Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

From Molecules to Mixtures: Learning Representations of Olfactory Mixture Similarity using Inductive Biases

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Olfactory mixture similarity can be learned from molecular structure with a permutation-invariant neural representation.

desk verdict Useful first POM extension to mixtures with an honest but likely flawed CV protocol; the headline numbers may be optimistic due to pair-level splits and overlapping model selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16271 v1 pith:N7LVINO3 submitted 2025-01-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Gary Tom , Cher Tian Ser , Ella M. Rajaonson , Stanley Lo , Hyun Suk Park , Brian K. Lee , Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords olfactorymixturesimilarityprincipalodormapgraphneuralnetworksattentionaggregationcosineheadlow-datarepresentationlearningwhiteperceptualdistance
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

This paper tries to establish that olfactory mixture similarity can be computed from chemical structure by learning a mixture-aware extension of the Principal Odor Map. Instead of treating a mixture label as a separate property, it represents each molecule with a graph neural network, pools the molecular embeddings with a permutation-invariant attention module, and trains a scaled cosine head to make the resulting mixture embeddings lie near each other exactly when humans rate the mixtures as similar. Across 865 pairwise comparisons from three public datasets, the model reports Pearson $\rho = 0.779$, RMSE $0.118$, and Kendall $\tau = 0.596$, all above the baselines the paper compares. If correct, this gives a reusable, searchable distance over odor mixtures in a domain where human data are scarce, with direct uses in fragrance formulation, repellent discovery, and food spoilage sensing.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-level stack built around three symmetry inductive biases: a graph neural network, the POM, whose final global vertex embedding represents one molecule; a permutation-invariant self-attention module, CHEMIX, which treats a mixture as a set of molecule embeddings and pools them with principal neighbourhood aggregation; and a scaled cosine-similarity head with a two-parameter linear layer and HardTanh activation that maps a pair of mixture embeddings to a $[0,1]$ perceptual distance while preserving comparison symmetry. The POM is pre-trained on single-molecule odor labels; CHEMIX is trained on mixture pairs with the POM frozen; and the full stack is then fine-tuned end-to-end with a lower learning rate on the POM weights.

What would settle it

Train POMMIX only on the explicit-similarity pairs (Snitz and Ravia) and test it on the triangle-discrimination pairs (Bushdid), treating accuracy as the 0-to-1 distance label; if the cross-task test correlation is no better than the gradient-boosted tree baseline's 0.497, then the common-scale assumption and the claimed transferable mixture representation would be called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that POMMIX, an extension of the Principal Odor Map, learns a distance over odor mixtures that predicts human perceptual similarity from molecular structure alone. On five-fold cross-validation over 865 pairwise comparisons from Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid, it reports a test Pearson $\rho = 0.779 \pm 0.028$, RMSE $0.118 \pm 0.004$, and Kendall $\tau = 0.596 \pm 0.022$, beating the frozen-POM attention model CHEMIX ($\rho = 0.746$) and the gradient-boosted tree baseline with POM embeddings ($\rho = 0.497$). The paper also claims the representation reproduces the olfactory white phenomenon and generalizes to mixture sizes beyond those seen in training, while generalizing less well to unseen molecules.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the averaged human responses from the explicit-rating experiments and the triangle-discrimination experiments measure the same perceptual distance on a single numeric scale, even though the paper does not calibrate the middle range of those two task types.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A faithful mixture embedding turns finding an odor close to a target blend into a nearest-neighbour search, which could shorten fragrance and repellent development cycles that currently rely on iterative human panels.
  • The mixture-size ablation shows the model ranks mixtures larger than any in training about as well as descriptor baselines, indicating the learned representation is not limited to the 1-43 component range of the pooled datasets.
  • Reproducing the olfactory white phenomenon in embedding space gives a computational tool for designing experiments on when multi-component mixtures become perceptually indistinguishable.
  • Because the architecture is permutation-invariant and symmetric in its inputs, the same POMMIX-style stack can be applied to other set-of-molecules comparison problems beyond olfaction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a direct test of its common-scale assumption is to rank-calibrate labels within each dataset before pooling; the paper states it did not correct for inter-task calibration, so this is the natural next experiment.
  • Because end-to-end training raises Kendall tau more than Pearson rho, the representation's main benefit may be in ranking rather than absolute calibration; a retrieval evaluation on top-k nearest mixture retrieval would make that explicit.
  • The attention-interpretation analysis is qualitative and tied to the discrimination task; a synthetic mixture benchmark with known interaction rules would reveal whether high attention weights mark true interactions or simply unusual molecules.
  • With roughly 200 unique molecules in the mixture data, the strongest stress test would be collecting mixtures composed of chemically distinct held-out classes and checking whether the embedding still separates them.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces POMMix, a hierarchical neural representation for olfactory mixtures. A GNN (POM) embeds individual molecules, an attention-based module (CHEMIX) aggregates molecular embeddings into a mixture embedding, and a scaled-cosine head predicts perceptual similarity between two mixtures. The model is pretrained on mono-molecular odor-label data and then fine-tuned end-to-end on a combined dataset of 865 pairwise mixture comparisons from the Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid studies (743 unique mixtures). The main claim is state-of-the-art test performance: Pearson rho = 0.779 +/- 0.028, RMSE = 0.118 +/- 0.004, Kendall tau = 0.596 +/- 0.022 under 5-fold cross-validation, outperforming XGBoost and CHEMIX with frozen POM embeddings. The paper also reports generalization studies (leave-molecules-out and mixture-size thresholds), reproduces the olfactory-white phenomenon, and proposes an interpretability analysis of attention weights.

Significance. If the reported predictive performance holds, POMMix would be a meaningful step toward a digital representation of olfactory mixtures in a very low-data regime. The design deliberately respects relevant symmetries (permutation invariance of molecules and mixtures, symmetry of pairwise similarity), and the authors provide code, data, and systematic ablations (prediction heads, molecular featurizations, graph architectures, augmented pretraining). The leave-molecules-out and mixture-size extrapolation experiments are useful and honestly show reduced performance for unseen molecules. The main weakness is that the headline cross-validation numbers may not measure generalization to unseen mixtures; this must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The 5-fold CV is described as splits 'stratified across the Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid datasets,' but the paper never states that all pairs sharing a unique mixture are kept in the same fold. With 865 pairwise comparisons from only 743 unique mixtures, many mixtures necessarily appear in multiple pairs. If the folds are random splits of pairs, a test pair can share a mixture with training pairs, and since POMMix is a deterministic end-to-end encoder, the model can adapt the embedding of that mixture on its training pairs and reuse it for the test pair. The reported rho = 0.779 +/- 0.028 would then measure transductive recall of mixture embeddings rather than generalization to new mixtures, which is what the representation claim and the SOTA comparison require. Please explicitly state whether fold assignment is mixture-disjoint; if it is not, rerun the evaluation with mixture-disjoint folds and report the resulting metrics.
  2. [Section 2.3] Hyperparameter optimization and the choice of the scaled-cosine prediction head were performed on an 80/20 split of the full mixture dataset, and the text does not clarify whether this split overlaps the test folds of the subsequent 5-fold CV. If the same 20% is used for model selection and later appears in CV test folds, the reported test metrics are inflated by selection on the test data. Please either demonstrate that the CV test folds are disjoint from the model-selection split or move model selection inside each CV training fold.
  3. [Section 2.1] The regression target merges explicit similarity ratings (Snitz, Ravia) with triangle-discrimination accuracies (Bushdid) on a common numeric scale. The manuscript itself states, 'calibration of intermediate scores may differ. We did not attempt to correct for this effect.' Because the headline results are regression metrics (rho, RMSE, tau) on this combined target, a systematic mid-range calibration mismatch can distort all three metrics. Please quantify the sensitivity to this choice, for example by reporting per-dataset metrics or by fitting a monotone calibration transform for Bushdid labels, or else explicitly scope the SOTA claim to the pooled ordinal/rank setting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 5b] The description of the leave-molecules-out splits is imprecise: the paper says the training sets are not mutually exclusive because of molecule overlap, but it does not state whether split assignment is mixture-disjoint in addition to molecule-disjoint. Please clarify the exact splitting criterion and the number of folds.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 6b] The comparison between the learned bias and the empirical identical-mixture bias is partly circular, because the learned bias term is fitted on the same data used for the comparison. Please present this as a descriptive property of the fitted head, or evaluate the bias on held-out subsets, rather than as independent validation of the bias as a measure of human perception.
  3. [Section 2.2] The text uses 'cosine distance' and 'cosine similarity' somewhat interchangeably. Since the labels run from 0 (similar) to 1 (different), please define the exact orientation of the cosine head and ensure the sign conventions are stated unambiguously.
  4. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract claims 'state-of-the-art predictive performance across multiple datasets,' but the main evaluation is on a single combined dataset. Consider reporting per-dataset metrics (Snitz, Ravia, Bushdid) to support the plural 'datasets' or revising the wording.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

POMMix's headline CV is at pair level, so the same mixture can be in train and test; the 'olfactory white' and bias analyses are post-hoc views of the fitted model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (Data) and Section 3 (Predictive performance): 743 unique mixtures / 865 pairwise comparisons; 5-fold CV split description]
    "In aggregate, we have 743 unique mixtures, containing between 1 to 43 unique molecular components (Figure 2a). These mixtures are described by 865 pairwise mixture comparisons (Figure 2b) ... We evaluate our approach on the mixture dataset by training and testing on 5-fold cross-validation (CV) splits, stratified across the Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid datasets."

    With 865 pairwise comparisons over only 743 unique mixtures, a typical mixture appears in more than one pair. The CV splits are described only as 'stratified across the Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid datasets', i.e., as splits of the 865 pairs; the paper never states that all pairs sharing a unique mixture are confined to the same fold. Under this pair-level design, a mixture used in a training pair also appears in a test pair. POMMix is a deterministic encoder, so the training gradient updates the embedding of that mixture, and the test prediction for the other pair reuses that already-trained embedding.

