A critical examination of robustness and generalizability of machine learning prediction of materials properties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have led to substantial performance improvement in material database benchmarks, but an excellent benchmark score may not imply good generalization performance. Here we show that ML models trained on Materials Project 2018 can have severely degraded performance on new compounds in Materials Project 2021 due to the distribution shift. We discuss how to foresee the issue with a few simple tools. Firstly, the uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) can be used to investigate the relation between the training and test data within the feature space. Secondly, the disagreement between multiple ML models on the test data can illuminate out-of-distribution samples. We demonstrate that the UMAP-guided and query by committee acquisition strategies can greatly improve prediction accuracy by adding only 1% of the test data. We believe this work provides valuable insights for building databases and models that enable better robustness and generalizability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it