$\mathcal{G}$-SELC: Optimization by sequential elimination of level combinations using genetic algorithms and Gaussian processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying promising compounds from a vast collection of feasible compounds is an important and yet challenging problem in the pharmaceutical industry. An efficient solution to this problem will help reduce the expenditure at the early stages of drug discovery. In an attempt to solve this problem, Mandal, Wu and Johnson [Technometrics 48(2006) 273–283] proposed the SELC algorithm. Although powerful, it fails to extract substantial information from the data to guide the search efficiently, as this methodology is not based on any statistical modeling. The proposed approach uses Gaussian Process (GP) modeling to improve upon SELC, and hence named $\mathcal{G}$-SELC. The performance of the proposed methodology is illustrated using four and five dimensional test functions. Finally, we implement the new algorithm on a real pharmaceutical data set for finding a group of chemical compounds with optimal properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it