Single Crystal Automated Refinement (SCAR): A Data-Driven Method for Solving Inorganic Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Single crystal diffraction is one of the most common experimental techniques in chemistry for determining a crystal structure. However, the process of crystal structure solution and refinement is not always straightforward. Methods to simplify and rationalize the path to the most optimal crystal structure model have been incorporated into various data processing and crystal structure solution software, with the focus generally on aiding macromolecular or protein structure solution. In this work, we propose a new method that uses single crystal data to solve the crystal structures of inorganic, extended solids called “Single Crystal Automated Refinement (<i>SCAR</i>).” The approach was developed using data mining and machine-learning methods and considers several structural features common in inorganic solids, like atom assignment based on physically reasonable distances, atomic statistical mixing, and crystallographic site deficiency. The output is a tree of possible solutions for the data set with a corresponding fit score indicating the most reasonable crystal structure. Here, the foundation for <i>SCAR</i> is presented followed by the implementation of <i>SCAR</i> to solve two newly synthesized and previously unreported phases, ZrAu<sub>0.5</sub>Os<sub>0.5</sub> and Nd<sub>4</sub>Mn<sub>2</sub>AuGe<sub>4</sub>. The structure solutions are found to be comparable with manually solving the data set, including the same refined mixed occupancies and atomic deficiency, supporting the validity of this automatic structure solution method. The proposed <i>SCAR</i> program is thusly verified to be a fast and reliable assistant in solving even complex single crystal diffraction data for extended inorganic solids.</p>
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".