Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

MIPS: a Multimodal Infinite Polymer Sequence Pre-training Framework for Polymer Property Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling polymers as infinite monomer sequences is exactly equivalent, for message-passing networks, to adding one bond between the monomer's end atoms; the paper proves this 'star-linking' identity and reports top results on eight…

desk verdict A strong empirical polymer-ML paper whose central equivalence theorem is technically false for sum aggregation on two-atom monomers, but the empirical contribution is solid enough to warrant serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20326 v1 pith:FUQCKWES submitted 2025-07-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Jiaxi Wang , Yaosen Min , Xun Zhu , Miao Li , Ji Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords polymerpropertypredictioninfinitesequencestarlinkingmessagepassinglocalizedgraphattentionbackboneembeddingmultimodalpre-trainingWeisfeiler-Lehmantest
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

The paper sets out to show that polymer properties change during polymerization, so predictions built from the monomer alone lose information; it therefore models a polymer as an infinite repeating sequence of monomers. Its central constructive claim is that message passing or localized graph attention on that infinite sequence is exactly equivalent to running the same network on a small finite graph, namely the monomer with one extra 'star-linking' bond inserted between its two reactive end atoms. The paper proves this equivalence, exhibits a case where the star-linked graph is too coarse (polymers with side-chain rings become indistinguishable), and repairs that case with a learnable 'backbone embedding' that marks atoms on the path between the two end atoms. Coupled with 3D monomer descriptors fused by cross-attention and a masked-atom pre-training objective, the framework reports the best results on all eight polymer property benchmarks it tests.

What carries the argument

The induced star-linking graph $G^*$ — the monomer graph with one extra edge connecting its two boundary atoms $v_0$ and $v_{|V|-1}$ — is the object that carries the argument. It works because the infinite polymer is translationally periodic: an interior atom sees the same local neighborhood in the infinite chain that it sees in $G^*$, and each boundary atom's neighbors in the chain carry the same features as the opposite boundary atom, so infinite-graph computation collapses to one monomer. The second mechanism is backbone embedding, a learnable vector added to the atoms on the shortest path between the boundary atoms, which marks the polymer backbone and lets the model distinguish monomers whose star-linked graphs would otherwise look identical.

What would settle it

Two concrete checks would settle the claim. Construct a pair of chemically distinct polymers, such as a linear monomer and a branched monomer with a second reactive site on a side chain, that have identical star-linked graphs; the paper's own twin-polymer analysis predicts the model will assign them identical representations, and the distance between those representations is directly measurable. Alternatively, evaluate the pretrained model on a dataset containing branched or cross-linked polymers and compare with the linear-chain benchmarks, since the star-linking equivalence is proven only for linear chains and should degrade there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the polymerization effect can be captured exactly rather than approximated: for a linear polymer built by repeating a monomer with two reactive boundary atoms, propagating features on the infinite polymer graph yields the same node features as propagating on the induced star-linking graph, which adds a single bond between the boundary atoms. Theorems 1 and 2 extend this equivalence to any message-passing or localized-attention network that ends in mean pooling, provided the boundary atoms are far enough apart relative to the attention radius. From this the paper derives a limitation: pairs of 'twin' polymers whose star-linked graphs coincide cannot be distinguished by the Weisfeiler-Lehman test, message passing, or localized attention, and it shows that assigning a learnable embedding to backbone atoms restores the distinction. The complete MIPS model combines the star-linked topological encoder with 3D descriptors and cross-modal fusion, and the paper reports that it outperforms prior polymer and molecular pre-training methods on eight property prediction datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes every polymer is a linear chain whose monomer has exactly two reactive end atoms (Section 3.1.2), so branched, cross-linked, or cyclic polymerization topologies fall outside the equivalence theorems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Polymer property models can incorporate the polymerization effect without ever building a long oligomer, since the infinite chain is represented exactly by one star-linked monomer.
  • Predictions become invariant to the two P-SMILES ambiguities, translation and repetition of the unit, which the Repeat and Shift Invariance Test shows collapses other monomer-level strategies.
  • On ring-heavy polymer datasets, backbone embedding recovers distinctions that message passing and the Weisfeiler-Lehman test provably miss, which is what the gains on the Egc and Xc datasets reflect.
  • One pretrained topological and spatial encoder transfers across eight property types, from bandgaps to refractive index, under a single masked-atom objective.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The star-linking equivalence is a general recipe: any graph network whose propagation rule respects periodicity can be evaluated on a finite quotient of an infinite periodic structure, and the same construction should transfer to block copolymers by linking distinct monomer units in order.
  • The twin-polymer failure marks a precise ceiling: the model cannot distinguish polymers that differ only in how side-chain rings attach to the backbone, so a test set built from such pairs would reveal whether backbone embedding fully closes the gap.
  • If the linear-chain assumption were relaxed, an analogous 'branch embedding' marking non-backbone reactive sites would likely be needed, and a new equivalence theorem for branched periodic graphs would have to be proven.
  • The Repeat and Shift Invariance Test is usable as a cheap general robustness probe for any string-based chemical representation: random translation and repetition should not change predictions, and models that fail the probe lose credibility regardless of benchmark scores.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 MIPS, a pre-training framework that represents a polymer as an infinite periodic sequence of its monomer and combines topological and spatial information for property prediction. Topologically, the authors introduce a 'star linking' construction that closes the monomer graph by bonding the two boundary atoms, and they prove (Proposition 1, Theorems 1 and 2) that message passing and localized graph attention on the true infinite polymer graph are equivalent to the same operations on the finite star-linked monomer graph. They introduce backbone embeddings to handle ring-containing side chains, a Repeat and Shift Invariance Test (RSIT) for robustness, a 3D descriptor branch, and a cross-modal fusion module, and they pre-train with masked-atom prediction. Experiments on eight polymer property datasets show state-of-the-art results over molecular and polymer baselines, with ablations and fragment-level interpretation analyses.

