A Bayesian Approach to Predict Solubility Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solubility is a ubiquitous phenomenon in many aspects of material science. While solubility can be determined by considering the cohesive forces in a liquid via the Hansen solubility parameters (HSP), quantitative structure–property relationship models are often used for prediction, notably due to their low computational cost. Here, gpHSP, an interpretable and versatile probabilistic approach to determining HSP, is reported. Our model is based on Gaussian processes, a Bayesian machine learning approach that provides uncertainty bounds to prediction. gpHSP achieves its flexibility by leveraging a variety of input data, such as SMILES strings, COSMOtherm simulations, and quantum chemistry calculations. gpHSP is built on experimentally determined HSP, including a general solvents set aggregated from the literature, and a polymer set experimentally characterized by this group of authors. In all sets, a high degree of agreement is obtained, surpassing well‐established machine learning methods. The general applicability of gpHSP to miscibility of organic semiconductors, drug compounds, and in general solvents is demonstrated, which can be further extended to other domains. gpHSP is a fast and accurate toolbox, which could be applied to molecular design for solution processing technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".