journal article·2024-07-18Open access

Targeted materials discovery using Bayesian algorithm execution

Sathya R. Chitturi, Akash Ramdas, Yue Wu, Brian Rohr, Stefano Ermon, Jennifer Dionne, Felipe H. da Jornada, Mike Dunne, Christopher Tassone, Willie Neiswanger, Daniel Ratner

npj Computational Materials· Volume 10· Issue 1

Abstract

Abstract Rapid discovery and synthesis of future materials requires intelligent data acquisition strategies to navigate large design spaces. A popular strategy is Bayesian optimization, which aims to find candidates that maximize material properties; however, materials design often requires finding specific subsets of the design space which meet more complex or specialized goals. We present a framework that captures experimental goals through straightforward user-defined filtering algorithms. These algorithms are automatically translated into one of three intelligent, parameter-free, sequential data collection strategies (SwitchBAX, InfoBAX, and MeanBAX), bypassing the time-consuming and difficult process of task-specific acquisition function design. Our framework is tailored for typical discrete search spaces involving multiple measured physical properties and short time-horizon decision making. We demonstrate this approach on datasets for TiO2 nanoparticle synthesis and magnetic materials characterization, and show that our methods are significantly more efficient than state-of-the-art approaches. Overall, our framework provides a practical solution for navigating the complexities of materials design, and helps lay groundwork for the accelerated development of advanced materials.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · X-ray Diffraction in Crystallography · Catalysis and Oxidation Reactions

