High-Dimensional Materials and Process Optimization Using Data-Driven Experimental Design with Well-Calibrated Uncertainty Estimates
Source abstract
Abstract
The optimization of composition and processing to obtain materials that exhibit desirable characteristics has historically relied on a combination of scientist intuition, trial and error, and luck. We propose a methodology that can accelerate this process by fitting data-driven models to experimental data as it is collected to suggest which experiment should be performed next. This methodology can guide the scientist to test the most promising candidates earlier, and can supplement scientific intuition and knowledge with data-driven insights. A key strength of the proposed framework is that it scales to high-dimensional parameter spaces, as are typical in materials discovery applications. Importantly, the data-driven models incorporate uncertainty analysis, so that new experiments are proposed based on a combination of exploring high-uncertainty candidates and exploiting high-performing regions of parameter space. Over four materials science test cases, our methodology led to the optimal candidate being found with three times fewer required measurements than random guessing on average.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms · Model Reduction and Neural Networks
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. Roy R (2010) A primer on the Taguchi method. Soc Manuf Eng, 1–245
2. Fisher R A (1921) On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron 1:3–32
3. Chaloner K, Verdinelli I (1995) Bayesian experimental design: a review. Stat Sci 10(3):273–30410.1214/ss/1177009939 ↗
4. Chernoff H (1959) Sequential design of experiments. Ann Math Stat 30(3):755–77010.1214/aoms/1177706205 ↗
5. Cohn D A, Ghahramani Z, Jordan M I (1996) Active learning with statistical models. J Artif Intell Res 4(1):129–14510.1613/jair.295 ↗
6. Martinez-Cantin R (2014) BayesOpt: a Bayesian optimization library for nonlinear optimization, experimental design and bandits. J Mach Learn Res 15(1):3735–3739
7. Shan S, Wang GG (2010) Survey of modeling and optimization strategies to solve high-dimensional design problems with computationally-expensive black-box functions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(2):219–241. doi: 10.1007/s00158-009-0420-210.1007/s00158-009-0420-2 ↗
8. Wang Y, Reyes KG, Brown KA, Mirkin CA, Powell WB (2015) Nested-batch-mode learning and stochastic optimization with an application to sequential multistage testing in materials science. SIAM J Sci Comput 37(3):B361–B381. doi: 10.1137/140971117 . http://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/14097111710.1137/140971117 ↗
9. Aggarwal R, Demkowicz M, Marzouk YM (2015) Information-driven experimental design in materials science. Inf Sci Mater Discov Des 225:13–44. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23871-510.1007/978-3-319-23871-5 ↗
10. Ueno T, Rhone T D, Hou Z, Mizoguchi T, Tsuda K (2016) Combo: an efficient bayesian optimization library for materials science. Mater Discov 4:18–2110.1016/j.md.2016.04.001 ↗
11. Xue D, Xue D, Yuan R, Zhou Y, Balachandran P, Ding X, Sun J, Lookman T (2017) An informatics approach to transformation temperatures of NiTi-based shape memory alloys. Acta Mater 125:532–54110.1016/j.actamat.2016.12.009 ↗
12. Dehghannasiri R, Xue D, Balachandran PV, Yousefi MR, Dalton LA, Lookman T, Dougherty ER (2017) Optimal experimental design for materials discovery. Comput Mater Sci 129:311–322. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.11.04110.1016/j.commatsci.2016.11.041 ↗
13. Oliynyk A, Antono E, Sparks T, Ghadbeigi L, Gaultois M, Meredig B, Mar A (2016) High-throughput machine-learning-driven synthesis of full-heusler compounds. Chem Mater 28(20):7324–733110.1021/acs.chemmater.6b02724 ↗
14. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–3210.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
15. Ho T K (1998) The random subspace method for constructing decision forests. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20(8): 832–84410.1109/34.709601 ↗
16. Efron B (2012) Model selection estimation and bootstrap smoothing. Division of Biostatistics, Stanford University
17. Wager S, Hastie T, Efron B (2014) Confidence intervals for random forests: the Jackknife and the infinitesimal Jackknife. J Mach Learn Res 15:1625–1651. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.10.010.Use . http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/wager14a.html , arXiv: 1311.4555v210.1016/j.surg.2006.10.010.Use.http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/wager14a.html,arXiv:http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4555v2 ↗
18. Hutchinson M (2016) Citrine Informatics Lolo. https://github.com/CitrineInformatics/lolo accessed: 2017-03-21
19. Bocarsly JD, Levin EE, Garcia CA, Schwennicke K, Wilson SD, Seshadri R (2017) A simple computational proxy for screening magnetocaloric compounds. Chem Mater 29(4):1613–162210.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04729 ↗
20. Sparks T, Gaultois M, Oliynyk A, Brgoch J, Meredig B (2016) Data mining our way to the next generation of thermoelectrics. Scr Mater 111:10–1510.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.04.026 ↗
21. Agrawal A, Deshpande P D, Cecen A, Basavarsu G P, Choudhary A N, Kalidindi S R (2014) Exploration of data science techniques to predict fatigue strength of steel from composition and processing parameters. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 3(1):1–1910.1186/2193-9772-3-8 ↗
22. Ward L, Agrawal A, Choudhary A, Wolverton C (2016) A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials. arXiv preprint10.1038/npjcompumats.2016.28 ↗
23. van der Maaten L, Hinton G (2008) Visualizing data using t-SNE. J Mach Learn Res 9:2579–2605
24. O’Mara J, Meredig B, Michel K (2016) Materials data infrastructure: a case study of the citrination platform to examine data import, storage, and access. JOM 68(8):2031–203410.1007/s11837-016-1984-0 ↗