MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311004239 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24788

Artificial neural network for the prediction of physical properties of organic compounds based on the group contribution method

2022· article· en· W4311004239 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ignacio Pérez‐Correa, Pablo Giunta, Javier A. Francesconi, Fernando Mariño

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular Structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSecretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica, Universidad de Buenos AiresUniversidad de Buenos AiresConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsBoiling pointEnthalpy of vaporizationArtificial neural networkEnthalpyGroup contribution methodThermodynamicsMelting pointEnthalpy of fusionHeat capacityComputer scienceAcentric factorMultilayer perceptronChemistryBiological systemMachine learningOrganic chemistryPhysicsPhase equilibrium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the development and optimization of chemical processes involving the selection of organic fluids, knowledge of the physical properties of compounds is vital. In many cases, it is complex to find experimental measurements for all substances, so it becomes necessary to have a tool to predict properties based on the characteristics of the molecule. One of the most extensively used methods in the literature is the estimation by contribution of functional groups, where properties are calculated using the constituent elements of the molecule. There are several models published in the literature, but they fail to represent a wide variety of compounds with high accuracy and simultaneously maintain a low computational complexity. The aim of this work is to develop a prediction model for eight thermodynamic properties (melting temperature, boiling temperature, critical pressure, critical temperature, critical volume, enthalpy of vaporization, enthalpy of fusion, and enthalpy of gas formation) based on the group contribution methodology by implementing a multilayer perceptron. Here, 2736 substances were used to train the neural network, whose prediction capacity was compared with other reference models available in the literature. The proposed model presents errors ranging from 1% to 5% for the different properties (except for the melting point), which improves the reference models with errors in the range of 3%–30%. Nevertheless, a difficulty in the prediction of the melting point is detected, which could represent an inherent hindrance to this methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular StructureFrench-language works237,207