Significance. If the central equivalence theorems were correct, the paper would make a clean conceptual contribution: instead of averaging monomer-level representations, it would directly model the polymerization effect through an explicit infinite-sequence representation. The RSIT test is a useful and simple robustness diagnostic, the backbone-embedding idea is sensible, the experimental comparison is broad, and the code is released. The core theorems are stated precisely enough to be checked, and the empirical results are consistent with the proposed method's motivation. However, the main theoretical claim, which is load-bearing for the entire 'star linking' strategy, has a correctness gap for a common aggregation function and a non-negligible class of monomers; this must be repaired or explicitly scoped before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.2, Prop. 1 / Thm. 1, Appendix A] The proof of Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 compares the feature sets of neighboring nodes but not their multisets. For a monomer graph with |V|=2, e.g., P-SMILES *CC* with the star atoms stripped, the boundary atom v0 has two distinct neighbors in the infinite polymer graph G_p (v1 and the previous copy v_{-1}) with the same feature vector, while the star-linked graph G* gives v0 only one neighbor, v1. Under sum aggregation, which is used by GIN and GCN and by the paper's own GIN3-512 experiments, the first-layer messages are 2x_{v1} and x_{v1}, respectively, and all later representations differ. Thus Theorem 1 is false as stated for a standard aggregation function, and the central equivalence justifying 'star linking' is not established. The paper should either add an explicit assumption such as |V|>2 or a multiplicity-invariance condition on AGG, or redefine the star-linking graph to add a parallel edge when |V|=2, or restrict the theorem to aggregations that ignore duplicate neighbors (e.g., mean aggregation). Consequently, Lemma 1 and Theorem 3, which rely on Theorem 1, are also not fully supported as written.
  2. [Theorem 2 and Appendix C] The handling of the exceptional case in Theorem 2 is under-specified and unproved. When the distance between boundary atoms is less than 2 d_thres - 1, the statement says to 'first repeat the monomer graph G until the distance exceeds 2 d_thres - 1, then apply localized graph attention to the augmented monomer graph.' No lemma shows that localized attention on the star-linked repeated monomer produces the same node features as localized attention on G_p. The theorem's conclusion is expressly about the induced star-linking graph of the original monomer, so the repeated-monomer procedure changes the object under study. This matters in practice because small monomers such as *CC* are common, and the local-attention equivalence is the stated justification for using LGA on arbitrary monomers.
  3. [Theorem 1 / Appendix A and B, mean pooling over infinite graphs] The phrase 'end with a mean pooling' is undefined for an infinite vertex set. The intended meaning is presumably the limit, over a growing number of repeated monomers, of the mean over the finite periodic truncation, but this is not stated. Since the paper's theorems are the main theoretical contribution, this formalization should be made explicit, along with the implied assumption that the limit exists.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.2] The text introduces 'graph attention mechanism (GTM)' but the expansion should be GAM, matching later usage.
  2. [Equation (3) and surrounding text] The masking condition is written as 1{d_ij < d_thres} in the equation but 1{d_ij <= d_thres} in the following sentence; these should be made consistent.
  3. [Appendix A and main text] The appendix labels the statement 'Proposition 2' while the main text calls it 'Proposition 1'; the numbering should be harmonized.
  4. [Theorem 3] There is a typo: 'massage passing mechanism' should be 'message passing mechanism'.
  5. [Table 3] The data range for Eat is given as [6.83, 5.02], which has the lower bound larger than the upper bound; the entries appear to be reversed.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, e.g., 'appendex', 'principle component regression', 'comfirm', 'imroeves', 'machieved', 'seven our of eight', and 'embedding generated of' in Appendix F; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core star-linking equivalence is derived from stated definitions, the RSIT gap is structurally built in as a sanity check, and the sole self-citations are auxiliary tools.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the paper's load-bearing theoretical claim is that message passing and localized attention on the infinite polymer graph G_p equal message passing and localized attention on the finite star-linking graph G* (Proposition 1 and Theorems 1-2). This is a conditional mathematical statement proved from the definitions of G_p and G*, not a fitted parameter or an assumption imported through self-citation. The star-linking graph is defined independently in Definition 1, and the proof in Appendix A attempts to match node features via periodic symmetry; even if that proof has a separate correctness gap when the monomer's boundary atoms are already adjacent under sum aggregation, that is a correctness concern, not a circularity. The downstream property labels come from external DFT-derived benchmark datasets (Table 3), and the pre-training objective is a standard masked-atom prediction over the external PL1M corpus; neither is defined in terms of the reported state-of-the-art results. The RSIT evaluation checks translation and repetition invariance, and 'star linking' is invariant by construction because it directly models an infinite periodic sequence; the zero RSIT gap is therefore a built-in sanity check rather than a fitted prediction. The only self-citations, FragFormer [52] for the DOVE-1/FragCAM fragment-analysis tools and [26] for atom features, are auxiliary and do not carry the central equivalence or the benchmark comparisons. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework rests on the linear-chain/two-boundary-atom assumption, the periodicity of node features, and a distance condition for localized attention. The only fitted scalar inputs to the pipeline are d_thres (per dataset) and p_mask (global). No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the star-linking graph and backbone embedding are computational constructs, not postulated entities.

