Transferrable selectivity profiles enable prediction in synergistic catalyst space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organometallic intermediates participate in many multi-catalytic enantioselective transformations directed by a chiral catalyst, but the requirement of optimizing two catalyst components is a significant barrier to widely adopting this approach for chiral molecule synthesis. Algorithms can potentially accelerate the screening process by developing quantitative structure-function relationships from large experimental datasets. However, the chemical data available in this catalyst space is limited. Herein, we report a data-driven strategy that effectively translates selectivity relationships trained on enantioselectivity outcomes derived from one catalyst reaction systems where an abundance of data exists, to synergistic catalyst space. We describe three case studies involving different modes of catalysis (Brønsted acid, chiral anion, and secondary amine) that substantiate the prospect of this approach to predict and elucidate selectivity in reactions where more than one catalyst is involved. Ultimately, the success in applying our approach to diverse areas of asymmetric catalysis implies that this general workflow should find broad use in the study and development of new enantioselective, multi-catalytic processes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".