Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

ModuLM: Enabling Modular and Multimodal Molecular Relational Learning with Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ModuLM is a unified, extensible framework for LLM-based molecular relational learning that accepts 1D SMILES, 2D graphs, and 3D conformations, and its benchmarks argue that multimodal, 3D-aware configurations outperform established…

desk verdict A genuinely modular MRL framework worth knowing, but the component-level empirical claims are confounded and need controlled ablations before they should be quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00880 v1 pith:65K56F4Y submitted 2025-06-01 cs.LG cs.AIq-bio.BMq-bio.QM

Zhuo Chen , Yizhen Zheng , Huan Yee Koh , Hongxin Xiang , Linjiang Chen , Wenjie Du , Yang Wang This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIq-bio.BMq-bio.QM
keywords molecularrelationallearninglargelanguagemodelsmultimodalrepresentation3Dconformationsmodularframeworkdrug-druginteractionsolvationfreeenergybenchmarking
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

ModuLM is a proposed framework for molecular relational learning (MRL) that lets a single codebase build LLM-based models from 1D SMILES strings, 2D molecular graphs, or 3D conformations. Its central contribution is a modular assembly mechanism: eight 2D graph encoders, eleven 3D conformation encoders, seven interaction layers, and seven LLM backbones can be combined into over 50,000 model configurations with shared pretraining, prompts, and evaluation metrics. The benchmark results are used to argue that multimodal inputs improve LLM-based MRL, that 3D conformation inputs give the best results, that explicit interaction layers help, and that smaller backbones fine-tune to these tasks better than larger ones. A custom configuration built on Uni-Mol and DeepSeek-1.5B with chain-of-thought prompting outperforms MolTC on the evaluated DDI, SSI, and CSI datasets. The value of the paper is a standardized way to compare and build models in a space where methods currently differ in encoder, modality, and backbone all at once.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is ModuLM's dynamic model-assembly interface: a configuration-driven pipeline that takes a molecule in 1D, 2D, or 3D form, encodes it with a swappable graph or conformation encoder, optionally combines the two molecules' features through an interaction layer, aligns the fused features into the LLM token space with an MLP or Q-Former, and feeds the result to one of seven backbones under direct or chain-of-thought prompts. This machinery carries the argument because it turns model comparison from a reimplementation problem into a configuration problem, and it is what generates the claimed 50,000-plus distinct model configurations. Three pretraining strategies, namely molecular-interaction-based, substructure-based, and structure-similarity-guided grouping, are also part of the machinery and give all assembled models a shared initialization before fine-tuning.

