Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Comparing Forward and Inverse Design Paradigms: A Case Study on Refractory High-Entropy Alloys

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.13581 v1 pith:24UUMJJD submitted 2023-07-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cs.LG

Comparing Forward and Inverse Design Paradigms: A Case Study on Refractory High-Entropy Alloys

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci cs.LG
keywords designforwardinversematerialsparadigmsadvancedbestcandidate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid design of advanced materials is a topic of great scientific interest. The conventional, ``forward'' paradigm of materials design involves evaluating multiple candidates to determine the best candidate that matches the target properties. However, recent advances in the field of deep learning have given rise to the possibility of an ``inverse'' design paradigm for advanced materials, wherein a model provided with the target properties is able to find the best candidate. Being a relatively new concept, there remains a need to systematically evaluate how these two paradigms perform in practical applications. Therefore, the objective of this study is to directly, quantitatively compare the forward and inverse design modeling paradigms. We do so by considering two case studies of refractory high-entropy alloy design with different objectives and constraints and comparing the inverse design method to other forward schemes like localized forward search, high throughput screening, and multi objective optimization.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.