ArticleScientific reports2022
Uncertainty-aware mixed-variable machine learning for materials design.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Driven Nanoscale Synthesis for Electrocatalytic Performance: From Data-Driven Methodologies to Closed-Loop Optimization.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Interpretable Prediction and Analysis of PVA Hydrogel Mechanical Behavior Using Machine Learning.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Employing Fixed-Point Theory for Fuzzy Regression Analysis: Methodology and Empirical Application.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Accelerating the design of lattice structures using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data-driven design shows the promise of accelerating materials discovery but is challenging due to the prohibitive cost of searching the vast design space of chemistry, structure, and synthesis methods. Bayesian optimization (BO) employs uncertainty-aware machine learning models to select promising designs to evaluate, hence reducing the cost. However, BO with mixed numerical and categorical variables, which is of particular interest in materials design, has not been well studied. In this work, we survey frequentist and Bayesian approaches to uncertainty quantification of machine learning with mixed variables. We then conduct a systematic comparative study of their performances in BO using a popular representative model from each group, the random forest-based Lolo model (frequentist) and the latent variable Gaussian process model (Bayesian). We examine the efficacy of the two models in the optimization of mathematical functions, as well as properties of structural and functional materials, where we observe performance differences as related to problem dimensionality and complexity. By investigating the machine learning models' predictive and uncertainty estimation capabilities, we provide interpretations of the observed performance differences. Our results provide practical guidance on choosing between frequentist and Bayesian uncertainty-aware machine learning models for mixed-variable BO in materials design.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.