1

Exploring the efficacy of molecular fragments of
different complexity in computational SAR
modeling
arXiv:1501.03015v1 [cs.CE] 13 Jan 2015

Albrecht Zimmermann, Björn Bringmann, Luc De Raedt

Abstract—An important first step in computational SAR modeling is to transform the compounds into a representation that can
be processed by predictive modeling techniques. This is typically
a feature vector where each feature indicates the presence or
absence of a molecular fragment. While the traditional approach
to SAR modeling employed size restricted fingerprints derived
from path fragments, much research in recent years focussed
on mining more complex graph based fragments. Today, there
seems to be a growing consensus in the data mining community
that these more expressive fragments should be more useful.
We question this consensus and show experimentally that
fragments of low complexity, i.e. sequences, perform better than
equally large sets of more complex ones, an effect we explain
by pairwise correlation among fragments and the ability of
a fragment set to encode compounds from different classes
distinctly. The size restriction on these sets is based on ordering
the fragments by class-correlation scores. In addition, we also
evaluate the effects of using a significance value instead of a length
restriction for path fragments and find a significant reduction in
the number of features with little loss in performance.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Structure-activity relationship (SAR) prediction is an important task in computational biochemistry. The aim is to
predict the effect of compounds based on their structural characteristics – the second-order representation comprising the
topological arrangement of atoms and bonds of the molecule.
For algorithms to process molecular data and build models
to predict their activity, molecules have to be simplified by
transforming them into a different representation. To this
end, molecules are abstracted as graphs – networks of atoms
linked to each other. A common approach to SAR consists of
constructing fragments from individual or pairs of molecules,
and subjecting those molecules to fingerprinting to gain a final
representation that is more easily accessible for prediction algorithms such as Support Vector Machines. The graph mining
community, on the other hand [1], approaches the construction
of fragments slightly differently and while the differences are
subtle, they can have significant effects.
In this paper, we build on earlier work [2] that aimed at
generalizing the existing fingerprinting approach and explore
how to derive the molecular fragments on which to base
generalized fingerprints in a predictive setting. Specifically, we
compare fragments of different complexity in terms of their
usefulness. Additionally, we compare the use of fragments
Albrecht Zimmermann, Luc De Raedt, KU Leuven,
name.lastname@cs.kuleuven.be
B. Bringmann, Deloitte & Touche GmbH, bbringmann@deloitte.de

first-

selected according to their correlation with the target value
to ones selected using a threshold on their length.
The paper is structured as follows: we first discuss the
concept of fingerprints and its extension to generalized fingerprints, as well as differences in the complexity of fragments on
which to base them. Following this, we lay out our methodology for the experimental comparisons in terms of complexity
and selection criterion, on which we report afterwards. Finally,
we discuss the observed phenomena and draw conclusions.
II. (G ENERALIZED ) F INGERPRINTS
The usual approach in computational biology/chemistry
when using the second-order representation for SAR involves
assessing the structural similarity of molecules. They are
decomposed into sets of (potentially overlapping) fragments
and the similarity of any two molecules evaluated comparing
their respective fragments using kernel functions [3].
A variety of different fragments has been used in the
literature, from paths/walks [4], [2], [5], via fragments with
branches (trees) [6], to those with cycles (graphs) [7], [8],
[9], [10]. Often, a new kernel function is proposed as well.
These approaches share two characteristics: 1) they start from
vertices (atoms) of individual or pairs of molecules, enumerating the paths starting from this vertex, or the neighborhood
graphs surrounding it. 2) the fragments are size restricted,
length restricted for paths (such as 0 ≤ l ≤ 8 or 3 ≤ l ≤ 10),
or diameter restricted for graphs.
The resulting fragments are often used to map molecules to
bit-vectors of a given size k (such as 512 or 1024), in a process
called fingerprinting, involving the generation of b random
integers that are mapped using a modulo k reduction. While
values such as k, l, and b are based on empirical knowledge
of biochemical practitioners, it has been shown that, e.g.,
different length restrictions can have a profound effect on the
usefulness of derived fragments [11].
As an alternative to hashing, Swamidass et al. [2] proposed generalized fingerprints (gfp) in which the explicit
size restriction on bit-strings is lifted. Thus, potential loss
of information is avoided since each fragment is represented.
Also, it becomes possible to use information that goes beyond
presence, e.g. how often a fragment occurs in the data, which
the authors exploited in proposing a kernel. However, hashing
fragments to the same bit can weed out redundancy and such
a representation potentially avoids the curse of dimensionality,
and reduces memory requirements for the modeling step. The

2

retention of information seems to outweigh the benefits of
hashing, since Swamidass et al. showed that gfp outperform
fp, especially for smaller fps.
Their approach used path fragments, and in their conclusion
they suggested the use of shallow trees as fragments from
which to construct gfp. This coincides with trends in the data
mining community where graph mining is touted as the tool of
choice to derive fragments for SAR prediction. In contrast to
this there have been claims that simpler features may well
suffice [12], [13]. This assumption has been supported by
recent work [8] that evaluated the efficacy of structures of
different complexity against one another and found little, if
any, advantage in using more complex structures such as
graphs. It has to be remarked, however, that the latter work still
constructs size restricted fragments from individual molecules.
In contrast to this, we have found in the past that sequential
fragments are more useful than more complex ones [14]. Yet
we construct fragments differently: they are not size restricted
but chosen based on how well they correlate with the target
variable, measured by χ2 , a correlation that is evaluated on the
entire data. The size restriction on fingerprints can either be
enforced explicitly by taking the k best-correlating fragments,
or implicitly by requiring a minimum correlation score.
We reproduce our experiments on new data and perform
additional analysis to answer the following questions:
Q1. Are fragments with low complexity as useful as more
complex fragments and if so, what are the underlying
phenomena?
Restricting the number of fragments used gives us a controlled
setting in which to evaluate the efficacy of fragments from
different fragment classes. By analyzing the encoding of the
data that can be derived from the mined patterns, and the
relation among patterns themselves, we gain an intuition as to
why simpler structures are the better choice when the number
of patterns is limited in the mining process. It is not obvious
whether these results will transfer to a size restricted setting
but we can answer a related question, namely:
Q2. Is mining fragments using a significance threshold as
good as the size restricted approach to building gfps?
The size restricted approach is equivalent to considering the
occurrences of all fragments adhering to those size restrictions
and using those that occur at least once. This can lead to an
explosion in the number of enumerated fragments, even using
length restriction on the patterns, as we will show. Arbitrarily
increasing this threshold, on the other hand, might exclude
interesting fragments, and as mentioned above, the effect of
changing the size restrictions is not always predictable [11].
Analogously, minimally correlating fragments can be considered to consist of at least two atoms and to adhere to a
correlation constraint. Changing the size constraint can still
have unpredictable results whereas changing the correlation
threshold has a clear interpretation. Consequently, in a final
experiment, we compare the effect of increasing the number
of fragments of low complexity by lowering the mining threshold, showing the increasing quality of the encoding (and its
consequences for the quality of the classification model), and
contrasting their usefulness with length restricted fragments.

III. A PPROACH
We use substructures that correlate with one of two target
classes (e.g. active and inactive) – and therefore discriminate
among the two. Techniques exist for mining top-k substructures according to convex measures such as χ2 or Information
Gain while still pruning large parts of the search space. Similar
search strategies can be used to find all substructures with a
score above a user defined threshold. Please note that in this
work we only use χ2 since earlier work showed that this leads
to better results than employing Information Gain [15].
Regarding chemical compounds, there exist three very well
studied types of substructures, namely:
LG subgraphs, most expressive, but expensive to mine;
LT subtrees, can represent anything but cycles;
LS subsequences, least expressive, rather easy to mine.
The relation LS ⊂ LT ⊂ LG holds, implying that
|LS | ≤ |LT | ≤ |LG |. Note that sequences are slightly different
from paths as used by Swamidass et al. as they only allow a
bijective mapping of the nodes and edges from the fragment
to the data, i.e. a vertex can occur at most once in a sequence.
Our first question is concerned with comparing these three
types of structures w.r.t. their value in terms of predictive
accuracy. To carry out this task, we extract a number of
substructures from the data, and use them to describe each
of the seen or unseen chemical compounds. The molecules
are transformed into generalized fingerprints indicating the
substructures’ presence or absence. From the feature vectors
a model for the activity of the compounds is learned.
Support vector machines (SVMs) have been used successfully for SAR problems and can filter out redundant/irrelevant
features. We use the Tanimoto kernel that has been used to
good effect on the NCI cancer data set we do our comparison
on [2]. The data is encoded as undirected graphs, vertices
labeled with their atom type, edges as single, double, or
aromatic bonds. Hydrogen atoms are not encoded. The shortest
possible sequence consists of a single edge, i.e. two atoms.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL E VALUATION
The NIC60 cancer data set is a popular data set for testing
SAR predictions [2], [9]. It consists of approximately 4000
compounds that have been tested against 60 tumor cell lines.
Each of the 60 subsets consists of around 3,500 compounds.
For each of the 60 cell lines comprising the NCI cancer
data set, we performed a stratified 10-fold cross validation.
Fragments are mined exclusively on the training folds since
there is no information about class labels in the test data.
A. Comparing different complexity classes – fps of equal size
The classical approach to encoding molecules in fps lies in
fixing the size k of the fp and hashing fragments to a bitstring of this length. In the technique we propose, mining
significant fragments according to the χ2 statistic, fixing the
size of fps can be done by mining only the k highestscoring fragments. In earlier work [14], we showed that for
a fixed k, sequences were more effective in encoding data
for classification purposes than trees or graphs. We repeat the

3

Fig. 3. Average number of features per molecule for the top-1000 fragments.
Fig. 1. AUC results of SVM-classification on encodings derived from the
top-1000 fragments and number of correspondences in each encoding.

100

1

90

0.8

80

0.6

70

100

0.8

80

0.6

70

60

0.4

60

50

0.2

50

40

0

40

30

1

90

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

30
-0.2

20
10
0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-0.4

20

-0.4

10

-0.6

0

-0.6
-0.8
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. 2. Intercorrelation of the 100 best class-correlating graphs (sequences)
in the left (right) correlation matrix. The sequences ranked 42 and lower are
not in the top-100 graphs.

experiments of this work here, this time using the NCI 60 data
set used by Swamidass et al.. For the mining process, k was
set to 1000, the top-k sequences, trees, and graphs mined and
the AUC (area under the ROC) estimated as described above.
As the lower half of Figure 1 shows, fps using sequences
are significantly more useful for learning a model on the data
using an SVM. This is consistent with our earlier results. The
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Rank Test shows 39 out of 60
cases in which using sequences is significantly (p-level 99%)
better than using graphs and 38 out of 60 cases in which the
tree-based encoding is outperformed. To gain an understanding
of the reasons for this, it is helpful to consider the encoding
of molecules that can be derived from each mined set.
We focus specifically on pairs of molecules from different
classes that are encoded by the same fp (correspondences). To
give an idea of the prevalence of this phenomenon, we show
for each fragment type and data set their average number in
the upper half of Figure 1. In particular, this also includes all
molecules that are not matched by any fragment at all. Such
fps in the training data correspond to data points that the SVM
cannot effectively learn to distinguish, while when unseen their
classification is essentially up to chance. Generally speaking,
the better performance of the SVM on sequence-encoded data
aligns with fewer correspondences on this encoding.
This phenomenon can be explained by the relationship

