How Can Machine Learning Accelerate CALPHAD Free Energy Modeling?

Chen Shen; Dane Morgan; Izabela Szlufarska; Mark Asta; Muhammad Waqas Qureshi

arxiv: 2606.01305 · v1 · pith:YSMKFXH6new · submitted 2026-05-31 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

How Can Machine Learning Accelerate CALPHAD Free Energy Modeling?

Chen Shen , Muhammad Waqas Qureshi , Mark Asta , Izabela Szlufarska , Dane Morgan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 16:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords CALPHADRedlich-Kistermachine learningalloy thermodynamicsinteraction parameterselemental descriptorsFCC alloys

0 comments

The pith

Machine learning predicts Redlich-Kister coefficients for unknown alloy binaries by using elemental descriptors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that a hybrid ML-augmented Redlich-Kister model learns interaction coefficients directly from elemental descriptors, allowing prediction of parameters for binaries lacking data. This hybrid unifies the data efficiency of standard RK models when binary information exists with the zero-shot extrapolation of pure descriptor-based ML models when elements are absent from training. A sympathetic reader would care because CALPHAD thermodynamic modeling has long been limited by sparse experimental data and composition-only functional forms, restricting predictions for new alloy chemistries.

Core claim

Using formation energies of 14-element FCC alloys from a universal MLIP, the hybrid ML4RK approach embeds elemental descriptors into the RK framework to predict interaction parameters for otherwise unknown or data-scarce binaries, as shown in leave-one-element-out tests that demonstrate complementary strengths across model classes.

What carries the argument

The ML-augmented Redlich-Kister (ML4RK) model that learns RK interaction coefficients from physically informed elemental descriptors.

If this is right

RK models remain most data-efficient when binary data is available.
Descriptor-based ML enables genuine extrapolation to entirely new elements.
The hybrid unifies both regimes for broader coverage of alloy systems.
This route combines ML transferability with the interpretability and robustness of thermodynamic formalisms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same descriptor embedding could be tested on other thermodynamic models beyond RK polynomials.
If the MLIP accuracy assumption holds, the method could accelerate screening of high-entropy alloys before any experimental binary measurements.
A natural extension would be to incorporate temperature dependence or multi-component interactions using the same descriptor foundation.

Load-bearing premise

Formation energies generated by the universal MLIP are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for training and benchmarking the RK coefficient predictors.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of ML4RK-predicted interaction parameters against measured thermodynamic data for at least one binary system whose elements were held out during training.

read the original abstract

The CALPHAD framework provides a rigorous basis for thermodynamic modeling, yet its ability to predict new chemistries is restricted by limited data and by functional forms that rely heavily on composition alone. Here, we show that machine learning (ML) can address these challenges through a hybrid strategy that learns Redlich-Kister (RK) interaction coefficients directly from physically informed elemental descriptors. Using formation energies of 14-element FCC alloys generated by a universal machine-learning interatomic potential (MLIP), we benchmark three classes of models: (1) composition-based RK and ML models, (2) descriptor-based ML models, and (3) a combined ML-augmented RK approach (ML4RK). Leave-one-element-out tests highlight complementary strengths. RK models, class (1), remain the most data-efficient when binary information is available, while descriptor-based ML models, class (2), enable genuine zero-shot extrapolation to elements absent from the training set. By embedding elemental descriptors into the RK framework, the hybrid approach unifies these regimes and enables prediction of interaction parameters for otherwise unknown or data-scarce binaries, class (3). This work demonstrates a physically grounded and data-efficient route to extend CALPHAD models by combining the transferability of ML with the physical grounding, interpretability, data efficiency, and robustness of thermodynamic formalisms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The hybrid ML4RK approach that folds elemental descriptors into Redlich-Kister coefficients is the actual new piece, but the whole evaluation sits on unvalidated universal MLIP energies treated as ground truth.

read the letter

The paper's core move is to train models that predict Redlich-Kister interaction parameters from elemental descriptors rather than fitting them only to composition data. This lets the hybrid ML4RK model do zero-shot extrapolation to binaries involving elements left out of training, while still keeping the RK functional form. That unification of the data-efficient RK regime with the extrapolative strength of descriptor ML is the part that is not already in the cited prior work.