  2. other [Section 3.3 (Exploring olfactory phenomena with POMMix embeddings), Figure 6a]
    "Using the POMMIX embedding, we reproduce the 'olfactory white' phenomena (Figure 6a). In our investigation, we observe this decrease in POMMIX embedding distances as a function of the geometric mean of components in mixture pairs for our larger dataset, which includes Bushdid and Ravia. This demonstrates the ability of POMMIX in capturing and explaining physiological olfaction phenomena, allowing it to build toward an expressive odor perceptual space."

    The scaled-cosine prediction head (Section 2.2) is trained so that POMMix mixture-embedding distances match the same human similarity labels that define the white-noise trend (larger, intensity-balanced mixtures are perceived as more similar). Plotting those embedding distances against mixture size is therefore a post-hoc inspection of the fitted similarity function, not an independent confirmation of the olfactory-white hypothesis. The paper's wording 'reproduce' and 'demonstrates the ability of POMMIX in capturing and explaining physiological olfaction phenomena' presents an in-sample property of the trained model as an external validation; the observation is equivalent, by construction, to the training signal the model was optimized to reproduce.

full rationale

The paper's main architectural components are not circular: the POM GNN is pretrained on GS-LF odor labels, and the CHEMIX/POMMix mixture models are trained on mixture similarity labels, with baselines (Snitz, XGBoost, MolSets) evaluated under the same protocol. The self-citations to Lee et al. (2023) and Sanchez-Lengeling et al. (2019) provide the POM architecture and prior olfactory representation, but the paper re-implements and re-trains the POM component, so no uniqueness theorem or unverified self-citation is load-bearing. However, two exhibited reductions prevent a clean bill of health. First, the main 5-fold CV is described at the level of the 865 pairwise comparisons rather than the 743 unique mixtures; because the same mixture can appear in both training and test pairs, the end-to-end encoder can update a mixture's embedding on training pairs and reuse it on test pairs, making the reported rho = 0.779 partly transductive. The LMO and mixture-size ablations are different extrapolation tasks and do not repair the random-CV protocol. Second, the olfactory-white 'reproduction' and the learned-bias comparison in Figure 6 use the model's own trained similarity function (embedding distances and the fitted bias term) on the same datasets that supplied the training labels; these are post-hoc descriptions of the fit, not independent predictions. These issues make the headline generalization claim partially circular by construction, while leaving the comparative ranking against baselines under identical splits and the architectural ablations as independent content. Overall score 6 reflects partial, not total, circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on learned model weights fitted to a small dataset (865 pairwise labels). The main free parameters beyond standard network weights are the two scalars in the cosine prediction head (bias and slope), which absorb dataset-specific human bias. The model relies on assumptions that mixture perception is a function of molecular structure alone, cosine distance is the right perceptual metric, two experimental paradigms share a numeric scale, and POM embeddings transfer to mixture molecules. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • cosine head bias b = not reported; learned during training, comparison vs dataset bias in Figure 6b
    The final scaled cosine prediction head includes a two-parameter linear layer. The bias term b is fitted to the mixture similarity labels and is presented as modeling human bias for identical mixtures. A zero-bias ablation (Appendix A.6) shows the model performs worse without it, indicating the fitted bias absorbs dataset-specific offsets.
  • cosine head slope m = not reported; positive slope clamped during training
    The slope m scales the cosine distance to the [0,1] label range and is fitted to the training labels. It is initialized with b=0.5 and m>0, and it is a free parameter of the prediction head.
  • CHEMIX architecture hyperparameters = selected by BOHB search on a single 80/20 split of the combined mixture dataset (Section 2.3, Appendix A.3)
    The embedding dimension, number of attention layers and heads, aggregation type, activation function, and dropout were chosen to maximize validation performance on a split that overlaps with the CV test folds. This design choice is a free selection that can bias reported performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Perceptual similarity of mixtures is determined solely by the set of constituent molecules and their molecular graphs.
    The model operates only on molecular structures and ignores concentration, intensity, presentation order, and cross-modal context. The paper acknowledges POMMIX 'does not explicitly account for intensity or concentration of odorant mixtures' (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Cosine distance in the learned mixture embedding space is an appropriate proxy for human perceptual distance.
    The prediction head predicts similarity as a scaled cosine distance between mixture embeddings, assuming the embedding space is approximately Euclidean in this sense. The choice is validated only by internal ablation (Table A3), not by an independent perceptual model.
  • domain assumption Explicit similarity ratings and triangle discrimination percentages are directly comparable on the same numeric scale.
    Section 2.1 states the two tests are 'theoretically equivalent in their extremes' but that calibration of intermediate scores may differ, and 'We did not attempt to correct for this effect.' This assumption is load-bearing for the regression target.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained POM embeddings generalize from GS-LF molecules to the about 200 chemicals in the mixture datasets.
    The mixture molecules may not be well represented in the GS-LF training data; the paper observes a significant performance drop on leave-molecules-out splits (Section 3.2), suggesting this assumption is fragile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Molecules to Mixtures: Learning Representations of Olfactory Mixture Similarity using Inductive Biases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7LVINO3

@misc{pith2026250116271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Molecules to Mixtures: Learning Representations of Olfactory Mixture Similarity using Inductive Biases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7LVINO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16271}
}
read the original abstract

Olfaction -- how molecules are perceived as odors to humans -- remains poorly understood. Recently, the principal odor map (POM) was introduced to digitize the olfactory properties of single compounds. However, smells in real life are not pure single molecules, but complex mixtures of molecules, whose representations remain relatively under-explored. In this work, we introduce POMMix, an extension of the POM to represent mixtures. Our representation builds upon the symmetries of the problem space in a hierarchical manner: (1) graph neural networks for building molecular embeddings, (2) attention mechanisms for aggregating molecular representations into mixture representations, and (3) cosine prediction heads to encode olfactory perceptual distance in the mixture embedding space. POMMix achieves state-of-the-art predictive performance across multiple datasets. We also evaluate the generalizability of the representation on multiple splits when applied to unseen molecules and mixture sizes. Our work advances the effort to digitize olfaction, and highlights the synergy of domain expertise and deep learning in crafting expressive representations in low-data regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16271 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task schematic. Data collection process for olfactory mixture similarities (left), and our approach to predicting olfactory mixture similarities (right). POMMIX is built by training a neural network to tackle the mixture similarity problem by jointly training a POM with an attention-based mixture model to predict the perceptual similarity of mix￾tures. This approach also allows us to combine mono-molecular datasets … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snitz, Ravia, and Bushdid mixture datasets at a glance. a) Most mixtures contain 4-30 molecules, with a handful of single-molecule data as a measurement baseline. b) Most mixtures are somewhat different (0.4-0.8 averaged human response), with a smaller number of outright dissimilar measurements. c) Standard RDKIT cheminformatics molecule features, aggregated across the mix￾ture with mean, standard deviation, minimum… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The POMMIX model combines POM with mixture modeling. (Top) The POM model with a generalized linear model (GLM) is pre-trained with mono-molecular olfactory data, and mix￾ture modeling is performed through the CHEMIX attention model. (Middle) The two modules are joined to produce mixture embeddings which are trained to encode the olfactory perceptual distance of two mixtures using a scaled cosine distance predictor h… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model performances on mixture dataset. Pearson ρ, RMSE, and Kendall τ for all base￾lines and models evaluated. Model complexity increases from top to bottom. Parity plots available in Appendix A.6. We report results across three metrics: Pearson correlation coefficient…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generalization to new mixture sizes and molecules. a) Ablation study with training data only containing mixtures with geometric average number of molecules less than a threshold. The thresholds are indicated for each split. b) Boxplot of POMMIX test Pearson correlation…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Investigating inductive biases in perceptual olfactory data. a) The white noise hy￾pothesis (Weiss et al., 2012), where larger mixtures become less distinguishable from one another. b) Inherent human inaccuracies in the identification of two identical mixtures (data fr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mixture attention maps. a) Example mixture with molecules and their odor labels. b) Sigmoidal self-attention heatmap, with compound 1 and 3 highlighted. Strongest interaction is indicated with an asterisk. c) Number of average interactions per compound as function of m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Chem World: A Large-Scale Benchmark and Physics-Informed Framework for Trustworthy Chemical Property Prediction

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Chem World unifies 17 chemical mixture datasets into 10 property tracks, and Mixture-PINN’s soft physics regularizers beat common encoder–aggregator baselines on most tracks and OOD splits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Neural additive models: Interpretable machine learning with neural nets

    Rishabh Agarwal, Levi Melnick, Nicholas Frosst, Xuezhou Zhang, Ben Lengerich, Rich Caruana, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Neural additive models: Interpretable machine learning with neural nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 0 4699--4711, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    GitHub - BioMachineLearning /openpom: Replication of the Principal Odor Map paper by Lee et al (2022)

    Aryan Amit Barsainyan, Ritesh Kumar, Pinaki Saha, and Michael Schmuker. GitHub - BioMachineLearning /openpom: Replication of the Principal Odor Map paper by Lee et al (2022). The model is implemented such that it integrates with DeepChem , 2024. URL https://github.com/BioMachineLearning/openpom

    2022

  4. [4]

    Smellosophy

    A S Barwich. Smellosophy. Harvard University Press, 2022. ISBN 9780674278721

    2022

  5. [5]

    More than meets the AI : The possibilities and limits of machine learning in olfaction

    Ann-Sophie Barwich and Elisabeth A Lloyd. More than meets the AI : The possibilities and limits of machine learning in olfaction. Frontiers in neuroscience, 16: 0 981294, 2022. ISSN 1662-4548,1662-453X. doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.981294. URL https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.981294

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks, 2018

    Peter W Battaglia, Jessica B Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulcehre, Francis Song, Andrew Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, ...

