Original: L EARNING 3D R EPRESENTATIONS OF M OLECULAR C HIRALITY WITH I NVARIANCE TO B OND R OTATIONS
Revised: L EARNING 3D R EPRESENTATIONS OF M OLECULAR C HIRALITY WITH I NVARIANCE TO B OND R OTATIONS

Original: Molecular chirality, a form of stereochemistry most often describing relative spatial arrangements of bonded neighbors around tetrahedral carbon centers, influences the set of 3D conformers accessible to the molecule without changing its 2D graph connectivity.
Revised: Molecular chirality, a form of stereochemistry most often describing relative spatial arrangements of bonded neighbors around tetrahedral carbon centers, influences the set of 3D conformers accessible to the molecule without changing its 2D graph connectivity.

Original: Chirality can strongly alter (bio)chemical interactions, particularly protein-drug binding.
Revised: Chirality can strongly alter (bio)chemical interactions, particularly protein-drug binding.

Original: Most 2D graph neural networks (GNNs) designed for molecular property prediction at best use atomic labels to na ¨ ıvely treat chirality, while E(3)-invariant 3D GNNs are invariant to chirality altogether.
Revised: Most 2D graph neural networks (GNNs) designed for molecular property prediction at best use atomic labels to na ¨ ıvely treat chirality, while E(3)-invariant 3D GNNs are invariant to chirality altogether.

Original: To enable representation learning on molecules with defined stereochemistry, we design an SE(3)-invariant model that processes torsion angles of a 3D molecular conformer.
Revised: To enable representation learning on molecules with defined stereochemistry, we design an SE(3)-invariant model that processes torsion angles of a 3D molecular conformer.

Original: We explicitly model conformational flexibility by integrating a novel type of invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds into the architecture, mitigating the need for multi-conformer data augmentation.
Revised: We explicitly model conformational flexibility by integrating a novel type of invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds into the architecture, mitigating the need for multi-conformer data augmentation.

Original: We test our model on four benchmarks: contrastive learning to distinguish conformers of different stereoisomers in a learned latent space, classification of chiral centers as
Revised: We test our model on four benchmarks: contrastive learning to distinguish conformers of different stereoisomers in a learned latent space, classification of chiral centers as

Original: R/S, prediction of how enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light, and ranking enantiomers by their docking scores in an enantiosensitive protein pocket.
Revised: R/S, prediction of how enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light, and ranking enantiomers by their docking scores in an enantiosensitive protein pocket.

Original: We compare our model, Chiral InterRoto-Invariant Neural Network (ChIRo), with 2D and 3D GNNs to demonstrate that our model achieves state of the art performance when learning chiral-sensitive functions from molecular structures.
Revised: We compare our model, Chiral InterRoto-Invariant Neural Network (ChIRo), with 2D and 3D GNNs to demonstrate that our model achieves state of the art performance when learning chiral-sensitive functions from molecular structures.

Original:  I NTRODUCTION
Revised:  I NTRODUCTION

Original: Advances in graph neural networks (GNNs) have revolutionized molecular representation learning for (bio)chemical applications such as high-fidelity property prediction (Huang et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2020), accelerated conformer generation (Ganea et al., 2021;
Revised: Advances in graph neural networks (GNNs) have revolutionized molecular representation learning for (bio)chemical applications such as high-fidelity property prediction (Huang et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2020), accelerated conformer generation (Ganea et al., 2021;

Original: Mansimov et al., 2019; Simm & Hernandez-Lobato, 2020; Xu et al., 2021; Pattanaik et al., 2020b), and molecular optimization (Elton et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2019).
Revised: Mansimov et al., 2019; Simm & Hernandez-Lobato, 2020; Xu et al., 2021; Pattanaik et al., 2020b), and molecular optimization (Elton et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2019).

Original: Fueling recent developments have been efforts to model shape-dependent physio-chemical properties by learning directly from molecular conformers (snapshots of 3D molecular structures) or from 4D conformer ensembles, which better capture molecular flexibility.
Revised: Fueling recent developments have been efforts to model shape-dependent physio-chemical properties by learning directly from molecular conformers (snapshots of 3D molecular structures) or from 4D conformer ensembles, which better capture molecular flexibility.

Original: For instance, recent state-of-the-art (SOTA) GNNs feature message updates informed by bond distances, bond angles, and torsion angles of the conformer (Sch¨utt et al., 2017; Klicpera et al., 2020b; Liu et al., 2021; Klicpera et al., 2021).
Revised: For instance, recent state-of-the-art (SOTA) GNNs feature message updates informed by bond distances, bond angles, and torsion angles of the conformer (Sch¨utt et al., 2017; Klicpera et al., 2020b; Liu et al., 2021; Klicpera et al., 2021).

Original: However, few studies have considered the expressivity of GNNs when tasked with learning the nuanced effects of stereochemistry, which describes how the relative arrangement of atoms in space differ for molecules with equivalent graph connectivity.
Revised: However, few studies have considered the expressivity of GNNs when tasked with learning the nuanced effects of stereochemistry, which describes how the relative arrangement of atoms in space differ for molecules with equivalent graph connectivity.

Original: Tetrahedral (point) chirality is a prevalent form of stereochemistry, and describes the spatial arrangement of chemical substituents around the vertices of a tetrahedron centered on a chiral center, typically a carbon atom with four non-equivalent bonded neighbors.
Revised: Tetrahedral (point) chirality is a prevalent form of stereochemistry, and describes the spatial arrangement of chemical substituents around the vertices of a tetrahedron centered on a chiral center, typically a carbon atom with four non-equivalent bonded neighbors.

Original: Two molecules differing only in the relative arrangements around their chiral centers are called stereoisomers, or enantiomers if they can be interconverted through reflection across a plane.
Revised: Two molecules differing only in the relative arrangements around their chiral centers are called stereoisomers, or enantiomers if they can be interconverted through reflection across a plane.

Original: Enantiomers are distinguished in chemical line drawings by a dashed or bold wedge indicating whether a bond to a chiral center is directed into or out of the page (Figure 1A).
Revised: Enantiomers are distinguished in chemical line drawings by a dashed or bold wedge indicating whether a bond to a chiral center is directed into or out of the page (Figure 1A).

Original: Although enantiomers share many properties such as boiling points, electronic energies, and solubility in most solvents, enantiomers can display strikingly different behavior when interacting with external chiral environments.
Revised: Although enantiomers share many properties such as boiling points, electronic energies, and solubility in most solvents, enantiomers can display strikingly different behavior when interacting with external chiral environments.

Original: Notably, chirality is critical for
Revised: Notably, chirality is critical for

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: drug design (Nguyen et al., 2006; Jamali et al., 1989), where protein-ligand interactions are influenced by ligand chirality, as well as for designing structure-directing agents for zeolite growth (Luis & Beatriz, 2018)
Revised: drug design (Nguyen et al., 2006; Jamali et al., 1989), where protein-ligand interactions are influenced by ligand chirality, as well as for designing structure-directing agents for zeolite growth (Luis & Beatriz, 2018)

Original: and for optimizing asymmetric catalysts (Pfaltz & Drury, 2004;
Revised: and for optimizing asymmetric catalysts (Pfaltz & Drury, 2004;

Original: Liao et al., 2018).
Revised: Liao et al., 2018).

Original: Chiral centers are inverted upon reflection through a mirror plane.
Revised: Chiral centers are inverted upon reflection through a mirror plane.

Original: Consequently, E(3)-invariant 3D
Revised: Consequently, E(3)-invariant 3D

Original: GNNs that only consider pairwise atomic distances or bond angles in their message updates, such as SchNet (Sch ¨ utt et al., 2017) and DimeNet/DimeNet++ (Klicpera et al., 2020a;b), are inherently limited in their ability to distinguish enantiomers (Figure 1B).
Revised: GNNs that only consider pairwise atomic distances or bond angles in their message updates, such as SchNet (Sch ¨ utt et al., 2017) and DimeNet/DimeNet++ (Klicpera et al., 2020a;b), are inherently limited in their ability to distinguish enantiomers (Figure 1B).

Original: Although SE(3)-invariant 3D GNNs, such as the recently proposed SphereNet (Liu et al., 2021) and GemNet (Klicpera et al., 2021), can in theory learn chirality, their expressivity in this setting has not been explored.
Revised: Although SE(3)-invariant 3D GNNs, such as the recently proposed SphereNet (Liu et al., 2021) and GemNet (Klicpera et al., 2021), can in theory learn chirality, their expressivity in this setting has not been explored.

Original: Alongside the development of 3D GNNs, which process individual 3D conformers, there have been efforts to better represent conformational flexibility by encoding multiple conformers in a 4D ensemble for property prediction (Zankov et al., 2021; 2019; Axelrod & Gomez-Bombarelli, 2021), identifying important conformer poses (Chuang & Keiser, 2020), and predicting solvation energies (Weinreich et al., 2021).
Revised: Alongside the development of 3D GNNs, which process individual 3D conformers, there have been efforts to better represent conformational flexibility by encoding multiple conformers in a 4D ensemble for property prediction (Zankov et al., 2021; 2019; Axelrod & Gomez-Bombarelli, 2021), identifying important conformer poses (Chuang & Keiser, 2020), and predicting solvation energies (Weinreich et al., 2021).

Original: Unless in the solid state, molecules are not rigid objects or static 2D graphs, but are flexible structures that rapidly interconvert through rotations of chemical bonds as well as through smaller perturbations such as bond stretching, bending, and wagging.
Revised: Unless in the solid state, molecules are not rigid objects or static 2D graphs, but are flexible structures that rapidly interconvert through rotations of chemical bonds as well as through smaller perturbations such as bond stretching, bending, and wagging.

Original: Explicitly modeling this probability distribution over accessible conformer space has the potential to improve the modeling of protein-drug interactions, where the most relevant active pose of the ligand is not known a priori , as well as in the prediction of Boltzmann-averages, which depend on a distribution of conformers.
Revised: Explicitly modeling this probability distribution over accessible conformer space has the potential to improve the modeling of protein-drug interactions, where the most relevant active pose of the ligand is not known a priori , as well as in the prediction of Boltzmann-averages, which depend on a distribution of conformers.

Original: One challenge with these methods is selecting which conformers to include in an ensemble: the space of accessible conformations combinatorially explodes with the number of rotatable bonds, and important poses are not known a priori .
Revised: One challenge with these methods is selecting which conformers to include in an ensemble: the space of accessible conformations combinatorially explodes with the number of rotatable bonds, and important poses are not known a priori .

Original: Modeling flexibility with multi-instance methods thus requires explicit conformer enumeration, increasing the cost of training/inference without guaranteeing performance gains.
Revised: Modeling flexibility with multi-instance methods thus requires explicit conformer enumeration, increasing the cost of training/inference without guaranteeing performance gains.

Original: Apart from 2D methods, which ignore 3D information altogether, no studies have explicitly modeled conformational flexibility directly within a model architecture.
Revised: Apart from 2D methods, which ignore 3D information altogether, no studies have explicitly modeled conformational flexibility directly within a model architecture.

Original: To explicitly model tetrahedral chirality and conformational flexibility, we design a neural framework to augment 2D GNNs with processing of the SE(3)-invariant internal coordinates of a conformer, namely bond distances, bond angles, and torsion angles.
Revised: To explicitly model tetrahedral chirality and conformational flexibility, we design a neural framework to augment 2D GNNs with processing of the SE(3)-invariant internal coordinates of a conformer, namely bond distances, bond angles, and torsion angles.

Original: Our specific contributions are:
Revised: Our specific contributions are:

Original: • We design a method for graph neural networks to learn the relative orientations of substituents around tetrahedral chiral centers directly from 3D torsionangles
Revised: • We design a method for graph neural networks to learn the relative orientations of substituents around tetrahedral chiral centers directly from 3D torsion

Original:  We introduce a novel invariance to internal rotations of rotatable bonds directly into a model architecture, potentially mitigating the need for 4D ensemble methods or conformer-based data augmentation to treat conformational flexibility of molecules•
Revised: angles • We introduce a novel invariance to internal rotations of rotatable bonds directly into a model architecture, potentially mitigating the need for 4D ensemble methods or conformer-based data augmentation to treat conformational flexibility of molecules

Original:  We propose a contrastive learning framework to probe the ability of SE(3)-invariant 3D graph neural networks to differentiate stereoisomers in a learned latent space
Revised: • We propose a contrastive learning framework to probe the ability of SE(3)-invariant 3D graph neural networks to differentiate stereoisomers in a learned latent space

Original: • Through our ablation study, we demonstrate that a global node aggregation scheme, adapted from Winter et al.
Revised: • Through our ablation study, we demonstrate that a global node aggregation scheme, adapted from Winter et al.

Original: (2021), which exploits subgraphs based on internal coordinate connectivity can provide a simple way to improve GNNs for chiral property prediction
Revised: (2021), which exploits subgraphs based on internal coordinate connectivity can provide a simple way to improve GNNs for chiral property prediction

Original: We explore multiple tasks to benchmark the ability of our model to learn the effects of chirality.
Revised: We explore multiple tasks to benchmark the ability of our model to learn the effects of chirality.

Original: We do not consider common MoleculeNet (Wu et al., 2018) benchmarks, as our focus is on tasks where the effects of chirality are more distinguishable from experimental noise.
Revised: We do not consider common MoleculeNet (Wu et al., 2018) benchmarks, as our focus is on tasks where the effects of chirality are more distinguishable from experimental noise.

Original: Our self-supervised contrastive learning task is the first of its kind applied to clustering multiple 3D conformers of different stereoisomers in a latent space.
Revised: Our self-supervised contrastive learning task is the first of its kind applied to clustering multiple 3D conformers of different stereoisomers in a latent space.

Original: Following Pattanaik et al.
Revised: Following Pattanaik et al.

Original: (2020a), we also employ a toy R/S labeling task as a necessary but not sufficient test of chiral recognition.
Revised: (2020a), we also employ a toy R/S labeling task as a necessary but not sufficient test of chiral recognition.

Original: For a harder classification task, we follow Mamede et al.
Revised: For a harder classification task, we follow Mamede et al.

Original: in predicting how enantiomers experimentally rotate circularly polarized light.
Revised: in predicting how enantiomers experimentally rotate circularly polarized light.

Original: Lastly, we create a dataset of simulated docking scores to rank small enantiomeric ligands by their binding affinities in a chirality-sensitive protein pocket.
Revised: Lastly, we create a dataset of simulated docking scores to rank small enantiomeric ligands by their binding affinities in a chirality-sensitive protein pocket.

Original: We make our datasets for the contrastive learning, R/S classification, and docking tasks available to the public.
Revised: We make our datasets for the contrastive learning, R/S classification, and docking tasks available to the public.

