Towards a Classification Scheme for Inferring the Atomic Composition of Drug-like Molecules from their Quantum Derived Electronic Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In machine learning and molecular design, there exist two approaches: discriminative and generative. In the discriminative approach dubbed forward design, the goal is to map a set of features/molecules to their respective electronic properties. In the generative approach dubbed inverse design, a set of electronic properties is given and the goal is to find the features/molecules that have these properties. These tasks are very challenging because the chemical compound space is very large. In this study, we explore a new scheme for the inverse design of molecules based on a classification paradigm that takes as input the targeted electronic properties and output the atomic composition of the molecules (i.e. atomicity or atom counts of each type in a molecule). To test this new hypothesis, we analyzed the quantum mechanics QM7b dataset consisting of 7211 small organic molecules and 14 electronic properties. Results obtained using twenty three different classification approaches including a regularized Bayesian neural network show that it is possible to achieve detection/prediction accuracy> 90%. Even though this study uses the electronic properties of molecules as input, it can be extended to other drugs' properties such as: toxicity, binding affinity, solubility, permeability, metabolic stability, etc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".