free parameters (2)
  • d_thres (LGA distance threshold) = Chosen per dataset from {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20} (Appendix I)
    The localized graph attention threshold is tuned per downstream dataset to maximize R^2 (red star in Figure 8). If selected on test performance, this is a per-task fitted hyperparameter that can inflate reported results.
  • mask rate p_mask = 0.3
    Selected based on average rank across the eight downstream datasets (Appendix H). This is a hyperparameter tuned on the same tasks, not a constant derived from theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each monomer has exactly two boundary atoms (v0 and v_{|V|-1}) and bonds only through those atoms; the polymer is an infinite linear chain.
    Section 3.1.2 defines the monomer graph with v0 and v_{|V|-1} as boundary nodes; this rules out branched or cross-linked polymers.
  • domain assumption The atomic features are identical across monomer repeats, i.e., x_i = x^p_i = x*_i for all i in the period.
    Stated near Definition 1; required for the equivalence proofs to work.
  • standard math Message passing neural networks have expressive power bounded by the 1-WL test.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3 via the standard result of Xu et al. [59].
  • ad hoc to paper The localized graph attention equivalence holds only if the distance between the monomer's boundary atoms exceeds 2*d_thres - 1, or if the monomer is repeated enough to satisfy this.
    Theorem 2 assumption; the repeat strategy is not fully specified in the implementation (Section 3.1.2), and it is not proven for monomers where boundary atoms lie on a ring.
  • domain assumption The 3D descriptors from Yang et al. [60] and RDKit atom pair descriptors correctly capture the 3D structure of the polymer's repeat unit.
    Used for the spatial encoder; the paper cites prior work but does not validate conformer generation for polymers, and the 3D structure of a polymer is not a single well-defined object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MIPS: a Multimodal Infinite Polymer Sequence Pre-training Framework for Polymer Property Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUQCKWES

@misc{pith2026250720326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MIPS: a Multimodal Infinite Polymer Sequence Pre-training Framework for Polymer Property Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUQCKWES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20326}
}
read the original abstract

