Language models can learn complex molecular distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep generative models of molecules have grown immensely in popularity, trained on relevant datasets, these models are used to search through chemical space. The downstream utility of generative models for the inverse design of novel functional compounds, depends on their ability to learn a training distribution of molecules. The most simple example is a language model that takes the form of a recurrent neural network and generates molecules using a string representation. Since their initial use, subsequent work has shown that language models are very capable, in particular, recent research has demonstrated their utility in the low data regime. In this work, we investigate the capacity of simple language models to learn more complex distributions of molecules. For this purpose, we introduce several challenging generative modeling tasks by compiling larger, more complex distributions of molecules and we evaluate the ability of language models on each task. The results demonstrate that language models are powerful generative models, capable of adeptly learning complex molecular distributions. Language models can accurately generate: distributions of the highest scoring penalized LogP molecules in ZINC15, multi-modal molecular distributions as well as the largest molecules in PubChem. The results highlight the limitations of some of the most popular and recent graph generative models- many of which cannot scale to these molecular distributions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".