Artificial neural network for the prediction of physical properties of organic compounds based on the group contribution method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".