Polymers, composed of repeating structural units called monomers, are fundamental materials in daily life and industry. Accurate property prediction for polymers is essential for their design, development, and application. However, existing modeling approaches, which typically represent polymers by the constituent monomers, struggle to capture the whole properties of polymer, since the properties change during the polymerization process. In this study, we propose a Multimodal Infinite Polymer Sequence (MIPS) pre-training framework, which represents polymers as infinite sequences of monomers and integrates both topological and spatial information for comprehensive modeling. From the topological perspective, we generalize message passing mechanism (MPM) and graph attention mechanism (GAM) to infinite polymer sequences. For MPM, we demonstrate that applying MPM to infinite polymer sequences is equivalent to applying MPM on the induced star-linking graph of monomers. For GAM, we propose to further replace global graph attention with localized graph attention (LGA). Moreover, we show the robustness of the "star linking" strategy through Repeat and Shift Invariance Test (RSIT). Despite its robustness, "star linking" strategy exhibits limitations when monomer side chains contain ring structures, a common characteristic of polymers, as it fails the Weisfeiler-Lehman~(WL) test. To overcome this issue, we propose backbone embedding to enhance the capability of MPM and LGA on infinite polymer sequences. From the spatial perspective, we extract 3D descriptors of repeating monomers to capture spatial information. Finally, we design a cross-modal fusion mechanism to unify the topological and spatial information. Experimental validation across eight diverse polymer property prediction tasks reveals that MIPS achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20326 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of MIPS pre-training framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: How polymers are represented by P-SMILES, along with examples of translation and repetition. The underlying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of twin polymer graphs  𝐺 𝑝 1 ,𝐺𝑝 2  . By Theorem 1, message passing mechanism on 𝐺 𝑝 1 /𝐺 𝑝 2 is equiva￾lent to that on 𝐺 ∗ . Definition 2 (Twin Polymer Graphs). Assume the monomer graphs of two polymers 𝐺 𝑝 1 and 𝐺 𝑝 2 are 𝐺1 and 𝐺2, respectively, with 𝐺 𝑝 1 ≠ 𝐺 𝑝 2 . If their induced star-linking graphs 𝐺 ∗ 1 and 𝐺 ∗ 2 satis￾fies 𝐺 ∗ 1 = 𝐺 ∗ 2 , we call  𝐺 𝑝 1 ,𝐺𝑝 2  a pair of twin polymer graphs. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ring statistics of eight polymer property datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the top three and bottom three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UMAP visualization of the embedding generated by MIPS on eight polymer property datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of 𝑅 2 performance across different mask rates during pre-training. The mask rate yieding the best result is highlighted with a red star for each dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Influence of 𝑑𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠 in localized graph attention. The red star indicates the best 𝑑𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠 for each dataset. mask rate of zero, which is equivalent to no pre-training, results in comparatively lower performance, highlighting the importance and effectiveness of pre-traini…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep Learning using Rectified Linear Units (ReLU). CoRR abs/1803.08375 (2018). arXiv:1803.08375 http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08375

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Walid Ahmad, Elana Simon, Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. 2022. ChemBERTa-2: Towards Chemical Foundation Models. CoRR abs/2209.01712 (2022). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2209.01712 arXiv:2209.01712

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.01712 2022

  3. [3]

    Bruno Améduri. 2009. From vinylidene fluoride (VDF) to the applications of VDF-containing polymers and copolymers: recent developments and future trends. Chemical reviews 109 12 (2009), 6632–86. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:206901877

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Mahendra Awale and Jean-Louis Reymond. 2014. Atom Pair 2D-Fingerprints Per- ceive 3D-Molecular Shape and Pharmacophores for Very Fast Virtual Screening of ZINC and GDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 7 (2014), 1892–1907. doi:10.1021/ CI500232G

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Viraj Bagal, Rishal Aggarwal, P. K. Vinod, and U. Deva Priyakumar. 2022. MolGPT: Molecular Generation Using a Transformer-Decoder Model. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 62, 9 (2022), 2064–2076. doi:10.1021/ACS.JCIM.1C00600

    doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00600 2022

  6. [6]

    Jozef Bicerano. 1996. Prediction of Polymer Properties. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:138697246

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Bronstein

    Giorgos Bouritsas, Fabrizio Frasca, Stefanos Zafeiriou, and Michael M. Bronstein

  8. [8]

    Leo Breiman. 2001. Random Forests.Mach. Learn. 45, 1 (2001), 5–32. doi:10.1023/A: 1010933404324

    doi:10.1023/a: 2001

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event (Proceedings of...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. 1995. Support-Vector Networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 3 (1995), 273–297. doi:10.1007/BF00994018

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: Hum...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Benedek Fabian, Thomas Edlich, Héléna Gaspar, Marwin H. S. Segler, Joshua Meyers, Marco Fiscato, and Mohamed Ahmed. 2020. Molecular representa- tion learning with language models and domain-relevant auxiliary tasks. CoRR abs/2011.13230 (2020). arXiv:2011.13230 https://arxiv.or...

