MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245842275 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2021-k0qx5

Routescore: Punching the Ticket to More Efficient Materials Development

2021· preprint· en· W4245842275 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Seifrid, Riley J. Hickman, Andrés Aguilar‐Granda, Cyrille Lavigne, Jenya Vestfrid, Tony Wu, Théophile Gaudin, Emily J. Hopkins, Alán Aspuru‐Guzik

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsBottleneckComputer sciencePunchingChemical spaceThroughputGeneralitySpace (punctuation)Embedded systemEngineeringDrug discoveryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-driving labs, 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 labs. 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 lab 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 generality of our approach in mixed synthetic planning and optimization.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207