Original: Comparisons with 2D baselines and the SE(3)-invariant SphereNet demonstrate that our model, Ch iral I nter Ro toInvariant Neural Network (ChIRo), achieves SOTA in 3D chiral molecular representation learning.
Revised: Comparisons with 2D baselines and the SE(3)-invariant SphereNet demonstrate that our model, Ch iral I nter Ro toInvariant Neural Network (ChIRo), achieves SOTA in 3D chiral molecular representation learning.

Original:  R ELATED W ORK
Revised:  R ELATED W ORK

Original: Message passing neural networks.
Revised: Message passing neural networks.

Original: Gilmer et al.
Revised: Gilmer et al.

Original: (2017) introduced a framework for using GNNs to embed molecules into a continuous latent space for property prediction.
Revised: (2017) introduced a framework for using GNNs to embed molecules into a continuous latent space for property prediction.

Original: In the typical 2D message passing scheme, a molecule is modeled as a discrete 2D graph G with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges.
Revised: In the typical 2D message passing scheme, a molecule is modeled as a discrete 2D graph G with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges.

Original: Nodes and edges are initialized with features x i and e ij to embed initial node states:
Revised: Nodes and edges are initialized with features x i and e ij to embed initial node states:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where N ( i ) denotes the neighboring atoms of node i .
Revised: where N ( i ) denotes the neighboring atoms of node i .

Original: In each layer t of message passing, node states are updated with aggregated messages from neighboring nodes.
Revised: In each layer t of message passing, node states are updated with aggregated messages from neighboring nodes.

Original: After T layers, graph feature vectors are constructed from some (potentially learnable) aggregation over the learned node states.
Revised: After T layers, graph feature vectors are constructed from some (potentially learnable) aggregation over the learned node states.

Original: A readout phase then uses this graph embedding for downstream property prediction:
Revised: A readout phase then uses this graph embedding for downstream property prediction:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: There exist many variations on this basic message passing framework (Duvenaud et al., 2015;
Revised: There exist many variations on this basic message passing framework (Duvenaud et al., 2015;

Original: Kearnes et al., 2016).
Revised: Kearnes et al., 2016).

Original: In particular, Yang et al.
Revised: In particular, Yang et al.

Original: (2019)’s directed message passing neural network (DMPNN, or ChemProp) based on Dai et al.
Revised: (2019)’s directed message passing neural network (DMPNN, or ChemProp) based on Dai et al.

Original: (2016) learns edge-based messages m tij and updates edge embeddings h tij rather than node embeddings.
Revised: (2016) learns edge-based messages m tij and updates edge embeddings h tij rather than node embeddings.

Original: The Graph Attention Network (Veliˇckovi´c et al., 2018) constructs message updates m ti using attention pooling over local node states.
Revised: The Graph Attention Network (Veliˇckovi´c et al., 2018) constructs message updates m ti using attention pooling over local node states.

Original: 3D Message Passing and Euclidean Invariances.
Revised: 3D Message Passing and Euclidean Invariances.

Original: 3D GNNs differ in their message passing schemes by using molecular internal coordinates (distances, angles, torsions) to pass geometryinformed messages between nodes.
Revised: 3D GNNs differ in their message passing schemes by using molecular internal coordinates (distances, angles, torsions) to pass geometryinformed messages between nodes.

Original: It is important to use 3D information that is at least SE(3)- invariant, as molecular properties are invariant to global rotations or translations of the conformer.
Revised: It is important to use 3D information that is at least SE(3)- invariant, as molecular properties are invariant to global rotations or translations of the conformer.

Original: SchNet (Sch¨utt et al., 2017), a well-established network for learning quantum mechanical properties of 3D conformers, updates node states using messages informed by radial basis function expansions of interatomic distances between neighboring nodes.
Revised: SchNet (Sch¨utt et al., 2017), a well-established network for learning quantum mechanical properties of 3D conformers, updates node states using messages informed by radial basis function expansions of interatomic distances between neighboring nodes.

Original: DimeNet (Klicpera et al., 2020b) and its newer variant DimeNet++ (Klicpera et al., 2020a) exploit additional molecular geometry by using spherical
Revised: DimeNet (Klicpera et al., 2020b) and its newer variant DimeNet++ (Klicpera et al., 2020a) exploit additional molecular geometry by using spherical

Original: Bessel functions to embed angles ϕ ijk between the edges formed between nodes i and j and nodes j and k ̸
Revised: Bessel functions to embed angles ϕ ijk between the edges formed between nodes i and j and nodes j and k ̸

Original: = i in the directed message updates to node i .
Revised: = i in the directed message updates to node i .

Original: SchNet and DimeNet are E(3)-invariant, as pairwise distances and angles formed between two edges are unchanged upon global rotations, translations, and reflections .
Revised: SchNet and DimeNet are E(3)-invariant, as pairwise distances and angles formed between two edges are unchanged upon global rotations, translations, and reflections .

Original: Since enantiomers are mirror images, SchNet and DimeNet are therefore invariant to this form of chirality.
Revised: Since enantiomers are mirror images, SchNet and DimeNet are therefore invariant to this form of chirality.

Original: To be SE(3)-invariant, 3D GNNs must consider torsion angles, denoted ψ ixyj , between the planes defined by angles ϕ ixy and ϕ xyj , where i, x, y, j are four sequential nodes along a simple path.
Revised: To be SE(3)-invariant, 3D GNNs must consider torsion angles, denoted ψ ixyj , between the planes defined by angles ϕ ixy and ϕ xyj , where i, x, y, j are four sequential nodes along a simple path.

Original: Torsion angles are negated upon reflection, and thus models considering all torsion angles should be implicitly sensitive to chirality.
Revised: Torsion angles are negated upon reflection, and thus models considering all torsion angles should be implicitly sensitive to chirality.

Original: Flam-Shepherd et al.
Revised: Flam-Shepherd et al.

Original: (2021), Liu et al.
Revised: (2021), Liu et al.

Original: (2021) (SphereNet), and Klicpera et al.
Revised: (2021) (SphereNet), and Klicpera et al.

Original: (GemNet) introduce 3D GNNs that all embed torsions in their message updates.
Revised: (GemNet) introduce 3D GNNs that all embed torsions in their message updates.

Original: Using a complete set of torsion angles provides access to the full geometric information present in the conformer but does not guarantee expressivity when learning chiral-dependent functions.
Revised: Using a complete set of torsion angles provides access to the full geometric information present in the conformer but does not guarantee expressivity when learning chiral-dependent functions.

Original: Torsions are negated upon reflection, but any given torsion can also be changed via simple rotations of a rotatable bond–which changes the conformation, but not the molecular identity (i.e., chirality does not change).
Revised: Torsions are negated upon reflection, but any given torsion can also be changed via simple rotations of a rotatable bond–which changes the conformation, but not the molecular identity (i.e., chirality does not change).

Original: Reflecting a non-chiral conformer will also negate its torsions, but the reflected conformer can be reverted to its original structure via rotations about internal bonds.
Revised: Reflecting a non-chiral conformer will also negate its torsions, but the reflected conformer can be reverted to its original structure via rotations about internal bonds.

Original: To understand chirality, neural models must learn how coupled torsions, the set of torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) that share a bond between nodes x and y (with x or y being chiral), collectively differ between enantiomers.
Revised: To model chirality, neural networks must learn how coupled torsions, the set of torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) that share a bond between nodes x and y (with x or y being chiral), collectively differ between enantiomers.

Original: E(3)- and SE(3)-Equivariant Neural Networks.
Revised: E(3)- and SE(3)-Equivariant Neural Networks.

Original: Recent work has introduced equivariant layers into graph neural network architectures to explicitly model how global rotations, translations, and (in some cases) reflections of a 3D structure transform tensor properties, such as molecular dipoles or force vectors.
Revised: Recent work has introduced equivariant layers into graph neural network architectures to explicitly model how global rotations, translations, and (in some cases) reflections of a 3D structure transform tensor properties, such as molecular dipoles or force vectors.

Original: SE(3)-equivariant models (Fuchs et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2018) should be sensitive to chirality, while E(3)-equivariant models (Satorras et al., 2021) will only be sensitive if the output layer is not E(3)-invariant.
Revised: SE(3)-equivariant models (Fuchs et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2018) should be sensitive to chirality, while E(3)-equivariant models (Satorras et al., 2021) will only be sensitive if the output layer is not E(3)-invariant.

Original: Since we use SE(3)-invariant internal coordinates as our 3D representation, we only compare our model to other SE(3)- or E(3)-invariant 3D GNNs.
Revised: Since we use SE(3)-invariant internal coordinates as our 3D representation, we only compare our model to other SE(3)- or E(3)-invariant 3D GNNs.

Original: Explicit representations of chirality in machine learning models.
Revised: Explicit representations of chirality in machine learning models.

Original: A number of machine learning studies account for chirality through hand-crafted molecular descriptors (Schneider et al., 2018;
Revised: A number of machine learning studies account for chirality through hand-crafted molecular descriptors (Schneider et al., 2018;

Original: Golbraikh et al., 2001; Kovatcheva et al., 2007; Vald ´ es-Martin ´ ı et al., 2017; Mamede et al., 2021).
Revised: Golbraikh et al., 2001; Kovatcheva et al., 2007; Vald ´ es-Martin ´ ı et al., 2017; Mamede et al., 2021).

Original: A na ¨ ıve but common method for making 2D GNNs sensitive to chirality is through the inclusion of chiral tags as node features.
Revised: A na ¨ ıve but common method for making 2D GNNs sensitive to chirality is through the inclusion of chiral tags as node features.

Original: Local chiral tags describe the orientation of substituents around chiral centers (CW or CCW) given an ordered list of neighbors.
Revised: Local chiral tags describe the orientation of substituents around chiral centers (CW or CCW) given an ordered list of neighbors.

Original: Global chiral tags use the Cahn-IngoldPrelog (CIP) rules for labeling the handedness of chiral centers as R (“rectus”) or S (“sinister”).
Revised: Global chiral tags use the Cahn-IngoldPrelog (CIP) rules for labeling the handedness of chiral centers as R (“rectus”) or S (“sinister”).

Original: It is unclear whether (and how) models can suitably learn chiral-dependent functions when exposed to these tags as the only indication of chirality.
Revised: It is unclear whether (and how) models can suitably learn chiral-dependent functions when exposed to these tags as the only indication of chirality.

Original: Pattanaik et al.
Revised: Pattanaik et al.

Original: (2020a) propose changing the symmetric message aggregation function in 2D GNNs (sum/max/mean) to an asymmetric function tailored to tetrahedral chiral centers, but this method does not learn chirality from 3D molecular geometries.
Revised: (2020a) propose changing the symmetric message aggregation function in 2D GNNs (sum/max/mean) to an asymmetric function tailored to tetrahedral chiral centers, but this method does not learn chirality from 3D molecular geometries.

Original: Chirality in 2D Vision and 3D Pose Estimation.
Revised: Chirality in 2D Vision and 3D Pose Estimation.

Original: Outside of molecular chirality, there has been work in the deep learning community to develop neural methods that learn chiral representations for 2D image recognition (Lin et al., 2020) and 3D human pose estimation (Yeh et al., 2019).
Revised: Outside of molecular chirality, there has been work in the deep learning community to develop neural methods that learn chiral representations for 2D image recognition (Lin et al., 2020) and 3D human pose estimation (Yeh et al., 2019).

Original: In particular, Yeh et al.
Revised: In particular, Yeh et al.

Original: (2019) consider integrating equivariance to chiral transforms directly into neural architectures including feed forward layers, LSTMs/GRUs, and convolutional layers.
Revised: (2019) consider integrating equivariance to chiral transforms directly into neural architectures including feed forward layers, LSTMs/GRUs, and convolutional layers.

Original:  C HIRAL I NTER R OTO -I NVARIANT N EURAL N ETWORK (C H IR O )
Revised:  C HIRAL I NTER R OTO -I NVARIANT N EURAL N ETWORK (C H IR O )

Original: Our model uses a 2D GNN to embed node states based on graph connectivity, two feed-forward networks based on Winter et al.
Revised: Our model uses a 2D GNN to embed node states based on graph connectivity, two feed-forward networks based on Winter et al.

Original: (2021) to encode 3D bond distances and bond angles, a specially designed torsion encoder inspired by Ganea et al.
Revised: (2021) to encode 3D bond distances and bond angles, a specially designed torsion encoder inspired by Ganea et al.

Original: (2021) to explicitly encode chirality with invariance to internal bond rotations (InterRoto-invariance), and a readout phase for property prediction.
Revised: (2021) to explicitly encode chirality with invariance to internal bond rotations (InterRoto-invariance), and a readout phase for property prediction.

Original: Figure 2 visualizes how we encode torsion angles to achieve an InterRoto-invariant representation of chirality.
Revised: Figure 2 visualizes how we encode torsion angles to achieve an InterRoto-invariant representation of chirality.

Original: The model is visualized in appendix A.4.
Revised: The model is visualized in appendix A.4.

Original: We implement our network with Pytorch Geometric (Fey & Lenssen, 2019).
Revised: We implement our network with Pytorch Geometric (Fey & Lenssen, 2019).

Original: Our code is available at https://github.com/keiradams/ChIRo .
Revised: Our code is available at https://github.com/keiradams/ChIRo .

Original: 2D Graph Encoder.
Revised: 2D Graph Encoder.

Original: Given a molecular conformer, we initialize a 2D graph G where nodes are atoms initialized with features x i and edges are bonds initialized with features e ij .
Revised: Given a molecular conformer, we initialize a 2D graph G where nodes are atoms initialized with features x i and edges are bonds initialized with features e ij .

Original: We treat all hydrogens implicitly, use undirected edges, and omit chiral atom tags and bond stereochemistry tags.
Revised: We treat all hydrogens implicitly, use undirected edges, and omit chiral atom tags and bond stereochemistry tags.

Original: x i include the atomic mass and one-hot encodings of atom type, formal charge, degree, number of hydrogens, and hybridization state.
Revised: x i include the atomic mass and one-hot encodings of atom type, formal charge, degree, number of hydrogens, and hybridization state.

Original: e ij include one-hot encodings of the bond type, whether the bond is conjugated, and whether the bond is in a ring system.
Revised: e ij include one-hot encodings of the bond type, whether the bond is conjugated, and whether the bond is in a ring system.

Original: In select experiments, we include global and local chiral atom tags and bond stereochemistry tags for performance comparisons.
Revised: In select experiments, we include global and local chiral atom tags and bond stereochemistry tags for performance comparisons.

Original: Any 2D GNN suffices to embed node states.
Revised: Any 2D GNN suffices to embed node states.

Original: Following Winter et al.
Revised: Following Winter et al.

Original: (2021), we use Simonovsky &
Revised: (2021), we use Simonovsky &

Original: Komodakis (2017)’s edge convolution (EConv) to embed the node features with the edge features:
Revised: Komodakis (2017)’s edge convolution (EConv) to embed the node features with the edge features:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where Θ is a learnable weight matrix and f e is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP).
Revised: where Θ is a learnable weight matrix and f e is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP).

