Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Known Unknowns: Out-of-Distribution Property Prediction in Materials and Molecules

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Bilinear Transduction, which predicts a property value from a training anchor and their difference vector, enables zero-shot extrapolation to out-of-distribution property values in materials and molecules, raising…

desk verdict A competent, important application of transductive extrapolation to materials and molecules, but the headline gains rest on test-set hyperparameter selection and error-bar-free metrics, so the empirical claim is not yet verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05970 v1 pith:YIUSD4FB submitted 2025-02-09 cs.LG cond-mat.mtrl-scics.CEphysics.chem-ph

Nofit Segal , Aviv Netanyahu , Kevin P. Greenman , Pulkit Agrawal , Rafael Gomez-Bombarelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcond-mat.mtrl-scics.CEphysics.chem-ph
keywords out-of-distributionpredictiontransductivelearningmaterialspropertymolecularextrapolationzero-shotgeneralizationbilineartransductiondatabasescreening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a predictor can extrapolate to property values higher than any seen in training, the regime that matters for screening candidate materials and molecules. It claims yes: adapting Bilinear Transduction, a transductive regression method, improves zero-shot extrapolation across twelve solid-state and four molecular property tasks. On the hardest version of the task—flagging the top 30% of extreme-property candidates—the true positive rate rises 3x for solids and 2.5x for molecules, and precision rises 2x and 1.5x, relative to non-transductive baselines. The reason, the paper argues, is that the method predicts from a training anchor plus the difference between anchor and test candidate, so extrapolation in property value is recast as interpolation over differences the model has already seen. If right, this makes database screening for record-setting materials more reliable without new data or domain-specific architectures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the difference distribution $\Delta X = \{x_i - x_j : x_i, x_j \in X\}$. Bilinear Transduction reparameterizes prediction so the model consumes an input pair—an anchor and a difference vector—and outputs the target's property value; the bilinear form $h_\theta(\Delta x, x) = f_\theta(\Delta x)g_\theta(x)$ lets the difference pathway carry the extrapolation while the anchor pathway supplies chemical context. The anchor-selection rule, $x_{an} = \arg\min_{x_i \in D^{tr}} \min_{\Delta x \in D^{tr}_{\Delta X}} \|\Delta x_{te,i} - \Delta x\|_2$, is what converts an out-of-distribution target into an in-support query.

What would settle it

For any benchmark, compute the nearest-neighbor distance from each out-of-distribution test point's difference vector to the training difference distribution and check whether the reported true-positive gains concentrate on low-distance, well-covered points; if the gains vanish when coverage is controlled for, or if low-coverage test points still extrapolate well, the coverage assumption is either false or unnecessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that out-of-distribution property prediction is tractable when the predictor is trained to answer 'how does the property change between these two inputs?' rather than 'what is the property of this input?' Bilinear Transduction implements this by learning $h_\theta(\Delta x, x) = f_\theta(\Delta x)g_\theta(x)$ on training pairs $(x_i, x_j)$ with $y_j < y_i$, predicting $y_i$ from $x_j$ and $\Delta x = x_i - x_j$. At test time, each out-of-distribution candidate $x_{te}$ is paired with the training anchor $x_{an}$ whose difference vector $\Delta x_{te,an}$ is closest to the training difference distribution, and the prediction is $h_\theta(\Delta x_{te,an}, x_{an})$. The paper shows that the resulting predictions land closer to the true out-of-distribution property distribution than Ridge Regression, MODNet, CrabNet, and Chemprop, and that the selected anchors form chemically sensible analogies—one-element substitutions in solids and shared scaffold changes in molecules.

