BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Christopher J. Bartel

Christopher J. Bartel contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Machine-learning rationalization and prediction of solid-state synthesis conditions

There currently exist no quantitative methods to determine the appropriate conditions for solid-state synthesis. This not only hinders the experimental realization of novel materials but also complicates the interpretation and understanding of solid-state reaction mechanisms. Here, we demonstrate a machine-learning approach that predicts synthesis conditions using large solid-state synthesis datasets text-mined from scientific journal articles. Using feature importance ranking analysis, we discovered that optimal heating temperatures have strong correlations with the stability of precursor materials quantified using melting points and formation energies ($ΔG_f$, $ΔH_f$). In contrast, features derived from the thermodynamics of synthesis-related reactions did not directly correlate to the chosen heating temperatures. This correlation between optimal solid-state heating temperature and precursor stability extends Tamman's rule from intermetallics to oxide systems, suggesting the importance of reaction kinetics in determining synthesis conditions. Heating times are shown to be strongly correlated with the chosen experimental procedures and instrument setups, which may be indicative of human bias in the dataset. Using these predictive features, we constructed machine-learning models with good performance and general applicability to predict the conditions required to synthesize diverse chemical systems. Codes and data used in this work can be found at: https://github.com/CederGroupHub/s4.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Testing the r$^2$SCAN density functional for the thermodynamic stability of solids with and without a van der Waals correction

A central aim of materials discovery is an accurate and numerically reliable description of thermodynamic properties, such as the enthalpies of formation and decomposition. The r$^2$SCAN revision of the strongly constrained and appropriately normed (SCAN) meta-generalized gradient approximation (meta-GGA) balances numerical stability with high general accuracy. To assess the r$^2$SCAN description of solid-state thermodynamics, we evaluate the formation and decomposition enthalpies, equilibrium volumes, and fundamental bandgaps of more than 1,000 solids using r$^2$SCAN, SCAN, and PBE, as well as two dispersion-corrected variants, SCAN+rVV10 and r$^2$SCAN+rVV10. We show that r$^2$SCAN achieves accuracy comparable to SCAN and often improves upon SCAN's already excellent accuracy. Whereas SCAN+rVV10 is often observed to worsen the formation enthalpies of SCAN, and makes no substantial correction to SCAN's cell volume predictions, r$^2$SCAN+rVV10 predicts marginally less-accurate formation enthalpies than r$^2$SCAN, and slightly more-accurate cell volumes than r$^2$SCAN. The average absolute errors in predicted formation enthalpies are found to decrease by a factor of 1.5 to 2.5 from the GGA level to the meta-GGA level. Smaller decreases in error are observed for decomposition enthalpies. For formation enthalpies r$^2$SCAN improves over SCAN for intermetallic systems. For a few classes of systems -- transition metals, intermetallics, weakly-bound solids, and enthalpies of decomposition into compounds -- GGAs are comparable to meta-GGAs. In total, r$^2$SCAN and r$^2$SCAN+rVV10 can be recommended as stable, general-purpose meta-GGAs for materials discovery.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A critical examination of compound stability predictions from machine-learned formation energies

Machine learning has emerged as a novel tool for the efficient prediction of materials properties, and claims have been made that machine-learned models for the formation energy of compounds can approach the accuracy of Density Functional Theory (DFT). The models tested in this work include five recently published compositional models, a baseline model using stoichiometry alone, and a structural model. By testing seven machine learning models for formation energy on stability predictions using the Materials Project database of DFT calculations for 85,014 unique chemical compositions, we show that while formation energies can indeed be predicted well, all compositional models perform poorly on predicting the stability of compounds, making them considerably less useful than DFT for the discovery and design of new solids. Most critically, in sparse chemical spaces where few stoichiometries have stable compounds, only the structural model is capable of efficiently detecting which materials are stable. The non-incremental improvement of structural models compared with compositional models is noteworthy and encourages the use of structural models for materials discovery, with the constraint that for any new composition, the ground-state structure is not known a priori. This work demonstrates that accurate predictions of formation energy do not imply accurate predictions of stability, emphasizing the importance of assessing model performance on stability predictions, for which we provide a set of publicly available tests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access