Original: Node states h ti ∈ R h t are then updated through T sequential Graph Attention Layers (GAT) (Veliˇckovi´c et al., 2018):
Revised: Node states h ti ∈ R h t are then updated through T sequential Graph Attention Layers (GAT) (Veliˇckovi´c et al., 2018):

Original: [Equation] [Equation]
Revised: [Equation] [Equation]

Original: A
Revised: A

Original: C B
Revised: C B

Original: R
Revised: R

Original: A
Revised: A

Original: B C
Revised: B C

Original: R
Revised: R

Original: A
Revised: A

Original: C
Revised: C

Original: B
Revised: B

Original: H H
Revised: H H

Original: H H
Revised: H H

Original: A
Revised: A

Original: C
Revised: C

Original: B
Revised: B

Original: R
Revised: R

Original: R r r
Revised: R r r

Original: Bond Distance and Bond Angle Encoders.
Revised: Bond Distance and Bond Angle Encoders.

Original: To embed 3D bond distance and bond angle information, we follow Winter et al.
Revised: To embed 3D bond distance and bond angle information, we follow Winter et al.

Original: (2021) by individually encoding each bond distance d
Revised: (2021) by individually encoding each bond distance d

Original: ij (in Angstroms) and angle ϕ ijk into learned latent vectors.
Revised: ij (in Angstroms) and angle ϕ ijk into learned latent vectors.

Original: We then sum-pool these vectors to get conformer-level latent embeddings z d ∈ R z and z ϕ ∈ R z :
Revised: We then sum-pool these vectors to get conformer-level latent embeddings z d ∈ R z and z ϕ ∈ R z :

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where f d and f ϕ are MLPs and ( ., . )
Revised: where f d and f ϕ are MLPs and ( ., . )

Original: denotes concatenation.
Revised: denotes concatenation.

Original: We maintain invariance to node
Revised: We maintain invariance to node

Original: Torsion Encoder.
Revised: Torsion Encoder.

Original: We specially encode torsion angles to achieve two desired properties: 1) an invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds, and 2) the ability to learn molecular chirality.
Revised: We specially encode torsion angles to achieve two desired properties: 1) an invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds, and 2) the ability to learn molecular chirality.

Original: Both of these properties depend critically on how the model treats coupled torsion angles–torsions that cannot be independently rotated in the molecular conformer.
Revised: Both of these properties depend critically on how the model treats coupled torsion angles–torsions that cannot be independently rotated in the molecular conformer.

Original: For instance, torsions ψ a , ψ b , and ψ c in Figure 2 are coupled, as rotating the internal carbon-carbon bond rotates each torsion simultaneously.
Revised: For instance, torsions ψ a , ψ b , and ψ c in Figure 2 are coupled, as rotating the internal carbon-carbon bond rotates each torsion simultaneously.

Original: Symmetrically aggregating every redundant torsion does not respect this inherent coupling.
Revised: Symmetrically aggregating every redundant torsion does not respect this inherent coupling.

Original: However, encoding a set of non-redundant torsions–a minimal set that completely define the structure of the conformer–would make the model sensitive to which arbitrary subset was selected.
Revised: However, encoding a set of non-redundant torsions–a minimal set that completely define the structure of the conformer–would make the model sensitive to which arbitrary subset was selected.

Original: Ganea et al.
Revised: Ganea et al.

Original: (2021) provide a partial solution to this problem in their molecular conformer generator, which we add to below.
Revised: (2021) provide a partial solution to this problem in their molecular conformer generator, which we add to below.

Original: Rather than encoding each torsion individually, they compute a weighted sum of the cosines and sines of each coupled torsion (which are redundant), where a neural network predicts the weights 1 .
Revised: Rather than encoding each torsion individually, they compute a weighted sum of the cosines and sines of each coupled torsion (which are redundant), where a neural network predicts the weights 1 .

Original: Formally, given a non-terminal (internal) bond between nodes x and y that yields a set of coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) for i ∈ N ( x ) \ { y } and j ∈ N ( y ) \ { x } , they compute:
Revised: Formally, given a non-terminal (internal) bond between nodes x and y that yields a set of coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) for i ∈ N ( x ) \ { y } and j ∈ N ( y ) \ { x } , they compute:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: (2021) use an untrained network with randomized parameters to predict the weighting coefficients.
Revised: (2021) use an untrained network with randomized parameters to predict the weighting coefficients.

Original: Instead, we learn the parameters in f c and compare these approaches in Appendix A.8.
Revised: Instead, we learn the parameters in f c and compare these approaches in Appendix A.8.

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where f c is an MLP that maps to R .
Revised: where f c is an MLP that maps to R .

Original: The sigmoid activation σ , which keeps each c ( xy ) ij bounded to (0 , 1) , is our addition.
Revised: The sigmoid activation σ , which keeps each c ( xy ) ij bounded to (0 , 1) , is our addition.

Original: The following formulation is our novel addition to Ganea et al.
Revised: The following formulation is our novel addition to Ganea et al.

Original: Because rotating the bond ( x, y ) rotates the torsions { ψ ixyj } together, the sinusoids { sin( ψ ixyj ) }
Revised: Because rotating the bond ( x, y ) rotates the torsions { ψ ixyj } together, the sinusoids { sin( ψ ixyj ) }

Original: ( i,j ) and { cos( ψ ixyj ) }
Revised: ( i,j ) and { cos( ψ ixyj ) }

Original: ( i,j ) have the same frequency.
Revised: ( i,j ) have the same frequency.

Original: Therefore, the weighted sums of these cosines and sines are also sinusoids, which when plotted against each other as a function of rotating  bond ( x, y ) , form a perfect circle (appendix A.1).
Revised: Therefore, the weighted sums of these cosines and sines are also sinusoids, which when plotted against each other as a function of rotating the bond ( x, y ) , form a perfect circle (appendix A.1).

Original: Critically, the radius of this circle, || α ( xy )
Revised: Critically, the radius of this circle, || α ( xy )

Original: cos , α ( xy ) sin || , is invariant to the action of rotating bond ( x, y )
Revised: cos , α ( xy ) sin || , is invariant to the rotation of the bond ( x, y )

Original: (Figure 2).
Revised: (Figure 2).

Original: We therefore encode these radii in order to achieve invariance to how any bond in the conformer is rotated.
Revised: We therefore encode these radii in order to achieve invariance to how any bond in the conformer is rotated.

Original: The above formulation, as presented, is also invariant to chirality (appendix A.2).
Revised: The above formulation, as presented, is also invariant to chirality (appendix A.2).

Original: To break this symmetry, we add a learned phase shift, φ ixyj , to each torsion ψ ixyj :
Revised: To break this symmetry, we add a learned phase shift, φ ixyj , to each torsion ψ ixyj :

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where f φ is an MLP that maps to R 2 and ℓ 2 norm indicates L2-normalization.
Revised: where f φ is an MLP that maps to R 2 and ℓ 2 norm indicates L2-normalization.

Original: Because enantiomers have the same 2D graph, the learned coefficients c ( xy ) ij and phase shifts φ ixyj are identical between enantiomers (if x i is initialized without chiral tags).
Revised: Because enantiomers have the same 2D graph, the learned coefficients c ( xy ) ij and phase shifts φ ixyj are identical between enantiomers (if x i is initialized without chiral tags).

Original: However, because enantiomers have different spatial orientations of atoms around chiral centers, the relative values of coupled torsions around bonds involving those chiral centers also differ (Figure 2).
Revised: However, because enantiomers have different spatial orientations of atoms around chiral centers, the relative values of coupled torsions around bonds involving those chiral centers also differ (Figure 2).

Original: As a result, learning phase shifts creates different degrees of wave-interference when summing the weighted cosines and sines for inverted chiral centers.
Revised: As a result, learning phase shifts creates different degrees of wave-interference when summing the weighted cosines and sines for inverted chiral centers.

Original: The amplitudes of the net waves (corresponding to radius || α ( xy ) cos , α ( xy ) sin || ) will differ between enantiomers, allowing our model to encode different radii for different enantiomers.
Revised: The amplitudes of the net waves (corresponding to radius || α ( xy ) cos , α ( xy ) sin || ) will differ between enantiomers, allowing our model to encode different radii for different enantiomers.

Original: With this torsion aggregation scheme, we complete our torsion encoder by individually encoding each internal molecular bond, along with its learned radius, into a latent vector and sum-pooling:
Revised: With this torsion aggregation scheme, we complete our torsion encoder by individually encoding each internal molecular bond, along with its learned radius, into a latent vector and sum-pooling:

Original: z
Revised: z

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]

Original: Readout.
Revised: Readout.

Original: For property prediction, we concatenate the sum-pooled node states with the conformer embedding components z d , z ϕ , and z α , capturing embeddings of bond lengths, angles, and torsions, respectively.
Revised: For property prediction, we concatenate the sum-pooled node states with the conformer embedding components z d , z ϕ , and z α , capturing embeddings of bond lengths, angles, and torsions, respectively.

Original: This concatenated representation is then fed through a feed-forward neural network:
Revised: This concatenated representation is then fed through a feed-forward neural network:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Appendix A.3 explores the option of propagating the learned 3D representations of chirality to node states prior to sum-pooling via additional message passing, treating each z α xy as a vector of edgeattributes.
Revised: Appendix A.3 explores the option of propagating the learned 3D representations of chirality to node states prior to sum-pooling via additional message passing, treating each z α xy as a vector of edgeattributes.

Original: This stage of chiral message passing (CMP) is designed to help propagate local chiral representations across the molecular graph, and to provide an alternative method of augmenting 2D GNNs which include chiral tags as atom features.
Revised: This stage of chiral message passing (CMP) is designed to help propagate local chiral representations across the molecular graph, and to provide an alternative method of augmenting 2D GNNs which include chiral tags as atom features.

Original: However, CMP does not significantly affect
Revised: However, CMP does not significantly affect

Original: ChIRo’s performance across the tasks considered and is thus not included in our default model.
Revised: ChIRo’s performance across the tasks considered and is thus not included in our default model.

Original:  E XPERIMENTS
Revised:  E XPERIMENTS

Original: We evaluate the ability of our model to learn chirality with four distinct tasks: contrastive learning to distinguish between 3D conformers of different stereoisomers in a learned latent space, classifying enantiomer chiral centers as R/S, predicting how enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light, and ranking enantiomers by their docking scores in a chiral protein environment.
Revised: We evaluate the ability of our model to learn chirality with four distinct tasks: contrastive learning to distinguish between 3D conformers of different stereoisomers in a learned latent space, classifying enantiomer chiral centers as R/S, predicting how enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light, and ranking enantiomers by their docking scores in a chiral protein environment.

Original: We compare our model with 2D baselines including DMPNN with chiral atom tags (Yang et al., 2019), and Tetra-DMPNN with and without chiral atom tags (Pattanaik et al., 2020a).
Revised: We compare our model with 2D baselines including DMPNN with chiral atom tags (Yang et al., 2019), and Tetra-DMPNN with and without chiral atom tags (Pattanaik et al., 2020a).

Original: We also compare our model to 3D GNN baselines, including the E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++, and the SE(3)-invariant SphereNet.
Revised: We also compare our model to 3D GNN baselines, including the E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++, and the SE(3)-invariant SphereNet.

Original: Contrastive Learning to Distinguish Stereoisomers.
Revised: Contrastive Learning to Distinguish Stereoisomers.

Original: For contrastive learning, we use a subset of the PubChem3D dataset, which consists of multiple OMEGA-generated conformations of organic molecules with up to 50 heavy atoms and 15 rotatable bonds (Bolton et al., 2011; Hawkins et al., 2010).
Revised: For contrastive learning, we use a subset of the PubChem3D dataset, which consists of multiple OMEGA-generated conformations of organic molecules with up to 50 heavy atoms and 15 rotatable bonds (Bolton et al., 2011; Hawkins et al., 2010).

Original: Our subset consists of 2.98M conformers of 598K stereoisomers of 257K 2D graphs.
Revised: Our subset consists of 2.98M conformers of 598K stereoisomers of 257K 2D graphs.

Original: Each stereoisomer has at least two conformers, and each graph has at least two stereoisomers.
Revised: Each stereoisomer has at least two conformers, and each graph has at least two stereoisomers.

Original: We create 70/15/15 training/validation/test splits, keeping conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs in the same data partition.
Revised: We create 70/15/15 training/validation/test splits, keeping conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs in the same data partition.

Original: See appendix A.5 for full training details.
Revised: See appendix A.5 for full training details.

Original: We formulate this task to answer the following question: can the model learn to cluster conformers sharing the same (chiral) molecular identity in a learned latent space, while distinguishing clusters belonging to different stereoisomers of a shared 2D graph?
Revised: We formulate this task to answer the following question: can the model learn to cluster conformers sharing the same (chiral) molecular identity in a learned latent space, while distinguishing clusters belonging to different stereoisomers of a shared 2D graph?

Original: We train each model with a triplet margin loss (Balntas et al., 2016) with a normalized Euclidean distance metric:
Revised: We train each model with a triplet margin loss (Balntas et al., 2016) with a normalized Euclidean distance metric:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: (14) where z a , z p , z n are learned latent vectors of anchor, positive, and negative examples.
Revised: (14) where z a , z p , z n are learned latent vectors of anchor, positive, and negative examples.

Original: For each triplet, we randomly sample a conformer a of stereoisomer i as the anchor, a conformer p ̸
Revised: For each triplet, we randomly sample a conformer a of stereoisomer i as the anchor, a conformer p ̸

Original: = a of stereoisomer i as the positive, and a conformer n of stereoisomer j ̸
Revised: = a of stereoisomer i as the positive, and a conformer n of stereoisomer j ̸

Original: = i as the negative, where i and j share the same 2D graph.
Revised: = i as the negative, where i and j share the same 2D graph.

Original: For ChIRo, we use z =
Revised: For ChIRo, we use z =

Original: z α .
Revised: z α .

Original: For SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet, we use aggregations of node states (out channels) as z .
Revised: For SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet, we use aggregations of node states (out channels) as z .

Original: We set z ∈ R 2 to visualize the latent space.
Revised: We set z ∈ R 2 to visualize the latent space.

Original: Figure 3 visualizes how conformers of two enantiomers in the test set separate in the latent space for ChIRo, SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet.
Revised: Figure 3 visualizes how conformers of two enantiomers in the test set separate in the latent space for ChIRo, SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet.

Original: We explore how this separation is affected upon reflecting the conformers (which inverts chirality) and rotating bonds around the chiral center.
Revised: We explore how this separation is affected upon reflecting the conformers (which inverts chirality) and rotating bonds around the chiral center.

Original: By design, ChIRo maintains perfect separation across these transforms.
Revised: By design, ChIRo maintains perfect separation across these transforms.

Original: While SchNet and DimeNet++ may seem to superficially separate the original conformers, the separation collapses upon reflection and rotation due to their E(3)-invariance.
Revised: While SchNet and DimeNet++ may seem to superficially separate the original conformers, the separation collapses upon reflection and rotation due to their E(3)-invariance.

Original: SphereNet learns good separation that persists through reflection, but the clusters overlap upon rotation of internal bonds.
Revised: SphereNet learns good separation that persists through reflection, but the clusters overlap upon rotation of internal bonds.

Original: This emphasizes that 3D GNNs have limited chiral expressivity when not explicitly considering coupled torsions in message updates.
Revised: This emphasizes that 3D GNNs have limited chiral expressivity when not explicitly considering coupled torsions in message updates.

Original: Classifying Tetrahedral Chiral Centers as R/S. As a toy test of chiral perception for SchNet,
Revised: Classifying Tetrahedral Chiral Centers as R/S. As a toy test of chiral perception for SchNet,

Original: DimeNet++, SphereNet and ChIRo, we test whether these 3D models can classify tetrahedral chiral centers as R/S, a simple indication of chirality that can be easily encoded into the initial node features.
Revised: DimeNet++, SphereNet and ChIRo, we test whether these 3D models can classify tetrahedral chiral centers as R/S, a simple indication of chirality that can be easily encoded into the initial node features.

Original: We use a subset of PubChem3D containing 466K conformers of 78K enantiomers with one tetrahedral chiral center.
Revised: We use a subset of PubChem3D containing 466K conformers of 78K enantiomers with one tetrahedral chiral center.

Original: We create 70/15/15 train/validation/test splits, keeping conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs in the same partition.
Revised: We create 70/15/15 train/validation/test splits, keeping conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs in the same partition.

Original: We train with a cross-entropy loss and sample one conformer per enantiomer in each batch.
Revised: We train with a cross-entropy loss and sample one conformer per enantiomer in each batch.

Original: See Appendix A.5 for full training details.
Revised: See Appendix A.5 for full training details.

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Table 1 reports classification accuracies when evaluating on all conformers in the test set, without conformerbased averaging.
Revised: Table 1 reports classification accuracies when evaluating on all conformers in the test set, without conformerbased averaging.

Original: The SE(3)-invariant ChIRo and
Revised: The SE(3)-invariant ChIRo and

Original: SphereNet both surpass 98% accuracy, whereas the
Revised: SphereNet both surpass 98% accuracy, whereas the

Original: E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++ fail to learn this simplest indication of chirality.
Revised: E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++ fail to learn this simplest indication of chirality.

Original: We emphasize that this classification task, which RDKit trivially solves, is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate that a model can meaningfully learn chiral representations of molecules.
Revised: We emphasize that this classification task, which RDKit trivially solves, is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate that a model can meaningfully learn chiral representations of molecules.

Original: Predicting Enantiomers’ Signs of Optical Rotation.
Revised: Predicting Enantiomers’ Signs of Optical Rotation.

Original: Enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light in different directions, and the sign of rotation designates the enantiomer as l (levorotatory, − ) or d (dextrorotatory, + ).
Revised: Enantiomers rotate circularly polarized light in different directions, and the sign of rotation designates the enantiomer as l (levorotatory, − ) or d (dextrorotatory, + ).

Original: Optical activity is an experimental property, and has no correlation with R/S classifications (Table 15, appendix A.7.2).
Revised: Optical activity is an experimental property, and has no correlation with R/S classifications (Table 15, appendix A.7.2).

Original: Following Mamede et al.
Revised: Following Mamede et al.

Original: (2021), who used hand-crafted descriptors to predict l / d labels, we extract 30K enantiomers (15K pairs) with their optical activity in a chloroform solvent from the commercial Reaxys database (Reaxys, Accessed Aug. 6-9, 2021), and generate 5 conformers per enantiomer using the ETKDG algorithm in RDKit (Landrum, 2010).
Revised: (2021), who used hand-crafted descriptors to predict l / d labels, we extract 30K enantiomers (15K pairs) with their optical activity in a chloroform solvent from the commercial Reaxys database (Reaxys, Accessed Aug. 6-9, 2021), and generate 5 conformers per enantiomer using the ETKDG algorithm in RDKit (Landrum, 2010).

Original: Appendix A.7 describes the filtering procedure.
Revised: Appendix A.7 describes the filtering procedure.

Original: We evaluate with 5-fold cross validation, where each pair of enantiomers are randomly assigned to one of the five folds for testing.
Revised: We evaluate with 5-fold cross validation, where each pair of enantiomers are randomly assigned to one of the five folds for testing.

Original: In each fold, we randomly split the remaining dataset into 87.5/12.
Revised: In each fold, we randomly split the remaining dataset into 87.5/12.

Original: training/validation splits, assigning enantiomers to the same data partition.
Revised: training/validation splits, assigning enantiomers to the same data partition.

Original: We train with a crossentropy loss.
Revised: We train with a crossentropy loss.

Original: To characterize how conformer data augmentation affects the performance of ChIRo and SphereNet, we employ two training schemes: the first randomly samples a conformer per enantiomer in each batch; the second uses one pre-sampled conformer per enantiomer.
Revised: To characterize how conformer data augmentation affects the performance of ChIRo and SphereNet, we employ two training schemes: the first randomly samples a conformer per enantiomer in each batch; the second uses one pre-sampled conformer per enantiomer.

Original: In both schemes, we evaluate on all conformers in the test splits.
Revised: In both schemes, we evaluate on all conformers in the test splits.

Original: Appendix A.5 specifies full training details.
Revised: Appendix A.5 specifies full training details.

Original: Table 2 reports the classification accuracies for each model.
Revised: Table 2 reports the classification accuracies for each model.

Original: Notably, ChIRo outperforms SphereNet by a significant 14% .
Revised: Notably, ChIRo outperforms SphereNet by a significant 14% .

Original: Also, whereas ChIRo’s performance does not suffer when only one conformer per enantiomer is used, SphereNet’s performance drops by 10% .
Revised: Also, whereas ChIRo’s performance does not suffer when only one conformer per enantiomer is used, SphereNet’s performance drops by 10% .

Original: This may be due to SphereNet confusing differences in conformational structure versus chiral identities when evaluating pairs of enantiomers (appendix A.10).
Revised: This may be due to SphereNet confusing differences in conformational structure versus chiral identities when evaluating pairs of enantiomers (appendix A.10).

Original: The consistent performance of ChIRo emphasizes its inherent modeling of conformational flexibility without need for data augmentation.
Revised: The consistent performance of ChIRo emphasizes its inherent modeling of conformational flexibility without need for data augmentation.

Original: ChIRo also offers significant improvement over DMPNN, demonstrating that our torsion encoder yields a more expressive representation of chirality than simply including chiral tags in node features.
Revised: ChIRo also offers significant improvement over DMPNN, demonstrating that our torsion encoder yields a more expressive representation of chirality than simply including chiral tags in node features.

Original: The (smaller) improvements over Tetra-DMPNN, which was specially designed to treat tetrahedral chirality in 2D GNNs, suggest that using 3D information to encode chirality is more powerful than 2D representations of chirality.
Revised: The (smaller) improvements over Tetra-DMPNN, which was specially designed to treat tetrahedral chirality in 2D GNNs, suggest that using 3D information to encode chirality is more powerful than 2D representations of chirality.

Original: Ranking Enantiomers by Binding Affinity in a Chiral Protein Pocket.
Revised: Ranking Enantiomers by Binding Affinity in a Chiral Protein Pocket.

Original: In silico docking simulations are widely used to screen drug-ligand interactions, especially in high-throughput virtual screens.
Revised: In silico docking simulations are widely used to screen drug-ligand interactions, especially in high-throughput virtual screens.

Original: However, docking scores can be highly sensitive to the conformation of the docked lig-
Revised: However, docking scores can be highly sensitive to the conformation of the docked lig-

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: (permute)
Revised: (permute)

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: (concatenate)
Revised: (concatenate)

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: and, which creates a noisy background from which to extract meaningful differences in docking scores between enantiomers.
Revised: and, which creates a noisy background from which to extract meaningful differences in docking scores between enantiomers.

Original: To partially control for this stochasticity, we source conformers of 200K pairs of small (MW ≤ 225, # of rotatable bonds ≤ 5) enantiomers with only 1 chiral center from PubChem3D (Bolton et al., 2011).
Revised: To partially control for this stochasticity, we source conformers of 200K pairs of small (MW ≤ 225, # of rotatable bonds ≤ 5) enantiomers with only 1 chiral center from PubChem3D (Bolton et al., 2011).

Original: We use AutoDock Vina (Trott & Olson, 2010) to dock each enantiomer in a small docking box (PDB ID: 4JBV) three times, and select pairs for which both enantiomers have a range of docking scores ≤ 0.1 kcal/mol across the three trials.
Revised: We use AutoDock Vina (Trott & Olson, 2010) to dock each enantiomer in a small docking box (PDB ID: 4JBV) three times, and select pairs for which both enantiomers have a range of docking scores ≤ 0.1 kcal/mol across the three trials.

Original: Finally, we filter pairs of enantiomers whose difference in (best) scores is ≥ 0 .
Revised: Finally, we select pairs of enantiomers whose difference in (best) scores is ≥ 0 .

Original: 3 kcal/mol to form a dataset of enantiosensitive docking scores.
Revised: 3 kcal/mol to form a dataset of enantiosensitive docking scores.

Original: Each conformer for an enantiomer is assigned the same (best) score.
Revised: Each conformer for an enantiomer is assigned the same (best) score.

Original: This treats docking score as a stereoisomer-level property.
Revised: This treats docking score as a stereoisomer-level property.

Original: Our final dataset includes 335K conformers of 69K enantiomers (34.5K pairs), which we split into 70/15/15 training/validation/test splits, keeping enantiomers in the same data partition.
Revised: Our final dataset includes 335K conformers of 69K enantiomers (34.5K pairs), which we split into 70/15/15 training/validation/test splits, keeping enantiomers in the same data partition.

Original: We train with a mean squared error loss and either randomly sample a conformer per enantiomer in each batch or use one pre-selected conformer per enantiomer.
Revised: We train with a mean squared error loss and either randomly sample a conformer per enantiomer in each batch or use one pre-selected conformer per enantiomer.

Original: Appendix A.5 specifies full training details.
Revised: Appendix A.5 specifies full training details.

Original: Note that we evaluate the ranking accuracy of the predicted conformer-averaged docking scores between enantiomers in the test set.
Revised: Note that we evaluate the ranking accuracy of the predicted conformer-averaged docking scores between enantiomers in the test set.

Original: ChIRo outperforms SphereNet in ranking enantiomer docking scores, achieving an accuracy of 72% (Table 2).
Revised: ChIRo outperforms SphereNet in ranking enantiomer docking scores, achieving an accuracy of 72% (Table 2).

Original: This performance is fairly consistent when evaluating ChIRo on subsets of enantiomers which have various differences in their ground-truth scores (Figure 12, appendix A.9).
Revised: This performance is fairly consistent when evaluating ChIRo on subsets of enantiomers which have various differences in their ground-truth scores (Figure 12, appendix A.9).

Original: SphereNet once again suffers a drop in performance without conformer data augmentation, whereas ChIRo’s performance remains high without such augmentation.
Revised: SphereNet once again suffers a drop in performance without conformer data augmentation, whereas ChIRo’s performance remains high without such augmentation.

Original: ChIRo also outperforms the 2D baselines, with performance gains similar to those in the l / d classification task.
Revised: ChIRo also outperforms the 2D baselines, with performance gains similar to those in the l / d classification task.

Original: Ablation Study.
Revised: Ablation Study.

Original: To investigate how the components of ChIRo contribute to its performance on the l / d classification and ranking tasks, we ablate various components including whether stereochemical tags are included in node/edge intialization, whether internal coordinates are masked-out (set to zero), and whether the conformer latent vectors z d , z ϕ , and z α are used in readout (Table 3).
Revised: To investigate how the components of ChIRo contribute to its performance on the l / d classification and ranking tasks, we ablate various components including whether stereochemical tags are included in node/edge intialization, whether internal coordinates are masked-out (set to zero), and whether the conformer latent vectors z d , z ϕ , and z α are used in readout (Table 3).

Original: Overall, when internal coordinates are masked, including ( z d , z ϕ , z α ) in readout improves performance by ∼ 5% on both tasks.
Revised: Overall, when internal coordinates are masked, including ( z d , z ϕ , z α ) in readout improves performance by ∼ 5% on both tasks.

Original: This suggests that if chiral tags are used as the only indication of chirality (i.e., 3D geometry is excluded), using the learned node aggregation scheme provides a simple way to improve the ability of 2D GNNs to learn chiral functions.
Revised: This suggests that if chiral tags are used as the only indication of chirality (i.e., 3D geometry is excluded), using the learned node aggregation scheme provides a simple way to improve the ability of 2D GNNs to learn chiral functions.

Original: Notably, adding chiral tags to the unablated ChIRo does not improve performance, which is expected given ChIRo’s improvements over 2D baselines (Table 2).
Revised: Notably, adding chiral tags to the unablated ChIRo does not improve performance, which is expected given ChIRo’s improvements over 2D baselines (Table 2).

Original: Omitting chiral tags and 3D geometry yields an achiral 2D GNN.
Revised: Omitting chiral tags and 3D geometry yields an achiral 2D GNN.

Original:  C ONCLUSION
Revised:  C ONCLUSION

Original: In this work we design a method for improving representations of molecular stereochemistry in graph neural networks through encoding 3D bond distances, angles, and  torsions.
Revised: In this work we design a method for improving representations of molecular stereochemistry in graph neural networks through encoding 3D bond distances, angles, and especially torsions.

Original: Our torsion encoder learnsan expressive representation of tetrahedral chirality by processing coupled torsion angles that share a common bond while simultaneously achieving invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds, diminishing the need for conformer-based data augmentation to capture conformational flexibility.
Revised: Our torsion encoder learns expressive representations of tetrahedral chirality by processing coupled torsion angles that share a common bond while simultaneously achieving invariance to rotations about internal molecular bonds, diminishing the need for conformer-based data augmentation to capture conformational flexibility.

Original: Comparisons to the E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++ and theSE(3)-invariant
Revised: Comparisons to the E(3)-invariant SchNet and DimeNet++ and the

Original:  SphereNet on a variety of tasks (one self-supervised, three supervised) dependent on molecular chirality demonstrate that ChIRo achieves state-of-the-art in learning chiral representations from 3D molecular structures, while also outperforming 2D GNNs.
Revised: SE(3)-invariant SphereNet on a variety of tasks (one self-supervised, three supervised) dependent on molecular chirality demonstrate that ChIRo achieves state-of-the-art in learning chiral representations from 3D molecular structures, while also outperforming 2D GNNs.

Original: We leave consideration of other types of stereoisomerism, particularly cis/trans isomerism and atropisomerism, to future work.
Revised: We leave consideration of other types of stereoisomerism, particularly cis/trans isomerism and atropisomerism, to future work.

Original: E THICS S TATEMENT
Revised: E THICS S TATEMENT

Original: Advancing representations of molecular chirality and conformational flexibility has the potential to accelerate pharmaceutical drug design, renewable energy development, and progress towards energy-efficient and waste-reducing catalysts, among other areas of scientific research.
Revised: Advancing representations of molecular chirality and conformational flexibility has the potential to accelerate pharmaceutical drug design, renewable energy development, and progress towards energy-efficient and waste-reducing catalysts, among other areas of scientific research.

Original: However, in principle, the same advances could also be used for harmful biological, chemical, or materials research and applications thereof.
Revised: However, in principle, the same advances could also be used for harmful biological, chemical, or materials research and applications thereof.

Original: R EPRODUCIBILITY S TATEMENT
Revised: R EPRODUCIBILITY S TATEMENT

Original: Care has been taken to ensure reproducibility of all models and experiments in this paper.
Revised: Care has been taken to ensure reproducibility of all models and experiments in this paper.

Original: In addition to detailing exact model architectures and training details in the appendix, we make source code with experimental setups, model implementations, and random seeds available at https://github. com/keiradams/ChIRo .
Revised: In addition to detailing exact model architectures and training details in the appendix, we make source code with experimental setups, model implementations, and random seeds available at https://github. com/keiradams/ChIRo .

Original: Our GitHub site also contains links to the exact datasets and splits used in each experiment for the contrastive learning, R/S classification, and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks.
Revised: Our GitHub site also contains links to the exact datasets and splits used in each experiment for the contrastive learning, R/S classification, and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks.

Original: Although copyright restrictions prevent us from releasing the dataset and splits for the l / d classification task, we detail our data filtering and processing steps in appendix A.7.
Revised: Although copyright restrictions prevent us from releasing the dataset and splits for the l / d classification task, we detail our data filtering and processing steps in appendix A.7.

Original: A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
Revised: A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

Original: This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under grant number N00014-21-12195.
Revised: This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under grant number N00014-21-12195.

Original: L.P. thanks the MIT-Takeda fellowship program for financial support.
Revised: L.P. thanks the MIT-Takeda fellowship program for financial support.

Original: The authors acknowledge the MIT SuperCloud and Lincoln Laboratory Supercomputing Center for providing HPC resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper.
Revised: The authors acknowledge the MIT SuperCloud and Lincoln Laboratory Supercomputing Center for providing HPC resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper.

Original: The authors thank
Revised: The authors thank

Original: Octavian Ganea and John Bradshaw for providing helpful suggestions regarding the content and organization of this paper.
Revised: Octavian Ganea and John Bradshaw for providing helpful suggestions regarding the content and organization of this paper.

Original: A A PPENDIX C ONTENTS A Appendix
Revised: A A PPENDIX C ONTENTS A Appendix

Original: A.1 Why does plotting α ( xy ) sin vs. α ( xy ) cos yield a perfect circle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.1 Why does plotting α ( xy ) sin vs. α ( xy ) cos yield a perfect circle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.2 Why do we need phase shifts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.2 Why do we need phase shifts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.3 Chiral Message Passing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.3 Chiral Message Passing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.4 Model Architectures . .
Revised: A.4 Model Architectures . .

Original: A.4.1 ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.4.1 ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.4.2 3D Baselines . .
Revised: A.4.2 3D Baselines . .

Original: A.4.3 2D Baselines . .
Revised: A.4.3 2D Baselines . .

Original: A.5 Training Details . .
Revised: A.5 Training Details . .

Original: A.5.1 DimeNet++ Initializations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.5.1 DimeNet++ Initializations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.5.2 SphereNet Data Processing Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.5.2 SphereNet Data Processing Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.5.3 Auxiliary Torsion Loss when Training ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.5.3 Auxiliary Torsion Loss when Training ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.5.4 Contrastive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.5.4 Contrastive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.5.5 R / S Classification . .
Revised: A.5.5 R / S Classification . .

Original: A.5.6 l / d Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.5.6 l / d Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.5.

Revised: A.5.

Original: Ranking Enantiomers by Docking Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: Ranking Enantiomers by Docking Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.6 Hyperparameter Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.6 Hyperparameter Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.6.1 ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.6.1 ChIRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.6.2 SphereNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.6.2 SphereNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.6.3 DMPNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.6.3 DMPNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.7 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.7 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.7.1 Contrastive Learning and R/S Classification Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.7.1 Contrastive Learning and R/S Classification Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.7.2 l / d Classification Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.7.2 l / d Classification Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.7.

Revised: A.7.

Original: Ranking Enantiomers by Docking Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: Ranking Enantiomers by Docking Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.8 Additional Ablations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised: A.8 Additional Ablations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original: A.9 Additional Evaluation of
Revised: A.9 Additional Evaluation of

Original: A. W HY DOES PLOTTING
Revised: A. W HY DOES PLOTTING

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: YIELD A PERFECT CIRCLE ?
Revised: YIELD A PERFECT CIRCLE ?

Original: It is not immediately obvious that plotting α ( xy ) sin versus α ( xy ) cos forms a perfect circle with a constant radius, as opposed to an ellipse or other shape with non-constant radii.
Revised: It is not immediately obvious that plotting α ( xy ) sin versus α ( xy ) cos forms a perfect circle with a constant radius, as opposed to an ellipse or other shape with non-constant radii.

Original: Yet, this result follows from simple trigonometry.
Revised: Yet, this result follows from simple trigonometry.

Original: From Equation 11, we have:
Revised: From Equation 11, we have:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for a internal molecular bond between nodes ( x, y ) that forms a set of coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) where i ∈ N ( x ) \ { y } and j ∈ N ( y ) \ { x } .
Revised: for a internal molecular bond between nodes ( x, y ) that forms a set of coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) where i ∈ N ( x ) \ { y } and j ∈ N ( y ) \ { x } .

Original: For clarity, we drop the ( xy ) notation and index each torsion in this set of n coupled torsions by a single index k
Revised: For clarity, we drop the ( xy ) notation and index each torsion in this set of n coupled torsions by a single index k

Original: such that { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) = { ψ k } nk =1 .
Revised: such that { ψ ixyj } ( i,j ) = { ψ k } nk =1 .

Original: We want to show that plotting (cid:80) nk =1 c k sin
Revised: We want to show that plotting (cid:80) nk =1 c k sin

Original: ( R + ψ k + φ k ) versus (cid:80)
Revised: ( R + ψ k + φ k ) versus (cid:80)

Original: nk =1 c k cos( R + ψ k + φ k ) , where
Revised: nk =1 c k cos( R + ψ k + φ k ) , where

Original: R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) is a rotation of the bond ( x, y ) , yields a circle with a constant radius invariant to the rotation R .
Revised: R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) is a rotation of the bond ( x, y ) , yields a circle with a constant radius invariant to the rotation R .

Original: As a simple case, consider n = 2 .
Revised: As a simple case, consider n = 2 .

Original: We then have:
Revised: We then have:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: α cos can be expanded and simplified as:
Revised: α cos can be expanded and simplified as:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where
Revised: where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Similarly, α sin can be expanded and simplified as:
Revised: Similarly, α sin can be expanded and simplified as:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where
Revised: where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Since d = d ′ and e = e ′
Revised: Since d = d ′ and e = e ′

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: we have that α cos =
Revised: we have that α cos =

Original: d cos( R + e ) and α sin =
Revised: d cos( R + e ) and α sin =

Original: d sin( R + e ) .
Revised: d sin( R + e ) .

Original: It follows that in the general case ( n ≥ 2 ):
Revised: It follows that in the general case ( n ≥ 2 ):

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for some coefficients r and s , where R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) represents some rotation about the internal bond.
Revised: for some coefficients r and s , where R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) represents some rotation about the internal bond.

Original: It is immediately obvious that plotting α sin versus α cos for all R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) yields a perfect circle with radius r .
Revised: It is immediately obvious that plotting α sin versus α cos for all R ∈ [0 , 2 π ) yields a perfect circle with radius r .

Original: A. W HY DO WE NEED PHASE SHIFTS ?
Revised: A. W HY DO WE NEED PHASE SHIFTS ?

Original: At first glance, it is unclear as to why Equations 8-9 are insufficient to learn chirality, e.g. why we need to add phase shifts to distinguish enantiomers.
Revised: At first glance, it is unclear as to why Equations 8-9 are insufficient to learn chirality, e.g. why we need to add phase shifts to distinguish enantiomers.

Original: To understand why this is the case, consider an arbitrary stereoisomer containing an internal molecular bond between nodes x and y (with x or y being chiral) that forms a set of n coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j )
Revised: To understand why this is the case, consider an arbitrary stereoisomer containing an internal molecular bond between nodes x and y (with x or y being chiral) that forms a set of n coupled torsions { ψ ixyj } ( i,j )

Original: = { ψ ( k ) xy } nk =1 indexed by k .
Revised: = { ψ ( k ) xy } nk =1 indexed by k .

Original: Direct computation of the norm ||
Revised: Direct computation of the norm ||

Original: α ( xy ) cos , α ( xy ) sin ||
Revised: α ( xy ) cos , α ( xy ) sin ||

Original: = ||
Revised: = ||

Original: α cos , α sin || yields:
Revised: α cos , α sin || yields:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where we have dropped the ( xy ) notation for clarity.
Revised: where we have dropped the ( xy ) notation for clarity.

Original: Expanding and squaring Equation 8 gives:
Revised: Expanding and squaring Equation 8 gives:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Now consider reflecting this stereoisomer across a plane to generate its enantiomer with inverted chiral centers.
Revised: Now consider reflecting this stereoisomer across a plane to generate its enantiomer with inverted chiral centers.

Original: Reflecting a conformer negates all its torsions, and thus the reflected enantiomer’s internal bond between (reflected) nodes x ′ and y ′ will form a set of n negated torsions { ψ ′ ixyj } ( i,j ) =
Revised: Reflecting a conformer negates all its torsions, and thus the reflected enantiomer’s internal bond between (reflected) nodes x ′ and y ′ will form a set of n negated torsions { ψ ′ ixyj } ( i,j ) =

Original: { ψ ′ ( k ) xy } nk =1 where ψ ′ ( k ) xy = − ψ ( k ) xy for each k .
Revised: { ψ ′ ( k ) xy } nk =1 where ψ ′ ( k ) xy = − ψ ( k ) xy for each k .

Original: Because enantiomers have the same 2D graph connectivity, the learned set of coefficients { c k } (which depend only on the permutation invariant node features, see Equation 5) will be identical between enantiomers.
Revised: Because enantiomers have the same 2D graph connectivity, the learned set of coefficients { c k } (which depend only on the permutation invariant node features, see Equation 5) will be identical between enantiomers.

Original: It immediately follows from the identities sin( − x ) = − sin( x ) and cos( − x ) =
Revised: It immediately follows from the identities sin( − x ) = − sin( x ) and cos( − x ) =

Original: cos( x ) that α ′ cos 2 =
Revised: cos( x ) that α ′ cos 2 =

Original: α 2 cos and α ′ sin 2 = α 2 sin .
Revised: α 2 cos and α ′ sin 2 = α 2 sin .

Original: Because || α cos , α sin || is invariant to any rotation of the bond ( x, y ) , no matter how we rotate ( x, y ) or ( x ′ , y ′ ) , ||
Revised: Because || α cos , α sin || is invariant to any rotation of the bond ( x, y ) , no matter how we rotate ( x, y ) or ( x ′ , y ′ ) , ||

Original: α cos , α sin ||
Revised: α cos , α sin ||

Original: = ||
Revised: = ||

Original: α ′ cos , α ′ sin
Revised: α ′ cos , α ′ sin

Original: || .
Revised: || .

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: C HIRAL M ESSAGE P ASSING
Revised: C HIRAL M ESSAGE P ASSING

Original: Tetrahedral chirality is fundamentally a node-level property.
Revised: Tetrahedral chirality is fundamentally a node-level property.

Original: Yet, we have treated chirality through the lens of torsions and internal bonds involving chiral centers.
Revised: Yet, we have treated chirality through the lens of torsions and internal bonds involving chiral centers.

Original: To propagate the learned representations of chirality to node states, we may perform an (optional) additional phase of message passing
Revised: To propagate the learned representations of chirality to node states, we may perform an (optional) additional phase of message passing

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: treating each z α xy as a vector of edge-attributes.
Revised: treating each z α xy as a vector of edge-attributes.

Original: This might allow the model to propagate chiral information across the graph,
Revised: This might allow the model to propagate chiral information across the graph,

Original: i
Revised: i

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: e., help learn the global effects of local chirality.
Revised: e., help learn the global effects of local chirality.

Original: This phase may be included prior to readout
Revised: This phase may be included prior to readout

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: and uses a single EConv layer followed by a sequence of T CMP GAT layers:
Revised: and uses a single EConv layer followed by a sequence of T CMP GAT layers:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: During readout, these updated node states h CMP i are summed rather than the (non-chiral) node states.
Revised: During readout, these updated node states h CMP i are summed rather than the (non-chiral) node states.

Original: Table 4 reports the effects of including chiral message passing on ChIRo’s performance on the l / d classification task and the ranking enantiomers by docking scores task, along with the effects of ablating other components of ChIRo.
Revised: Table 4 reports the effects of including chiral message passing on ChIRo’s performance on the l / d classification task and the ranking enantiomers by docking scores task, along with the effects of ablating other components of ChIRo.

Original: Although CMP does not improve performance (and marginally hurts) the unablated ChIRo, using CMP in place of ( z d , z ϕ , z α ) during readout provides another option of augmenting 2D GNNs that solely use chiral tags as the only indication of chirality.
Revised: Although CMP does not improve performance (and marginally hurts) the unablated ChIRo, using CMP in place of ( z d , z ϕ , z α ) during readout provides another option of augmenting 2D GNNs that solely use chiral tags as the only indication of chirality.

Original: A. M ODEL A RCHITECTURES A.4. C H IR O
Revised: A. M ODEL A RCHITECTURES A.4. C H IR O

Original: Figure 4 visualizes the full architecture of ChIRo.
Revised: Figure 4 visualizes the full architecture of ChIRo.

Original: Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters chosen for each task.
Revised: Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters chosen for each task.

Original: See appendix A.6 for details on hyperparameter optimizations.
Revised: See appendix A.6 for details on hyperparameter optimizations.