What would settle it

Hold the LLM backbone and interaction layer fixed and compare a 2D graph encoder against a 3D conformation encoder on the same DDI and SSI datasets; if the 3D configuration does not consistently win, the paper's claim that 3D conformations drive the gains is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ModuLM is, to the authors' knowledge, the first LLM-based MRL framework that supports flexible molecular input formats and dynamic architectural switching. It provides a suite of modular components, including 8 types of 2D molecular graph encoders, 11 types of 3D molecular conformation encoders, 7 interaction layers, 7 LLM backbones, MLP and Q-Former alignment, multiple pretraining strategies, and direct or chain-of-thought prompts, from which over 50,000 model configurations can be assembled. The experiments construct 15 configurations and compare them against ChemT5, MolCA, MolT5, and MolTC on drug-drug interaction, solute-solvent interaction, and chromophore-solvent interaction datasets. The results are used to conclude that adding 2D or 3D structural information improves performance over text-only inputs, that 3D conformations yield the best results, that interaction layers consistently add value, and that smaller LLM backbones adapt better during fine-tuning than larger ones. The paper further shows a user-defined model, built by extending the best 3D configuration with an intra-molecular attention encoder and chain-of-thought prompting, exceeding MolTC on all tested datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical conclusion that 3D conformations and interaction layers improve performance assumes each comparison changes only the component being tested, but several configurations in the paper's tables change the encoder, the input modality, and the backbone at the same time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ModuLM works as claimed, LLM-based MRL benchmarking can be standardized: the same pipeline, prompts, splits, and metrics apply across encoders and backbones, reducing redundant coding.
  • The reported 3D advantage implies that geometry-sensitive tasks such as drug-drug interaction and solvation should incorporate 3D conformations rather than relying on SMILES or 2D graphs alone.
  • The consistent gains from interaction layers imply that future LLM-based MRL models should explicitly model the pair relationship instead of concatenating molecular representations.
  • The finding that smaller backbones fine-tune better suggests that model scale is not the main driver for these tasks and that task-specific adaptation matters more.
  • The custom model's results imply that component-level improvements, including a custom encoder, an interaction design, and chain-of-thought prompting, can compound to beat existing methods on these benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the framework's configuration space is large enough that the same machinery could be used for automated search or Bayesian optimization over molecular encoders and backbones, turning the reported 50,000 configurations from a capacity claim into a search space.
  • Beyond the paper: the observation that larger LLMs generalize but underperform after fine-tuning points to a capacity-adaptation trade-off that could be studied with scaling curves across more backbone sizes.
  • Beyond the paper: a single-variable ablation that keeps the encoder family and interaction layer fixed while toggling only 2D versus 3D input would separate the benefit of 3D geometry from the benefit of a stronger encoder, which the current tables are not set up to answer.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ModuLM, a modular framework for building and benchmarking LLM-based molecular relational learning (MRL) models. The framework supports 1D SMILES/SelfIES, 2D molecular graphs, and 3D conformations; provides 8 graph encoders, 11 conformation encoders, 7 interaction layers, and 7 LLM backbones; and offers configurable alignment modules and prompts, producing a large space of model configurations. The authors report experiments on DDI, SSI, and CSI datasets, comparing 15 example configurations with existing baselines such as MolTC, and additionally construct a custom model that integrates a redesigned Uni-mol encoder, an interaction layer, and chain-of-thought prompting. The paper includes an anonymous code link, standard public datasets, and five-repeat means with standard deviations.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, ModuLM would fill a real gap: a unified, extensible benchmarking framework that decouples molecular input modality, encoder choice, interaction layer, and LLM backbone for MRL. The breadth of components and the reported ease of dynamic configuration are valuable for the community, and the use of standard public datasets with repeated runs supports reproducibility. However, the component-level conclusions in Section 4.2 are currently drawn from comparisons that change several design dimensions at once, so the paper's central empirical guidance is weaker than the text suggests. The framework contribution itself remains defensible; what needs revision is the attribution of performance gains to individual components.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The claim that 3D conformations improve performance is not supported by controlled comparisons. The sets {1.1, 1.2, 1.4}, {1.6, 1.7, 1.8}, and {1.12, 1.13} (with 1.14 needed for a 3D LLaMA comparison) change both the input modality and the encoder simultaneously: 1.2 uses GIN on 2D while 1.4 uses Uni-mol on 3D, and 1.7 uses GIN on 2D while 1.8 uses Uni-mol on 3D. Uni-mol is a heavily pretrained 3D transformer while GIN and CoATGIN are lightweight 2D GNNs, so the observed gains could be an encoder effect rather than evidence that 3D input per se helps. In fact, Table 4 does not consistently favor 1.4 over 1.2: on ChChMiner AUC-ROC the values are 0.955 and 0.956, essentially tied. The authors should either add matched comparisons that vary only the modality (same encoder and backbone) or substantially soften the claim that 3D conformations are responsible for the improvements.
  2. [Section 4.2, "Impact of Interaction Layers"] The claim that adding interaction layers consistently improves performance is not established by the presented evidence. Among the configurations listed (1.3, 1.5, 1.9, 1.11, 1.14, 1.15), only 1.2 versus 1.3 is a controlled comparison with the same backbone, encoder, and modality. All other interaction-layer configurations lack a matched no-interaction baseline: for example, 1.14 (LLaMA-1B, EGNN, Gated Fusion, 3D) differs from 1.13 (LLaMA-1B, CoATGIN, no interaction, 2D) in encoder, modality, and interaction layer simultaneously. The sentence "We first conduct experiments with various non-interaction designs" is also confusing because every listed configuration includes an interaction layer. The authors should report matched ablations, or restrict the conclusion to the single controlled pair.
  3. [Table 12 and Section 4.3] The CSI comparison reports only the best-performing configuration for each backbone, selected post hoc, which biases the comparison in favor of ModuLM and prevents a fixed-configuration assessment. The custom-model comparison also relies on differences that are often within overlapping error bars: for example, ChChMiner accuracy is 0.968 +/- 0.006 for the custom model versus 0.964 +/- 0.005 for configuration 1.8, and the custom model’s Lifetime RMSE of 1.123 +/- 0.082 is worse in mean than 1.8’s 1.119 +/- 0.077. The paper should either provide paired significance tests across the five repeats for the key comparisons or explicitly state which differences are not statistically significant.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The claim of "over 50,000 distinct model configurations" is not derived from the listed component counts: 8 graph encoders x 11 conformation encoders x 7 interaction layers x 7 backbones equals 4,312 combinations, and even multiplying by the two alignment options and two prompt types gives 17,248. Please provide the counting rule or revise the number.
  2. [Table 1] The pretraining prompt template contains typos: "substructe0" and "substructe1" should be "substructure0" and "substructure1".
  3. [Section 3.2 and References] The text says pretraining data are collected from PubChem and DrugBank, but reference [28] is the PubChem 2023 update rather than a DrugBank reference; please check the citation mapping.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement that all main-text backbones use the Structure Similarity-guided Grouping pretraining approach should be reconciled with Section 3.2, which presents three pretraining strategies and also mentions additional Q-former pretraining; please clarify which pretraining is applied to each reported configuration and to each baseline.
  5. [Appendix A.4] In the example JSON configurations, "max_epochs" and "weight_decay" are quoted as strings ("30", "0.05") while neighboring fields are numeric; this is likely an artifact of the presentation but should be made consistent to avoid confusion for users.
  6. [Table 12] For the Lifetime column, the model 1.8 has RMSE 1.119 +/- 0.077 while the custom model has RMSE 1.123 +/- 0.082; the text elsewhere presents the custom model as uniformly better, so this row should be discussed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-to-input circularity; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and a confounded-but-not-circular attribution analysis.

