Reverse-engineering human olfactory perception from chemical features of odor molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite 25 years of progress in understanding the molecular mechanisms of olfaction, it is still not possible to predict whether a given molecule will have a perceived odor, or what olfactory percept it will produce. To address this stimulus-percept problem for olfaction, we organized the crowd-sourced DREAM Olfaction Prediction Challenge. Working from a large olfactory psychophysical dataset, teams developed machine learning algorithms to predict sensory attributes of molecules based on their chemoinformatic features. The resulting models predicted odor intensity and pleasantness with high accuracy, and also successfully predicted eight semantic descriptors (“garlic”, “fish”, “sweet”, “fruit”, “burnt”, “spices”, “flower”, “sour”). Regularized linear models performed nearly as well as random-forest-based approaches, with a predictive accuracy that closely approaches a key theoretical limit. The models presented here make it possible to predict the perceptual qualities of virtually any molecule with an impressive degree of accuracy to reverse-engineer the smell of a molecule. One Sentence Summary Results of a crowdsourcing competition show that it is possible to accurately predict and reverse-engineer the smell of a molecule.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".