MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382344148 · doi:10.1002/adma.202302575

Closed‐Loop Error‐Correction Learning Accelerates Experimental Discovery of Thermoelectric Materials

2023· article· en· W4382344148 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of TorontoCompute CanadaNorthwestern University
KeywordsThermoelectric effectMaterials scienceThermoelectric materialsDopingLoop (graph theory)ThroughputDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Characterization (materials science)Computer scienceNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsPhysicsThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exploration of thermoelectric materials is challenging considering the large materials space, combined with added exponential degrees of freedom coming from doping and the diversity of synthetic pathways. Here, historical data is incorporated, and is updated using experimental feedback by employing error-correction learning (ECL). This is achieved by learning from prior datasets and then adapting the model to differences in synthesis and characterization that are otherwise difficult to parameterize. This strategy is thus applied to discovering thermoelectric materials, where synthesis is prioritized at temperatures <300 °C. A previously unexplored chemical family of thermoelectric materials, PbSe:SnSb, is documented, finding that the best candidate in this chemical family, 2 wt% SnSb doped PbSe, exhibits a power factor more than 2× that of PbSe. The investigations herein reveal that a closed-loop experimentation strategy reduces the required number of experiments to find an optimized material by a factor as high as 3× compared to high-throughput searches powered by state-of-the-art machine-learning (ML) models. It is also observed that this improvement is dependent on the accuracy of the ML model in a manner that exhibits diminishing returns: once a certain accuracy is reached, factors that are instead associated with experimental pathways begin to dominate trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · 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