Data-driven analysis and prediction of stable phases for high-entropy alloy design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-entropy alloys (HEAs) represent a promising class of materials with exceptional structural and functional properties. However, their design and optimization pose challenges due to the large composition-phase space coupled with the complex and diverse nature of the phase formation dynamics. In this study, a data-driven approach that utilizes machine learning (ML) techniques to predict HEA phases and their composition-dependent phases is proposed. By employing a comprehensive dataset comprising 5692 experimental records encompassing 50 elements and 11 phase categories, we compare the performance of various ML models. Our analysis identifies the most influential features for accurate phase prediction. Furthermore, the class imbalance is addressed by employing data augmentation methods, raising the number of records to 1500 in each category, and ensuring a balanced representation of phase categories. The results show that XGBoost and Random Forest consistently outperform the other models, achieving 86% accuracy in predicting all phases. Additionally, this work provides an extensive analysis of HEA phase formers, showing the contributions of elements and features to the presence of specific phases. We also examine the impact of including different phases on ML model accuracy and feature significance. Notably, the findings underscore the need for ML model selection based on specific applications and desired predictions, as feature importance varies across models and phases. This study significantly advances the understanding of HEA phase formation, enabling targeted alloy design and fostering progress in the field of materials science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".