Cited by 125Machine Learning in Materials ScienceComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Neural scaling of deep chemical models

Open access
Frey, Nathan C., Soklaski, Ryan, Axelrod, Simon, Samsi, Siddharth, Gómez-Bombarelli, Rafael, Coley, Connor W., Gadepally, Vijay·2023·Nature Machine Intelligence

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Massive scale, in terms of both data availability and computation, enables important breakthroughs in key application areas of deep learning such as natural language processing and computer vision. There is emerging evidence that scale may be a key ingredient in scientific deep learning, but the importance of physical priors in scientific domains makes the strategies and benefits of scaling uncertain. Here we investigate neural-scaling behaviour in large chemical models by varying model and dataset sizes over many orders of magnitude, studying models with over one billion parameters, pre-trained on datasets of up to ten million datapoints. We consider large language models for generative chemistry and graph neural networks for machine-learned interatomic potentials. We investigate the interplay between physical priors and scale and discover empirical neural-scaling relations for language models in chemistry with a scaling exponent of 0.17 for the largest dataset size considered, and a scaling exponent of 0.26 for equivariant graph neural network interatomic potentials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s42256-023-00740-3

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frey, N. C., Soklaski, R., Axelrod, S., Samsi, S., Gómez-Bombarelli, R., Coley, C. W., & Gadepally, V.
Affiliations
  • MIT Lincoln Laboratory (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Frey, Nathan C.
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2023-10-23
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
1297-1305
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387874094
Cited by
125
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
9.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
United States Department of Defense | U.S. Air Force (FA8702-15-D-0001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
physical priors, generative chemistry, large language models, graph neural networks, interatomic potentials, equivariant graph neural networks, scaling exponents, model size, dataset size

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