MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403320045 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.07.617002

Improving the reliability of molecular string representations for generative chemistry

2024· preprint· en· W4403320045 on OpenAlexaff
Etienne Reboul, Zoe Wefers, Jérôme Waldispühl, Antoine Taly

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsGenerative grammarString (physics)Reliability (semiconductor)ChemistryComputer scienceComputational biologyComputational chemistryTheoretical physicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Generative modeling for chemistry has advanced rapidly in recent years, but this surge in popularity raises a foundational question: which molecular representation is best suited for modern machine learning models? Despite not being designed for generative tasks, SMILES remain the most commonly used string-based representation. However, while SMILES follow strict syntactic rules, grammatically correct SMILES strings do not always correspond to valid molecules. SELFIES were introduced as an alternative that addresses this limitation by ensuring that every string of SELFIES tokens represents to a valid molecule. In this study, we comprehensively evaluate the limitations of both SMILES and SELFIES as representations for generative models. We define two key criteria for robust molecular generation: viability, generated strings represent novel, unique molecules with correct valence, and fidelity, the distribution of physicochemical properties from sampled molecules resembles that of the training data. We find that approximately one-fifth of molecules generated using canonical SMILES are invalid, failing the viability criterion. In contrast, all SELFIES-generated molecules are viable, but they deviate significantly from the training distribution, indicating low fidelity. To address these limitations, we develop data augmentation procedures for both representations. While simplifying the SELFIES grammar yields only modest gains in fidelity, our stochastic augmentation method for SMILES, ClearSMILES, significantly improves both viability and fidelity. ClearSMILES simplifies syntax by reducing the vocabulary size and explicitly encoding aromaticity via Kekulé SMILES, making it easier string representations for models to process. Using ClearSMILES, the rate of invalid samples decreases by an order of magnitude, from 20% to 2.2%, and fidelity to the training distribution is also moderately improved. Generative chemistry has seen rapid development recently. However, models based on string representations of molecules still rely largely on SMILES 1 that have not been developed for this context and SELFIES 2 who were introduced to reduce those problems. The goal of this study is to first analyze the difficulty encountered by a small generative model when using SMILES and SELFIES. Our study found that SELFIES and canonical SMILES 3 are not fully reliable representations for a small generative model, i.e. do not ensure concurrently the viability and fidelity of samples. Viable samples represent novel, unique molecules with correct valence, while fidelity is efficient distribution learning of key physico-chemical properties. 4 In fact, 20% of the samples generated using canonical SMILES input representation do not correspond to valid molecules. In contrast, samples generated using SELFIES were all viable but where not able to reproduce as well the distribution of physico-chemical properties as SMILES. As a mitigation strategy for the previously identified problems, we have developed data augmentation procedures for both SELFIES and SMILES. Simplifying the complex syntax of SELFIES yielded only marginal improvements in string stability and overall fidelity to the training set. For SMILES, we developed a stochastic data augmentation procedure called ClearSMILES, which reduces the vocabulary size needed to represent a SMILES dataset, explicitly represents aromaticity via Kekulé SMILES, 3 and reduces the effort required by deep learning models to process SMILES. ClearSMILES reduced the rate of invalid samples by an order of magnitude, from 20% to 2.2%, and improved the fidelity of samples to the training set.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207