Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 204 references

Materials behavior is a probabilistic ensemble of competing unit mechanisms, not a deterministic map from structure to properties.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 10:32 UTC pith:27OMDK7U

load-bearing objection Solid program statement that reframes fatigue as mechanism competition; the math is standard, the hard identification step is openly unsolved, and it deserves referee time as a perspective. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27163 v1 pith:27OMDK7U submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Materials Behavior as Mechanism Ensembles: A Probabilistic Framework for Emergent Behaviors

Brad L. Boyce , Mitchell A. Wood , Krishna Garikipati , Andreas E. Robertson , Jeffrey Larson , Ishan Srivastava , Bert Debusschere , Saaketh Desai
show 11 more authors
Prasad Iyer Pieterjan Robbe Mathew Cherukara Todd Munson Ming Du Trupti Mohanty David J. Gardner Laurent Capolungo Benjamin A. Jasperson Jingye Tan R\'emi Dingreville
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords FatigueMultiscale materialsProbabilistic modelingMaterials informaticsMultimodal data fusionMechanism ensemblesCrack self-healing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This perspective argues that important materials phenomena emerge from the conditional activation of many unit mechanisms rather than from any single irreversible process. Fatigue crack growth is the running example: classical Paris-law damage tolerance treats advance as strictly forward, yet experiments show cracks can arrest and partially heal when local microstructure and loading tip the balance among competing processes. The authors propose a portable probabilistic framework that links mechanism activation, local state evolution, and macroscopic observables through coupled conditional distributions whose dependencies are learned from data, not prescribed in advance. Multiscale simulation, multimodal characterization, and machine learning are cast as ways to populate and navigate that landscape so that desired outcomes—such as self-healing—can be made more probable by design. The same logic is offered for other physical and chemical systems in which emergent behavior reflects mechanism competition under changing conditions.

Core claim

Complex material phenomena are best understood and designed as conditional probabilistic superpositions of identifiable unit mechanisms. Emergent outcomes such as fatigue crack growth, arrest, and self-healing are set by joint distributions over co-active mechanisms, state transitions, and macroscopic observables, so damage tolerance becomes an inference and optimization problem over mechanism competition rather than a deterministic irreversible process.

What carries the argument

Three coupled conditional distributions—P({Oi}|St,M) for co-active mechanism sets, P(St+Δt|{Oi},St,M) for state transitions, and P(E|S0:t̃,M0:t̃) for macroscopic observables—together with coarse-graining operators that label unit mechanisms from lower-scale trajectories. They carry the argument by making the topology of mechanism dependencies a scientific unknown to be inferred, not a constitutive assumption.

Load-bearing premise

That unit mechanisms can be cleanly identified and labeled from lower-scale data, and that how they depend on each other can be learned from simulations and partial experiments well enough to predict and steer outcomes.

What would settle it

Fuse multiscale simulations with multimodal fatigue experiments, learn the conditional probability of crack reversal, then test whether that landscape prospectively predicts when cracks heal or arrest under withheld microstructures and loads; failure to forecast those tails outside the training set would refute the central claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Damage tolerance can be reframed as Bayesian optimization of the probability of crack arrest or self-healing, not only of Paris-law growth rates.
  • Multiscale simulation and multimodal characterization become complementary inputs to one shared probability landscape rather than separate validation exercises.
  • The same conditional-probability logic ports to radiation damage, heterogeneous catalysis, and the subcritical transition to turbulence.
  • Exceptional properties can be engineered by reshaping mechanism probabilities through grain-size gradients, boundary character, and residual stress.
  • Community repositories of mechanism-labeled conditional probabilities become as central as conventional structure–property databases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If coarse-graining can be automated, scatter once dismissed as measurement noise becomes primary signal about the tails of mechanism competition.
  • Closed-loop agentic simulation–experiment cycles would make materials design look more like adaptive control of a moving probability landscape than one-shot optimization.
  • Treating mechanism-dependency topology as latent rather than prescribed would force reinterpretation of phenomenological constants (Paris C and m, rate-theory coefficients) as averages over static mechanism mixes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This perspective proposes that complex materials behavior, especially fatigue crack growth, arrest, and self-healing, be treated as conditional probabilistic ensembles of identifiable unit mechanisms rather than as deterministic structure–property maps or irreversible Paris-law advance. It introduces three coupled conditionals—P({Oi}|St,M), P(St+Δt|{Oi},St,M), and P(E|S0:t̃,M0:t̃)—links activation rates to transition-state theory and Poisson event counts, and shows that marginalization (Eq. 2) recovers a probabilistic generalization of the Paris law in which C and m are calibration averages. A pedagogical crack-tip example (O1–O3), a hierarchical simulation “mechanism atlas,” multimodal latent-space fusion, and Bayesian/closed-loop elicitation of rare outcomes (e.g. P(Δa<0)) are outlined, with Barr et al. nanoscale self-healing as the empirical anchor and brief extensions to radiation damage, catalysis, and subcritical turbulence.

Significance. If the program can be executed, it would reframe damage tolerance as inference and design over mechanism competition, giving a principled place for multiscale simulation, multimodal characterization, and ML inside a single conditional-probability language, and offering a portable template for other systems dominated by competing stochastic pathways. Strengths include an internally consistent formal skeleton (three conditionals, TST rates, Eq. 2 marginalization), explicit demotion of Paris constants to averages rather than circular refits, honest listing of open assumptions (identifiability, automated coarse-graining, continual updating), real experimental anchors (Barr et al.), and public code/data for the illustrative figures. As a perspective it does not claim new verified mechanics; its value is architectural and programmatic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–3.2, §6, §8] §3.1–3.2 and the control claims in §6: the load-bearing entry condition is that coarse-graining operators ci can extract labeled, dependency-preserving mechanism occurrences from lower-scale trajectories when couplings are non-local (the pile-up/solute regime flagged in the Introduction). The pedagogical example defines O1–O3 a priori rather than recovering them, and §8 correctly lists automated coarse-graining as open. The manuscript should state more sharply that every later stage (atlas, fusion, Bayesian elicitation of P(Δa<0|{Oi},S,M)) is conditional on operational ci success, and sketch at least one concrete falsifiable test (e.g. recovery of known reverse pathways from labeled MD/TEM streams) so the design ambition is not read as already actionable.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (1)–(2)] Eq. (1)–(2) and the Poisson/weak-dependence approximation: the text notes that event counts may be treated as Poisson “when dependencies are weak over Δt,” yet the rare reverse outcomes (arrest, self-healing) that motivate the framework are precisely those expected when state-mediated couplings are strong. Please clarify how the joint P({Oi}|St,M) and the super-basin picture are to be estimated when the Poisson factorization fails, and what that implies for the variance of Δa that is said to encode tail phenomena—otherwise Eq. 2’s practical use for P(Δa<0) remains underspecified.
  3. [Abstract, Highlights, §6] Abstract, Highlights, and §6 present “reframing damage tolerance as inference” and “eliciting” exceptional behavior in language that can be read as near-term capability. The body is clearer that this is forward-looking. Align front matter and §6 with the §1/§8 stance (what may become possible; fidelity for prospective control unproven) so the central claim is not oversold relative to the evidence shipped.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 caption: “(g)-(f) crack regrowth events” appears to be a typo (likely (g)–(h)).
  2. [Nomenclature / §3] Nomenclature lists N both as fatigue cycles and as the index bound on {Oi}N_i=1; a brief disambiguation in the text would help.
  3. [§4.2] §4.2 heading “collective energy energies” is redundant; “collective energy barriers” matches the body.
  4. [§6.2] §6.2: “embedded fro instance” → “for instance”.
  5. [CRediT] CRediT lists “B.S.” among co-authors for writing; no B.S. appears in the author list—please correct.
  6. [Front matter] Graphical abstract is referenced but not described in text; a one-sentence pointer would help readers of the PDF-only version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: a perspective framework that defines conditional distributions and marginal expectations without fitting inputs and relabeling them as predictions.

full rationale

This is a forward-looking perspective, not a closed derivation that forces a numerical claim from its own fitted inputs. The three coupled conditionals P({Oi}|St,M), P(St+Δt|{Oi},St,M), and P(E|S0:t̃,M0:t̃) are postulated structure; Eq. 2 then defines the expected crack increment by marginalizing those distributions—standard probabilistic bookkeeping, not a self-definitional trick that smuggles the target into the premise. Paris-law C and m are explicitly demoted to calibration averages over mechanism/microstructure distributions rather than presented as first-principles outputs. The pedagogical O1–O3 set is labeled as illustrative and a priori, not recovered and then ‘predicted.’ Self-citations (Barr et al. healing observations; authors’ prior ML/fusion/AMD work; the DLIE cycle) supply experimental motivation and tooling context; none is a load-bearing uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives or forces the central claim. Open assumptions (identifiability of ci, continual updating) are stated as open, which is the opposite of circular closure. Feasibility risks around coarse-graining are real but are correctness/operational concerns, not circularity. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central program rests on standard probability and TST scaffolding plus several domain and paper-specific working assumptions needed to treat mechanism dependency topology as learnable and controllable. No numerical free parameters are fitted to establish a main result because no main quantitative result is claimed; the ledger is dominated by modeling axioms and named constructs (mechanism atlas, shared latent space, DLIE cycle) that organize future work.

