MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408614039 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01780

Comparative Analysis of Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Finding Reaction Pathways: Insights from a Large Benchmark Data Set

2025· article· en· W4408614039 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshihiro Matsumura, Koji Tabata, Tamiki Komatsuzaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Reinforcement learningComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Data setMachine learningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of kinetically feasible reaction pathways that connect a reactant to its product, including numerous intermediates and transition states, is crucial for predicting chemical reactions and elucidating reaction mechanisms. However, as molecular systems become increasingly complex or larger, the number of local minimum structures and transition states grows, which makes this task challenging, even with advanced computational approaches. We introduced a reinforcement learning algorithm to efficiently identify a kinetically feasible reaction pathway between a given local minimum structure for the reactant and a given one for the product, starting from the reactant. The performance of the algorithm was validated using a benchmark data set of large-scale chemical reaction path networks. Several search policies were proposed, using metrics based on energetic or structural similarity to the product's goal structure, for each local minimum structure candidate found during the search. The performances of baseline greedy, random, and uniform search policies varied substantially depending on the system. In contrast, exploration-exploitation balanced policies such as Thompson sampling, probability of improvement, and expected improvement consistently demonstrated stable and high performance. Furthermore, we characterized the search mechanisms that depend on different policies in detail. This study also addressed potential avenues for further research, such as hierarchical reinforcement learning and multiobjective optimization, which could deepen the problem setting explored in this study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207