Original: Edge Convolution 2D Message Passing
Revised: Edge Convolution 2D Message Passing

Original: Bond Distance Encoder
Revised: Bond Distance Encoder

Original: Sum-Pooling
Revised: Sum-Pooling

Original: Bond Angle Encoder
Revised: Bond Angle Encoder

Original: Torsion Encoder
Revised: Torsion Encoder

Original: L2-normalization
Revised: L2-normalization

Original: Sum-Pooling Edge Convolution
Revised: Sum-Pooling Edge Convolution

Original: GAT Layers
Revised: GAT Layers

Original: Readout
Revised: Readout

Original: Internal Coordinates
Revised: Internal Coordinates

Original: O O
Revised: O O

Original: O
Revised: O

Original: Sum-Pooling
Revised: Sum-Pooling

Original: GAT Layers
Revised: GAT Layers

Original: Edge/Node Featurization
Revised: Edge/Node Featurization

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: LeakyReLU
Revised: LeakyReLU

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Identity
Revised: Identity

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: EConv
Revised: EConv

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Layers    h 0 , h T , h
Revised: Layers    h 0 , h T , h

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: t
Revised: t

Original: Dimension    h t , t = 1 , ..., T − 1 Dimension    # GAT Layers    # GAT Heads    f d Hidden Layer Size –   f d # Hidden Layers –   f
Revised: Dimension    h t , t = 1 , ..., T − 1 Dimension    # GAT Layers    # GAT Heads    f d Hidden Layer Size –   f d # Hidden Layers –   f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Hidden Layer Size –   f
Revised: Hidden Layer Size –   f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: # Hidden Layers –   f
Revised: # Hidden Layers –   f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Hidden Layer Size    f
Revised: Hidden Layer Size    f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: # Hidden Layers    f
Revised: # Hidden Layers    f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Layer Size    f
Revised: Layer Size    f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Layers    f
Revised: Layers    f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Size    f
Revised: Size    f

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: # Hidden Layers    f out Hidden Layer Size –   f out # Hidden Layers –   z d , z ϕ , z
Revised: # Hidden Layers    f out Hidden Layer Size –   f out # Hidden Layers –   z d , z ϕ , z

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Dimension
Revised: Dimension

Original: CMP EConv Hidden Layer Size –
Revised: CMP EConv Hidden Layer Size –

Original: CMP EConv # Hidden Layers –   #
Revised: CMP EConv # Hidden Layers –   #

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: Layers –   # CMP GAT Heads –   γ aux 8.25e6.86e1.86e8.25eLearning Rate 6.06e5.69e-
Revised: Layers –   # CMP GAT Heads –   γ aux 8.25e6.86e1.86e8.25eLearning Rate 6.06e5.69e-

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: A.4. 3D B ASELINES
Revised: A.4. 3D B ASELINES

Original: To adapt SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet for our tasks, we increase the dimensionality of their respective aggregated node embeddings (“out channels”) and use this aggregation as a latent vector either for direct use in Equation 14 (for self-supervised contrastive learning)
Revised: To adapt SchNet, DimeNet++, and SphereNet for our tasks, we increase the dimensionality of their respective aggregated node embeddings (“out channels”) and use this aggregation as a latent vector either for direct use in Equation 14 (for self-supervised contrastive learning)

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: or for input to a feedforward readout MLP for downstream regression/classification.
Revised: or for input to a feedforward readout MLP for downstream regression/classification.

Original: For all three 3D GNNs, we use their default node featurizations, using the atomic number as the only node feature.
Revised: For all three 3D GNNs, we use their default node featurizations, using the atomic number as the only node feature.

Original: Table 6 lists the hyperparameters used for SphereNet on all four tasks.
Revised: Table 6 lists the hyperparameters used for SphereNet on all four tasks.

Original: Tables 7 and 8 list the hyperparameters used for SchNet and DimeNet++ on the contrastive learning and R / S classification tasks.
Revised: Tables 7 and 8 list the hyperparameters used for SchNet and DimeNet++ on the contrastive learning and R / S classification tasks.

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: To optimize hyperparameters for all 2D baselines, we directy use the code provided by Pattanaik et al..
Revised: To optimize hyperparameters for all 2D baselines, we directy use the code provided by Pattanaik et al..

Original: We do not make any modifications to the architectures, since we train on similar tasks as the original work.
Revised: We do not make any modifications to the architectures, since we train on similar tasks as the original work.

Original: A. T RAINING D ETAILS
Revised: A. T RAINING D ETAILS

Original: This section describes the full training protocols for each task considered in this paper.
Revised: This section describes the full training protocols for each task considered in this paper.

Original: A.5. D IME N ET ++ I NITIALIZATIONS
Revised: A.5. D IME N ET ++ I NITIALIZATIONS

Original: The default parameter initializations for the output blocks of DimeNet++ make DimeNet++ unable to break symmetry between different output channels when the number of output channels is set > 1 .
Revised: The default parameter initializations for the output blocks of DimeNet++ make DimeNet++ unable to break symmetry between different output channels when the number of output channels is set > 1 .

Original: Thus, we remove the default initializations for the output blocks when training DimeNet++ on the contrastive learning task (out channels = 2) and the R/S classification task (out channels = 32).
Revised: Thus, we remove the default initializations for the output blocks when training DimeNet++ on the contrastive learning task (out channels = 2) and the R/S classification task (out channels = 32).

Original: A.5. S PHERE N ET D ATA P ROCESSING E RRORS
Revised: A.5. S PHERE N ET D ATA P ROCESSING E RRORS

Original: When training SphereNet, occasionally the publicly-available implementation of SphereNet failed to process select conformers.
Revised: When training SphereNet, occasionally the publicly-available implementation of SphereNet failed to process select conformers.

Original: Because this occurred for only a tiny fraction of the conformers in the overall datasets, we removed 2D graphs whose stereoisomers contained problematic conformers from the R/S and l / d datasets for SphereNet only .
Revised: Because this occurred for only a tiny fraction of the conformers in the overall datasets, we removed 2D graphs whose stereoisomers contained problematic conformers from the R/S and l / d datasets for SphereNet only .

Original: We emphasize that this filtering step did not meaningfully change the size of the datasets: only 40 2D graphs (out of 39,256) were removed for the R/S task, and only 6 2D graphs (out of 15,038) were removed for the l / d task.
Revised: We emphasize that this filtering step did not meaningfully change the size of the datasets: only 40 2D graphs (out of 39,256) were removed for the R/S task, and only 6 2D graphs (out of 15,038) were removed for the l / d task.

Original: No molecules had to be removed for the ranking enantiomers by docking scores task.
Revised: No molecules had to be removed for the ranking enantiomers by docking scores task.

Original: For the contrastive learning task, we simply skipped the rare batch during training/inference that contained problematic conformers.
Revised: For the contrastive learning task, we simply skipped the rare batch during training/inference that contained problematic conformers.

Original: Only 452 2D graphs out of 257,743 caused processing errors in the contrastive learning dataset.
Revised: Only 452 2D graphs out of 257,743 caused processing errors in the contrastive learning dataset.

Original: A.5. A UXILIARY T ORSION L OSS WHEN T RAINING C H IR O
Revised: A.5. A UXILIARY T ORSION L OSS WHEN T RAINING C H IR O

Original: In Equation 10, we predict an angular phase shift φ by using f φ to predict cos φ and sin φ separately with a linear output activation, and then use ℓ 2 normalization on the vector [cos φ, sin φ ] to ensure that these sin and cos (and thus the angle φ ) have correct circular properties, namely that φ ∈ [0 , 2 π ) .
Revised: In Equation 10, we predict an angular phase shift φ by using f φ to predict cos φ and sin φ separately with a linear output activation, and then use ℓ 2 normalization on the vector [cos φ, sin φ ] to ensure that these sin and cos (and thus the angle φ ) have correct circular properties, namely that φ ∈ [0 , 2 π ) .

Original: We have chosen to predict angles using sin and cos rather than directly predicting a scalar φ ∈ [0 , 2 π ) (e.g., through a scaled sigmoid activation) in order to avoid biasing the predicted phase shifts toward 0 .
Revised: We have chosen to predict angles using sin and cos rather than directly predicting a scalar φ ∈ [0 , 2 π ) (e.g., through a scaled sigmoid activation) in order to avoid biasing the predicted phase shifts toward 0 .

Original: However, the ℓ 2 normalization can also cause the predicted phase shift to be biased toward 0 , π/ 2 , π , and 3 π/ 2 if one of the unnormalized cos φ or sin φ blows up.
Revised: However, the ℓ 2 normalization can also cause the predicted phase shift to be biased toward 0 , π/ 2 , π , and 3 π/ 2 if one of the unnormalized cos φ or sin φ blows up.

Original: To prevent this, we follow Jumper et al.
Revised: To prevent this, we follow Jumper et al.

Original: (2021) in adding an auxiliary loss during training to encourage the unnormalized [cos φ, sin φ ] to fall close to the unit circle:
Revised: (2021) in adding an auxiliary loss during training to encourage the unnormalized [cos φ, sin φ ] to fall close to the unit circle:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where γ aux is a small scalar that is tuned during hyperparameter optimization.
Revised: where γ aux is a small scalar that is tuned during hyperparameter optimization.

Original: A.5. C ONTRASTIVE L EARNING
Revised: A.5. C ONTRASTIVE L EARNING

Original: For contrastive learning, we train with a triplet margin loss with a normalized Euclidean distance metric and a margin of 1 (Equation 14).
Revised: For contrastive learning, we train with a triplet margin loss with a normalized Euclidean distance metric and a margin of 1 (Equation 14).

Original: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of distinct stereoisomers (not conformers) in the training set and b is the batch size.
Revised: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of distinct stereoisomers (not conformers) in the training set and b is the batch size.

Original: Before triplet sampling, each minibatch therefore contains b stereoisomers.
Revised: Before triplet sampling, each minibatch therefore contains b stereoisomers.

Original: For each stereoisomer i = (1 , 2 , ..., b ) in the minibatch, we then generate a triplet ( a, p, n ) , where a (anchor) and p (positive) are two randomly selected (without replacement) conformers of stereoisomer i , and n (negative) is a randomly selected conformer of stereoisomer j ̸
Revised: For each stereoisomer i = (1 , 2 , ..., b ) in the minibatch, we then generate a triplet ( a, p, n ) , where a (anchor) and p (positive) are two randomly selected (without replacement) conformers of stereoisomer i , and n (negative) is a randomly selected conformer of stereoisomer j ̸

Original: = i , where i and j share the same 2D graph connectivity.
Revised: = i , where i and j share the same 2D graph connectivity.

Original: If stereoisomer i has multiple different stereoisomers j, k, ... (all sharing the same 2D graph) present in the training set, one of these stereoisomers is randomly chosen.
Revised: If stereoisomer i has multiple different stereoisomers j, k, ... (all sharing the same 2D graph) present in the training set, one of these stereoisomers is randomly chosen.

Original: Each anchor, positive, and negative in each triplet are processed independently by the network to generate b triplets of latent vectors ( z a , z p , z n ), which are then fed into the triplet margin loss function.
Revised: Each anchor, positive, and negative in each triplet are processed independently by the network to generate b triplets of latent vectors ( z a , z p , z n ), which are then fed into the triplet margin loss function.

Original: Loss contributions from each triplet are averaged to form a loss for the entire batch.
Revised: Loss contributions from each triplet are averaged to form a loss for the entire batch.

Original: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch triplet loss.
Revised: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch triplet loss.

Original: We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba, 2014) with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.
Revised: We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba, 2014) with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.

Original: We train each model for a maximum of 50 epochs, and use the batch-averaged triplet loss (without the auxiliary torsion loss contributions) on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 50 epochs.
Revised: We train each model for a maximum of 50 epochs, and use the batch-averaged triplet loss (without the auxiliary torsion loss contributions) on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 50 epochs.

Original: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.
Revised: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.

Original: A.5. R / S C LASSIFICATION
Revised: A.5. R / S C LASSIFICATION

Original: For R / S classification, we train each 3D model with a binary cross-entropy loss.
Revised: For R / S classification, we train each 3D model with a binary cross-entropy loss.

Original: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.
Revised: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.

Original: For each enantiomer in the batch, we randomly sample a conformer for that enantiomer and a conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.
Revised: For each enantiomer in the batch, we randomly sample a conformer for that enantiomer and a conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.

Original: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.
Revised: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.

Original: We average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.
Revised: We average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.

Original: In the case of ChIRo, the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch is added to the batch cross-entropy loss.
Revised: In the case of ChIRo, the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch is added to the batch cross-entropy loss.

Original: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.
Revised: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.

Original: We train each model for a maximum of 100 epochs, and use the batch-averaged classification accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 100 epochs.
Revised: We train each model for a maximum of 100 epochs, and use the batch-averaged classification accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 100 epochs.

Original: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.
Revised: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.

Original: For testing, we evaluate the classification accuracy on all conformers in the test set, and do not use any form of conformer-based averaging or voting.
Revised: For testing, we evaluate the classification accuracy on all conformers in the test set, and do not use any form of conformer-based averaging or voting.

Original: A.5. l / d C LASSIFICATION
Revised: A.5. l / d C LASSIFICATION

Original: For l / d classification, we train each model with a binary cross-entropy loss.
Revised: For l / d classification, we train each model with a binary cross-entropy loss.

Original: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.
Revised: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.

Original: For each enantiomer in the batch, we sample either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer for that enantiomer, and either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.
Revised: For each enantiomer in the batch, we sample either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer for that enantiomer, and either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.

Original: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.
Revised: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.

Original: In both cases, we average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.
Revised: In both cases, we average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.

Original: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch cross-entropy loss.
Revised: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch cross-entropy loss.

Original: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.
Revised: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.

Original: We train each model for a maximum of 100 epochs, and use the batch-averaged classification accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 100 epochs.
Revised: We train each model for a maximum of 100 epochs, and use the batch-averaged classification accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 100 epochs.

Original: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.
Revised: We do not employ dropout or other forms of explicit regularization.

Original: For testing, we evaluate the classification accuracy on all conformers in the test set, and do not use any form of conformer-based averaging or voting.
Revised: For testing, we evaluate the classification accuracy on all conformers in the test set, and do not use any form of conformer-based averaging or voting.

Original: A.5. R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES
Revised: A.5. R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES

Original: For ranking enantiomers by their docking scores, we train each model with a mean squared error (MSE) loss, with the target values being the ground-truth docking scores for each enantiomer.
Revised: For ranking enantiomers by their docking scores, we train each model with a mean squared error (MSE) loss, with the target values being the ground-truth docking scores for each enantiomer.

Original: Note that although we train the models with an MSE loss, we are more concerned with the ability of each model to correctly rank enantiomers by their docking scores than with the absolute performance of each model as a surrogate model for docking score prediction.
Revised: Note that although we train the models with an MSE loss, we are more concerned with the ability of each model to correctly rank enantiomers by their docking scores than with the absolute performance of each model as a surrogate model for docking score prediction.

Original: Thus, we evaluate this task using the ranking accuracy, defined as whether or not the model correctly predicts a lower docking score for the enantiomer with the lower ground-truth score.
Revised: Thus, we evaluate this task using the ranking accuracy, defined as whether or not the model correctly predicts a lower docking score for the enantiomer with the lower ground-truth score.

Original: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.
Revised: In each training epoch, we randomly partition the training data into N/b minibatches, where N is the number of enantiomers in the training set and b is the batch size.

