Artificial Intelligence for Retrosynthetic Planning Needs Both Data and Expert Knowledge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled breakthroughs across many scientific disciplines. In organic chemistry, the challenge of planning complex multistep chemical syntheses should conceptually be well-suited for AI. Yet, the development of AI synthesis planners trained solely on reaction-example-data has stagnated and is not on par with the performance of "hybrid" algorithms combining AI with expert knowledge. This Perspective examines possible causes of these shortcomings, extending beyond the established reasoning of insufficient quantities of reaction data. Drawing attention to the intricacies and data biases that are specific to the domain of synthetic chemistry, we advocate augmenting the unique capabilities of AI with the knowledge base and the reasoning strategies of domain experts. By actively involving synthetic chemists, who are the end users of any synthesis planning software, into the development process, we envision to bridge the gap between computer algorithms and the intricate nature of chemical synthesis.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it