Predicting interfacial tension in brine-hydrogen/cushion gas systems under subsurface conditions: Implications for hydrogen geo-storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) critically relies on cushion gas to maintain pressure balance during injection and withdrawal cycles, prevent excessive water inflow, and expand storage capacity. Interfacial tension (IFT) between brine and hydrogen/cushion gas mixtures is a key factor affecting fluid dynamics in porous media. This study develops four machine learning models— Decision Trees (DT), Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP)—to predict IFT under geo-storage conditions. These models incorporate variables such as pressure, temperature, molality , overall gas density, and gas composition to evaluate the impact of different cushion gases. A group-based data splitting method enhances the realism of our tests by preventing information leakage between training and testing datasets . Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) reveal that while the MLP model prioritizes gas composition, the RF model focuses more on operational parameters like pressure and temperature, showing distinct predictive dynamics. The MLP model excels, achieving coefficients of determination (R 2 ) of 0.96, root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.10 mN/m, and average absolute relative deviation (AARD) of 3.25%. This robustness positions the MLP model as a reliable tool for predicting IFT values between brine and hydrogen/cushion gas (es) mixtures beyond the confines of the studied dataset. The findings of this study present a promising approach to optimizing hydrogen geo-storage through accurate predictions of IFTs, offering significant implications for the advancement of energy storage technologies .
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 | 0.000 | 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".