Cited by 188Machine Learning in Materials ScienceComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Theory-Guided Machine Learning in Materials Science

Open access
Wagner, Nicholas, Rondinelli, James M.·2016·Frontiers in Materials

Abstract

Materials scientists are increasingly adopting the use of machine learning tools to discover hidden trends in data and make predictions. Applying concepts from data science without foreknowledge of their limitations and the unique qualities of materials data, however, could lead to errant conclusions. The differences that exist between various kinds of experimental and calculated data require careful choices of data processing and machine learning methods. Here, we outline potential pitfalls involved in using machine learning without robust protocols. We address some problems of overfitting to training data using decision trees as an example, rational descriptor selection in the field of perovskites, and preserving physical interpretability in the application of dimensionality reducing techniques such as principal component analysis. We show how proceeding without the guidance of domain knowledge can lead to both quantitatively and qualitatively incorrect predictive models.

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 · 10.3389/fmats.2016.00028

Cites

38 of 38 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

4 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Davidson-Pilon, C. (2015). Bayesian Methods for Hackers. New York: Addison- Wesley Professional.
  2. Lookman, T., Alexander, F. J., and Rajan, K. (eds). (2016). ''Preface, '' in Information Science for Materials Discovery and Design, Vol. 225 (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), v-vii.
  3. Robert, C. (2001). The Bayesian Choice: From Decision-Theoretic Foundations to Computational Implementation (Springer Texts in Statistics). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagner, N., & Rondinelli, J. M.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Rondinelli, James M.
Venue
Frontiers in Materials
Published
2016-06-27
Volume
3
ISSN
2296-8016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2469732900
Cited by
188
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-SC0012375)
  • National Science Foundation (DMR-1454688)
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
materials data, overfitting, decision tree, descriptor selection, perovskite, principal component analysis, dimensionality reduction, physical interpretability, domain knowledge, prediction model

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