Application of Transformers in Cheminformatics
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
By accelerating time-consuming processes with high efficiency, computing has become an essential part of many modern chemical pipelines. Machine learning is a class of computing methods that can discover patterns within chemical data and utilize this knowledge for a wide variety of downstream tasks, such as property prediction or substance generation. The complex and diverse chemical space requires complex machine learning architectures with great learning power. Recently, learning models based on transformer architectures have revolutionized multiple domains of machine learning, including natural language processing and computer vision. Naturally, there have been ongoing endeavors in adopting these techniques to the chemical domain, resulting in a surge of publications within a short period. The diversity of chemical structures, use cases, and learning models necessitate a comprehensive summarization of existing works. In this paper, we review recent innovations in adapting transformers to solve learning problems in chemistry. Because chemical data is diverse and complex, we structure our discussion based on chemical representations. Specifically, we highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each representation, the current progress of adapting transformer architectures, and future directions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it