Papers

研究:随机化 SAFE 表示让低数据分子生成真实产率提升 450 倍

What to randomize matters: a controlled study of volume, axis and representation in low-data molecular generation

Why we picked it

训练数据只有 1000 条分子时,把 SMILES 换成随机化 SAFE,新分子产出直接翻 450 倍,还比随机化 SMILES 高 2.8 倍,做药物生成的人可以看看。

一项研究用 1,000 个种子分子训练自回归序列模型,比较 canonical SAFE 与 randomized SAFE 在不同语料规模下的分子生成表现。结果显示,仅对 SAFE 做随机化就能让新分子的真实产率提升超过 450 倍,把只会复述训练集的模型变成可用的分子生成器。研究还分离出原子顺序和片段顺序两个随机化轴:单独用原子顺序只能达到两者联合真实产率的十分之一,单独用片段顺序为七分之一。在语料规模和算力对齐的条件下,randomized SAFE 的真实产率是 randomized SMILES 的 2.8 倍。统计检验采用 Welch tests 加 Games-Howell 事后比较,所有主要结论的差异均显著。

Original · arXiv cs.LG

What to randomize matters: a controlled study of volume, axis and representation in low-data molecular generation

Chemical language models can struggle to generate new molecules when trained on small datasets, where a model may reproduce training examples rather than learn a useful generative distribution. Randomized SMILES augmentation varies atom traversal, whereas Sequential Attachment-based Fragment Embedding (SAFE) also allows the order of fragment blocks to vary. How these distinct sources of representational variation affect low-data molecular generation has not been clearly studied. Here, using 1,000 seed molecules to train an autoregressive sequence model, we compare canonical SAFE with randomized SAFE at increasing corpus sizes, isolate atom-order and fragment-order axes of SAFE randomization, and compare fully randomized SAFE with randomized SMILES at molecule-by-molecule matched training corpora. Three findings emerge. First, randomization of SAFE alone raises the genuine yield of novel molecules more than 450-fold, turning a model that merely reproduces its training set into a practical molecular generator. Second, the two axes of randomization act jointly rather than additively: atom order alone reaches a tenth, and fragment order alone a seventh, of the genuine yield obtained when both vary, which is four times their combined contribution. Third, at matched corpus size and compute, randomized SAFE delivers 2.8 times the genuine yield of randomized SMILES. Welch tests with Games-Howell post-hoc comparisons resolve every difference on the primary outcomes. In the low-data regime, thus, what one randomizes rather than only how much determines whether augmentation produces new molecules or merely new spellings of the training set.