full rationale

ModuLM's central contribution is a modular framework whose claims are supported by directly measured benchmark results on held-out splits, not by any fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly credits MolTC's interaction pretraining text setup (Section 3.2, Table 1) and FlexMol's toolkit design, and an author overlaps with those prior works; however, that adoption is a component choice, not the load-bearing justification for the framework's extensibility, and the benchmark comparisons report independently evaluated numbers against MolTC and other baselines. The Section 4.2 claims that 3D conformations and interaction layers improve performance rely on configurations in Table 3 that change encoder, backbone, and interaction layer simultaneously, so those component-level attributions are confounded; confounds are a validity concern, not a circular reduction, because no experimental output is equivalent by construction to an input parameter or to a self-citation. The Limitations section explicitly disclaims exhaustive exploration, which further confines the empirical claims. No circular step satisfies the quoted-reduction test, so the score reflects only minor self-citation rather than substantive circularity.

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

The framework introduces no new physical, chemical, or mathematical entities. The custom encoder is a software-level reimplementation of Uni-Mol with attention-based aggregation, not a new entity. Training hyperparameters such as LoRA rank, learning rates, and epochs are standard choices, not free parameters fitted to support a scientific claim.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three pretraining objectives (interaction-based, substructure-based, structure-similarity grouping) improve downstream MRL performance.
    Section 3.2 postulates that pretraining on molecular property description texts and the MolTC interaction-based method helps fine-tuning; no comparison without pretraining is reported.
  • domain assumption RDKit-generated conformations are sufficient 3D representations for MRL tasks.
    Section 4.1 states conformations are generated with RDKit; the quality and biological relevance of these geometries is not validated.
  • ad hoc to paper The modular interface composes components without losing their published effectiveness.
    The framework assumes that frozen Uni-Mol, GIN, and other encoders remain effective when their embeddings are passed through an MLP or Q-Former into an LLM and trained with LoRA; no experiment isolates each component's contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ModuLM: Enabling Modular and Multimodal Molecular Relational Learning with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65K56F4Y

@misc{pith2026250600880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ModuLM: Enabling Modular and Multimodal Molecular Relational Learning with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65K56F4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00880}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular Relational Learning (MRL) aims to understand interactions between molecular pairs, playing a critical role in advancing biochemical research. With the recent development of large language models (LLMs), a growing number of studies have explored the integration of MRL with LLMs and achieved promising results. However, the increasing availability of diverse LLMs and molecular structure encoders has significantly expanded the model space, presenting major challenges for benchmarking. Currently, there is no LLM framework that supports both flexible molecular input formats and dynamic architectural switching. To address these challenges, reduce redundant coding, and ensure fair model comparison, we propose ModuLM, a framework designed to support flexible LLM-based model construction and diverse molecular representations. ModuLM provides a rich suite of modular components, including 8 types of 2D molecular graph encoders, 11 types of 3D molecular conformation encoders, 7 types of interaction layers, and 7 mainstream LLM backbones. Owing to its highly flexible model assembly mechanism, ModuLM enables the dynamic construction of over 50,000 distinct model configurations. In addition, we provide comprehensive results to demonstrate the effectiveness of ModuLM in supporting LLM-based MRL tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the ModuLM framework. ModuLM is an LLM framework designed for MRL, with the overall architecture illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the custom model designed using ModuLM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interpretable bilinear attention network with domain adaptation improves drug–target prediction

    Peizhen Bai, Filip Miljkovi ´c, Bino John, and Haiping Lu. Interpretable bilinear attention network with domain adaptation improves drug–target prediction. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(2):126–136, Feb 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism

    Xiao Bi, Deli Chen, Guanting Chen, Shanhuang Chen, Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Honghui Ding, Kai Dong, Qiushi Du, Zhe Fu, et al. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Unifying molecular and textual representations via multi-task language modelling

    Dimitrios Christofidellis, Giorgio Giannone, Jannis Born, Ole Winther, Teodoro Laino, and Mat- teo Manica. Unifying molecular and textual representations via multi-task language modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12586, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Unifying molecular and textual representations via multi-task language modelling

    Dimitrios Christofidellis, Giorgio Giannone, Jannis Born, Ole Winther, Teodoro Laino, and Mat- teo Manica. Unifying molecular and textual representations via multi-task language modelling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6140–6157. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Group contribution and machine learning approaches to predict abraham so- lute parameters, solvation free energy, and solvation enthalpy

    Yunsie Chung, Florence H Vermeire, Haoyang Wu, Pierre J Walker, Michael H Abraham, and William H Green. Group contribution and machine learning approaches to predict abraham so- lute parameters, solvation free energy, and solvation enthalpy. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 62(3):433–446, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Se (3) equivariant graph neural networks with complete local frames

    Weitao Du, He Zhang, Yuanqi Du, Qi Meng, Wei Chen, Nanning Zheng, Bin Shao, and Tie-Yan Liu. Se (3) equivariant graph neural networks with complete local frames. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5583–5608. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Mmgnn: A molecular merged graph neural network for explainable solvation free energy prediction

    Wenjie Du, Shuai Zhang, Jun Xia Di Wu, Ziyuan Zhao, Junfeng Fang, and Yang Wang. Mmgnn: A molecular merged graph neural network for explainable solvation free energy prediction. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5808–5816, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A new perspective on building efficient and expressive 3d equivariant graph neural networks

    Yuanqi Du, Limei Wang, Dieqiao Feng, Guifeng Wang, Shuiwang Ji, Carla P Gomes, Zhi-Ming Ma, et al. A new perspective on building efficient and expressive 3d equivariant graph neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:66647–66674, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints

    David Duvenaud, Dougal Maclaurin, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, Timothy Hirzel, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Ryan P Adams. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.09292, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Translation between molecules and natural language

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

    2022 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Text2mol: Cross-modal molecule retrieval with natural language queries

    Carl Edwards, ChengXiang Zhai, and Heng Ji. Text2mol: Cross-modal molecule retrieval with natural language queries. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 595–607, 2021

    2021

  4. [13]

    Moltc: Towards molecular relational modeling in language models

    Junfeng Fang, Shuai Zhang, Chang Wu, Zhengyi Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Sihang Li, Kun Wang, Wenjie Du, and Xiang Wang. Moltc: Towards molecular relational modeling in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03781, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Core: Automatic molecule optimization using copy & refine strategy

    Tianfan Fu, Cao Xiao, and Jimeng Sun. Core: Automatic molecule optimization using copy & refine strategy. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 638–645, 2020. 10

    2020

  6. [15]

    Se (3)-transformers: 3d roto-translation equivariant attention networks

    Fabian Fuchs, Daniel Worrall, V olker Fischer, and Max Welling. Se (3)-transformers: 3d roto-translation equivariant attention networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1970–1981, 2020

    1970

  7. [16]

    Gemnet: Universal directional graph neural networks for molecules

    Johannes Gasteiger, Florian Becker, and Stephan Günnemann. Gemnet: Universal directional graph neural networks for molecules. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:6790–6802, 2021

