White-box methodologies for achieving robust correlations in hydrogen storage with metal-organic frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen is recognized as a clean energy replacement for non-renewable fossil fuels, and the utilization of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for hydrogen storage has gained considerable interest in recent years. In this study, hydrogen storage in MOFs was estimated using white-box methods, namely group method of data handling (GMDH), genetic programming (GP), and gene expression programming (GEP), which are robust soft-computing methods known for generating innovative correlations. To this end, temperature, pressure, pore volume, and surface area were implemented as input parameters for constructing these robust correlations. After that, the superiority of the established correlations was demonstrated through multiple statistical and graphical error assessment. The results indicated, the GMDH model demonstrates the highest accuracy with root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) values of 0.410 and 0.307, respectively. However, the GEP model’s accuracy was comparable to that of the GMDH model. In addition, sensitivity assessment showed that the pore volume and the pressure exhibit the strongest linear and non-linear relationships, respectively, with the H 2 storage in MOFs. This was demonstrated by a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.5 and a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.56, respectively. Furthermore, temperature had a minimal negative impact on the H 2 storage in MOFs according to Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall coefficients. Finally, to confirm the findings of the GMDH model, the leverage approach was applied, demonstrating that 96% of the data falls within the acceptable region, confirming the statistical reliability of the developed models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".