Pretrained molecular embedding models spanning graph neural networks, text transformers, and hybrid architectures have been widely used in drug discovery, yet no large-scale, rigorous comparison of their representations existed. We evaluated 28 models across 25 classification datasets under a controlled framework using hierarchical Bayesian Bradley-Terry statistical testing. All neural models except CheMeleon failed to outperform the classical ECFP count fingerprint; CheMeleon was the only model rated as better. However, further testing on external validation datasets, based on scaffold cross-validation and a Bayesian hierarchical correlated t-test, revealed no definite advantage of either embedding method. As a practical takeaway, we recommend evaluating both ECFP fingerprints and CheMeleon embeddings in novel QSAR/QSPR studies. Overall, in the context of all neural networks evaluated, these results also challenge the perceived progress in molecular representation learning and highlight the need for rigorous evaluation standards in the field.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The proposed workflow.
Dataset
Reference
Endpoint
NICEATM Acute Oral Toxicity
[ 49 , 33 ]
Acute oral rat toxicity: non-toxic (0), intermediate (1), very toxic (2)
Rat carcinogenicity
[ 64 ]
In vivo classification as carcinogen or non-carcinogen
DILIrank 2.0
[ 52 ]
Drug-induced liver injury: none (0), low (1), high (2)
Bile salt export pump inhibition, pIC50=4 threshold
Mitochondrial toxicity
[ 23 ]
Toxicity to mitochondria
Table 1: Selected external datasets used for evaluation.
Model
Mean rank ↓
Mean AUROC ↑
CheMeleon
5.24
81.17%
R-MAT
6.52
80.91%
MolBERT
8.16
80.51%
ChemBERTa
8.68
80.01%
ECFP
8.80
79.95%
Mordred
8.92
80.22%
Table 2: Average model results, with ECFP marked.
BBT decision
Models
Better
CheMeleon
Practically equivalent
R-MAT, MolBERT, ChemBERTa, Mordred, CDDD, MAT, Atom Pair, MolE, MoLFormer
Worse
Mol2vec, CLAMP, TT, …, (all other models)
Table 3: Bayesian Bradley-Terry (BBT) model decisions for all models compared to the ECFP baseline, with ROPE [0.35,0.65] .
Figure 2: Critical difference diagram, models ordered by BBT posterior mean βi . Horizontal bars join groups of pairwise practically equivalent models.
Figure 3: Pairwise win ratio between all evaluated models. Green marks wins of the model on the Y axis against the model on the X axis, red means losses (i.e. the model from X axis won more).
Model
Number of datasets
CheMeleon
12
ECFP
8
MolBERT
8
Mordred
8
R-MAT
8
Table 4: Number of datasets on which a model achieved the highest AUROC or was within 0.01 AUROC of it, for the five models with the most such datasets.
Figure 4: Percentage of models outperforming ECFP (AUROC higher by more than 0.01) on each dataset.
Dataset
CheMeleon AUROC [%]
ECFP AUROC [%]
NICEATM Acute Oral Toxicity
80.69 ± 2.48
80.09 ± 2.37
Rat carcinogenicity
68.43 ± 3.83
67.35 ± 4.49
DILIrank 2.0
70.62 ± 3.11
70.83 ± 3.38
B3DB
91.41 ± 2.46
92.26 ± 2.38
BSEP
86.30 ± 2.93
84.92 ± 4.85
Mitochondrial toxicity
87.00 ± 2.08
83.78 ± 4.53
Table 5: Results of the post-hoc comparison on external validation datasets. Mean ± standard deviation is reported across 5-fold scaffold cross-validation. For each dataset and model, the classification head with the best mean AUROC is used.
Figure 5: Per-dataset posterior of the mean AUROC difference (CheMeleon − ECFP) from the hierarchical t-test, ρ=0 . Filled dots and bars show the posterior mean and 89% HDI after shrinkage, empty dots the raw mean difference over folds. The shaded area is the ROPE [−0.01,0.01] .
ρ
E[μ0]
89% HDI
P(ECFP)
P(equivalent)
P(CheMeleon)
Decision
0
+0.0073
[-0.0004, +0.0155]
0.005
0.662
0.333
Inconclusive
0.001
+0.0074
[-0.0008, +0.0151]
0.005
0.662
0.333
Inconclusive
0.01
+0.0073
[-0.0007, +0.0154]
0.005
0.666
0.329
Inconclusive
0.05
+0.0071
[-0.0012, +0.0156]
0.006
0.681
0.313
Inconclusive
0.1
+0.0069
[-0.0023, +0.0156]
0.007
0.679
0.314
Inconclusive
0.2
+0.0065
[-0.0033, +0.0162]
0.013
0.676
0.311
Inconclusive
Table 6: Results of the Bayesian hierarchical correlated t-test, CheMeleon against ECFP, for different values of the fold correlation ρ .