Load-bearing premise

The method succeeds only if every out-of-distribution test point can be paired with a training anchor whose difference vector falls within the spread of differences seen during training, a coverage condition the paper concedes is not backed by the method's theoretical guarantees when the property value itself is out of distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Database screening for extreme-property candidates becomes more selective: in the 30% extrapolative precision metric, Bilinear Transduction beats every baseline on most of the 16 tasks, with large margins on AFLOW bulk modulus, thermal expansion, MP bulk modulus, and Freesolv.
  • The method delivers its out-of-distribution gains while staying competitive in-distribution, so adopting it does not trade standard predictive accuracy for extrapolation.
  • Because the inputs are fixed descriptor vectors (element-based features for solids, RDKit descriptors for molecules), the approach transfers across property tasks without changing the model family or representation.
  • The improvement is largest on tasks where high-throughput or experimental data is small, such as Freesolv, yield strength, and MP bulk modulus, suggesting transduction is especially useful in data-limited materials settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, a direct test of the mechanism would be to measure how prediction error on out-of-distribution points varies with the coverage of their difference vectors in $\Delta X$; if the mechanism is right, error should track difference sparsity, not property distance.
  • Beyond the paper, the analogy structure the paper visualizes suggests a data-side lever: augmenting training sets to enrich difference vectors around extreme targets, for example by adding pairs that differ by f-block or d-block substitutions, could push extrapolation further without changing the model.
  • Beyond the paper, one could invert the bilinear predictor to propose new candidates, treating the anchor and difference vector as controllable axes, and thereby turn the screening tool into a generative design tool, though the paper does not attempt this.
  • Beyond the paper, the paper's own caveat that the convergence guarantees do not fully apply when the property, rather than the input, is out of distribution implies the reported gains may be sensitive to descriptor geometry; a stress test across descriptor choices would clarify where the method breaks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper adapts Bilinear Transduction, a transductive regression method originally designed for out-of-support inputs, to the task of zero-shot extrapolation to out-of-distribution (OOD) property values in materials and molecules. The method reparameterizes prediction as a function of a training anchor and the difference vector between the test point and that anchor, with anchors selected to make the difference vector resemble training differences. The authors evaluate on solids benchmarks (AFLOW, Matbench, Materials Project) and molecular benchmarks (MoleculeNet), comparing against composition-based and descriptor-based baselines. They report OOD MAE, a custom '30% extrapolative precision' metric, and TPR, and claim improvements in TPR of 3x and 2.5x for solids and molecules, respectively, along with improved precision.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the method would offer a practical and simple way to improve screening for extreme-property candidates, which is a central bottleneck in materials and molecular discovery. Strengths of the paper include the breadth of the evaluation across 16 tasks, the clarity of the analogy-based interpretation in Section 2.3 and Appendix 6.1.3, and the public release of code and data. However, the evaluation protocol has load-bearing weaknesses: hyperparameters are selected on the OOD test set, TPR and precision are reported without error bars, and the paper itself concedes that the theoretical guarantees of Bilinear Transduction may not apply to the OOD-Y setting. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix 6.2.2] The reported OOD MAE scores for Bilinear Transduction are selected as the best over a hyperparameter search on the number of predictor layers (3, 4), layer size (256, 512, 1024), and embedding size (32, 42, 48, 64), and the selection is made directly on the OOD test set. Because the configuration is chosen by looking at the test OOD MAE, the comparison against baselines is optimistic and the headline gains in Tables 1-4 are not a fair estimate. Please either fix a validation split for hyperparameter selection, perform nested cross-validation, or report the full distribution of results over the hyperparameter grid; the statement that the search revealed 'little sensitivity' should be backed by data rather than asserted.
  2. [Tables 2, 4, and 6] The 30% extrapolative precision and TPR are reported as single point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since the OOD test portion is only 5% of each dataset, the effective sample size for extremes is small (e.g., Yield Strength has 312 total samples, so the OOD portion is roughly 15 samples), and the differences between methods may be noise. Please provide bootstrap or repeated-seed intervals and, where possible, statistical tests for the claimed 2-3x improvements.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Tables 2/4/6] The relationship between the '30% extrapolative precision' and the 'TPR' metrics is inconsistent as reported. For Matbench Yield Strength, Bilinear Transduction achieves a 30% extrapolative precision of 0.67 while the TPR in Table 6 is 0.0; if both metrics count true top-OOD candidates among the top predictions, a precision of 0.67 implies a nonzero recall. Please give precise definitions of both metrics and reconcile these numbers; also explain the 19-fold re-weighting of in-distribution errors described in Section 2.1.
  4. [Appendix 6.3] The paper acknowledges that Bilinear Transduction's theoretical convergence guarantees apply to out-of-support X, not to the OOD-Y setting studied here, and that 'the theoretical guarantees may not fully apply.' This concession is load-bearing because the method's motivation is that reparameterization into difference space brings test points within the training support. Please provide an empirical check of the coverage assumption, e.g., report the distribution of distances between selected test difference vectors Δx_te,an and the training difference distribution, and show that results are stable when anchors are restricted to those with difference vectors well inside the training support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Affiliations] The affiliations list 'Catholic Institute of Technology' for Kevin P. Greenman and Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli; this appears to be an error for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  2. [Table 5] In the molecules block of Table 5, the column headers list Chemprop, Random Forest, and MLP but do not include an 'Ours' header, although a fourth data column is present. Please add the missing header.
  3. [Section 6.2.1] The sentence 'preforms message-passing' should read 'performs message-passing'.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions describe OOD predictions as red dots, but the figure descriptions refer to a red horizontal line for the training boundary; please ensure the color legend and dot/line distinction are clear in print.
  5. [Section 2.1] The text says the held-out set is composed of in-distribution and OOD samples in equal parts, while Section 3 describes a 95:5 split; please clarify how the held-out set used for the precision metric relates to the data split in Section 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the AFLOW OOD MAE result is obtained by selecting hyperparameters on the OOD test set, so that reported 'prediction' is a fitted optimum on the evaluated labels.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.2.2, 'Bilinear Transduction Hyperparameter Search']
    "In Table 1, we report the best ood MAE score for Bilinear Transduction on AFLOW over a hyperparameter search on the number of predictor network layers (3, 4), layer size (256, 512, 1024) and embedding size (32, 42, 48, 64)."

