4.8 Article

Explainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence for correctable modeling in chemical sciences

Journal

SCIENCE ADVANCES
Volume 6, Issue 42, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abc3204

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF TRIPODS [CISE-1934846]
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) [FA-9550-18-1-0214]
  3. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) EQUiPS program [W911NF1520122]
  4. RAPID Manufacturing Institute - Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) [DE-EE0007888-9.5]
  5. State of Delaware
  6. National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  7. The 2019 to 2020 Blue Waters Graduate Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data science has primarily focused on big data, but for many physics, chemistry, and engineering applications, data are often small, correlated and, thus, low dimensional, and sourced from both computations and experiments with various levels of noise. Typical statistics and machine learning methods do not work for these cases. Expert knowledge is essential, but a systematic framework for incorporating it into physics-based models under uncertainty is lacking. Here, we develop a mathematical and computational framework for probabilistic artificial intelligence (AI)-based predictive modeling combining data, expert knowledge, multiscale models, and information theory through uncertainty quantification and probabilistic graphical models (PGMs). We apply PGMs to chemistry specifically and develop predictive guarantees for PGMs generally. Our proposed framework, combining AI and uncertainty quantification, provides explainable results leading to correctable and, eventually, trustworthy models. The proposed framework is demonstrated on a microkinetic model of the oxygen reduction reaction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available