Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

MolGraph-xLSTM: A graph-based dual-level xLSTM framework with multi-head mixture-of-experts for enhanced molecular representation and interpretability

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph-based xLSTM that reads each molecule at atom and motif scales reports consistent predictive gains over five baselines across ten property-prediction datasets.

desk verdict A plausible new architecture, but the headline performance claims don't reproduce from the paper's own tables and the baseline runs look underpowered. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18439 v1 pith:QNCTE5H5 submitted 2025-01-30 cs.LG q-bio.BM

Yan Sun , Yutong Lu , Yan Yi Li , Zihao Jing , Carson K. Leung , Pingzhao Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGq-bio.BM
keywords molecularpropertypredictiongraphrepresentationlearningmulti-headmixture-of-expertsxLSTMdrugdiscoverylong-rangedependenciesneuralnetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that GNNs' limited ability to capture long-range molecular dependencies can be remedied by inserting xLSTM into the representation pipeline at two structural scales. MolGraph-xLSTM processes an atom-level graph with a GNN plus jumping knowledge followed by xLSTM, and separately processes a motif-level graph with xLSTM, then fuses the pooled embeddings through a multi-head mixture-of-experts. Across ten classification and regression datasets, the authors report an average AUROC gain of 3.18% and an average RMSE reduction of 3.83% over five baselines, with the largest single-dataset improvements being 7.03% on BBBP and 7.54% on ESOL. If the comparisons are faithful, this offers drug-discovery pipelines a direct way to add long-range modeling to molecular graphs while preserving local and substructural detail.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the paired molecular graphs: the atom-level graph $G_{atom}$ and the motif-level graph $G_{motif}$, built by decomposing the atom graph into rings, non-cyclic functional groups, and carbon-carbon single bonds. The carrying mechanism is the insertion of xLSTM at both levels: after a GCN with residual connections and virtual nodes produces per-atom features, jumping knowledge concatenates layer outputs, and xLSTM treats those node features as a sequence of length $N_{atom}$; the smaller motif graph, which is closer to sequential data, goes straight into xLSTM. A multi-head mixture-of-experts then splits the summed pooled features into $h$ segments and routes each segment through the top-$K$ experts, and a supervised contrastive loss on atom, motif, and fused embeddings pulls same-label molecules closer together. The paper's claimed gains come from this combination rather than from any single component, as the ablations on Sider and FreeSolv show.

