Symbolic Machine Learning for Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Prediction in Cx-N2 Binary Mixtures

Bongseok Kim; Gary Huang; Guang Lin; Li Qiao; Mehek Mathur; Suman Chakraborty

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Symbolic Machine Learning for Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Prediction in Cx-N2 Binary Mixtures

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a two-level symbolic regression can correct Peng–Robinson equation-of-state (PR-EOS) predictions for nitrogen–alkane vapor–liquid equilibrium by learning compact residual expressions and parameterizing their…

desk verdict A real two-level symbolic correction for PR-EOS VLE residuals; the cross-system generalization claim rests on carbon-number interpolation that is never tested at an unseen chain length. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11255 v1 pith:NRL57632 submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI cs.LGphysics.comp-ph

Bongseok Kim , Suman Chakraborty , Gary Huang , Mehek Mathur , Guang Lin , Li Qiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.LGphysics.comp-ph

keywords Peng-Robinsonequationofstatevapor-liquidequilibriumsymbolicregressionbinarymixturesnitrogen-alkanesystemscarbonnumberinterpretablemachinelearningequation-of-statecorrection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to make the Peng–Robinson equation of state (PR-EOS) accurate for nitrogen–alkane vapor–liquid equilibrium by adding small symbolic correction terms learned from measured data rather than replacing the equation. The authors first discover, separately for six binary N2 + n-alkane systems, explicit formulas for the residual errors in equilibrium pressure and vapor nitrogen fraction. They then find that the same few symbolic building blocks recur across systems and parameterize only the coefficients as polynomial functions of carbon number, producing one compact closed-form correction for all six systems. On a common 80/20 split, the corrected model lowers pressure mean-squared error by nearly two orders of magnitude relative to PR-EOS and improves vapor-composition accuracy substantially, with validation shown inside each fitted system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is post-processing residual correction with a shared symbolic basis. Specifically, the pressure correction is written $\Delta P^{(s)}(T_r,x_{N_2}) = \sum_{m=1}^5 \alpha_m^{(P,s)} \phi_m^{(P)}(T_r,x_{N_2})$ and the vapor-fraction correction as $\Delta y^{(s)}(T_r,x_{N_2}) = \sum_{m=1}^6 \alpha_m^{(y,s)} \phi_m^{(y)}(T_r,x_{N_2})$, with the $\phi$ functions fixed across systems and the $\alpha$ coefficients interpolated as polynomial functions of carbon number. This carries the argument because it converts a system-by-system data fit into a single formula whose only system-dependent input is the alkane chain length; the paper provides all basis constants and coefficients in appendices so the correction can be reconstructed directly.

