Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.