Cited by 21Machine Learning in Materials ScienceComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Evaluation of performance of machine learning methods in mining structure–property data of halide perovskite materials

Open access
Zhao, Ruoting, Xing, Bangyu, Mu, Huimin, Fu, Yuhao, Zhang, Lijun·2022·Chinese Physics B

Abstract

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) methods, materials science is rapidly entering the era of data-driven materials informatics. ML models serve as the most crucial component, closely bridging material structure and material properties. There is a considerable difference in the prediction performance of different ML methods for material systems. Herein, we evaluated three categories (linear, kernel, and nonlinear methods) of models, with twelve ML algorithms commonly used in the materials field. In addition, halide perovskite was chosen as an example to evaluate the fitting performance of different models. We constructed a total dataset of 540 halide perovskites and 72 features, with formation energy and bandgap as target properties. We found that different categories of ML models show similar trends for different target properties. Among them, the difference between the models is enormous for the formation energy, with the coefficient of determination (R2) range 0.69–0.953. The fitting performance between the models is closer for bandgap, with the R2 range 0.941–0.997. The nonlinear-ensemble model shows the best fitting performance for both the formation energy and the bandgap. It shows that the nonlinear-ensemble model, constructed by combining multiple weak learners, effectively describes the nonlinear relationship between material features and target property. In addition, the extreme gradient boosting decision tree model shows the most superior results among all the models and searches for two new descriptors that are crucial for formation energy and bandgap. Our work provides useful guidance for the selection of effective machine learning methods in the data-mining studies of specific material systems. The dataset that supported the findings of this study is available in Science Data Bank, with the link https://www.doi.org/10.11922/sciencedb.01611.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1674-1056/ac5d2d

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [14]14. Bartók A P and Csányi G 2015 International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 115 1051
  2. [19]19. Bajusz D, Rácz A and Héberger K 2015 Journal of Cheminformatics 7 20
  3. [28]28. Tibshirani R 1996 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 58 267
  4. [53]53. Ma X Y, Lyu H Y, Hao K R, Zhao Y M, Qian X, Yan Q B and Su G 2021 Science Bulletin 66 233
  5. [64]64. Zhao X G, Zhou K, Xing B, Zhao R, Luo S, Li T, Sun Y, Na G, Xie J, Yang X, Wang X, Wang X, He X, Lv J, Fu Y and Zhang L 2021 Science Bulletin 66 1973
  6. [65]65. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M and Duchesnay é 2011 Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 2825
  7. [66]66. Chen T and Guestrin C 2016 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining pp. 785-794
  8. [67]67. Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, Wang T, Chen W, Ma W, Ye Q and Liu T Y 2017 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30)
  9. [68]68. Bergstra J, Yamins D and Cox D 2013 Proceedings of the 30th Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning pp. 115-23
  10. [76]76. Hecht-nielsen R 1992 Neural Networks for Perception (ed H Wechsler) pp. 65-93

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, R., Xing, B., Mu, H., Fu, Y., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
Jilin University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Lijun
Venue
Chinese Physics B
Published
2022-05-01
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
056302
ISSN
1674-1056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221136798
Cited by
21
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Chinese Physics B (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (92061113, 62125402)
  • Jilin University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
halide perovskites, classifier comparison, structure-property relationships, formation energy prediction, band gap prediction, ensemble learning, extreme gradient boosting, material descriptors, materials informatics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review