What would settle it

Train the two-level model on five of the six systems (for example, C5, C6, C7, C9, C10) and evaluate the interpolated coefficients on the held-out C12 data, or on published N2 + n-octane measurements not used in the paper; if the test error exceeds the within-system test error by more than the natural scatter, the carbon-number interpolation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the systematic gap between PR-EOS predictions and measured VLE in N2 + n-alkane binaries can be captured by a compact two-level symbolic correction. In the first level, symbolic regression fits $\Delta P = P_{\rm exp}-P_{\rm PR}$ and $\Delta y_{N_2}=y_{\rm exp}-y_{\rm PR}$ as functions of reduced temperature $T_r$ and liquid nitrogen fraction $x_{N_2}$ for each of six systems (C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, C12). In the second level, recurring expressions—linear-exponential, coupled polynomial, exponential-nonlinear, and inverse-temperature forms—are assembled into a shared basis, and only the coefficients are allowed to vary, as polynomial interpolants in carbon number $n_C$. The paper reports that this unified model beats both the uncorrected PR-EOS and a single pooled symbolic-regression model on train and test splits for all six systems, with the pressure mean-squared error reduced by nearly two orders of magnitude and the vapor-composition error reduced by roughly an order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the six measured alkanes define smooth polynomial trends in carbon number for the correction coefficients, so interpolating these polynomials predicts untested chain lengths; the paper does not hold out a whole carbon number to check that.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Pressure predictions on the six studied systems drop to roughly one-hundredth of the PR-EOS mean-squared error, so the corrected model reproduces measured VLE isotherms in regimes where the cubic equation of state deviates most.
The same shared basis with carbon-number-dependent coefficients yields an explicit, closed-form correction that can be written down and evaluated without retraining for any system covered by the coefficient interpolants.
The improvement is larger for heavier alkanes (C9, C10, C12), where PR-EOS errors are worst, suggesting the correction absorbs the chain-length-dependent interaction error that the mixing rule misses.
Because the corrected model keeps the PR-EOS structure intact, existing phase-equilibrium algorithms can substitute corrected pressure and composition outputs without changing fugacity or root-selection routines.
A pooled single-expression symbolic regression is consistently worse than the two-level model, indicating that factoring out carbon-number dependence helps, not just symbolic fitting itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is whether the carbon-number polynomials are smooth enough for interpolation to C8 and C11 and to heavier n-alkanes; if they hold, the model would become a parameter-light correlator for the whole homologous series.
The recurring exponential–linear basis forms resemble what a composition- and temperature-dependent binary interaction parameter $k_{ij}$ would do inside PR-EOS; rewriting the learned correction as a $k_{ij}(T_r, x, n_C)$ correction would make the physical content more direct and may improve extrapolation.
The same two-level recipe—residual fitting per system, shared basis, coefficient parameterization by a systematic descriptor—could transfer to other homologous families, with the descriptor possibly acentric factor instead of carbon number.
If validated on held-out chain lengths, the approach would give engineers a compact alternative to large training sets: six carefully chosen systems plus carbon-number interpolation, rather than thousands of deep-learning samples.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth a referee's time, but the headline claim needs one more experiment before I'd believe it. The two-level idea—learn system-specific symbolic corrections to PR-EOS, extract shared basis functions, then parameterize the coefficients by carbon number—is genuinely new relative to [34], which did symbolic regression for liquid density, not VLE. The appendices give the full basis functions and all coefficients, so the within-system model is explicit and reconstructable. Tables 4 and 5 show large, consistent gains over PR-EOS, with pressure MSE dropping by roughly two orders of magnitude, and the pooled symbolic regression baseline is a reasonable comparator. That part looks solid.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. The claim that the unified model enables prediction across different hydrocarbon systems is supported only by the polynomial interpolation in Fig. 2. The six alkanes (C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, C12) have gaps at C8 and C11, and no leave-one-system-out or holdout-carbon-number evaluation is reported. The 80/20 split is pointwise within those six systems, so a test point still belongs to a system whose coefficients were used to build the interpolant. In that setting, the test metrics cannot distinguish the unified model from a lookup table of system-specific coefficients. The paper also does not state how the split interacts with the gradient-based coefficient fitting in Algorithm 2; if the basis constants and coefficient functions were fit on all six systems before splitting, the test errors are not independent. I'd want a clean leave-one-carbon-out test, or at minimum a model fit on C5–C10 and evaluated at C12.

Minor but real: the PR-EOS binary interaction parameter k_ij is never specified. The magnitude of the residuals being corrected depends on it, and if it was fit to the same data, that is a free parameter not accounted for. No code or data are included; the appendices are enough to reconstruct the corrections for the listed systems, but not to reproduce the fitting or the split.

The citation pattern looks fine. [31] is the authors' own neural-network VLE work and is a legitimate comparison point.

