2023
DOI: 10.1007/s10953-023-01247-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Random Forest Algorithm-Based Prediction of Solvation Gibbs Energies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lastly, most of these models do not provide explanations for their statistical forecasts, reinforcing the "black-box" nature of machine learning-based predictions. Previous models, except for Low et al [38], which still employ quantum mechanics calculations, fail to elucidate the physical significance of each prediction [39].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lastly, most of these models do not provide explanations for their statistical forecasts, reinforcing the "black-box" nature of machine learning-based predictions. Previous models, except for Low et al [38], which still employ quantum mechanics calculations, fail to elucidate the physical significance of each prediction [39].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…50,51 With the exception of Low et al 33 (while still using QM calculations), previous models fail to describe the physical meaning behind each prediction. 52 This work aims precisely to tackle these three issues. We present a supervised ML model to predict ΔG sol from a wide array of experimental results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, data availability jeopardizes model development, as great detail in experimental data for Δ G sol limits models to specific free energy determinations, relinquishing important arrays of aqueous or organic solvents. Finally, most of these models lack explanatory arguments for their statistical predictions, enhancing the “black-box” mantra of ML-based predictions. , With the exception of Low et al (while still using QM calculations), previous models fail to describe the physical meaning behind each prediction …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation