Skip to main content

1,4-Benzoquinone and the DeduceBondSystemsTool

Once upon a time, there was a DeduceBondSystemsTool, and...

Er, anyway. Further to a patch made on the tool (patch ID : 3040138), there is a failing test for 1,4-benzoquinone:

The tool generates A, and the test wants B. Now, the problem is not that the tool is not trying B as a possibility, but that it generates A first and the final step doesn't remove it or rank it as better than A.

Understanding this requires an understanding of the algorithm. This is (roughly):
  1. For each ring, generate a list of possible positions for all numbers of double bonds.
  2. Generate a set of molecules by combining these positions together.
  3. Remove 'bad' solutions and pick a solution with the least number of 'bad' N/S atoms.
where the definition of 'bad' is based on chemical rules like atom types.

Now, neither A nor B are bad solutions, and they don't contain N or S atoms, so they both have a rank of zero, and the first one generated will be returned. So, there is really no particular reason that the test should pass.

In general, it might be good to separate the generation of possible solutions from the ranking/filtering process. So that the computational or mathematical problem of generation is done by one class, while other classes determine which is the optimal solution (or set of solutions).

Comments

If we would know that the O was sp2, then the first solution could be marked as bad. Not sure if that information is available at the DeduceBondSystemTool level...
gilleain said…
It checks for sp2 atoms, but only in the ring...

This is where a separation between generation and chemical rules would make things clearer. Of course, it would be better to constrain and generate, rather than generate and test.

Another architectural issue is that a bond system generation tool might benefit from detecting symmetric atoms. This would mean new module dependencies (eg, on the signature module).

Popular posts from this blog

Adamantane, Diamantane, Twistane

After cubane, the thought occurred to look at other regular hydrocarbons. If only there was some sort of classification of chemicals that I could use look up similar structures. Oh wate, there is . Anyway, adamantane is not as regular as cubane, but it is highly symmetrical, looking like three cyclohexanes fused together. The vertices fall into two different types when colored by signature: The carbons with three carbon neighbours (degree-3, in the simple graph) have signature (a) and the degree-2 carbons have signature (b). Atoms of one type are only connected to atoms of another - the graph is bipartite . Adamantane connects together to form diamondoids (or, rather, this class have adamantane as a repeating subunit). One such is diamantane , which is no longer bipartite when colored by signature: It has three classes of vertex in the simple graph (a and b), as the set with degree-3 has been split in two. The tree for signature (c) is not shown. The graph is still bipartite accordin

Király's Method for Generating All Graphs from a Degree Sequence

After posting about the Hakimi-Havel  theorem, I received a nice email suggesting various relevant papers. One of these was by Zoltán Király  called " Recognizing Graphic Degree Sequences and Generating All Realizations ". I have now implemented a sketch of the main idea of the paper, which seems to work reasonably well, so I thought I would describe it. See the paper for details, of course. One focus of Király's method is to generate graphs efficiently , by which I mean that it has polynomial delay. In turn, an algorithm with 'polynomial delay' takes a polynomial amount of time between outputs (and to produce the first output). So - roughly - it doesn't take 1s to produce the first graph, 10s for the second, 2s for the third, 300s for the fourth, and so on. Central to the method is the tree that is traversed during the search for graphs that satisfy the input degree sequence. It's a little tricky to draw, but looks something like this: At the top

General Graph Layout : Putting the Parts Together

An essential tool for graph generation is surely the ability to draw graphs. There are, of course, many methods for doing so along with many implementations of them. This post describes one more (or perhaps an existing method - I haven't checked). Firstly, lets divide a graph up into two parts; a) the blocks, also known as ' biconnected components ', and b) trees connecting those blocks. This is illustrated in the following set of examples on 6 vertices: Trees are circled in green, and blocks in red; the vertices in the overlap between two circles are articulation points. Since all trees are planar, a graph need only have planar blocks to be planar overall. The layout then just needs to do a tree layout  on the tree bits and some other layout on the embedding of the blocks. One slight wrinkle is shown by the last example in the image above. There are three parts - two blocks and a tree - just like the one to its left, but sharing a single articulation point. I had