From Desktop to Benchtop – A Paradigm Shift in Asymmetric Synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organic chemist’s toolbox is vast with technologies to accelerate the synthesis of novel chemical matter. The field of asymmetric catalysis is one approach to access new areas of chemical space and computational power is today sufficient to assist in this exploration. Unfortunately, existing techniques generally require computational expertise and are therefore under-utilized in synthetic chemistry. We present herein our platform Virtual Chemist that allows bench chemists to predict outcomes of asymmetric chemical reactions ahead of testing in the lab, in just a few clicks. Modular workflows facilitate the simulation of various sets of experiments, including the four realistic scenarios discussed: one-by-one design, library screening, hit optimization, and substrate scope evaluation. Catalyst candidates are screened within hours and the enantioselectivity predictions provide substantial enrichments compared to random testing. The achieved accuracies within ~1 kcal/mol provide new opportunities for computational chemistry in asymmetric catalysis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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 it