Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 4;11:5575. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19266-y

Table 5.

Comparison of retrosynthesis recently published methods for retrosynthesis prediction on USPTO-50 k.

Model Top-1 Top-2 Top-5 Top-10 Ref. # Comments
Seq2Seq 37.4 57.0 61.7 12 40/5/5 split; splitting any reactions with multiple products into multiple single product and removal of trivial products
Transformer (3*6) 42.7 52.5 69.8 13 45/5 split: no validation set was used
Transformer (6*8), (self corrected) 43.7 65.2 68.7 19 40/5/5 split, reagents from reactants are removed
Transformer, augmentation 44.8 57.1 57.7 79.4 32 Same as in ref. 12.
Similarity-based 37.3 63.3 74.1 20 Same as in ref. 12.
Graph Logic Network 52.5 75.6 83.7 24 Same as in refs. 12,19.
G2Gs 48.9 72.5 75.5 25 Same as in ref. 12.
ATa 53.5 69.4 81 85.7 Same as in ref. 13.
AT 53.2 68.1 80.5 85.2 Only 40 k samples were used as training set to match the other results
AT MaxFragb 58.5 73 85.4 90 Same as in ref. 13.
AT MaxFrag 58 73.4 84.8 89.1 Only 40 k samples were used as training set to match the other results

aThe results of the reference model applied to x100 augmented dataset using beam size = 10.

bThe classical retro-synthesis accuracy was estimated as accuracy for prediction of the largest fragment (MaxFrag).