4.8 Article

ChemPix: automated recognition of hand-drawn hydrocarbon structures using deep learning

期刊

CHEMICAL SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 31, 页码 10622-10633

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1sc02957f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2659]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A chemical software tool was developed to recognize hand-drawn hydrocarbon structures, utilizing machine learning methods for training. By forming a neural network committee, the accuracy and confidence of molecule recognition were significantly improved.
Inputting molecules into chemistry software, such as quantum chemistry packages, currently requires domain expertise, expensive software and/or cumbersome procedures. Leveraging recent breakthroughs in machine learning, we develop ChemPix: an offline, hand-drawn hydrocarbon structure recognition tool designed to remove these barriers. A neural image captioning approach consisting of a convolutional neural network (CNN) encoder and a long short-term memory (LSTM) decoder learned a mapping from photographs of hand-drawn hydrocarbon structures to machine-readable SMILES representations. We generated a large auxiliary training dataset, based on RDKit molecular images, by combining image augmentation, image degradation and background addition. Additionally, a small dataset of similar to 600 hand-drawn hydrocarbon chemical structures was crowd-sourced using a phone web application. These datasets were used to train the image-to-SMILES neural network with the goal of maximizing the hand-drawn hydrocarbon recognition accuracy. By forming a committee of the trained neural networks where each network casts one vote for the predicted molecule, we achieved a nearly 10 percentage point improvement of the molecule recognition accuracy and were able to assign a confidence value for the prediction based on the number of agreeing votes. The ensemble model achieved an accuracy of 76% on hand-drawn hydrocarbons, increasing to 86% if the top 3 predictions were considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据