free parameters (3)
  • Time discretization Δt (cycle or few-cycle step)
    Chosen to be long versus individual events and short versus macroscopic damage; sets Poisson means λi=ṗOi Δt and the state-transition grain of the whole model. Not fitted here but load-bearing for any numerical realization.
  • Attempt frequencies ν0,i and site multiplicities Ni(S)
    Enter the TST rate law (Eq. 1) for each mechanism; must be taken from simulation, theory, or experiment when the atlas is populated. Not determined in this paper.
  • Paris-law C, m (as calibration averages)
    Explicitly described as fits to expectations over mechanism/microstructure distributions during calibration, not fundamental constants; appear when connecting the framework to legacy damage-tolerance practice.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Emergent fatigue outcomes arise from conditional co-activation of scale-relative constituent mechanisms Oi rather than a single irreversible mechanism.
    Stated as the central thesis (Abstract, §1, §2); motivated by Barr et al. and nanocrystalline literature but taken as the organizing premise of the framework.
  • ad hoc to paper Joint mechanism activation, state transitions, and macroscopic observables factor as the three conditional distributions in §3.1, with conditional dependencies to be inferred rather than prescribed by constitutive rules.
    Standard probability language applied as the paper’s specific epistemic stance; topology of dependencies is declared a scientific unknown (§3 intro).
  • domain assumption Thermally activated rates ṗOi=ν0,i Ni exp(−ΔGi/kBT) and, when dependencies are weak over Δt, Poisson event counts with mean λi=ṗOi Δt are adequate first approximations.
    Eq. 1 and following text; classical TST/kMC modeling choice, with acknowledgment that strong interactions require super-basin descriptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Global variables M evolve more slowly than local state S; mechanisms are identifiable/labelable; Δt sits between event and macro-damage scales.
    Listed as working assumptions and open community questions in §3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Coarse-graining operators ci map lower-scale trajectories to mechanism occurrences Oi usable in the probabilistic model.
    Introduced in §3.1–3.2; automation of ci is later called a prerequisite still dependent on domain expertise (§8).
  • domain assumption Multimodal experimental signals and heterogeneous simulations can be aligned in a shared latent representation that preserves mechanism identity well enough for quantitative inference of P(Oi|S,M).
    §5 foundation-model fusion premise; necessary for the Discover–Learn half of the program, not demonstrated at fatigue-mechanism resolution here.
  • ad hoc to paper Once P(E|{Oi},S,M) is learned with sufficient fidelity, Bayesian optimization and microstructural engineering can raise probabilities of desired tails (e.g. P(Δa<0)).
    §6 Elicit-stage claim; conditional on successful inference; only schematic level-set and agent demos are shown.
invented entities (3)
  • Mechanism atlas no independent evidence
    purpose: Named structured, uncertainty-quantified dataset of labeled activations, barriers, branching ratios, and state-transition statistics spanning design variables, serving as simulation-side input to fusion.
    §4.4 introduces the atlas as the primary scientific output of the simulation layers; organizational construct rather than a new physical object.
  • Discover–Learn–Interpret–Elicit (DLIE) cycle no independent evidence
    purpose: Reframes classical PSPP workflow as an AI-integrated scientific cycle ending in prescription of conditions for desired emergence.
    Cited to Tsao et al. and used as the paper’s process scaffold (§1.2, §5–6); programmatic framing device.
  • Shared latent space for experiment–simulation fusion no independent evidence
    purpose: Common embedding in which mechanistically equivalent events cluster across TEM/DIC/SHG and MD/DDD/phase-field modalities.
    §5.1; relies on existing foundation-model ideas; not a new particle or force, but a postulated representational layer the inference pipeline needs.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 37996 in / 4217 out tokens · 88298 ms · 2026-07-30T10:32:03.239944+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Materials behavior is often treated as a deterministic mapping from structure to properties, yet many important phenomena emerge from the conditional activation of multiple mechanisms across scales. This is especially evident in fatigue of metals, where crack growth is typically modeled as monotonic and irreversible process, despite evidence that local microstructure, loading history, and competing unit processes can shift the balance among propagation, arrest, and self-healing. Here we present a probabilistic framework that describes materials behavior as an ensemble of constituent mechanisms whose activation, interaction, and evolution determine emergent outcomes. The framework connects mechanism activation, state evolution, and macroscopic observables in a probabilistic way. In the case of fatigue crack propagation, it reframes damage tolerance as an inference problem over mechanism competition and provides a basis for integrating multiscale simulation, multimodal characterization, and machine learning. The same logic extends to other physical and chemical systems suggesting a portable framework for any system in which emergent behavior reflects mechanism competition under changing conditions. The broader ambition of this perspective review is a shift from correlating structure and performance after the fact to identifying, in advance, the conditions that make desired emergent behavior probable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27163 by Andreas E. Robertson, Benjamin A. Jasperson, Bert Debusschere, Brad L. Boyce, David J. Gardner, Ishan Srivastava, Jeffrey Larson, Jingye Tan, Krishna Garikipati, Laurent Capolungo, Mathew Cherukara, Ming Du, Mitchell A. Wood, Pieterjan Robbe, Prasad Iyer, R\'emi Dingreville, Saaketh Desai, Todd Munson, Trupti Mohanty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Crack self healing in nanocrystalline metals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hierarchical decomposition of the constituent processes and structural features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Probabilistic framework for mechanism interaction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hierarchical simulation pipeline for populating the conditional probability land [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multimodal data fusion architecture for inferring the conditional probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Foundation-model prediction of spatiotemporal fracture evolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bayesian level-set estimation as an edge-detection strategy for crack-growth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multi-agent architecture to automate and accelerate molecular dynamics simula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

