Predicting the Mixing Behavior of Aqueous Solutions Using a Machine Learning Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most direct approach to determining if two aqueous solutions will phase-separate upon mixing is to exhaustively screen them in a pair-wise fashion. This is a time-consuming process that involves preparation of numerous stock solutions, precise transfer of highly concentrated and often viscous solutions, exhaustive agitation to ensure thorough mixing, and time-sensitive monitoring to observe the presence of emulsion characteristics indicative of phase separation. Here, we examined the pair-wise mixing behavior of 68 water-soluble compounds by observing the formation of microscopic phase boundaries and droplets of 2278 unique 2-component solutions. A series of machine learning classifiers (artificial neural network, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, and support vector classifier) were then trained on physicochemical property data associated with the 68 compounds and used to predict their miscibility upon mixing. Miscibility predictions were then compared to the experimental observations. The random forest classifier was the most successful classifier of those tested, displaying an average receiver operator characteristic area under the curve of 0.74. The random forest classifier was validated by removing either one or two compounds from the input data, training the classifier on the remaining data and then predicting the miscibility of solutions involving the removed compound(s) using the classifier. The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of the random forest classifier were 0.74, 0.80, and 0.51, respectively, when one of the two compounds to be examined was not represented in the training data. When asked to predict the miscibility of two compounds, neither of which were represented in the training data, the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity values for the random forest classifier were 0.70, 0.82 and 0.29, respectively. Thus, there is potential for this machine learning approach to improve the design of screening experiments to accelerate the discovery of aqueous two-phase systems for numerous scientific and industrial applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".