MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377023704 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-74w8d

Olympus, enhanced: benchmarking mixed-parameter and multi-objective optimization in chemistry and materials science

2023· preprint· en· W4377023704 on OpenAlexaff
Riley J. Hickman, P.N. Parakh, Austin Cheng, Qianxiang Ai, Joshua Schrier, Matteo Aldeghi, Alán Aspuru‐Guzik

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsBenchmarkingBenchmark (surveying)Computer sciencePython (programming language)Categorical variableOptimization problemAlgorithmMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiment planning algorithms are a required component of autonomous platforms for scientific discovery. Selecting a suitable optimization algorithm for a novel application is an important yet difficult choice a researcher has to make based on past empirical performance on similar tasks. To facilitate the evaluation of various algorithms on chemistry and materials science optimization tasks, we previously introduced OLYMPUS (Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 2, 035021, 2021), a Python package providing a consistent and easy-to-use interface to numerous optimization algorithms and benchmark datasets. While the original package was limited to continuous parameters and single objectives, in this work we expand OLYMPUS' capabilities to include mixed (continuous, discrete, and categorical) parameter types and multiple objectives. Several experiment planning algorithms already contained in OLYMPUS are extended to handle categorical and discrete parameter types, and five additional planners are implemented (23 in total). We also provide 23 additional benchmark datasets taken from the chemistry and materials science literature (33 in total), covering a wide range of research areas, from chemical reaction optimization to materials manufacturing. Finally, the visualization capabilities of OLYMPUS are enhanced to allow for easy inspection of the results, and the core functionality of the package is embedded in a Streamlit web application for code-free usage. We demonstrate how OLYMPUS enables researchers to rapidly benchmark different optimization strategies and gain insight into their behavior by focusing on two case studies: the optimization of a Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling reaction with categorical reaction conditions, and the multi-objective optimization of redox-active materials. The updated OLYMPUS package provides practitioners with a large suite of tools to efficiently benchmark and analyze experiment planning algorithms on mixed-parameter and multi-objective optimization tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207