    The reported AFLOW OOD MAE is not an out-of-sample estimate for a fixed model: the same OOD labels used to compute the metric are used to select the configuration ('best ood MAE'). The chosen hyperparameters are, by construction, minimizers of the reported metric on the test set. Hence that reported accuracy is a fitted optimum, not a prediction, and comparisons against baselines on that subset are partially forced. The paper's statement that the search showed 'little sensitivity' bounds but does not eliminate the selection bias. Whether the headline TPR/precision tables inherit the same selected configuration is not documented, so those claims also lack a clear out-of-sample selection protocol.

full rationale

Aside from the test-set hyperparameter selection, the paper is not circular in its derivation. The Bilinear Transduction method is imported from prior peer-reviewed work by overlapping authors, but it is used as an explicit algorithmic recipe, not as proof of the empirical claims; the experiments use external datasets and baselines. The only theory citation to the authors' prior work ([24]) is expressly disclaimed for the OOD-Y setting in Appendix 6.3: 'Under our current formulation where Y is ood, the theoretical guarantees for Bilinear Transduction may not fully apply.' Thus no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness import is present. The central remaining problem is an evaluation-protocol circularity: the AFLOW result is selected on the OOD test metric being reported, which makes at least that part of the claimed improvement partly a product of the selection procedure. Correcting this (e.g., validation-based selection or nested CV with error bars) is necessary before the 3x/2.5x TPR and precision claims can be taken at face value.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on a handful of design choices: test-set hyperparameter selection, a custom precision metric, and the assumption that descriptor-space differences capture property changes. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Bilinear Transduction hyperparameters = network layers in {3,4}, layer size in {256,512,1024}, embedding size in {32,42,48,64}
    Selected by searching over the grid to minimize the test out-of-distribution MAE (Appendix 6.2.2), which is a form of test-set tuning.
  • Top-k threshold for extrapolative precision = 30% of test set
    The '30% extrapolative precision' metric is a design choice by the authors; it re-weights in-distribution errors 19-fold and defines the candidate set.
  • OOD split ratio = 5% highest property values
    The definition of out-of-distribution as the top 5% of property values determines the evaluation protocol and may not reflect a true distribution shift.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Descriptor differences are meaningfully related to property differences
    Section 3 states that differences between feature vectors are related, possibly intricately, to changes in property value. This is the key assumption enabling transduction to work on chemical representations.
  • domain assumption Coverage of test differences by training difference distribution
    The anchor selection rule assumes that for each OOD test point there is a training anchor whose difference vector lies in the support of training differences. The authors note in Section 6.3 that the theoretical guarantees of Bilinear Transduction may not fully apply when Y is OOD rather than X.
  • standard math Bilinear form can represent the target relationship
    The predictor h(Δx,x) is assumed to be bilinear in embeddings, inherited from Netanyahu et al. 2023; no new justification is given for the OOD-Y setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Known Unknowns: Out-of-Distribution Property Prediction in Materials and Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIUSD4FB