    2021

  8. [17]

    Directional message passing for molecular graphs

    Johannes Gasteiger, Janek Groß, and Stephan Günnemann. Directional message passing for molecular graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03123, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Neural message passing for quantum chemistry

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1263–1272. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  10. [19]

    Mathematical correlations for describing solute transfer into functionalized alkane solvents containing hydroxyl, ether, ester or ketone solvents

    Laura M Grubbs, Mariam Saifullah, E Nohelli, Shulin Ye, Sai S Achi, William E Acree Jr, and Michael H Abraham. Mathematical correlations for describing solute transfer into functionalized alkane solvents containing hydroxyl, ether, ester or ketone solvents. Fluid phase equilib...

    2010

  11. [20]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  13. [22]

    Coley, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun, and Marinka Zitnik

    Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Wenhao Gao, Yue Zhao, Yusuf Roohani, Jure Leskovec, Connor W. Coley, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun, and Marinka Zitnik. Therapeutics data commons: Machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development.Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2021

  14. [23]

    Deeppurpose: A deep learning library for drug–target interaction prediction

    Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Lucas M Glass, Marinka Zitnik, Cao Xiao, and Jimeng Sun. Deeppurpose: A deep learning library for drug–target interaction prediction. Bioinformat- ics, 36(22–23):5545–5547, Dec 2020

    2020

  15. [24]

    Moltrans: Molecular interaction transformer for drug–target interaction prediction

    Kexin Huang, Cao Xiao, Lucas M Glass, and Jimeng Sun. Moltrans: Molecular interaction transformer for drug–target interaction prediction. Bioinformatics, 37(6):830–836, 2020

    2020

  16. [25]

    Prediction of protein–protein interaction using graph neural networks

    Kanchan Jha, Sriparna Saha, and Hiteshi Singh. Prediction of protein–protein interaction using graph neural networks. Scientific Reports, 12(1):8360, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    Learning from protein structure with geometric vector perceptrons

    Bowen Jing, Stephan Eismann, Patricia Suriana, Raphael John Lamarre Townshend, and Ron Dror. Learning from protein structure with geometric vector perceptrons. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  18. [27]

    Experimental database of optical properties of organic compounds

    Joonyoung F Joung, Minhi Han, Minseok Jeong, and Sungnam Park. Experimental database of optical properties of organic compounds. Scientific data, 7(1):295, 2020

    2020

  19. [28]

    Shoemaker, Paul A

    Sunghwan Kim, Jie Chen, Tiejun Cheng, Asta Gindulyte, Jia He, Siqian He, Qingliang Li, Benjamin A. Shoemaker, Paul A. Thiessen, Bo Yu, Leonid Zaslavsky, Jian Zhang, and Evan E. Bolton. Pubchem 2023 update. Nucleic Acids Res., 51(D1):1373–1380, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  22. [31]

    Selfies and the future of molecular string representations

    Mario Krenn, Qianxiang Ai, Senja Barthel, Nessa Carson, Angelo Frei, Nathan C Frey, Pascal Friederich, Théophile Gaudin, Alberto Alexander Gayle, Kevin Maik Jablonka, et al. Selfies and the future of molecular string representations. Patterns, 3(10), 2022. 11

    2022

  23. [32]

    Na, Sungwon Kim, Junseok Lee, and Chanyoung Park

    Namkyeong Lee, Dongmin Hyun, Gyoung S. Na, Sungwon Kim, Junseok Lee, and Chanyoung Park. Conditional graph information bottleneck for molecular relational learning. In ICML, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 18852–18871. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Conditional graph information bottleneck for molecular relational learning

    Namkyeong Lee, Dongmin Hyun, Gyoung S Na, Sungwon Kim, Junseok Lee, and Chanyoung Park. Conditional graph information bottleneck for molecular relational learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01520, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, pages 19730–19742. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    3d-molm: Towards 3d molecule-text interpretation in language models

    Sihang Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Yanchen Luo, Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Kenji Kawaguchi, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qi Tian. 3d-molm: Towards 3d molecule-text interpretation in language models. In ICLR, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Drugchat: Towards enabling chatgpt- like capabilities on drug molecule graphs

    Youwei Liang, Ruiyi Zhang, Li Zhang, and Pengtao Xie. Drugchat: Towards enabling chatgpt- like capabilities on drug molecule graphs. ArXiv, abs/2309.03907, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Bilinear cnn models for fine-grained visual recognition

