Cited by 243Machine Learning in Materials ScienceComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

A quantitative uncertainty metric controls error in neural network-driven chemical discovery

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A predictive approach for driving down machine learning model errors is introduced and demonstrated across discovery for inorganic and organic chemistry.

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 · 10.1039/c9sc02298h

Cites

87 of 87 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

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?

  • Incorporation of OHLDB compounds reduced errors of ML models (i.e., ANNs) on experimental (i.e., CSD) complexes by approximately 25%.

    “Incorporation of OHLDB compounds reduced errors of ML models (i.e., ANNs) on experimental (i.e., CSD) complexes by approximately 25% (26,46).”

    From Machine Learning for the Discovery, Design, and Engineering of Materials. (2022) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results & discussion section reports that adding 10 selected CSD data points to ANN training reduced mean absolute error on the CSD set from 8.6 to 7.1 kcal mol−1, about 17%, not approximately 25%. Our copy does not identify those added points as OHLDB compounds (searched: OHLDB and 25% reduction). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. van der Maaten, 2008, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 9, 2579
  2. Y. Gal and Z.Ghahramani , in Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning, international conference on machine learning , 2016 , pp. 1050–1059
  3. Duvenaud, 2015, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2215
  4. Larsen, 2017, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 29, 273002
  5. J. H. Metzen , T.Genewein , V.Fischer and B.Bischoff , On Detecting Adversarial Perturbations , in 5th International Conference on Learning Representations , ICLR , 2017
  6. T. Schlegl , P.Seeböck , S. M.Waldstein , U.Schmidt-Erfurth and G.Langs , in Unsupervised Anomaly Detection with Generative Adversarial Networks to Guide Marker Discovery, Information Processing in Medical Imaging , Springer International Publishing , 2017 , pp. 146–157
  7. Breiman, 1996, Mach. Learn., 24, 123
  8. C. C. Aggarwal , A.Hinneburg and D. A.Keim , in On the Surprising Behavior of Distance Metrics in High Dimensional Space, Database Theory—ICDT 2001 , ed. J. Van den Bussche and V. Vianu , Springer Berlin Heidelberg , Berlin, Heidelberg , 2001 , pp. 420–434
  9. Broto, 1984, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 19, 71

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Janet, J. P., Duan, C., Yang, T., Nandy, A., & Kulik, H. J.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Kulik, Heather J.
Venue
Chemical Science
Published
2019
Volume
10
Issue
34
Pages
7913-7922
ISSN
  • 2041-6520 (ISSN-L)
  • 2041-6539
OpenAlex
W2959623824
Cited by
243
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research Global (N00014-18-1-2434)
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund (Career Award at the Scientific Interface)
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (Marion Milligan Mason Award)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (D18AP00039)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
uncertainty quantification, neural network model, chemical discoveries, prediction error, active learning (machine learning), chemical space exploration, model calibration, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry

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