IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v573y2019i7773d10.1038_s41586-019-1540-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anthropogenic biases in chemical reaction data hinder exploratory inorganic synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiwen Jia

    (Haverford College)

  • Allyson Lynch

    (Haverford College)

  • Yuheng Huang

    (Haverford College)

  • Matthew Danielson

    (Haverford College)

  • Immaculate Lang’at

    (Haverford College)

  • Alexander Milder

    (Haverford College)

  • Aaron E. Ruby

    (Haverford College)

  • Hao Wang

    (Haverford College)

  • Sorelle A. Friedler

    (Haverford College)

  • Alexander J. Norquist

    (Haverford College)

  • Joshua Schrier

    (Haverford College
    Fordham University, The Bronx)

Abstract

Most chemical experiments are planned by human scientists and therefore are subject to a variety of human cognitive biases1, heuristics2 and social influences3. These anthropogenic chemical reaction data are widely used to train machine-learning models4 that are used to predict organic5 and inorganic6,7 syntheses. However, it is known that societal biases are encoded in datasets and are perpetuated in machine-learning models8. Here we identify as-yet-unacknowledged anthropogenic biases in both the reagent choices and reaction conditions of chemical reaction datasets using a combination of data mining and experiments. We find that the amine choices in the reported crystal structures of hydrothermal synthesis of amine-templated metal oxides9 follow a power-law distribution in which 17% of amine reactants occur in 79% of reported compounds, consistent with distributions in social influence models10–12. An analysis of unpublished historical laboratory notebook records shows similarly biased distributions of reaction condition choices. By performing 548 randomly generated experiments, we demonstrate that the popularity of reactants or the choices of reaction conditions are uncorrelated to the success of the reaction. We show that randomly generated experiments better illustrate the range of parameter choices that are compatible with crystal formation. Machine-learning models that we train on a smaller randomized reaction dataset outperform models trained on larger human-selected reaction datasets, demonstrating the importance of identifying and addressing anthropogenic biases in scientific data.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiwen Jia & Allyson Lynch & Yuheng Huang & Matthew Danielson & Immaculate Lang’at & Alexander Milder & Aaron E. Ruby & Hao Wang & Sorelle A. Friedler & Alexander J. Norquist & Joshua Schrier, 2019. "Anthropogenic biases in chemical reaction data hinder exploratory inorganic synthesis," Nature, Nature, vol. 573(7773), pages 251-255, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:573:y:2019:i:7773:d:10.1038_s41586-019-1540-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1540-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1540-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-019-1540-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kangming Li & Daniel Persaud & Kamal Choudhary & Brian DeCost & Michael Greenwood & Jason Hattrick-Simpers, 2023. "Exploiting redundancy in large materials datasets for efficient machine learning with less data," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:573:y:2019:i:7773:d:10.1038_s41586-019-1540-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.