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Joel R Fried. 2014. Polymer science and technology . Pearson Education

    2014

  6. [14]

    Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec

    William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive Represen- tation Learning on Large Graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA , I...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Tomoya Higashihara and Mitsuru Ueda. 2015. Recent Progress in High Re- fractive Index Polymers. Macromolecules 48 (2015), 1915–1929. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:102023070

    2015

  8. [16]

    Yuanyuan Hu, David Xi Cao, Alexander T Lill, Lang Jiang, Chong-an Di, Xike Gao, Henning Sirringhaus, and Thuc-Quyen Nguyen. 2018. Effect of Alkyl- Chain Length on Charge Transport Properties of Organic Semiconductors and Organic Field-Effect Transistors. Advanced Electronic Ma...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Jolliffe

    Ian T. Jolliffe. 1982. A Note on the Use of Principal Components in Regression. Journal of The Royal Statistical Society Series C-applied Statistics 31 (1982), 300–303. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:126082585

    1982

  10. [18]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Opti- mization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings , Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun (Eds.). http://arxiv.org/...

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 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. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.n...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Xiangzhe Kong, Wenbing Huang, Zhixing Tan, and Yang Liu. 2022. Molecule Generation by Principal Subgraph Mining and Assembling. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, L...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Christopher Kuenneth and Rampi Ramprasad. 2022. polyBERT: a chemical language model to enable fully machine-driven ultrafast polymer informatics. Nature Communications 14 (2022). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 252595691

    2022

  14. [22]

    Christopher Künneth, Arunkumar Chitteth Rajan, Huan Tran, Lihua Chen, Chiho Kim, and Rampi Ramprasad. 2021. Polymer informatics with multi-task learning. Patterns 2, 4 (2021), 100238. doi:10.1016/J.PATTER.2021.100238

    2021

  15. [23]

    Greg Landrum. 2016. RDKit: Open-Source Cheminformatics Software. (2016). https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/releases/tag/Release_2016_09_4

    2016

  16. [24]

    Le, Vidana Chandana Epa, Frank R

    Tu C. Le, Vidana Chandana Epa, Frank R. Burden, and Dave Winkler. 2012. Quantitative structure-property relationship modeling of diverse materials prop- erties. Chemical reviews 112 5 (2012), 2889–919. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:30285330

    2012

  17. [25]

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. Nat. 521, 7553 (2015), 436–444. doi:10.1038/NATURE14539

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Han Li, Ruotian Zhang, Min Yaosen, Dacheng Ma, Dan Zhao, and Jianyang Zeng

  19. [27]

    Junyu Lin, Yan Zheng, Xinyue Chen, Yazhou Ren, Xiaorong Pu, and Jing He. 2024. Cross-view Contrastive Unification Guides Generative Pretraining for Molecular Property Prediction. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM 2024, Melbourne, VIC, Au...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nature Communications 14 (11 2023)

    A knowledge-guided pre-training framework for improving molecular representation learning. Nature Communications 14 (11 2023). doi:10.1038/s41467- 023-43214-1

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Hang Luo, Sheng Chen, Lihong Liu, Xuefan Zhou, Chao Ma, Weiwei Liu, and Dou Zhang. 2018. Core–Shell Nanostructure Design in Polymer Nanocompos- ite Capacitors for Energy Storage Applications. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering (2018). https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Yajing Liu, Jacky Wing Yip Lam, and Ben Zhong Tang. 2015. Conjugated polymers developed from alkynes. National Science Review 2 (2015), 493–509. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:88351303 MM ’25, October 27–31, 2025, Dublin, Ireland Trovato et al

    2015

  23. [31]

    James E. Mark. 2007. Physical properties of polymers handbook. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:135747818

    2007

  24. [32]

