Exhaustive QSPR studies of a large diverse set of ionic liquids: how accurately can we predict melting points?

Several popular machine learning methods--Associative Neural Networks (ANN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), k Nearest Neighbors (kNN), modified version of the partial least-squares analysis (PLSM), backpropagation neural network (BPNN), and Multiple Linear Regression Analysis (MLR)--implemented in ISIDA, NASAWIN, and VCCLAB software have been used to perform QSPR modeling of melting point of structurally diverse data set of 717 bromides of nitrogen-containing organic cations (FULL) including 126 pyridinium bromides (PYR), 384 imidazolium and benzoimidazolium bromides (IMZ), and 207 quaternary ammonium bromides (QUAT). Several types of descriptors were tested: E-state indices, counts of atoms determined for E-state atom types, molecular descriptors generated by the DRAGON program, and different types of substructural molecular fragments. Predictive ability of the models was analyzed using a 5-fold external cross-validation procedure in which every compound in the parent set was included in one of five test sets. Among the 16 types of developed structure--melting point models, nonlinear SVM, ASNN, and BPNN techniques demonstrate slightly better performance over other methods. For the full set, the accuracy of predictions does not significantly change as a function of the type of descriptors. For other sets, the performance of descriptors varies as a function of method and data set used. The root-mean squared error (RMSE) of prediction calculated on independent test sets is in the range of 37.5-46.4 degrees C (FULL), 26.2-34.8 degrees C (PYR), 38.8-45.9 degrees C (IMZ), and 34.2-49.3 degrees C (QUAT). The moderate accuracy of predictions can be related to the quality of the experimental data used for obtaining the models as well as to difficulties to take into account the structural features of ionic liquids in the solid state (polymorphic effects, eutectics, glass formation).