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Representation learning: A review and new perspectives

    Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2012. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5538

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization

    James Bergstra, R \'e mi Bardenet, Yoshua Bengio, and Bal \'a zs K \'e gl. Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24, 2011

    2011

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020

    Lukas Biewald. Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020. URL https://www.wandb.com/. Software available from wandb.com

    2020

  2. [10]

    GNN - FiLM : Graph neural networks with feature-wise linear modulation

    Marc Brockschmidt. GNN - FiLM : Graph neural networks with feature-wise linear modulation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12192

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    How attentive are graph attention networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14491, 2021

    Shaked Brody, Uri Alon, and Eran Yahav. How attentive are graph attention networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14491, 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14491

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Humans can discriminate more than 1 trillion olfactory stimuli

    C Bushdid, M O Magnasco, L B Vosshall, and A Keller. Humans can discriminate more than 1 trillion olfactory stimuli. Science, 343: 0 1370--1372, 2014. ISSN 0036-8075,1095-9203. doi:10.1126/science.1249168. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1249168

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Transfer learning with graph neural networks for improved molecular property prediction in the multi-fidelity setting

    David Buterez, Jon Paul Janet, Steven J Kiddle, Dino Oglic, and Pietro Lió. Transfer learning with graph neural networks for improved molecular property prediction in the multi-fidelity setting. Nature communications, 15: 0 1517, 2024. ISSN 2041-1723,2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Pyrfume: A window to the world’s olfactory data

    Jason B Castro, Travis J Gould, Robert Pellegrino, Zhiwei Liang, Liyah A Coleman, Famesh Patel, Derek S Wallace, Tanushri Bhatnagar, Joel D Mainland, and Richard C Gerkin. Pyrfume: A window to the world’s olfactory data. bioRxiv, pp.\ 2022--09, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges

    Lowik Chanussot, Abhishek Das, Siddharth Goyal, Thibaut Lavril, Muhammed Shuaibi, Morgane Riviere, Kevin Tran, Javier Heras-Domingo, Caleb Ho, Weihua Hu, et al. Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges. Acs Catalysis, 11 0 (10): 0 6059--6072, 2021

    2020

  8. [16]

    XGBoost : A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost : A scalable tree boosting system. arXiv [cs.LG], 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02754

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chemberta: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction

    Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. Chemberta: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09885, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Insect odorscapes: From plant volatiles to natural olfactory scenes

    Lucie Conchou, Philippe Lucas, Camille Meslin, Magali Proffit, Michael Staudt, and Michel Renou. Insect odorscapes: From plant volatiles to natural olfactory scenes. Frontiers in physiology, 10: 0 972, 2019. ISSN 1664-042X. doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.00972. URL http://dx.doi.org/1...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Principal neighbourhood aggregation for graph nets

    Gabriele Corso, Luca Cavalleri, Dominique Beaini, Pietro Liò, and Petar Veličković. Principal neighbourhood aggregation for graph nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05718

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The new european union flavouring regulation and its impact on essential oils: production of natural flavouring ingredients and maximum levels of restricted substances

    Jan C R Demyttenaere. The new european union flavouring regulation and its impact on essential oils: production of natural flavouring ingredients and maximum levels of restricted substances. Flavour and fragrance journal, 27: 0 3--12, 2012. ISSN 0882-5734,1099-1026. doi:10.100...

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Expansive linguistic representations to predict interpretable odor mixture discriminability

    Amit Dhurandhar, Hongyang Li, Guillermo A Cecchi, and Pablo Meyer. Expansive linguistic representations to predict interpretable odor mixture discriminability. Chemical senses, 48: 0 bjad018, 2023. ISSN 0379-864X,1464-3553. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjad018. URL https://academic.oup....

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Translation between molecules and natural language

    Carl Edwards, Tuan Lai, Kevin Ros, Garrett Honke, Kyunghyun Cho, and Heng Ji. Translation between molecules and natural language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11817, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bohb: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale

    Stefan Falkner, Aaron Klein, and Frank Hutter. Bohb: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1437--1446. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric

    Matthias Fey and Jan Eric Lenssen. Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric . arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428, may 2019. URL https://github.com/pyg-team/pytorch_geometric

    1903 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Using rule-based labels for weak supervised learning: A ChemNet for transferable chemical property prediction

    Garrett B Goh, Charles Siegel, Abhinav Vishnu, and Nathan Hodas. Using rule-based labels for weak supervised learning: A ChemNet for transferable chemical property prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules

    Rafael G \'o mez-Bombarelli, Jennifer N Wei, David Duvenaud, Jos \'e Miguel Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, Benjam \' n S \'a nchez-Lengeling, Dennis Sheberla, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Timothy D Hirzel, Ryan P Adams, and Al \'a n Aspuru-Guzik. Automatic chemical design using a data-...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Chemprop: A machine learning package for chemical property prediction

    Esther Heid, Kevin P Greenman, Yunsie Chung, Shih-Cheng Li, David E Graff, Florence H Vermeire, Haoyang Wu, William H Green, and Charles J McGill. Chemprop: A machine learning package for chemical property prediction. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 64: 0 9--17, ...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    SMILES transformer: Pre-trained molecular fingerprint for low data drug discovery

    Shion Honda, Shoi Shi, and Hiroki R Ueda. SMILES transformer: Pre-trained molecular fingerprint for low data drug discovery. arXiv [cs.LG], 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.04738

