Chemical-Reaction-Aware Molecule Representation Learning
Authors: Hongwei Wang
Weijiang Li
Xiaomeng Jin
Kyunghyun Cho
Heng Ji
Jiawei Han
Martin D. Burke
Venue: ICLR 2022 Poster (2022)
Keywords: molecule representation learning
graph neural networks
chemical reaction

Abstract: Molecule representation learning (MRL) methods aim to embed molecules into a real vector space. However, existing SMILES-based (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) or GNN-based (Graph Neural Networks) MRL methods either take SMILES strings as input that have difficulty in encoding molecule structure information, or over-emphasize the importance of GNN architectures but neglect their generalization ability. Here we propose using chemical reactions to assist learning molecule representation. The key idea of our approach is to preserve the equivalence of molecules with respect to chemical reactions in the embedding space, i.e., forcing the sum of reactant embeddings and the sum of product embeddings to be equal for each chemical equation. This constraint is proven effective to 1) keep the embedding space well-organized and 2) improve the generalization ability of molecule embeddings. Moreover, our model can use any GNN as the molecule encoder and is thus agnostic to GNN architectures. Experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in a variety of downstream tasks, e.g., reaction product prediction, molecule property prediction, reaction classification, and graph-edit-distance prediction. The code is available at https://github.com/hwwang55/MolR.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
CHEMICAL-REACTION-AAARR MOLECULE REPRESENTATION LEARNING
Hongwei Wang', Weijiang Li', Xiaomeng Jin', Kyunghyun Cho Heng Ji' Jiawei Han', Martin D. Burke'
UUniversity of Illinois Urbana- Chabaa-Chammpain. New York University, 3Genentech
[hongweiw, wl13, Xjin hengji, hanj, mdburke) @illinois.edu, kyunghyun cho @ nyu.edu
ABSTRACT
Molecule representation learning (MRL) methods aim to embed molecules into real vector space. However, existing SMILES-based (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) GNN-based (Graph Neural Networks) MRL methods ei- ther take SMILES strings as input that have difficulty in encoding molecule struc- ture information, or over-emphasize the importance of GNN architectures but ne- glect their generalization ability. Here we propose using chemical reactions to as- sist learning molecule representation. The key idea of our approach is to preserve the equivalence of molecules with respect to chemical reactions in the embedding space, i.e., forcing the sum of reactant embeddings and the sum of product embed- dings to be equal for each chemical equation. This constraint is proven effective to 1) keep the embedding space well-organized and 2) improve the generalization ability of molecule embeddings. Moreover, our model can use any GNN the molecule encoder and is thus agnostic to GNN architectures. Experimental results demonstrate that method achieves state-of -ffte--f-thearr performance in variety of downstream tasks, e.g., reaction product prediction, molecule property prediction, reaction classification, and graph-edii-distance prediction. The code is available at https:://// //gi chub. com haon//wwwagg55 M..
INTRODUCTION
How to represent molecules is fundamental and crucial problem in chemistry. Chemists usually use IUPAC nomenclature, molecular formula, structural formula, skeletal formula, etc., to represent molecules in chemistry literature.' However, such representations are initially designed for human readers rather than computers. To facilitate machine learning algorithms understanding and making use of molecules, molecule representation learning (MRL) proposed to map molecules into a low- dimensional real space and represent them as dense vectors. The learned vectors Ka. embeddings) of molecules can benefit a wide range of downstream tasks, such as chemical reaction prediction (Jin et al., 2017; Segler & Waller, 2017), molecule property prediction (Zhang et al., 2021), molecule generation (Mahmood et al., 2021), drug discovery (Rathi et al., 2019), retrosynthesis planning (Segler et al., 201 8), chemical text mining (Krallinger et al., 2017), and chemical knowledge graph modeling (Bean et al., 2017).
Researchers have proposed great many MRL methods. A large portion of them, including Mol- BERT (Fabian et al., 2020), ChemBERTa (Chithrananda et al., 2020), SMILES-Tran Transformer (Honda al., 2019), SMILES-BERT (Wang al., 2019), BiLSTM (Zheng et al., 2019b), take SMILES strings as input and utilize natural language models, for example, Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) or BERT (Devlin al., 2018), as their base model. Despite the great power of such language models, they have difficulty dealing with SMILES input,
(Shin al., 2019), and SA-
For example, for glycerol, its IUPAC name, molecular formula, structural formula, and skeletal formula OH OH OH
OH
are propane-1 1, trioo, CsH&Os, CH2 CH CH2, and HO
OH respectively.
'The Simplified Molecular Input Line- Entry System (SMILES) is a specification in the form of a line no- tation for describing the structure of chemical species using short ASCII strings. For example, the SMILES string for glycerol is "OCC(O)CO".

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
because SMILES is 1D linearization of molecular structure, which makes it hard for language mod- els to learn the original structural information of molecules simply based on "slender" strings (see Section 4 for more discussion). Another line of MRL methods, instead, use graph neural networks (GNNs) (Kipf& & Welling, 2017) to process molecular graphs (Merkwirth & Lengauer, 2005; Jin al., 2017; Gilmer et al., 2017; Ishida al., 2021). Though GNN-based methods are theoretically superior to SMILES-based methods in learning molecule structure, they are limited to designing fresh and delicate GNN architectures while ignoring the essence of MRL, which is generalization ability. Actually, we will show later that, there is no specific GNN that performs universally best in all downstream tasks of MRL, which inspires us to explore beyond GNN architectures.
To address the limitations of existing work, in this paper, we propose using chemical reactions to assist learning molecule representations and improving their generalization ability. A chemical re- action is usually represented as chemical equation in the form of symbols and formulae, wherein the reactant entities are given on the left-hand side and the product entities on the right-hand side. For example, the chemical equation of Fischer esterification of acetic acid and ethanol can be writ- ten as CH₃COOH + CyH₂OHH + CH,COOC,H| + H2O. A chemical reaction usually indicates a particular relation of equivalence between its reactants and products (e.g., in terms of conservation of mass and conservation of charge), and our idea is to preserve this equivalence in the molecule embedding space. Specifically, given the chemical reaction of Fischer esterification above, hope that the equation COCH + HH = ICCH, c00C2H1, + 11z0 also holds, where h(.) repre- sents molecule embedding function. This simple constraint endows molecule embeddings with very nice properties: (1) Molecule embeddings are composable with respect to chemical reactions, which make the embedding space well-organized (see Proposition I); (2) More importantly, we will show later that, when the molecule encoder is GNN with summation as the readout function, our model can automatically and implicitly learn reaction templates that summarize a group of chemical reac- tions within the same category (see Proposition 2). The ability of learning reaction templates is the key to improving the generalization ability of molecule representation, since the model can easily generalize its learned knowledge shares the similar structure with a known molecule.
molecule that is unseen but belongs to the same category or
We show that the molecule embeddings learned by our proposed model, namely MolR (chemical- reaction-aware molecule embeddings). is able to benefit a variety of downstream tasks, which makes it significantly distinct from all existing methods that are designed for only one downstream task. For example, MolR achieves 17.4% absolute Hit@1 I gain in reaction product prediction, 2.3% absolute AUC gain on BBBP dataset in molecule property prediction, and 18.5% relative RMSE gain in graph-edit-distance prediction, respectively, over the best baseline method. We also visualize the learned molecule embeddings and show that they are able encode reaction templates as well as several key molecule attributes, e.g., molecule size and the number of smallest rings.
2 THE PROPOSED METHOD
2.1 STRUCTURAL MOLECULE ENCODER
A molecular graph is represented as G = (V, F.), where V= [01, is the set of non-hydrogen atoms and F [b.,...) } is the set of bonds. Each atom a, has an initial feature vector x; encoding its properties. In this work, we use four types of atom properties: element type, charge, whether the atom is an aromatic ring, and the count of attached hydrogen atom(s). Each type of atom properties represented as one-hot vector, and we add additional "unknown" entry for each one-hot vector to handle unknown values during inference. The four one-hot vectors are concatenated as the initial atom feature. In addition, each bond b, has bond type (e.g., single, double). Since the bond type can usually be inferred by the features of its two associated atoms and does not consistently improve the model performance according to our experiments, we do not explicitly take bond type as input.
To learn structural representation of molecules, we choose GNNs, which utilize molecule structure and atom features to learn a representation vector for each atom and the entire molecule, as our base model. Typical GNNs follow neighborhood aggregation strategy. which iteratively updates the representation of an atom by aggregating representations of its neighbors and itself. Formally, the k-th layer of a GNN is:
AGGREGATE
1k=1....,44 )excouu) k=
(1)
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
For L:..K:
reactants R
products P.
8
propionic acid
propenol
proline
GNN encoder
A1
AGCREGATE((A) (=1A86)
propionic acid
water
Asy
Ruy.