What works is the clean leave-one-element-out setup across the three model classes on the 14-element FCC set. It shows RK staying strong when some binary data exists and pure descriptor ML handling the no-data case, with the hybrid sitting in between. The framing around extending CALPHAD to data-scarce systems is reasonable.

The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. All training and test formation energies come from a single universal MLIP with no reported comparison to DFT or experiment for these compositions or for the held-out elements. Universal MLIPs can carry composition-dependent biases, especially in multi-principal-element space. If those biases are present, the reported complementarity and the extrapolation gains could be artifacts of the surrogate rather than physical behavior. The abstract also gives no error bars, no quantitative metrics, and no external validation, so the strength of the claims is hard to judge from what is shown.

This is for people building or extending CALPHAD databases who already work with MLIPs or descriptors. It is worth sending to peer review because the modeling idea is concrete and the benchmarking design is straightforward; the main requirement would be adding the missing validation against first-principles or experimental data before the results can be taken as reliable.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that embedding elemental descriptors into the Redlich-Kister (RK) framework yields a hybrid ML4RK model that unifies data-efficient RK fitting (when binaries are known) with zero-shot extrapolation to unseen elements, demonstrated via leave-one-element-out benchmarking on formation energies of 14-element FCC alloys generated by a universal MLIP. Three model classes are compared: composition-based RK/ML, descriptor-based ML, and the hybrid.

Significance. If the surrogate energies are faithful, the hybrid approach would offer a physically interpretable route to extend CALPHAD interaction parameters to data-scarce or unknown binaries while retaining the formalism's robustness. The leave-one-element-out design directly tests transferability, which is a genuine strength for the claimed unification of regimes.

major comments (1)

[Abstract / benchmarking description] Abstract and benchmarking description: all training, validation, and test data are generated from a single universal MLIP and treated as ground truth, yet no section quantifies MLIP error against DFT or experiment for the 14-element FCC set or for out-of-distribution compositions. Because the reported complementarity between RK, pure ML, and ML4RK (and the extrapolation advantage) rests entirely on these surrogate values, any composition-dependent bias in the MLIP would render the benchmarking results non-physical.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states that RK models are 'most data-efficient when binary information is available' but supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, or tables comparing RMSE or parameter counts across the three classes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comment on our benchmarking approach. We respond to the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / benchmarking description] Abstract and benchmarking description: all training, validation, and test data are generated from a single universal MLIP and treated as ground truth, yet no section quantifies MLIP error against DFT or experiment for the 14-element FCC set or for out-of-distribution compositions. Because the reported complementarity between RK, pure ML, and ML4RK (and the extrapolation advantage) rests entirely on these surrogate values, any composition-dependent bias in the MLIP would render the benchmarking results non-physical.

Authors: We agree that the study relies exclusively on formation energies generated by a single universal MLIP, treated as ground truth for benchmarking purposes. This choice was deliberate to enable a large, internally consistent dataset across 14 elements, which supports the leave-one-element-out protocol necessary to evaluate zero-shot extrapolation to unseen elements. We acknowledge that the absence of direct quantification of MLIP errors versus DFT or experiment for the specific 14-element FCC set (including out-of-distribution compositions) means that any composition-dependent biases in the surrogate could influence the observed complementarity and extrapolation performance, rendering the results relative rather than absolute. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section summarizing the published validation metrics of the universal MLIP against DFT for relevant alloy systems, and we will revise both the abstract and the benchmarking description to explicitly note that all comparisons are performed within this surrogate landscape. We will also add a limitations subsection discussing the implications of potential MLIP biases for physical transferability. These textual revisions directly address the concern while preserving the demonstration of the hybrid ML4RK framework. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation uses independent MLIP data as input

full rationale

The paper generates formation energies via a universal MLIP and uses them as training data for RK coefficient predictors and descriptor-based models. No equations or claims in the abstract or described method reduce to fitted values by construction, nor do any self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear load-bearing. The hybrid ML4RK approach and leave-one-element-out tests operate on this external surrogate dataset without the outputs being definitionally equivalent to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of the Redlich-Kister polynomial form and the representativeness of MLIP-generated formation energies; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The Redlich-Kister expansion provides a sufficient functional form for excess free energy in FCC solid solutions.
Invoked as the modeling basis for all three classes of models.
domain assumption Elemental descriptors capture the physical factors that determine binary interaction coefficients.
Required for the descriptor-based and hybrid models to generalize.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5781 in / 1284 out tokens · 21531 ms · 2026-06-28T16:51:50.040057+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Calphad82, 102580 (2023)

