MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning of Reaction Properties via Learned Representations of the Condensed Graph of Reaction

2021· preprint· en· W3196408361 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Esther Heid, William H. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustrian Science FundMcGill University
KeywordsCheminformaticsComputer scienceEmbeddingConvolutional neural networkBenchmark (surveying)GraphArtificial intelligenceMolecular graphMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceChemistryComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of chemical reaction properties such as activation energies, rates or yields is a central topic of computational chemistry. In contrast to molecular properties, where machine learning approaches such as graph convolutional neural networks (GCNNs) have excelled for a wide variety of tasks, no general and transferable adaptations of GCNNs for reactions have been developed yet. We therefore combined a popular cheminformatics reaction representation, the so-called condensed graph of reaction (CGR), with a recent GCNN architecture to arrive at a versatile, robust and compact deep learning model. The CGR is a superposition of the reactant and product graphs of a chemical reaction, and thus an ideal input for graph-based machine learning approaches. The model learns to create a data-driven, task dependent reaction embedding that does not rely on expert knowledge, similar to current molecular GCNNs. Our approach outperforms current state-of-the-art models in accuracy, is applicable even to imbalanced reactions and possesses excellent predictive capabilities for diverse target properties, such as activation energies, reaction enthalpies, rate constants, yields or reaction classes. We furthermore curated a large set of atom-mapped reactions along with their target properties, which can serve as benchmark datasets for future work. All datasets and the developed reaction GCNN model are available online, free of charge and open-source.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207