What would settle it

Re-run MolGraph-xLSTM and the five baselines on the same ten splits using each baseline's official implementation and recommended hyperparameters, then check whether MolGraph-xLSTM still beats them; in particular, if TransFoxMol's ESOL RMSE of 0.930 and BBBP AUROC of 0.881 move closer to the values in its original publication, the reported 3.18% AUROC and 3.83% RMSE gaps would shrink or disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that molecular property prediction improves when a molecule's representation is computed from both atoms and chemically meaningful substructures, with xLSTM applied at both levels so that information from distant parts of the molecule is not squashed away by repeated message passing. The atom-level branch uses a GCN with residual connections and virtual nodes, concatenates all layer outputs through jumping knowledge, and then treats the node set as a sequence for xLSTM; the motif-level branch feeds substructure nodes directly into xLSTM. The three pooled feature vectors (GNN, atom-xLSTM, motif-xLSTM) are summed and refined by a multi-head mixture-of-experts that splits the vector into segments and routes each segment to its top experts. The paper reports the best or second-best score on most of the ten benchmarks and interprets the highest-weighted motifs and atoms as biologically meaningful, such as sulfonamide and carboxylic-acid substructures.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains are measured against five baselines whose reported scores are taken as faithful; if those baselines were run with suboptimal settings or hyperparameters, the claimed average improvements would be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold under faithful baseline tuning, adding xLSTM to molecular graphs becomes a low-cost upgrade over GNN-only models for ADMET-style classification tasks.
  • The dual-scale design gives an interpretability handle, since motifs and atoms with the highest xLSTM weights can be checked against known toxicophores and used to flag risky substructures before synthesis.
  • The framework extends to other graph-level prediction problems where long-range dependencies matter, such as drug-target interaction or materials property prediction, because it does not depend on chemistry-specific sequence encodings.
  • Because the motif-level branch is noticeably weaker on regression, enriching substructure features with geometric or electronic descriptors would likely improve continuous-target predictions within the same architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the long-range-dependency claim would compare MolGraph-xLSTM against the same atom-level GNN without xLSTM, or against a Transformer-based graph model, holding parameter count and training budget fixed; the paper's ablations remove the motif branch and MHMoE but do not isolate xLSTM itself.
  • The node-order robustness result suggests xLSTM is not exploiting a canonical chemical ordering, so a permutation-invariant variant that averages over several depth-first-search orders could stabilize regression predictions without relying on RDKit's default ordering.
  • Because the interpretability analysis links high-weight substructures to known toxicophores, the framework could be used prospectively to screen candidates for specific side effects before synthesis, with the model's highlighted motifs serving as testable hypotheses.
  • The dual-scale xLSTM design is not chemistry-specific beyond graph construction and could transfer to other structured prediction problems with long-range dependencies, such as protein or materials property prediction, where substructure-like groupings can be defined.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MolGraph-xLSTM, a molecular property prediction model that combines atom-level and motif-level graph representations. The atom-level branch uses a GCN with jumping-knowledge connections followed by an xLSTM layer, while the motif-level branch applies xLSTM directly to a simplified motif graph; the two branches are merged and refined by a multi-head mixture-of-experts module before property prediction. The authors evaluate the model on six classification and four regression datasets, comparing against FP-GNN, DeeperGCN, DMPNN, HiGNN, and TransFoxMol, and report AUROC/AUPRC and RMSE/PCC metrics. They also present ablations, a node-ordering robustness study, hyperparameter analyses, and an interpretability case study. The abstract claims average AUROC improvements of 3.18% and RMSE reductions of 3.83% over baselines, with per-dataset improvements up to 7.03% on BBBP and 7.54% on ESOL.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a plausible and useful combination of known components: GNN message passing for local structure, xLSTM for long-range dependencies at both atom and motif levels, and MHMoE for representation refinement. The manuscript provides code, ablation studies, and an interpretability analysis, which are valuable assets. However, the central claim of consistent, roughly 3--4% average gains over five baselines is not currently established: the headline averages do not reproduce from the paper's own tables, the BBBP baseline attribution is internally inconsistent, the Caco2 result contradicts the 'consistent performance' claim, and the reported TransFoxMol baseline values are far outside the range reported in its original publication. Because the central contribution is empirical benchmarking superiority, these issues are load-bearing and require correction before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3, Tables 1–2] The headline averages do not reproduce from the paper's own tables under any stated rule. Computing relative improvement over the best baseline per dataset from the AUROC column of Table 1 gives (5.45 + 0.59 + 1.35 + 7.03 + 2.11 + 0.78)/6 ≈ 2.88%, not 3.18%; for RMSE in Table 2 it gives (7.54 + 0.54 + 4.12 − 2.44)/4 ≈ 2.44%, not 3.83%. Computing against the mean of all five baselines gives approximately 5.23% and 11.54%, respectively. Since no averaging convention is stated in the paper, the abstract's 3.18% and 3.83% figures are unsupported and must be corrected or removed.
  2. [§4.3, Table 1] The text reporting the BBBP result is internally inconsistent: it states that the best baseline is TransFoxMol at 0.896 ± 0.024, whereas Table 1 lists TransFoxMol at 0.881 ± 0.015 and DMPNN at 0.896 ± 0.014. The claimed 7.03% improvement therefore cannot be attributed to the stated baseline; the table and text need to be reconciled and the comparison baseline clearly identified.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 1–2] Baseline fidelity is load-bearing for the central empirical claim, and the reported baseline values are not credible in at least one case: TransFoxMol's ESOL RMSE of 0.930 ± 0.261 is far worse than the value reported in the original TransFoxMol publication, and its BBBP AUROC of 0.881 is lower than several other baselines in the same table. Because no implementation details, hyperparameters, or seed controls are provided for the baselines, the reader cannot determine whether these are faithful baseline runs; the authors should provide this information or rerun the baselines with public implementations.
  4. [Table 2 and Abstract] On Caco2, MolGraph-xLSTM has RMSE 0.503 ± 0.004, which is worse than FP-GNN's 0.491 ± 0.023. This directly contradicts the abstract's claim of 'consistent performance across all datasets' and the averaged RMSE reduction claim, and the result is not discussed in Section 4.3. The claims need to be qualified to per-dataset results, or the contradiction needs to be explained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) has unbalanced parentheses and a malformed gating term: it should read f_s^{MoE} = Σ_{e=1}^n G(f_s)_e E_e(f_s), with the expert index matching the gating output.
  2. [§3.1] The feature tables are referenced only as 'Table ??' three times in Section 3.1; these cross-references need to be resolved to the actual table numbers.
  3. [§3.2.1, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) contains a double plus sign in 'hl+1_p = ReLU(LN(hl_p)) + +vnl+1', which appears to be a typographical error.
  4. [§4.6] The headings 'Varing Number of Experts and Heads' and 'Varing Number of Jump Layers' contain a typo; 'Varing' should be 'Varying'.
  5. [§4.5, Figure 6] The text references panels (e) and (f) of Figure 6, but the figure caption does not label individual panels, making the references difficult to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical benchmarking with external baselines and held-out test measurements; baseline-fidelity and averaging concerns are correctness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

