Combining Hammett $σ$ constants for $Δ$-machine learning and catalyst discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the applicability of the Hammett-inspired product (HIP) Ansatz to model relative substrate binding within homogenous organometallic catalysis, assigning $σ$ and $ρ$ to ligands and metals, respectively. Implementing an additive combination (c) rule for obtaining $σ$ constants for any ligand pair combination results in a cHIP model that enhances data efficiency in computational ligand tuning. We show its usefulness (i) as a baseline for $Δ$-machine learning (ML), and (ii) to identify novel catalyst candidates via volcano plots. After testing the combination rule on Hammett constants previously published in the literature, we have generated numerical evidence for the Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) C-C cross-coupling reaction using two synthetic datasets of metallic catalysts (including (10) and (11)-metals Ni, Pd, Pt, and Cu, Ag, Au as well as 96 ligands such as N-heterocyclic carbenes, phosphines, or pyridines). When used as a baseline, $Δ$-ML prediction errors of relative binding decrease systematically with training set size and reach chemical accuracy ($\sim$1 kcal/mol) for 20k training instances. Employing the individual ligand constants obtained from cHIP, we report relative substrate binding for a novel dataset consisting of 720 catalysts (not part of training data), of which 145 fall into the most promising range on the volcano plot accounting for oxidative addition, transmetalation, and reductive elimination steps. Multiple Ni-based catalysts, e.g. Aphos-Ni-P($t$-Bu)$_3$, are included among these promising candidates, potentially offering dramatic cost savings in experimental applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".