4.7 Article

Designing a multilayer film via machine learning of scientific literature

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05010-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Materials informatics (MI) is a valuable technique for designing chemical substances, but its application to layered structures is challenging. This study demonstrates that machine learning (ML) can be used to design multilayer films by extracting experimental procedures from chemical-coating articles. The ML approach connects scientific knowledge, enabling the prediction of untrained film structures. The results suggest that artificial intelligence (AI) can imitate research activity and serve as a general design technique.
Scientists who design chemical substances often use materials informatics (MI), a data-driven approach with either computer simulation or artificial intelligence (AI). MI is a valuable technique, but applying it to layered structures is difficult. Most of the proposed computer-aided material search techniques use atomic or molecular simulations, which are limited to small areas. Some AI approaches have planned layered structures, but they require a physical theory or abundant experimental results. There is no universal design tool for multilayer films in MI. Here, we show a multilayer film can be designed through machine learning (ML) of experimental procedures extracted from chemical-coating articles. We converted material names according to International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry rules and stored them in databases for each fabrication step without any physicochemical theory. Compared with experimental results which depend on authors, experimental protocol is superiority at almost unified and less data loss. Connecting scientific knowledge through ML enables us to predict untrained film structures. This suggests that AI imitates research activity, which is normally inspired by other scientific achievements and can thus be used as a general design technique.

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