Bottom line: as a method for correcting PR-EOS for these six systems, it works and is transparent. As a demonstration of cross-system prediction via carbon-number interpolation, it is not yet demonstrated. The fix is straightforward, so I would send it to review with the request for leave-one-system-out validation and a clear statement on k_ij and the split. I'd bring it to reading group as an example of interpretable ML for thermodynamic models, but I would not cite it as evidence for interpolation to untested chain lengths until that validation exists.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-level symbolic regression framework that learns interpretable correction terms for Peng–Robinson equation-of-state (PR-EOS) predictions of vapor–liquid equilibrium in binary N2 + n-alkane systems. In the first level, system-specific symbolic expressions for the pressure and vapor-composition residuals are discovered by symbolic regression for each of six alkanes (C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, C12). In the second level, recurring symbolic structures are collected into shared basis functions, and the basis coefficients are represented as polynomial functions of carbon number. The authors report that the resulting closed-form correction reduces pressure MSE by nearly two orders of magnitude relative to uncorrected PR-EOS and also improves vapor-composition prediction, while preserving the thermodynamic structure of the baseline model.

Significance. If the cross-system generalization claim were established, the paper would make a useful engineering contribution: it provides compact, interpretable, closed-form corrections to a widely used cubic equation of state, and the appendix gives explicit basis functions and system-specific coefficients that would allow the model to be reconstructed and applied. The within-system improvement over PR-EOS is clearly demonstrated in the reported tables and parity plots, and the symbolic-regression formulation is a sensible alternative to opaque neural-network corrections. The load-bearing weakness is that the headline claim of prediction across different hydrocarbon systems is not actually tested: the reported validation uses a pointwise 80/20 split within the six calibrated systems, so it only demonstrates interpolation in temperature and composition for systems whose data were used to determine the carbon-number coefficient curves.

major comments (5)