of fragments to each other. Figure 2 shows the strength of
correlation of different fragments’ presence. As can be seen,
sequences are much more diverse than graphs (with graphs and
trees virtually identical), describing data more distinctively.
At first glance, the plot seems to disagree with this description since the left-hand side of the figure shows far less
yellow, i.e. high pairwise correlations, than the right-hand side.
However, in the figure, the lowest scoring sequence contained
in the top-100 graphs corresponds to the sequence ranked 41
in the top-100 sequences. Hence, the lower-left part (up to
fragment 41) of the top-100 sequences in the right is like a
small scaled version of the left figure. This leads to the coarser
appearance on the left-hand side, indicating that for each
sequence there is at least one highly correlating graph. The
most distinctive example for this can be found in the graphs
ranked ∼ 8−26: the majority of these graphs show very similar
behavior w.r.t. pairwise correlation with other fragments and
the entire block is equivalent to sequences ranked ∼ 8 − 15.
Note that these figures display only pairwise correlation.
Using the final set of fragments during modeling allows for
much more complex combinations than pairs. Hence, these
figures show only the tip of the iceberg, and we can expect
the overall intercorrelation effects amongst combinations of
fragments in the result set to be much stronger.
Figure 3, plotting the average number of features per
molecule, shows that the more complex fragments, while not
reducing correspondences as efficiently, use more features. The
lowest curve in this figure shows how few sequences are on
average used for encoding once cyclic graphs crowd out less
complex structures from the set.
B. Comparing different complexity classes – from fps to gfps
The higher diversity mentioned above also means that the
scores of trees and graphs fall into a smaller interval than those
of sequences.1 In other words, the 1000th-best χ2 sequence
score is lower than the 1000th-best score for more complex
structures (see Figure 4). The horizontal lines show the worst
score for each structure type, which also indicates the number
of fragments of other types that exceed it.
1 In practice the best fragment is often a sequence. In general, the best
graphs might score much better than any sequences.

4

Fig. 4. Score distribution for the top-1000 fragments according to χ2 of one
representative training fold.
Fig. 6. AUC results of SVM-classification on encodings derived from the
less complex fragments contained in the top-1000 graphs and number of
correspondences in each encoding.

Figure 6. It is important to note the trade-off among the
number of features and the quality of the feature set. The
number of correspondences are rather similar for each data set
for all structure types, despite the differences in total number
of fragments. This indicates that the large sets of tree- and
graph-structured fragments still show much redundancy, which
in turn means that while additional complexity allows for some
more diversity for a given threshold, the gain is relatively small
compared to simply increasing the number of fragments.
Fig. 5. Number of fragments remaining after the set is reduced using the
1000th-worst graph score.

To normalize the observed advantage of sequences with
regard to diversity, we use the 1000th-best graph score (the
red horizontal line) to crop the size of fps derived from tree
and sequential fragments. We effectively obtain generalized
fingerprints, without explicit size restriction of bit-vectors,
similar to the ones used by Swamidas et al., with the length
restriction on fragments replaced with a minimum significance
value. The number of fragments left is shown in Figure 5.
This reduction is in fact rather severe, pushing the number of
sequence fragments down to 10% − 20% of the original 1000.
As mentioned before, Figure 3 also shows the average number of sequential features per molecule in the top 1000 graphs,
which is equivalent to using the reduced set of sequential
features (bottom curve). In comparison to the second curve
from the bottom, one can see that, again, the reduction is
severe, yet not as severe as for the entire set of features, only
dropping to 25% − 33% of the original number (∼ 40 − 50).
Reducing the number of features in this way leads to a
very slight advantage for the graph-structured features w.r.t.
AUC results (lower half of Figure 6). In fact, according to the
Wilcoxon test, there are only two significant differences, even
though so many fewer sequences than graphs are used.
Similarly to the results described in the preceding section,
the decrease in accuracy goes along with an increase in the
number of correspondences, as shown in the upper half of

