An exploration of machine learning models for the determination of reaction coordinates associated with conformational transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining collective variables (CVs) for conformational transitions is crucial to understanding their dynamics and targeting them in enhanced sampling simulations. Often, CVs are proposed based on intuition or prior knowledge of a system. However, the problem of systematically determining a proper reaction coordinate (RC) for a specific process in terms of a set of putative CVs can be achieved using committor analysis (CA). Identifying essential degrees of freedom that govern such transitions using CA remains elusive because of the high dimensionality of the conformational space. Various schemes exist to leverage the power of machine learning (ML) to extract an RC from CA. Here, we extend these studies and compare the ability of 17 different ML schemes to identify accurate RCs associated with conformational transitions. We tested these methods on an alanine dipeptide in vacuum and on a sarcosine dipeptoid in an implicit solvent. Our comparison revealed that the light gradient boosting machine method outperforms other methods. In order to extract key features from the models, we employed Shapley Additive exPlanations analysis and compared its interpretation with the "feature importance" approach. For the alanine dipeptide, our methodology identifies ϕ and θ dihedrals as essential degrees of freedom in the C7ax to C7eq transition. For the sarcosine dipeptoid system, the dihedrals ψ and ω are the most important for the cisαD to transαD transition. We further argue that analysis of the full dynamical pathway, and not just endpoint states, is essential for identifying key degrees of freedom governing transitions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".