Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39531143›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2024

Exploring structural variances in monatomic metallic glasses using machine learning and molecular dynamics simulation.

Chengqiao Yang, Minhua Sun

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chengqiao YangDepartment of Physics, Harbin Normal University, Harbin, 150025, People's Republic of China.
Minhua SunDepartment of Physics, Harbin Normal University, Harbin, 150025, People's Republic of China. smhua@hrbnu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextBCC and FCC metals have different glass-forming abilities (GFA) and exhibit different characteristics during the glass transition. However, the structural origin of their different GFAs is still not clear. Here, we explored the structures of eight monatomic metallic glasses by combining molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and machine learning (ML). Our findings reveal that, despite their common long-range disordered atomic structure, metallic glasses can be further classified into two distinct categories indicating an underlying structural order within the disorder. Using machine learning, we found that BCC liquids can sample more diverse glass states than FCC liquids. Furthermore, glasses formed from BCC metals (GFFBs) exhibit a higher degree of disorder than glasses formed from FCC metals (GFFFs). These findings highlight the inherent differences between GFFFs and GFFBs, which help explain the different glass-forming abilities of FCC and BCC metals. Additionally, our results demonstrate the promising potential of computer vision and ML methods in exploring material structures.

methodClassical molecular dynamics simulations were employed to generate configurations of GFFBs and GFFFs, and the simulations were performed using the LAMMPS code. Inter-atomic interactions were described using a classical embedded atom model (EAM) potential. The initial configuration of the model consists of 32,000 atoms in a three-dimensional (3D) cubic box with periodic boundary conditions applied in all three directions. For machine learning, we utilized an unsupervised machine learning method along with MobileNetV2 for classifying glass structures. Image entropy and image distances were used to measure the structural differences of the metallic glasses.

Indexed as

Amorphous materialsMachine LearningMetallic glassMolecular dynamicsSimulation and modeling

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.