ArticleScientific reports2023
Data-driven analysis and prediction of stable phases for high-entropy alloy design.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- HEA-Bench: An AI-Agent-Optimized Calculator of High-Entropy Alloy and Oxide Descriptors and Phase-Prediction Rules.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phase Stability and Transitions in High-Entropy Alloys: Insights from Lattice Gas Models, Computational Simulations, and Experimental Validation.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prediction of Mechanical Properties of Rare-Earth Magnesium Alloys Based on Convolutional Neural Networks.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-entropy alloys (HEAs) represent a promising class of materials with exceptional structural and functional properties. However, their design and optimization pose challenges due to the large composition-phase space coupled with the complex and diverse nature of the phase formation dynamics. In this study, a data-driven approach that utilizes machine learning (ML) techniques to predict HEA phases and their composition-dependent phases is proposed. By employing a comprehensive dataset comprising 5692 experimental records encompassing 50 elements and 11 phase categories, we compare the performance of various ML models. Our analysis identifies the most influential features for accurate phase prediction. Furthermore, the class imbalance is addressed by employing data augmentation methods, raising the number of records to 1500 in each category, and ensuring a balanced representation of phase categories. The results show that XGBoost and Random Forest consistently outperform the other models, achieving 86% accuracy in predicting all phases. Additionally, this work provides an extensive analysis of HEA phase formers, showing the contributions of elements and features to the presence of specific phases. We also examine the impact of including different phases on ML model accuracy and feature significance. Notably, the findings underscore the need for ML model selection based on specific applications and desired predictions, as feature importance varies across models and phases. This study significantly advances the understanding of HEA phase formation, enabling targeted alloy design and fostering progress in the field of materials science.
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.