Routescore: Punching the Ticket to More Efficient Materials Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Self-driving laboratories, in the form of automated experimentation platforms guided by machine learning algorithms, have emerged as a potential solution to the need for accelerated science. While new tools for automated analysis and characterization are being developed at a steady rate, automated synthesis remains the bottleneck in the chemical space accessible to self-driving laboratories. Combining automated and manual synthesis efforts immediately significantly expands the explorable chemical space. To effectively direct the different capabilities of automated (higher throughput and less labor) and manual synthesis (greater chemical versatility), we describe a protocol, the RouteScore, that quantifies the cost of combined synthetic routes. In this work, the RouteScore is used to determine the most efficient synthetic route to a well-known pharmaceutical (structure-oriented optimization) and to simulate a self-driving laboratory that finds the most easily synthesizable organic laser molecule with specific photophysical properties from a space of ∼3500 possible molecules (property-oriented optimization). These two examples demonstrate the power and flexibility of our approach in mixed synthetic planning and optimization and especially in downselecting promising candidates from a large chemical space via an a priori estimation of the synthetic costs.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.015 |
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".