Machine Learning for Material Stability Prediction: From Composition to Clinical Application

Abstract

This article explores the transformative role of composition-based machine learning (ML) models in predicting material stability, a critical property for pharmaceutical development and advanced materials science. We first establish the foundational principles of material stability and the limitations of traditional high-throughput computational methods like Density Functional Theory (DFT). The article then details the methodological pipeline, from feature engineering to model selection, illustrated with case studies of successful ML-guided material discovery. A dedicated section addresses common challenges, including data scarcity and model interpretability, and presents optimization strategies. Finally, we provide a rigorous framework for validating and benchmarking model performance against traditional methods, highlighting the profound implications of these technologies for accelerating the discovery of stable biomaterials and drug formulations.

The Fundamentals of Material Stability and the ML Revolution

Defining Thermodynamic and Kinetic Stability in Materials and Pharmaceuticals

Within materials science and pharmaceutical development, the concepts of thermodynamic and kinetic stability provide the fundamental framework for predicting material longevity and functionality. Thermodynamic stability indicates the innate, equilibrium-driven state of a system, defining its lowest energy configuration and ultimate end-state. In contrast, kinetic stability describes the persistence of a non-equilibrium state, governed by the energy barriers that hinder transformation to more stable forms. For researchers developing composition-based machine learning (ML) models for material stability, recognizing this distinction is crucial: thermodynamic stability determines the final destination, while kinetic stability dictates the accessible pathway and timeframe. This application note delineates these concepts through structured protocols, quantitative benchmarks, and computational workflows, providing a standardized foundation for ML-driven stability prediction in both materials discovery and pharmaceutical formulation.

Core Conceptual Definitions

Thermodynamic Stability

Thermodynamic stability is an equilibrium property that defines the state of a material or molecule with the lowest Gibbs free energy under given conditions of temperature, pressure, and composition. A thermodynamically stable compound possesses no driving force to decompose into other phases or compounds, representing the global minimum on the energy landscape.

• Quantitative Descriptors: The most accurate quantitative descriptor is the distance to the convex hull of the phase diagram. This metric characterizes how readily a compound decomposes into different phases or compounds, even over infinite time [1]. The formation energy also provides a quantitative reflection of thermodynamic stability, though it is considered less accurate than the hull distance [1].
• In Pharmaceutical Context: For Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), the most stable crystalline polymorph represents the thermodynamically favored form. Formulating with metastable polymorphs, amorphous material, or stabilized supersaturated solutions requires careful risk assessment to ensure stability throughout the product's shelf life, typically about three years [2].

Kinetic Stability

Kinetic stability describes the persistence of a metastable state due to energy barriers that slow down the transformation to the thermodynamic ground state. It is a time-dependent property, defining how long a material can resist change despite not being in its lowest energy configuration.

• Quantitative Descriptors: Kinetic stability is modeled using rate constants and the Arrhenius equation, which relates the reaction rate to temperature. The simplicity of a first-order kinetic model enhances reliability by reducing parameters and preventing overfitting, providing precise stability estimates even with limited data points [3] [4].
• In Pharmaceutical Context: Kinetic stability governs degradation processes like aggregation, hydrolysis, and oxidation. Predicting long-term stability (e.g., aggregate formation in biotherapeutics) from short-term accelerated data is possible using simplified kinetic models that identify the dominant degradation pathway [3].

Table 1: Comparative Features of Thermodynamic and Kinetic Stability

Feature	Thermodynamic Stability	Kinetic Stability
Governing Principle	Global minimum Gibbs free energy [1]	Energy barriers and activation energy [3]
Time Dependency	Time-independent (equilibrium property)	Time-dependent (persistence over time)
Key Quantitative Metric	Distance to convex hull, Formation energy [1]	Rate constants, Arrhenius parameters [3]
Primary Role in ML	Target for stable material discovery [5]	Predicts synthesizability and shelf-life [3]

Experimental Protocols for Stability Assessment

Protocol for Determining Thermodynamic Stability in Materials

Objective: To experimentally determine the thermodynamic stability of a novel inorganic crystal, such as a MAX phase or perovskite.

Principle: Combine synthesis with characterization and first-principles calculations to ascertain if the material is stable on the convex hull of its phase diagram.

Materials & Equipment:

• High-purity elemental powders (e.g., Ti, Sn, N for Ti₂SnN)
• Protective atmosphere furnace (e.g., Argon)
• X-ray Diffractometer (XRD)
• Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
• Computational resources for Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations

Procedure:

• Synthesis: Weigh precursor powders according to the stoichiometry of the target compound (e.g., Ti₂SnN). Mix homogenously and press into a pellet. React the pellet in a tube furnace at the target temperature (e.g., 750°C for Ti₂SnN) under an inert atmosphere for a specified duration [6].
• Phase Identification: Grind the synthesized pellet and characterize the powder using XRD. Match the diffraction pattern against known phases and the target compound to confirm successful synthesis and phase purity.
• Thermal Analysis: Use Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) to measure the heat flow associated with phase transitions. A stable compound will show characteristic endothermic or exothermic events corresponding to its decomposition or transformation [7].
• DFT Validation: Calculate the formation energy and the distance to the convex hull using high-throughput DFT calculations. A material is considered thermodynamically stable if its energy above the convex hull is ≤ 0 eV/atom, meaning it does not decompose into other phases [1] [5].

Protocol for Kinetic Stability Modeling of Biologics

Objective: To predict the long-term kinetic stability of a protein therapeutic (e.g., an IgG1 monoclonal antibody) against aggregation.

Principle: Use accelerated stability data and a first-order kinetic model with the Arrhenius equation to extrapolate degradation rates to recommended storage conditions (2-8 °C).

Materials & Equipment:

• Formulated drug substance (sterile-filtered)
• Glass vials and seals
• Stability chambers (e.g., set at 5°C, 25°C, 40°C)
• Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC)-HPLC system

Procedure:

• Study Design: Aseptically fill the formulated protein into glass vials. Incubate vials upright at a minimum of three elevated temperatures (e.g., 25°C, 30°C, 40°C) in addition to the recommended storage temperature (5°C) [3].
• Sampling and Analysis: At predefined intervals (pull points), remove samples from each temperature condition. Analyze them using SEC-HPLC to quantify the percentage of high-molecular-weight aggregates [3].
• Data Fitting: For each temperature, fit the aggregate growth data to a first-order kinetic model: dα/dt = k * (1 - α) where α is the fraction of aggregates and k is the rate constant.
• Arrhenius Extrapolation: Plot the natural logarithm of the rate constants (ln k) obtained from each temperature against the reciprocal of the absolute temperature (1/T). Fit these points to the Arrhenius equation: k = A * exp(-Ea/RT) where Ea is the activation energy, R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature. Use the fitted line to extrapolate the rate constant (k) at the storage temperature (5°C) [3].
• Shelf-life Prediction: Using the extrapolated rate constant, predict the time required for aggregates to reach a critical threshold (e.g., 2%) at the storage condition.

Computational and Machine Learning Approaches

Machine learning models have become powerful tools for predicting stability, effectively navigating the complex relationship between composition, structure, and properties.

ML for Thermodynamic Stability Prediction

The primary goal is to find compounds with high thermodynamic stability, with the distance to the convex hull being a key target [1].

• Input Features: Models use atomic properties (e.g., Mendeleev number, valence electron count), elemental compositions, and structural descriptors derived from methods like Voronoi tessellations [1] [6]. For example, valence electron count was identified as a critical factor for the stability of MAX phases [6].
• Model Performance: Ensemble methods like Extremely Randomized Trees (ERT) and Random Forests (RF) are popular. One benchmark on cubic perovskite systems showed ERT achieved a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 121 meV/atom [1]. A key challenge is the misalignment between regression and classification metrics; a model with low MAE can still have a high false-positive rate if predictions lie close to the stability boundary (0 eV/atom above hull) [5].

