4.6 Article

Quantitative Analysis of the UV-Vis Spectra for Gold Nanoparticles Powered by Supervised Machine Learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 125, 期 16, 页码 8656-8666

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c10680

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [0852-2020-0019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilizes machine learning algorithms to analyze the structure of gold nanoparticles through spectroscopy and assesses uncertainties. The results indicate that machine learning algorithms can select informative features of the spectrum and establish a relationship with structural parameters.
Surface plasmon resonance is sensitive to the size and shape of gold nanoparticles. The quantitative analysis of the ultraviolet-visible spectra provides information about the structural parameters of the nanoparticles. This task is related to the inverse design problem where machine learning (ML) algorithms show superior performance over classical approaches for problems with many degrees of freedom. If a ML algorithm is used as a black box, it often fails when target experimental data have systematic differences with the theoretical training data set. Our work aims to assess the uncertainties in the structural analysis of gold nanoparticles performed using optical spectroscopy. Therefore, ML is trained over a theoretical data set and then used as a tool to predict the spectrum for any combination of structural parameters. The region of a feasible solution is analyzed via L-2 norm contour plots, and the method is extended to multicomponent mixtures where Gaussian distribution mimics the particle size distribution. We also demonstrate that the ML algorithm is able to select only informative features of the spectrum (descriptors) and establish an analytical relation between descriptors of spectra and structural parameters. This work extends the capabilities of optical spectroscopy as an analytical tool for noble metal nanoparticles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据