Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry
Authors:
Justin Gilmer,
Samuel S. Schoenholz,
Patrick F. Riley,
Oriol Vinyals,
George E. Dahl
Abstract:
Supervised learning on molecules has incredible potential to be useful in chemistry, drug discovery, and materials science. Luckily, several promising and closely related neural network models invariant to molecular symmetries have already been described in the literature. These models learn a message passing algorithm and aggregation procedure to compute a function of their entire input graph. At…
▽ More
Supervised learning on molecules has incredible potential to be useful in chemistry, drug discovery, and materials science. Luckily, several promising and closely related neural network models invariant to molecular symmetries have already been described in the literature. These models learn a message passing algorithm and aggregation procedure to compute a function of their entire input graph. At this point, the next step is to find a particularly effective variant of this general approach and apply it to chemical prediction benchmarks until we either solve them or reach the limits of the approach. In this paper, we reformulate existing models into a single common framework we call Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) and explore additional novel variations within this framework. Using MPNNs we demonstrate state of the art results on an important molecular property prediction benchmark; these results are strong enough that we believe future work should focus on datasets with larger molecules or more accurate ground truth labels.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2017; v1 submitted 4 April, 2017;
originally announced April 2017.
Machine learning prediction errors better than DFT accuracy
Authors:
Felix A. Faber,
Luke Hutchison,
Bing Huang,
Justin Gilmer,
Samuel S. Schoenholz,
George E. Dahl,
Oriol Vinyals,
Steven Kearnes,
Patrick F. Riley,
O. Anatole von Lilienfeld
Abstract:
We investigate the impact of choosing regressors and molecular representations for the construction of fast machine learning (ML) models of thirteen electronic ground-state properties of organic molecules. The performance of each regressor/representation/property combination is assessed using learning curves which report out-of-sample errors as a function of training set size with up to $\sim$117k…
▽ More
We investigate the impact of choosing regressors and molecular representations for the construction of fast machine learning (ML) models of thirteen electronic ground-state properties of organic molecules. The performance of each regressor/representation/property combination is assessed using learning curves which report out-of-sample errors as a function of training set size with up to $\sim$117k distinct molecules. Molecular structures and properties at hybrid density functional theory (DFT) level of theory used for training and testing come from the QM9 database [Ramakrishnan et al, {\em Scientific Data} {\bf 1} 140022 (2014)] and include dipole moment, polarizability, HOMO/LUMO energies and gap, electronic spatial extent, zero point vibrational energy, enthalpies and free energies of atomization, heat capacity and the highest fundamental vibrational frequency. Various representations from the literature have been studied (Coulomb matrix, bag of bonds, BAML and ECFP4, molecular graphs (MG)), as well as newly developed distribution based variants including histograms of distances (HD), and angles (HDA/MARAD), and dihedrals (HDAD). Regressors include linear models (Bayesian ridge regression (BR) and linear regression with elastic net regularization (EN)), random forest (RF), kernel ridge regression (KRR) and two types of neural net works, graph convolutions (GC) and gated graph networks (GG). We present numerical evidence that ML model predictions deviate from DFT less than DFT deviates from experiment for all properties. Furthermore, our out-of-sample prediction errors with respect to hybrid DFT reference are on par with, or close to, chemical accuracy. Our findings suggest that ML models could be more accurate than hybrid DFT if explicitly electron correlated quantum (or experimental) data was available.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2017; v1 submitted 17 February, 2017;
originally announced February 2017.