    Ruimin Ma and Tengfei Luo. 2020. PI1M: A Benchmark Database for Polymer Informatics. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 10 (2020), 4684–4690. doi:10.1021/ACS.JCIM. 0C00726

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe

    Christopher Morris, Martin Ritzert, Matthias Fey, William L. Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe. 2019. Weisfeiler and Leman Go Neural: Higher-Order Graph Neural Networks. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Th...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Leland McInnes and John Healy. 2018. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approxi- mation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. CoRR abs/1802.03426 (2018). arXiv:1802.03426 http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hassan Namazi. 2017. Polymers in our daily life. BioImpacts : BI 7 (2017), 73 – 74. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:29251347

    2017

  28. [36]

    Joydeep Munshi, Wei Chen, TeYu Chien, and Ganesh Balasubramanian. 2021. Transfer Learned Designer Polymers For Organic Solar Cells. Journal of chemical information and modeling (2021). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 230824254

    2021

  29. [37]

    Pantazis, and Frank Neese

    Maylis Orio, Dimitrios A. Pantazis, and Frank Neese. 2009. Density functional theory. Photosynthesis Research 102 (2009), 443 – 453. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:5677752

    2009

  30. [38]

    George Odian. 2004. Principles of polymerization. John Wiley & Sons

    2004

  31. [39]

    Gianfranco Pasut and F. M. Veronese. 2007. Polymer-drug conjugation, recent achievements and general strategies. Progress in Polymer Science 32 (2007), 933–

    2007

  32. [40]

    Painter and Michael M

    Paul C. Painter and Michael M. Coleman. 2008. Essentials of Polymer Science and Engineering. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:60462767

    2008

  33. [41]

    Walter Richtering. 2003. Polymer Physics. Applied Rheology 13 (2003), 172 – 173. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:202047447

    2003

  34. [42]

    Yu Rong, Yatao Bian, Tingyang Xu, Weiyang Xie, Ying Wei, Wenbing Huang, and Junzhou Huang. 2020. Self-Supervised Graph Transformer on Large-Scale Molecular Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Radue, Gre- gory M

    Aowabin Rahman, Prathamesh Prashant Deshpande, Matthew S. Radue, Gre- gory M. Odegard, S. Gowtham, Susanta Ghosh, and Ashley D. Spear. 2021. A ma- chine learning framework for predicting the shear strength of carbon nanotube- polymer interfaces based on molecular dynamics simu...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Tress, Beatrice Beyer, Feng Gao, Reinhard Scholz, Carl Poelking, Katrin Ortstein, Alrun A

    Martin Schwarze, Wolfgang R. Tress, Beatrice Beyer, Feng Gao, Reinhard Scholz, Carl Poelking, Katrin Ortstein, Alrun A. Günther, Daniel Kasemann, Denis An- drienko, and Karl Leo. 2016. Band structure engineering in organic semiconduc- tors. Science 352 (2016), 1446 – 1449. htt...

    2016

  37. [45]

    Yu Shi, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Yifei Shen, Jiacheng You, Jiyan He, Shengjie Luo, Chang Liu, Di He, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Benchmarking Graphormer on Large-Scale Molecular Modeling Datasets. CoRR abs/2203.04810 (2022). doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.2203.04810 arXiv:2203.04810

    2022 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Victor Garcia Satorras, Emiel Hoogeboom, and Max Welling. 2021. E(n) Equi- variant Graph Neural Networks. CoRR abs/2102.09844 (2021). arXiv:2102.09844 https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09844

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hannes Stärk, Dominique Beaini, Gabriele Corso, Prudencio Tossou, Christian Dallago, Stephan Günnemann, and Pietro Lió. 2022. 3D Infomax improves GNNs for Molecular Property Prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Mar...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus

    Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conf...

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Allen, and Peter J

    Lena Simine, Thomas C. Allen, and Peter J. Rossky. 2020. Predicting optical spectra for optoelectronic polymers using coarse-grained models and recurrent neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (2020), 13945 – 13948. https://api.semanticscholar.org...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedi...

    2018

  43. [51]

    Fanmeng Wang, Wentao Guo, Minjie Cheng, Shen Yuan, Hongteng Xu, and Zhifeng Gao. 2024. MMPolymer: A Multimodal Multitask Pretraining Framework for Polymer Property Prediction. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: An- nual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems ...

