MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982378790 · doi:10.2533/chimia.2019.1028

Operator Quantum Machine Learning: Navigating the Chemical Space of Response Properties

2019· preprint· en· W2982378790 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anders S. Christensen, O. Anatole von Lilienfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueCHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryNational Center of Competence in Research Materials’ Revolution: Computational Design and Discovery of Novel MaterialsNational Science FoundationUniversity of California, Los AngelesYork UniversityUniversität BaselSandia National LaboratoriesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsQuantum chemicalOperator (biology)Property (philosophy)Formalism (music)Computer scienceChemical spaceQuantumSpace (punctuation)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceQuantum mechanicsPhysicsChemistryEpistemologyMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification and use of structure-property relationships lies at the heart of the chemical sciences. Quantum mechanics forms the basis for the unbiased virtual exploration of chemical compound space (CCS), imposing substantial compute needs if chemical accuracy is to be reached. In order to accelerate predictions of quantum properties without compromising accuracy, our lab has been developing quantum machine learning (QML) based models which can be applied throughout CCS. Here, we briefly explain, review, and discuss the recently introduced operator formalism which substantially improves the data efficiency for QML models of common response 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHIMIA International Journal for ChemistrySame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207