Showing posts with label machine learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label machine learning. Show all posts

Friday, May 1, 2020

Discovery of High-Entropy Ceramics via Machine Learning

by Kevin Kaufmann and Prof. Kenneth Vecchio

Materials are an essential part of our world; they have enabled us to build cities, treat disease, and communicate across the world in real time. For centuries, material scientists have been working to build our material library and to discover new materials with greater performance and better property trade-offs. Over the past few decades, however, the rate at which new materials are being discovered has been slowing continuously. This is due to several factors including increasingly stricter regulations, more challenging performance metrics, and increasingly more expensive empirical development strategies.

The reduced rate of material discovery is also in part because many of the simplest combinations have been investigated, and the number of remaining possible combinations is quite extensive. For example, if random combinations of five elements from the periodic table are combined in equal amounts, there would be 1078 possible combinations to choose from. This example ignores the fact that different numbers of elements can be combined, not just five, and that they do not have to be combined in equal ratios. For perspective, there are estimated to be 1066 atoms in the Milky Way galaxy. So, in terms of a “big data” challenge, materials development of complex composition alloys represents perhaps the biggest big data paradigm. There is a clear need for a method to narrow the search space to only the most promising candidates for a given application. Intuition and expensive trial and error strategies will not be sufficient for investigating this immense chemical space, and more informed computational methods must be developed and employed.

Our team of nanoengineers in Professor Kenneth Vecchio’s lab at UC San Diego is developing tools for screening large numbers of materials in a rapid fashion. The first step in our work is creating unique identifiers for each material, akin to a fingerprint of the material. In the same way no two fingerprints are alike, every individual material possible can be reduced to a simple but unique set of attributes. These identifiers describe the material composition in a way that supports computation work leveraging a subset of artificial intelligence called machine learning. The machine learning tools learn the underlying science that relates these attributes to various material properties. Typically, machine learning requires enormous initial datasets to learn from before it becomes a useful tool.

However, the method that our team developed is designed around the fact that material development problems frequently have less than 100 data points at the outset. After learning about the initial dataset, the machine learning algorithm suggests new materials with the goal of maximizing performance. Each time the materials suggested by the algorithm are fabricated and tested, this new information is made available to the algorithm, creating a learning loop.

The data-driven method that our team has developed was recently demonstrated for predicting the synthesizability of single crystal structure (e.g. rock-salt structured) carbide ceramic materials containing five metal cations, also known as high entropy carbides. High entropy carbides constitute a subset of the complex concentrated alloys class of materials described previously, as they have the added uniqueness of becoming more stable at increasing temperatures, which is unlike most engineering materials. The researchers focused their study on what are called non-intuitive compositions, in which three of the five metal cations are chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten, none of which form a rock-salt structure at room temperature in a one metal atom to one carbon atom ratio.

The initial dataset contained all available data: 56 high entropy carbide materials with synthesizability calculated by computationally expensive density functional theory (DFT). None of the 56 known compositions contained chromium, one of the three metal cations of interest. While DFT can compute a few compositions per month, the machine learning model was able to learn from the 56 materials and make predictions on 70 new materials in less than one day.

Seven materials, four predicted to succeed and three predicted to fail, were experimentally fabricated and analyzed to assess the validity of the predictions. Rather surprisingly, several five-cation metal carbide compositions were discovered, wherein three of the five cations were chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten—the elements that don’t form the rocksalt monocarbide structure—and yet these compositions were experimentally shown to successfully form the rock-salt structure. Furthermore, all seven experimentally studied compositions resulted in single or multi-crystal structure materials in exact agreement with the machine learning predictions. The ability for the machine learning model to perform exceedingly well in such a non-intuitive chemical space, a composition space which contained no prior data to learn from, further demonstrates the unique strength of this approach. Our team expects the machine learning framework to be a useful tool in the development of other materials such as alloys, battery components, or pharmaceuticals.

This work is published in Nature Partner Journals (npj) Computational Materials, May 1, 2020.