Reaction template:
Adu
dxp
dqg
Aa.
des
dag
dep
B
R
Ra
dgs
2
R
Apralinn READOUT((M
(a) GNN encoder
(b) Reaction template
(c) Contrastive loss
Figure 1: (a) Illustration of GNN encoder processing proline molecule. Hydrogen is omitted. (b) Illustration of Fischer esterification of propionic acid and propanol, and the corresponding reaction template learned by our model. The reaction center colored in orange, and atoms whose distance from the reaction center is or 2 are colored in light orange. (c) Illustration of the contrastive loss for a minibatch of chemical reactions. dej is Euclidean distance between embedding hg, and hp,,
where h atom a, 's representation vector at the k-th layer (h is initialized as a, 's initial feature I.). (i)) is the set of atoms directly connected to a,, and K is the number of GNN layers. The choice of AGGREGATE function is essential to designing GNNs, and a number of GNN architec- tures have been proposed. See Appendix A for detailed introduction GNN architectures.
Finally, readout function is used to aggregate all node representations output by the last GNN layer to obtain the entire molecule's representation he:
hg READOUT ).,ev).
(2)
The READOUT function can be simple permutation invariant function such as summation and mean, or more sophisticated graph-level pooling algorithm (Ying al., 2018; Zhang al., 2018). An illustrative example of GNN encoder is shown in Figure la.
2.2 PRESERVING CHEMICAL REACTION EQUIVALENCE
chemical reaction defines particular relation " "->" between reactant set = =fri,2, ...) ... and product set P {p1. P2,
72 +...
(3)
A chemical reaction usually represents a closed system where several physical quantities of the system retain constant before and after the reaction, such as mass, energy, charge, etc. Therefore, describes a certain kind of equivalence between its reactants and products the chemical reaction space. Our key idea is to preserve such equivalence in the molecule embedding space:
(4) The above simple constraint is crucial to improving the quality of molecule embeddings. We first show, through the following proposition, that the chemical reaction relation "-"" is an equivalence relation under the constraint of Eq. (4):
Emegh Jy, -.
htp P
Proposition 1 Let M be the set of molecules, R C M and P M be the reactant set and product set of chemical reaction, respectively. If reactions, then - is an equivalence relation on 2 that satisfies the following three properties: (1) Reflexivity: + A. for all A E 2M (2) Symmetry: A + + A, for all A, B 2M (3) Transitivity: A - B and B + C, then A + for all 2.
P EreRh, =ppp hp for all chemical
The proof of Proposition is in Appendix B. One important corollary of Proposition 1 is that, the set of all subsets of M, i.e. 2M, is naturally split into equivalence classes based on the equivalence
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
relation "->". For all molecule sets within one equivalent class, the of embeddings of all molecules they consist of should be equal. For example, in organic synthesis, a target compound t may be made from three different sets of starting materials A, B, and C. Then the sets A, B, C as well as {t} belong to one equivalence class, and we have Emç hm = Em him = Emec' hm = hy- Note that the starting materials usually small and basic molecules that frequently appear in a number of synthesis routes. Therefore, Eq. (4) forms a system of linear equations, wherein the chemical reaction equivalence imposes strong constraint on the embeddings of base molecules. As result, the feasible solutions of molecule embeddings will be more robust, and the whole embedding space will be more organized. See the visualized result on molecule embedding space in Section 3.5 for more details.
We can further show that, the constraint in Eq. (4) also able to improve the generalization ability of molecule embeddings. To see this, we first define reaction center for chemical reaction. The reaction center of R - P is defined as subgraph of R consisting of atoms whose bonds have changed after reaction. For example, for the reaction in the upper part of Figure Ib, its reaction center is the two oxygen atoms marked in dark orange, since they are the only two atoms whose bonds have changed. Given the concept of reaction center, we have the following proposition:
Proposition 2 Let R - P be a chemical reaction where R is the reactant set and P is the product set, and C be its reaction center. Suppose that we use the GNN (whose number of layers is K) shown in Eqs. (1) and (2) as the molecule encoder, and set the READOUT function in Eq. (2) as summation, Then for an arbitrary atom a in one of the reactant whose final representation is h.K the residual term EvER hy 1ar-- -ppEp hp is a function of by if and only if the distance between atom and reaction center C is less than K.
The proof of Proposition 2 is in Appendix C. Proposition 2 indicates that the residual between reactant embedding and product embedding will fully and only depend on atoms that are less than K hops away from the reaction center, For example, as shown in Figure 1b, suppose that we use a 3- layer GNN to process Fischer esterification of propionic acid and propanol, then the residual between reactant embedding and product embedding will totally depend on the reaction center (colored in orange) as well as atoms whose distance from the reaction center is or (colored in light orange). This implies that, if the GNN encoder has been well-optimized on this chemical equation and outputs perfect embeddings, i.e., CCH,CH, + fiCH,CH,CH,,or then the equation lR, -CH,COO + 1RR, -CH,CH,OH fRR, -HHCHH hold for any functional group R₃ and R2, since the residual between the two sides of the equation does not depend on R₁ or R2 that are more than 2 hops away from the reaction center. The induced general chemical reaction Ri-CH,COOH + Rg-CH,CH20H - R RR-CCH,COCH,,HH,-e + H2O is called reaction template, which abstracts a group of chemical reactions within the same category- The learned reaction templates are essential to improving the generalization ability of our model, as the model can easily apply this knowledge to reactions that are unseen in training data but comply with a known reaction template (e.g., acetic acid plus propanol, butyric acid plus butanol). We will further show in Section 3.5 how reaction templates are encoded in molecule embeddings.
= hCHH (HCH,HH,,OOCH,, CO, + 11H,O. R2 lun will also
Remarks. Below are some of our remarks to provide further understanding on the proposed model:
First, compared with (Jin et al., 2017) that also learns reaction templates, our model does not need a complicated network to calculate attention scores, nor requires additional atom mapping information between reactants and products as input. Moreover, our model is theoretically able to learn a reaction template based on even only one reaction instance, which makes it particularly useful in few-shot learning (Wang et al., 2020) scenario. See Section 3.1 for the experimental result.
Second, organic reactions are usually imbalanced and omit small and inorganic molecules to high- light the product of interest (e.g., H₂O is usually omitted from Fischer esterification). Nonetheless, our model can still learn meaningful reaction templates as long as chemical reactions are written in a consistent manner (c.g., H2O is omitted for all Fischer esterification).
Third, the number of GNN layers K can greatly impact the learned reaction templates according to Proposition 2: A small K may not be enough to represent a meaningful reaction template (e.g., in Fischer esterification, the necessary carbonyl group "C=O" in carboxylic acid will not appear in the reaction template if K < 3), while a large K may include unnecessary atoms for a reaction template and thus reduces its coverage (e.g., g., the Fischer esterification of formic acid HCOOH and methanol
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
CH3OH is not covered by the reaction template shown in Figure lb). The empirical impact of K is shown in Appendix D.
2.3 TRAINING THE MODEL
According to Eq. (4), a straightforward loss function for the proposed method is therefore L = [D] E(R-PED Eren Hr, Eper lhpll2- where R + P represents chemical reaction in the training data However, simply minimizing the above loss does not work, since the model will degenerate by outputting all-zero embeddings for all molecules. Common solutions to this problem are introducing negative sampling strategy (Goldberg & Levy. 2014) or contrastive learning (Jaiswal et al., 2021). Here we use minibatch-baan baaee contrastive learning framework similar to (Radford et al., 2021) since it is more time- and memory- -ffficeenn...
For minibatch of data B = {R1 + PI, R2 P2..... S D, we first use the GNN encoder to process all reactants RG and products P. in this minibatch and get their embeddings. The matched reactant-product pairs (R, P.) are treated positive pairs, whose embedding discrepancy will be minimized, while the unmatched reactant-product pairs (R,, P3) (i + j) are treated as negative pairs, whose embedding discrepancy will be maximized. To avoid the total loss being dominant by negative pairs, similar to (Bordes et al., 2013), we use a margin-based loss as follows (see Figure Ic for illustrative example):
LB = B
Σ rER
hr
Σ PEr:
hp
max (1
Σ hr R;;
Σ PET,
1tp
:0)
(5)
1)
where y is a margin hyperparameter. The whole model can thus be trained by minimizing the above loss using gradient-basse optimization methods such as stochastic gradient descent (SGD).
Eq. (5) can be seen special negative sampling strategy, which uses all unmatched products in a minibatch as negative samples for a given reactant. Note, however, that it has two advantages over traditional negative sampling (Mikolov al., 2013): (1) No extra memory is required to store negative samples; (2) Negative samples are automatically updated at the beginning of a new epoch since training instances are shuffled, which saves time of manually re-sampling negative samples.
