Augmenting Polymer Datasets by Iterative Rearrangement
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
One of the biggest obstacles to successful polymer property prediction is an effective representation that accurately captures the sequence of repeat units in a polymer. Motivated by the successes of data augmentation in computer vision and natural language processing, we explore augmenting polymer data by rearranging the molecular representation while preserving the correct connectivity, revealing additional substructural information that is not present in a single representation. We evaluate the effects of this technique on the performance of machine learning models trained on three experimental polymer datasets and compare them to common molecular representations. Data augmentation improves deep learning property prediction performance compared to equivalent (non-augmented) representations. In datasets where the target property is primarily influenced by the polymer sequence rather than experimental parameters, this data augmentation technique provides the molecular embedding with more information to improve property prediction accuracy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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 it