Composition and structure analyzer/featurizer for explainable machine-learning models to predict solid state structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional and non-classical machine learning models for solid-state structure prediction have predominantly relied on compositional features (derived from properties of constituent elements) to predict the existence of structure and its properties. However, the lack of structural information can be a source of suboptimal property mapping and increased predictive uncertainty. To address the challenge, we introduce a strategy that generates and combines both compositional and structural features with minimal programming expertise required. Our approach utilizes open-source, interactive Python programs named Composition Analyzer Featurizer (CAF) and Structure Analyzer Featurizer (SAF). CAF generates numerical compositional features from a list of formulas provided in an Excel file, while SAF extracts numerical structural features from a .cif file by generating a supercell. 133 features from CAF and 94 features from SAF were used either individually or in combination to cluster nine structure types in equiatomic AB intermetallics. The performance was comparable to those with features state-of-the art featurizers in advanced machine learning models. Our SAF+CAF features provided a cost-efficient and reliable solution, even with the PLS-DA method, where a significant fraction of the most contributing features were the same as those identified in the more computationally intensive XGBoost models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".