Thermoelectric Material Performance (<i>zT</i>) Predictions with Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research efforts using the tools in machine- and deep learning models have begun to show success in predicting target properties such as thermoelectric (TE) properties, including the figure of merit ( zT ). These models were trained on various data sources that used experimental, crystallographic, and density functional theory (DFT) data. We developed an interpretable model on a huge experimental data set of ∼160,000 data points to predict the performance of thermoelectric materials. The model predicts the results of three different test sets with high accuracy, such as the root-mean-square error (RMSE) ranging from 0.15 to 0.20 and the evaluation coefficients ( R 2 ) ranging from 0.80 to 0.67. Furthermore, we highlight probable reasons such as literature error, varied synthesis routes for the same material, different forms of crystallinity and morphology, and different particle sizes and densities for the deviation of predicted zT from the experimental zT results of the test sets. Lastly, using an experimental data set, our study is one of the few examples that predict a complex zT property directly across the entire gamut of TE 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".