    Tsung-Yu Lin, Aruni RoyChowdhury, and Subhransu Maji. Bilinear cnn models for fine-grained visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1449–1457, 2015

    2015

  29. [38]

    Kgnn: Knowledge graph neural network for drug-drug interaction prediction

    Xuan Lin, Zhe Quan, Zhi-Jie Wang, Tengfei Ma, and Xiangxiang Zeng. Kgnn: Knowledge graph neural network for drug-drug interaction prediction. In IJCAI, volume 380, pages 2739–2745, 2020

    2020

  30. [39]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    Spherical message passing for 3d molecular graphs

    Yi Liu, Limei Wang, Meng Liu, Yuchao Lin, Xuan Zhang, Bora Oztekin, and Shuiwang Ji. Spherical message passing for 3d molecular graphs. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    Molca: Molecular graph-language modeling with cross-modal projector and uni-modal adapter

    Zhiyuan Liu, Sihang Li, Yanchen Luo, Hao Fei, Yixin Cao, Kenji Kawaguchi, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Molca: Molecular graph-language modeling with cross-modal projector and uni-modal adapter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12798, 2023

    arXiv

  33. [42]

    An autoregressive flow model for 3d molecular geometry generation from scratch

    Youzhi Luo and Shuiwang Ji. An autoregressive flow model for 3d molecular geometry generation from scratch. In International conference on learning representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  34. [43]

    Min- nesota solvation database (mnsol) version 2012

    Aleksandr V Marenich, Casey P Kelly, Jason D Thompson, Gregory D Hawkins, Candee C Chambers, David J Giesen, Paul Winget, Christopher J Cramer, and Donald G Truhlar. Min- nesota solvation database (mnsol) version 2012. 2020

    2012

  35. [44]

    Freesolv: a database of experimental and calculated hydration free energies, with input files

    David L Mobley and J Peter Guthrie. Freesolv: a database of experimental and calculated hydration free energies, with input files. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 28:711– 720, 2014

    2014

  36. [45]

    Estimation of solvation quantities from experimental thermodynamic data: Development of the comprehensive compsol databank for pure and mixed solutes

    Edouard Moine, Romain Privat, Baptiste Sirjean, and Jean-Noël Jaubert. Estimation of solvation quantities from experimental thermodynamic data: Development of the comprehensive compsol databank for pure and mixed solutes. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 46(3), 2017

    2017

  37. [46]

    Graphdta: Predicting drug–target binding affinity with graph neural networks

    Thin Nguyen, Hang Le, Thomas P Quinn, Tri Nguyen, Thuc Duy Le, and Svetha Venkatesh. Graphdta: Predicting drug–target binding affinity with graph neural networks. Bioinformatics, 37(8):1140–1147, Oct 2020

    2020

  38. [47]

    Extracting protein- protein interactions (ppis) from biomedical literature using attention-based relational context information

    Gilchan Park, Sean McCorkle, Carlos Soto, Ian Blaby, and Shinjae Yoo. Extracting protein- protein interactions (ppis) from biomedical literature using attention-based relational context information. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 2052–2061....

    2022

  39. [48]

    Biot5: Enriching cross-modal integration in biology with chemical knowledge and natural language associations

    Qizhi Pei, Wei Zhang, Jinhua Zhu, Kehan Wu, Kaiyuan Gao, Lijun Wu, Yingce Xia, and Rui Yan. Biot5: Enriching cross-modal integration in biology with chemical knowledge and natural language associations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07276, 2023

    arXiv

  40. [49]

    Mcl-dti: Using drug multimodal information and bi-directional cross-attention learning method for predicting drug–target interaction

    Ying Qian, Xinyi Li, Jian Wu, and Qian Zhang. Mcl-dti: Using drug multimodal information and bi-directional cross-attention learning method for predicting drug–target interaction. BMC Bioinformatics, 24(1), Aug 2023

    2023

  41. [50]

    Gated fusion network for single image dehazing

    Wenqi Ren, Lin Ma, Jiawei Zhang, Jinshan Pan, Xiaochun Cao, Wei Liu, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Gated fusion network for single image dehazing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3253–3261, 2018

    2018

  42. [51]