C. Increasing gfp-size by lowering the mining threshold
Increasing the number of features improves the chance that
molecules from different classes are encoded in a way that allows to distinguish those classes. Tree and graph mining being
far more expensive than sequcne mining [14], it is unrealistic
to try and mine large amounts of complex fragments. Also,
using all graphs which have a χ2 -score exceeding a given
threshold does little to increase diversity over sequences.
The computational complexity of fragment mining arises
from the need to systematically explore a large search space of
potentially interesting fragments and count their occurrences in
the data. Approaches that start from individual molecules avoid
this bottleneck, yet while the fragments derived in that manner
can be used for assessing molecules’ similarities this is often
the extent of their usefulness, especially since they are often
tied to their respective kernel functions. Fragments correlating
with the target value, on the other hand, capture information
about the relationship of structure and activity themselves and
can be analyzed independently from the modeling step.
In a third experiment we thus mine sequences which have
a χ2 -score exceeding the (unadjusted) 95%, 99%, and 99.9%
p-values, respectively. As expected, Figure 8 shows a direct
relationship between lowering the significance threshold and
the number of features mined. More features also leads to
fewer correspondences which lead then to corresponding AUC
values (Figure 7). According to the Wilcoxon Test, using the
p-value for 99% improves significantly on the 99.9% value
in 36 cases. Using the 95% value increases this to 45 (and
improves in 17 cases on the 99% value).

5

Fig. 9. Average number of fragments per molecule mined with three different
significance thresholds and as length restricted paths of frequency 1.
Fig. 7. AUC for sequences based on three different significance thresholds
and length-restricted paths of frequency 1 along with the number of correspondences in each encoding.

Fig. 8.
Number of sequential-fragments for three different significance
thresholds and length-restricted paths of frequency 1.

D. Comparing techniques for determining gfp-size: significance versus length-restriction
The preceding experiments had the main purpose of assessing the usefulness of graph-, tree- and sequential fragments for gfps, chosen by the significance of their χ2 score.
Swamidass et al. [2] use gfps whose number is determined
by a length restriction – all fragments are paths of maximal
length 10 occuring in at least one molecule in the training
data. This approach gives rise to more than one hundred
thousand features (the top graph in Figure 8), significantly
more than result even from using the permissive 95% pvalue. According to the results described above, this should
allow those feature sets to encode all molecules distinctively.
Indeed, the low frequency threshold means that there are very
few correspondences, as can be seen the top part of Figure
7. While the number of correspondences is reduced even
further, however, they are not eliminated completely – it would
probably need longer paths (and thus many more fragments)
to effect this.
In Swamidass’s work two kernels are used for classification
– one based on the well-established Tanimoto-similarity [16]

and a so-called Min-Max-Kernel. While the latter gives slightly
better results w.r.t. predictive accuracy, it is evaluated on a representation of the data that not only denotes absence/presence
of substructures but also the number of times they occur
in a molecule. Since the semantic information of significant
fragments is such that only their presence correlates with an
activity, we do not adopt this representation and thus do not
compare against the Min-Max-Kernel.
The lower half of Figure 7 also lists the average AUC
the SVM achieved on gfps using length-restriction. As we
expected, using length-restricted paths with minimum support
of one leads to slightly more useful feature sets but at the cost
of significantly larger fps. In fact, while the AUC increase
is not significant for most data sets (only 13/60 according to
the Wilcoxon test), Figure 9 shows that the average number
of fragments used to describe a single molecule effectively
doubles. The gain derived from increasing the amount of
features is thus affected by diminishing returns.
Those fragments are relevant in terms of the similarity
of molecules yet do not capture any tendencies in the data
themselves. The kernel matrix gives a global view of the
similarity of molecules and the SVM is used to discover the
underlying phenomena. Figure 10 shows that the lowest scores
for fragments derived in the length-restricted approach are
clearly non-significant and it would be hard to base actual
understanding of the data on them. It also shows that the
scores of the worst sequence and worst tree included in the
top-thousand graphs are virtually indistinguishable from each
other and from what is considered the worst graph. Finally,
the score of the 1000th-worst tree is marginally worse than
the score of the 1000th-worst graph, indicating that most of
the top-1000 graphs are in fact trees.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
We performed an empirical evaluation to gain insight into
the reasons for the superiority of sequential molecular fragments as features for classification, compared to complex
ones. We find that the reason lies in the greater diversity
of sequences which leads to a more distinctive encoding of
instances, effectively giving classifiers a better representation

6

..

