and -30% were 20 and 8, respectively, whereas the number of compounds overestimated more than 15% and 30% were 20 and 16, respectively (Figure ). Hence, we can conclude that the predictive ability of the RF model is better than that of the GUTFW model. Second, in the case of the Chemprop model, in the 10-fold CV and test datasets, the R 2 values, which were 0.396 and 0.497, respectively, were higher than those in the GUTFW model. Furthermore, the RMSE values for 10-fold CV and test datasets, which were 23.5% and 22.1%, respectively, were lower than those of the GUTFW model. Therefore, the predictivity of the Chemprop model for Fa surpasses not only that of the GUTFW model but also that of the RF model. The number of compounds with less than -15% and -30% underestimation were 27 and 6, respectively, whereas the number of overestimated compounds more than 15% and 30% were 18 and 11, respectively (Figure ). Therefore, from the results, this model may tend toward underprediction.