Cited by 222Machine Learning in Materials ScienceEthics and Social Impacts of AIHistory and advancements in chemistry

Anthropogenic biases in chemical reaction data hinder exploratory inorganic synthesis

Jia, Xiwen, Lynch, Allyson, Huang, Yuheng, Danielson, Matthew, Lang’at, Immaculate, Milder, Alexander, Ruby, Aaron E., Wang, Hao +3 more·2019·Nature

Abstract

Most chemical experiments are planned by human scientists and therefore are subject to a variety of human cognitive biases 1, heuristics 2 and social influences 3. These anthropogenic chemical reaction data are widely used to train machine-learning models 4 that are used to predict organic 5 and inorganic 6,7 syntheses. However, it is known that societal biases are encoded in datasets and are perpetuated in machine-learning models 8. Here we identify as-yet-unacknowledged anthropogenic biases in both the reagent choices and reaction conditions of chemical reaction datasets using a combination of data mining and experiments. We find that the amine choices in the reported crystal structures of hydrothermal synthesis of amine-templated metal oxides 9 follow a power-law distribution in which 17% of amine reactants occur in 79% of reported compounds, consistent with distributions in social influence models 10-12. An analysis of unpublished historical laboratory notebook records shows similarly biased distributions of reaction condition choices. By performing 548 randomly generated experiments, we demonstrate that the popularity of reactants or the choices of reaction conditions are uncorrelated to the success of the reaction. We show that randomly generated experiments better illustrate the range of parameter choices that are compatible with crystal formation. Machine-learning models that we train on a smaller randomized reaction dataset outperform models trained on larger human-selected reaction datasets, demonstrating the importance of identifying and addressing anthropogenic biases in scientific data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-019-1540-5

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In experimental data sets extracted from the literature, there can be positive bias for reporting only successful experiments, leading to challenges in classification tasks.

    “For example, in experimental data sets extracted from the literature (14,15,19), there can be positive bias for reporting only successful experiments (16, 107, 108), leading to challenges in classification tasks (17).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y., Danielson, M., Lang’at, I., Milder, A., Ruby, A. E., Wang, H., Friedler, S. A., Norquist, A. J., & Schrier, J.
Affiliations
Haverford College (US)
Corresponding author
  • Friedler, Sorelle A.
  • Norquist, Alexander J.
  • Schrier, Joshua
Venue
Nature
Published
2019-09-11
Volume
573
Issue
7773
Pages
251-255
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2972597827
Cited by
222
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 7
FWCI
10.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › History and advancements in chemistry
Keywords
inorganic synthesis, hydrothermal synthesis, social influence, laboratory notebooks, dataset representativeness
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Bias, Laboratory Personnel, Chemistry Techniques, Synthetic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review