Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

MatDiffract: A Material-Informed Automated Analysis Platform for X-ray Powder Diffraction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MatDiffract turns powder X-ray diffraction into an automated, end-to-end phase-identification and quantification pipeline, reaching 91.3% Top-1 single-phase accuracy and 1.2–1.8% mass-fraction errors on multiphase mixtures.

desk verdict A well-engineered XRD retrieval+refinement pipeline with strong single-phase results, but the multiphase quantitative claims rest on thin data and a non-independent reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20880 v2 pith:IS2NW7VW submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hongqing Wang , Mingwei Chen , Hongjie Luo , Wen Yin , Fazhi Qi , Xuqing Chai , Miao Liu , Fengyao Hou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords X-raypowderdiffractionphaseidentificationvectorretrievalRietveldrefinementquantitativeanalysishigh-throughputmaterialsdiscoveryAtomlyautomated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that X-ray powder diffraction analysis—traditionally a manual, expert-driven bottleneck—can be fully automated without sacrificing crystallographic rigor. MatDiffract does this by building a large library of simulated patterns from DFT-derived crystal structures, augmenting them with realistic perturbations, and using vector retrieval to quickly rank candidate phases. Retrieved candidates are then validated and refined through full-pattern fitting and Rietveld refinement, yielding both phase identification and quantitative mass fractions. The authors report strong benchmark results on experimental datasets: 91.3% Top-1 single-phase accuracy, 85.0% binary and 70.0% ternary Top-1 accuracy, and mass-fraction errors below 2%. If true, the platform closes the throughput gap that currently limits automated materials discovery workflows, delivering results in tens of seconds per sample.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the perturbation-augmented simulated diffraction database built from the Atomly DFT structure database, combined with hierarchical vector retrieval. Each simulated pattern is embedded as a vector of peak positions, intensities, widths, and local-profile features; experimental patterns are mapped into the same space and matched via approximate nearest-neighbor search. This retrieval step produces a Top-k candidate pool that is intentionally high-recall, not a final assignment. The subsequent full-pattern fitting and Rietveld refinement stages then use the entire diffraction profile to validate candidates, rerank them, and extract quantitative information. The vec

What would settle it

Take a set of experimental XRPD patterns from known phases that are absent from the Atomly database (or deliberately synthesized solid solutions with large lattice shifts), and run them through the platform: if the correct phase never appears in the Top-10 retrieval pool, the core claim of automated identification fails for such samples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a physics-informed vector-retrieval architecture, combined with automated full-pattern refinement, can replace the manual search-match loop in powder X-ray diffraction analysis. The paper demonstrates that by simulating diffraction patterns from a large DFT-derived crystal structure database (Atomly) and augmenting them with controlled perturbations of peak positions, widths, intensities, and background, the system can retrieve correct candidate phases from experimental patterns at high accuracy. The key innovation is coupling this rapid retrieval with two-step refinement: global peak-offset correction followed by profile, background, and scale-factor optimization,