Table 2: Machine Learning Models for Stability Prediction

ML Model	Application Context	Reported Performance
Extremely Randomized Trees (ERT)	Prediction of thermodynamic phase stability of perovskite oxides [1]	MAE: 121 meV/atom for cubic perovskites [1]
Random Forest (RF)	Structure-independent prediction of formation energy for ternary compounds [1]	MAE: 80 meV/atom on OQMD data [1]
Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR)	Prediction of formation energies for elpasolite crystals [1]	MAE: 0.1 eV/atom [1]
Gradient Boosting Tree (GBT)	Screening stable MAX phases [6]	Successfully guided discovery of Ti₂SnN [6]
Universal Interatomic Potentials (UIPs)	Pre-screening thermodynamically stable hypothetical materials [5]	Advanced sufficiently for effective and cheap pre-screening [5]

Workflow for ML-Guided Materials Discovery

The following diagram illustrates a prospective ML-driven pipeline for discovering novel stable materials, which more accurately simulates a real-world discovery campaign compared to retrospective benchmarks [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

Item	Function/Application	Protocol Context
High-Purity Elemental Powders (Ti, Sn, Al, etc.)	Precursors for solid-state synthesis of inorganic compounds (e.g., MAX phases) [6]	Thermodynamic Stability (Materials)
Formulated Drug Substance	The protein therapeutic (e.g., IgG, scFv) whose stability is under investigation [3]	Kinetic Stability (Biotherapeutics)
Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) 0.1-1 mol/L	Agent for acid-catalyzed hydrolysis stress testing in forced degradation studies [8]	Pharmaceutical Stability Toolkit (STABLE)
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) 0.1-1 mol/L	Agent for base-catalyzed hydrolysis stress testing in forced degradation studies [8]	Pharmaceutical Stability Toolkit (STABLE)
SEC Column (e.g., UHPLC protein BEH SEC)	Analytical separation to quantify monomeric protein and high-molecular-weight aggregates [3]	Kinetic Stability (Biotherapeutics)
DSC/TGA Instrumentation	Thermal analysis to measure phase transitions, melting points, and thermal decomposition [7]	Thermodynamic Stability (Materials)

The interplay between thermodynamic and kinetic stability forms the cornerstone of rational design in both advanced materials and pharmaceuticals. Thermodynamic metrics like the distance to the convex hull define the ultimate stability landscape, while kinetic models predict the practical persistence of metastable states critical for processing and shelf-life. The integration of machine learning offers a transformative acceleration in navigating this landscape, from screening millions of hypothetical compounds to predicting degradation pathways. However, robust experimental protocols and standardized frameworks like STABLE remain indispensable for validating computational predictions and ensuring the reliable development of new materials and life-saving drugs. A holistic research strategy that leverages the strengths of computational power, machine learning efficiency, and rigorous experimental validation is key to future discoveries.

The discovery and development of novel functional materials are fundamental to technological breakthroughs across fields ranging from clean energy to information processing. For decades, density functional theory (DFT) and other first-principles calculation methods have served as cornerstone techniques in computational materials science, providing insights into material properties and stability with minimal empirical input [9]. These quantum mechanics-based approaches can accurately predict interactions between atomic nuclei and electrons, enabling researchers to obtain material properties from fundamental physics principles [9].

However, the tremendous computational cost of these methods presents a significant bottleneck for materials discovery, particularly when investigating large compositional spaces or complex systems. First-principles calculations require substantial computational resources and time, especially when dealing with large-scale systems or complex processes [9]. The resource intensity of these methods is demonstrated by their dominance of major supercomputing facilities, demanding up to 45% of core hours at the UK-based Archer2 Tier 1 supercomputer and over 70% allocation time in the materials science sector at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center [5].

This application note examines the specific limitations of traditional first-principles methods and documents emerging protocols that combine machine learning with targeted DFT calculations to accelerate materials stability research while maintaining accuracy.

Quantitative Analysis of Computational Costs

The high computational expense of first-principles methods manifests across multiple dimensions, from simple binary systems to complex multi-component materials. The tables below quantify these challenges across different material systems and calculation types.

Table 1: Computational Cost Comparison for Different Material Systems

Material System	Number of Configurations	DFT Computation Time	Key Computational Challenge
σ Phase (Binary)	1,342 configurations	~59 hours per configuration [10]	Multiple non-equivalent crystallographic sites (2a, 4f, 8i1, 8i2, 8j)
σ Phase (Ternary)	243 configurations per ternary system	Substantial CPU resources [10]	Exponential increase with elements (3^5 = 243 configurations)
High-Entropy Alloys (HEAs)	>50,000 possible ordered structures	Days per structure [11]	Vast composition space with multiple principal elements
Mg-B-N Superconductors	1,115,435 hypothetical materials	Prohibitive for exhaustive study [12]	Large configurational space requiring efficient screening

Table 2: Specific Workflow Timings for σ Phase Analysis

Computational Method	System Size	Error (MAE)	Relative Computational Time
Traditional DFT	1342 binary configurations	Reference	100%
Machine Learning (MLP)	1177 ternary configurations	34.871 meV/atom [10]	<41% [10]
High-Throughput Screening	8,801 HEA compositions	Comparable to SQS [11]	Significantly faster [11]

The root of these computational challenges lies in the scaling behavior of DFT calculations, which typically scale as O(N³) with the number of atoms [11]. For complex phases like the σ phase, which has a tetragonal crystal structure with 30 atoms distributed across five non-equivalent Wyckoff positions, the number of possible configurations grows exponentially with the number of elements [10]. This combinatorial explosion makes exhaustive first-principles studies practically infeasible for multi-component systems.

Machine Learning Solutions for Accelerated Discovery

Composition-Based Stability Prediction

ElemNet represents a breakthrough in composition-based materials stability prediction, using a 17-layer deep neural network to predict formation enthalpy from elemental composition alone [13]. This approach bypasses the need for structural information, which dramatically reduces computational requirements. The model was trained on 341,000 compounds from the Open Quantum Materials Database and achieves a mean absolute error of 0.042 eV/atom in cross-validation [13]. When applied to V–Cr–Ti alloys, ElemNet successfully predicted stability trends that aligned with experimental ductile-brittle transition temperature data while identifying promising composition regions that had been overlooked by conventional approaches [13].

Integrated ML-DFT Workflow for Enhanced Efficiency

The most effective protocols combine machine learning pre-screening with targeted DFT validation, creating an active learning loop that progressively improves both accuracy and efficiency. The Graph Networks for Materials Exploration (GNoME) framework exemplifies this approach, having discovered 2.2 million stable crystal structures—an order-of-magnitude expansion from previous knowledge [14].

This framework demonstrates how active learning creates a virtuous cycle where ML models become increasingly accurate as they process more DFT-validated data. Through six rounds of active learning, GNoME improved from less than 6% precision to over 80% for structure-based predictions and from less than 3% to 33% for composition-based predictions [14].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Composition-Based ML for Alloy Stability Prediction

This protocol enables rapid screening of alloy composition spaces using the ElemNet architecture.

