In silico chemical experiments in the Age of AI: From quantum chemistry to machine learning and back
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational chemistry is an indispensable tool for understanding molecules and predicting chemical properties. However, traditional computational methods face significant challenges due to the difficulty of solving the Schrödinger equations and the increasing computational cost with the size of the molecular system. In response, there has been a surge of interest in leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques to in silico experiments. Integrating AI and ML into computational chemistry offers solutions to scalability and accelerating the exploration of chemical space. However, challenges remain, particularly regarding the reproducibility and transferability of ML models. This review highlights the evolution of ML in learning from, complementing, or replacing traditional computational chemistry for energy and property predictions. Starting from models trained entirely on numerical data, a journey set forth toward the ideal model incorporating or learning the physical laws of quantum mechanics. Through a review of existing computational methods, ML models, and their intertwining, this paper also outlines a roadmap for future research, identifying areas for improvement and innovation. Ultimately, the goal is to develop AI architectures capable of predicting accurate and transferable solutions to the Schrödinger equation, thereby revolutionizing in silico experiments within chemistry and materials science.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".