Modeling CO2 solubility in water using gradient boosting and light gradient boosting machine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The growing application of carbon dioxide (CO2) in various environmental and energy fields, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and several CO2-based enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques, highlights the importance of studying the phase equilibria of this gas with water. Therefore, accurate prediction of CO2 solubility in water becomes an important thermodynamic property. This study focused on developing two powerful intelligent models, namely gradient boosting (GBoost) and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) that predict CO2 solubility in water with high accuracy. The results revealed the outperformance of the GBoost model with root mean square error (RMSE) and determination coefficient (R2) of 0.137 mol/kg and 0.9976, respectively. The trend analysis demonstrated that the developed models were highly capable of detecting the physical trend of CO2 solubility in water across various pressure and temperature ranges. Moreover, the Leverage technique was employed to identify suspected data points as well as the applicability domain of the proposed models. The results showed that less than 5% of the data points were detected as outliers representing the large applicability domain of intelligent models. The outcome of this research provided insight into the potential of intelligent models in predicting solubility of CO2 in pure water.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".