[3.1, Algorithm 2; Tables 4 and 5] The central claim that the unified model 'enables accurate prediction across different hydrocarbon systems' is not supported by the reported validation. Tables 4 and 5 use a common 80/20 pointwise split across all six systems, so every test point belongs to one of the six systems whose data determined the shared basis and the carbon-number coefficient functions. Because the polynomial interpolants in Fig. 2 pass through the six system coefficient values (Tables A.8/A.9), the test metrics only demonstrate interpolation in (Tr, xN2) within already calibrated systems; they cannot distinguish the unified model from a per-system lookup or interpolation of system-specific coefficients. The paper needs a leave-one-carbon-number-out evaluation, such as training on five systems and evaluating on the held-out alkane, or holding out an intermediate chain length, before the generalization claim can be assessed.
[Appendix B, Fig. 2, Tables A.8/A.9] The coefficient parameterization alpha_m(nC), which is the mechanism that would enable prediction at new carbon numbers, is never written down. Fig. 2 shows only graphical interpolants, and Tables A.8/A.9 list system-specific coefficients but not the polynomial degrees, polynomial coefficients, or any regularization used for alpha_m(nC). Without these explicit expressions the model is not reproducible, and its behavior at unmeasured carbon numbers is unspecified. With only six points, the 'smooth' curves in Fig. 2 could be high-degree interpolants that oscillate between the fitted systems, so the visual smoothness is not evidence of predictive behavior at unmeasured chain lengths.
[2, Eq. (7), Tables 4 and 5] The PR-EOS baseline is incompletely specified: the binary interaction parameter k_ij in Eq. (7) is never assigned a numerical value and the manuscript does not state whether it was set to zero, taken from a literature correlation, or optimized per system. Because the paper's headline improvement is measured against PR-EOS, the numerical results are not reproducible without this information, and a fitted k_ij could absorb part of the error that the paper attributes to the uncorrected baseline.
[Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2] The normalization step in Algorithm 1, which normalizes Tr, xN2, Delta-P, and Delta-y within each system, is not integrated into the unified model. The per-system normalization constants are not reported, and Algorithm 2 does not state whether the merged optimization uses per-system normalized variables or a global normalization, nor how normalization would be defined for a new carbon number. A prediction for an untested alkane therefore requires these constants or an interpolated normalization rule; without that specification the unified model is incomplete.
[3.1, Tables 4 and 5] The manuscript does not state whether the 80/20 split was applied before the system-specific symbolic regressions and the coefficient optimization, or only at the final reporting stage. If the symbolic basis and coefficients are fit to all 660 points and then split into train/test metrics, the reported 'test' numbers are not independent. The order of splitting and fitting must be clarified, and the split should be applied before any symbolic discovery or coefficient optimization.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 10 caption] The caption in Fig. 10 calls the proposed model the 'lookup coefficient model,' while Figs. 9 and 11 call it the 'corrected' or 'two-level SR' model; the terminology should be made consistent, and the color legend text should be checked against the actual markers.
[Fig. 12] The subplot titles 'Pressure' and 'Vapor composition' are repeated in each panel and the legend order differs between the top, middle, and bottom rows; simplifying the layout would improve readability.
[Fig. 13] The 'reference critical locus' is said to be included for visualization, but its source or method of construction is not given; a citation or a clear statement that it is a hand-drawn guide would be helpful.
[Appendix A and B] The appendix gives the optimized basis constants and system-specific coefficients, but it would be helpful to state explicitly how the shared basis functions in Appendix B relate to the symbolic forms identified in Tables 2 and 3, since the notation for the internal constants changes between the main text and the appendix.
[Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'after which their coefficients are represented as functions of carbon number' in the abstract could be more precise: the coefficients are represented by polynomial interpolants through six systems, not by a theoretically derived scaling law; this distinction should be stated in Section 1 so readers do not overinterpret the extrapolation claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symbolic corrections are fitted to experimental residuals and evaluated on a genuine 80/20 held-out split; the unvalidated cross-system generalization is a limitation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a target quantity is defined in terms of the predicted quantity, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation. The residual targets are defined directly from experimental data (Eqs. 11-12), system-specific symbolic regressions fit those residuals, and the unified model re-expresses the corrections as linear combinations of shared basis functions with carbon-number-dependent coefficients. The reported train/test metrics use a common 80/20 split, so the test predictions are not obtained by looking up the experimental values and are not statistically forced by construction. The polynomial interpolation of the system-specific coefficients (Fig. 2 and Tables A.8/A.9) is a fit through the six calibrated systems; evaluating it at those same carbon numbers reproduces the per-system coefficients, but that is a fidelity property of an interpolant, not circularity. The paper's cross-system claim is supported only by smoothness of the interpolants and is never tested at an unseen carbon number; that is a generalization and validation gap, appropriately classified as a correctness risk rather than a circularity. The only self-citation, reference [31], is background on neural-network VLE estimation and is not load-bearing for the symbolic regression derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything in the model beyond PR-EOS is paid for by fitting: normalization constants, basis internal constants, per-system coefficients, and carbon-number interpolants. The framework assumes residual errors are smooth in T_r and x_N2 and that coefficients vary smoothly with n_C, neither of which is externally validated.

free parameters (7)

Shared pressure basis internal constants = Table A.6: 17 constants (a, b, c, d, e)
Optimized by gradient descent on the merged residual dataset; defines phi_m^(P) in Eq. (13).
Shared vapor basis internal constants = Table A.7: 17 constants (a, b, c, d, e, g)
Optimized by gradient descent on the merged residual dataset; defines phi_m^(y) in Eq. (14).
System-specific pressure coefficients alpha^(P,s)_m = Table A.8: 30 values (6 systems x 5 bases)
Learned per system; then interpolated as functions of carbon number.
System-specific vapor coefficients alpha^(y,s)_m = Table A.9: 36 values (6 systems x 6 bases)
Learned per system; then interpolated as functions of carbon number.
Carbon-number coefficient interpolants = Not tabulated; polynomial curves in Fig. 2
Polynomial interpolation of the six per-system coefficient values; degrees and coefficients are not reported.
Within-system normalization parameters = Not reported
Algorithm 1 normalizes T_r, x_N2, Delta P, and Delta y within each system; these shift and scale constants affect the learned expressions and are not given.
PR-EOS binary interaction parameter k_ij = Unspecified
Baseline PR-EOS predictions in Tables 4 and 5 depend on k_ij through Eq. (7); the values used are never reported, so the strength of the baseline comparison is not reproducible.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption PR-EOS with quadratic mixing rules and fugacity equality is an adequate baseline whose residual errors are smooth and learnable.
Section 2 invokes PR-EOS; the correction framework assumes residual structure can be captured by low-complexity symbolic functions of T_r and x_N2.
domain assumption Experimental VLE datasets from references [36, 37, 38, 14, 39, 15] are accurate and mutually consistent.
All fitting and evaluation rely on these literature data; no independent uncertainty assessment is provided.
ad hoc to paper Shared symbolic basis functions discovered from six systems extend to untested alkanes.
Algorithm 2 selects bases from C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, C12; no validation for C8, C11, or heavier alkanes is presented.
ad hoc to paper The six system-specific coefficient sets lie on smooth polynomial curves in n_C.
Fig. 2 uses polynomial interpolation to predict coefficients for new carbon numbers; no physical basis or holdout test supports this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symbolic Machine Learning for Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Prediction in Cx-N2 Binary Mixtures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRL57632