3 EXPERIMENTS
3.1 REACTION PRODUCT PREDICTION
Dataset. We use reactions from USPTO granted patents collected by Lowe (2012) as the dataset, which is further cleaned by Zheng et al. (2019a). The dataset contains 478,612 chemical reactions, and is split into training, validation, and test set of 408,673, 29,973, and 39,966 reactions, respec- tively, refer to this dataset USPTO-479k. Each reaction instance in USPTO-479k contains SMILES strings of up to five reactant(s) and exactly one product.
Evaluation Protocol.
We formulate the task of reaction product prediction ranking problem. In the inference stage, given the reactant set R of a chemical reaction, we treat all products in the test as a candidate pool C (which contains 39,459 unique candidates), and rank all candidates based on the L2 distance between reactant embeddings fg and candidate product embeddings {haJoecs i.e., d( c) | hell2- Then the ranking of the ground-truth product can be used to calculate MRR (mean reciprocal rank), MR (mean rank), and Hir@ 1, 3, 5. 10 (hit ratio with cut-off values of 3, 5. and 10). Each experiment is repeated times, and we report the result of mean and standard deviation on the test set when MRR on the validation set is maximized.
Baselines. We use Mol2vec (Jaeger et al., 2018) and MolBERT (Fabian et al., 2020) as baselines. For each baseline, we use the released pretrained model to output embeddings of reactants hn and candidate products {he then rank all candidates based on their dot product: d(R, c) = -h h1 h Since the pretrained models are not finetuned on USPTO-479K, we propose two finetuning strategies: Mol2vec-FTI and MoiBERT-FTI, which freeze their model parameters but train a diagonal matrix K to rank candidates: di d(R, c) hh T Khe; MolBERT-FT2, which finetunes its model parameters by minimizing the contrastive loss function as shown in Eq. (5) on USPTO-497k. Note that Mol2vec not end-to-end model and thus cannot be finetuned using this strategy.
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Metrics
MRR
MR
Hitel
Hit@3
Hires
Hir@ 10
Mol2vec
0.681
483.7
0.614
0.725
0.759
0.798
Mel2vec-FTI
0.688
0.000
417.6
0.1
0.620 4. 0.000
0.734 1: 0.000
0.767
0.000
0.806 1. 0,000
Me|BERT
0.708
160.7
U.623
0.768
0.811
0.858
MolBERI-FTI
0.731
0.000
457.9
0.0
0.649 +: 0.000
0.790
0.000
0.831
0.000
0.873
0.000
MoIBERT-FT2
0.776 1: 0.000
459.6
1: 0.2
0.708 1: 0.000
0.827 1: 0.000
0.859
0.000
0.891 4: 0.000
MoIR-GCM
0.905
0.001
34.3
4: 2.4
0.867 1 0.001
0.938 + 0.001
0.950
0.001
0.961 + 0.002
MolR GAT
0.903
0.002
35.3
1: 2.8
0.864 1 0.002
0.935 1 0.003
0.948
0.003
0.961 1. 0.003
MoIR-SACE
0.903 + 0.004
53.0
+ 4.6
0,865 + 0.005
0.935 + 0.004
0.948
0.004
0.961 + 0.002
MolR TAG
0.918 1 0.000
27.4
0.4
0.882
0.000
0.949
0.001
0.960 1 0.001
0.000
MoG
0.904 0.002
33.0 3.7
0.865 + 0.003
0.937 +: 0.003
0.951
0.002
0.963 +: 0.002
(1% training data)
Table 1: Result of reaction product prediction on USPTO-479K dataset. The best results are high- lighted in bold and the best results of baselines are highlighted with underline.
PEIR
HAg LAGO
HASZ
Alstel ordeter
0.8
Aideyye codition
mode
Concal
Subtract
DILDION
MolZvec
1.140 0.041
0.995 = 0.031
0.C
Di C-LEDO
MOIBERT
1.127 + 0.042
0.937 = 0.029
MoIR-GCN
0.976 4 0.026
0.922 0.019
MoIR-GAT
1.007 1 0.021
0.943 + 0.016
0.2
HOOK, CHION
MoIR-SAGE
0.918
0.028
0.817 + 0.013
MoIR-TAG
0.960
+ 0.027
0.911 = 0.027
0.0
McDvec
MUBBERT
NcB-GGN
Figure 2: Result of answer- ing real multi-choice ques- tions on product prediction.
Figure 3: Visualized reac- tions of alcohol oxidation and aldehyde oxidation.
Table Result of RMSE in GED pre- diction. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Hyperparameters Setting. We use the following four GNNs as our molecule encoder: GCN (Kipf & Welling, 2017), GAT (Veličković et al., 2018), SAGE (Hamilton et al., 2017), and TAG (Du al., 2017), of which the details are introduced in Appendix A. The number of layers for all GNNs is 2, the output dimension of all layers is 1,024, and the READOUT function sum. The margin 7 is set to 4. We train the model for 20 epochs with batch size of 4,096, using Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2015) optimizer with a learning rate of 10-4, The result of hyperparameter sensitivity and ablation study are in Appendix D and E, respectively.
Result. The result is reported in Table 1. All the four variants of MolR significantly outperform baseline methods. For example, MolR- TAG achieves 14.2% absolute MRR gain and 17.4% absolute Hit@1 gain over the best baseline MolBERT-FT2. In addition, we train MoIR-TAG on only the first 4,096 (1%) reaction instances in the training set (with learning rate of 10-3 and 60 epochs while other hyperparameters remain the same), and the performance degrades quite slightly. This justifies our claim in Remark in Section 2.2 that MolR works well in few-shot learning scenario.
To test the performance of MolR in realistic scenarios, we collect 16 multi-choice questions on product prediction from online resources of GRE Chemistry Test Practice Book etc. Each question provides the reactants of a reaction and asks to select the correct product out of 4 or 5 choices. These multi-choice questions are quite difficult even for chemists, since the candidates are usually very similar to each other (see Appendix F for details). The result is shown in Figure 2, which indicates that MolR surpasses baselines by large margin. Specifically, the Hit@1 (accuracy) of MolR is 0.625, which is twice as much as Mol2vec and MolBERT.
Moreover, we also conduct a case study on the first 20 reactions the test set of USPTO-479k.
Please refer to Appendix G for details.
3.2 MOLECULE PROPERTY PREDICTION
Datasets. We evaluate MolR on five datasets: BBBP, HIV, BACE, Tox21, and ClinTox, proposed by Wu et al. (2018). Each dataset contains thousands of molecule SMILES well binary labels indicating the property of interest (e.g., Tox21 measures the toxicity of compounds).
Baselines. We compare our method with the following baselines: et al., 2019), ECFP4 (Rogers& & Hahn, 2010), GraphCon (Duvenaud et al., 2015). Weave (Kearnes al., 2016), ChemBERTa (Chithrananda et al., 2020), D-MPNN (Yang et al., 2019), CDDD (Winter
(Honda

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Datasets
BBBP
HIV
BACE
Tox21
ClinTxx
SMILES Transformrrs
0.704
0.729
0.701
0.802
0.954
ECFP4
0.729
0.792
0.867
0.822
0.799
GraphComv
0.890
0.763
0.783
0.829
0.807
Weave
0.671
0.703
0.800
0.820
0.832
ChemBERTa
0.643
0.622
0.728
0.733
D-MPNN
0.708
0.752
0.088
0.906
CDDD
0.761 1. 0.00
0.753 1: 0.00
0.833 0.00
MolBERT
0.762 + 0.00
0.783 + 0.00
0.866 + 0.00
GraphCL
0.696 0.006
0.776 = 0.009
0.752 = 0.012
0.764
0.009
0.701 0.019
GraphLoG
0.725 = 0.008
0.778 + 0.008
0.835 + 0.012
0.757
0.005
0.767 0.033
Mol2vee
0.872 = 0.021
0.769 + 0.021
0.862 + 0.027
0.803
0.041
0.841 = 0.062
GCN
0.890
0.802 0.024
0.019
0.818 0.023
0.039
MoIR-GAT
0.887 + 0.026
0.794 + 0,022
0.863 + 0.026
0.839 + 0.039
0.908 0.039
MaIR SAGE
0.879 1: 0.032
0.793 1. 0.026
0.859 1: 0.029
0.811 0.039
0.890 0.058
MaIR-TAG
0.895 + 0.031
0.801 0.023
0.875 + 0.023
0.820 0.028
0.913 0.043
Table 3: Result of AUC in molecule property prediction. The result in the first four blocks is taken from (Honda et al., 2019), (Chithrananda et al., 2020), (Fabian et al., 2020), and (Xu et al., 2021), respectively, while the result in the last two blocks is reported by us. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the best results of baselines are highlighted with underline if MolR is the best.
al., 2019), MolBERT (Fabian et al., 2020). Mol2vec (Jaeger et al., 2018), GraphCL (You al., 2020), and GraphLoG (Xu et al., 2021). Most baseline results are taken from the literature, while Mol2vec is run by us.