    2017

  45. [53]

    Xu Wang, Huan Zhao, Wei-Wei Tu, and Quanming Yao. 2023. Automated 3D Pre-Training for Molecular Property Prediction. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2023, Long Beach, CA, USA, August 6-10, 2023 , Ambuj K. Singh, Yizh...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Yuyang Wang, Jianren Wang, Zhonglin Cao, and Amir Barati Farimani. 2022. Molecular contrastive learning of representations via graph neural networks. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 3 (2022), 279–287. doi:10.1038/S42256-022-00447-X

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Jiaxi Wang, Yaosen Min, Miao Li, and Ji Wu. 2025. FragFormer: A Fragment- based Representation Learning Framework for Molecular Property Prediction. Transactions on Machine Learning Research(2025). https://openreview.net/forum? id=9aiuB3kIjd

    2025

  48. [56]

    David Weininger. 1988. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 28 (1988), 31–36. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5445756

    1988

  49. [57]

    Tom Wollschläger, Niklas Kemper, Leon Hetzel, Johanna Sommer, and Stephan Günnemann. 2024. Expressivity and Generalization: Fragment-Biases for Molec- ular GNNs. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenRev...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Seigo Watanabe, Terufumi Takayama, and Kenichi Oyaizu. 2022. Transcending the Trade-off in Refractive Index and Abbe Number for Highly Refractive Poly- mers: Synergistic Effect of Polarizable Skeletons and Robust Hydrogen Bonds. ACS Polymers Au 2 (2022), 458 – 466. https://api...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2019. How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?. In 7th International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 . OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ryGs6iA5Km

    2019

  52. [60]

    Coley, Philipp Eiden, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Timothy Hopper, Brian Kelley, Miriam Mathea, An- drew Palmer, Volker Settels, Tommi S

    Kevin Yang, Kyle Swanson, Wengong Jin, Connor W. Coley, Philipp Eiden, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Timothy Hopper, Brian Kelley, Miriam Mathea, An- drew Palmer, Volker Settels, Tommi S. Jaakkola, Klavs F. Jensen, and Regina Barzi- lay. 2019. Analyzing Learned Molecular Repres...

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Changwen Xu, Yuyang Wang, and Amir Barati Farimani. 2022. TransPolymer: a Transformer-based language model for polymer property predictions. npj Com- putational Materials 9 (2022), 1–14. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 252090395

    2022

  54. [62]

    Battaglia, Razvan Pascanu, and Jonathan Godwin

    Sheheryar Zaidi, Michael Schaarschmidt, James Martens, Hyunjik Kim, Yee Whye Teh, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Peter W. Battaglia, Razvan Pascanu, and Jonathan Godwin. 2023. Pre-training via Denoising for Molecular Property Prediction. In The Eleventh International Conference on L...

    2023

  55. [63]

    Bingxu Zhang, Changjun Fan, Shixuan Liu, Kuihua Huang, Xiang Zhao, Jincai Huang, and Zhong Liu. 2025. The Expressive Power of Graph Neural Networks: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 37, 3 (2025), 1455–1474. doi:10.1109/ TKDE.2024.3523700

    2025

  56. [64]

    Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Di He, Yanming Shen, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. Do Transformers Really Per- form Badly for Graph Representation?. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information P...

    2021

  57. [65]

    Gengmo Zhou, Zhifeng Gao, Qiankun Ding, Hang Zheng, Hongteng Xu, Zhewei Wei, Linfeng Zhang, and Guolin Ke. 2023. Uni-Mol: A Universal 3D Molecular Representation Learning Framework. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda...

    2023

  58. [66]

    star linking

    Jinhua Zhu, Kehan Wu, Bohan Wang, Yingce Xia, Shufang Xie, Qi Meng, Lijun Wu, Tao Qin, Wengang Zhou, Houqiang Li, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2023. O-GNN: incorporating ring priors into molecular modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, K...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Kearney, Debsindhu Bhowmik, Zachary R

    Pei Zhang, Logan T. Kearney, Debsindhu Bhowmik, Zachary R. Fox, Amit K. Naskar, and John Gounley. 2023. Transferring a Molecular Foundation Model MIPS: a Multimodal Infinite Polymer Sequence Pre-training Framework for Polymer Property Prediction MM ’25, October 27–31, 2025, Du...

    2023 doi

  60. [961]

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:95522376

  61. [2023]

    IEEE Trans

    Improving Graph Neural Network Expressivity via Subgraph Isomorphism Counting. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45, 1 (2023), 657–668. doi:10. 1109/TPAMI.2022.3154319

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.