@misc{pith2026260811255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symbolic Machine Learning for Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Prediction in Cx-N2 Binary Mixtures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRL57632}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11255}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate prediction of vapor--liquid equilibrium (VLE) for hydrocarbon-nitrogen mixtures remains challenging for cubic equations of state, particularly across broad ranges of composition and hydrocarbon chain length. While deep learning models can provide accurate predictions, they often lack interpretability and explicit analytical expressions. In this work, we propose a symbolic machine learning approach to discover interpretable symbolic corrections to Peng-Robinson equation-of-state (PR-EOS) predictions from experimental data. The proposed approach adopts a two-level strategy: symbolic expressions are first identified for individual hydrocarbon systems, after which their coefficients are represented as functions of carbon number to enable accurate prediction across different hydrocarbon systems. The results demonstrate significantly improved prediction accuracy over the original PR-EOS across all hydrocarbon-nitrogen systems. Overall, the proposed approach provides an interpretable symbolic correction framework for improving PR-EOS predictions of hydrocarbon-nitrogen VLE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11255 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Polynomial interpolation of the learned systemwise coefficient values used in the shared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Pressure-composition diagrams for the C5H12 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel. 0.0 0.5 1.0 x1, y1 0 25 50 P MPa Tr =0.6789 0.0 0.5 x1, y1 0 20 40 P MPa Tr =0.7445 0.0 0.5 x1, y1 0 20 P MPa Tr =0.8097 0.0 0.5 x1, y1 10 20 P MPa Tr =0.8765 0.2 0.4 x1, y1 5.0 7.5 P MPa Tr =… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Pressure-composition diagrams for the C6H14 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Pressure-composition diagrams for the C7H16 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel. perimental VLE measurements and the origin…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Pressure-composition diagrams for the C9H20 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel. Overall, the proposed symbolic correction …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Pressure-composition diagrams for the C10H22 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel. systems, the original PR-EOS exhibits lar…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Pressure-composition diagrams for the C12H26 + N2 system at different reduced temperatures. The experimental VLE curves, the PR-EOS predictions, and the multilevel regression predictions are compared in each temperature panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Actual-versus-predicted pressure plots for the six hydrocarbon–nitrogen systems. Black 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Vapor composition parity plots for the lookup coefficient model across the six 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Actual-versus-predicted plots for pressure (left) and vapor mole fraction (right) obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Systemwise comparison of prediction errors for pressure and vapor composition across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Representative pressure–composition phase diagram for the C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[34]

Xiaoxian Yang, Ophelia Frotscher, and Markus Richter. Symbolic-regression aided development of a new cubic equation of state for improved liquid phase density calculation at pressures up to 100 mpa.International Journal of Ther- mophysics, 46(2):29, 2025

work page 2025
[31]

Vapor–liquid equi- libriumestimationofn-alkane/nitrogenmixturesusingneuralnetworks.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 408:114059, 2022