Experimental Setup. All datasets are split into training, validation, and test set by 8:1:1. We use the model pretrained on USPTO-479k to process all datasets and output molecule embeddings, then feed embeddings and labels to a Logistic Regression model implemented in scikit-learn (Pedregosa et al., 2011), whose hyperparameters are as default except that solver="liblinnar" Each experiment is repeated 20 times, and we report the mean and the standard deviation of AUC on the test set.
Result. The result of molecule property prediction is reported in Table 3. As we can see, MolR performs the best on 4 out of 5 datasets. We attribute the superior performance of MolR in molecule property prediction to that, MolR is pretrained on USPTO-479k, thus is sensitive to reaction centers according to Proposition 2. Note that reaction centers usually consist of chemically active functional groups, which are essential to determine molecule property.
3.3 CHEMICAL REACTION CLASSIFICATION
Dataset, Baselines, and Experimental Setup. The goal of chemical reaction classification is predict the reaction class that chemical reaction belongs to (e.g.. Nitro to amino). We evaluate our model on USPTO-1K-TPL. which contains 400,604 training reactions and 44,51 test reactions, and the number of reaction classes is 1,000. We use our pretrained models calculate the sum of reactant embeddings and the sum of product embeddings in reaction, then concatenate them as the feature of the reaction. We use an MLP with two 2,048-unit hidden layers as the classifier. Each experiment is repeated times, and we report the mean and standard deviation of Accuracy on the test set. We compare our method with RXNFP (Schwaller et al., 2021), AP3-256 (Schneider et al., 2015), and DRFP (Probst et al., 2021).
Methods
Accuracy
RXNFP
0.989
AP3-256 SNN
0.295
AP3-256.MI
0.809
DRFF-SNN
DRIP-MI MLP
0.977
MoIR-GCN
0.931 0.022
MolR GAT
0.930
0.017
MeIR-SAGE MoIR-TAG
0.936
:: 0.025
0. 0.962 0.028
Table Result of chem- ical reaction classification. Result of basclines is taken from (Probst et al., 2021).
Result. The result of accuracy is reported in Table 4. 5NN and MLP and an MLP classifier, respectively.
represent a 5-Nearest-Neighhee Note that even if these baselines are specially designed learn reaction fingerprint, our best method MolR-TAs still surpasses AP3-256, and is close to DRFP and RXNFP. This shows that our method achieve on par performance with state-of-the-art reaction fingerprint learning methods.
3.4 GRAPH-EDIT- DISTAAN PREDICTION
Graph-edit Sraph-edit-distance (GED) (Gao et al., 2010) is measure of similarity between two graphs, which is defined as the minimum number of graph edit operations to transform one graph to another. Here aim to predict the GED between two molecular graphs based on their embeddings. The purpose
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
60
80
Sinusturalyy simber with No.
Communities of nen- permeable moletules
sermaddd
10. 8t9
40-
10 GED
0-
-20-
-20
No 1000
-40
-40
Sercturolly
moleaue
disimiiar
60
60
40
20
40
(a) Molecule property
(b) GED w.r.t No. 1196 molecule
1.3 sAs 18
Small
60
Novinng
smmlllnn rings incressing
40
70
20-
0-
-20-
Iagg-molee...
See
40
Multring
region
region
-10
70
i0
(c) Molecule size
(d) smallest rings
Figure 4: Visualized molecule embedding space for BBBP dataset.
of this task is to show whether the learned molecule embeddings are able to preserve the structural similarity between molecules. Moreover, since calculating the exact GED NP-hard, the solution to this task can also be seen as an approximation algorithm for GED calculation.
Dataset, Baselines, and Experimental Setup. We randomly sample 10,000 molecule pairs from the first 1, 1,000 molecules in QM9 dataset (Wu et al., 2018), then calculate their ground-truth GEDs using NetworkX (Hagherg et al., 2008). The dataset split into training, validation, and test set by 8:1:1, and we use our pretrained models to output embeddings for each molecule. The embeddings of a pair of molecules are concatenated or subtracted as the features, and we use a Support Vector Regression model in scikit-learn with default hyperparameters do the regression. Each experiment is repeated 20 times, and we report the mean and the standard deviation of RMSE on the test set. We use Mol2vec (Jaeger al., 2018) and MolBERT (Fabian et al., 2020) as baselines.
Result. The result of RMSE is reported in Table 2. Our best MolR model reduces the RMSE by 18.5% and 12.8% in concat and subtract mode, respectively, compared with the best baseline. Note that the interval of ground-truth GEDs is [1, 14), whose range is far larger than the RMSE of MolR. The result indicates that MolR can serve strong approximation algorithm to calculate GED.
3.5 EMBEDDING VISUALIZATION
To intuitively demonstrate the molecule embedding space, we use the pretrained MoIR-GCN model to output embeddings of molecules in BBBP dataset, then visualize them using t-SNE (Van der Maaten & Hinton, 2008) shown in Figure 4. In Figure 4a, molecules property of permeability. We find two communities of non-permeable molecules, which demon- strates that MolR can capture molecule property of interest. In Figure 4b, molecules are colored according to their GED to randomly selected molecule (No. 1196) from BBBP dataset. It is obvi- ous that, molecules that are structurally similar with No. 1196 molecule (colored in orange) are also close to it in the embedding space, while molecules that are structurally dissimilar with No. 1196 molecule (colored in red) are also far from it in the embedding space. The result indicates that MolR can well capture the structural similarity between molecules. In Figure 4c, molecules are colored ac- cording to their size (i.e., the number non-hydee -onhhydroeen atoms). It clear that the embedding space is perfectly segmented into small-molecule region (upper part) and moleeull region (lower part). In other words, the vertical axis of the 2D embedding space characterizes molecule size. Last and surprisingly, we find that the horizontal axis are actually related the number of smallest rings (i.e., rings that do not contain another ring) in a molecule: As shown in Figure 4d, no-ring molecules (col- ored in blue) are only in the left cluster, one-ring molecules (colored in yellow) only in the left
colored according to the
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
and the middle clusters, two-ring molecules (colored in orange) are basically in the middle cluster, while the right cluster mainly consists of molecules with more than rings (colored in red).
We also show that MolR encodes chemical reactions by taking alcohol oxidation and aldehyde oxi- dation as examples, whose chemical reaction templates are R-CH,OH + O2 - R-CHO + H2O and R-CHO O2 - R-COOH, respectively. We first use the pretrained MoIR-GCN model to output embeddings for ethanol (CH, 1-octanol (CH,(CH2))OH)) ethylene glycol (H))) as well as their corresponding aldehyde and carboxylic acid, then visualize them using Principle Component Analysis (PCA). The result is visualized in Figure 3, which clearly demonstrates that HCHHCHH RHH, R hCnCsCH)))CTOO (CH)))) and HCH, CCH,CCH s (CH,(CC))) - ACH, (red and orange arrows). Note that the length of blue ar- row about twice as much as the corresponding red or orange arrow, which exactly because (CH:OH)/(CC,,CHO) has two hydroxyVaaldehyde groups to be oxidized.
4 RELATED WORK
Existing MRL methods can be classified into two categories. The first is SMILES-based (Fabian al., 2020; Chithrananda et al., 2020; Honda et al., 2019; Wang al., 2019; Shin et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2019b), which use language models to process SMILES strings. For example, MolBERT (Fabian et al., 2020) uses BERT the base model and designs three self-supervised tasks to learn molecule representation. However, SMILES is ID linearization of molecular structure and highly depends on the traverse order of molecule graphs. This means that two atoms that are close in SMILES may actually be far from each other and thus not correlated (e.g., the two oxygen atoms in "CC(CCCCCCO)O") which will mislead language models that rely heavily on the relative position of tokens to provide self-superrision signal.
The second is structure- based methods, which can further be classified into traditional fingerprint- based methods (Rogers& & Hahn, 2010; Jaeger et al., 2018) and recent GNN-based methods (Jin et al., 2017: Gilmer et al., 2017: Ishida et al., 2021). For example, Mol2vec (Jaeger et al., 2018) treats molecule substructures (fingerprints) like method to calculate molecule embeddings. However, they cannot identify the importance of different substructures, nor being trained in an end-to-end fashion. GNN-based methods overcome their draw backs, butt they usually require a large volume of training data due to their complicated architectures, which may limit their generalization ability when the data is sparse
words and molecules sentences, then uses Word2vec-
The idea of taking chemical reactions as prior knowledge is also applied to molecule generation task (Bradshaw al., 2019; Nguyen & Tsuda, 2021). Compared with these methods which focus on particular task of molecule generation, the embeddings learned by our model are eeeeral-purpose and can benefit wide range of downstream tasks.
