Pushing property limits in materials discovery<i>via</i>boundless objective-free exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Materials chemists develop chemical compounds to meet often conflicting demands of industrial applications. This process may not be properly modeled by black-box optimization because the target property is not well defined in some cases. Herein, we propose a new algorithm for automated materials discovery called BoundLess Objective-free eXploration (BLOX) that uses a novel criterion based on kernel-based Stein discrepancy in the property space. Unlike other objective-free exploration methods, a boundary for the materials properties is not needed; hence, BLOX is suitable for open-ended scientific endeavors. We demonstrate the effectiveness of BLOX by finding light-absorbing molecules from a drug database. Our goal is to minimize the number of density functional theory calculations required to discover out-of-trend compounds in the intensity-wavelength property space. Using absorption spectroscopy, we experimentally verified that eight compounds identified as outstanding exhibit the expected optical properties. Our results show that BLOX is useful for chemical repurposing, and we expect this search method to have numerous applications in various scientific disciplines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".