• Data Preparation

  • Access formation energies from the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)
  • Format composition data as reduced chemical formulas
  • Normalize elemental compositions to weight or atomic percentages

• Model Configuration

  • Implement 17-layer fully connected deep neural network
  • Configure with rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation functions
  • Set hyperparameters: momentum=0.9, dropouts=0.7, 0.8, 0.9
  • Use stochastic gradient descent optimization

• Training and Validation

  • Train on 341,000 compounds with known formation energies
  • Validate using 10-fold cross-validation
  • Target mean absolute error <0.05 eV/atom

• Prediction and Analysis

  • Input candidate alloy compositions (e.g., V–Cr–Ti combinations)
  • Predict formation enthalpy (ΔHf) for each composition
  • Calculate stability as -ΔHf
  • Correlate with experimental properties (e.g., ductile-brittle transition temperature)

Protocol 2: Integrated ML-DFT for Crystal Structure Discovery

This protocol combines graph neural networks with DFT validation for accelerated materials discovery.

• Candidate Generation

  • Apply symmetry-aware partial substitutions (SAPS) to known crystals
  • Generate diverse candidate structures through random structure search
  • Create composition-based candidates using oxidation-state balancing with relaxed constraints

• ML Pre-screening

  • Implement graph neural networks (GNoME) for energy prediction
  • Use volume-based test-time augmentation
  • Apply uncertainty quantification through deep ensembles
  • Filter candidates based on predicted stability (decomposition energy)

• DFT Validation

  • Perform DFT computations using Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP)
  • Use standardized settings from Materials Project
  • Calculate relaxed structures and energies
  • Verify stability with respect to competing phases

• Active Learning Loop

  • Incorporate successful discoveries into training dataset
  • Retrain ML models on expanded dataset
  • Iterate through multiple rounds of discovery and learning

Protocol 3: ML-Augmented σ Phase Analysis

This specialized protocol addresses the combinatorial challenge of σ phase formation enthalpy prediction.

• Database Construction

  • Perform high-throughput DFT calculations for binary σ phase configurations
  • Focus on 45 binary systems (1,342 configurations)
  • Calculate formation enthalpies and lattice parameters

• Feature Engineering

  • Incorporate element types at different Wyckoff positions
  • Include atomic radius and number of valence electrons
  • Encode crystal structure information

• Model Training

  • Implement Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) algorithm
  • Train on binary σ phase data
  • Target mean absolute error <35 meV/atom on validation set

• Prediction and Validation

  • Predict formation enthalpies for ternary configurations
  • Validate on 8 ternary systems
  • Deploy through Graphical User Interface (GUI) for community use

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Computational Tools and Resources for ML-Accelerated Materials Discovery

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Access
Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)	Database	Provides formation energies for 341,000+ compounds for model training	Public
Materials Project	Database	Offers standardized DFT data for known and predicted materials	Public
ElemNet	Algorithm	Deep neural network for composition-based property prediction	Open-source
GNoME	Framework	Graph neural networks for materials exploration with active learning	Research
Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP)	Software	Performs high-fidelity DFT calculations for validation	Licensed
Matbench Discovery	Benchmark	Evaluates ML model performance on materials discovery tasks	Public

The high computational cost of traditional first-principles calculations has historically constrained the pace of materials discovery, particularly for complex multi-component systems. By implementing the protocols described in this application note—which combine machine learning pre-screening with targeted DFT validation—researchers can overcome these limitations and accelerate stability prediction by orders of magnitude. The integrated approach maintains the accuracy of quantum mechanical calculations while dramatically reducing computational costs, enabling efficient exploration of vast compositional spaces that were previously inaccessible to computational screening.

In computational materials science, accurately predicting the stability of a compound is a fundamental step toward discovering new, synthesizable materials. Two key metrics serve as primary indicators of thermodynamic stability: the Formation Energy and the Distance to the Convex Hull (often referred to as Energy Above Convex Hull). While related, these metrics provide distinct information. The Formation Energy (E_f) measures the energy released or absorbed when a compound is formed from its constituent elements in their standard states. A negative E_f indicates that the compound is stable with respect to its elements. The Distance to the Convex Hull (E_hull) is a more rigorous metric that quantifies the stability of a compound with respect to all other known and computationally predicted phases in its chemical system. It represents the energy difference between the compound and the point on the convex hull of formation energies for that compositional space; an E_hull of 0 eV/atom signifies that the material is thermodynamically stable. For materials discovery, a compound is typically considered potentially stable if it possesses a negative formation energy and a very small E_hull (often < 50 meV/atom, though thresholds can vary) [15] [5].

The rapid adoption of composition-based machine learning (ML) models addresses a critical bottleneck in high-throughput screening. While density functional theory (DFT) is the workhorse for calculating these stability metrics, it is computationally intensive and time-consuming, making the exploration of vast compositional spaces prohibitive. Machine learning models, trained on existing DFT databases, can predict E_f and E_hull orders of magnitude faster, acting as efficient pre-filters to identify the most promising candidate materials for subsequent DFT validation and experimental synthesis [5] [16]. This protocol focuses on the application of such models for stability prediction.

Quantitative Performance of ML Models

The following tables summarize the performance of various machine learning models in predicting formation energy and energy above the convex hull, as reported in recent literature. These quantitative benchmarks are essential for selecting the appropriate model for a materials discovery campaign.

Table 1: Performance of ML models in predicting Formation Energy (E_f).

Material System	ML Model	Input Features	Test MAE (eV/atom)	Training Data Source
2D MXenes [15]	Neural Network	12 Physico-chemical properties	0.21	C2DB (300 entries)
2D MXenes [15]	Random Forest	12 Physico-chemical properties	0.23	C2DB (300 entries)
General Inorganic Crystals [13]	ElemNet (Deep Neural Network)	Elemental composition only	0.042 (avg.)	OQMD (341,000 compounds)
V–Cr–Ti Alloys [13]	ElemNet (Deep Neural Network)	Elemental composition only	0.015	OQMD (Pretrained)

Table 2: Performance of ML models in predicting Energy Above Convex Hull (E_hull).

Material System	ML Model	Input Features	Test MAE (eV/atom)	Training Data Source
2D MXenes [15]	Neural Network	14 Physico-chemical properties	0.08	C2DB (300 entries)
General Inorganic Crystals [5]	Universal Interatomic Potentials	Crystal structure	~0.08 (est. from Fig. 3)	Multiple (MP, AFLOW, OQMD)
General Inorganic Crystals [5]	Random Forests	Crystal structure	~0.12 (est. from Fig. 3)	Multiple (MP, AFLOW, OQMD)

Key Insights from Quantitative Data:

• Data Regime Impact: Model accuracy is highly dependent on the quantity and quality of training data. Graph-based models and universal interatomic potentials, which have access to structural information, generally outperform composition-based models, but this advantage becomes clear primarily with large datasets (>100,000 samples) [5] [16].
• Reduced-Order Models: For specific material families like MXenes, reduced-order models using only 4 or 7 key features can maintain accuracy (MAE ~0.21 eV for E_f) while improving computational efficiency and transferability [15].
• Beyond Regression Metrics: A critical best practice is to evaluate models on classification metrics (e.g., false-positive rate for stable materials) in addition to regression metrics like MAE. A model with a good MAE can still have a high false-positive rate if its errors are concentrated near the stability threshold of 0 eV/atom [5].

Experimental and Computational Protocols

Protocol 1: High-Throughput DFT Calculation of Stability Metrics

This protocol outlines the standard procedure for calculating formation energy and energy above the convex hull using DFT, which generates the ground-truth data for training ML models.

1. Structure Preparation and Relaxation:

• Input: Obtain the initial crystal structure for the target material.
• Geometry Optimization: Perform a full DFT relaxation of the atomic coordinates and lattice vectors until the forces on all atoms and the stress tensor components are below a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.01 eV/Å for forces). This yields the ground-state total energy, E_total.

