MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170676482

Non-Autoregressive Electron Redistribution Modeling for Reaction Prediction

2021· article· en· W3170676482 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hangrui Bi, Hengyi Wang, Chence Shi, Connor W. Coley, Jian Tang, Hongyu Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaHEC MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelComputer scienceSpeedupInferenceDecoding methodsAlgorithmChemical reactionComputationRedistribution (election)Artificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceChemistryMathematicsParallel computingEconometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliably predicting the products of chemical reactions presents a fundamental challenge in synthetic chemistry. Existing machine learning approaches typically produce a reaction product by sequentially forming its subparts or intermediate molecules. Such autoregressive methods, however, not only require a pre-defined order for the incremental construction but preclude the use of parallel decoding for efficient computation. To address these issues, we devise a non-autoregressive learning paradigm that predicts reaction in one shot. Leveraging the fact that chemical reactions can be described as a redistribution of electrons in molecules, we formulate a reaction as an arbitrary electron flow and predict it with a novel multi-pointer decoding network. Experiments on the USPTO-MIT dataset show that our approach has established a new state-of-the-art top-1 accuracy and achieves at least 27 times inference speedup over the state-of-the-art methods. Also, our predictions are easier for chemists to interpret owing to predicting the electron flows.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207