MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405844032 · doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.111446

A comparative analysis of machine learning predictive models for the oxidative coupling of methane reaction

2024· article· en· W4405844032 on OpenAlexafffund
Lord Ugwu, Yasser Morgan, Hussameldin Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Today Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysis and Oxidation Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of Regina
KeywordsOxidative coupling of methaneMaterials scienceMethaneCoupling (piping)Oxidative phosphorylationMachine learningOrganic chemistryComposite materialComputer scienceBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amalgamation of catalytic and electronic characteristics, along with empirical data, furnishes enhanced insights into catalyst analysis, thereby advancing innovation and the design of heterogeneous catalytic reactions. In this research, we juxtaposed the catalysts' electronic properties, including the Fermi energy, bandgap energy, and magnetic moment of catalyst components with available high-throughput OCM experimental data, to prognosticate catalytic efficacy and the resultant reaction outcomes, encompassing methane conversion and yields of ethylene, ethane, and carbon dioxide yields. Comparative evaluation of diverse machine learning models indicates that the extreme gradient boost regression model stands out for its superior predictive accuracy in evaluating catalytic performance with an average R 2 of 0.91. The order of performance of the modeling techniques was XGBR > RFR > DNN > SVR. The MSE and MAE of the XGBR models appeared to be lower than those of the other modeling techniques, with numbers ranging from 0.26 to 0.08 for MSE and 1.65–0.17 for MAE. The MSE and MAE of the models trained with a particular dataset generally aligned with those of an external dataset not seen by the model at the time of training or testing, as well as the MSE from bootstrap sampling, confirming the high generalizability of the models. The accuracy of the models was in the order of C 2 H 6 y > CH 4 _conv > CO 2 y > C 2 y > C 2 H 4 y. Comparing the quantification of uncertainty of the RCCEP feature-based predictive models of the different ML techniques based on the prediction band suggests that the ML techniques rank in the order of XGBR > RFR > DNN > SVR. In analyzing the impact of the model features, the combined ethylene and ethane yield increases with an increase in dataset features, including the number of moles of the alkali/alkali-earth metal in the catalyst, the atomic number of the catalyst promoter and the Fermi energy of the metal, and just relatively in the case of temperature, suggesting a highly non-linear relationship between the combined ethylene and ethane yield and temperature. The extent of the impact of these features on the predictive model for the combined ethylene and ethane yield was 5.91 %, 13.28 % and 33.76 % for the atomic number of the promoter, the number of moles of the alkali/alkali-earth metal in the catalyst and the reaction temperature, respectively. Other features, including the bandgap of the active metal oxide and the support, as well as the Fermi energy of the catalyst support, were also seen to have a relatively modest impact on the predictive models for the combined ethylene and ethane yield and methane conversion. • A comparative evaluation of different ML models in the study of the OCM reaction. • The order of model performance is XGBR > RFR > DNN > SVR. • XGBR models have an average R 2 of 0.91; MSE and MAE ranging from 0.26 to 0.08 and 1.65–0.17 respectively. • The catalyst's promoter fermi energy and atomic number impact ethylene and ethane. • The catalyst's oxide and support bandgap moderately affect methane-to-ethylene conversion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Today CommunicationsSame topicCatalysis and Oxidation ReactionsFrench-language works237,207