2. Formation Energy (E_f) Calculation:

• Formula: E_f = E_total - ∑(n_i * E_i). Here, n_i is the number of atoms of element i in the compound, and E_i is the reference energy per atom of element i in its standard stable phase (e.g., bulk solid).
• Action: Calculate the E_f per atom for the target compound using the formula.

3. Convex Hull Construction:

• Data Collection: Gather the calculated E_f for the target compound and all other known and predicted compounds in the same chemical system (A-B-C...).
• Hull Calculation: For the given chemical system, plot the E_f per atom of all phases against composition. The convex hull is the set of line segments connecting the most stable phases at different compositions. Phases lying on these segments have E_hull = 0.
• Action: Construct the convex hull using computational tools available in materials databases like the Materials Project or AFLOW.

4. Energy Above Hull (E_hull) Calculation:

• Formula: E_hull = E_f(compound) - E_f(hull_point). The E_f(hull_point) is the energy of the point on the convex hull at the same composition as the target compound, obtained by a linear combination of the energies of the hull phases.
• Action: Calculate the E_hull for the target compound. A positive value indicates metastability or instability.

Protocol 2: Composition-Based ML Prediction of Material Stability

This protocol describes the workflow for using a pre-trained composition-based ML model to predict stability metrics without performing DFT calculations.

1. Input Preparation:

• Input: The elemental composition of the target material (e.g., V₆₀Cr₃₀Ti₁₀).
• Feature Vectorization (if required): For models that do not automatically encode composition (unlike ElemNet), convert the composition into a feature vector. This may involve using properties of the constituent elements, such as atomic radius, electronegativity, valence electron numbers, etc. [15].

2. Model Inference:

• Action: Feed the composition (or its feature vector) into the pre-trained ML model.
• Output: The model returns a prediction for the formation energy (E_f) and/or the energy above the convex hull (E_hull).

3. Stability Assessment:

• Decision: Classify the material based on the predicted values. A material is a candidate for being thermodynamically stable if it meets the criteria:
  • E_f < 0 eV/atom
  • E_hull ≈ 0 eV/atom (e.g., < 0.05 - 0.10 eV/atom, depending on the chosen threshold) [5].

4. Validation and Selection:

• Action: The materials predicted to be stable are shortlisted for subsequent, more accurate validation using high-fidelity DFT calculations, as described in Protocol 1.

Diagram 1: Composition-based ML stability prediction workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential computational tools and databases for ML-driven stability prediction.

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Relevance to Stability Metrics
Open Quantum MaterialsDatabase (OQMD) [13]	Database	Repository of DFT-calculated properties for hundreds of thousands of materials.	Serves as a primary source of training data (Ef, Ehull) for composition-based ML models like ElemNet.
Computational 2D MaterialsDatabase (C2DB) [15]	Database	Contains calculated properties for a wide range of two-dimensional materials.	Provides curated, high-quality datasets for training specialized ML models for 2D materials.
Materials Project (MP)AFLOW [5]	Database	Large-scale databases of computed material properties and crystal structures.	Used for training universal ML models and for constructing convex hulls for specific chemical systems.
ElemNet [13]	ML Model	A deep neural network that predicts formation energy from elemental composition alone.	A key "reagent" for rapid, first-principles stability screening without requiring structural knowledge.
Random Forest /Neural Networks [15]	ML Algorithm	Versatile algorithms for regression tasks, capable of learning from physico-chemical features.	Used to build accurate predictive models for Ef and Ehull, with feature importance analysis.
Universal InteratomicPotentials (UIPs) [5]	ML Model	ML-based force fields trained on diverse DFT data that can predict energies and forces for arbitrary structures.	Emerging as state-of-the-art tools for pre-screening thermodynamic stability from unrelaxed crystal structures.
Matbench Discovery [5]	BenchmarkingFramework	An evaluation framework for assessing the performance of ML energy models on a materials discovery task.	A critical "validation reagent" for comparing different models and selecting the best one for a discovery campaign.

High-Throughput Screening (HTS) has long been a cornerstone of modern drug discovery and materials science, enabling the rapid experimental testing of thousands to millions of chemical compounds or materials. Traditionally, this process has been a numbers game, often reliant on simple, binary readouts and 2D cell cultures, which, while fast, can lack biological relevance and generate substantial waste [17]. A fundamental paradigm shift is now underway, moving HTS from a largely brute-force approach to a precise, intelligent, and predictive science. This transformation is being driven by the integration of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), which enhances every stage of the pipeline—from initial design to final data analysis [18] [19].

This shift is particularly impactful within the context of composition-based machine learning models for material stability research. The challenge of evaluating the thermodynamic stability of potential new materials from a vast chemical space is analogous to finding a drug candidate in a library of billions of molecules [5]. ML models, especially universal interatomic potentials (UIPs), are now adept at acting as ultra-fast pre-filters, accurately predicting crystal stability and drastically reducing the need for computationally expensive first-principles calculations like Density Functional Theory (DFT) [5]. This allows researchers to focus experimental and simulation efforts on the most promising candidates, thereby accelerating the entire discovery workflow.

The following table summarizes key quantitative trends and performance metrics that characterize the ML-driven transformation of HTS in drug and materials discovery.

Table 1: Impact Metrics of Machine Learning on Discovery Workflows

Area of Impact	Traditional Approach	ML-Enhanced Approach	Key Performance Metrics
Virtual Screening	Molecular docking with empirical scoring functions [20].	ML-based scoring (e.g., Gnina CNN, AGL-EAT-Score) and generative models conditioned on binding pockets [21].	ML models show superior speed (orders of magnitude faster than DFT [5]) and improved accuracy in pose prediction and binding affinity estimation [21].
Materials Stability Prediction	High-throughput DFT calculations, computationally intensive [5].	ML as a pre-filter (e.g., UIPs, graph neural networks) [5].	UIPs identified as top performers for pre-screening; benchmarks show alignment of classification metrics with discovery goals is critical [5].
Toxicity & ADMET Profiling	Sequential, experimental in vitro assays [22].	Predictive models (e.g., AttenhERG for cardiotoxicity, StreamChol for liver injury) [21].	Models achieve high forecasting accuracy; tools enable early identification and redesign of compounds to reduce toxicity risks [21].
Data Utilization	Manual processing, spreadsheet-based analysis [22].	Automated FAIRification (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) workflows (e.g., ToxFAIRy) [22].	Enables integration of multi-endpoint data (e.g., Tox5-score) for holistic hazard assessment and efficient machine-readable data reuse [22].

## Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for key experiments that exemplify the integration of ML into modern HTS workflows.

### Protocol 1: Structure-Based Virtual Screening Enhanced by Machine Learning

This protocol, adapted from a 2025 study on identifying natural tubulin inhibitors, details the use of ML to refine virtual screening hits [20].

1. Homology Modeling and Library Preparation

• Objective: Generate a reliable 3D structure of the target protein and prepare compound libraries.
• Steps:
  • Retrieve the target protein sequence (e.g., βIII-tubulin, Uniprot ID: Q13509).
  • Use a tool like Modeller to build a 3D homology model using a known crystal structure as a template (e.g., PDB: 1JFF) [20].
  • Select the final model based on Discrete Optimized Protein Energy (DOPE) score and validate stereo-chemical quality with a Ramachandran plot (e.g., using PROCHECK) [20].
  • Retrieve a library of natural compounds (e.g., ~90,000 from ZINC database) and convert structures into PDBQT format using Open-Babel [20].

2. Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SBVS)

• Objective: Identify top binding candidates from the library.
• Steps:
  • Define the binding site (e.g., the 'Taxol site') on the target protein.
  • Perform molecular docking for all library compounds using software like AutoDock Vina.
  • Filter results based on binding energy and select the top 1,000 hits for further analysis [20].

3. Machine Learning Classification for Active Compounds

• Objective: Distinguish true active compounds from inactive ones using chemical descriptors.
• Steps:
  • Prepare Training Data: Curate a dataset of known active and inactive compounds for the target. Generate decoys with similar physicochemical properties using the DUD-E server to balance the dataset [20].
  • Calculate Molecular Descriptors: For both the training set and the 1,000 test hits, calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints from their SMILES codes using a tool like PaDEL-Descriptor [20].
  • Train and Validate ML Model: Apply a supervised ML classifier (e.g., Random Forest, Support Vector Machine). Use 5-fold cross-validation and evaluate performance using metrics like precision, recall, F-score, and AUC [20].
  • Predict Actives: Use the trained model to predict and rank the activity of the 1,000 test compounds, narrowing the list to a final set of ~20 high-priority candidates [20].

4. Experimental Validation

• Objective: Confirm predicted activity through computational and wet-lab assays.
• Steps:
  • Perform in-depth molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on the final candidates to assess binding stability and affinity [20].
  • Analyze Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties in silico to evaluate drug-likeness [20].
  • Send the most promising, well-characterized candidates for in vitro experimental validation.

### Protocol 2: FAIRification and Multi-Endpoint Toxicity Scoring for Hazard Assessment

This protocol outlines an automated workflow for processing HTS data into a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) format and deriving a comprehensive toxicity score, as demonstrated in a 2025 study on nanomaterials [22].

1. HTS Data Generation and Metadata Annotation

• Objective: Generate raw experimental data with comprehensive metadata.
• Steps:
  • Conduct a panel of in vitro toxicity assays (e.g., cell viability, DNA damage, apoptosis) across multiple time points and concentrations.
  • For materials like nanomaterials, quantify cell-delivered doses using metrics such as nominal concentration (μg/mL), mass per cell growth area (μg/cm²), or surface area per cell growth area (cm²/cm²) [22].
  • Systematically record all metadata, including material properties, assay conditions, cell lines, and replicate information.

2. Data FAIRification and Preprocessing

• Objective: Convert raw data into a standardized, machine-readable format.
• Steps:
  • Use a custom Python module (e.g., ToxFAIRy) or an Orange Data Mining workflow to read and combine experimental data [22].
  • Annotate the data with the recorded metadata.
  • Convert the dataset into a FAIR-compliant format, such as NeXus, which integrates all data and metadata into a single, structured file for reuse and sharing [22].

3. Calculation of the Integrated Tox5-Score

• Objective: Integrate multi-endpoint data into a single, comparable hazard value.
• Steps:
  • For each dose-response curve, calculate key metrics: the first statistically significant effect (FSE), the area under the curve (AUC), and the maximum effect (Emax) [22].
  • Scale and normalize these metrics from the different endpoints and time points to make them comparable.
  • Compile the normalized metrics into an integrated Tox5-score, which provides a transparent, weighted overview of the overall hazard profile, visualized as a ToxPi (Toxicological Priority Index) chart [22].

4. Hazard Ranking and Grouping

• Objective: Use the computed scores for decision-making.
• Steps:
  • Rank all tested agents (chemicals or materials) from most to least toxic based on their Tox5-score.
  • Perform clustering analysis on the endpoint-specific scores to group materials with similar hazard profiles, enabling read-across and hypothesis generation about mechanisms of action [22].

## The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Software

Table 2: Key Resources for ML-Enhanced HTS Workflows

Category	Item / Software	Function / Application
Computational Docking & Screening	AutoDock Vina / InstaDock [20]	Performs molecular docking for structure-based virtual screening.
	Gnina (v1.3) [21]	Uses convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for superior pose scoring and binding affinity prediction.
Machine Learning & Cheminformatics	PaDEL-Descriptor [20]	Calculates molecular descriptors and fingerprints from chemical structures for ML model training.
	Scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch [18]	Programmatic frameworks for building and training supervised and deep learning models.
	ChemProp [21]	A graph neural network (GNN) method specifically designed for molecular property prediction.
Data Management & Analysis	ToxFAIRy Python Module [22]	Automates the preprocessing and FAIRification of HTS data into standardized, reusable formats.
	Orange Data Mining [22]	A visual programming platform with custom widgets for data analysis and model building.
Experimental Assays (In Vitro)	CellTiter-Glo Assay [22]	Measures cell viability via luminescence in HTS formats.
	Caspase-Glo 3/7 Assay [22]	Measures apoptosis activation via caspase activity.
	GammaH2AX Assay [22]	Detects DNA double-strand breaks, a key marker of genotoxicity.

The integration of machine learning into High-Throughput Screening represents a true paradigm shift, moving the field from a high-volume, low-context process to an intelligent, predictive, and data-driven discipline. In drug discovery, ML enhances virtual screening, de-risks candidates by predicting ADMET properties early, and enables the generation of novel compounds [19] [21]. In materials science, particularly for stability research, ML models serve as powerful pre-filters that navigate vast compositional spaces with speed and increasing accuracy, ensuring that costly experimental and computational resources are allocated to the most promising leads [5]. The continued development of automated and FAIR data workflows ensures that the vast amounts of data generated can be fully leveraged, creating a virtuous cycle of learning and discovery. As these technologies mature, the future of HTS points toward increasingly adaptive, personalized, and autonomous discovery systems that will fundamentally accelerate the development of new therapeutics and advanced materials.

For researchers in materials science and drug development, predicting stability is a critical challenge that dictates the viability of new compounds and pharmaceutical products. Composition-based machine learning (ML) models offer a powerful strategy to navigate vast chemical spaces by using a material's chemical formula as the primary input, even in the absence of detailed structural data [23]. These models learn complex relationships between elemental composition and thermodynamic stability, enabling the rapid in-silico screening of novel materials with desired stability profiles. This application note details the essential terminology, validated experimental protocols, and key resources for implementing these predictive frameworks in research.

Core Terminology and Key Concepts

Stability: In the context of ML models, stability can refer to several properties. Thermodynamic stability is often represented by the decomposition energy (ΔHd), defined as the energy difference between a compound and its competing phases in a phase diagram [23]. For energetic materials (EMs), stability is frequently assessed via Bond Dissociation Energy (BDE) of the weakest "trigger bond" (e.g., X-NO₂), which correlates strongly with sensitivity and safety [24]. Model Stability refers to the reliability of a model's predictions, particularly the volatility of risk estimates when development data or modeling strategies change [25].

Features and Descriptors: These are quantifiable characteristics of a material that serve as input variables (X) for ML models to predict a target property (Y) [26].

• Composition-Based Descriptors: Derived directly from the chemical formula. These can include simple elemental proportions, statistical summaries (mean, range, mode) of atomic properties (e.g., atomic radius, electronegativity) [23], or more complex representations like electron configuration (EC) matrices that capture the distribution of electrons within an atom [23].
• Hybrid Feature Representation: A strategy that couples local features (e.g., attributes of a target chemical bond) with global features representing the entire molecule's structure to more sufficiently characterize a property [24].
• Descriptor Optimization: The process of down-selecting the most impactful descriptors from a large pool to build a robust and interpretable model, often using feature importance metrics [26].

Model Types: A variety of supervised ML algorithms are employed for stability prediction.