..

. .. .
. . ......

.. .. . .. ..

.. .

. ..... .... . .. . .
.... . .. .. . ....

... .. .. . ...

..

of sequences for classification. Additionally, due to sequences
being graphs themselves, as explained in the introduction, it
seems quite possible that such a mining operation would in
the end once again give rise to a set of sequential fragments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Kurt De Grave for his invaluable
help in preparing this manuscript. Albrecht Zimmermann was
supported by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO)
by the time of writing.
R EFERENCES

Fig. 10. Worst score for fragments mined with three different significance
thresholds and as length restricted paths of frequency 1.

to work with. A straight-forward way of improving the encoding lies in increasing the number of fragments used. Our
experiments show, however, that there is always need for a far
greater number of trees/graphs than sequences. As these structures are also computationally more expensive to enumerate,
this leads to vastly increased computational complexity. Our
results indicate that this should be avoided.
Enumerating a subset of all sequences that cover at least
one molecule produces an effective feature set but also a very
large one. Also, these fragments are hard to interpret outside
of their use in a pairwise similarity measure. In contrast to
this, fragments that are selected based on their correlation
with the target can be ranked based on their score and the
most interesting ones inspected and interpreted by an end
user. While it would be possible to evaluate all size restricted
fragments on the data and perform a similar ranking, this will
be computationally expensive due to their large number.
Our experiments also indicate a clear trade-off between the
number of fragments (which can be set by adjusting the k in
top-k mining or the minimum significance threshold) and the
quality of the feature set. Given existing results, it is unlikely
that similar clear-cut effects would appear when changing the
length or minimum support of length restricted paths.
Redundancy among complex patterns could be reduced
explicitly, e.g. in a post-processing step. We have suggested
a technique that achieves this [17] and since the fragments
can be considered features, feature selection techniques are
applicable [18], but this would again require the mining of a
large set of trees or graphs. It would need to be larger than
a set of sequential patterns that could be used without postprocessing, increasing computational complexity significantly.
Given these arguments, class-correlated sequences seem to
be the best choice for the large-scale mining of molecular
fragments as features for SAR prediction.
An alternative lies in iterative approaches, in which patterns
are mined and data manipulated [15], [19], [20], or redundancy
with already found patterns made part of the quality function
[21]. Effective, very compact pattern sets can be mined in this
way. So far there is however no clear understanding about
whether these feature sets would be competitive with large sets

