Advancing hydrogen storage predictions in metal-organic frameworks: A comparative study of LightGBM and random forest models with data enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The escalating consumption of fossil fuels has given rise to a substantial upsurge in greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures, which, in turn, has triggered severe climate-related consequences. The critical imperative to reduce CO2 emissions and combat global warming has spurred extensive investigations into clean energy alternatives, with hydrogen emerging as a compelling zero-emission energy source. As a pivotal component of clean energy strategies, hydrogen requires designing compact, lightweight, and efficient storage systems. This study focuses on the development and evaluation of machine learning models for predicting the efficiency of Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) in hydrogen storage, a key aspect of advancing clean energy technologies. MOFs, a class of nanoporous materials, show remarkable potential for hydrogen storage due to their high surface area and porosity. However, selecting the most suitable MOF for this application from a vast array of possible structures is a daunting task. In this context, machine learning algorithms offer an efficient alternative for predicting MOF suitability by considering their structural and chemical properties. We used ensemble learning methods, specifically Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) and Random Forest (RF), to predict hydrogen uptake of MOFs based on a dataset of 219 experimentally tested samples. Two modeling scenarios were considered: one using the entire dataset, and the other involving strategic data pre-processing, including outlier removal and feature engineering. The results demonstrate that the measures taken to refine the dataset significantly enhance the predictive performance of the developed models, reducing prediction errors and improving overall goodness of fit. Specifically, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values for both the LightGBM and random forest models were reduced from 0.48 and 0.94, respectively, to 0.16 for both models, and the coefficients of determination (R2) increased substantially from 0.84 and 0.72 to 0.95, in both cases. Moreover, feature importance analysis unveiled that pressure-related features make the most significant contributions to the formation of tree ensembles during the model training process. A parametric sensitivity analysis was conducted revealing that H2 uptake in MOFs is most sensitive to changes in adsorption enthalpy, followed by surface area and temperature, while showing lower sensitivity to variations in pressure, consistent with established literature. These results underscore the pivotal role of data enhancement methods in refining machine learning models and can be instrumental in accelerating the development and optimization of MOF materials for clean energy 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".