• Tree-Based Ensembles: Methods like Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Random Forest combine multiple decision trees to achieve high predictive accuracy. XGBoost has demonstrated top performance in predicting properties like detonation velocity and decomposition temperature [27] [24].
• Neural Networks: These include Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). The Electron Configuration CNN (ECCNN), for example, uses convolutional layers to process encoded electron configuration data [23].
• Ensemble Frameworks: Techniques like Stacked Generalization (SG) combine the predictions of multiple, diverse base models (e.g., Magpie, Roost, ECCNN) into a super learner to mitigate the inductive bias of any single model and enhance overall performance [23].

Quantitative Comparison of Models and Descriptors

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Selected ML Models for Stability Prediction

Model Type	Application Context	Key Performance Metrics	Notable Strengths
XGBoost [27] [24]	HEDM properties (detonation velocity/pressure); EM BDE prediction	Best scoring metrics vs. other models; R² = 0.98, MAE = 8.8 kJ·mol⁻¹ for BDE [24]	High accuracy; handles complex, non-linear relationships
ECSG (Ensemble) [23]	Thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds	AUC = 0.988; high sample efficiency (1/7 data for same performance) [23]	Mitigates model bias; leverages complementary knowledge
Convolutional Autoencoder [28]	Emulsion droplet stability from images	91.7% classification accuracy for droplet break-up [28]	Discovers latent shape descriptors from image data

Table 2: Commonly Used Feature Descriptors for Stability Prediction

Descriptor Category	Specific Examples	Relevance to Stability
Electronic Structure [23]	Electron Configuration (EC)	An intrinsic atomic property crucial for understanding chemical reactivity and bonding.
Atomic Properties [23] [26]	Average reduction potential; Atomic radius statistics; Electronegativity	Related to corrosion resistance, bond strength, and phase formation energy.
Chemical Environment [26]	pH; Halide ion concentration	Critical environmental factors for predicting corrosion rate in alloys.
Bond-Specific & Global Molecular [24]	Local target bond features; Molecular weight; Nitrogen mass percent	Directly characterizes trigger bond strength and overall energetic character.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Building an Ensemble Model for Compound Stability

This protocol outlines the methodology for developing a robust model to predict the thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds, based on the ECSG framework [23].

Workflow Overview:

Materials & Reagents:

• Data Source: A curated dataset of known compounds with calculated decomposition energies (ΔHd), such as from the Materials Project (MP) or JARVIS databases [23].
• Software: Python with libraries: Scikit-learn for general ML, XGBoost for gradient boosting, Pytorch for ECCNN, and Roost implementation.

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Preparation & Encoding:
  • Compile chemical formulas and corresponding stability labels (e.g., ΔHd, stable/unstable classification).
  • Encode each formula into three distinct feature sets:
    • Magpie Descriptors: Calculate mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and mode for a suite of elemental properties (e.g., atomic number, atomic radius, electronegativity) for all elements in the compound [23].
    • Roost Graph: Represent the crystal structure as a graph of atoms (nodes) and bonds (edges). If structure is unavailable, the chemical formula can be treated as a complete graph of its constituent elements [23].
    • ECCNN Input: Encode the compound's composition into a 118 (elements) x 168 (features) x 8 (channels) matrix based on the electron configuration of its constituent atoms [23].

• Base Model Training:

  • Independently train the three base models (Magpie, Roost, ECCNN) using their respective encoded inputs.
  • Use k-fold cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold) to generate out-of-sample predictions for the entire training set from each model.

• Stacked Generalization:

  • The out-of-sample predictions from the three base models are used as input features for a meta-learner model (e.g., a linear model or another XGBoost).
  • Train the meta-learner on these new features to learn the optimal way to combine the base model predictions.

• Validation:

  • Evaluate the final ensemble model's performance on a held-out test set using metrics like Area Under the Curve (AUC) for classification or Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for regression [23].

Protocol 2: Predicting Bond Dissociation Energy with Hybrid Descriptors

This protocol describes a method for building a high-accuracy model to predict the BDE of trigger bonds in energetic molecules, which is critical for assessing their stability [24].

Workflow Overview:

Materials & Reagents:

• Dataset: A specialized dataset of real, synthesized CHON-containing energetic molecules. For the referenced study, 778 molecules were collected from literature, and their BDEs were calculated at the B3LYP/6-31G level of theory [24].
• Software: Quantum mechanics (QM) software (e.g., Gaussian, ORCA) for BDE calculation; Python with RDKit for descriptor generation and XGBoost for modeling.

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Dataset Construction:
  • Curate a set of energetic molecules and compute their BDEs using high-accuracy QM methods. This ensures a reliable and representative dataset, overcoming the scarcity of experimental BDE data for EMs [24].

• Hybrid Feature Engineering:

  • For each molecule, identify the weakest bond (e.g., C-NO₂, N-NO₂).
  • Local Bond Features: Compute quantum mechanical or geometric descriptors specific to the trigger bond and its immediate atomic environment.
  • Global Molecular Features: Calculate descriptors for the entire molecule, such as molecular weight, elemental counts, nitrogen/oxygen mass percent, and topological descriptors [24].
  • Concatenate the local and global feature vectors to form a single, comprehensive hybrid descriptor for each molecule.

• Data Augmentation with PADRE:

  • To overcome data scarcity and improve model robustness, apply the Pairwise Difference Regression (PADRE) strategy.
  • Generate new data points by creating feature vectors that are the differences between pairs of original feature vectors. The corresponding new labels are the differences between the original BDE values. This augments the dataset and can help reduce systematic errors [24].

• Model Training and Validation:

  • Train an XGBoost regressor on the augmented dataset using the hybrid descriptors.
  • Validate the model using a rigorous train-test split or cross-validation, reporting metrics like R² and MAE to demonstrate predictive accuracy [24].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Tool / Resource	Type	Function in Stability Prediction
Materials Project (MP) / JARVIS Database [23]	Data Repository	Provides large-scale, computed thermodynamic data (e.g., formation energies) for training composition-based stability models.
B3LYP/6-31G Level Theory [24]	Computational Method	A widely used and reliable quantum mechanics method for calculating target properties like Bond Dissociation Energy (BDE) when experimental data is lacking.
Magpie Descriptor Set [23]	Feature Generator	Automates the creation of statistical features from elemental properties, providing a robust input for models predicting bulk material properties.
XGBoost Library [27] [24]	Software / Algorithm	An optimized implementation of gradient boosting, frequently a top-performing model for tabular data in materials science.
Pairwise Difference Regression (PADRE) [24]	Data Augmentation Strategy	Artificially expands small datasets and improves model generalization by training on differences between samples, reducing systematic error.

Building and Applying ML Models for Stability Prediction

In composition-based machine learning (ML) for material stability research, valence electron count (VEC) has emerged as a fundamental compositional descriptor for predicting phase stability, etching behavior, and catalytic properties across diverse material systems. VEC represents the number of outer-shell electrons available for bonding and profoundly influences electronic structure, bonding characteristics, and consequent material stability. Recent studies have demonstrated VEC's critical role as a predictive feature in ML models targeting everything from topological material discovery to hydrogen evolution catalyst development.

For transition metal systems, VEC is defined as electrons residing outside a noble-gas core, encompassing both outer s-electrons and d-electrons in proximity to the Fermi level [29]. This descriptor exhibits strong correlation with phase selection rules in high-entropy alloys (HEAs), where VEC ≥ 8 generally stabilizes face-centered cubic (FCC) phases, while VEC < 6.87 favors body-centered cubic (BCC) structures [30]. Beyond metallic systems, valence electron engineering now guides the rational design of MXenes, MBenes, and single-atom catalysts through precise control of electron redistribution at interfaces [31] [32].