It is worth noticing that our model is also conceptually connected to methods in NLP where em- beddings are composable (Bordes et al., 2013; Mikolov et al., 2013). For example, TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) assumes that h + = t for a triplet (head, relation, tail) in knowledge graphs, and Word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) learns word embeddings where simple vector addition can produce meaningful results, for example, vec("Germany") + vec("capital"" & vec("Berlin").
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this work, we use GNNs as the molecule encoder, and use chemical reactions to assist learning molecule representation by forcing the sum of reactant embeddings to be equal the sum of product embeddings. We prove that our model is able to learn reaction templates that are essential to improve the generalization ability. Our model is shown to benefit. wide range of downstream tasks, and the visualized results demonstrate that the learned embeddings are well-organized and reaction-aware.
We point out four directions as future work. First, environmental condition is also a part of chemical reactions that we will consider to model. Second, as discussed in Section 2.2, it is worth studying how to explicitly output learned reaction templates. Third, it is interesting to investigate how to dif- ferentiate stereoisomers in the embedding space. since model (as well baselines) cannot han- dle stereoisomerism. Last, including additional information (c.g.. textual description of molecules) to assist learning molecule representation is also promising direction.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is based upon work supported by the Molecule Maker Lab Institute: an AI research institute program supported by NSF under award No. 2019897 and No. 2034562. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwith- standing any copyright annotation therein.
REFERENCES
Daniel M Bean, Honghan Wu, Ehtesham Iqbal, Olubanke Dzahini, Zina M Ibrahim, Matthew Broad- bent, Robert Stewart, and Richard JB Dobson. Knowledge graph prediction of unknown adverse drug reactions and validation in electronic health records. Scientific reports, 7(1
Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 26, 2013.
J Bradshaw, MJ Kusner, B Paige, MHS Segler, and JM Hernández-Lobato. Generating molecules via chemical reactions. In Deep Generative Models for Highly Structured Data, DGS@ ICLR 2019 Workshop, volume 7. International Conference Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.
Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. Chemberta: Large-scale self- supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09885, 2020.
Jacob Devlin, Ming- Wei Chang. Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04800 2018.
Jian Du, Shanghang Zhang, Guanhang Wu, José MF Moura, and Soummya Kar. Topology adaptive graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint 1710::1710.103000 2017.
David Duvenaud, Dougal Maclaurin, Jorge othy Hirzel, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Ryan P Adams. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2015.
Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, Tim-
Benedek Fabian, Thomas Edlich, Héléna Gaspar, Marwin Segler, Joshua Meyers, Marco Fiscato, and Mohamed Ahmed. Molecular representation learning with language models and domain- relevant auxiliary tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13230,, 2020.
Xinbo Gao, Bing Xiao, Dacheng Tao, and Xuelong Li. A survey of graph edit distance. Pattern Analysis and applications, 13(1):113-13) 129, 2010.
Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International conference on PMLR, 2017.
machine learning, pp.
Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. word2vec explained: deriving mikolov et al.'s begative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722. 2014.
Aric Hagberg, Pieter Swart, and Daniel S Chult. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and func- tion using networkx. Technical report, Los Alamos National Lab,LL,NL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2008
William L Hamilton, Rex Ying. and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1025-1035, 2017.
Shion Honda, Shoi Shi, and Hiroki R Ueda. Smiles transformer: Pre-trained molecular fingerprint for low data drug discovery. arXiv preprint 1.04738, 2019.
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Sho Ishida, Tomo Miyazaki, Yoshihiro Sugaya, and Shinichiro Omachi. Graph neural networks with multiple feature extraction paths for chemical property estimation. Molecules, 26:11): 2021.
Sabrina Jaeger, Simone Fulle, and Samo Turk. Mol2vec: unsupervised machine learning approach with chemical intuition. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 58(1):27-35, 2018.
Ashish Jaiswal, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Mohammad Zaki Zadeh, Debapriya Banerjee, and Fillia Makedon. A survey on contrastive self-supervised learning. Technologies, 9(1):2, 2021.
Wengong Jin, Connor W Coley, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Predicting organic reaction outcomes with ceisfeiler-ehhmarl network. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2604-2613, 2017.
Steven Kearnes, Kevin McCloskey, Marc Berndl, Vijay Pande, and Patrick Riley. Molecular graph convolutions: moving beyond fingerprints. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 30(8): 595-608, 2016.
Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In The 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations. 2015.
Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional net-
works. In Proceedings of The 5th International Conference Learning Representations, 2017.
Martin Krallinger, Obdulia Rabal, Analia Lourenco, Julen Oyarzabal, and Alfonso Valencia. Infor- mation retrieval and text mining technologies for chemistry. Chemical reviews, 117(12):7673- 7761, 2017.
Juho Lee, Yoonho Lee, Jungtaek Kim, Adam Kosiorek, Seungjin Choi, and Yee Whye Teh. Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invarian neural networks. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3744-3753, PMLR, 2019.
Daniel Mark Lowe. Extraction of chemical structures and reactions from the literature. PhD) thesis,
University of Cambridge, 2012.
Omar Mahmood, Elman Mansimov, Richard Bonneau, and Kyunghyun Cho. Masked graph model- ing for molecule generation. Nature communications, 12(1):1-12, 2021.
Christian Merkwirth and Thomas Lengauer. Automatic generation of complementary descriptors with molecular graph networks. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 45(5):1159- 1168, 2005.
Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed represen- tations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances neural information pro- cessing systems, pp. 3111-3119, 2013.
Dai Hai Nguyen and Koji Tsuda. A generative model for molecule generation based on chemical reaction trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03394 2021.
Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. Scikit-leam: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12:2825-2830, 2011.
Daniel Probst, Philippe Schwaller. and Jean-Louis Reymond. Reaction classification and yield pre- diction using the differential reaction fingerprint drip. 2021.
Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2021.
Prakash Chandra Rathi, R Frederick Ludlow, and Marcel L Verdonk. Practical high-quality elec- trostatic potential surfaces for drug discovery using a graph-convolutione deep neural network. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 63(16):8778-8790, 2019.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. Extended cesteneed-oomeectvitty fingerprints. Journal of chemical informa- tion and modeling, 50(5):742-754, 2010.
Nadine Schneider, Daniel M Lowe, Roger A Sayle, and Gregory A Landrum. Development of a novel fingerprint for chemical reactions and its application to large-scale reaction classification and similarity, Journal of chemical information and modeling, 55(1):39-53, 2015.
Philippe Schwaller, Daniel Probst, Alain C Vaucher, Vishnu H Nair, David Kreutter, Teodoro Laino, and Jean-Louis Reymond. Mapping the space of chemical reactions using attention-based neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 14-):144-52, 2021.
Marwin HS Segler and Mark P Waller. Neural-symbolic machine learning for retrosynthesis and reaction prediction. Chemistry-A European Journal, 23625):596-5571, 2017.
Marwin HS Segler, Mike Preuss, and Mark P Waller. Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic ai. Nature, 555(7698):604 610, 2018
Bonggun Shin, Sungsoo Park, Keunsoo Kang, and Joyce C Ho. Self-attention based molecule repre- sentation for predicting trug-targe interaction. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pp. 230-248. PMLR, 2019.
Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008.
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 5998-6008, 2017.
Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pictro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. In Proceedings The 6th International Conference Learn- ing Representations, 2018.
Oriol Vinyals, Samy Bengio, and Manjunath Kudlur. Order matters: Sequence to sequence for sets. In Proceedings of The 4th International Conference Learning Representations, 2016.
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 bioinformatics, compulational biology and health informatics, pp. 429 436, 2019.
Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James Kwok, and Lionel Ni. Generalizing from few examples: A survey on few-shot learning, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 53(3):1-34, 2020.
Robin Winter, Floriane Montanari, Frank Noć, and Djork-Aréé Clevert. Learning continuous and data-driven molecular descriptors by translating equivalent chemical representations. Chemical science,
2011,
Zhengin Wu, Bharath Ramsundar, Evan N Feinberg, Joseph Gomes, Caleb Geniesse, Aneesh S Pappu, Karl Leswing, and Vijay Pande. Moleculenet: benchmark for molecular machine learn- ing. Chemical science, 9(2):513-535 2018.
Minghao Xu, Hang Wang, Bingbing Ni, Hongyu Guo, and Jian Tang. Self-supervised graph-level representation learning with local and global structure. arXiv preprint WxXiv:2166044133 2021.
Kevin Yang, Kyle Swanson, Wengong Jin, Connor Coley, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Timothy Hopper, Brian P Kelley, Andrew Palmer, Volker Settels, et al. Are learned molecular representa- tions ready for prime time? arXiv preprint 1904:19940005610 2019.
Rex Ying, Jiaxuan You, Christopher Morris, Xiang Ren, William I. Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. Hierarchical graph representation learning with differentiable pooling. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 4805 9805-4815 481,, 2018.
Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Yongduo Sui, Ting Chen, Zhangyang Wang, and Yang Shen. Graph contrastive leamning with augmentations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:5812-5823, 2020.