@misc{pith2026250205970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Known Unknowns: Out-of-Distribution Property Prediction in Materials and Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIUSD4FB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05970}
}
read the original abstract

Discovery of high-performance materials and molecules requires identifying extremes with property values that fall outside the known distribution. Therefore, the ability to extrapolate to out-of-distribution (OOD) property values is critical for both solid-state materials and molecular design. Our objective is to train predictor models that extrapolate zero-shot to higher ranges than in the training data, given the chemical compositions of solids or molecular graphs and their property values. We propose using a transductive approach to OOD property prediction, achieving improvements in prediction accuracy. In particular, the True Positive Rate (TPR) of OOD classification of materials and molecules improved by 3x and 2.5x, respectively, and precision improved by 2x and 1.5x compared to non-transductive baselines. Our method leverages analogical input-target relations in the training and test sets, enabling generalization beyond the training target support, and can be applied to any other material and molecular tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accounts of Materials Research 3(3), 343–357 (2022)

    Axelrod, S., Schwalbe-Koda, D., Mohapatra, S., Damewood, J., Greenman, K.P., G´ omez-Bombarelli, R.: Learning matter: Materials design with machine learning and atomistic simulations. Accounts of Materials Research 3(3), 343–357 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Science 361(6400), 360–365 (2018)

    Sanchez-Lengeling, B., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Generative models for matter engineering. Science 361(6400), 360–365 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 12(5), 1608 (2022)

    Bilodeau, C., Jin, W., Jaakkola, T., Barzilay, R., Jensen, K.F.: Generative models for molecular discovery: Recent advances and challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 12(5), 1608 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Chemical Science 11(19), 4871–4881 (2020)

    Noh, J., Gu, G.H., Kim, S., Jung, Y.: Machine-enabled inverse design of inorganic solid materials: promises and challenges. Chemical Science 11(19), 4871–4881 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    npj Computational Materials 7(1), 140 (2021)

    Kim, Y., Kim, Y., Yang, C., Park, K., Gu, G.X., Ryu, S.: Deep learning frame- work for material design space exploration using active transfer learning and data augmentation. npj Computational Materials 7(1), 140 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03687 (2023)

    Zeni, C., Pinsler, R., Z¨ ugner, D., Fowler, A., Horton, M., Fu, X., Shysheya, S., Crabb´ e, J., Sun, L., Smith, J., et al.: Mattergen: a generative model for inorganic materials design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03687 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09235 (2023)

    Yang, M., Cho, K., Merchant, A., Abbeel, P., Schuurmans, D., Mordatch, I., Cubuk, E.D.: Scalable diffusion for materials generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09235 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06197 (2021)

    Xie, T., Fu, X., Ganea, O.-E., Barzilay, R., Jaakkola, T.: Crystal diffu- sion variational autoencoder for periodic material generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06197 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Accounts of chemical research 54(2), 263–270 (2020)