Suman Chakraborty, Yixuan Sun, Guang Lin, and Li Qiao. Vapor–liquid equi- libriumestimationofn-alkane/nitrogenmixturesusingneuralnetworks.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 408:114059, 2022

work page 2022
[1]

Qiu and R

L. Qiu and R. D. Reitz. An investigation of thermodynamic states during high- pressure fuel injection using equilibrium thermodynamics.International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 72:24–38, 2015. 23 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x1, y1 0 10 20 30 40 50P/MPa Tr = 0.5807 Tr = 0.6544 Tr = 0.6972 Tr = 0.7415 Tr = 0.7650 Tr = 0.8019 Tr = 0.8387 Tr = 0.8752 Tr = 0.9209 ...

work page 2015
[2]

R. D. Reitz. Modeling atomization processes in high-pressure vaporizing sprays. Atomization and Spray Technology, 3:309–337, 1987

work page 1987
[3]

A system- atic approach to high-fidelity modeling and efficient simulation of supercritical fluid mixing and combustion.Combustion and Flame, 196:364–375, 2018

Xingjian Wang, Hongfa Huo, Umesh Unnikrishnan, and Vigor Yang. A system- atic approach to high-fidelity modeling and efficient simulation of supercritical fluid mixing and combustion.Combustion and Flame, 196:364–375, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

R. D. Reitz and J. C. Beale. Modeling spray atomization with the kelvin– 24 helmholtz/rayleigh–taylor hybrid model.Atomization and Sprays, 9:623–650, 1999

work page 1999
[5]

L. Qiao, S. Jain, and G. Mo. Molecular simulations to research supercritical fuel properties. InJ.Bellan, editor,High Pressure Flows for Propulsion Applications

work page
[6]

Anewtwo-constantequationofstate.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 15:59–64, 1976

D.Y.PengandD.B.Robinson. Anewtwo-constantequationofstate.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 15:59–64, 1976

work page 1976

Show all 41 references

[7]

J. S. Lopez-Echeverry, S. Reif-Acherman, and E. Araujo-Lopez. Peng–robinson equation of state: 40 years through cubics.Fluid Phase Equilibria, 447:39–71, 2017

2017
[8]

Privat and J.-N

R. Privat and J.-N. Jaubert. Are cubic equations of state still suitable tools for the correlation and prediction of the thermodynamic properties of pure com- pounds?Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 63:139–154, 2013

2013
[9]

Privat, J.-N

R. Privat, J.-N. Jaubert, and F. Mutelet. Addition of the nitrogen group to the ppr78 model.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47:2033–2048, 2008

2008
[10]

Privat, J.-N

R. Privat, J.-N. Jaubert, and F. Mutelet. Use of the ppr78 model to predict new equilibrium data of binary systems involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47:7483–7489, 2008

2008
[11]

S. E. K. Fateen, M. M. Khalil, and A. O. Elnabawy. Semi-empirical correla- tion for binary interaction parameters of the peng–robinson equation of state. Journal of Advanced Research, 4:137–145, 2013

2013
[12]

Mohammed, M

F. Mohammed, M. Qasim, A. Elamir, and N. A. Darwish. Generalized binary in- teraction parameters for hydrogen–heavy-n-alkane systems using peng–robinson equation of state.Chemical Engineering Communications, 205:1226–1238, 2018

2018
[13]

A. M. Abudour, S. A. Mohammad, R. L. Robinson, and K. A. M. Gasem. Generalized binary interaction parameters for the peng–robinson equation of state.Fluid Phase Equilibria, 383:156–173, 2014

2014
[14]

García-Sánchez, G

F. García-Sánchez, G. Eliosa-Jiménez, G. Silva-Oliver, and B. E. García-Flores. Vapor-liquid equilibrium data for the nitrogen + n-decane system from (344 to
[15]

Garcia-Cordova, D

F. Garcia-Cordova, D. N. Justo-García, B. E. García-Flores, and F. García- Sánchez. Vapor-liquid equilibrium data for the nitrogen and dodecane system at temperatures from (344 to 593) k and at pressures up to 60 mpa.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 56:1555–1564, 2011