    Considerations for drug interactions on qtc in exploratory covid-19 treatment

    Dan M Roden, Robert A Harrington, Athena Poppas, and Andrea M Russo. Considerations for drug interactions on qtc in exploratory covid-19 treatment. Circulation, 141(24):e906–e907, 2020

    2020

  43. [52]

    Deep learning improves prediction of drug–drug and drug–food interactions

    Jae Yong Ryu, Hyun Uk Kim, and Sang Yup Lee. Deep learning improves prediction of drug–drug and drug–food interactions. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 115(18):E4304–E4311, 2018

    2018

  44. [53]

    Reactiont5: a large-scale pre-trained model towards application of limited reaction data

    Tatsuya Sagawa and Ryosuke Kojima. Reactiont5: a large-scale pre-trained model towards application of limited reaction data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06708, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    E (n) equivariant graph neural networks

    Vıctor Garcia Satorras, Emiel Hoogeboom, and Max Welling. E (n) equivariant graph neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 9323–9332. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  46. [55]

    Equivariant message passing for the prediction of tensorial properties and molecular spectra

    Kristof Schütt, Oliver Unke, and Michael Gastegger. Equivariant message passing for the prediction of tensorial properties and molecular spectra. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9377–9388. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  47. [56]

    Schnet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural net- work for modeling quantum interactions

    Kristof T Schütt, Pieter-Jan Kindermans, Huziel E Sauceda, Stefan Chmiela, Alexandre Tkatchenko, and Klaus-Robert Müller. Schnet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural net- work for modeling quantum interactions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30:992–1002, 2017

    2017

  48. [57]

    Flexmol: A flexible toolkit for benchmarking molecular relational learning

    Sizhe Sizhe Liu, Jun Xia, Lecheng Zhang, Yuchen Liu, Yue Liu, Wenjie Du, Zhangyang Gao, Bozhen Hu, Cheng Tan, Stan Z Li, et al. Flexmol: A flexible toolkit for benchmarking molecular relational learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:35454–35467, 2024

    2024

  49. [58]

    Gerstein

    Xiangru Tang, Andrew Tran, Jeffrey Tan, and Mark B. Gerstein. Mollm: A unified language model for integrating biomedical text with 2d and 3d molecular representations. bioRxiv, 2024

    2024

  50. [59]

    Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions

    Nicholas P Tatonetti, Patrick P Ye, Roxana Daneshjou, and Russ B Altman. Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions. Science translational medicine, 4(125):125ra31– 125ra31, 2012

    2012

  51. [60]

    Galactica: A large language model for science

    Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. Galactica: A large language model for science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09085, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Origins of complex solvent effects on chemical reactivity and computational tools to investigate them: a review

    Jithin John Varghese and Samir H Mushrif. Origins of complex solvent effects on chemical reactivity and computational tools to investigate them: a review. Reaction Chemistry & Engineering, 4(2):165–206, 2019

    2019

  54. [63]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  55. [64]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018. 13

    2018

  56. [65]

    Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments

    Florence H Vermeire and William H Green. Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments. Chemical Engineering Journal, 418:129307, 2021

    2021

  57. [66]

    3dprotdta: A deep learning model for drug-target affinity prediction based on residue-level protein graphs

    Taras V oitsitskyi, Roman Stratiichuk, Ihor Koleiev, Leonid Popryho, Zakhar Ostrovsky, Pavlo Henitsoi, Ivan Khropachov, V olodymyr V ozniak, Roman Zhytar, Diana Nechepurenko, and et al. 3dprotdta: A deep learning model for drug-target affinity prediction based on residue-level...

    2023

  58. [67]

    Pre-training of equivariant graph matching networks with conformation flexibility for drug binding

    Fang Wu, Shuting Jin, Yinghui Jiang, Xurui Jin, Bowen Tang, Zhangming Niu, Xiangrong Liu, Qiang Zhang, Xiangxiang Zeng, and Stan Z Li. Pre-training of equivariant graph matching networks with conformation flexibility for drug binding. Advanced Science, 9(33):2203796, 2022

    2022

  59. [68]

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

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

    2019

  60. [69]

    How powerful are graph neural networks? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  61. [70]

    Representation learning on graphs with jumping knowledge networks

    Keyulu Xu, Chengtao Li, Yonglong Tian, Tomohiro Sonobe, Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, and Stefanie Jegelka. Representation learning on graphs with jumping knowledge networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 5453–5462. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  62. [71]

    Attentionsitedti: An interpretable graph-based model for drug-target interaction prediction using nlp sentence-level relation classification

    Mehdi Yazdani-Jahromi, Niloofar Yousefi, Aida Tayebi, Elayaraja Kolanthai, Craig J Neal, Sudipta Seal, and Ozlem Ozmen Garibay. Attentionsitedti: An interpretable graph-based model for drug-target interaction prediction using nlp sentence-level relation classification. Briefin...

