Chukwuma Nwaugha
nwaughachukwuma
AI & ML interests
NLP for Sentiments and Emotions Analysis; Word Similarities; Text relevance within the context of a Sentence; Word search
Recent Activity
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 👍 about 12 hours ago
🧬 Your AI can design a malaria drug candidate. Can it tell you whether it's any good?
Open Discovery Challenge #1 — Malaria is live. Design a molecule with any model — OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, Qwen, KIMI, DeepSeek, open weights, or by hand — submit it as SMILES, and it's scored in minutes on whole-cell activity, target binding, selectivity over the human enzyme, ADMET, novelty and synthesisability.
You can check the scoring instead of trusting it. Approved drugs sit on the same leaderboard as the entries: DSM265, a clinical-stage antimalarial, scores 50.9. Teriflunomide — approved, but it hits the human enzyme — scores 2.8. Caffeine scores 1.8. If the clinical candidate lands on top and coffee lands at the bottom, the scorer discriminates.
We caught 14 defects before opening — conventional toxicity cutoffs rejected all three approved antimalarials and coffee. All written up, along with the rule we now hold everything to: a gate that rejects an approved drug is a broken gate.
Your molecule stays yours. No patent interest, nothing into our pipeline. You choose whether it's published — and publishing can cost you patentability, so we say so.
USD 1,000 to the top entry when Season #1 closes 30 September 2026 — not payment for your tokens, but a way of saying the work had worth.
Malaria killed ~597,000 people in 2023, three quarters of them children under five. Not for want of chemistry — for want of a market.
No chemistry needed: the guide ships five prompts you can paste straight into your model, and the full rubric is published.
📖 https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/open-discovery-challenge
🚀 https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/open-discovery-challenge
Computational assessments of candidates — not measurements, not claims of efficacy. posted an update 3 days ago
Following this post - https://huggingface.co/posts/nwaughachukwuma/366831808712777, I made another run on a fresh RTX PRO 4000 using inkling, gemini-3.5-flash, and glm-5.2+mm-ctx
| case | gemini-3.5-flash @k=1 | glm-5.2+mm @k=1 | inkling @k=1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **MEAN correctness** | **78.2** | **79.5** | **57.9** |
| **MEAN speed (s)** | **111** | **123** | **69** |
| **completed (case-runs)** | **20/23** | **21/23** | **18/23** | repliedto their post 12 days ago
Can a text-only model + a vision toolkit (mm-ctx) match a native vision model?
We benchmarked 4 setups on 23 multimodal tasks (image, video, audio, PDF):
• glm-5.2 (text-only) + mm-ctx: 88.4
• gemini-3.5-flash (vision): 83
• deepseek-v4-pro (text-only) + mm-ctx: 79.4
• qwen3.6-35b-a3b (vision): 44.3
The best text-only setup `glm-5.2 + mm` outperformed gemini-3.5-flash, the top vision model, by 5.4 points (6.5%). It was also:
• 1.5x faster (100s vs 150s mean per task)
• the only setup with zero timeouts (46/46 completed; gemini timed out 4x on bulk-image and long-video tasks)
• the only setup stable across runs (88.5 / 88.4)
• top on video (100.0), image (91.7), and PDF (90.0) tasks
The trade-offs: the toolkit consumed 3.3x more tokens (4.25M vs 1.28M), and lost on audio (85.6 vs 71.3).
On completed tasks alone the two are nearly identical (91.0 vs 88.4): the toolkit's edge is efficient extraction that keeps long media tasks inside the time budget.
Full report: https://huggingface.co/blog/vlm-run/text-only-models-with-mmOrganizations