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. Goodenough, J. B. & Park, K.-S. The li-ion rechargeable battery: a perspective. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 1167–1176 (2013).10.1021/ja3091438 ↗
2. Lee, P. A., Nagaosa, N. & Wen, X.-G. Doping a mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity. Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006).10.1103/RevModPhys.78.17 ↗
3. Suh, C., Fare, C., Warren, J. A. & Pyzer-Knapp, E. O. Evolving the materials genome: How machine learning is fueling the next generation of materials discovery. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 50, 1–25 (2020).10.1146/annurev-matsci-082019-105100 ↗
4. Montoya, J. H. et al. Toward autonomous materials research: Recent progress and future challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. 9, 011405 (2022).10.1063/5.0076324 ↗
5. Shahriari, B., Swersky, K., Wang, Z., Adams, R. P. & De Freitas, N. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization. Proc. IEEE 104, 148–175 (2015).10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218 ↗
6. Kusne, A. G. et al. On-the-fly closed-loop materials discovery via bayesian active learning. Nat. Commun. 11, 5966 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-19597-w ↗
7. Kochenderfer, M. J. & Wheeler, T. A. Algorithms for optimization (Mit Press, 2019).
8. Dave, A. et al. Autonomous discovery of battery electrolytes with robotic experimentation and machine learning. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 1, 100264 (2020).10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100264 ↗
9. Greenhill, S., Rana, S., Gupta, S., Vellanki, P. & Venkatesh, S. Bayesian optimization for adaptive experimental design: A review. IEEE access 8, 13937–13948 (2020).10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966228 ↗
10. Emmerich, M. T. M., Deutz, A. H. & Klinkenberg, J. W. Hypervolume-based expected improvement: Monotonicity properties and exact computation. In 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2147–2154 (IEEE, 2011).10.1109/CEC.2011.5949880 ↗
11. Daulton, S., Balandat, M. & Bakshy, E. Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization. NeurIPS 33, 9851–9864 (2020).
12. Daulton, S., Balandat, M. & Bakshy, E. Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement. NeurIPS 34, 2187–2200 (2021).
13. Knowles, J. Parego: A hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10, 50–66 (2006).10.1109/TEVC.2005.851274 ↗
14. Wang, A., Liang, H., McDannald, A., Takeuchi, I. & Kusne, A. G. Benchmarking active learning strategies for materials optimization and discovery. Oxf. Open Mater. Sci. 2, itac006 (2022).10.1093/oxfmat/itac006 ↗
15. Hase, F., Roch, L. M., Kreisbeck, C. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Phoenics: a bayesian optimizer for chemistry. ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 1134–1145 (2018).10.1021/acscentsci.8b00307 ↗
16. Rohr, B. et al. Benchmarking the acceleration of materials discovery by sequential learning. Chem. Sci. 11, 2696–2706 (2020).10.1039/C9SC05999G ↗
17. Yamashita, T. et al. Crystal structure prediction accelerated by bayesian optimization. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 013803 (2018).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.2.013803 ↗
18. Hickman, R. J., Aldeghi, M., Häse, F. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Bayesian optimization with known experimental and design constraints for chemistry applications. Digital Discovery 1, 732–744 (2022).10.1039/D2DD00028H ↗
19. Herbol, H. C., Hu, W., Frazier, P., Clancy, P. & Poloczek, M. Efficient search of compositional space for hybrid organic–inorganic perovskites via bayesian optimization. npj Comput. Mater. 4, 51 (2018).10.1038/s41524-018-0106-7 ↗
20. Zhang, Y., Apley, D. W. & Chen, W. Bayesian optimization for materials design with mixed quantitative and qualitative variables. Sci. Rep. 10, 4924 (2020).10.1038/s41598-020-60652-9 ↗
21. Liang, Q. et al. Benchmarking the performance of bayesian optimization across multiple experimental materials science domains. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 188 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00656-9 ↗
22. Shields, B. J. et al. Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis. Nature 590, 89–96 (2021).10.1038/s41586-021-03213-y ↗
23. Häse, F., Aldeghi, M., Hickman, R. J., Roch, L. M. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Gryffin: An algorithm for bayesian optimization of categorical variables informed by expert knowledge. Appl. Phys. Rev. 8, 031406 (2021).10.1063/5.0048164 ↗
24. Hanaoka, K. Bayesian optimization for goal-oriented multi-objective inverse material design. iscience 24, 102781 (2021).10.1016/j.isci.2021.102781 ↗
25. Karasuyama, M., Kasugai, H., Tamura, T. & Shitara, K. Computational design of stable and highly ion-conductive materials using multi-objective bayesian optimization: Case studies on diffusion of oxygen and lithium. Comput. Mater. Sci. 184, 109927 (2020).10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109927 ↗
26. Hu, B. et al. Multi-objective bayesian optimization accelerated design of tpms structures. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 244, 108085 (2023).10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.108085 ↗
27. Khatamsaz, D. et al. Bayesian optimization with active learning of design constraints using an entropy-based approach. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 49 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01006-7 ↗
28. Xu, W., Liu, Z., Piper, R. T. & Hsu, J. W. Bayesian optimization of photonic curing process for flexible perovskite photovoltaic devices. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 249, 112055 (2023).10.1016/j.solmat.2022.112055 ↗
29. Wang, X. et al. Bayesian-optimization-assisted discovery of stereoselective aluminum complexes for ring-opening polymerization of racemic lactide. Nat. Commun. 14, 3647 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-39405-5 ↗
30. Packwood, D. Bayesian optimization for materials science (Springer, 2017).10.1007/978-981-10-6781-5 ↗
31. Yager, K. G., Majewski, P. W., Noack, M. M. & Fukuto, M. Autonomous x-ray scattering. Nanotechnology 34, 322001 (2023).10.1088/1361-6528/acd25a ↗
32. Noack, M. M. et al. A kriging-based approach to autonomous experimentation with applications to x-ray scattering. Sci. Rep. 9, 11809 (2019).10.1038/s41598-019-48114-3 ↗
