MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401941677 · doi:10.1115/gt2024-123368

Phase Prediction Methodologies for Rapid Screening of High Entropy Alloys

2024· article· en· W4401941677 on OpenAlexaff
Aron Mohammadi, J. Tsang, Xiao Huang, Richard Kearsey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHigh entropy alloysEntropy (arrow of time)Materials scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsMetallurgyAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasing gas turbine hot section temperatures is a venue to improve fuel efficiency, thus pushing the need for new, higher temperature resistant materials. Experimental results show that high entropy alloys (HEAs), consisting of near equiatomic amounts of various metallic elements with no clear solvent, exhibit excellent high temperature mechanical properties, corrosion resistance, and good strength to weight ratios. This has resulted in significantly increased interest in studying HEAs for potential gas turbine application over the past decade. The properties of HEAs tend to be highly sensitive to phase composition; however, pre-existing phase prediction methodologies used for traditional alloy compositions, with a clearly defined solvent, are generally not well suited to HEAs. Additionally, the combination of the vast design space and complex elemental interactions render experimental exploration of new HEAs unfeasible at scale, necessitating higher throughput methods. Computer aided calculation of phase diagrams and first principal calculations are well established methods for predicting the phase structure of hypothetical alloy compositions, however they tend to be very computationally intensive and thus their speed is highly limited by available hardware. Two prediction methods capable of rapidly screening candidate composition are empirically developed design parameters based on values derived from the elemental composition of the alloys and machine learning models trained using available experimental HEA phase compositions. This simplifies the calculations and the input parameters required for both methodologies are readily available. This work compares the effectiveness of a variety of empirical design parameters and a pre-trained machine learning model, based on a convolutional neural network architecture, at predicting the resultant phases in various HEA compositions, including the W-Nb-Mo-Ta-Ti-Zr alloy system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Entropy Alloys StudiesFrench-language works237,207