MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205822131 · doi:10.1038/s43246-021-00209-z

Artificial intelligence for search and discovery of quantum materials

2021· article· en· W3205822131 on OpenAlexaff
Valentin Stanev, Kamal Choudhary, A. Gilad Kusne, Johnpierre Paglione, Ichiro Takeuchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Materials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyOffice of Naval ResearchGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsQuantumComputer scienceData scienceQuantum computerArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Artificial intelligence and machine learning are becoming indispensable tools in many areas of physics, including astrophysics, particle physics, and climate science. In the arena of quantum materials, the rise of new experimental and computational techniques has increased the volume and the speed with which data are collected, and artificial intelligence is poised to impact the exploration of new materials such as superconductors, spin liquids, and topological insulators. This review outlines how the use of data-driven approaches is changing the landscape of quantum materials research. From rapid construction and analysis of computational and experimental databases to implementing physical models as pathfinding guidelines for autonomous experiments, we show that artificial intelligence is already well on its way to becoming the lynchpin in the search and discovery of quantum materials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications MaterialsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207