Original: For each enantiomer in the batch, we sample either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer for that enantiomer, and either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.
Revised: For each enantiomer in the batch, we sample either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer for that enantiomer, and either 1) a random conformer or 2) a pre-selected conformer conformer for its opposite enantiomer with the same 2D graph.

Original: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.
Revised: This ensures that minibatches contain both enantiomers of the enantiomeric pair such that the stochastic gradient steps consider contributions from both enantiomers.

Original: In both cases, we average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.
Revised: In both cases, we average the loss contributions for all conformers in the batch.

Original: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch MSE loss.
Revised: In the case of ChIRo, we add the mean auxiliary torsion loss across all conformers in the batch to the batch MSE loss.

Original: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.
Revised: We use the Adam optimizer with a flat learning rate throughout training, but employ gradient clipping with a maximum gradient L2-norm of 10.

Original: We train each model for a maximum of 150 epochs, and use the batch-averaged ranking accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 150 epochs.
Revised: We train each model for a maximum of 150 epochs, and use the batch-averaged ranking accuracy on the validation set to select the model with the best estimated generalization performance across the 150 epochs.

Original: We do not employ dropout or other forms of regularization.
Revised: We do not employ dropout or other forms of regularization.

Original: For testing, we first predict the docking score for all conformers in the test set.
Revised: For testing, we first predict the docking score for all conformers in the test set.

Original: We then average the predicted docking scores for each conformer of each enantiomer, yielding a mean predicted score for each enantiomer.
Revised: We then average the predicted docking scores for each conformer of each enantiomer, yielding a mean predicted score for each enantiomer.

Original: Finally, we compute the ranking accuracy using these mean predicted scores.
Revised: Finally, we compute the ranking accuracy using these mean predicted scores.

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: A. H YPERPARAMETER O PTIMIZATIONS A.6. C H IR O
Revised: A. H YPERPARAMETER O PTIMIZATIONS A.6. C H IR O

Original: Hyperparameters were tuned for ChIRo on the R / S, l / d , and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, using the Raytune (Liaw et al., 2018)
Revised: Hyperparameters were tuned for ChIRo on the R / S, l / d , and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, using the Raytune (Liaw et al., 2018)

Original: Python package with the HyperOpt plug-in.
Revised: Python package with the HyperOpt plug-in.

Original: For the R / S classification and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, we tuned hyperparameters by training with the training set and evaluating model accuracy on the validation set.
Revised: For the R / S classification and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, we tuned hyperparameters by training with the training set and evaluating model accuracy on the validation set.

Original: For the l / d classification task, we used the training and validation splits of the first cross-validation fold to tune hyperparameters, evaluating model accuracy on the validation split.
Revised: For the l / d classification task, we used the training and validation splits of the first cross-validation fold to tune hyperparameters, evaluating model accuracy on the validation split.

Original: The optimal hyperparameters were then held constant for the remaining four folds.
Revised: The optimal hyperparameters were then held constant for the remaining four folds.

Original: For each task below, we used the HyperOptSearch search algorithm in Raytune, which employs
Revised: For each task below, we used the HyperOptSearch search algorithm in Raytune, which employs

Original: Tree-structured Parzen Estimators, to search for optimal hyperparameters over the search space specified in Table 10.
Revised: Tree-structured Parzen Estimators, to search for optimal hyperparameters over the search space specified in Table 10.

Original: R / S Classification.
Revised: R / S Classification.

Original: We trained a total of 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.
Revised: We trained a total of 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.

Original: l / d Classification
Revised: l / d Classification

Original: We performed two stages of optimization.
Revised: We performed two stages of optimization.

Original: We first trained 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband
Revised: We first trained 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband

Original: Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.
Revised: Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.

Original: We then re-ran the optimization for 50 parameter combinations over a maximum of 100 epochs, using the best five models from the first optimization as starting (seed) configurations.
Revised: We then re-ran the optimization for 50 parameter combinations over a maximum of 100 epochs, using the best five models from the first optimization as starting (seed) configurations.

Original: In this second stage, we again used HyperOptSearch but changed the Async Hyperband Scheduler to use parameters (grace period = 10, reduction factor = 4, brackets = 1).
Revised: In this second stage, we again used HyperOptSearch but changed the Async Hyperband Scheduler to use parameters (grace period = 10, reduction factor = 4, brackets = 1).

Original: Ranking enantiomers by docking score.
Revised: Ranking enantiomers by docking score.

Original: We trained a total of 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.
Revised: We trained a total of 100 models with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping.

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: Hyperparameters were also tuned for SphereNet on the R / S, l / d , and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, using the same optimization methodologies as when tuning ChIRo.
Revised: Hyperparameters were also tuned for SphereNet on the R / S, l / d , and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks, using the same optimization methodologies as when tuning ChIRo.

Original: The hyperparameter search space is specified in Table 11.
Revised: The hyperparameter search space is specified in Table 11.

Original: In each of these tasks, we trained a total ofmodels with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the HyperOptSearch algorithm and the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping
Revised: In each of these tasks, we trained a total ofmodels with different hyperparameter combinations for a maximum of 50 epochs, using the HyperOptSearch algorithm and the Async Hyperband Scheduler (grace period = 5, reduction factor = 3, brackets = 1) for aggressive early stopping

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: A.6. DMPNN
Revised: A.6. DMPNN

Original: We tune hyperparameters for the DMPNN on the l / d classification and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks using the original code provided by Pattanaik et al., which employs the Optuna hyperoptimization framework (Akiba et al., 2019).
Revised: We tune hyperparameters for the DMPNN on the l / d classification and ranking enantiomers by docking score tasks using the original code provided by Pattanaik et al., which employs the Optuna hyperoptimization framework (Akiba et al., 2019).

Original: We train a total of 100 models using the HyperbandPruner algorithm to prune unpromising trials and the CmaEsSampler to sample new trials.
Revised: We train a total of 100 models using the HyperbandPruner algorithm to prune unpromising trials and the CmaEsSampler to sample new trials.

Original: Note that we only optimize hyperparameters for the sum aggregation baseline model, and we extend these hyperparameters to the TetraDMPNN models, following the work of Pattanaik et al..
Revised: Note that we only optimize hyperparameters for the sum aggregation baseline model, and we extend these hyperparameters to the TetraDMPNN models, following the work of Pattanaik et al..

Original: Because the
Revised: Because the

Original: TetraDMPNN models use a permutation-based aggregation function, the runtime of these models is much slower, which renders a full hyperparameter optimization infeasible.
Revised: TetraDMPNN models use a permutation-based aggregation function, the runtime of these models is much slower, which renders a full hyperparameter optimization infeasible.

Original: A. D ATASETS A.7. C ONTRASTIVE L EARNING AND R/S C LASSIFICATION D ATASETS
Revised: A. D ATASETS A.7. C ONTRASTIVE L EARNING AND R/S C LASSIFICATION D ATASETS

Original: To create the datasets for the contrastive learning and R/S classification tasks, we first randomly selected 50 sdf files from the “10 conformers per compound” directory from the PubChem3D FTP site ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubchem/Compound_3D/ , out of 6199 available.
Revised: To create the datasets for the contrastive learning and R/S classification tasks, we first randomly selected 50 sdf files from the “10 conformers per compound” directory from the PubChem3D FTP site ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubchem/Compound_3D/ , out of 6199 available.

Original: After extracting the conformers in each sdf file, we filtered the data to only include conformers of 2D graphs for which at least 2 stereoisomers appear in the data, and where each of these stereoisomers has at least 2 conformers in the data.
Revised: After extracting the conformers in each sdf file, we filtered the data to only include conformers of 2D graphs for which at least 2 stereoisomers appear in the data, and where each of these stereoisomers has at least 2 conformers in the data.

Original: We further filtered the data to only include 2D graphs whose conformers contain at least 1 torsion, as recognized by RDKit.
Revised: We further filtered the data to only include 2D graphs whose conformers contain at least 1 torsion, as recognized by RDKit.

Original: This dataset was separated into 80/20 partitions, with conformers corresponding to the same 2D graph being assigned to the same data partition.
Revised: This dataset was separated into 80/20 partitions, with conformers corresponding to the same 2D graph being assigned to the same data partition.

Original: The larger (80%) subset was used as-is for contrastive learning.
Revised: The larger (80%) subset was used as-is for contrastive learning.

Original: The smaller (20%) subset was further filtered to only include pairs of enantiomers with only 1 chiral center, excluding 2D graphs that contained other (cis/trans) stereoisomers of these enantiomer pairs in the dataset.
Revised: The smaller (20%) subset was further filtered to only include pairs of enantiomers with only 1 chiral center, excluding 2D graphs that contained other (cis/trans) stereoisomers of these enantiomer pairs in the dataset.

Original: Note that this extra step ensures that there are only two stereoisomers (which are enantiomers) per 2D graph.
Revised: Note that this extra step ensures that there are only two stereoisomers (which are enantiomers) per 2D graph.

Original: The resultant subset was used as the R/S classification dataset.
Revised: The resultant subset was used as the R/S classification dataset.

Original: Figures 5 and 6 show the distributions of the number of conformers per stereoisomer and the number of stereoisomers per 2D graph in the full contrastive learning dataset.
Revised: Figures 5 and 6 show the distributions of the number of conformers per stereoisomer and the number of stereoisomers per 2D graph in the full contrastive learning dataset.

Original: Figure 7 shows the distribution of the number of conformers per enantiomer in the full R/S classification dataset.
Revised: Figure 7 shows the distribution of the number of conformers per enantiomer in the full R/S classification dataset.

Original: Table 13 indicates the distribution of R/S labels in the R/S dataset.
Revised: Table 13 indicates the distribution of R/S labels in the R/S dataset.

Original: The full contrastive learning dataset was split into 70/15/15 sets for training, validation, and testing, respectively, with conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs being assigned to the same data partition.
Revised: The full contrastive learning dataset was split into 70/15/15 sets for training, validation, and testing, respectively, with conformers corresponding to the same 2D graphs being assigned to the same data partition.

Original: The training set contains 2,088,008 conformers of 418,922 stereoisomers of 180, distinct 2D graphs.
Revised: The training set contains 2,088,008 conformers of 418,922 stereoisomers of 180, distinct 2D graphs.

Original: The validation set contains 450,726 conformers of 89,786 stereoisomers of 38,658 distinct 2D graphs.
Revised: The validation set contains 450,726 conformers of 89,786 stereoisomers of 38,658 distinct 2D graphs.

Original: The test set contains 448,017 conformers of 89,914 stereoisomers of 38,659 distinct 2D graphs.
Revised: The test set contains 448,017 conformers of 89,914 stereoisomers of 38,659 distinct 2D graphs.

Original: The full R/S dataset was similarly separated into 70/15/15 sets, with pairs of enantiomers being assigned to the same data partition.
Revised: The full R/S dataset was similarly separated into 70/15/15 sets, with pairs of enantiomers being assigned to the same data partition.

Original: The training set contains 326,865 conformers of 55, stereoisomers (27,542 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The training set contains 326,865 conformers of 55, stereoisomers (27,542 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: The validation set contains 70,099 conformers of 11,748 stereoisomers (5874 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The validation set contains 70,099 conformers of 11,748 stereoisomers (5874 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: The test set contains 69,719 conformers of 11, stereoisomers (5840 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The test set contains 69,719 conformers of 11, stereoisomers (5840 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: [Figure] [Figure]
Revised: [Figure] [Figure]

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: A.7. l / d C LASSIFICATION D ATASET
Revised: A.7. l / d C LASSIFICATION D ATASET

Original: Figure 8 enumerates the data filtering steps used to extract and filter the l / d classification dataset from the experimental Reaxys database.
Revised: Figure 8 enumerates the data filtering steps used to extract and filter the l / d classification dataset from the experimental Reaxys database.

Original: In Reaxys, we queried non-fragmented molecules with molecular weights ≤ 564 which had optical rotatory power reported at 18-30 o C and a wavelength of 589 nm.
Revised: In Reaxys, we queried non-fragmented molecules with molecular weights ≤ 564 which had optical rotatory power reported at 18-30 o C and a wavelength of 589 nm.

Original: We further filtered these molecules to include those with SMILES strings that were validated by RDKit, and those which contained only 1 chiral center.
Revised: We further filtered these molecules to include those with SMILES strings that were validated by RDKit, and those which contained only 1 chiral center.

Original: Of these molecules, we removed duplicate entries if they were reported with different signs of optical rotation (which indicates an experimental measurement error).
Revised: Of these molecules, we removed duplicate entries if they were reported with different signs of optical rotation (which indicates an experimental measurement error).

Original: If duplicates had consistent signs of optical rotation, we randomly selected one entry.
Revised: If duplicates had consistent signs of optical rotation, we randomly selected one entry.

Original: We then removed entries that did not have full stereochemistry specified in their SMILES strings, since we would later need to generate conformers for each molecule.
Revised: We then removed entries that did not have full stereochemistry specified in their SMILES strings, since we would later need to generate conformers for each molecule.

Original: We also removed molecules whose non-enantiomeric (e.g., cis/trans) stereoisomers also appeared in the dataset.
Revised: We also removed molecules whose non-enantiomeric (e.g., cis/trans) stereoisomers also appeared in the dataset.

Original: We then checked if pairs of enantiomers were both reported in the dataset, and excluded such pairs if they were reported with the same sign of optical rotation (which indicates an experimental measurement error).
Revised: We then checked if pairs of enantiomers were both reported in the dataset, and excluded such pairs if they were reported with the same sign of optical rotation (which indicates an experimental measurement error).

Original: For molecules whose opposite enantiomers were not in the dataset, we artificially generated the opposite enantiomer and assigned it the opposite sign of optical rotation.
Revised: For molecules whose opposite enantiomers were not in the dataset, we artificially generated the opposite enantiomer and assigned it the opposite sign of optical rotation.

Original: This ensures a balanced dataset.
Revised: This ensures a balanced dataset.

Original: We then selected pairs of enantiomers which were reported with ≥ 95% enantiomeric excess in order to reduce the risk of experimental noise causing labeling errors.
Revised: We then selected pairs of enantiomers which were reported with ≥ 95% enantiomeric excess in order to reduce the risk of experimental noise causing labeling errors.

Original: Lastly, we used RDKit to generate 5 conformers for each enantiomer in the filtered dataset.
Revised: Lastly, we used RDKit to generate 5 conformers for each enantiomer in the filtered dataset.

Original: If RDKit failed to generate a conformer for any pair of enantiomers, both enantiomers in the pair were removed from the dataset.
Revised: If RDKit failed to generate a conformer for any pair of enantiomers, both enantiomers in the pair were removed from the dataset.