Theoretical Foundation and Significance

Quantum Mechanical Basis of VEC

The predictive power of VEC originates from its direct connection to quantum mechanical properties governing atomic bonding. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations reveal that VEC governs orbital hybridization patterns, charge transfer mechanisms, and bond stability [31]. In transition metal MAB phases (M = transition metal, A = group III/IV element, B = boron), the valence electron count of the transition metal directly regulates M−A and M−B bond stability through d-p orbital hybridization [31].

When hybridized states approach the Fermi level, M−A interactions weaken, facilitating selective etching of Al layers from M₂AlB₂ phases. Conversely, increased valence electrons in transition metals stabilize these bonds by shifting hybrid states to lower energies [31]. This electronic structure-dynamics framework enables precise prediction of vacancy formation energies and migration barriers critical for material stability assessment.

VEC in Material Stability Assessment

Valence electron count serves as a robust stability indicator across multiple material classes:

• High-entropy alloys: VEC thresholds dictate FCC/BCC phase stability boundaries [30]
• MAB phases: Lower VEC values correlate with preferential Al-layer removal and etching capabilities [31]
• Topological materials: VEC combined with symmetry indicators enables classification of trivial and nontrivial electronic phases [33]
• Catalytic materials: VEC governs adsorption energies of reaction intermediates through electron-sharing mechanisms [32]

Table 1: Valence Electron Count Thresholds for Phase Stability in High-Entropy Alloys

Crystal Structure	VEC Range	Stability Region	Remarks
FCC	VEC ≥ 8	High stability	Metallic bonding dominant
FCC + BCC	6.87 ≤ VEC < 8	Mixed phase region	Transition zone
BCC	VEC < 6.87	High stability	Covalent bonding contributions

Computational Protocols for VEC Feature Engineering

First-Principles Calculation of VEC Parameters

Density Functional Theory Workflow for VEC Validation

Protocol 1: DFT Calculation of Valence Electron Characteristics

• Initialization

  • Build crystal structure from CIF files or material database entries
  • Perform geometry optimization until forces < 0.01 eV/Å
  • Confirm convergence of lattice parameters to < 0.1% variation

• Electronic Structure Calculation

  • Employ CASTEP or VASP with PBE-GGA functional [31]
  • Use ultrasoft pseudopotentials with plane-wave cutoff ≥ 500 eV
  • Implement k-point mesh with spacing ≤ 0.03 Å⁻¹
  • Include spin-orbit coupling for heavy elements (Z > 40)

• VEC Parameter Extraction

  • Calculate total and projected density of states (DOS/PDOS)
  • Perform Bader charge analysis for electron partitioning
  • Integrate charge density within atomic basins
  • Compute orbital-resolved electron counts (s, p, d, f)

• Validation

  • Compare computed VEC with nominal electron counts
  • Verify charge conservation across unit cell
  • Confirm band filling aligns with metallic/semiconducting behavior

Machine Learning Feature Engineering Pipeline

Compositional Descriptor Engineering Framework

Protocol 2: VEC Feature Engineering for Material Stability Prediction

• Composition-Based Feature Generation

  • Implement Composition Analyzer Featurizer (CAF) for elemental properties [34]
  • Calculate weighted averages of atomic properties based on stoichiometry
  • Generate 133 compositional features including electronegativity, atomic radius, and group number

• Structure-Based Feature Enhancement

  • Apply Structure Analyzer Featurizer (SAF) to CIF files [34]
  • Extract 94 structural descriptors including symmetry operations and Wyckoff positions
  • Compute space group-specific symmetry indicators

• VEC-Specific Descriptor Engineering

  • Calculate total VEC using group-number summation method [29]
  • Compute d-electron count for transition metal systems [32]
  • Derive orbital-wise electron occupation ratios (p-electron fraction, d-electron fraction) [35]
  • Implement valence electron fitting rules for specific applications [32]

• Feature Selection and Optimization

  • Apply recursive feature elimination with cross-validation
  • Prioritize features with physical significance to stability prediction
  • Validate descriptor robustness against overfitting

Table 2: Critical VEC-Derived Features for Material Stability Models

Feature Name	Calculation Method	Physical Significance	Application Domain
Total VEC	Sum of group numbers	Fermi level position	Phase stability, HEAs
d-electron count	Transition metal d-electrons	Bond covalency strength	Catalysis, MBenes
p-electron fraction	p-electrons/total electrons	Orbital hybridization character	Glass formation, ChGs
VEC variance	Statistical dispersion	Chemical heterogeneity	High-entropy materials
Valence electron fitting parameter	VTM + VO/OH = 12 rule [32]	Adsorption energy prediction	Electrocatalysis

Case Studies and Experimental Validation

VEC-Guided MBene Synthesis from MAB Phases

Protocol 3: VEC-Controlled Etching of M₂AlB₂ Phases

The valence electron count directly governs Al vacancy thermodynamics and kinetics in M₂AlB₂ (M = Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Mo, Hf, W) phases [31]:

• Sample Preparation

  • Synthesize phase-pure M₂AlB₂ powders via solid-state reaction
  • Characterize crystal structure using XRD (confirm orthorhombic structure)
  • Verify composition using EDS spectroscopy

• VEC-Dependent Etching Optimization

  • Prepare etching solution (HF or HF/HCl mixtures)
  • For low-VEC systems (VEC < 4): Use milder etching conditions (10% HF, 4h)
  • For high-VEC systems (VEC > 5): Employ aggressive etching (50% HF, 12h)
  • Maintain temperature at 25°C with continuous stirring

• Etching Validation

  • Monitor Al removal using ICP-OES at 30-minute intervals
  • Characterize layered structure using TEM and SAED
  • Confirm MBene formation using Raman spectroscopy

Key Results: Ti₂AlB₂ (VEC = 4) exhibits optimal etching behavior with Al vacancy formation energy of 0.85 eV and migration barrier of 1.2 eV, while Cr₂AlB₂ (VEC = 6) shows significantly higher formation energy (> 2.5 eV) requiring extended etching duration [31].

VEC-Driven Discovery of Topological Materials

The TXL Fusion framework integrates VEC with symmetry indicators for high-throughput identification of topological materials [33]:

Protocol 4: VEC-Enhanced Topological Material Classification

• Dataset Curation

  • Collect 38,184 materials from topological materials database
  • Label phases as trivial (18,090), topological semimetals (13,985), or topological insulators (6,109)

• Feature Engineering

  • Calculate total VEC and electron count parity
  • Compute orbital-wise electron contributions (d- and f-orbital participation)
  • Extract space group symmetry and site symmetry indicators

• Model Training

  • Implement ensemble classifier with heuristic, numerical, and LLM embedding modules
  • Train XGBoost classifier on concatenated feature representations
  • Validate using 5-fold cross-validation with stratified sampling

Performance: The VEC-enhanced model achieved 92% accuracy in distinguishing topological phases, significantly outperforming symmetry-only approaches (74% accuracy) [33].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for VEC Feature Engineering

Tool Name	Function	Application Context	Access Method
CASTEP	DFT electronic structure calculation	VEC parameterization from first principles	Commercial license
Composition Analyzer Featurizer (CAF)	Compositional descriptor generation	Automated feature engineering from chemical formulas	Open-source Python
Structure Analyzer Featurizer (SAF)	Structural descriptor extraction	Crystal structure-based feature generation	Open-source Python
Matminer	Materials data mining and featurization	High-throughput descriptor calculation	Open-source Python
Catalysis-hub	ΔGH adsorption energy database	Model training for catalytic stability	Public database
SciGlass	Glass property database	Refractive index modeling with VEC features	Subscription

Valence electron count has established itself as a critical compositional descriptor for machine learning models predicting material stability across diverse chemical spaces. The protocols outlined herein provide researchers with robust methodologies for VEC feature engineering, from first-principles calculation to experimental validation. As ML approaches continue to evolve, integration of VEC with advanced structural descriptors and symmetry indicators will further enhance predictive accuracy for complex material systems, accelerating the discovery of novel stable materials for energy, catalytic, and quantum applications.