[1] T. Washio and H. Motoda, “State of the art of graph-based data mining,”
SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., vol. 5, pp. 59–68, July 2003.
[2] S. J. Swamidass, J. H. Chen, J. Bruand, P. Phung, L. Ralaivola,
and P. Baldi, “Kernels for small molecules and the prediction of
mutagenicity,toxicity and anti-cancer activity,” in ISMB (Supplement of
Bioinformatics), pp. 359–368, 2005.
[3] D. Haussler, “Convolution kernels on discrete structures,” TR, 1999.
[4] T. Gärtner, P. A. Flach, and S. Wrobel, “On graph kernels: Hardness
results and efficient alternatives,” in COLT (B. Schölkopf and M. K.
Warmuth, eds.), vol. 2777 of LNCS, pp. 129–143, Springer, 2003.
[5] K. M. Borgwardt and H.-P. Kriegel, “Shortest-path kernels on graphs,”
in ICDM (J. Han, B. W. Wah, V. Raghavan, X. Wu, and R. Rastogi,
eds.), (Houston, Texas, USA), pp. 74–81, IEEE, Nov. 2005.
[6] N. Shervashidze and K. M. Borgwardt, “Fast subtree kernels on graphs,”
in NIPS (Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. D. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams,
and A. Culotta, eds.), pp. 1660–1668, Curran Associates, Inc., 2009.
[7] S. Menchetti, F. Costa, and P. Frasconi, “Weighted decomposition
kernels,” in ICML (L. D. Raedt and S. Wrobel, eds.), vol. 119 of ACM,
pp. 585–592, ACM, 2005.
[8] N. Wale, I. A. Watson, and G. Karypis, “Comparison of descriptor spaces
for chemical compound retrieval and classification,” Knowl. Inf. Syst.,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 347–375, 2008.
[9] F. Costa and K. D. Grave, “Fast neighborhood subgraph pairwise
distance kernel,” in ICML (J. Fürnkranz and T. Joachims, eds.), pp. 255–
262, Omnipress, 2010.
[10] L. Schietgat, F. Costa, J. Ramon, and L. D. Raedt, “Effective feature construction by maximum common subgraph sampling,” Machine Learning,
vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 137–161, 2011.
[11] G. B. McGaughey, R. P. Sheridan, C. I. Bayly, J. C. Culberson,
C. Kreatsoulas, S. Lindsley, V. Maiorov, J.-F. Truchon, and W. D.
Cornell, “Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in
virtual screening,” JCIM, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1504–1519, 2007.
[12] C. Helma, ed., Predictive Toxicology. CRC Press, 2005.
[13] C. Helma, T. Cramer, S. Kramer, and L. D. Raedt, “Data mining and
machine learning techniques for the identification of mutagenicity inducing substructures and structure activity relationships of noncongeneric
compounds,” JCIM, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1402–1411, 2004.
[14] B. Bringmann, A. Zimmermann, L. De Raedt, and S. Nijssen, “Don’t
be afraid of simpler patterns,” in 10th PKDD (J. Fürnkranz, T. Scheffer,
and M. Spiliopoulou, eds.), pp. 55–66, Springer, 2006.
[15] B. Bringmann and A. Zimmermann, “Tree2 - Decision trees for tree
structured data.,” in 9th PKDD (A. Jorge, L. Torgo, P. Brazdil, R. Camacho, and J. Gama, eds.), pp. 46–58, Springer, 2005.
[16] D. J. Rogers and T. T. Tanimoto, “A computer program for classifying
plants,” Science, vol. 21, pp. 1115–1118, oct 1960.
[17] B. Bringmann and A. Zimmermann, “The chosen few: On identifying
valuable patterns,” in ICDM (N. Ramakrishnan and O. Zaiane, eds.),
pp. 63–72, IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
[18] I. Guyon and A. Elisseeff, “An introduction to variable and feature
selection,” JMLR, vol. 3, pp. 1157–1182, 2003.
[19] M. Thoma, H. Cheng, A. Gretton, J. Han, H.-P. Kriegel, A. J. Smola,
L. Song, P. S. Yu, X. Yan, and K. M. Borgwardt, “Near-optimal
supervised feature selection among frequent subgraphs,” in SDM, pp. 1–
12, SIAM, 2009.
[20] A. Zimmermann, B. Bringmann, and U. Rückert, “Fast, effective molecular feature mining by local optimization,” in ECML/PKDD (3) (J. L.
Balcázar, F. Bonchi, A. Gionis, and M. Sebag, eds.), pp. 563–578,
Springer, 2010.
[21] U. Rückert and S. Kramer, “Optimizing feature sets for structured data,”
in 18th ECML (J. N. Kok, J. Koronacki, R. L. de Mántaras, S. Matwin,
D. Mladenic, and A. Skowron, eds.), pp. 716–723, Springer, 2007.