204 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Risken, Fokker–Planck equation, in: The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer, 1989, pp

    H. Risken, Fokker–Planck equation, in: The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer, 1989, pp. 63–95. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3_4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3_4 1989

  2. [2]

    Jordan, D

    R. Jordan, D. Kinderlehrer, F. Otto, The variational formulation of the Fokker–Planck equation, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 29 (1998) 1–17. doi:10.1137/S0036141096303359

    doi:10.1137/s0036141096303359 1998

  3. [3]

    Andersen, C

    M. Andersen, C. Panosetti, K. Reuter, A practical guide to surface kinetic Monte Carlo simula- tions, Frontiers in Chemistry 7 (2019) 202. doi:10.3389/fchem.2019.00202

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Z. Shen, R. Wagoner, W. Clark, Dislocation and grain boundary interactions in metals, Acta Metallurgica 36 (1988) 3231–3242. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(88)90058-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-6160(88)90058-2 1988

  5. [5]

    Suhane, D

    A. Suhane, D. Scheiber, M. Popov, V. Razumovskiy, L. Romaner, M. Militzer, Solute drag assessment of grain boundary migration in Au, Acta Materialia 224 (2022) 117473. doi:10.1016/ j.actamat.2021.117473

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Dingreville, D

    R. Dingreville, D. Aksoy, D. Spearot, A primer on selecting grain boundary sets for comparison of interfacial fracture properties in molecular dynamics simulations, Scientific Reports 7 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Pineau, D

    A. Pineau, D. McDowell, E. Busso, S. Antolovich, Failure of metals II: Fatigue, Acta Materialia 107 (2016) 484–507. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.05.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.05.050 2016

  8. [8]

    D. McDowell, Nonequilibrium statistical thermodynamics of thermally activated dislocation en- sembles: part 1: subsystem reactions under constrained local equilibrium, Journal of Materials Science 59 (2024) 5093–5125. doi:10.1007/s10853-023-09165-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10853-023-09165-0 2024

  9. [9]

    D. McDowell, Nonequilibrium statistical thermodynamics of thermally activated dislocation en- sembles: part 2—ensemble evolution toward correlation of enthalpy barriers, Journal of Materials Science 59 (2024) 5126–5160. doi:10.1007/s10853-023-09142-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10853-023-09142-7 2024

  10. [10]

    McDowell, Z.-K

    D. McDowell, Z.-K. Liu, Hierarchical nonequilibrium thermodynamics of thermally activated dislocation plasticity of metals and alloys, International Journal of Plasticity (2025) 104303. doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2025.104303. 28

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Brailsford, R

    A. Brailsford, R. Bullough, The rate theory of swelling due to void growth in irradiated metals, Journal of Nuclear Materials 44 (1972) 121–135. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(72)90091-8

    doi:10.1016/0022-3115(72)90091-8 1972

  12. [12]

    Mansur, Void swelling in metals and alloys under irradiation: an assessment of the theory, Nuclear Technology 40 (1978) 5–34

    L. Mansur, Void swelling in metals and alloys under irradiation: an assessment of the theory, Nuclear Technology 40 (1978) 5–34. doi:10.13182/NT78-2

    work page doi:10.13182/nt78-2 1978

  13. [13]

    Johnson, Reaction kinetics in process of nucleation and growth, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 135 (1939) 416–458

    W. Johnson, Reaction kinetics in process of nucleation and growth, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 135 (1939) 416–458

    1939

  14. [14]

    Avrami, Kinetics of phase change

    M. Avrami, Kinetics of phase change. I: General theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics 7 (1939) 1103–1112. doi:10.1063/1.1750380

    doi:10.1063/1.1750380 1939

  15. [15]

    Kolmogorov, On the statistical theory of metal crystallization, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriya Matematicheskaya (1937) 335–360

    A. Kolmogorov, On the statistical theory of metal crystallization, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriya Matematicheskaya (1937) 335–360

    1937

  16. [16]

    Suresh, Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1998

    S. Suresh, Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1998. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511806575

    1998

  17. [17]

    Mettu, V

    S. Mettu, V. Shivakumar, J. Beeck, F. Yeh, L. Williams, R. Forman, J. McMahon, J. Newman, NASGRO 3.0: A software for analyzing aging aircraft, in: The Second Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging Aircraft, Pt. 2, 1999

    1999

  18. [18]

    McClung, M

    R. McClung, M. Enright, Y.-D. Lee, J. Moody, J. Sobotka, V. Bhamidipati, S. Fitch, B. Guseman, J. Dubk, N. Howard, et al., Probabilistic integrity and risk assessment of turbine engines (2018). URL:https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/57705

    2018

  19. [19]

    C. Barr, T. Duong, D. Bufford, Z. Milne, A. Molkeri, N. Heckman, D. Adams, A. Srivastava, K. Hattar, M. Demkowicz, et al., Autonomous healing of fatigue cracks via cold welding, Nature 620 (2023) 552–556. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06223-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06223-0 2023

  20. [20]

    Bufford, D

    D. Bufford, D. Stauffer, W. Mook, S. Syed Asif, B. Boyce, K. Hattar, High cycle fatigue in the transmissionelectronmicroscope, NanoLetters16(2016)4946–4953.doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett. 6b01560

    doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett 2016

  21. [21]

    Pierron, C

    O. Pierron, C. Abnet, C. Muhlstein, Methodology for low- and high-cycle fatigue characterization with kHz-frequency resonators, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 128 (2006) 140–150. doi:10. 1016/j.sna.2006.01.013

    2006

  22. [22]

    Montes de Oca Zapiain, M

    D. Montes de Oca Zapiain, M. Wood, N. Lubbers, C. Pereyra, A. Thompson, D. Perez, Train- ing data selection for accuracy and transferability of interatomic potentials, npj Computational Materials 8 (2022) 189. doi:10.1038/s41524-022-00872-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-022-00872-x 2022

  23. [23]

    Galvelis, A

    R. Galvelis, A. Varela-Rial, S. Doerr, R. Fino, P. Eastman, T. Markland, J. Chodera, G. De Fab- ritiis, NNP/MM: Accelerating molecular dynamics simulations with machine learning potentials and molecular mechanics, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 63 (2023) 5701–5708. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00773

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00773 2023

  24. [24]

    McCabe, B

    M. McCabe, B. Régaldo-Saint Blancard, L. Parker, R. Ohana, M. Cranmer, A. Bietti, M. Eick- enberg, S. Golkar, G. Krawezik, F. Lanusse, M. Pettee, T. Tesileanu, K. Cho, S. Ho, Multiple physics pretraining for physical surrogate models, arXiv:2310.02994 (2023). doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2310.02994

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02994 2023

  25. [25]

    J. Tsao, R. Abbott, D. Crowder, S. Desai, R. Dingreville, J. Fowler, A. Garland, P. Iyer, J. Mur- dock, S. Steinmetz, et al., AI for technoscientific discovery: A human-inspired architecture, Journal of Creativity 34 (2024) 100077. doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2024.100077. 29

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Dingreville, R

    R. Dingreville, R. Karnesky, G. Puel, J.-H. Schmitt, Review of the synergies between computa- tional modeling and experimental characterization of materials across length scales, Journal of Materials Science 51 (2016) 1178–1203. doi:10.1007/s10853-015-9551-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10853-015-9551-6 2016

  27. [27]

    Polák, V

    J. Polák, V. Mazánová, M. Heczko, I. Kuběna, J. Man, Profiles of persistent slip markings and internal structure of underlying persistent slip bands, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures 40 (2017) 1101–1116. doi:10.1111/ffe.12567

    work page doi:10.1111/ffe.12567 2017

  28. [28]

    Chowdhury, H

    P. Chowdhury, H. Sehitoglu, Mechanisms of fatigue crack growth—a critical digest of theoretical developments, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures 39 (2016) 652–674. doi:10.1111/ffe.12392

    work page doi:10.1111/ffe.12392 2016

  29. [29]

    Mughrabi, H

    H. Mughrabi, H. Höppel, Cyclic deformation and fatigue properties of very fine-grained metals and alloys, International Journal of Fatigue 32 (2010) 1413–1427. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue. 2009.10.007

    doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue 2010

  30. [30]

    Padilla, B

    H. Padilla, B. Boyce, A review of fatigue behavior in nanocrystalline metals, Experimental Mechanics 50 (2010) 5–23. doi:10.1007/s11340-009-9301-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11340-009-9301-2 2010

  31. [31]

    Furnish, D

    T. Furnish, D. Bufford, F. Ren, A. Mehta, K. Hattar, B. Boyce, Evidence that abnormal grain growth precedes fatigue crack initiation in nanocrystalline Ni-Fe, Scripta Materialia 143 (2018) 15–19. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.08.047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.08.047 2018

  32. [32]