Liu, Z.-K.: Thermodynamics and its prediction and calphad modeling: Review, state of the art, and perspectives. Calphad82, 102580 (2023)

2023
[2]

Jom49, 14–19 (1997)

Kattner, U.R.: The thermodynamic modeling of multicomponent phase equilibria. Jom49, 14–19 (1997)

1997
[3]

Calphad26(2), 273–312 (2002)

Andersson, J.-O., Helander, T., H¨ oglund, L., Shi, P., Sundman, B.: Thermo-calc & dictra, computational tools for materials science. Calphad26(2), 273–312 (2002)

2002
[4]

Calphad 26(2), 175–188 (2002)

Chen, S.-L., Daniel, S., Zhang, F., Chang, Y., Yan, X.-Y., Xie, F.-Y., Schmid- Fetzer, R., Oates, W.: The pandat software package and its applications. Calphad 26(2), 175–188 (2002)

2002
[5]

Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation4(1), 1–15 (2015)

Sundman, B., Kattner, U.R., Palumbo, M., Fries, S.G.: Opencalphad-a free ther- modynamic software. Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation4(1), 1–15 (2015)

2015
[6]

Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports146, 100644 (2021)

Akrami, S., Edalati, P., Fuji, M., Edalati, K.: High-entropy ceramics: Review of principles, production and applications. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports146, 100644 (2021)

2021
[7]

Materials & design202, 109532 (2021)

Zeng, Y., Man, M., Bai, K., Zhang, Y.-W.: Revealing high-fidelity phase selection rules for high entropy alloys: A combined calphad and machine learning study. Materials & design202, 109532 (2021)

2021
[8]

Scripta Materialia249, 116180 (2024)

Sulley, G.A., Raush, J., Montemore, M.M., Hamm, J.: Accelerating high-entropy alloy discovery: efficient exploration via active learning. Scripta Materialia249, 116180 (2024)

2024
[9]

Journal of Alloys and Compounds960, 170543 (2023)

Bansal, A., Kumar, P., Yadav, S., Hariharan, V., MR, R., Phanikumar, G.: Accel- erated design of high entropy alloys by integrating high throughput calculation and machine learning. Journal of Alloys and Compounds960, 170543 (2023)

2023
[10]

Acta Materialia198, 178–222 (2020) 21

Kaufmann, K., Vecchio, K.S.: Searching for high entropy alloys: A machine learning approach. Acta Materialia198, 178–222 (2020) 21

2020
[11]

Journal of Materials Research and Technology26, 1341–1374 (2023)

Jiang, D., Xie, L., Wang, L.: Current application status of multi-scale simulation and machine learning in research on high-entropy alloys. Journal of Materials Research and Technology26, 1341–1374 (2023)

2023
[12]

Journal of Materials Research and Technology30, 5381–5393 (2024)

Zhang, W., Tang, Y., Gao, J., Zhang, L., Ding, J., Xia, X.: Determination of hardness and young’s modulus in fcc cu–ni–sn–al alloys via high-throughput experiments, calphad approach and machine learning. Journal of Materials Research and Technology30, 5381–5393 (2024)

2024
[13]

Materials Today Communications30, 103172 (2022)

Liu, F., Xiao, X., Huang, L., Tan, L., Liu, Y.: Design of nicocral eutectic high entropy alloys by combining machine learning with calphad method. Materials Today Communications30, 103172 (2022)

2022
[14]

npj Computational Materials6(1), 50 (2020)

Pei, Z., Yin, J., Hawk, J.A., Alman, D.E., Gao, M.C.: Machine-learning informed prediction of high-entropy solid solution formation: Beyond the hume-rothery rules. npj Computational Materials6(1), 50 (2020)

2020
[15]

npj Computational Materials9(1), 68 (2023)

