Generative and reinforcement learning approaches for the automated de novo design of bioactive compounds
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
Deep generative neural networks have been used increasingly in computational chemistry for de novo design of molecules with desired properties. Many deep learning approaches employ reinforcement learning for optimizing the target properties of the generated molecules. However, the success of this approach is often hampered by the problem of sparse rewards as the majority of the generated molecules are expectedly predicted as inactives. We propose several technical innovations to address this problem and improve the balance between exploration and exploitation modes in reinforcement learning. In a proof-of-concept study, we demonstrate the application of the deep generative recurrent neural network architecture enhanced by several proposed technical tricks to design inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor (EGFR) and further experimentally validate their potency. The proposed technical solutions are expected to substantially improve the success rate of finding novel bioactive compounds for specific biological targets using generative and reinforcement learning approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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