    E. Chen, P. Hamilton, B. Boyce, R. Dingreville, The heterogeneous nature of mechanically accelerated grain growth, Journal of Materials Science 57 (2022) 21743–21755. doi:10.1007/ s10853-022-07974-3

    2022

  33. [33]

    C. Qiu, M. Punke, Y. Tian, Y. Han, S. Wang, Y. Su, M. Salvalaglio, X. Pan, D. Srolovitz, J. Han, Grain boundaries are Brownian ratchets, Science 385 (2024) 980–985. doi:10.1126/science. adp1516

    doi:10.1126/science 2024

  34. [34]

    L. Lu, Q. Pan, K. Hattar, B. Boyce, Fatigue and fracture of nanostructured metals and alloys, MRS Bulletin 46 (2021) 258–264. doi:10.1557/s43577-021-00054-y

    work page doi:10.1557/s43577-021-00054-y 2021

  35. [35]

    Farkas, M

    D. Farkas, M. Willemann, B. Hyde, Atomistic mechanisms of fatigue in nanocrystalline metals, Physical Review Letters 94 (2005) 165502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.165502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.165502 2005

  36. [36]

    M. Jain, D. Vizoso, A. Hinojos, A. Barrios, K. Dorman, Y. Yang, D. Adams, K. Hattar, D. Medlin, O. Pierron, R. Dingreville, B. Boyce, Putting fatigue to rest via solute-pinned boundaries, Mate- rials Today 93 (2026) 103187. doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2026.103187

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Pineau, A

    A. Pineau, A. Benzerga, T. Pardoen, Failure of metals III: Fracture and fatigue of nanostructured metallic materials, Acta Materialia 107 (2016) 508–544. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.07.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.07.049 2016

  38. [38]

    Payam, O

    A. Payam, O. Payton, L. Picco, S. Moore, T. Martin, A. Warren, M. Mostafavi, D. Knowles, Development of fatigue testing system for in-situ observation of stainless steel 316 by HS-AFM & SEM, International Journal of Fatigue 127 (2019) 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.05.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.05.015 2019

  39. [39]

    Stinville, M

    J. Stinville, M. Charpagne, A. Cervellon, S. Hemery, F. Wang, P. Callahan, V. Valle, T. Pollock, On the origins of fatigue strength in crystalline metallic materials, Science 377 (2022) 1065–1071. doi:10.1126/science.abn0392

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abn0392 2022

  40. [40]

    Yokota, J

    H. Yokota, J. Kaneshiro, Y. Uesu, Optical second harmonic generation microscopy as a tool of materialdiagnosis, PhysicsResearchInternational2012(2012)704634.doi:10.1155/2012/704634. 30

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/704634 2012

  41. [41]

    Shafiei, T

    F. Shafiei, T. Orzali, A. Vert, M.-A. Miri, P. Hung, M. Wong, A. Alù, G. Bersuker, M. Downer, Detection of subsurface, nanometer-scale crystallographic defects by nonlinear light scattering and localization, Advanced Optical Materials 9 (2021) 2002252. doi:10.1002/adom.202002252

    work page doi:10.1002/adom.202002252 2021

  42. [42]

    Hristu, S

    R. Hristu, S. Stanciu, D. Tranca, A. Matei, G. Stanciu, Nonlinear optical imaging of defects in cubic silicon carbide epilayers, Scientific Reports 4 (2014) 5258. doi:10.1038/srep05258

    work page doi:10.1038/srep05258 2014

  43. [43]

    Bozhevolnyi, J

    S. Bozhevolnyi, J. Beermann, V. Coello, Direct observation of localized second-harmonic enhancement in random metal nanostructures, Physical Review Letters 90 (2003) 197403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.197403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.197403 2003

  44. [44]

    Prylepa, C

    A. Prylepa, C. Reitböck, M. Cobet, A. Jesacher, X. Jin, R. Adelung, M. Schatzl-Linder, G. Luck- eneder, K.-H. Stellnberger, T. Steck, J. Faderl, T. Stehrer, D. Stifter, Material characterisation with methods of nonlinear optics, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 51 (2018) 043001. doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aa9df4

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aa9df4 2018

  45. [45]

    Rellaford, S

    K. Rellaford, S. Averett, A. Farnsworth, D. Adams, S. Smith, D. Fullwood, J. Patterson, Charac- terization of mechanical deformation in aluminum by optical second harmonic generation, Mea- surement Science and Technology 32 (2021) 075202. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/abe668

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/abe668 2021

  46. [47]

    G. Xu, M. Demkowicz, Healing of nanocracks by disclinations, Physical Review Letters 111 (2013) 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.145501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.145501 2013

  47. [48]

    Chakraborty, A

    A. Chakraborty, A. Kohnert, A. Hunter, L. Capolungo, Role of interfaces on the mechanical response of accumulative roll bonded nanometallic laminates investigated via dislocation dy- namics simulations, Journal of Materials Science: Materials Theory 8 (2024) 3. doi:10.1186/ s41313-024-00054-w

    2024

  48. [49]

    Bieberdorf, M

    N. Bieberdorf, M. Asta, L. Capolungo, Grain boundary effects in high-temperature liquid-metal dealloying: a multi-phase field study, npj Computational Materials 9 (2023) 127. doi:10.1038/ s41524-023-01076-7

    2023

  49. [50]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. Welschinger, M. Hofacker, Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field FE implementations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 83 (2010) 1273–1311. doi:10.1002/nme.2861

    doi:10.1002/nme.2861 2010

  50. [51]

    Miehe, M

    C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, F. Welschinger, A phase field model for rate-independent crack propaga- tion: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199 (2010) 2765–2778. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011

    doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011 2010

  51. [52]

    F. Duda, A. Ciarbonetti, P. Sánchez, A. Huespe, A phase-field/gradient damage model for brittle fracture in elastic–plastic solids, International Journal of Plasticity 65 (2015) 269–296. doi:10. 1016/j.ijplas.2014.09.005

    2015

  52. [53]

    Miehe, S

    C. Miehe, S. Teichtmeister, F. Aldakheel, Phase-field modelling of ductile fracture: a variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory and its micromorphic regularization, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374 (2016) 20150170. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0170. 31

    arXiv 2016

  53. [54]

    Svolos, H

    L. Svolos, H. Mourad, G. Manzini, K. Garikipati, A fourth-order phase-field fracture model: Formulation and numerical solution using a continuous/discontinuous Galerkin method, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 165 (2022) 104910. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2022.104910

    arXiv 2022

  54. [55]

    Svolos, Q.-T

    L. Svolos, Q.-T. Tran, I. Boureima, V. Anghel, K. Garikipati, H. Mourad, A phase-field fracture formulation for generalized standard materials: The interplay between thermome- chanics and damage, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 201 (2025) 106154. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2025.106154

    arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Livingston, S

    E. Livingston, S. Srivastava, J. Holber, H. Mourad, K. Garikipati, Inference of phase field frac- ture models, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids (2025) 106495. doi:10.2139/ssrn. 5668578

    doi:10.2139/ssrn 2025

  56. [57]

    Koller, N

    D. Koller, N. Friedman, Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques, MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  57. [58]

    Kalidindi, A Bayesian framework for materials knowledge systems, MRS Communications 9 (2019) 518–531

    S. Kalidindi, A Bayesian framework for materials knowledge systems, MRS Communications 9 (2019) 518–531. doi:10.1557/mrc.2019.56

    work page doi:10.1557/mrc.2019.56 2019

  58. [59]

    Walker, J

    E. Walker, J. Actor, C. Martinez, N. Trask, Flow-based parameterization for DAG and feature discovery in scientific multimodal data, Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering 10 (2024) 1408649. doi:10.3389/fmech.2024.1408649

    arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    Robertson, A

    A. Robertson, A. Venkatraman, A. Generale, S. Kalidindi, Probabilistic materials informatics, in: Physical Metallurgy, Elsevier, 2026, pp. 2783–2942. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-21710-4.00023-9

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21710-4.00023-9 2026

  60. [61]

    W. Chen, M. Fuge, Beyond the known: Detecting novel feasible domains over an unbounded design space, Journal of Mechanical Design 139 (2017) 111405. doi:10.1115/1.4037306

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4037306 2017

  61. [62]

    Robertson, A

    A. Robertson, A. Generale, C. Kelly, M. Buzzy, S. Kalidindi, MICRO2D: A large, statistically di- verse, heterogeneous microstructure dataset, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation 13 (2024) 120–154. doi:10.1007/s40192-023-00340-4

    doi:10.1007/s40192-023-00340-4 2024

  62. [63]

    Buzzy, A

    M. Buzzy, A. Robertson, P. Chen, S. Kalidindi, PolyMicros: Bootstrapping a foundation model for polycrystalline material structure, arXiv:2506.11055 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.11055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11055 2025

  63. [64]

    Plimpton, D

    S. Plimpton, D. Perez, A. Voter, Parallel algorithms for hyperdynamics and local hyperdynamics, The Journal of Chemical Physics 153 (2020). doi:10.1063/5.0014448

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0014448 2020

  64. [65]

    Zotov, B

    N. Zotov, B. Grabowski, Entropy of kink pair formation on screw dislocations: an accelerated molecular dynamics study, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 30 (2022) 065004. doi:10.1088/1361-651X/ac7ac9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-651x/ac7ac9 2022

  65. [66]

    Kästner, Umbrella sampling, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Sci- ence 1 (2011) 932–942