Read the paper here: https://rdcu.be/b3UdG

DOI: 10.1038/s41524-020-0317-6

Thursday, March 3, 2016

ECE Student, Professor Win Best Paper Award at NIPS Conference

by Tiffany Fox

Together with his advisor, Professor Alon Orlitsky, Ananda Theertha Suresh, a Ph.D. student in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, won the Best Paper award at the 29th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). NIPS, which took place this year in Montreal, is an international gathering of researchers in the fields of machine learning and computational neuroscience.
Ananda Theertha Suresh
Suresh and Orlitsky beat out more than 1,800 submissions from researchers around the world to receive the honor for their paper titled “Competitive Distribution Estimation: Why is Good-Turing Good?” Good-Turing refers to a statistical technique developed by British computer scientist Alan Turing and his assistant I.J. Good as part of their efforts to crack German encryption codes during World War II. The technique addresses an uncertainty problem called discrete distribution estimation, and makes it possible to estimate the probability of encountering an object not previously encountered, given a set of past observations of objects with different qualities.

By way of explanation, Suresh provides a theoretical example: “Imagine you’re trying to calculate the best possible vehicle to buy, one that will move quickly over all types of terrain -- snow, desert, roads, etc. You will only be buying one vehicle, so you need to optimize for a wide distribution of probabilities.

“With the prior computational approach, known as the MinMax algorithm, you would look at a range of 100 miles and minimize the time it would take to travel on all types of terrain by different types of vehicles. In other words," he continues, "you’re trying to minimize how long it will take in a worst-case scenario. Eventually, you’d calculate that the best possible vehicle would be a tank, since a tank can travel on these worst-case scenario terrains, but a tank is not practical because it can’t travel well on the road, which is where most people are driving. Thus, with the MinMax approach, you lose functionality.”

Prof. Arlon Orlitsky
Another example is a simple coin toss. “You have a coin and you want to find out the probability of heads” explains Suresh. “In a coin toss, the worst-case distribution for heads would be close to zero, but in reality, you’re not likely to have a worst-case distribution. This is often reflected in practice, where the best MinMax optimal estimator performs not as well as some heuristics.”

In their paper, Suresh and Orlitsky showed that instead of favoring the MinMax approach, where one optimizes for the worst-case distribution, the Good-Turing frequency estimation can be used to optimize for every distribution, not the just worst-case. “So if the MinMax estimator calculates you should have a tank, the Good-Turing estimator is like having a Transformer, where whatever situation you’re in, it adapts to it.”

Applications for the Good-Turing estimator include ecology (estimating the probability of animal populations with a certain physical trait, for example) and a field known as natural language processing, which is a branch of computer science concerned with interactions between computers and human (natural) languages. The “autocorrect” function on a smartphone is one example of a probability estimator at work, where the computer tries to estimate which word the user is trying to type, given a set of past observations.

“Good and Turing came up with this estimator in World War II and people have been using it for more than 60 years,” says Orlitsky, who holds dual appointments in the departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science and Engineering. “This paper provides perhaps the clearest explanation to date as to why it works.”

Watch Suresh's presentation at the NIPS conference in this video:

Thursday, May 1, 2014

This UC San Diego researcher has had a busy week


ABC US News | ABC Business News
It's been a busy week for Marni Bartlett, a researcher at the Institute for Neural Computation here at UC San Diego. She was at a conference in Orlando, Fla., when ABC News called with an interview request. Bartlett was happy to oblige and jumped into a taxi to head out to the network's local affiliate to shoot an on-camera interview.
You can watch the resulting segment here . 
What had very likely gotten the network's attention was a story about Bartlett's research in The New York Times' Science Section April 29. The story explains how Bartlett and colleagues in the Machine Perception Lab, which is housed at Calit2, have developed a software toolbox that is able to tell whether someone is faking pain better than human observers. You can read more about the research here.
Then you can figure out how good you are a spotting people who are faking pain by taking this New York Times quiz. 
Bartlett and colleagues are getting some of these technologies ready for commercialization through a start up they launched last year, Emotient.