Figure 6: Posterior predictive distribution of the CheMeleon − ECFP AUROC difference on a new dataset, from the hierarchical correlated t -test on the scaffold-split folds (ROPE =[−0.01,0.01] ).
Figure 7: Embedding time of each evaluated model, using its representative variant: mean time to embed 10,000 molecules from MUV, with error bars indicating the standard deviation over batches. Orange marks models run on GPU.
Model
Device
Mean time [s] ↓
Std time [s]
CheMeleon
GPU
9.88
0.51
R-MAT
GPU
246.92
22.24
MolBERT
CPU
268.15
11.60
ChemBERTa
GPU
15.96
0.29
ECFP
CPU
0.77
0.08
Table 7: Embedding time of the 5 best models by mean rank (Table 2 ), using each model’s representative variant. MUV is embedded in batches of 10,000 molecules.
Molecular representations such as fingerprints and learned embeddings play a central role in cheminformatics and small-molecule machine learning. They serve as the primary input for a diverse array of tasks, including clustering, dataset splitting, and virtual screening, yet their evaluation is often limited to downstream model performance on narrow benchmark tasks. We carried out a systematic investigation of the quality of molecular representations, finding that none of the state-of-the-art molecular embedding models capture graph structure, 3D shape, or ADMET endpoint similarity better than fingerprints or physicochemical descriptors. However, classical fingerprints also revealed their own material limitations. For example, we show that depending on the representation, between 225M and ∼4B molecules have non-unique representations in the 10.8B Enamine REAL database, with implications for virtual screening. Our findings provide an insight into the current limitations of molecular representations, outlining future research directions for the development of more robust encodings of small molecules.
Acer Blake, Fergus Imrie, Charlotte M. Deane
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Molecular property prediction requires representations that generalize from limited labeled data to structurally novel compounds. Existing molecular pretraining methods often rely on a single view: graph-based approaches model atom-bond topology but provide limited fragment-level supervision, whereas fingerprint descriptors encode chemical patterns but are typically used as fixed auxiliary features. We propose HiFi-Mol, a multi-view framework that separately pretrains a hierarchical graph encoder and a contextualized fingerprint encoder before downstream integration. The graph branch uses fragment-aware masking with multi-resolution supervision to capture substructure-aware representations, while the fingerprint branch tokenizes active entries from seven fingerprint families and applies masked language modeling to learn contextualized embeddings. During fine-tuning, HiFi-Mol combines projected multi-resolution graph features with fingerprint embeddings for downstream prediction. Evaluated on MoleculeNet benchmarks under the scaffold split, HiFi-Mol achieves a 2.77% improvement in average ROC-AUC over the best baseline across eight classification tasks while maintaining competitive performance on three regression tasks. Further analyses reveal that fragment-aware masking improves graph representation quality, and classification results demonstrate dataset-dependent strengths of the individual graph and fingerprint variants, confirming that the two views provide complementary predictive signals.
Gwang-Hyeon Yun, Jong-Hoon Park, Bing Hu +3
Yonsei University · Wonju-si, Republic of Korea · University of Waterloo +1
Self-supervised pretraining has transformed language and vision, but its value for molecular graph neural networks remains contested. We ask whether pretraining on a large unlabelled corpus improves molecular property prediction. We adapt LeJEPA, a predictor-free joint-embedding predictive architecture regularised by Sketched Isotropic Gaussian Regularisation (SIGReg), to molecular graphs, evaluating GPS and Chemprop-style D-MPNN encoders on the Wong et al. [1] antibiotic-activity dataset and ogbg-molhiv using a multi-seed, bootstrap-based protocol. Pretraining improves learned representations but does not robustly improve finetuning. A frozen probe on pretrained embeddings exceeds random initialisation on both tasks (ogbg-molhiv ROC-AUC 0.788 vs 0.665; +0.123), reaching the published self-supervised band, but this does not translate into finetuning gains. On the antibiotic scaffold split, a canonical partition is significant (delta AUPRC +0.041, p = 0.010), but the effect vanishes across five partitions (pooled +0.013, p = 0.095). Finetuning is null on the random split, ogbg-molhiv, and D-MPNN. The representational edge is nevertheless recoverable. Embeddings saturate at ~16-32 effective dimensions, whereas Morgan fingerprints improve to 1024 bits. At matched dimensionality, fingerprints lead validation (0.799 vs 0.782 at 128 dimensions) but trail shifted test scaffolds (0.759 vs 0.788). Truncating embeddings and combining them with a 1024-bit Morgan fingerprint raises ogbg-molhiv ROC-AUC from 0.805 to 0.832 (delta +0.027; 95% CI [+0.003, +0.054]; p = 0.014); an untrained encoder gains nothing (delta -0.003). Thus, pretraining supplies complementary information best realised through feature-level combination, while finetuning gains are weak and partition-dependent.