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Muhan Zhang, Zhicheng Cui, Marion Neumann, and Yixin Chen. An end-to-end deep learning architecture for graph classification. In Thirty-Secome Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018.
Xiao-Chen Zhang, Cheng-Kun Wu, Zhi-Jiang Yang, Zhen-Xing Wu, Jia-Cai Yi, Chang- Yu Hsieh, Ting-Jun Hou, and Dong-Sheng Cao. Mg-bert: leveraging unsupervised atomic representation learning for molecular property prediction. Briefings in Bioinformaties, 2021.
Shuangjia Zheng, Jiahua Rao, Zhongyue Zhang, Jun Xu, and Yuedong Yang. Predicting retrosyn- thetic reactions using self-corrected transformer neural networks. Journal of Chemical Informa- tion and Modeling, 60(1):47-55, 2019a.
Shuangjia Zheng, Xin Yan, Yuedong Yang, and Jun Xu. Identifying sumeture-propenne relationships through smiles syntax analysis with self-attention mechanism. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(2)911-9223, 2019b.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF GNN ARCHITECTURES
Before applying GNNs, we first use pysmiles' to parse the SMILES strings of molecules to Net- workX graphs. Then we use the following GNNs as our molecule encoder and investigate their per- formance in experiments. The implementation of GNNs is based on Deep Graph Library (DGL)'. For all GNNs, the number of layers is 2, and the output dimension all layers is 1,024. The activa- tion function is identity for the last layer, and ReLU for all but the last layer. We keep a bias term b for all the linear transformations below as it is the default setting in DGL, but our experiments show that the bias term can barely affect the result, so it is not shown in the following equations for clarity.
Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) (Kipf & Welling, 2017). In GCN, AGGREGATE is im- plemented as weighted average with respect to the inverse of square root of node degrees:
h = σ ( Σ JEN(UU
aigh
(6)
where W is learnable matrix, oij 1/V) [W]], and activation function.
Graph Attention Networks (GAT) (Veličković et al., 2018). In GAT, AGGREGATE is imple- mented as multi-head self-attention:
h = ll s=1
@ (WAk. E SEN(OUM) (c)))
where 1/ LeakyReLU ww [w* [h:]) is (unnormalized) attention weight, w is
a learnable vector, || denotes concatenate operation, and S the number of attention heads. In our experiments, S is set as 16 and the dimension of each attention head is set as 64, so that the total output dimension is still 1,024.
Graph Sample and Aggregate (GraphSAGE) (Hamilton et al., 2017). In the pooling variant of GraphSAGE, AGGREGATE is implemented as:
h 1=oowht (1 (10-11 1111)))))
(8)
JEAT()) is aggregated neighborhood representation, and MAX is an element-wise max-pooling function. In addition to MAX, AGGREGATE can also be implemented as MEAN, GCN, and LSTM, but our experiments show that MAX achieves the best performance.
where h4 Mr)
MAX((RELU(WWARR) (ReLU ()
MAX
Topology Adaptive Graph Convolutional Networks (TAGCN) (Du et al., 2017). In TAGCN, use H to denote the representation matrix of all atoms in layer k, then AGGREGATE can be written as:
#º H² =²= ( A'H
where A= D-11-12 is the normalized adjacency matrix, and the size of the local filter. We set L to 2 in experiments. It should be noted that, different from other GNNs, single TAGCN layer can aggregate node information from neighbors up to L hops away. Therefore, the actual number of layers for TAGCN is L which is 2 4 in our experiments.
B PROOF OF PROPOSITION 1
Proof. To prove that "-" is an equivalence relation on 2M we need to prove that "-"" satisfies reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity:
Reflexivity, For any e 2M, it is clear that ΣiEA 14 = -iEA h4 Therefore, we have A + A.
"ttp::://pppp..rr//ppojjed les/ hhttps://ww.dgl.tt
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Symmetry. For any A, 2M, A + + = Eieah, h =EiEB hi B A, and vice versa. Therefore, we have A A B = BAA
Transitivity. If A B and B - C, then have Eienh, =EiEB hs Eiechh his Therefore, we have A + C.
C PROOF OF PROPOSITION 2
Proof. Since the READOUT function is summation, the embedding of molecule G (V, E) is the sum of final embeddings of all atoms that G consists of: hG = =aavv 1.. Therefore, for the reaction R P, we have ErER h, -Epp hp EPER Ever - -xpp EvEp i.K where h the representation vector of atom v calculated by K K-layer GNN on the reactant graph, and i is the representation vector of atom calculated by the same K-layer GNN on the product graph. If we treat all reactants (all products P) in a chemical reaction as one graph where each reactant (product) is a connected component of this graph, the above equation can be written as EEER A EVEP K. Denote C* as the of atoms whose distance from the reaction center C l (C C). We can prove, by induction, that EveR h -'rep h.K = -Eveukd h -EvEu hi:
Let's first consider the initial case where K = 1. Then the final representation of an atom depends on the initial feature itself as well as its one-hop neighbors. Therefore, atoms whose final rep- resentation differs from R to P must be those who have at least one bond changed from R to P, which are exactly the atoms in the reaction center C. Representation of atoms that are not within the reaction center remains the same before and after reaction, and thus eliminated. Therefore, we have Even h Ever Tig -Evec' 11 >vec 14g
Induction step. Suppose we have EVER -EEP = = EoeLkKec h - -Eve h for K 1. This means that representation of atoms whose distance from the reaction center no larger than K - -1 becomes different from / to P. while representation of atoms whose distance from the reaction center larger than increases by one. This means that atoms adjacent to the set U -K-1 are additionally influenced, and their representations are also changed. It is clear that the set of atoms whose representation is changed is now k C* Therefore, we have Zoe h -VVE ik+1 EnEUR h
remains the same. Then for K 1, the number of GNN layers
EvEuR h for K 1.
Since ErERh, h - Eppp
EveugstoN h Eveugston hg conclude that the resid- ual term EreR hy h hp is function of h if and only if E uK-l ie., the distance between atom and reaction center C' is less than K.
D HYPERPARAMETER SENSITIVITY
We investigate the sensitivity of MoIR-GCI in the task of reaction product prediction to the follow- ing hyperparameters: the number of GCN layers K, the dimsension of embedding, the margin y, the batch size, and the implementation of READOUT function. Since the impact of the first three hyperparameters are highly correlated, we report the result of MolR-GCN when jointly influenced by two byperparameters.
Figure 5a shows the result of MolR-GCN when varying the number of GCN layers and the dimen- sion of embedding. It is clear that MoIR-GCN does not perform well when K is too small (K 1) or too large (K 3, 4), which empirically justifies our claim Remark in Section 2.2 that the number of GNN layers K can greatly impact the learned reaction templates as well as the perfor- mance of our model.
Figure 5b demonstrates that the margin 7 can greatly influence the model performance well, and such influence is highly related to the dimension of embedding: When the embedding dimension increases from 128 2,048, the optimal y also increases from 2 from 8. This is because the expected Euclidean distance between two vectors will increase proportionally to the square root the vector length, which forces the optimal 7 to move right accordingly.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
1.0
0.95
lyytr 2aaaen
3lyeet Alayers
dm-1024
0.9
0.00
0.85
0.6
32
128
226
512
1024
0.50
0.40
04
120
236
532 size
3024 2043 6006
Dimenssoo of embedding
Margin Y
Betch
(a) Sensitivity GCN layers and the dimension of embedding
(b) Sensitivity to the dimension of
(c) Sensitivity to the batch size
embedding and the margin 7
Figure 5: Sensitivity of MoIR-GCN the number of GCN layers, the dimension of embedding, the margin and the batch size.
Batch size
64
128
256
512
1,
024
2,048
4, 096
Time cost per epoch (s)
198.0 4 13.8
145.7
10.4
141.3
0.9
132.2
1 9.1
118.1 d: 5.9
113.3
3.0
110.4 1 1.5
Max memory cost (GiB)
5.3
5.7
5.8
6.2
7.5
10.5
14.8
Table 5: The average time cost per epoch and the maximal memory cost of MoIR-GCN when varying the batch size.
Figure 5c shows that when batch size increases from 32 to 4,096, MRR also increases from 0.831 to 0.906. This is because larger batch size will introduce more unmatched reactant-product pairs as negative samples, which provides more supervision for model optimization. In the extreme case of batch size # training instances, all pairwise molecule distances will be calculated and optimized. Moreover, as shown in Table 5, the time cost per epoch can also be significantly reduced when increasing the batch size (run an NVIDIA V100 GPU). However, larger batch size will also require more memory usage of minibatch in GPU. As shown in Table 5, when batch size increases fro 64 4,096, the required memory of MoIR-GCN also increases from 5.3 GiB to 14.8 GiB. This prevents us to further increase batch size since the memory of NVIDIA V100 GPU is 16 GiB.
