Transferrable Selectivity Profiles Enable Prediction in Synergistic Catalyst Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organometallic intermediates participate in many multi-catalytic enantioselective transformations directed by a chiral catalyst, but the requirement of optimizing two catalyst components is a significant barrier to widely adopting this approach for chiral molecule synthesis. Algorithms can potentially accelerate the screening process by developing quantitative structure-function relationships from large experimental datasets. However, the chemical data available in this catalyst space is limited. We report a data-driven strategy that effectively translates selectivity relationships trained on enantioselectivity outcomes derived from one catalyst reaction systems where an abundance of data exists, to synergistic catalyst space. We describe three case studies involving different modes of catalysis (Brønsted acid, chiral anion, and secondary amine) that substantiate the prospect of this approach to predict and elucidate selectivity in reactions where more than one catalyst is involved. Ultimately, the success in applying our approach to diverse areas of asymmetric catalysis implies that this general workflow should find broad use in the study and development of new enantioselective, multi-catalytic processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".