Load-bearing premise

The system's coverage is limited to phases whose structures exist in the Atomly database (or close enough that the fixed perturbation range brings them within retrieval reach); any sample with a genuinely novel or strongly distorted structure will never enter the candidate pool.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accuracy holds, automated XRPD analysis becomes practical for high-throughput and self-driving-lab workflows, removing a key human-in-the-loop bottleneck.
  • The platform's modular vector-based architecture means it can be expanded to new crystal structures and chemical systems without retraining, supporting incremental deployment in new materials domains.
  • The refinement stage corrects systematic lattice-parameter deviations inherent in DFT-derived structures, as demonstrated for TiO2, suggesting the method is robust to realistic database imperfections.
  • The reported runtime of tens of seconds per pattern (16 s single-phase, 21 s multiphase) is compatible with the cadence of automated synthesis platforms, enabling closed-loop discovery experiments.
  • The approach could generalize to other diffraction modalities, such as neutron powder diffraction, since the vector-retrieval methodology is not specific to X-rays.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's validation set is limited to well-crystallized mixtures and minerals represented in the Atomly database; the claimed generalization to arbitrary real-world samples—especially those with solid solutions, strong preferred orientation, or amorphous content—is an extrapolation not directly tested in this study.
  • The reported mass-fraction errors (1.2% binary, 1.8% ternary) were benchmarked against manually refined GSAS-II results as ground truth; in practice, the accuracy on unknown samples with imperfect reference procedures could be lower, and the impact of contamination or oxidation during preparation is acknowledged only qualitatively.
  • A testable extension would be to apply MatDiffract to datasets with deliberate synthetic variations—e.g., simulated patterns with imposed preferred orientation or lattice strain—to map exactly where the perturbation envelope breaks down and refinement can no longer compensate.
  • The architecture's reliance on a hand-tuned perturbation scheme suggests that the same approach might benefit from learned or physics-based perturbation models that adapt to specific instrument profiles, potentially improving Top-1 accuracy beyond the current 91.3%.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. MatDiffract is a fully automated XRPD analysis platform. It constructs a simulated diffraction database from Atomly DFT structures, augments simulated patterns with perturbed peak positions, widths, intensities, and background, converts these patterns into multi-scale feature vectors indexed in a vector database, and combines hierarchical candidate retrieval with full-pattern fitting/Rietveld refinement. The authors benchmark the platform on 875 single-phase RRUFF patterns and 40 laboratory-prepared multiphase mixtures (20 binary, 20 ternary), reporting 91.3% Top-1 single-phase identification after refinement, 85.0% and 70.0% Top-1 multiphase identification, and mass-fraction mean absolute errors of 1.2% and 1.8%, with per-pattern runtimes of about 16–21 s. The architecture is claimed to support incremental database expansion without retraining.

Significance. If the results hold, MatDiffract would be a practically useful combination of database retrieval and full-pattern refinement for high-throughput XRPD analysis. The single-phase benchmark is the strongest part: the RRUFF labels are external and independent, the comparison against JADE is meaningful (though element-constrained), and the refinement stage demonstrably improves ranking. The runtime measurements give a realistic picture of online cost. However, the multiphase quantitative claims are not established by the presented evidence: the reference is manual GSAS-II Rietveld refinement, which shares the same physical model as MatDiffract's own fitting, and the multiphase sample size is too small to support the precision implied by the abstract. Database coverage for unseen structures and severe experimental distortions also remains untested.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figure 5 and abstract] The mass-fraction MAEs (1.2% binary, 1.8% ternary) are computed against 'manually refined Rietveld results' obtained with GSAS-II. Since MatDiffract's multiphase stage is also full-pattern Rietveld fitting (§2.4), this benchmark measures agreement between two implementations of the same model, not accuracy relative to the true sample composition. Any systematic bias shared by both methods—microabsorption, preferred orientation, an incorrect structural model, or database lattice-parameter offsets—will not appear in the MAE. The paper explicitly distrusts nominal compositions, but supplies no independent measurement (chemical assay, XRF, spiked standards). The abstract's mass-fraction claim should be rescoped as a cross-validation consistency result, or the authors should provide an independent ground-truth benchmark.
  2. [§3.2, Figure 4] The multiphase identification results rest on only 20 binary and 20 ternary samples. A Top-1 accuracy of 85.0% is 17/20 correct and 70.0% is 14/20; a single sample changes the reported accuracy by 5 percentage points. Binomial 95% confidence intervals are wide (roughly 63–96% for 17/20 and 49–91% for 14/20). The authors should report per-sample results, confidence intervals, and exact counts, and avoid presenting these values as precise performance guarantees.
  3. [§2.1 and §3.1/§3.2] The central design premise is that the perturbation-augmented Atomly-derived database contains patterns close enough to every real experimental sample that the correct phase or phase combination enters the Top-k retrieval pool. This is demonstrated only on 875 RRUFF minerals and 40 well-crystallized in-house mixtures, which are plausibly represented in the database; the TiO2 example in Figure 6 itself shows a systematic DFT-vs-experiment offset of roughly 0.4–0.5% in lattice parameters, underscoring the dependence on the perturbation envelope. The paper should quantify the perturbation ranges, report failure cases (samples whose correct phase never appeared in the Top-10 pool), and test out-of-database or deliberately distorted patterns (solid solutions, preferred orientation, amorphous content, strong peak asymmetry) before claiming general automated applicability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The perturbation ranges for peak shift, width, intensity, and background are described only as 'controlled perturbation' without numerical values or a rationale. This makes the augmentation protocol hard to reproduce and is central to the database-coverage question mentioned above.
  2. [§3.2] The text states that 40 'valid' experimental patterns were retained, but does not describe how many samples were prepared or why some were rejected. Please report the full sample flow and any exclusion criteria.
  3. [§3.2, Figure 5] For binary samples the MAE is defined on the major-phase mass fraction, while for ternary samples it is described as an overall MAE over all phases. The definitions should be stated explicitly in the text and figure caption to avoid inconsistency.
  4. [§3.1] The JADE comparison lacks specification of version, search-match settings, and whether PDF database cards were used with or without chemical constraints. This information is needed to judge the comparability of the benchmark.
  5. [§5] Only an online instance is provided. For a methods paper, releasing the source code, the simulated-pattern database, and the benchmark datasets would materially strengthen reproducibility.
  6. [§3.3] The runtime decomposition is informative, but the phrase 'within tens of seconds' should explicitly state that this excludes offline database construction and that refinement was performed for all Top-k candidates; the authors already note this in the text, but the abstract could be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are benchmarked against external data and independent manual refinement, not derived from the method's own outputs.

full rationale

MatDiffract's derivation chain is not circular. The single-phase identification accuracy is evaluated against 875 RRUFF experimental patterns with external mineral labels, and the initial retrieval and refinement steps are compared with JADE, an independent commercial tool. The Atomly database citation [29]-[30] is a data-provenance reference by a coauthor, but it is not used as a load-bearing proof or uniqueness theorem; the method's correctness is established by external benchmarks rather than by the citation itself. The reported Rwp values and post-refinement accuracy are fit-quality diagnostics on the evaluated patterns, not independent predictions, but the paper does not disguise them as such. The multiphase mass-fraction MAEs are computed against 'manually refined Rietveld results' obtained with GSAS-II, which is an independent human-expert implementation rather than the same fitted values recycled as ground truth. The paper explicitly notes that nominal compositions are unreliable and adopts manual refinement instead; this is a benchmark limitation (both methods share the Rietveld physical model, so systematic bias could go undetected), but it is not a definitional or statistical circularity. Likewise, the conclusion's statement that 'current validation focuses on well-crystallized multiphase mixtures' is an honest scope limitation, not a circular step. No equation or prediction reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

MatDiffract introduces no new physical entities. It depends on the completeness and accuracy of the Atomly DFT database, on hand-tuned perturbation ranges, and on the assumption that the benchmark samples are representative of real-world XRPD workloads. The main unvalidated elements are the unquantified perturbation envelope and the feature-vector construction parameters, both of which control retrieval recall.

free parameters (4)
  • Perturbation ranges for peak shift, width, intensity, and background = not stated
    The simulated pattern database is augmented by controlled perturbations to mimic experimental artifacts; the ranges are chosen by the authors but not quantified, and they determine whether correct phases reach the Top-k retrieval pool.
  • Feature vector construction parameters = not stated
    Multi-scale diffraction features (positions, intensities, widths, local profile) are embedded into vectors; the embedding dimension, normalization, and weighting between features are not specified and are likely tuned to maximize retrieval accuracy.
  • Hierarchical retrieval thresholds / Top-k pool sizes = not stated
    The sequential filtering steps (position, intensity, local profile) require cutoffs controlling recall versus efficiency; exact values are not reported.
  • Number of refinement candidates / stopping criteria = not stated
    The authors state the number of refined candidates can be limited to balance accuracy and runtime, but no default or schedule is given.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bragg's law and Rietveld profile refinement theory
    The entire simulated-pattern and refinement pipeline relies on standard crystallography, which is well-established background.
  • domain assumption Atomly DFT structures are sufficiently close to experimental structures that perturbation-augmented simulated patterns land correct phases in Top-k
    Section 2.1 assumes DFT-optimized structures plus perturbations cover experimental structural variations; the TiO2 example (Figure 6) shows a systematic DFT offset of ~0.4-0.5%, so this coverage is not guaranteed for all materials.
  • domain assumption RRUFF mineral patterns are accompanied by correct phase and structural labels
    The single-phase benchmark (Section 3.1) treats RRUFF labels as ground truth; if any labels are wrong, the reported accuracy would be affected.
  • domain assumption Manual GSAS-II Rietveld refinement by experts is an accurate ground truth for multiphase phase combinations and mass fractions
    Section 3.2 uses manually refined GSAS-II results as the benchmark for the multiphase evaluation; this is a reasonable but expert-dependent standard.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen perturbation ranges cover real experimental distortions such as preferred orientation, microabsorption, and solid-solution shifts
    Section 2.1 says perturbations are applied 'subject to crystallographic constraints' but does not specify ranges; this is an author-chosen modeling assumption that determines whether retrieval generalizes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MatDiffract: A Material-Informed Automated Analysis Platform for X-ray Powder Diffraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IS2NW7VW

@misc{pith2026260720880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MatDiffract: A Material-Informed Automated Analysis Platform for X-ray Powder Diffraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IS2NW7VW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20880}
}
read the original abstract

High-throughput experimentation and self-driving laboratories are drastically accelerating materials discovery, yet automated interpretation of X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) data remains a critical rate-limiting step. Conventional search-match workflows rely heavily on expert manual intervention, while pure data-driven machine learning approaches suffer from limited generalizability across chemical systems and lack rigorous crystallographic interpretability. Here we present MatDiffract, a material-informed automated analysis platform for high-throughput XRPD characterization. Built on a first-principles density functional theory (DFT)-derived inorganic crystal structure database, Atomly, MatDiffract constructs a perturbation-augmented simulated diffraction database, embeds multi-scale diffraction features into indexable vectors, and integrates hierarchical vector retrieval with full-pattern fitting Rietveld refinement and quantitative phase fitting. Benchmarked on 875 single-phase experimental patterns, the platform achieves 91.3% Top-1 and 97.2% Top-10 identification accuracy after automated refinement. For binary and ternary multiphase mixtures, it delivers 85.0% and 70.0% Top-1 accuracy with mass fraction mean absolute errors as low as 1.2% and 1.8%, respectively. Beyond mere phase labeling, MatDiffract outputs full crystallographic results including refined structural models, fitted profiles, and quantitative compositions within tens of seconds per sample. Its modular vector-based architecture supports seamless incremental expansion to new material systems, providing an end-to-end solution to close the characterization throughput gap for autonomous materials discovery and high-throughput materials development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the MatDiffract workflow. (a) DFT-optimized crystal structures are stored with structural metadata. (b) Simulated XRPD patterns are generated with controlled perturbations to peak shape, intensity, background and noise, paired with synthetic multiphase patterns with predefined phase combinations and phase fractions. Peak positions, intensities, widths, and local profile features are extracted a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Single-phase XRPD phase identification performance. (a) Identification accuracy of JADE, initial MatDiffract retrieval, and the full automated-refinement results, as a function of Top-k cutoff. (b) Top-1 accuracy of JADE, initial MatDiffract retrieval, and the best refined MatDiffract result across all seven crystal systems. (c) Top-1 accuracy heat map for JADE, initial MatDiffract Top-1 retrieval, and the best refi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of automated Rietveld refinement. (a) Distributions of weighted-profile R-factor (Rwp) for the initial Top-1 retrieved candidate and the best refined candidate; dashed lines mark median values. (b) Representative Rietveld refinement for andalusite (Al2SiO5), showing the full diffraction profile, magnified low-angle region, refined lattice parameters, crystal structural model, and Rwp = 8.91%. (c) Represe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-combination identification in multiphase experimental XRPD patterns. (a) Identification accuracy of initial retrieval and full-pattern fitting results for binary and ternary samples as a function of Top-k cutoff. (b) Top-1 identification accuracy comparison of JA…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantitative mass-fraction estimation for multiphase experimental XRPD patterns. Left: parity plot of major-phase mass fractions from initial retrieval and full-pattern fitting against reference values for binary samples. Middle and right: ternary composition diagrams …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative full-pattern fitting results, local peak alignment, and refined structural parameters for MgO–TiO2 binary samples. (a) MgO:TiO2 = 3:7 (Mg3-Ti7). (b) MgO:TiO2 = 7:3 (Mg7-Ti3). Black, blue, and red curves denote the experimental pattern, the initial-retrie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Online analysis performance of MatDiffract and the effect of candidate-database size. (a) Runtime components for single-phase and multiphase samples after construction of the candidate database, including preprocessing, retrieval, structural refinement, and mass-fracti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adaptively driven X-ray diffraction guided by machine learning for autonomous phase identification