Original: Table 14 reports the distribution of l / d labels in the final dataset, which contains 150,380 conformers of 30,076 enantiomers (15,038 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: Table 14 reports the distribution of l / d labels in the final dataset, which contains 150,380 conformers of 30,076 enantiomers (15,038 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: We split this dataset into 5 folds for crossvalidation, randomly assigning each pair of enantiomers (with their conformers) to a test set in one of the five folds.
Revised: We split this dataset into 5 folds for crossvalidation, randomly assigning each pair of enantiomers (with their conformers) to a test set in one of the five folds.

Original: For each fold, we randomly split the remaining (i.e., non-testing) pairs of enantiomers into 87.5/12.5 training/validation sets.
Revised: For each fold, we randomly split the remaining (i.e., non-testing) pairs of enantiomers into 87.5/12.5 training/validation sets.

Original: Note that this ensures each fold has 70/10/ training/validation/test splits, with pairs of enantiomers being assigned to the same data partition within each fold, and that each pair of enantiomers only appears in one test set across the five folds.
Revised: Note that this ensures each fold has 70/10/ training/validation/test splits, with pairs of enantiomers being assigned to the same data partition within each fold, and that each pair of enantiomers only appears in one test set across the five folds.

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: Reaxys
Revised: Reaxys

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: [Table] [Table]
Revised: [Table] [Table]

Original: A.7. R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES
Revised: A.7. R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES

Original: To create the dataset for the ranking enantiomers by their docking scores task, we randomly selected 750 sdf files from the “10 conformers per compound” directory from the PubChem3D FTP site ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubchem/Compound_3D/ , out of the 6199 available, but excluding the 50 sdf files used previously for the contrastive learning and R/S classification datasets.
Revised: To create the dataset for the ranking enantiomers by their docking scores task, we randomly selected 750 sdf files from the “10 conformers per compound” directory from the PubChem3D FTP site ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubchem/Compound_3D/ , out of the 6199 available, but excluding the 50 sdf files used previously for the contrastive learning and R/S classification datasets.

Original: After extracting the conformers in each sdf file, we filtered the data to only include conformers of 2D graphs for which only 2 stereoisomers (corresponding to pairs of enantiomers with 1 chiral center) appeared in the dataset.
Revised: After extracting the conformers in each sdf file, we filtered the data to only include conformers of 2D graphs for which only 2 stereoisomers (corresponding to pairs of enantiomers with 1 chiral center) appeared in the dataset.

Original: As before, we only included enantiomers whose conformers contain at least 1 torsion, as recognized by RDKit.
Revised: As before, we only included enantiomers whose conformers contain at least 1 torsion, as recognized by RDKit.

Original: We then filtered enantiomers which have a molecular weight ≤ 225 and ≤ 5 rotatable bonds (as computed by RDKit).
Revised: We then filtered enantiomers which have a molecular weight ≤ 225 and ≤ 5 rotatable bonds (as computed by RDKit).

Original: This step was designed to intentionally select small enantiomers which had few rotational degrees of freedom such that the docking simulations would be less stochastic.
Revised: This step was designed to intentionally select small enantiomers which had few rotational degrees of freedom such that the docking simulations would be less stochastic.

Original: We then docked each pair of enantiomers three times against the protein (PDB ID: 4JBV) in the docking box centered at [10 , 16 , 61] with (x,y,z) radii of [10 , 14 , 12] .
Revised: We then docked each pair of enantiomers three times against the protein (PDB ID: 4JBV) in the docking box centered at [10 , 16 , 61] with (x,y,z) radii of [10 , 14 , 12] .

Original: In each docking simulation, we increased the exhaustiveness parameter to 24 to help reduce noise in the resultant docking scores.
Revised: In each docking simulation, we increased the exhaustiveness parameter to 24 to help reduce noise in the resultant docking scores.

Original: As a final control for stochasticity in the docking simulations, we also removed pairs of enantiomers for which one or both of the enantiomers had a range of (top) docking scores > 0 .
Revised: As a final control for stochasticity in the docking simulations, we also removed pairs of enantiomers for which one or both of the enantiomers had a range of (top) docking scores > 0 .

Original: 1 kcal/mol across the three simulation trials.
Revised: 1 kcal/mol across the three simulation trials.

Original: Finally, in order to select pairs of enantiomers which exhibit meaningful differences in docking scores, we filtered the dataset to only include pairs of enantiomers which had a difference in their best docking scores (across the three trials) of at least 0 .
Revised: Finally, in order to select pairs of enantiomers which exhibit meaningful differences in docking scores, we filtered the dataset to only include pairs of enantiomers which had a difference in their best docking scores (across the three trials) of at least 0 .

Original: 3 kcal/mol.
Revised: 3 kcal/mol.

Original: These enantiomers and their PubChem3D conformers were used as the final dataset.
Revised: These enantiomers and their PubChem3D conformers were used as the final dataset.

Original: Figure 9 visualizes the full filtering procedure.
Revised: Figure 9 visualizes the full filtering procedure.

Original: Figure 10 plots the distribution of the number of conformers per enantiomer in the docking dataset.
Revised: Figure 10 plots the distribution of the number of conformers per enantiomer in the docking dataset.

Original: Figure 11 plots the distribution of the difference in docking scores between pairs of enantiomers in the docking dataset.
Revised: Figure 11 plots the distribution of the difference in docking scores between pairs of enantiomers in the docking dataset.

Original: We split the full dataset into 70/15/15 training/validation/test sets, assigning pairs of enantiomers (with their conformers) to the same data partition.
Revised: We split the full dataset into 70/15/15 training/validation/test sets, assigning pairs of enantiomers (with their conformers) to the same data partition.

Original: The training set contains 234,622 conformers of 48,384 enantiomers (24,192 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The training set contains 234,622 conformers of 48,384 enantiomers (24,192 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: The validation set contains 49,878 conformers of 10,368 enantiomers (5184 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The validation set contains 49,878 conformers of 10,368 enantiomers (5184 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: The test set contains 50,571 conformers of 10,368 enantiomers (5184 pairs of enantiomers).
Revised: The test set contains 50,571 conformers of 10,368 enantiomers (5184 pairs of enantiomers).

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: PubChem3D Conformers
Revised: PubChem3D Conformers

Original: [Figure] [Figure]
Revised: [Figure] [Figure]

Original: A. A DDITIONAL A BLATIONS
Revised: A. A DDITIONAL A BLATIONS

Original: It is not strictly necessary that ChIRo learn the weight coefficients c ( xy ) ij in order to distinguish enantiomers.
Revised: It is not strictly necessary that ChIRo learn the weight coefficients c ( xy ) ij in order to distinguish enantiomers.

Original: ChIRo can still learn chiral representations and preserve invariance to internal bond rotations if each c ( xy ) ij is generated by a network with random, untrained parameters.
Revised: ChIRo can still learn chiral representations and preserve invariance to internal bond rotations if each c ( xy ) ij is generated by a network with random, untrained parameters.

Original: However, this is not the case for the phase shifts φ ixyj , which must be learned for good performance.
Revised: However, this is not the case for the phase shifts φ ixyj , which must be learned for good performance.

Original: To demonstrate this, we perform additional ablations where the feed-forward network f c is not trained, but rather keep its initial random parameters.
Revised: To demonstrate this, we perform additional ablations where the feed-forward network f c is not trained, but rather keep its initial random parameters.

Original: We perform the same analysis for f φ to also evaluate whether ChIRo needs to learn the phase shifts φ ixyj , or if these can also be generated by a random network.
Revised: We perform the same analysis for f φ to also evaluate whether ChIRo needs to learn the phase shifts φ ixyj , or if these can also be generated by a random network.

Original: Table 16 reports the results of not training these MLPs on the otherwise unchanged ChIRo on the l / d classification task and ranking enantiomers by docking scores task.
Revised: Table 16 reports the results of not training these MLPs on the otherwise unchanged ChIRo on the l / d classification task and ranking enantiomers by docking scores task.

Original: Overall, learning the parameters in f c leads to only small (if any) performance gains versus keeping the randomly initialized parameters.
Revised: Overall, learning the parameters in f c leads to only small (if any) performance gains versus keeping the randomly initialized parameters.

Original: On the other hand, learning the parameters in f φ leads to considerable performance gains versus not learning f φ .
Revised: On the other hand, learning the parameters in f φ leads to considerable performance gains versus not learning f φ .

Original: This emphasizes that in our case, relying on random noise to break symmetry between embeddings of enantiomers is insufficient to learn expressive chiral representations.
Revised: This emphasizes that in our case, relying on random noise to break symmetry between embeddings of enantiomers is insufficient to learn expressive chiral representations.

Original: Rather, ChIRo best models the effects of chirality by learning to break the symmetry through learned phase shifts in a task-specific manner.
Revised: Rather, ChIRo best models the effects of chirality by learning to break the symmetry through learned phase shifts in a task-specific manner.

Original: across three repeated 5-fold CV trials ( l / d classification).
Revised: across three repeated 5-fold CV trials ( l / d classification).

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: A. A DDITIONAL E VALUATION OF R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES
Revised: A. A DDITIONAL E VALUATION OF R ANKING E NANTIOMERS BY D OCKING S CORES

Original: Because some enantiomers have larger differences in their ground truth docking scores than other enantiomers, a single ranking accuracy metric may not fully describe the ability of the models to learn the enantioselectivity of the protein pocket.
Revised: Because some enantiomers have larger differences in their ground truth docking scores than other enantiomers, a single ranking accuracy metric may not fully describe the ability of the models to learn the enantioselectivity of the protein pocket.

Original: To evaluate model performance more thoroughly, we compute ranking accuracies on various subsets of the test set.
Revised: To evaluate model performance more thoroughly, we compute ranking accuracies on various subsets of the test set.

Original: Figure 12 plots the ranking accuracies of ChIRo, SphereNet, Tetra-DMPNN (concatenate) with chiral tags, and DMPNN with chiral tags when evaluated on subsets of the test data where the difference in ground truth docking scores are (upper left) greater or equal to a margin, (upper right) less than or equal to a margin, or (bottom) exactly equal to a margin.
Revised: Figure 12 plots the ranking accuracies of ChIRo, SphereNet, Tetra-DMPNN (concatenate) with chiral tags, and DMPNN with chiral tags when evaluated on subsets of the test data where the difference in ground truth docking scores are (upper left) greater or equal to a margin, (upper right) less than or equal to a margin, or (bottom) exactly equal to a margin.

Original: The plots suggest that while ChIRo is superior in correctly ranking enantiomers which have relatively small differences in their true docking scores, the differences between each model become less distinct when ranking enantiomers with larger differences in their groundtruth docking scores.
Revised: The plots suggest that while ChIRo is superior in correctly ranking enantiomers which have relatively small differences in their true docking scores, the differences between each model become less distinct when ranking enantiomers with larger differences in their groundtruth docking scores.

Original: This may be due to the fact that the docking dataset is imbalanced, skewed heavily toward enantiomers that have smaller differences in their true docking scores (Figure 11).
Revised: This may be due to the fact that the docking dataset is imbalanced, skewed heavily toward enantiomers that have smaller differences in their true docking scores (Figure 11).

Original: A. A NALYZING SE(3)-I NVARIANT 3D GNN S WITHOUT I NTER R OTO -I NVARIANCE
Revised: A. A NALYZING SE(3)-I NVARIANT 3D GNN S WITHOUT I NTER R OTO -I NVARIANCE

Original: The qualitative results shown in Figure 3 suggest that an SE(3)-invariant 3D GNN without InterRotoinvariance, such as SphereNet, will get confused between differences in molecular chirality (e.g., inverted chiral centers) with differences in conformational structure (e.g., bond rotations) when learning chiral-dependent functions.
Revised: The qualitative results shown in Figure 3 suggest that an SE(3)-invariant 3D GNN without InterRotoinvariance, such as SphereNet, will get confused between differences in molecular chirality (e.g., inverted chiral centers) with differences in conformational structure (e.g., bond rotations) when learning chiral-dependent functions.

Original: To support this hypothesis with quantitative evidence, Figure 13 shows the distribution of the fraction of conformers per enantiomer in the test sets of the l/d classification task which were predicted to have the same sign of optical rotation by SphereNet and ChIRo, irrespective of the actual accuracy of the predicted class labels.
Revised: To support this hypothesis with quantitative evidence, Figure 13 shows the distribution of the fraction of conformers per enantiomer in the test sets of the l/d classification task which were predicted to have the same sign of optical rotation by SphereNet and ChIRo, irrespective of the actual accuracy of the predicted class labels.

Original: SphereNet predicts the same label for each of the 5 RDKit-generated conformers per enantiomer for only ∼ 32% of the enantiomers in the test sets, compared to ∼ 93% for ChIRo.
Revised: SphereNet predicts the same label for each of the 5 RDKit-generated conformers per enantiomer for only ∼ 32% of the enantiomers in the test sets, compared to ∼ 93% for ChIRo.

Original: When only trained on 1 conformer per enantiomer, SphereNet’s labeling consistency drops to 14%, whereas ChIRo’s labeling consistency remains roughly the same at ∼ 92%.
Revised: When only trained on 1 conformer per enantiomer, SphereNet’s labeling consistency drops to 14%, whereas ChIRo’s labeling consistency remains roughly the same at ∼ 92%.

Original: ChIRo’s dramatically increased consistency in labeling conformers sharing the same chiral molecular identity compared to SphereNet is a direct result of
Revised: ChIRo’s dramatically increased consistency in labeling conformers sharing the same chiral molecular identity compared to SphereNet is a direct result of

Original: ChIRo’s InterRoto-invariance.
Revised: ChIRo’s InterRoto-invariance.

Original: Note that ChIRo’s consistency is not perfectly 100% because the
Revised: Note that ChIRo’s consistency is not perfectly 100% because the

Original: RDKit-generated conformers have conformational differences not associated with simple bond rotations.
Revised: RDKit-generated conformers have conformational differences not associated with simple bond rotations.

Original: For instance, two conformers can slightly differ in their bond distances and bond angles, perturbations to which ChIRo is not invariant.
Revised: For instance, two conformers can slightly differ in their bond distances and bond angles, perturbations to which ChIRo is not invariant.

Original: Moreover, manually rotating bonds near the chiral center (similar to the bottom row in Figure 3) causes SphereNet to get confused when predicting signs of optical rotation for these rotated conformers, even for enantiomers (in the test-set) whose conformers were all originally classified correctly by SphereNet (Figure 14).
Revised: Moreover, manually rotating bonds near the chiral center (similar to the bottom row in Figure 3) causes SphereNet to get confused when predicting signs of optical rotation for these rotated conformers, even for enantiomers (in the test-set) whose conformers were all originally classified correctly by SphereNet (Figure 14).

Original: Since ChIRo is invariant to such bond rotations (Figure 3), it is not susceptible to this particular type of confusion, and therefore has increased ability to generalize to unseen chiral conformers.
Revised: Since ChIRo is invariant to such bond rotations (Figure 3), it is not susceptible to this particular type of confusion, and therefore has increased ability to generalize to unseen chiral conformers.