Table 6 reports the result of MoIR-GCN with different implementations of the READOUT function: AvgPooling, which applies average pooling over the atoms in a molecule graph; MaxPooling, which applies max pooling over the atoms molecule graph; Attention, which uses an MLP to take the embedding of an atom as input and outputs its importance score, then averages all atom embeddings weighted by their importance scores to obtain the molecule embedding: SortPooling (Zhang et al., 2018), which sorts atom embeddings before calculating molecule embedding; Set2set (Vinyals et al., 2016), which also an attention-like method that iteratively calculates query vector and uses the query vector to calculate the weighted average of atom embeddings; SetTransformer (Lee et al., 2019), which is another attention- method that calculates the attention atoms using Transformer. We also attach the result of SumPooling here, which is exactly what model. The result shows that SumPooling significantly outperforms all other pooling functions, the ones that are really complicated. This is because, as shown in Proposition 2, our model can learn reaction templates with SumPooling, which significantly improves the generalization ability.
in our
E ABLATION STUDY
To demonstrate that introducing the constraint of chemical reaction equivalence can indeed benefit downstream tasks, we conduct ablation study on MolR in the task of molecule property predic-
Metrics
MRR
MR
Hir@ 1
Hir@
Hir@5
Hir@
AvgPooling
0.777 1 0.001
172.2 1 2.9
0.730 1: 0.001
0.000
0.809 1: 0.002
0.832
0.002
0.858 :: 0.001
MaxPooling
0.730 = 0.001
151.3
10.0
0.675
0.771
+ 0.001
0.793
0.001
0.816
= 0.001
Atlention
0.669 = 0.009
242.9
0.397 0.012
0.719 0.007
0.753
0.005
0.788 4 0.005
Sartpooling
0.380 1 0.032
1210.7
1 147.8
0.279
0.0031
0.433 1: 0.037
0.498
0.035
0.575 1 0.028
Se12Set
0.731 0.000
457.9
0.0
0.649 0.000
0.790 1 0.000
0.831
0.000
0.873 - 0.000
SefTransfrmer
0.700 = 0.033
301.9
+ 59.7
0.632 + 0.036
0.743
+ 0.026
0.772
0. 0.023
0.804
= 0.019
SumPooling
0.905 0.001
34.5 4 2.4
0.867 0.001
0.938 + 0.001
0.950
0.001
0.961 - 0.002
Table 6: Sensitivity of MoIR-GCN to the READOUT function.
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Datasets
BBBP
HIV
BACE
Tox21
ClinTox
USP1O-1K-TPL
QMY
GCN
0.883 4: 0.036 0.781 0.024 0.858 0.026 0.825 +: 0.037 0.865
0.041
0.728 0.029
MolR- GCN
0.890 1: 0.032 0.802 1 0,024 0.882 0.019 0.818 1: 0.023 0.916 0,039
0.931
0.022
0.976 1: 0.026
GAT
0.893 #: 0.011 0.790 = 0.008 0.8-13 :: 0.033 0.805 + 0.021 0.897 = 0.019
0.728
-: 0.033
1.015 - 0.021
MoIR-GiA
+:
0.794
0.863
0.839
0.908 0.039
0.930
1.007
SAGE
0.855 + 0.021 0.814 = 0,006 U.832 # 0.022 0.827 + 0,018 0.881 = 0,056
0.729 + 0.037
1.102 = 0.023
MoIR-SAGE
0,879 +: 0.032 0.793 4 0.026 0.839
0,029 0,811 +: 0,039 0.890 + 0.058
0.936
+: 0.025
0.918 + 0.028
TAG
1. 0.791
0.028
0.040
0.677
0.023
0.969
MoIR-TA TAG
0.895 + 0.031 0.801 + 0.023 0.875 + 0.023 0.820 +: 0.028 0.913 + 0.043
0.962 + 0.028
0.960 + 0.027
Table 7: Ablation study of MolR in the task of molecule property prediction (AUC), chemical
reaction classification (Aceuracy), and graph-edit-distacee prediction (RMSE), w/o imposing the constraint of chemical reaction equivalence.
tion, chemical reaction classification, and graph-edit-distance prediction. We directly train the four GNNs, i... GCN, GAT, SAGE, and TAG, these datasets, then report their results in Table 7. For molecule property prediction task, our method can improve the AUC by 1% ~ 5% compared with the GNN in most cases. For chemical reaction classification task, we observe a huge improve- ment of our models against GNNs (20% ~ 28%), of which the reason may be that our model is pretrained on USPTO dataset well. For GED prediction task, the improvement of our method is rather significant when using SAGE as the encoder (around 18%), and the improvement is around 1% for the rest three GNNs. The result of the ablation study shows that the constraint of chemical reaction equivalence can effectively improve the quality of learned molecule embeddings in various downstream tasks.
F DETAILS OF MULTI-CHOICE QUESTIONS ON PRODUCT PREDICTION
Our multi-choice questions on product prediction are collected from online resources of Oxford University Press,5.6, 5.6 mhpraticeplus.com com', and GRE Chemistry Test Practice Book We filter out the questions 1) whose choices contain stereoisomers, since our model as well as baselines cannot handle stereoisomerism, and 2) that contain molccules that cannot be successfully parsed by our method or baselines. We manually convert the figures of molecules into SMILES strings. The first five questions are listed below as examples (the correct answer is given after the question), while the complete SMILES version of these questions are included in the code repository.
Examples 5:
1. MgBB
1.
CHO
2. H₂O.H
Which of the following is the major product of the reaction shown above? (D)
(A)
CH3
(B)
H
CH₃
OH
OH
(C)
CH₃
OH
(D)
CH3
'nttps://global oup.
ch21/
http://www.nppaacciceeeelss...o/ review/MCAI Review Smi th pdff https///www..es...or//////////// ce book chemi themistry.pof
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
CHO
BB)
CH3
LIAlH4 (excess)
2. CHoCH,CH,COOH
2. H2O+
Which of the following is the major organic product of the reaction shown above? (D)
(A) (HCCCCCCCCCC())
(B) CH,CH,CH,CHO
(C) CHyCH,CH,CH.OH
(D) CC,CH,
(E) CH,CH,
OCH3
3.
Which of the following are the major products of the reaction shown above? (D)
(A)
CHşOH
OH
(B)
+ CH4
(C)
+ CH₃OH
OH
(D)
+ CH3l
(E)
+ CH3l
CH3
H
4.
Which of the following are the products of the reaction shown above? (E)
CHO
(A)
CH&CHO
СOOH
(B)
CH₃CH,OH
CHHOH
(C)
CH₃CH,OH
CHO
(D)
+ CH₃COOH
COOH
(E)
CH₃COOH
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
OH
1. NaOH
5.
HgC
Br
2.
What is the product the reaction shown above for para-cresol? (A)
(A)
HgC
ONa
(B)
HgC
(C)
HgC
Br
(D)
H₂C
ONa
(B)
G CASE STUDY ON USPTO-479K DATASET
The case study USPTO-479k dataset is shown in Table 8. To avoid cherry-picking, select the first 20 reaction instances (No. 0 No. 19) in the test set for case study. In Table 8, the first column the index of reactions, the second and the third column are the reactant(s) and the ground-truth product of this reaction, respectively, and the fourth to sixth column are the product predicted by MolR-GCT GCNN Mol2vec, and MolBERT, respectively. Reactions whose product is correctly predicted by all the three methods are omitted for clarity, The index below predicted product indicates the actual reaction that this product comes from.
As shown in Table 8, MoIR-GCN gives wrong answer only 2 reactions, while Mol2vec and MolBERT make mistakes on reactions. Moreover, for the two reactions that not answer correctly (No. 5 and No. 10), Mol2vec and MolBERT give the exactly same wrong answers as well, which shows that the product of the two reactions are indeed very hard predict. Actually, for the No. 5 reaction, the predicted product (No. 32353) is identical to the reactant, which, technically speaking, cannot be seen as a wrong answer. For the No. 10 reaction, the predicted product (No. 18889) is very similar to the ground-truth product and they only differ in atom (N vs S).
does
Another two examples that worth mentioning are: (1) The No. 6 reaction, where the first reactant contains a triangle ring but breaks up in the product. MoIR-GCY correctly predicts the product, but Mol2vec and MolBERT make mistakes by simply combining the reactants together. (2) The No. 17 reaction, where the nitro group (-NO2) disappears after the reaction. MoIR-GCN predicts such chemical change successfully, but Mol2vec and MolBERT still retain the nitro group in their predicted products.
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
No.
