Researcher profile

Kevin Maik Jablonka

Kevin Maik Jablonka contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Agentic AI Scientists Are Not Built For Autonomous Scientific Discovery

A growing body of work pursues AI scientists capable of end-to-end autonomous scientific discovery. This position paper argues that although they already function as co-scientists, agentic AI scientists are not built for autonomous scientific discovery. We identify the following challenges in building and deploying autonomous AI scientists: (1) Problem selection is influenced by the McNamara fallacy; (2) Agents are built on large language models (LLMs) whose training corpora omit tacit procedural and failure knowledge of laboratory practice; (3) Preference optimisation during post-training compresses output diversity toward consensus; and (4) Most scientific benchmarks measure single-turn prediction accuracy and lack feedback from physical experiments back to the computational model. These challenges are not just questions of scale and scaffolding; they require revisiting fundamental design choices. To build truly autonomous AI scientists, we recommend the use of scientific simulations as verifiers for training, the design of persistent world models that represent the shifting objectives governing real investigations, the establishment of a centralized preregistration repository for all AI-generated hypotheses, and application driven by scientific need rather than tool affordance.

preprint2026arXiv

Reducing cross-sample prediction churn in scientific machine learning

Scientific machine learning reports predictive performance. It does not report whether the same prediction would survive a different draw of training data. Across $9$ chemistry benchmarks, two classifiers trained on independent bootstraps of the same training set agree on aggregate accuracy to within $1.3\text{--}4.2$ percentage points but disagree on the class label of $8.0\text{--}21.8\%$ of test molecules. We call this gap \emph{cross-sample prediction churn}. The standard parameter-side techniques (deep ensembles, MC dropout, stochastic weight averaging) do not reduce this gap; two data-side methods do. The first is $K$-bootstrap bagging, which cuts the rate $40\text{--}54\%$ on every dataset at no accuracy cost ($K{\times}$-ERM compute). The second is \emph{twin-bootstrap}, our proposal: two networks trained jointly on independent bootstraps with a sym-KL consistency loss between their predictions, which at matched $2{\times}$-ERM compute reduces churn a further median $45\%$ beyond bagging-$K{=}2$. Cross-sample prediction churn deserves a column alongside predictive performance in scientific-ML benchmark reports, because without it the parameter-side and data-side methods are indistinguishable on the metric they actually differ on.

preprint2021arXiv

A reproducibility study of "Augmenting Genetic Algorithms with Deep Neural Networks for Exploring the Chemical Space"

Nigam et al. reported a genetic algorithm (GA) utilizing the SELFIES representation and also propose an adaptive, neural network-based penalty that is supposed to improve the diversity of the generated molecules. The main claims of the paper are that this GA outperforms other generative techniques (as measured by the penalized logP) and that a neural network-based adaptive penalty increases the diversity of the generated molecules. In this work, we investigated the reproducibility of their claims. Overall, we were able to reproduce comparable results using the SELFIES-based GA, but mostly by exploiting deficiencies of the (easily optimizable) fitness function (i.e., generating long, sulfur containing chains). In addition, we reproduce results showing that the discriminator can be used to bias the generation of molecules to ones that are similar to the reference set. Lastly, we attempted to quantify the evolution of the diversity, understand the influence of some hyperparameters, and propose improvements to the adaptive penalty.

preprint2020arXiv

Big-Data Science in Porous Materials: Materials Genomics and Machine Learning

By combining metal nodes with organic linkers we can potentially synthesize millions of possible metal organic frameworks (MOFs). At present, we have libraries of over ten thousand synthesized materials and millions of in-silico predicted materials. The fact that we have so many materials opens many exciting avenues to tailor make a material that is optimal for a given application. However, from an experimental and computational point of view we simply have too many materials to screen using brute-force techniques. In this review, we show that having so many materials allows us to use big-data methods as a powerful technique to study these materials and to discover complex correlations. The first part of the review gives an introduction to the principles of big-data science. We emphasize the importance of data collection, methods to augment small data sets, how to select appropriate training sets. An important part of this review are the different approaches that are used to represent these materials in feature space. The review also includes a general overview of the different ML techniques, but as most applications in porous materials use supervised ML our review is focused on the different approaches for supervised ML. In particular, we review the different method to optimize the ML process and how to quantify the performance of the different methods. In the second part, we review how the different approaches of ML have been applied to porous materials. In particular, we discuss applications in the field of gas storage and separation, the stability of these materials, their electronic properties, and their synthesis. The range of topics illustrates the large variety of topics that can be studied with big-data science. Given the increasing interest of the scientific community in ML, we expect this list to rapidly expand in the coming years.