33. Szymanski, N. J. et al. Adaptively driven x-ray diffraction guided by machine learning for autonomous phase identification. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 31 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-00984-y ↗
34. Kalinin, S. V. et al. Automated and autonomous experiments in electron and scanning probe microscopy. ACS Nano 15, 12604–12627 (2021).10.1021/acsnano.1c02104 ↗
35. Ament, S. et al. Autonomous materials synthesis via hierarchical active learning of nonequilibrium phase diagrams. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg4930 (2021).10.1126/sciadv.abg4930 ↗
36. Bogunovic, I., Scarlett, J., Krause, A. & Cevher, V. Truncated variance reduction: A unified approach to bayesian optimization and level-set estimation. NeurIPS 29, 1507–1515 (2016).
37. Ha, H., Gupta, S., Rana, S. & Venkatesh, S. High dimensional level set estimation with bayesian neural network. AAAI 35, 12095–12103 (2021).10.1609/aaai.v35i13.17436 ↗
38. Terayama, K. et al. Efficient construction method for phase diagrams using uncertainty sampling. Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 033802 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.033802 ↗
39. Dai, C. & Glotzer, S. C. Efficient phase diagram sampling by active learning. J. Phys. Chem. B 124, 1275–1284 (2020).10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b09202 ↗
40. Fong, A. Y. et al. Utilization of machine learning to accelerate colloidal synthesis and discovery. J. Chem. Phys. 154, 224201 (2021).10.1063/5.0047385 ↗
41. Feng, E. Y., Zelaya, R., Holm, A., Yang, A.-C. & Cargnello, M. Investigation of the optical properties of uniform platinum, palladium, and nickel nanocrystals enables direct measurements of their concentrations in solution. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 601, 125007 (2020).10.1016/j.colsurfa.2020.125007 ↗
42. Rivnay, J. et al. Structural control of mixed ionic and electronic transport in conducting polymers. Nat. Commun. 7, 11287 (2016).10.1038/ncomms11287 ↗
43. Prentiss, M. C., Wales, D. J. & Wolynes, P. G. The energy landscape, folding pathways and the kinetics of a knotted protein. PLOS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000835 (2010).10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000835 ↗
44. Singh, A. R. et al. Computational design of active site structures with improved transition-state scaling for ammonia synthesis. ACS Catal. 8, 4017–4024 (2018).10.1021/acscatal.8b00106 ↗
45. Foloppe, N. et al. Identification of chemically diverse chk1 inhibitors by receptor-based virtual screening. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14, 4792–4802 (2006).10.1016/j.bmc.2006.03.021 ↗
46. Palacín, M. R. & de Guibert, A. Why do batteries fail? Science 351, 1253292 (2016).10.1126/science.1253292 ↗
47. Scott, S. L. A matter of life (time) and death. ACS Catal. 8, 8597–8599 (2018).10.1021/acscatal.8b03199 ↗
48. Jørgensen, M., Norrman, K. & Krebs, F. C. Stability/degradation of polymer solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 92, 686–714 (2008).10.1016/j.solmat.2008.01.005 ↗
49. Di, L. & Kerns, E. H. Drug-like properties: concepts, structure design and methods from ADME to toxicity optimization (Academic press, 2015).
50. Neiswanger, W., Wang, K. A. & Ermon, S. Bayesian algorithm execution: Estimating computable properties of black-box functions using mutual information. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8005–8015 (PMLR, 2021).
51. Miskovich, S. A. et al. Multipoint-bax: a new approach for efficiently tuning particle accelerator emittance via virtual objectives. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 5, 015004 (2024).10.1088/2632-2153/ad169f ↗
52. Katsube, R., Terayama, K., Tamura, R. & Nose, Y. Experimental establishment of phase diagrams guided by uncertainty sampling: an application to the deposition of zn–sn–p films by molecular beam epitaxy. ACS Mater. Lett. 2, 571–575 (2020).10.1021/acsmaterialslett.0c00104 ↗
53. Torres, J. A. G., Jennings, P. C., Hansen, M. H., Boes, J. R. & Bligaard, T. Low-scaling algorithm for nudged elastic band calculations using a surrogate machine learning model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 156001 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.156001 ↗
54. Tian, Y. et al. Determining multi-component phase diagrams with desired characteristics using active learning. Adv. Sci. 8, 2003165 (2021).10.1002/advs.202003165 ↗
55. Pellegrino, F. et al. Machine learning approach for elucidating and predicting the role of synthesis parameters on the shape and size of tio2 nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 10, 18910 (2020).10.1038/s41598-020-75967-w ↗
56. Tassone, C. & Mehta, A. Aggregation and structuring of materials and chemicals data from diverse sources. Tech. Rep. (SLAC National Accelerator Lab., 2019).10.2172/1630122 ↗
57. Yoo, Y. K. et al. Identification of amorphous phases in the fe–ni–co ternary alloy system using continuous phase diagram material chips. Intermetallics 14, 241–247 (2006).10.1016/j.intermet.2005.05.013 ↗
58. Antonov, V., Oppeneer, P., Yaresko, A., Perlov, A. Y. & Kraft, T. Computationally based explanation of the peculiar magneto-optical properties of ptmnsb and related ternary compounds. Phys. Rev. B 56, 13012 (1997).10.1103/PhysRevB.56.13012 ↗
59. Abolhasani, M. & Kumacheva, E. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nat. Synth. 2, 483–492 (2023).10.1038/s44160-022-00231-0 ↗
60. MacLeod, B. P. et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8867 (2020).10.1126/sciadv.aaz8867 ↗
61. MacLeod, B. P. et al. A self-driving laboratory advances the pareto front for material properties. Nat. Commun. 13, 995 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-28580-6 ↗
62. Szymanski, N. J. et al. An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials. Nature 624, 86–91 (2023).10.1038/s41586-023-06734-w ↗
63. Matthews, A. Gd. G. et al. GPflow: A Gaussian process library using TensorFlow. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18, 1–6 (2017).
64. Picheny, V. et al. Trieste: Efficiently exploring the depths of black-box functions with tensorflow. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08436 (2023).
65. Harper, M. et al. python-ternary: Ternary plots in python. Zenodo, https://github.com/marcharper/python-ternary.
66. Chitturi, S., Ramdas, A. & Neiswanger, W. src47/multibax-sklearn. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10246330 (2023).10.5281/zenodo.10246330 ↗
67. Chitturi, S., Ramdas, A. & Neiswanger, W. src47/materials-bax-gpflow: Paper submission. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10222982 (2023).10.5281/zenodo.10222982 ↗