    Walters, W.P., Barzilay, R.: Applications of deep learning in molecule generation and molecular property prediction. Accounts of chemical research 54(2), 263–270 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    npj Computational Materials 6(1), 138 (2020)

    Dunn, A., Wang, Q., Ganose, A., Dopp, D., Jain, A.: Benchmarking materials property prediction methods: the matbench test set and automatminer reference algorithm. npj Computational Materials 6(1), 138 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Npj Com- putational Materials 7(1), 77 (2021)

    Wang, A.Y.-T., Kauwe, S.K., Murdock, R.J., Sparks, T.D.: Compositionally restricted attention-based network for materials property predictions. Npj Com- putational Materials 7(1), 77 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    The journal of physical chemistry letters 9(7), 1668– 1673 (2018)

    Zhuo, Y., Mansouri Tehrani, A., Brgoch, J.: Predicting the band gaps of inorganic 19 solids by machine learning. The journal of physical chemistry letters 9(7), 1668– 1673 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    npj computational materials 7(1), 83 (2021)

    De Breuck, P.-P., Hautier, G., Rignanese, G.-M.: Materials property prediction for limited datasets enabled by feature selection and joint learning with modnet. npj computational materials 7(1), 83 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    npj Computational Materials 2(1), 1–7 (2016)

    Ward, L., Agrawal, A., Choudhary, A., Wolverton, C.: A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials. npj Computational Materials 2(1), 1–7 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Kauwe, S.K., Graser, J., Murdock, R., Sparks, T.D.: Can machine learning find extraordinary materials? Computational Materials Science 174, 109498 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Digital Discovery 1(3), 266–276 (2022)

    Zhao, Z.-W., Del Cueto, M., Troisi, A.: Limitations of machine learning models when predicting compounds with completely new chemistries: possible improve- ments applied to the discovery of new non-fullerene acceptors. Digital Discovery 1(3), 266–276 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    npj Computational Materials 10(1), 144 (2024)

    Omee, S.S., Fu, N., Dong, R., Hu, M., Hu, J.: Structure-based out-of-distribution (ood) materials property prediction: a benchmark study. npj Computational Materials 10(1), 144 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06489 (2024)

    Li, K., Rubungo, A.N., Lei, X., Persaud, D., Choudhary, K., DeCost, B., Dieng, A.B., Hattrick-Simpers, J.: Probing out-of-distribution generalization in machine learning for materials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06489 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    : Can machine learning identify the next high-temperature superconductor? examining extrapolation performance for materials discovery

    Meredig, B., Antono, E., Church, C., Hutchinson, M., Ling, J., Paradiso, S., Blaiszik, B., Foster, I., Gibbons, B., Hattrick-Simpers, J., et al. : Can machine learning identify the next high-temperature superconductor? examining extrapolation performance for materials discover...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Digital Discovery 2(5), 1425–1435 (2023)

    Muckley, E.S., Saal, J.E., Meredig, B., Roper, C.S., Martin, J.H.: Interpretable models for extrapolation in scientific machine learning. Digital Discovery 2(5), 1425–1435 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

    Yang, H., Hu, C., Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Shi, Y., Li, J., Li, G., Chen, Z., Chen, S., Zeni, C., et al.: Mattersim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nature 624(7990), 80–85 (2023)

    Merchant, A., Batzner, S., Schoenholz, S.S., Aykol, M., Cheon, G., Cubuk, E.D.: Scaling deep learning for materials discovery. Nature 624(7990), 80–85 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00096 (2023) 20

    Batatia, I., Benner, P., Chiang, Y., Elena, A.M., Kov´ acs, D.P., Riebesell, J., Advincula, X.R., Asta, M., Baldwin, W.J., Bernstein, N., et al.: A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00096 (2023) 20

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    Netanyahu, A., Gupta, A., Simchowitz, M., Zhang, K., Agrawal, P.: Learning to extrapolate: A transductive approach. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Computational Materials Science 58, 218–226 (2012)

    Curtarolo, S., Setyawan, W., Hart, G.L., Jahnatek, M., Chepulskii, R.V., Taylor, R.H., Wang, S., Xue, J., Yang, K., Levy, O.,et al.: Aflow: An automatic framework for high-throughput materials discovery. Computational Materials Science 58, 218–226 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    APL materials 1(1) (2013)

    Jain, A., Ong, S.P., Hautier, G., Chen, W., Richards, W.D., Dacek, S., Cholia, S., Gunter, D., Skinner, D., Ceder, G., et al.: Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL materials 1(1) (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    https://citrination.com/ datasets/153092/show files/ (2017)

    G., C., S., B.: Mechanical properties of some steels. https://citrination.com/ datasets/153092/show files/ (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Scientific data 4(1), 1–12 (2017)

    Petousis, I., Mrdjenovich, D., Ballouz, E., Liu, M., Winston, D., Chen, W., Graf, T., Schladt, T.D., Persson, K.A., Prinz, F.B.: High-throughput screening of inorganic compounds for the discovery of novel dielectric and optical materials. Scientific data 4(1), 1–12 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 64(1), 9–17 (2023)

    Heid, E., Greenman, K.P., Chung, Y., Li, S.-C., Graff, D.E., Vermeire, F.H., Wu, H., Green, W.H., McGill, C.J.: Chemprop: a machine learning package for chemical property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 64(1), 9–17 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Machine learning 45, 5–32 (2001)

    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine learning 45, 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Atmospheric environment 32(14-15), 2627–2636 (1998)

    Gardner, M.W., Dorling, S.: Artificial neural networks (the multilayer per- ceptron)—a review of applications in the atmospheric sciences. Atmospheric environment 32(14-15), 2627–2636 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    O’Reilly Media, ??? (2019)

    Ramsundar, B., Eastman, P., Walters, P., Pande, V., Leswing, K., Wu, Z.: Deep Learning for the Life Sciences. O’Reilly Media, ??? (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Weininger, D.: Smiles, a chemical language and information system. 1. introduc- tion to methodology and encoding rules. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 28(1), 31–36 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    https://www.rdkit.org

    RDKit: Open-source cheminformatics. https://www.rdkit.org

  27. [35]

    Annual Review of Materials Research 53(1), 399–426 (2023)

    Damewood, J., Karaguesian, J., Lunger, J.R., Tan, A.R., Xie, M., Peng, J., G´ omez-Bombarelli, R.: Representations of materials for machine learning. Annual Review of Materials Research 53(1), 399–426 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    PhD thesis, Stanford 21 University (2018)

    Ramsundar, B.: Molecular machine learning with deepchem. PhD thesis, Stanford 21 University (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Chemistry of Materials 28(20), 7324–7331 (2016)

    Oliynyk, A.O., Antono, E., Sparks, T.D., Ghadbeigi, L., Gaultois, M.W., Meredig, B., Mar, A.: High-throughput machine-learning-driven synthesis of full-heusler compounds. Chemistry of Materials 28(20), 7324–7331 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Computational Materials Science 152, 60–69 (2018)

    Ward, L., Dunn, A., Faghaninia, A., Zimmermann, N.E., Bajaj, S., Wang, Q., Montoya, J., Chen, J., Bystrom, K., Dylla, M., et al.: Matminer: An open source toolkit for materials data mining. Computational Materials Science 152, 60–69 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics69(6), 066138 (2004)

    Kraskov, A., St¨ ogbauer, H., Grassberger, P.: Estimating mutual information. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics69(6), 066138 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Journal of statistical planning and inference 90(2), 227–244 (2000)

    Shimodaira, H.: Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function. Journal of statistical planning and inference 90(2), 227–244 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Neural Information Processing Series, pp

    Shimodaira, H., Sugiyama, M., Storkey, A., Gretton, A., David, S.-B., Quinone- roCandela, J., Sugiyama, M., Schwaighofer, A., Lawrence, N.: Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. Neural Information Processing Series, pp. 201–205. Yale University Press in association with the Museu...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.