    Nathan J. Szymanski, Christopher J. Bartel, Yan Zeng, Mouhamad Diallo, Haegyeom Kim, and Gerbrand Ceder. “Adaptively driven X-ray diffraction guided by machine learning for autonomous phase identification”. In:npj Computational Materials9.1 (2023), p. 31. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41524-023-00984-y. 15

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-023-00984-y 2023

  2. [2]

    Au- tonomous robotic experimentation system for powder X-ray diffraction

    Yuto Yotsumoto, Yusaku Nakajima, Ryusei Takamoto, Yasuo Takeichi, and Kanta Ono. “Au- tonomous robotic experimentation system for powder X-ray diffraction”. In:Digital Discovery 3.12 (2024), pp. 2523–2532. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4DD00190G

    work page doi:10.1039/d4dd00190g 2024

  3. [3]

    Automatedphase mapping of high-throughput X-ray diffraction data encoded with domain-specific materials science knowledge

    DongfangYu,SeanGriesemer,Tzu-chenLiu,ChrisWolverton,andYizhouZhu.“Automatedphase mapping of high-throughput X-ray diffraction data encoded with domain-specific materials science knowledge”. In:npj Computational Materials11.1 (2025), p. 354. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524- 025-01837-6

    doi:10.1038/s41524- 2025

  4. [4]

    High-throughput and autonomous grazing incidence X-ray diffraction mapping of organic combinatorial thin-film library driven by machine learning

    Shingo Maruyama, Kana Ouchi, Tomoyuki Koganezawa, and Yuji Matsumoto. “High-throughput and autonomous grazing incidence X-ray diffraction mapping of organic combinatorial thin-film library driven by machine learning”. In:ACS Combinatorial Science22.7 (2020), pp. 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscombsci.0c00037

    work page doi:10.1021/acscombsci.0c00037 2020

  5. [5]

    Chemical analysis by X-ray diffraction

    J. D. Hanawalt, H. W. Rinn, and L. K. Frevel. “Chemical analysis by X-ray diffraction”. In: Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Analytical Edition10.9 (1938), pp. 457–512. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/ac50125a001

    doi:10.1021/ac50125a001 1938

  6. [6]

    A fast search–match program for powder diffraction analysis

    L. K. Frevel, C. E. Adams, and L. R. Ruhberg. “A fast search–match program for powder diffraction analysis”. In:Journal of Applied Crystallography9.3 (1976), pp. 199–204. https: //doi.org/10.1107/S0021889876010959

    work page doi:10.1107/s0021889876010959 1976

  7. [7]

    A profile refinement method for nuclear and magnetic structures

    H. M. Rietveld. “A profile refinement method for nuclear and magnetic structures”. In:Journal of Applied Crystallography2.2 (1969), pp. 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889869006558

    doi:10.1107/s0021889869006558 1969

  8. [8]

    Quantitative phase analysis from neutron powder diffraction data using the Rietveld method

    R. J. Hill and C. J. Howard. “Quantitative phase analysis from neutron powder diffraction data using the Rietveld method”. In:Journal of Applied Crystallography20.6 (1987), pp. 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887086199

    doi:10.1107/s0021889887086199 1987

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    X-ray diffraction techniques for mineral characterization:Areviewforengineersofthefundamentals,applications,andresearchdirections

    Asif Ali, Yi Wai Chiang, and Rafael M. Santos. “X-ray diffraction techniques for mineral characterization:Areviewforengineersofthefundamentals,applications,andresearchdirections”. In:Minerals12.2 (2022), p. 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12020205

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Multi- variate versus traditional quantitative phase analysis of X-ray powder diffraction and fluorescence data of mixtures showing preferred orientation and microabsorption

    Mattia Lopresti, Beatrice Mangolini, Marco Milanesio, Rocco Caliandro, and Luca Palin. “Multi- variate versus traditional quantitative phase analysis of X-ray powder diffraction and fluorescence data of mixtures showing preferred orientation and microabsorption”. In:Journal of...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Automated data analysis for powder X-ray diffraction using machine learning

    Yuta Suzuki. “Automated data analysis for powder X-ray diffraction using machine learning”. In:Synchrotron Radiation News35.4 (2022), pp. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2022. 2112496

    2022

  4. [12]

    Auto- matedclassificationofbigX-raydiffractiondatausingdeeplearningmodels

    Jerardo E. Salgado, Samuel Lerman, Zhaotong Du, Chenliang Xu, and Niaz Abdolrahim. “Auto- matedclassificationofbigX-raydiffractiondatausingdeeplearningmodels”.In:npjComputational Materials9.1 (2023), p. 214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-023-01164-8

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Machine learning in X-ray diffraction for materials discovery and characterization

    Connor Davel, Nazanin Bassiri-Gharb, and Juan-Pablo Correa-Baena. “Machine learning in X-ray diffraction for materials discovery and characterization”. In:Matter8.9 (2025), p. 102272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2025.102272

    2025

  6. [14]

    Deeplearningmodels to identify common phases across material systems from X-ray diffraction

    Nam Q. Le, Michael Pekala, Alexander New, Edwin B. Gienger, Christine Chung, Timothy J. Montalbano,ElizabethA.Pogue,JannaDomenico,andChristopherD.Stiles.“Deeplearningmodels to identify common phases across material systems from X-ray diffraction”. In:The Journal of Physical Ch...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Crystallographic phase identifier of a convolutional self-attention neural network (CPICANN) on powder diffraction patterns

    Shouyang Zhang, Bin Cao, Tianhao Su, Yue Wu, Zhenjie Feng, Jie Xiong, and Tong-Yi Zhang. “Crystallographic phase identifier of a convolutional self-attention neural network (CPICANN) on powder diffraction patterns”. In:IUCrJ11.4 (2024), pp. 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1107/ S2...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Crystal structure assignment for unknown compounds from X-ray diffraction patterns with deep learning

    Litao Chen, Bingxu Wang, Wentao Zhang, Shisheng Zheng, Zhefeng Chen, Mingzheng Zhang, Cheng Dong, Feng Pan, and Shunning Li. “Crystal structure assignment for unknown compounds from X-ray diffraction patterns with deep learning”. In:Journal of the American Chemical Society 146...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A deep- learningtechniqueforphaseidentificationinmultiphaseinorganiccompoundsusingsyntheticXRD powder patterns

    Jin-Woong Lee, Woon Bae Park, Jin Hee Lee, Satendra Pal Singh, and Kee-Sun Sohn. “A deep- learningtechniqueforphaseidentificationinmultiphaseinorganiccompoundsusingsyntheticXRD powder patterns”. In:Nature Communications11.1 (2020), p. 86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 019-13749-3

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Machine learning-driven crystal system prediction for perovskites using augmented XRD data

    Ansu Mathew, Ahmer A. B. Baloch, Alamin Yakasai, Hemant Mittal, Vivian Alberts, and Jayakumar V. Karunamurthy. “Machine learning-driven crystal system prediction for perovskites using augmented XRD data”. In:Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence164 (2026), p. 113...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Interpretable X-ray diffraction spectra analysis using confidence evaluated deep learning enhanced by template element replacement

    Rongchang Xing, Haodong Yao, Zuoxin Xi, Minghui Sun, Qingmeng Li, Jinglong Tian, Hairui Wang, DeTing Xu, Zhaohai Ma, and Lina Zhao. “Interpretable X-ray diffraction spectra analysis using confidence evaluated deep learning enhanced by template element replacement”. In:npj Comp...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    XQueryer: an intelligent crystal structure identifier for powder X-ray diffraction

    Bin Cao, Zinan Zheng, Yang Liu, Longhan Zhang, Lawrence W.-Y. Wong, Lu-Tao Weng, Jia Li, Haoxiang Li, and Tong-Yi Zhang. “XQueryer: an intelligent crystal structure identifier for powder X-ray diffraction”. In:National Science Review12.12 (2025), nwaf421. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Fast and interpretable classification of small X-ray diffraction datasets using data augmentation and deep neural networks

    Felipe Oviedo, Zekun Ren, Shijing Sun, Charles Settens, Zhe Liu, Noor Titan Putri Hartono, Savitha Ramasamy, Brian L. DeCost, Siyu I. P. Tian, Giuseppe Romano, Aaron Gilad Kusne, and Tonio Buonassisi. “Fast and interpretable classification of small X-ray diffraction datasets u...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Neural network based classification of crystal symmetries from X-ray diffraction patterns

    Pascal Marc Vecsei, Kenny Choo, Johan Chang, and Titus Neupert. “Neural network based classification of crystal symmetries from X-ray diffraction patterns”. In:Physical Review B99.24 (2019), p. 245120. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.245120

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Crystal symmetry classification from powder X-ray diffraction patterns using a convolutional neural network

    Alexander N. Zaloga, Vladimir V. Stanovov, Oksana E. Bezrukova, Petr S. Dubinin, and Igor S. Yakimov. “Crystal symmetry classification from powder X-ray diffraction patterns using a convolutional neural network”. In:Materials Today Communications25 (2020), p. 101662. https://d...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Exploring supervised machine learning for multi-phase identification and quantification from powder X-ray diffraction spectra

    Jaimie Greasley and Patrick Hosein. “Exploring supervised machine learning for multi-phase identification and quantification from powder X-ray diffraction spectra”. In:Journal of Materials Science58.12 (2023), pp. 5334–5348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-08343-4

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Equivariant diffusion solution for inorganic crystal structure determination from powder X-ray diffraction data

    Dongfang Yu, Zhewen Zhu, Fucheng Leng, and Yizhou Zhu. “Equivariant diffusion solution for inorganic crystal structure determination from powder X-ray diffraction data”. In:Nature Communications17.1 (2026), p. 3274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70035-9

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    KAN-enhanced contrastive learning: the accelerator of crystal structure 17 identification from XRD patterns

    Chenlei Xu, Tianhao Su, Jie Xiong, Yue Wu, Shuya Dong, Tian Jiang, Mengwei He, Shuai Chen, and Tong-Yi Zhang. “KAN-enhanced contrastive learning: the accelerator of crystal structure 17 identification from XRD patterns”. In:npj Computational Materials12.1 (2026), p. 144. https...

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    Identifying crystal structures beyond known prototypes from X-ray powder diffraction spectra

    Abhijith S. Parackal, Rhys E. A. Goodall, Felix A. Faber, and Rickard Armiento. “Identifying crystal structures beyond known prototypes from X-ray powder diffraction spectra”. In:Physical Review Materials8.10 (2024), p. 103801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.8.103801

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Dara: Automated multiple-hypothesis phase identification and refinement from powder X-ray diffraction

    Yuxing Fei, Matthew J. McDermott, Christopher L. Rom, Shilong Wang, and Gerbrand Ceder. “Dara: Automated multiple-hypothesis phase identification and refinement from powder X-ray diffraction”. In:Chemistry of Materials38.3 (2026), pp. 1364–1376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. ch...

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Atomly.net materials database and its application in inorganic chemistry

    Miao Liu and Sheng Meng. “Atomly.net materials database and its application in inorganic chemistry”. In:Scientia Sinica Chimica53.1 (2023), pp. 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1360/SSC-2022- 0167

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    GPTFF: A high-accuracy out-of-the-box universal AI force field for arbitrary inorganic materials

    Fankai Xie, Tenglong Lu, Sheng Meng, and Miao Liu. “GPTFF: A high-accuracy out-of-the-box universal AI force field for arbitrary inorganic materials”. In:Science Bulletin69.22 (2024), pp. 3525–3532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2024.08.039

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    X-ray line profile analysis on the deformation microstructure of Al-bearing high-Mn steels

    T. Riaz, S. Shyamal, S. K. Shee, L. P. Karjalainen, and P. Sahu. “X-ray line profile analysis on the deformation microstructure of Al-bearing high-Mn steels”. In:Materials Characterization196 (2023), p. 112567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2022.112567

    2023

  24. [32]

    Computational investigation into XRD peak broadening effects with discrete dislocation dynamics in additively manufactured 316L stainless steel

    DylanMadisetti,MarkusSudmanns,ChristopherD.Stiles,andJaafarA.El-Awady.“Computational investigation into XRD peak broadening effects with discrete dislocation dynamics in additively manufactured 316L stainless steel”. In:Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids196 (2025),...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs

    Yu A. Malkov and D. A. Yashunin. “Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence42.4 (2020), pp. 824–836. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2889473

    2020

  26. [34]

    Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. “Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs”. In: IEEE Transactions on Big Data7.3 (2021), pp. 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2019. 2921572

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Milvus: A purpose-built vector data management system

    Jianguo Wang, Xiaomeng Yi, Rentong Guo, Hai Jin, Peng Xu, Shengjun Li, Xiangyu Wang, Xiangzhou Guo, Chengming Li, Xiaohai Xu, Kun Yu, Yuxing Yuan, Yinghao Zou, Jiquan Long, Yudong Cai, Zhenxiang Li, Zhifeng Zhang, Yihua Mo, Jun Gu, Ruiyi Jiang, Yi Wei, and Charles Xie. “Milvus...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Survey of vector database management systems

    James Jie Pan, Jianguo Wang, and Guoliang Li. “Survey of vector database management systems”. In:The VLDB Journal33.5 (2024), pp. 1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-024-00864-x

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    VBASE: Unifying online vector similarity search and relational queries via relaxed monotonicity

    Qianxi Zhang, Shuotao Xu, Qi Chen, Guoxin Sui, Jiadong Xie, Zhizhen Cai, Yaoqi Chen, Yinxuan He, Yuqing Yang, Fan Yang, Mao Yang, and Lidong Zhou. “VBASE: Unifying online vector similarity search and relational queries via relaxed monotonicity”. In:17th USENIX Symposium on Ope...

    2023

  30. [38]

    The power of databases: the RRUFF project

    B. Lafuente, R. T. Downs, H. Yang, and N. Stone. “The power of databases: the RRUFF project”. In:Highlights in Mineralogical Crystallography. Ed. by T. Armbruster and R. M. Danisi. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2015, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110417104-003. 18

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    GSAS-II: the genesis of a modern open-source all purpose crystallography software package

    B. H. Toby and R. B. Von Dreele. “GSAS-II: the genesis of a modern open-source all purpose crystallography software package”. In:Journal of Applied Crystallography46.2 (2013), pp. 544–

    2013

  32. [40]

    Density functional theory analysisof the structuraland electronic properties of rutile andanatase polytypes: Performances of different exchange-correlation functionals

    FrédéricLabat,PhilippeBaranek,ChristopheDomain,ChristianMinot,andCarloAdamo.“Density functional theory analysisof the structuraland electronic properties of rutile andanatase polytypes: Performances of different exchange-correlation functionals”. In:The Journal of Chemical Phy...

    2007 doi

  33. [549]

    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889813003531

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.