MolGraph-xLSTM is an empirical benchmarking paper. Its central claim is that the proposed architecture achieves higher AUROC and lower RMSE than five baselines on MoleculeNet and Caco2 datasets. These numbers are direct measurements on held-out test splits (Section 4.1, Tables 1-2), with hyperparameters selected on validation sets (Table S5). No equation in Sections 2-3 defines an output metric in terms of the model's fitted parameters or in terms of the benchmark baseline scores; the architecture components (xLSTM, GNN, jumping knowledge, MHMoE, motif graphs) are all adopted from external prior work ([19], [23], [24], [31]), and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation. Concerns that baseline implementations may be underpowered, that TransFoxMol's scores are below its original publication, or that the abstract's average improvements do not reproduce from Tables 1-2 are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circularity: even if those numbers are wrong, the error is not the result of a 'prediction' that is equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on empirical benchmark results, so the main free parameters are hyperparameters tuned per dataset, including the MHMoE expert and head counts, the number of jump layers, and the contrastive loss settings. The key domain assumptions are that the RDKit node order is a meaningful sequence for xLSTM, that ReLMole motifs are appropriate, and that random splits are a fair evaluation protocol. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • MHMoE expert count and head count per dataset = 4-8 experts, 8-16 heads (Table S5)
    Tuned per dataset; Figure 8 shows the choice affects results, and the best configuration is reported.
  • Number of jumping knowledge layers (numjk) = 4 (from Figure 9, where it gave the best Sider AUROC and FreeSolv RMSE)
    Ablated in Figure 9; the chosen value is a free parameter selected by performance.
  • Supervised contrastive loss weight and temperature tau = Loss weight implicitly 1 (Eq. 28); tau not reported
    The total loss is L_task + L_SCL without a tuned coefficient; tau in Eqs. 24-25 is not specified, and both affect optimization.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Treating the atom list in RDKit order as a meaningful sequence for xLSTM preserves enough graph structure to capture long-range interactions.
    Section 3.2.3 feeds H_GNN as a sequence of Natom nodes; Section 4.4.2 reports RDKit order works slightly better than random DFS order, but the mechanism is not graph-agnostic.
  • domain assumption The ReLMole motif decomposition yields substructures that are chemically meaningful and sufficient for representation learning.
    Section 3.1 uses ReLMole (Ref [31]) to define motifs; the paper does not validate alternative motif vocabularies.
  • domain assumption Random splitting for regression datasets is a fair protocol for comparing methods despite the field standard of scaffold splitting.
    Section 4.1 adopts random splits for regression and multi-task classification, which typically makes tasks easier; the paper does not show results under scaffold splits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MolGraph-xLSTM: A graph-based dual-level xLSTM framework with multi-head mixture-of-experts for enhanced molecular representation and interpretability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNCTE5H5

@misc{pith2026250118439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MolGraph-xLSTM: A graph-based dual-level xLSTM framework with multi-head mixture-of-experts for enhanced molecular representation and interpretability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNCTE5H5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18439}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting molecular properties is essential for drug discovery, and computational methods can greatly enhance this process. Molecular graphs have become a focus for representation learning, with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) widely used. However, GNNs often struggle with capturing long-range dependencies. To address this, we propose MolGraph-xLSTM, a novel graph-based xLSTM model that enhances feature extraction and effectively models molecule long-range interactions. Our approach processes molecular graphs at two scales: atom-level and motif-level. For atom-level graphs, a GNN-based xLSTM framework with jumping knowledge extracts local features and aggregates multilayer information to capture both local and global patterns effectively. Motif-level graphs provide complementary structural information for a broader molecular view. Embeddings from both scales are refined via a multi-head mixture of experts (MHMoE), further enhancing expressiveness and performance. We validate MolGraph-xLSTM on 10 molecular property prediction datasets, covering both classification and regression tasks. Our model demonstrates consistent performance across all datasets, with improvements of up to 7.03% on the BBBP dataset for classification and 7.54% on the ESOL dataset for regression compared to baselines. On average, MolGraph-xLSTM achieves an AUROC improvement of 3.18\% for classification tasks and an RMSE reduction of 3.83\% across regression datasets compared to the baseline methods. These results confirm the effectiveness of our model, offering a promising solution for molecular representation learning for drug discovery.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature Chemical Biology 20(8), 960–973 (2024) 22

    Catacutan, D.B., Alexander, J., Arnold, A., Stokes, J.M.: Machine learning in preclinical drug discovery. Nature Chemical Biology 20(8), 960–973 (2024) 22

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Artificial Intelligence in Drug Design, 447–460 (2022)

    Jia, L., Gao, H.: Machine learning for in silico admet prediction. Artificial Intelligence in Drug Design, 447–460 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Nature Machine Intelligence 2(10), 573–584 (2020)

    Jim´ enez-Luna, J., Grisoni, F., Schneider, G.: Drug discovery with explainable artificial intelligence. Nature Machine Intelligence 2(10), 573–584 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Nature 616(7958), 673–685 (2023)

    Sadybekov, A.V., Katritch, V.: Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery. Nature 616(7958), 673–685 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

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

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

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    : Analyzing learned molecular repre- sentations for property prediction

    Yang, K., Swanson, K., Jin, W., Coley, C., Eiden, P., Gao, H., Guzman-Perez, A., Hopper, T., Kelley, B., Mathea, M., et al. : Analyzing learned molecular repre- sentations for property prediction. Journal of chemical information and modeling 59(8), 3370–3388 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07739 (2020)

    Li, G., Xiong, C., Thabet, A., Ghanem, B.: Deepergcn: All you need to train deeper gcns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07739 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 12559–12571 (2020)

    Rong, Y., Bian, Y., Xu, T., Xie, W., Wei, Y., Huang, W., Huang, J.: Self- supervised graph transformer on large-scale molecular data. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 12559–12571 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Nature Machine Intelligence 4(3), 279–287 (2022)

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

    2022

  2. [10]

    Briefings in bioinformatics 23(6), 408 (2022)

    Cai, H., Zhang, H., Zhao, D., Wu, J., Wang, L.: Fp-gnn: a versatile deep learning architecture for enhanced molecular property prediction. Briefings in bioinformatics 23(6), 408 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Nature Machine Intelligence 4(2), 127–134 (2022)

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

    2022

  4. [12]

    Briefings in Bioinformatics 24(5), 306 (2023)

    Gao, J., Shen, Z., Xie, Y., Lu, J., Lu, Y., Chen, S., Bian, Q., Guo, Y., Shen, L., Wu, J., et al.: Transfoxmol: predicting molecular property with focused attention. Briefings in Bioinformatics 24(5), 306 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Communications Chemistry 6(1), 34 (2023)

    Zang, X., Zhao, X., Tang, B.: Hierarchical molecular graph self-supervised learning for property prediction. Communications Chemistry 6(1), 34 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Machine learning meets quantum physics, 199–214 (2020) 23

    Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S.S., Riley, P.F., Vinyals, O., Dahl, G.E.: Message passing neural networks. Machine learning meets quantum physics, 199–214 (2020) 23

    2020

  7. [15]

    : Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry

    Reiser, P., Neubert, M., Eberhard, A., Torresi, L., Zhou, C., Shao, C., Metni, H., Hoesel, C., Schopmans, H., Sommer, T., et al. : Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry. Communications Materials 3(1), 93 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Li, Q., Han, Z., Wu, X.-M.: Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021)

    Alon, U., Yahav, E.: On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021). https://openreview.net/forum?id=i80OPhOCVH2

    2021

  10. [18]

    Neural Computation 9, 1735–1780 (1997)

    Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory. Neural Computation 9, 1735–1780 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    ArXiv abs/2405.04517 (2024)

    Beck, M., Poppel, K., Spanring, M., Auer, A., Prudnikova, O., Kopp, M.K., Klambauer, G., Brandstetter, J., Hochreiter, S.: xlstm: Extended long short-term memory. ArXiv abs/2405.04517 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, /suppress L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 5998–6008 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 (2023)

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

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Journal of cheminformatics 9, 1–7 (2017)

    Ertl, P.: An algorithm to identify functional groups in organic molecules. Journal of cheminformatics 9, 1–7 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    In: ICML

    Xu, K., Li, C., Tian, Y., Sonobe, T., Kawarabayashi, K., Jegelka, S.: Representa- tion learning on graphs with jumping knowledge networks. In: ICML. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 80, pp. 5449–5458 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    CoRR abs/2404.15045 (2024)

    Wu, X., Huang, S., Wang, W., Wei, F.: Multi-head mixture-of-experts. CoRR abs/2404.15045 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    In: ICLR (Poster) (2017)

    Shazeer, N., Mirhoseini, A., Maziarz, K., Davis, A., Le, Q.V., Hinton, G.E., Dean, J.: Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In: ICLR (Poster) (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 63(1), 43–55 (2022) 24

    Zhu, W., Zhang, Y., Zhao, D., Xu, J., Wang, L.: Hignn: A hierarchical infor- mative graph neural network for molecular property prediction equipped with feature-wise attention. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 63(1), 43–55 (2022) 24

    2022

  19. [27]

    ChemMedChem 3(10), 1503 (2008)

    Degen, J., Wegscheid-Gerlach, C., Zaliani, A., Rarey, M.: On the art of compil- ing and using’drug-like’chemical fragment spaces. ChemMedChem 3(10), 1503 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Neural computation 3(1), 79–87 (1991)

    Jacobs, R.A., Jordan, M.I., Nowlan, S.J., Hinton, G.E.: Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation 3(1), 79–87 (1991)

    1991

  21. [29]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23049–23062 (2022)

    Chen, Z., Deng, Y., Wu, Y., Gu, Q., Li, Y.: Towards understanding the mixture-of- experts layer in deep learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23049–23062 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    https://www.rdkit.org

    Landrum, G.: RDKit: Open-source cheminformatics. https://www.rdkit.org. Accessed: January 7, 2025 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 62(22), 5361–5372 (2022)

    Ji, Z., Shi, R., Lu, J., Li, F., Yang, Y.: Relmole: Molecular representation learn- ing based on two-level graph similarities. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 62(22), 5361–5372 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 18661–18673 (2020)

    Khosla, P., Teterwak, P., Wang, C., Sarna, A., Tian, Y., Isola, P., Maschinot, A., Liu, C., Krishnan, D.: Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 18661–18673 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Chemical science 9(2), 513–530 (2018)

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

    2018

  26. [34]

    Journal of chemical information and modeling 56(4), 763–773 (2016)

    Wang, N.-N., Dong, J., Deng, Y.-H., Zhu, M.-F., Wen, M., Yao, Z.-J., Lu, A.-P., Wang, J.-B., Cao, D.-S.: Adme properties evaluation in drug discovery: prediction of Caco-2 cell permeability using a combination of nsga-ii and boosting. Journal of chemical information and modeli...

    2016

  27. [35]

    International Ophthalmology 44(1), 214 (2024)

    Daniel, D., Bacchi, S., Casson, R., Chan, W.: Sulfonamides in ophthalmol- ogy: adverse reactions: Evidence-based use of sulfa drugs in ophthalmology. International Ophthalmology 44(1), 214 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), ??? (2023)

    Ivanov, I., Lee, V.R.: Hydrazine Toxicology. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), ??? (2023). http://europepmc.org/books/NBK592403

    2023

  29. [37]

    Machine learning 45, 5–32 (2001)

    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine learning 45, 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry 24(22), 5842–5854 (2016)

    Placzek, A.T., Ferrara, S.J., Hartley, M.D., Sanford-Crane, H.S., Meinig, J.M., Scanlan, T.S.: Sobetirome prodrug esters with enhanced blood–brain barrier permeability. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry 24(22), 5842–5854 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Ferrara, S.J., Scanlan, T.S.: A cns-targeting prodrug strategy for nuclear receptor modulators. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 63(17), 9742–9751 (2020) 25 Supplementary Information MolGraph-xLSTM: A graph-based dual-level xLSTM framework with multi-head mixture-of-experts for ...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.