MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414962227 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c04626

Using Time Dependent Rate Analysis to Evaluate the Quality of Machine Learned Reaction Coordinates for Biasing and Computing Kinetics

2025· article· en· W4414962227 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicodemo Mazzaferro, Suemin Lee, Pilar Cossio, Pratyush Tiwary, Glen M. Hocky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesYork UniversitySimons Foundation
KeywordsMetric (unit)InverseMetadynamicsDimensionless quantityKinetic energyExponential functionReaction coordinateBiasing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Having an accurate reaction coordinate (RC) is essential for reliable kinetic characterization of molecular processes, but there are few quantitative metrics to evaluate RC quality. In this study, we consider the dimensionless γ metric from the Exponential Average Time-dependent Rate (EATR) method, which represents the fraction of a biasing potential along the RC that contributes to increasing the rate constant. We demonstrate that γ can be used to test whether the utility of a RC for predicting kinetics with a Metadynamics bias improves as the coordinate is iteratively updated to include new data. We evaluate RCs approximated via the iterative State Predictive Information Bottleneck (SPIB) approach, which was previously shown to be accurate across six protein–ligand dissociation systems. For these same systems, we compute γ values and mean accelerated times τ̅ accel . After systematically scanning over fitting parameters, the results show that γ increases closer to 1, while τ̅ accel decreases, revealing a consistent inverse correlation. These results demonstrate that γ serves as a practical criterion for RC evaluation and offers guidance for selecting SPIB–derived coordinates yielding quantitative kinetic predictions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207