Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747013›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Automatic feature selection and weighting in molecular systems using Differentiable Information Imbalance.

Romina Wild, Felix Wodaczek, Vittorio Del Tatto, Bingqing Cheng, Alessandro Laio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Romina Wild *International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy.
Felix Wodaczek *The Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA), Klosterneuburg, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1457-795X
Vittorio Del Tatto *International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8182-6212
Bingqing ChengThe Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA), Klosterneuburg, Austria.
Alessandro LaioInternational School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy. laio@sissa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9164-7907

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feature selection is essential in the analysis of molecular systems and many other fields, but several uncertainties remain: What is the optimal number of features for a simplified, interpretable model that retains essential information? How should features with different units be aligned, and how should their relative importance be weighted? Here, we introduce the Differentiable Information Imbalance (DII), an automated method to rank information content between sets of features. Using distances in a ground truth feature space, DII identifies a low-dimensional subset of features that best preserves these relationships. Each feature is scaled by a weight, which is optimized by minimizing the DII through gradient descent. This allows simultaneously performing unit alignment and relative importance scaling, while preserving interpretability. DII can also produce sparse solutions and determine the optimal size of the reduced feature space. We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach on two benchmark molecular problems: (1) identifying collective variables that describe conformations of a biomolecule, and (2) selecting features for training a machine-learning force field. These results show the potential of DII in addressing feature selection challenges and optimizing dimensionality in various applications. The method is available in the Python library DADApy.

Identifiers

PMID39747013
PMCPMC11696465

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.