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 22118--22133, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Ogb-lsc: A large-scale challenge for machine learning on graphs

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Hongyu Ren, Maho Nakata, Yuxiao Dong, and Jure Leskovec. Ogb-lsc: A large-scale challenge for machine learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.09430, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    IFRA transparency list, 2024

    IFRA. IFRA transparency list, 2024. URL https://ifrafragrance.org/priorities/ingredients/ifra-transparency-list

    2024

  24. [32]

    Transformers are graph neural networks

    Chaitanya K Joshi. Transformers are graph neural networks. The Gradient, 2020. URL https://thegradient.pub/transformers-are-graph-neural-networks/

    2020

  25. [33]

    Energy efficient artificial olfactory system with integrated sensing and computing capabilities for food spoilage detection

    Gyuweon Jung, Jaehyeon Kim, Seongbin Hong, Hunhee Shin, Yujeong Jeong, Wonjun Shin, Dongseok Kwon, Woo Young Choi, and Jong-Ho Lee. Energy efficient artificial olfactory system with integrated sensing and computing capabilities for food spoilage detection. Advanced science (We...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Predicting human olfactory perception from chemical features of odor molecules

    Andreas Keller, Richard C Gerkin, Yuanfang Guan, Amit Dhurandhar, Gabor Turu, Bence Szalai, Joel D Mainland, Yusuke Ihara, Chung Wen Yu, Russ Wolfinger, Celine Vens, Leander Schietgat, Kurt De Grave, Raquel Norel, DREAM Olfaction Prediction Consortium , Gustavo Stolovitzky, Gu...

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    GitHub - bp-kelley/descriptastorus: Descriptor computation (chemistry) and (optional) storage for machine learning , 2024

    Brian Kelley et al. GitHub - bp-kelley/descriptastorus: Descriptor computation (chemistry) and (optional) storage for machine learning , 2024. URL https://github.com/bp-kelley/descriptastorus

    2024

  28. [36]

    Predicting odor pleasantness from odorant structure: pleasantness as a reflection of the physical world

    Rehan M Khan, Chung-Hay Luk, Adeen Flinker, Amit Aggarwal, Hadas Lapid, Rafi Haddad, and Noam Sobel. Predicting odor pleasantness from odorant structure: pleasantness as a reflection of the physical world. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Ne...

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv [cs.LG], 2014. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition

    Gregory R Koch, Richard Zemel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML deep learning workshop, 2015. URL https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Siamese-Neural-Networks-for-One-Shot-Image-Koch/f216444d4f2959b4520c61d20003fa30a199670a

    2015

  31. [39]

    Predicting human olfactory perception from activities of odorant receptors

    Joel Kowalewski and Anandasankar Ray. Predicting human olfactory perception from activities of odorant receptors. iScience, 23: 0 101361, 2020. ISSN 2589-0042. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101361. URL https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(20)30548-4

    2020

  32. [40]

    RDKit : Open-source cheminformatics software, 2022

    Greg Landrum et al. RDKit : Open-source cheminformatics software, 2022. URL https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/releases/tag/Release_2022_03_4

    2022

  33. [41]

    Prediction models for the pleasantness of binary mixtures in olfaction

    Hadas Lapid, David Harel, and Noam Sobel. Prediction models for the pleasantness of binary mixtures in olfaction. Chemical senses, 33: 0 599--609, 2008. ISSN 0379-864X,1464-3553. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjn026. URL https://academic.oup.com/chemse/article/33/7/599/330603?login=true

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    A principal odor map unifies diverse tasks in olfactory perception

    Brian K Lee, Emily J Mayhew, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Jennifer N Wei, Wesley W Qian, Kelsie A Little, Matthew Andres, Britney B Nguyen, Theresa Moloy, Jacob Yasonik, Jane K Parker, Richard C Gerkin, Joel D Mainland, and Alexander B Wiltschko. A principal odor map unifies di...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Molecule attention transformer

    Łukasz Maziarka, Tomasz Danel, Sławomir Mucha, Krzysztof Rataj, Jacek Tabor, and Stanisław Jastrzębski. Molecule attention transformer. arXiv [cs.LG], 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08264

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering algorithms

    Daniel M \"u llner. Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.2378, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Molecular property prediction and molecular design using a supervised grammar variational autoencoder

    Andr \'e F Oliveira, Juarez LF Da Silva, and Marcos G Quiles. Molecular property prediction and molecular design using a supervised grammar variational autoencoder. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 62 0 (4): 0 817--828, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    An integrated model of intensity and quality of odor mixtures

    M J Olsson. An integrated model of intensity and quality of odor mixtures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 855: 0 837--840, 1998. ISSN 0077-8923,1749-6632. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb10672.x. URL https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632....

