MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172457552 · doi:10.1063/5.0048164

G<scp>ryffin</scp>: An algorithm for Bayesian optimization of categorical variables informed by expert knowledge

2021· article· en· W3172457552 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsCategorical variableBayesian optimizationDomain (mathematical analysis)Process (computing)Kernel (algebra)Domain knowledgeBayesian probabilityIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing functional molecules and advanced materials requires complex design choices: tuning continuous process parameters such as temperatures or flow rates, while simultaneously selecting catalysts or solvents. To date, the development of data-driven experiment planning strategies for autonomous experimentation has largely focused on continuous process parameters, despite the urge to devise efficient strategies for the selection of categorical variables. Here, we introduce Gryffin, a general-purpose optimization framework for the autonomous selection of categorical variables driven by expert knowledge. Gryffin augments Bayesian optimization based on kernel density estimation with smooth approximations to categorical distributions. Leveraging domain knowledge in the form of physicochemical descriptors, Gryffin can significantly accelerate the search for promising molecules and materials. Gryffin can further highlight relevant correlations between the provided descriptors to inspire physical insights and foster scientific intuition. In addition to comprehensive benchmarks, we demonstrate the capabilities and performance of Gryffin on three examples in materials science and chemistry: (i) the discovery of non-fullerene acceptors for organic solar cells, (ii) the design of hybrid organic–inorganic perovskites for light-harvesting, and (iii) the identification of ligands and process parameters for Suzuki–Miyaura reactions. Our results suggest that Gryffin, in its simplest form, is competitive with state-of-the-art categorical optimization algorithms. However, when leveraging domain knowledge provided via descriptors, Gryffin outperforms other approaches while simultaneously refining this domain knowledge to promote scientific understanding.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations156
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ReviewsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207