MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400283711 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c01696

Interpretable Machine Learning Model on Thermal Conductivity Using Publicly Available Datasets and Our Internal Lab Dataset

2024· article· en· W4400283711 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

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermal conductivityArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceData miningMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML), a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence studies, has gained importance in predicting or suggesting efficient thermoelectric materials. Previous ML studies have used different literature sources or density functional theory calculations as input. In this work, we develop a ML pipeline trained with multivariable inputs on a massive public dataset of ∼200,000 data utilizing a high-performance computing cluster to predict the thermal conductivity (κ) using four test sets: three publicly available datasets and a dataset built using previously published data from our own group. By taking advantage of this massive dataset, our model presents an opportunity to further expand the understanding of the selection of features with various thermoelectric materials. Among the several supervised ML models implemented, the eXtreme Gradient Boosting algorithm (XGBoost) turned out to be the best method during the 5-fold cross-validation method, with their averaged evaluation coefficients of R 2 = 0.96, root mean squared error ( RMSE ) = 0.38 W m −1 K −1, and mean absolute error ( MAE ) = 0.23 W m −1 K −1 . Additionally, with the aid of feature selection and importance analysis, useful chemical features were chosen that ultimately led to reasonably good accuracy in the series of test sets measured as per the evaluation coefficients of R 2, RMSE, and MAE, with values ranging from 0.72 to 0.89, 0.52 to 1.08, and 0.40 to 0.66 W m −1 K −1, respectively. Checking the worst outliers led to the discovery of some errors in the literature. Postmodel prediction, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithm was implemented on the XGBoost model to analyze the features that were the key drivers for the model’s decisions. Overall, the developed interpretable methodology produces the prediction of κ of a large variety of materials through the influence of chemical and physical property features. The conclusions drawn apply to the research and applications of thermoelectric and heat insulation materials.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.267 · 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