Song, G.; and Cai, L. 2021. Deep Molecular Representation Learning via Fusing Physical and Chemical Information. In Ranzato, M.; Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y. N.; Liang, P.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ying, C.; Cai, T.; Luo, S.; Zheng, S.; Ke, G.; He, D.; Shen, Y.; and Liu, T. 2021. Do Transformers Really Perform Badly for Graph Representation? In Ranzato, M.; Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y. N.; Liang, P.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Yu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ni, Y.; Feng, S.; Lan, Y.; Zhou, H.; and Liu, J. 2024. Multimodal Molecular Pretraining via Modality Blending. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; and Xie, L. 2020. Molecular mechanics-driven graph neural network with multiplex graph for molecular structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07457

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhou, G.; Gao, Z.; Ding, Q.; Zheng, H.; Xu, H.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, L.; and Ke, G. 2023. Uni-Mol: A Universal 3D Molecular Representation Learning Framework. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.