Model-Based Catalyst Screening and Optimal Experimental Design for the Oxidative Coupling of Methane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oxidative coupling of methane (OCM) to produce ethane and ethylene (C2 compounds) as platform chemicals involves complex chemistry with reactions both in the gas phase and on the catalyst surface, resulting in a distribution of products at the expense of C2 selectivity. This work uses experimental data from a variety of mixed metal oxides on supports at different reaction conditions (temperature, contact time, and reactant flow rates) to train a random forest regressor that predicts methane conversion and C2 selectivity (key performance indicators (KPIs)), and deploys it to locate optimal conditions that maximize C2 yield for a catalyst. Investigating the regressor interpretability via feature importance reveals that the choice of metals and support are crucial to C2 selectivity predictions, while the predictions of methane conversion are driven by the reaction conditions. The machine learning (ML) regressor is used as a surrogate to develop performance curves for each of the catalysts via a multi-objective optimization routine that seeks to maximize the KPIs in the decision space of reaction conditions, is seen to locate optimal conditions at which the maximum C2 yields for catalysts are predicted to be 15%, higher on average. Analyzing the catalysts in the space of their performance curves with respect to a popular OCM catalyst, Mn-Na2WO4/SiO2, reveals distinct patterns based on intrinsic properties of metals and supports. Further, the decision space with catalyst descriptors and reaction conditions is optimized for high C2 yields using the ML surrogate, in a static multi-objective optimization routine, and an adaptive Bayesian routine, where the latter was found to have a wider field focus in proposing catalyst formulations and conditions. Transition metal oxides on a variety of supports were proposed but not their lanthanide oxide counterparts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".