Reactan(s)
Ground truth product
Predicted product by MoIR-GCN
Predicted product by Mol2vec
Predicted product by MolBERT
5
(No. 32353)
(No. 32353)
(No. 32353)
Same as ground-truth
(No. 39181)
(No. 24126)
Same ground-truth
(No. 11233)
17526)
10
(No. 18889)
(No. 18889)
18889)
13
Same ground tnuth
Same ground truth
16
Same ground-truth
Same as ground-truth
(No. 21947)
17
Same as ground-truth
N
(No, 2029)
(No. 22247)
Table 8: Case study on the first 20 reaction instances (No. 0 ~ No. 19) in the test set of USPTO- 479k. Reactions whose product correctly predicted by the three methods are omitted for clarity. The index below predicted product indicates the actual reaction that this product comes from.
20


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "f2PrYm2Vup", "reviewer": "Reviewer_17vx", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "\n### strengths\n- I like the idea of using the relationship of reactants to products for pretraining. \n- the paper is well explained\n- the experimental results are reasonable (but see comment below)\n\n### weaknesses\n\nThe experiments that the authors ran are reasonable to showcase the new method, but are maybe not the most obvious ones I would have expected. The chemical property prediction experiment is good, however, the product ranking experiment (I am a bit reluctant to call it reaction prediction, because no novel product structure is actually predicted), and the graph edit distance prediction are a bit \"non-standard\".\n\nI would suggest to consider a \"proper\" reaction prediction task, for example either to use the input representation for template prediction, or have a GNN-to-SMILES-seq transformer model and compare to a SMILES-to-SMILES transformer.\n\nanother stronger experiment would be reaction classification, or yield prediction. here, it might be instructive to compare to the work of Schwaller et al. e.g.\nhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/abc81d/meta\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-020-00284-w\nin this context it also make sense to compare to reaction fingerprints such as the one by Probst and Schneider\nhttps://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/60e358fb379e8d3ba9f92d15\nhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ci5006614\n\nIn my opinion, with these additional experiments the paper would stronger. In the currently form I would only recommend weak accept because I like the concept.\n\n\n\n### notes, questions and comments:\n1. I found the observation that bond types are not needed in the GNN quite interesting.\n2. is the assumption that the reactants and products are sets sufficient, or would a more general assumption that reactants and products are multi-sets (ie. unordered collections where a reactant or product can occur not just once, e.g. in an Ullmann coupling Ph-Br + Br-Ph -> Ph-Ph \n) be more expressive?\n3. in the derivation it seems that balanced reactions are required, but USPTO is (I believe) not balanced (e.g. leaving groups are disappearing from the right side). would that be a problem?\n4. suggested additional references: Merkwirth 2005 for GNNs for molecules https://doi.org/10.1021/ci049613b ; Segler et al 2017  https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201605499 for reaction prediction with neural nets ", "summary_of_the_paper": "The authors describe a novel pre-training method to learn molecular representation based on the formal relationship between molecules given by chemical reactions (the reactants are related to the products of a chemical reaction)\n\nThe performance of the new embedding is evaluated on several chemical tasks.", "summary_of_the_review": "Creative use of data for pretraining, experiments could be stronger\n\n\n_________\nafter author answer:\nScore adjusted to 8", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "UVUWILuE-g-", "reviewer": "Reviewer_3hy7", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Strength\n1.\tThe idea of using chemical reactions to perform contrastive learning for molecular representation is novel, which offers alternative solutions to the problem by leveraging domain knowledge from the synthetic perspective. This formulation avoids the unjustified masking of molecular graphs in previous works (as a small modification of molecular structure may result in a series of changes in chemical properties). The provided benchmarks open a new avenue for the molecular contrastive learning community.\n2.  The paper is generally well written with minor typos.\n\nWeakness\n1.\tSome of the experiments' decisions make the experimental results are not convincing for me: 1) taking R->P as positive samples potentially cause ambiguity. For example, if there are two reactions, OHCH2CHOHCH2OH -> CH2CHOHCH2OH + OH and OHCH2CHOHCH2OH -> OHCH2CHCH2OH, the MolR would force h_{OHCH2CHCH2OH} and h_{CH2CHOHCH2OH} to be similar. This is unreasonable as the position of a functional group will influence their molecular properties significantly. \n2.\tThe authors did not clarify what kind of splits are used for training/validation/test split. If the molecular properties data are randomly split, the results of D-MPNN are significantly lower than the values reported in its original paper and other SOTA GNN models (e.g.[1][2][3]). \n3.\tThe authors should report the accuracy of the original methods (GCN, GAT, SAGE, TAG); therefore, we can make a clear comparison of how many improvements we can expect by using MolR \n4.\tOther graph contrastive learning methods (GraphCL[4], GraphLoG[5]) should also be compared. \n\nReference\n[1] Xiong Z, Wang D, Liu X, et al. Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism[J]. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 2019, 63(16): 8749-8760.\n\n[2] Li Z, Yang S, Song G, et al. Conformation-Guided Molecular Representation with Hamiltonian Neural Networks[C]//International Conference on Learning Representations. 2020.\n\n[3] Song Y, Zheng S, Niu Z, et al. Communicative Representation Learning on Attributed Molecular Graphs[C]//IJCAI. 2020: 2831-2838.\n\n[4] You Y, Chen T, Sui Y, et al. Graph contrastive learning with augmentations[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020, 33: 5812-5823.\n\n[5] Xu M, Wang H, Ni B, et al. Self-supervised Graph-level Representation Learning with Local and Global Structure[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04113, 2021.\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "This paper proposes to use chemical reactions to pretrain molecular graph representations by 1) considering the reactants and products to be positive samples in the contrastive learning 2) pretraining using USPTO-479k reaction dataset.  The result is a pertaining method that outperforms a variety of baseline methods on reaction prediction and molecular property prediction tasks. ", "summary_of_the_review": "The motivation for this research area is strong and there have been several papers addressing similar problems at previous top-tier machine learning conferences. I think ICLR is a good venue for this manuscript.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "3: Some of the paper’s claims have minor issues. A few statements are not well-supported, or require small changes to be made correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "4: The contributions are significant, and do not exist in prior works.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "IT5mhVbagle", "reviewer": "Reviewer_LLpm", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "The strength: the idea of the paper using the reaction to embed molecules in a space where the summation of reactant embeddings is equal to the summation of product embeddings is very interesting. And the experimental results also seem to be promising. I just have a few concerns as follows:\n\n1.  \"The reaction center of R → P is defined as an induced subgraph of reactants R, in which each atom has\nat least one bond whose type differs from R to P (“no bond” is also seen as a bond type)\" this sounds bit confusing, I did not really get what does it mean, I can understand in terms of graph edit distance, \"a reaction center is a minimal set of graph edits needed to transform reactants to products.\" but still very confused.\n\n2. It is not clear to me how the current model can learn the reaction template.\n\n3. figure 3 is not really clear to me\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The paper is about learning a vector representation of molecules in a way that the learned representation preserves the equivalence of molecules with respect to chemical reactions. They do so by forcing the sum of reactant embeddings and the sum of product embeddings to be equal for each chemical equation.  They have also shown experimentally that such embeddings can improve the performance of downstream tasks such as chemical reaction prediction, molecule property prediction, and graph edit distance prediction problems. ", "summary_of_the_review": "The idea presented in the paper is novel, interesting, simple, and direct.  The results seem to be promising. ", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "3bbIUvZqFzJ", "reviewer": "Reviewer_h7pt", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Overall, this is an insightful paper. \nAlthough the method is simple (only 0.5 page), it makes sense and works well.\nThe motivation, the solution and the results are convincing. The paper is clearly written. \nIn particular, the paper presents several fail cases and tries to explain them. \n\nPlease consider and discuss the following:\n- In experiments, USPTO which contains 478,612 chemical reactions is used. Did you screen out useless reactions? Or If you directly consider all reactions?\n- Report the computation cost. \n- Other choices of (5)? Like more complicated pooling methods? \n- Discuss the difference and related w.r.t. other papers which consider taking chemical reaction equations as prior knowledge [1,2]\n\n[1] GENERATING MOLECULES VIA CHEMICAL REACTIONS, ICLR 2019 workshop.\n[2] A generative model for molecule generation based on chemical reaction trees, ArXiv 2021.\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The paper proposes a molecule representation learning method which is guided by chemical reactions. \nIn particular, it leverages chemical reaction equations by forcing the sum of reactant embeddings and the sum of product embed- dings to be equal for each chemical equation. \nThis idea is simple and useful, sharing the spirit of Word2Vec and TransE. \n\n\n\n", "summary_of_the_review": "This paper is insightful, clearly written and presents good empirical results. \nI vote for acceptance. If the concerns mentioned above are addressed, it can be better. \n\n\n", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper uses chemical reaction data as a means to help train molecule embeddings, by requiring embeddings to satisfy known reaction equations. The idea is nice and clear, and the paper includes strong empirical evaluation. All four reviewers agreed the paper could be accepted, with two of them raising their scores after a detailed author rebuttal and discussion, which included additional experiments.
Decision: Accept (Poster)