Insights into modeling refractive index of ionic liquids using chemical structure-based machine learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ionic liquids (ILs) have drawn much attention due to their extensive applications and environment-friendly nature. Refractive index prediction is valuable for ILs quality control and property characterization. This paper aims to predict refractive indices of pure ILs and identify factors influencing refractive index changes. Six chemical structure-based machine learning models called eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), Categorical Boosting (CatBoost), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Adaptive Boosting-Decision Tree (Ada-DT), and Adaptive Boosting-Support Vector Machine (Ada-SVM) were developed to achieve this goal. An enormous dataset containing 6098 data points of 483 different ILs was exploited to train the machine learning models. Each data point’s chemical substructures, temperature, and wavelength were considered for the models’ inputs. Including wavelength as input is unprecedented among predictions done by machine learning methods. The results show that the best model was CatBoost, followed by XGBoost, LightGBM, Ada-DT, CNN, and Ada-SVM. The R2 and average absolute percent relative error (AAPRE) of the best model were 0.9973 and 0.0545, respectively. Comparing this study’s models with the literature shows two advantages regarding the dataset’s abundance and prediction accuracy. This study also reveals that the presence of the –F substructure in an ionic liquid has the most influence on its refractive index among all inputs. It was also found that the refractive index of imidazolium-based ILs increases with increasing alkyl chain length. In conclusion, chemical structure-based machine learning methods provide promising insights into predicting the refractive index of ILs in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".