2011
[16]

Azarnoosh and J

A. Azarnoosh and J. J. McKetta. Nitrogen–n-decane system in the two-phase region.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 8:494–496, 1963

1963
[17]

F. M. Llave and T. H. Chung. Vapor-liquid equilibria of nitrogen-hydrocarbon systems at elevated pressures.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 33:123–128, 1988

1988
[18]

S. G. D’Avila, B. K. Kaul, and J. M. Prausnitz. Solubilities of heavy hydrocar- bons in compressed methane and nitrogen.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 21:488–491, 1976

1976
[19]

J. M. Prausnitz and P. R. Benson. Solubility of liquids in compressed hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.AIChE Journal, 5, 1959

1959
[20]

D. L. Pearce, C. J. Peters, and J. de Swaan Arons. Measurement of the gas phase solubility of decane in nitrogen.Fluid Phase Equilibria, 89:335–343, 1993

1993
[21]

J. Tong, W. Gao, R. L. Robinson, and K. A. M. Gasem. Solubilities of nitrogen in heavy normal paraffins from 323 to 423 k at pressures to 18.0 mpa.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 44:784–787, 1999

1999
[22]

W. Gao, R. L. Robinson, and K. A. M. Gasem. High-pressure solubilities of hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide in dodecane.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 44:130–132, 1999

1999
[23]

Petersen, A

R. Petersen, A. Fredenslund, and P. Rasmussen. Artificial neural networks as a predictive tool for vapor-liquid equilibrium. InComputers & Chemical Engineering, 1994

1994
[24]

Sharma, D

R. Sharma, D. Singhal, R. Ghosh, and A. Dwivedi. Potential applications of artificial neural networks to thermodynamics: Vapor-liquid equilibrium predic- tions.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 23:385–390, 1999

1999
[25]

S. Mohanty. Estimation of vapour liquid equilibria of binary systems using artificial neural networks.Fluid Phase Equilibria, 235:92–98, 2005. 26

2005
[26]

S. Mohanty. Estimation of vapour liquid equilibria for the system carbon dioxide-difluoromethane using artificial neural networks.International Journal of Refrigeration, 29:243–249, 2006

2006
[27]

S. Ganguly. Prediction of vle data using radial basis function network.Com- puters & Chemical Engineering, 27:1445–1454, 2003

2003
[28]

W. A. Habiballah, R. A. Startzman, and M. A. Barrufet. Use of neural net- works for prediction of vapor/liquid equilibrium k-values for light-hydrocarbon mixtures.SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11:121–126, 1996

1996
[29]

Ghanadzadeh and H

H. Ghanadzadeh and H. Ahmadifar. Estimation of vapour + liquid equilib- rium of binary systems using an artificial neural network.Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 40:1152–1156, 2008

2008
[30]

Abedini, I

R. Abedini, I. Zanganeh, and M. Mohagheghian. Simulation and estimation of vapor-liquid equilibrium for asymmetric binary systems using artificial neural network.Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion, 32:105–114, 2011

2011
[32]

Koza.Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection

John R. Koza.Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, 1992

1992
[33]

Distilling free-form natural laws from exper- imental data.Science, 324(5923):81–85, 2009

Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. Distilling free-form natural laws from exper- imental data.Science, 324(5923):81–85, 2009

2009
[35]

Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and sym- bolicregression.jl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01582, 2023

Miles Cranmer. Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and sym- bolicregression.jl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01582, 2023

2023 arXiv
[36]

Avendaño-Gómez

Guadalupe Silva-Oliver, Gaudencio Eliosa-Jiménez, Fernando García-Sánchez, and Juan R. Avendaño-Gómez. High-pressure vapor–liquid equilibria in the nitrogen–n-pentane system.Fluid Phase Equilib., 250(1–2):37–48, 2006. 27

2006
[37]

