4.7 Article

Materials informatics: From the atomic-level to the continuum

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 473-510

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.01.051

关键词

Data analytics; Microstructure; Ferroelectrics; Electron microscopy; Battery materials

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division
  2. Lehigh's Nano/Human Interface initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years materials informatics, which is the application of data science to problems in materials science and engineering, has emerged as a powerful tool for materials discovery and design. This relatively new field is already having a significant impact on the interpretation of data for a variety of materials systems, including those used in thermoelectrics, ferroelectrics, battery anodes and cathodes, hydrogen storage materials, polymer dielectrics, etc. Its practitioners employ the methods of multivariate statistics and machine learning in conjunction with standard computational tools (e.g., density functional theory) to, for example, visualize and dimensionally reduce large data sets, identify patterns in hyperspectral data, parse microstructural images of polycrystals, characterize vortex structures in ferroelectrics, design batteries and, in general, establish correlations to extract important physics and infer structure-property-processing relationships. In this Overview, we critically examine the role of informatics in several important materials subfields, highlighting significant contributions to date and identifying known shortcomings. We specifically focus attention on the difference between the correlative approach of classical data science and the causative approach of physical sciences. From this perspective, we also outline some potential opportunities and challenges for informatics in the materials realm in this era of big data. (C) 2019 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据