Vazquez, G., Chakravarty, S., Gurrola, R., Arr´ oyave, R.: A deep neural network regressor for phase constitution estimation in the high entropy alloy system Al- Co-Cr-Fe-Mn-Nb-Ni. npj Computational Materials9(1), 68 (2023)

2023
[16]

npj Computational Materials10(1), 172 (2024)

Liu, S., Bocklund, B., Diffenderfer, J., Chaganti, S., Kailkhura, B., McCall, S.K., Gallagher, B., Perron, A., McKeown, J.T.: A comparative study of predicting high entropy alloy phase fractions with traditional machine learning and deep neural networks. npj Computational Materials10(1), 172 (2024)

2024
[17]

npj Computational Materials10(1), 274 (2024)

Zhu, L.-F., K¨ ormann, F., Chen, Q., Selleby, M., Neugebauer, J., Grabowski, B.: Accelerating ab initio melting property calculations with machine learning: appli- cation to the high entropy alloy tavcrw. npj Computational Materials10(1), 274 (2024)

2024
[18]

Scientific Reports9(1), 15501 (2019)

Qi, J., Cheung, A.M., Poon, S.J.: High entropy alloys mined from binary phase diagrams. Scientific Reports9(1), 15501 (2019)

2019
[19]

MRS Bulletin47(2), 158–167 (2022)

Zhang, C., Yang, Y.: The calphad approach for heas: Challenges and opportuni- ties. MRS Bulletin47(2), 158–167 (2022)

2022
[20]

Calphad15(4), 317–425 (1991)

Dinsdale, A.T.: Sgte data for pure elements. Calphad15(4), 317–425 (1991)

1991
[21]

Computational Materials Science258, 113970 (2025)

Shen, C.: The synergy of machine learning and calphad: Revitalizing traditional approaches. Computational Materials Science258, 113970 (2025)

2025
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04283 (2023)

Hong, Q.-J.: Deep learning for calphad modeling: universal parameter learning solely based on chemical formula. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04283 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[23]

arXiv 22 preprint arXiv:2003.06505 (2020)

Erickson, N., Mueller, J., Shirkov, A., Zhang, H., Larroy, P., Li, M., Smola, A.: Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv 22 preprint arXiv:2003.06505 (2020)

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[24]

npj Computational Materials2(1), 1–7 (2016)

Ward, L., Agrawal, A., Choudhary, A., Wolverton, C.: A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials. npj Computational Materials2(1), 1–7 (2016)

2016
[25]

Computational Materials Science152, 60–69 (2018)

Ward, L., Dunn, A., Faghaninia, A., Zimmermann, N.E., Bajaj, S., Wang, Q., Montoya, J., Chen, J., Bystrom, K., Dylla, M.,et al.: Matminer: An open source toolkit for materials data mining. Computational Materials Science152, 60–69 (2018)

2018
[26]

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29(27), 273002 (2017)

Larsen, A.H., Mortensen, J.J., Blomqvist, J., Castelli, I.E., Christensen, R., Du lak, M., Friis, J., Groves, M.N., Hammer, B., Hargus, C.,et al.: The atomic simulation environment—a python library for working with atoms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29(27), 273002 (2017)

2017
[27]

Ng, K.W., Tian, G.-L., Tang, M.-L.: Dirichlet and related distributions: Theory, methods and applications (2011)

2011
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

Yang, H., Hu, C., Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Shi, Y., Li, J., Li, G., Chen, Z., Chen, S., Zeni, C., et al.: Mattersim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[29]

Journal of British Surgery105(10), 1348–1348 (2018)

Ranstam, J., Cook, J.A.: Lasso regression. Journal of British Surgery105(10), 1348–1348 (2018)

2018
[30]

the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V.,et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

2011
[31]

Thermochimica acta129(1), 71–75 (1988)

Hillert, M.: Partial gibbs energies from redlich-kister polynomials. Thermochimica acta129(1), 71–75 (1988)

1988
[32]

Computational Materials Science68, 314–319 (2013) 23

Ong, S.P., Richards, W.D., Jain, A., Hautier, G., Kocher, M., Cholia, S., Gunter, D., Chevrier, V.L., Persson, K.A., Ceder, G.: Python materials genomics (pymat- gen): A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis. Computational Materials Science68, 314–319 (2013) 23

