Curiosity in exploring chemical spaces: intrinsic rewards for molecular reinforcement learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computer aided design of molecules has the potential to disrupt the field of drug and material discovery. Machine learning and deep learning in particular, made big strides in recent years and promises to greatly benefit computer aided methods. Reinforcement learning is a particularly promising approach since it enables de novo molecule design, that is molecular design, without providing any prior knowledge. However, the search space is vast, and therefore any reinforcement learning agent needs to perform efficient exploration. In this study, we examine three versions of intrinsic motivation to aid efficient exploration. The algorithms are adapted from intrinsic motivation in the literature that were developed in other settings, predominantly video games. We show that the curious agents finds better performing molecules on two of three benchmarks. This indicates an exciting new research direction for reinforcement learning agents that can explore the chemical space out of their own motivation. This has the potential to eventually lead to unexpected new molecular designs no human has thought about so far.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it