MatFold: systematic insights into materials discovery models' performance through standardized cross-validation protocols†

IF 6.2 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Digital discovery Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1039/D4DD00250D
Matthew D. Witman and Peter Schindler
{"title":"MatFold: systematic insights into materials discovery models' performance through standardized cross-validation protocols†","authors":"Matthew D. Witman and Peter Schindler","doi":"10.1039/D4DD00250D","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Machine learning (ML) models in the materials sciences that are validated by overly simplistic cross-validation (CV) protocols can yield biased performance estimates for downstream modeling or materials screening tasks. This can be particularly counterproductive for applications where the time and cost of failed validation efforts (experimental synthesis, characterization, and testing) are consequential. We propose a set of standardized and increasingly difficult splitting protocols for chemically and structurally motivated CV that can be followed to validate any ML model for materials discovery. Among several benefits, this enables systematic insights into model generalizability, improvability, and uncertainty, provides benchmarks for fair comparison between competing models with access to differing quantities of data, and systematically reduces possible data leakage through increasingly strict splitting protocols. Performing thorough CV investigations across increasingly strict chemical/structural splitting criteria, local <em>vs.</em> global property prediction tasks, small <em>vs.</em> large datasets, and structure <em>vs.</em> compositional model architectures, some common threads are observed; however, several marked differences exist across these exemplars, indicating the need for comprehensive analysis to fully understand each model's generalization accuracy and potential for materials discovery. For this we provide a general-purpose, featurization-agnostic toolkit, MatFold, to automate reproducible construction of these CV splits and encourage further community use in model benchmarking.</p>","PeriodicalId":72816,"journal":{"name":"Digital discovery","volume":" 3","pages":" 625-635"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/dd/d4dd00250d?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital discovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/dd/d4dd00250d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) models in the materials sciences that are validated by overly simplistic cross-validation (CV) protocols can yield biased performance estimates for downstream modeling or materials screening tasks. This can be particularly counterproductive for applications where the time and cost of failed validation efforts (experimental synthesis, characterization, and testing) are consequential. We propose a set of standardized and increasingly difficult splitting protocols for chemically and structurally motivated CV that can be followed to validate any ML model for materials discovery. Among several benefits, this enables systematic insights into model generalizability, improvability, and uncertainty, provides benchmarks for fair comparison between competing models with access to differing quantities of data, and systematically reduces possible data leakage through increasingly strict splitting protocols. Performing thorough CV investigations across increasingly strict chemical/structural splitting criteria, local vs. global property prediction tasks, small vs. large datasets, and structure vs. compositional model architectures, some common threads are observed; however, several marked differences exist across these exemplars, indicating the need for comprehensive analysis to fully understand each model's generalization accuracy and potential for materials discovery. For this we provide a general-purpose, featurization-agnostic toolkit, MatFold, to automate reproducible construction of these CV splits and encourage further community use in model benchmarking.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Back cover Unveiling CO2 reactivity with data-driven methods† Dissecting errors in machine learning for retrosynthesis: a granular metric framework and a transformer-based model for more informative predictions SANE: strategic autonomous non-smooth exploration for multiple optima discovery in multi-modal and non-differentiable black-box functions† Active learning high coverage sets of complementary reaction conditions†
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1