2013

[1] [1]

Calphad82, 102580 (2023)

Liu, Z.-K.: Thermodynamics and its prediction and calphad modeling: Review, state of the art, and perspectives. Calphad82, 102580 (2023)

2023

[2] [2]

Jom49, 14–19 (1997)

Kattner, U.R.: The thermodynamic modeling of multicomponent phase equilibria. Jom49, 14–19 (1997)

1997

[3] [3]

Calphad26(2), 273–312 (2002)

Andersson, J.-O., Helander, T., H¨ oglund, L., Shi, P., Sundman, B.: Thermo-calc & dictra, computational tools for materials science. Calphad26(2), 273–312 (2002)

2002

[4] [4]

Calphad 26(2), 175–188 (2002)

Chen, S.-L., Daniel, S., Zhang, F., Chang, Y., Yan, X.-Y., Xie, F.-Y., Schmid- Fetzer, R., Oates, W.: The pandat software package and its applications. Calphad 26(2), 175–188 (2002)

2002

[5] [5]

Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation4(1), 1–15 (2015)

Sundman, B., Kattner, U.R., Palumbo, M., Fries, S.G.: Opencalphad-a free ther- modynamic software. Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation4(1), 1–15 (2015)

2015

[6] [6]

Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports146, 100644 (2021)

Akrami, S., Edalati, P., Fuji, M., Edalati, K.: High-entropy ceramics: Review of principles, production and applications. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports146, 100644 (2021)

2021

[7] [7]

Materials & design202, 109532 (2021)

Zeng, Y., Man, M., Bai, K., Zhang, Y.-W.: Revealing high-fidelity phase selection rules for high entropy alloys: A combined calphad and machine learning study. Materials & design202, 109532 (2021)

2021

[8] [8]

Scripta Materialia249, 116180 (2024)

Sulley, G.A., Raush, J., Montemore, M.M., Hamm, J.: Accelerating high-entropy alloy discovery: efficient exploration via active learning. Scripta Materialia249, 116180 (2024)

2024

[9] [9]

Journal of Alloys and Compounds960, 170543 (2023)

Bansal, A., Kumar, P., Yadav, S., Hariharan, V., MR, R., Phanikumar, G.: Accel- erated design of high entropy alloys by integrating high throughput calculation and machine learning. Journal of Alloys and Compounds960, 170543 (2023)

2023

[10] [10]

Acta Materialia198, 178–222 (2020) 21

Kaufmann, K., Vecchio, K.S.: Searching for high entropy alloys: A machine learning approach. Acta Materialia198, 178–222 (2020) 21

2020

[11] [11]

Journal of Materials Research and Technology26, 1341–1374 (2023)

Jiang, D., Xie, L., Wang, L.: Current application status of multi-scale simulation and machine learning in research on high-entropy alloys. Journal of Materials Research and Technology26, 1341–1374 (2023)

2023

[12] [12]

Journal of Materials Research and Technology30, 5381–5393 (2024)

Zhang, W., Tang, Y., Gao, J., Zhang, L., Ding, J., Xia, X.: Determination of hardness and young’s modulus in fcc cu–ni–sn–al alloys via high-throughput experiments, calphad approach and machine learning. Journal of Materials Research and Technology30, 5381–5393 (2024)

2024

[13] [13]

Materials Today Communications30, 103172 (2022)

Liu, F., Xiao, X., Huang, L., Tan, L., Liu, Y.: Design of nicocral eutectic high entropy alloys by combining machine learning with calphad method. Materials Today Communications30, 103172 (2022)

2022

[14] [14]

npj Computational Materials6(1), 50 (2020)

Pei, Z., Yin, J., Hawk, J.A., Alman, D.E., Gao, M.C.: Machine-learning informed prediction of high-entropy solid solution formation: Beyond the hume-rothery rules. npj Computational Materials6(1), 50 (2020)

2020

[15] [15]

npj Computational Materials9(1), 68 (2023)

Vazquez, G., Chakravarty, S., Gurrola, R., Arr´ oyave, R.: A deep neural network regressor for phase constitution estimation in the high entropy alloy system Al- Co-Cr-Fe-Mn-Nb-Ni. npj Computational Materials9(1), 68 (2023)