    1998

  40. [49]

    FiLM : Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. FiLM : Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07871

    2017 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Theory, analysis, and best practices for sigmoid self-attention, 2024

    Jason Ramapuram, Federico Danieli, Eeshan Dhekane, Floris Weers, Dan Busbridge, Pierre Ablin, Tatiana Likhomanenko, Jagrit Digani, Zijin Gu, Amitis Shidani, and Russ Webb. Theory, analysis, and best practices for sigmoid self-attention, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04431

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Recipe for a general, powerful, scalable graph transformer

    Ladislav Ramp \'a s ek, Michael Galkin, Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, Anh Tuan Luu, Guy Wolf, and Dominique Beaini. Recipe for a general, powerful, scalable graph transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 14501--14515, 2022

    2022

  43. [52]

    A measure of smell enables the creation of olfactory metamers

    Aharon Ravia, Kobi Snitz, Danielle Honigstein, Maya Finkel, Rotem Zirler, Ofer Perl, Lavi Secundo, Christophe Laudamiel, David Harel, and Noam Sobel. A measure of smell enables the creation of olfactory metamers. Nature, 588: 0 118--123, 2020. ISSN 0028-0836. doi:10.1038/s4158...

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    Large-scale chemical language representations capture molecular structure and properties

    Jerret Ross, Brian Belgodere, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Inkit Padhi, Youssef Mroueh, and Payel Das. Large-scale chemical language representations capture molecular structure and properties. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (12): 0 1256--1264, 2022

    2022

  45. [54]

    Machine learning for scent: Learning generalizable perceptual representations of small molecules

    Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Jennifer N Wei, Brian K Lee, Richard C Gerkin, Al \'a n Aspuru-Guzik, and Alexander B Wiltschko. Machine learning for scent: Learning generalizable perceptual representations of small molecules. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10685, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Evaluating attribution for graph neural networks

    Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Jennifer Wei, Brian Lee, Emily Reif, Peter Wang, Wesley Qian, Kevin McCloskey, Lucy Colwell, and Alexander Wiltschko. Evaluating attribution for graph neural networks. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (eds.), Advance...

  47. [56]

    A gentle introduction to graph neural networks

    Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Emily Reif, Adam Pearce, and Alex Wiltschko. A gentle introduction to graph neural networks. Distill, 6, 2021. ISSN 2476-0757. doi:10.23915/distill.00033. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.23915/distill.00033

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    On the unpredictability of odor

    C S Sell. On the unpredictability of odor. Angewandte Chemie, 45: 0 6254--6261, 2006. ISSN 1433-7851. doi:10.1002/anie.200600782. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200600782

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    Benchmarking graphormer on large-scale molecular modeling datasets

    Yu Shi, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Yifei Shen, Jiacheng You, Jiyan He, Shengjie Luo, Chang Liu, Di He, and Tie-Yan Liu. Benchmarking graphormer on large-scale molecular modeling datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04810, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04810

    2022 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Optimizing learning across multimodal transfer features for modeling olfactory perception

    Daniel Shin, Gao Pei, Priyadarshini Kumari, and Tarek R Besold. Optimizing learning across multimodal transfer features for modeling olfactory perception. ResearchSquare preprint, 2018

    2018

  51. [60]

    From molecules to materials: Pre-training large generalizable models for atomic property prediction

    Nima Shoghi, Adeesh Kolluru, John R Kitchin, Zachary W Ulissi, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Brandon M Wood. From molecules to materials: Pre-training large generalizable models for atomic property prediction. arXiv [cs.LG], 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16802

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Odor descriptor understanding through prompting

    Laura Sisson. Odor descriptor understanding through prompting. arXiv [cs.LG], 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.03719

    2022 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Olfactory label prediction on aroma-chemical pairs

    Laura Sisson, Aryan Amit Barsainyan, Mrityunjay Sharma, and Ritesh Kumar. Olfactory label prediction on aroma-chemical pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16124, 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16124

    2023 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Predicting odor perceptual similarity from odor structure

    Kobi Snitz, Adi Yablonka, Tali Weiss, Idan Frumin, Rehan M Khan, and Noam Sobel. Predicting odor perceptual similarity from odor structure. PLoS computational biology, 9: 0 e1003184, 2013. ISSN 1553-734X,1553-7358. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003184. URL https://journals.plos.or...

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    SmellSpace : An odor-based social network as a platform for collecting olfactory perceptual data

    Kobi Snitz, Ofer Perl, Danielle Honigstein, Lavi Secundo, Aharon Ravia, Adi Yablonka, Yaara Endevelt-Shapira, and Noam Sobel. SmellSpace : An odor-based social network as a platform for collecting olfactory perceptual data. Chemical senses, 44: 0 267--278, 2019. ISSN 0379-864X...

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    On deep set learning and the choice of aggregations

    Maximilian Soelch, Adnan Akhundov, Patrick van der Smagt, and Justin Bayer. On deep set learning and the choice of aggregations. In 28th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Munich, Germany, September 17--19, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 28, 2019. doi:10.1007/9...

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    Digitizing the chemical senses: Possibilities & pitfalls

    Charles Spence, Marianna Obrist, Carlos Velasco, and Nimesha Ranasinghe. Digitizing the chemical senses: Possibilities & pitfalls. International journal of human-computer studies, 107: 0 62--74, 2017. ISSN 1071-5819. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.003. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.10...

