Charge-density based evaluation and prediction of stacking fault energies in Ni alloys from DFT and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combination of high strength and high ductility has been observed in multi-principal element alloys due to twin formation attributed to low stacking fault energy (SFE). In the pursuit of low SFE alloys, a key bottleneck is the lack of understanding of the composition–SFE correlations that would guide tailoring SFE via alloy composition. Using density functional theory (DFT), we show that dopant radius, which have been postulated as a key descriptor for SFE in dilute alloys, does not fully explain SFE trends across different host metals. Instead, charge density is a much more central descriptor. It allows us to (1) explain contrasting SFE trends in Ni and Cu host metals due to various dopants in dilute concentrations, (2) explain the large SFE variations observed in the literature even within a given alloy composition due to the nearest neighbor environments in “model” concentrated alloys, and (3) develop a machine learning model that can be used to predict SFEs in multi-elemental alloys. This model opens a possibility to use charge density as a descriptor for predicting SFE in alloys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".