2023

[16] [16]

npj Computational Materials10(1), 172 (2024)

Liu, S., Bocklund, B., Diffenderfer, J., Chaganti, S., Kailkhura, B., McCall, S.K., Gallagher, B., Perron, A., McKeown, J.T.: A comparative study of predicting high entropy alloy phase fractions with traditional machine learning and deep neural networks. npj Computational Materials10(1), 172 (2024)

2024

[17] [17]

npj Computational Materials10(1), 274 (2024)

Zhu, L.-F., K¨ ormann, F., Chen, Q., Selleby, M., Neugebauer, J., Grabowski, B.: Accelerating ab initio melting property calculations with machine learning: appli- cation to the high entropy alloy tavcrw. npj Computational Materials10(1), 274 (2024)

2024

[18] [18]

Scientific Reports9(1), 15501 (2019)

Qi, J., Cheung, A.M., Poon, S.J.: High entropy alloys mined from binary phase diagrams. Scientific Reports9(1), 15501 (2019)

2019

[19] [19]

MRS Bulletin47(2), 158–167 (2022)

Zhang, C., Yang, Y.: The calphad approach for heas: Challenges and opportuni- ties. MRS Bulletin47(2), 158–167 (2022)

2022

[20] [20]

Calphad15(4), 317–425 (1991)

Dinsdale, A.T.: Sgte data for pure elements. Calphad15(4), 317–425 (1991)

1991

[21] [21]

Computational Materials Science258, 113970 (2025)

Shen, C.: The synergy of machine learning and calphad: Revitalizing traditional approaches. Computational Materials Science258, 113970 (2025)

2025

[22] [22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04283 (2023)

Hong, Q.-J.: Deep learning for calphad modeling: universal parameter learning solely based on chemical formula. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04283 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[23] [23]

arXiv 22 preprint arXiv:2003.06505 (2020)

Erickson, N., Mueller, J., Shirkov, A., Zhang, H., Larroy, P., Li, M., Smola, A.: Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv 22 preprint arXiv:2003.06505 (2020)

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

[24] [24]

npj Computational Materials2(1), 1–7 (2016)

Ward, L., Agrawal, A., Choudhary, A., Wolverton, C.: A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials. npj Computational Materials2(1), 1–7 (2016)

2016

[25] [25]

Computational Materials Science152, 60–69 (2018)

Ward, L., Dunn, A., Faghaninia, A., Zimmermann, N.E., Bajaj, S., Wang, Q., Montoya, J., Chen, J., Bystrom, K., Dylla, M.,et al.: Matminer: An open source toolkit for materials data mining. Computational Materials Science152, 60–69 (2018)

2018

[26] [26]

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29(27), 273002 (2017)

Larsen, A.H., Mortensen, J.J., Blomqvist, J., Castelli, I.E., Christensen, R., Du lak, M., Friis, J., Groves, M.N., Hammer, B., Hargus, C.,et al.: The atomic simulation environment—a python library for working with atoms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29(27), 273002 (2017)

2017

[27] [27]

Ng, K.W., Tian, G.-L., Tang, M.-L.: Dirichlet and related distributions: Theory, methods and applications (2011)

2011

[28] [28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

Yang, H., Hu, C., Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Shi, Y., Li, J., Li, G., Chen, Z., Chen, S., Zeni, C., et al.: Mattersim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[29] [29]

Journal of British Surgery105(10), 1348–1348 (2018)

Ranstam, J., Cook, J.A.: Lasso regression. Journal of British Surgery105(10), 1348–1348 (2018)

2018

[30] [30]

the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V.,et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

2011

[31] [31]

Thermochimica acta129(1), 71–75 (1988)

Hillert, M.: Partial gibbs energies from redlich-kister polynomials. Thermochimica acta129(1), 71–75 (1988)

1988

[32] [32]

Computational Materials Science68, 314–319 (2013) 23

Ong, S.P., Richards, W.D., Jain, A., Hautier, G., Kocher, M., Cholia, S., Gunter, D., Chevrier, V.L., Persson, K.A., Ceder, G.: Python materials genomics (pymat- gen): A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis. Computational Materials Science68, 314–319 (2013) 23

2013