Ranking over regression for Bayesian optimization and molecule selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian optimization (BO) has become an indispensable tool for autonomous decision-making across diverse applications from autonomous vehicle control to accelerated drug and materials discovery. With the growing interest in self-driving laboratories, BO of chemical systems is crucial for machine learning guided experimental planning. Typically, BO employs a regression surrogate model to predict the distribution of unseen parts of the search space. However, for the selection of molecules, picking the top candidates with respect to a distribution, the relative ordering of their properties may be more important than their exact values. In this paper, we introduce rank-based Bayesian optimization (RBO), which utilizes a ranking model as the surrogate. We present a comprehensive investigation of RBO’s optimization performance compared to conventional BO on various chemical datasets. Our results demonstrate similar or improved optimization performance using ranking models, particularly for datasets with rough structure–property landscapes and activity cliffs. Furthermore, we observe a high correlation between the surrogate ranking ability and BO performance, and this ability is maintained even at early iterations of BO optimization when using ranking surrogate models. We conclude that RBO is an effective alternative to regression-based BO, especially for optimizing novel chemical compounds.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".