High-pressure vapor–liquid equilibria in the nitrogen + n-hexane system.J

Gaudencio Eliosa-Jiménez, Guadalupe Silva-Oliver, Fernando García-Sánchez, and Antonio de Ita de la Torre. High-pressure vapor–liquid equilibria in the nitrogen + n-hexane system.J. Chem. Eng. Data, 52(2):395–404, 2007

2007
[38]

High-pressure (vapor + liquid) equilibria in the (nitrogen + n-heptane) system.J

Fernando García-Sánchez, Gaudencio Eliosa-Jiménez, Guadalupe Silva-Oliver, and Armando Godínez-Silva. High-pressure (vapor + liquid) equilibria in the (nitrogen + n-heptane) system.J. Chem. Thermodyn., 39(6):893–905, 2007

2007
[39]

High-pressure vapor–liquid equilibria in the nitrogen–n-nonane system.J

Guadalupe Silva-Oliver, Gaudencio Eliosa-Jiménez, Fernando García-Sánchez, and Juan Ramón Avendaño-Gómez. High-pressure vapor–liquid equilibria in the nitrogen–n-nonane system.J. Supercrit. Fluids, 42(1):36–47, 2007

2007
[40]

Rumelhart, Geoffrey E

David E. Rumelhart, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Ronald J. Williams. Learning representations by back-propagating errors.Nature, 323(6088):533–536, 1986. Appendix A. This appendix summarizes the optimized parameters of the proposed multilevel symbolic regression model. Tables A.6 a...

1986
[563]

k and at pressures up to 50 mpa.Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 54:1560–1568, 2009. 25

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [34]

Xiaoxian Yang, Ophelia Frotscher, and Markus Richter. Symbolic-regression aided development of a new cubic equation of state for improved liquid phase density calculation at pressures up to 100 mpa.International Journal of Ther- mophysics, 46(2):29, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [31]

Vapor–liquid equi- libriumestimationofn-alkane/nitrogenmixturesusingneuralnetworks.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 408:114059, 2022

Suman Chakraborty, Yixuan Sun, Guang Lin, and Li Qiao. Vapor–liquid equi- libriumestimationofn-alkane/nitrogenmixturesusingneuralnetworks.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 408:114059, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [1]

Qiu and R

L. Qiu and R. D. Reitz. An investigation of thermodynamic states during high- pressure fuel injection using equilibrium thermodynamics.International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 72:24–38, 2015. 23 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x1, y1 0 10 20 30 40 50P/MPa Tr = 0.5807 Tr = 0.6544 Tr = 0.6972 Tr = 0.7415 Tr = 0.7650 Tr = 0.8019 Tr = 0.8387 Tr = 0.8752 Tr = 0.9209 ...

work page 2015

[4] [2]

R. D. Reitz. Modeling atomization processes in high-pressure vaporizing sprays. Atomization and Spray Technology, 3:309–337, 1987

work page 1987

[5] [3]

A system- atic approach to high-fidelity modeling and efficient simulation of supercritical fluid mixing and combustion.Combustion and Flame, 196:364–375, 2018

Xingjian Wang, Hongfa Huo, Umesh Unnikrishnan, and Vigor Yang. A system- atic approach to high-fidelity modeling and efficient simulation of supercritical fluid mixing and combustion.Combustion and Flame, 196:364–375, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [4]

R. D. Reitz and J. C. Beale. Modeling spray atomization with the kelvin– 24 helmholtz/rayleigh–taylor hybrid model.Atomization and Sprays, 9:623–650, 1999

work page 1999

[7] [5]

L. Qiao, S. Jain, and G. Mo. Molecular simulations to research supercritical fuel properties. InJ.Bellan, editor,High Pressure Flows for Propulsion Applications

work page

[8] [6]

Anewtwo-constantequationofstate.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 15:59–64, 1976

D.Y.PengandD.B.Robinson. Anewtwo-constantequationofstate.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 15:59–64, 1976

work page 1976