    2022

  63. [72]

    A deep-learning system bridging molecule structure and biomedical text with comprehension comparable to human professionals

    Zheni Zeng, Yuan Yao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. A deep-learning system bridging molecule structure and biomedical text with comprehension comparable to human professionals. Nature communications, 13(862), 2022

    2022

  64. [73]

    D. D. Zhang, S. Xia, and Y . K. Zhang. Accurate prediction of aqueous free solvation energies using 3d atomic feature-based graph neural network with transfer learning. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 62(8):1840–1848, 2022

    2022

  65. [74]

    Predicting potential drug-drug interactions by integrating chemical, biological, phenotypic and network data

    Wen Zhang, Yanlin Chen, Feng Liu, Fei Luo, Gang Tian, and Xiaohong Li. Predicting potential drug-drug interactions by integrating chemical, biological, phenotypic and network data. BMC bioinformatics, 18:1–12, 2017

    2017

  66. [75]

    Coatgin: Marrying convolution and attention for graph-based molecule property prediction

    Xuan Zhang, Cheng Chen, Zhaoxu Meng, Zhenghe Yang, Haitao Jiang, and Xuefeng Cui. Coatgin: Marrying convolution and attention for graph-based molecule property prediction. In 2022 IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine (BIBM), pages 374–379. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  67. [76]

    Protein representation learning by geometric structure pretraining

    Zuobai Zhang, Minghao Xu, Arian Jamasb, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Aurelie Lozano, Payel Das, and Jian Tang. Protein representation learning by geometric structure pretraining. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  68. [77]

    Graph- augmented convolutional networks on drug-drug interactions prediction

    Yi Zhong, Xueyu Chen, Yu Zhao, Xiaoming Chen, Tingfang Gao, and Zuquan Weng. Graph- augmented convolutional networks on drug-drug interactions prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03702, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Learning motif-based graphs for drug–drug interaction prediction via local–global self-attention.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6:1094–1105, 2024

    Yujie Zhong, Guangming Li, Jianxin Yang, et al. Learning motif-based graphs for drug–drug interaction prediction via local–global self-attention.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6:1094–1105, 2024

    2024

  70. [79]

    Uni-mol: a universal 3d molecular representation learning framework

    Gengmo Zhou, Zhifeng Gao, Qiankun Ding, Hang Zheng, Hongteng Xu, Zhewei Wei, Linfeng Zhang, and Guolin Ke. Uni-mol: a universal 3d molecular representation learning framework. 2023. 14

    2023

  71. [80]

    Uni-mol: A universal 3d molecular representation learning framework

    Gengmo Zhou, Zhifeng Gao, Qiankun Ding, Hang Zheng, Hongteng Xu, Zhewei Wei, Linfeng Zhang, and Guolin Ke. Uni-mol: A universal 3d molecular representation learning framework. 2023

    2023

  72. [81]

    A self-attention–based neural network for three-dimensional multivariate modeling and its skillful enso predictions

    Lu Zhou and Rong-Hua Zhang. A self-attention–based neural network for three-dimensional multivariate modeling and its skillful enso predictions. Science Advances, 9(10):eadf2827, 2023

    2023

  73. [82]

    Datadta: A multi- feature and dual-interaction aggregation framework for drug–target binding affinity prediction

    Yan Zhu, Lingling Zhao, Naifeng Wen, Junjie Wang, and Chunyu Wang. Datadta: A multi- feature and dual-interaction aggregation framework for drug–target binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics, 39(9), Sep 2023

    2023

  74. [83]

    root": "data/DDI/DeepDDI/

    M Zitnik, R Sosi, S Maheshwari, and J Leskovec. Stanford biomedical network dataset collection. Biosn. Datasets Stanford Biomed. Netw. Dataset Collect, 2018. 15 A Appendix A.1 General Information A.1.1 Links The code for ModuLM is currently available in our code repository htt...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.