4.3 Article

A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Local/Global and Parametric/Nonparametric Machine Learning Methods for Establishing Structure-Property Linkages in High-Contrast 3D Elastic Composites

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40192-019-00129-4

Keywords

Nonparametric regression; Local approximate Gaussian Process; Structure-property linkages; High-contrast composites; Gaussian Process regression

Funding

  1. NSF [1761406]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1761406] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reduced-order structure-property (S-P) linkages play a pivotal role in the tailored design of materials for advanced engineering components. There is a critical need to distill these from the simulation datasets aggregated using sophisticated, computationally expensive, physics-based numerical tools (e.g., finite element methods). The recent emergence of materials data science approaches has opened new avenues for addressing this challenge. In this paper, we critically compare the relative merits of the application of four distinct machine learning approaches for their efficacy in extracting microstructure-property linkages from the finite element simulation data aggregated on high-contrast elastic composites with different microstructures. The machine learning approaches selected for the study have included different combinations of local/global and parametric/nonparametric approaches. Furthermore, the nonparametric approaches selected for this study are based on Gaussian Process (GP) models that allow for a formal treatment of uncertainty quantification in the predicted values. The predictive performances of these different approaches have been compared against each other using rigorous cross-validation error metrics. Furthermore, their sensitivity to both the dataset size and dimensionality has been investigated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available