Predicting the absorption and emission wavelengths of 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole (BTD) derivatives across diverse solvents from molecular structure alone remains challenging, and conventional random-split validation can obscure whether models truly extrapolate to new chemical structures or merely interpolate solvent effects for known ones. By enforcing a molecule-aware train–test split, in which all solvent measurements of any given chemical structure are held out together, we show that champion-model R² falls by approximately 27–29 percentage points relative to random splitting, revealing that high random-split accuracy primarily reflects reliable prediction of solvent-induced spectral shifts rather than generalisation to unseen BTD structures. Within this framework, replacing binary with count-based Morgan fingerprints raises single-split R² from 0.747 to 0.941 for absorption and from 0.797 to 0.916 for emission, an improvement rooted in the ability of count fingerprints to encode the recurrence frequency of donor substructures, a key determinant of intramolecular charge-transfer character. A systematically optimised deep neural network reaches R² = 0.954 for absorption on its best of twenty random initialisations (mean 0.83 ± 0.12 ), the highest value reported for this dataset, yet the molecule-aware benchmark confirms that this performance does not translate to structure-level extrapolation. Comparative evaluation of graph neural networks, multi-task learning, extended descriptor sets, and ensemble methods confirms that none outperforms the count-fingerprint approach at this dataset size. Feature-importance analysis identifies tertiary amine substitution as the dominant structural driver and solvent polarity as the strongest single feature for emission (ranked first or second in all four model/encoding combinations examined, versus 8th–13th for absorption), an asymmetry consistent with the stronger solvatochromism of relaxed charge-transfer states. These results offer practical guidance for computational screening: the models are well suited to solvent selection for known dyes, whereas the design of genuinely new structures demands expanded structural diversity in the training set.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Truong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: