High-Performing Deep Learning Regression Models for Predicting Low-Pressure CO<sub>2</sub> Adsorption Properties of Metal–Organic Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have garnered interest as potential solid sorbent materials for postcombustion CO 2 capture. With a seemingly infinite design space, high-throughput computational screening of MOFs has developed into an effective tool for the development of new materials. In this work, machine learning (ML) has been used to develop accurate quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models to rapidly predict the CO 2 working capacity and CO 2 /N 2 selectivity at the low-pressure conditions relevant to postcombustion carbon capture (0.15 bar CO 2, 0.85 bar N 2 ). A database of over 340 000 MOFs constructed from hundreds of types of building units arranged in over 1000 net topologies was used to train and test the models. Neural network ML models were optimized using six geometric descriptors along with three so-called chemical descriptors, namely, the atomic property-weighted radial distribution function (AP-RDF) and some variants thereof, the bag-of-atoms, and the chemical motif density descriptors. The ML models built using geometric descriptors alone resulted in test set correlation R 2 values of only 0.71 and 0.75 for CO 2 working capacity and CO 2 /N 2 selectivity, respectively. ML models built with a single type of chemical descriptor all outperformed the geometry-only models giving R 2 values ranging from 0.83 to 0.94 with the AP-RDF model being the most accurate. Overall, the best model was built using a combination of AP-RDF, chemical motif, and geometric descriptors ( R 2 = 0.96 when predicting the CO 2 working capacity and R 2 = 0.95 for the selectivity). To date, these are the most accurate ML models for predicting low-pressure gas uptake of MOFs. The combined model was able to capture 994 of the true top 1000 MOFs (from a test set of ∼70 000) within the top 5000 MOFs as predicted by the model with CO 2 working capacity as the target. Thus, if the ML model were used to prescreen materials for more compute intensive GCMC simulations, then it would result in a greater than 10 times speed up while still capturing >99% of high-performing materials. These results highlight the importance of chemical descriptors in predicting low-pressure gas adsorption properties in nanoporous materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".