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    Calibration and generalizability of probabilistic models on low-data chemical datasets with DIONYSUS

    Gary Tom, Riley J Hickman, Aniket Zinzuwadia, Afshan Mohajeri, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Calibration and generalizability of probabilistic models on low-data chemical datasets with DIONYSUS . Digital Discovery, 2: 0 759--774, 2023. doi:10.1039/D2DD0014...

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    Ranking over regression for bayesian optimization and molecule selection

    Gary Tom, Stanley Lo, Samantha Corapi, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, and Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling. Ranking over regression for bayesian optimization and molecule selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09290, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    DeepNose : Using artificial neural networks to represent the space of odorants

    Ngoc B Tran, Daniel R Kepple, Sergey A Shuvaev, and A Koulakov. DeepNose : Using artificial neural networks to represent the space of odorants. bioRxiv, 97: 0 6305--6314, 2018. doi:10.1101/464735. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/tran19b/tran19b.pdf

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Random forests: A machine learning methodology to highlight the volatile organic compounds involved in olfactory perception

    E Vigneau, P Courcoux, R Symoneaux, L Guérin, and A Villière. Random forests: A machine learning methodology to highlight the volatile organic compounds involved in olfactory perception. Food quality and preference, 68: 0 135--145, 2018. ISSN 0950-3293,1873-6343. doi:10.1016/j...

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St \'e fan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St \'e fan J. van der Walt , Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nels...

    2020

  64. [73]

    Chemical-reaction-aware molecule representation learning

    Hongwei Wang, Weijiang Li, Xiaomeng Jin, Kyunghyun Cho, Heng Ji, Jiawei Han, and Martin D Burke. Chemical-reaction-aware molecule representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09888, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Smiles-bert: Large scale unsupervised pre-training for molecular property prediction

    Sheng Wang, Yuzhi Guo, Yuhong Wang, Hongmao Sun, and Junzhou Huang. Smiles-bert: Large scale unsupervised pre-training for molecular property prediction. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics. AC...

    2019

  66. [75]

    A deep learning and digital archaeology approach for mosquito repellent discovery

    Jennifer N Wei, Carlos Ruiz, Marnix Vlot, Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling, Brian K Lee, Luuk Berning, Martijn W Vos, Rob W M Henderson, Wesley W Qian, D Michael Ando, Kurt M Groetsch, Richard C Gerkin, Alexander B Wiltschko, Jeffrey Riffel, and Koen J Dechering. A deep learning and...

    2022 doi

  67. [76]

    SMILES , a chemical language and information system

    David Weininger. SMILES , a chemical language and information system. 1. introduction to methodology and encoding rules. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences, 28: 0 31--36, 1988. ISSN 0095-2338,1520-5142. doi:10.1021/ci00057a005. URL https://pubs.acs.org/doi/1...

    1988 doi

  68. [77]

    Perceptual convergence of multi-component mixtures in olfaction implies an olfactory white

    Tali Weiss, Kobi Snitz, Adi Yablonka, Rehan M Khan, Danyel Gafsou, Elad Schneidman, and Noam Sobel. Perceptual convergence of multi-component mixtures in olfaction implies an olfactory white. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 0 19959--19964, 2012. doi:10.10...

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    Chemistry-intuitive explanation of graph neural networks for molecular property prediction with substructure masking

    Zhenxing Wu, Jike Wang, Hongyan Du, Dejun Jiang, Yu Kang, Dan Li, Peichen Pan, Yafeng Deng, Dongsheng Cao, Chang-Yu Hsieh, and Tingjun Hou. Chemistry-intuitive explanation of graph neural networks for molecular property prediction with substructure masking. Nature communicatio...

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism

    Zhaoping Xiong, Dingyan Wang, Xiaohong Liu, Feisheng Zhong, Xiaozhe Wan, Xutong Li, Zhaojun Li, Xiaomin Luo, Kaixian Chen, Hualiang Jiang, and Mingyue Zheng. Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism. Journal of me...

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction

    Kevin Yang, Kyle Swanson, Wengong Jin, Connor Coley, Philipp Eiden, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Timothy Hopper, Brian Kelley, Miriam Mathea, et al. Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59 0 (8): 0 3...

    2019

  72. [81]

    Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? In Thirty-Fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Di He, Yanming Shen, and Tie-Yan Liu. Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? In Thirty-Fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?i...

    2021

  73. [82]

    Deep sets

    Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barnabas Poczos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alexander Smola. Deep sets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06114

    2017 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Molsets: Molecular graph deep sets learning for mixture property modeling

    Hengrui Zhang, Jie Chen, James M Rondinelli, and Wei Chen. Molsets: Molecular graph deep sets learning for mixture property modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16473, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  75. [84]

    A deep position-encoding model for predicting olfactory perception from molecular structures and electrostatics

    Mengji Zhang, Yusuke Hiki, Akira Funahashi, and Tetsuya J Kobayashi. A deep position-encoding model for predicting olfactory perception from molecular structures and electrostatics. npj systems biology and applications, 10: 0 76, 2024. ISSN 2056-7189,2056-7189. doi:10.1038/s41...

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    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 gl...

  77. [86]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  78. [87]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  79. [88]

    garlic,"

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.