    J. Kästner, Umbrella sampling, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Sci- ence 1 (2011) 932–942. doi:10.1002/wcms.66

    doi:10.1002/wcms.66 2011

  66. [67]

    Zamora, B

    R. Zamora, B. Uberuaga, D. Perez, A. Voter, The modern temperature-accelerated dynamics approach, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 7 (2016) 87–110. doi:10. 1146/annurev-chembioeng-080615-033608

    2016

  67. [68]

    Voter, M

    A. Voter, M. Sørensen, Accelerating atomistic simulations of defect dynamics: hyperdynamics, parallel replica dynamics, and temperature-accelerated dynamics, MRS Online Proceedings Li- brary 538 (1998) 427–439. doi:10.1557/PROC-538-427. 32

    work page doi:10.1557/proc-538-427 1998

  68. [69]

    D. Shaw, R. Dror, J. Salmon, J. Grossman, K. Mackenzie, J. Bank, C. Young, M. Deneroff, B. Batson, K. Bowers, et al., Millisecond-scale molecular dynamics simulations on Anton, in: ProceedingsoftheConferenceonHighPerformanceComputingNetworking, StorageandAnalysis, 2009, pp. 1–11. doi:10.1145/1654059.1654126

    arXiv 2009

  69. [70]

    Y. Zuo, C. Chen, X. Li, Z. Deng, Y. Chen, J. Behler, G. Csányi, A. Shapeev, A. Thompson, M. Wood, et al., Performance and cost assessment of machine learning interatomic potentials, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 124 (2020) 731–745. doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.9b08723

    doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.9b08723 2020

  70. [71]

    Musil, A

    F. Musil, A. Grisafi, A. Bartók, C. Ortner, G. Csányi, M. Ceriotti, Physics-inspired structural representations for molecules and materials, Chemical Reviews 121 (2021) 9759–9815. doi:10. 1021/acs.chemrev.1c00021

    2021

  71. [72]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113073

    J.Goff, C.Sievers, M.Wood, A.Thompson, Permutation-adaptedcompleteandindependentbasis for atomic cluster expansion descriptors, Journal of Computational Physics 510 (2024) 113073. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113073

    arXiv 2024

  72. [73]

    Choudhary, D

    K. Choudhary, D. Wines, K. Li, K. Garrity, V. Gupta, A. Romero, J. Krogel, K. Saritas, A. Fuhr, P. Ganesh, et al., JARVIS-leaderboard: a large scale benchmark of materials design methods, npj Computational Materials 10 (2024) 93. doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01259-w

    doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01259-w 2024

  73. [74]

    Rohskopf, C

    A. Rohskopf, C. Sievers, N. Lubbers, M. Cusentino, J. Goff, J. Janssen, M. McCarthy, D. Montes Oca de Zapiain, S. Nikolov, K. Sargsyan, et al., FitSNAP: Atomistic machine learning with LAMMPS, Journal of Open Source Software 8 (2023) 5118. doi:10.21105/joss.05118

    doi:10.21105/joss.05118 2023

  74. [75]

    M. Wood, M. Cusentino, B. Wirth, A. Thompson, Data-driven material models for atomistic simulation, Physical Review B 99 (2019) 184305. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.184305

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.184305 2019

  75. [76]

    Bartók, J

    A. Bartók, J. Kermode, N. Bernstein, G. Csányi, Machine learning a general-purpose interatomic potential for silicon, Physical Review X 8 (2018) 041048. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.041048 2018

  76. [77]

    M. Daw, M. Chandross, Simple parameterization of embedded atom method potentials for FCC alloys, Acta Materialia 248 (2023) 118772. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.118772

    arXiv 2023

  77. [78]

    Mendelev, M

    M. Mendelev, M. Kramer, C. Becker, M. Asta, Analysis of semi-empirical interatomic potentials appropriate for simulation of crystalline and liquid Al and Cu, Philosophical Magazine 88 (2008) 1723–1750. doi:10.1080/14786430802206482

    work page doi:10.1080/14786430802206482 2008

  78. [79]

    Sobie, N

    C. Sobie, N. Bertin, L. Capolungo, Analysis of obstacle hardening models using dislocation dynamics: application to irradiation-induced defects, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 46 (2015) 3761–3772. doi:10.1007/s11661-015-2935-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11661-015-2935-z 2015

  79. [80]

    Sobie, L

    C. Sobie, L. Capolungo, D. McDowell, E. Martinez, Scale transition using dislocation dynamics and the nudged elastic band method, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 105 (2017) 161–178. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2017.05.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2017.05.004 2017

  80. [81]

    Sobie, L

    C. Sobie, L. Capolungo, D. McDowell, E. Martinez, Thermal activation of dislocations in large scale obstacle bypass, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 105 (2017) 150–160. doi:10. 1016/j.jmps.2017.05.003

    2017

Showing first 80 references.