Spectral symmetry fingerprints in equivariant representations
Organizations: Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · Beijing Key Laboratory of Research on Large Models and Intelligent Governance, Beijing, China · Engineering Research Center of Next-Generation Intelligent Search and Recommendation, MOE, Beijing, China · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China
Abstract
Symmetry governs the organization of physical structures, while symmetry breaking reveals their transformations. In geometric deep learning, symmetry imposes rank constraints on equivariant representations, limiting the expressive capacity of equivariant graph neural networks (GNNs). Here we show that these constraints can instead be exploited: the singular-value spectra of equivariant representations provide a unified fingerprint of structural symmetry. We introduce spectral symmetry fingerprints (SymFP), which enable discrete point-group identification through rank-template matching and continuous symmetry analysis by quantifying spectral energy beyond target rank constraints. SymFP is orientation invariant and architecture agnostic, enabling a parameter-free GNN implementation. Its spectra can be reused across multiple target groups, and the resulting leakage scores satisfy subgroup monotonicity. Across synthetic structures, molecules, coordination complexes and large biological assemblies, SymFP accurately identifies point groups, tracks controlled symmetry breaking and reveals local and degree-resolved symmetry changes that can be obscured by global geometric measures. These results establish the spectral structure of equivariant representations as a general framework for characterizing symmetry across physical systems.
Figures & tables
| a Retrieval performance | |||||||||
| AUC | Recall at 25% budget (%) | pLS W/T/L | |||||||
| Group | Target symmetry | pLS | CSoM | Engel score | pLS | CSoM | Engel score | vs CSoM | vs Engel |
| Overall | — | 41/36/9 | 23/53/10 | ||||||
| All | w/ | 4/81/1 | 13/72/1 | ||||||
| All | w/o | 40/10/9 | 12/34/13 | ||||||
| Maxima | w/ | 3/70/7 | 14/65/1 | ||||||
| a Energy extrema | ||||||
| GNN | Change in pLS | Improved molecules | AUC | |||
| Maxima | Minima | Gap | All ( ) | Validation ( ) | ||
| Total-energy pretraining | ||||||
| HEGNN | 54/86 (62.8%) | 10/17 (58.8%) | ||||
| TFN | 45/86 (52.3%) | 9/17 (52.9%) | ||||
| MACE | 56/86 (65.1%) | 9/17 (52.9%) | ||||
| a Dy-DOTA-water (30 heavy atoms): CPU total time (ms) | ||||
| Multiple targets share computations within each call; baseline timings include orientation search. | ||||
| Method | 1 target | 2 targets | 4 targets | 7 targets |
| SymFP | 6.46 | 6.59 | 6.87 | 7.21 |
| CSoM | 1575.40 | 5605.46 | 15901.44 | 96382.65 |
| Engel, grid search | 611.77 | 619.24 | 620.43 | 627.62 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Schoenflies | Hermann–Mauguin | Fixed-subspace dimension (natural parity) | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 23 | 27 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 27 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 15 | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 15 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 15 | ||
| Training regime | GNN | Identification accuracy (%) | Template match rate (%) |
| — | PF | 93.75 | 97.19 |
| Random init. | HEGNN 6 | 93.75 | 92.50 |
| TFN 7 | 93.75 | 100.00 | |
| MACE 8 | 93.75 | 100.00 | |
| Equiformer 9 | 93.75 | 100.00 | |
| Pretrained | HEGNN 6 | 93.75 | 91.88 |
| GNN | Identification accuracy (%) | Template match rate (%) |
| PF | 99.38 | 93.75 |
| HEGNN 6 | 99.06 | 92.19 |
| TFN 7 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| MACE 8 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Equiformer 9 | 99.38 | 99.38 |
| GNN | Identification accuracy (%) | Template match rate (%) | |||||||
| Seed 42 | Seed 43 | Seed 44 | Mean s.d. | Seed 42 | Seed 43 | Seed 44 | Mean s.d. | ||
| 6 | HEGNN | 93.75 | 93.44 | 93.13 | 92.50 | 92.50 | 91.25 | ||
| TFN | 93.75 | 93.75 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |||
| MACE | 93.75 | 93.75 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |||
| Equiformer | 93.75 | 93.75 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |||
| 9 | HEGNN | 99.06 | 99.06 | 99.06 | 92.19 | 93.13 | 92.81 | ||
| PF | HEGNN 6 | TFN 7 | MACE 8 | Equiformer 9 | ||||||
| Group | Match | Group | Match | Group | Match | Group | Match | Group | Match | |
| PF and random init. | ||||||||||
| 87.50 | 77.81 | 93.75 | 98.75 | 93.75 | 99.69 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 28.44 | 15.62 | |
| 93.75 | 93.44 | 93.75 | 99.06 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 86.56 | 84.38 | |
| 93.75 | 97.19 | 93.75 | 97.81 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 99.69 | |
| 93.75 | 97.19 | 93.75 | 96.88 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 99.69 | |
| Variant | Branch | Identification accuracy (%) | Template match rate (%) | ||
| node default | node | 16 | 57.50 | 52.81 | |
| edge default | edge | 16 | 92.81 | 94.69 | |
| hybrid default | hybrid | 16 | 93.75 | 97.19 | |
| hybrid small | hybrid | 8 | 93.75 | 96.25 | |
| hybrid large | hybrid | 32 | 93.75 | 97.19 | |
| hybrid | hybrid | 16 | 93.75 | 96.88 |
| Worst Group (%) | Mean Group (%) | Mean Match (%) | |
| 3.12 | 30.99 | 18.82 | |
| 3.12 | 44.52 | 37.14 | |
| 3.12 | 62.64 | 59.40 | |
| 4.06 | 84.47 | 87.40 | |
| 41.25 | 89.38 | 92.88 | |
| 90.00 | 93.27 | 98.08 |
| Target | SymFP | CSoM | Engel |
| — |
| GNN | Axial staircase ( ) | In-plane stretch ( ) | In-plane radial ( ) | Axial pucker ( ) |
| PF | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| HEGNN 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| TFN 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| MACE 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Equiformer 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Domain | neutral pH | state I | state II | state III | state IV |
| HA1 head | |||||
| HA2 stem |