Benchmarking GNN Models on Molecular Regression Tasks with CKA-Based Representation Analysis
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Molecules are commonly represented as SMILES strings, which can be readily converted to fixed-size molecular fingerprints. These fingerprints serve as feature vectors to train ML/DL models for molecular property prediction tasks in the field of computational chemistry, drug discovery, biochemistry, and materials science. Recent research has demonstrated that SMILES can be used to construct molecular graphs where atoms are nodes ($V$) and bonds are edges ($E$). These graphs can subsequently be used to train geometric DL models like GNN. GNN learns the inherent structural relationships within a molecule rather than depending on fixed-size fingerprints. Although GNN are powerful aggregators, their efficacy on smaller datasets and inductive biases across different architectures is less studied. In our present study, we performed a systematic benchmarking of four different GNN architectures across a diverse domain of datasets (physical chemistry, biological, and analytical). Additionally, we have also implemented a hierarchical fusion (GNN+FP) framework for target prediction. We observed that the fusion framework consistently outperforms or matches the performance of standalone GNN (RMSE improvement > $7\%$) and baseline models. Further, we investigated the representational similarity using centered kernel alignment (CKA) between GNN and fingerprint embeddings and found that they occupy highly independent latent spaces (CKA $\le0.46$). The cross-architectural CKA score suggests a high convergence between isotopic models like GCN, GraphSAGE and GIN (CKA $\geq0.88$), with GAT learning moderately independent representation (CKA $0.55-0.80$).
Results and benchmarks
Molecules are commonly represented as SMILES strings, which can be readily converted to fixed-size molecular fingerprints.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Jun 27, 2026 (59d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- No CI pipeline detected
- No Docker setup
- Low confidence match
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Jul 1, 2026 (56d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- rajanbit/MolGraphBench
Confidence: Low · 1 stars
- Amir-Suh/ML-Research-RAG-Pipeline
Confidence: Low · 1 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX