Interpretable discovery of semiconductors with machine learning
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 Machine learning models of material properties accelerate materials discovery, reproducing density functional theory calculated results at a fraction of the cost 1–6 . To bridge the gap between theory and experiments, machine learning predictions need to be distilled in the form of interpretable chemical rules that can be used by experimentalists. Here we develop a framework to address this gap by combining evolutionary algorithm-powered search with machine-learning surrogate models. We then couple the search results with supervised learning and statistical testing. This strategy enables the efficient search of a materials space while providing interpretable design rules. We demonstrate its effectiveness by developing rules for the design of direct bandgap materials, stable UV emitters, and IR perovskite emitters. Finally, we conclusively show how DARWIN-generated rules are statistically more robust and applicable to a wide range of applications including the design of UV halide perovskites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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