Approximating the Atomic Composition of Drug-like Molecules from Quantum Derived Properties: Inverse Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper further explores an inverse design approach to molecular design consisting of using machine learning methods to approximate the atomic composition of molecules. In this generative approach the input is given by a set of desired properties of the molecule and the output is an approximation of the atomic composition in terms of its constituent chemical elements. This could serve as the starting region for further search in the huge space determined by the set of possible chemical compounds. The quantum mechanic's dataset QM9 is used in the study, composed of 133885 small organic molecules and 19 electronic properties. Different multi-target regression approaches were considered for predicting the atomic composition from the properties, including feature engineering techniques in an auto-machine learning framework. It was found that the data consist of an outer region predominantly composed of scattered outliers, and an inner, core region that concentrates clustered inliner objects. The spatial structure exhibits a relationship with molecular weight. High-quality models were found that predict the atomic composition of the molecules from their electronic properties, as well as from a subset of only 52.6 % size. Feature selection worked better than feature generation. The results validate the generative approach to inverse molecular design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".