In the field of computational materials science, predicting material stability is a critical task for accelerating the discovery and development of new compounds. The complex, non-linear relationships between material composition, structure, and properties make machine learning (ML) particularly valuable for this application. This article provides a detailed overview of three key ML algorithms—Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, and Gradient Boosting—within the context of composition-based material stability research. We examine their fundamental principles, implementation protocols, and performance characteristics, supported by experimental data from recent studies. The growing adoption of ML in scientific domains underscores the need for standardized benchmarking tasks and metrics to ensure reliable comparisons across different methodologies [5]. By framing our discussion around material stability prediction, we aim to equip researchers with the practical knowledge needed to select, implement, and interpret these powerful algorithms in their investigative work.

Algorithm Fundamentals and Comparative Analysis

Random Forests

Random Forests (RF) represent an ensemble learning method that operates by constructing multiple decision trees during training. As a bagging-based ensemble technique, RF generates numerous bootstrap samples (subsets) from the training data and trains independent predictive models on each subset [36]. The algorithm's prediction is determined as the mean of all predictions from the submodels, which improves stability and accuracy while reducing overfitting [36]. RF is particularly noted for its robust performance on small datasets comprising mainly categorical variables and its ability to handle class imbalance effectively [36]. The algorithm's resistance to outliers and minimal requirement for hyperparameter tuning make it particularly attractive for materials research applications.

Support Vector Machines

Support Vector Machines (SVM) are supervised learning models that analyze data for classification and regression analysis. In their simplest form, SVMs construct a hyperplane or set of hyperplanes in a high-dimensional space, which can be used for classification, regression, or outlier detection. The fundamental principle behind SVM is to find the optimal separating hyperplane that maximizes the margin between different classes in the feature space. For non-linearly separable data, SVMs employ kernel functions to map input data into higher-dimensional feature spaces where linear separation becomes possible. The Linear Kernel Support Vector Machine has demonstrated particular effectiveness in predicting stability energy and structural correlations of selenium-based compounds, identifying key descriptors such as BertzCT, PEOE_VSA14, and χ1 [37].

Gradient Boosting

Gradient Boosting is a powerful boosting technique that builds models sequentially, with each new model trained to minimize the loss function of the previous model [38]. Unlike bagging methods, boosting is an iterative and dependence-based system where weak classifiers are collected to generate strong classifiers [36]. The algorithm works by iteratively adding decision trees that focus on the residual errors of the previous ensemble, gradually improving predictive performance. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) represents an advanced implementation that utilizes an objective function consisting of both a loss function and a regularization term, which helps control model complexity and prevent overfitting [38]. Ensemble methods based on gradient boosting have demonstrated excellent predictive performance in various materials stability applications, often outperforming traditional machine learning methods [39] [40].

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Key Algorithms in Material Stability Prediction

Algorithm	Prediction Task	Performance Metrics	Dataset Size	Reference
Random Forest	Rock slope stability	AUC: 0.95, Precision: 0.88	18 factors	[41]
SVM with Linear Kernel	Selenium compound stability	Identified key structural descriptors	618 compounds	[37]
XGBoost	Superhydrophobic coating stability	Outperformed SVR and KNN	Experimental data	[40]
LightGBM with KOA	Slope stability	Accuracy: 0.91, AUC: 0.97	393 cases	[42]
Gradient Boosting Machine	Demolition waste prediction	Effective for small categorical datasets	690 buildings	[36]

Table 2: Typical Hyperparameter Settings for Stability Prediction Models

Algorithm	Key Hyperparameters	Recommended Values	Optimization Methods
Random Forest	Number of trees, Maximum depth, Minimum samples split	100-500 trees, Depth: 10-30, Min samples: 2-5	Bayesian optimization, Grid search	[39] [43]
SVM	Kernel type, Regularization (C), Gamma	Linear/RBF, C: 0.1-10, Gamma: scale/auto	Kepler optimization algorithm	[37] [42]
Gradient Boosting	Learning rate, Number of estimators, Subsample	Learning rate: 0.01-0.1, Estimators: 100-500	Bayesian optimization, Gaussian process	[39] [38]
LightGBM	Number of leaves, Learning rate, Feature fraction	Leaves: 31-127, Learning rate: 0.01-0.05	Kepler optimization algorithm	[42]

Application Protocols for Material Stability Prediction

Data Preparation and Preprocessing

The foundation of any successful ML application in material stability prediction lies in rigorous data preparation. For composition-based stability models, the process typically begins with assembling a comprehensive dataset of known materials and their properties. Recent studies have utilized datasets ranging from 393 slope stability cases to 2250 dump slope stability datasets, with the larger datasets generally yielding more reliable models [39] [42]. The data preprocessing pipeline should include several critical steps: handling missing values through imputation or removal, detecting and addressing outliers using statistical methods, normalizing or standardizing features to ensure consistent scaling, and performing feature selection to eliminate redundant or irrelevant descriptors [40]. For material stability applications, key input parameters often include cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (ϕ), unit weight (γ), overall height (H), and various composition-based descriptors [39] [37]. The output is typically a stability metric such as factor of safety (FOS) or energy above the convex hull.

Model Training and Validation

The model training phase requires careful attention to algorithm selection and validation strategy. For material stability prediction, researchers have successfully employed automated machine learning approaches like Lazy Predict AutoML to select the most appropriate algorithms for their specific datasets [39]. The training process should incorporate k-fold cross-validation (typically 5-fold or 10-fold) to ensure robust performance estimation, though Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation may be preferable for smaller datasets [36]. Hyperparameter optimization is crucial for maximizing model performance; recent studies have utilized Bayesian optimization with Gaussian processes, as well as specialized algorithms like the Kepler optimization algorithm, to identify optimal parameter configurations [39] [42]. For ensemble methods, the number of base estimators (trees) should be sufficiently large to ensure convergence while balancing computational efficiency. Regularization techniques should be employed to prevent overfitting, particularly for complex models trained on limited materials data.

Model Interpretation and Explainability

Beyond mere prediction accuracy, interpretability is crucial for scientific applications where understanding feature relationships drives fundamental insights. The SHapley Additive exPlanations method has emerged as a powerful technique for interpreting ML model outputs in material stability prediction [39] [42]. SHAP quantifies the contribution of each input feature to individual predictions, thereby providing both local and global interpretability. In slope stability applications, SHAP analysis has revealed that cohesion, internal friction angle, and slope angle typically represent the most influential factors, with cohesion generally having the most significant effect on model predictions [42]. Similarly, for selenium-based compounds, SHAP can identify critical structural descriptors such as BertzCT, PEOE_VSA14, and χ1 that govern stability [37]. This interpretability is essential for building trust in ML models and generating testable hypotheses for further experimental validation.

Experimental Workflows

The experimental workflow for material stability prediction using ML follows a systematic process from data collection to model deployment. The diagram below illustrates the key stages in this workflow:

Diagram 1: Material Stability Prediction Workflow

Composition-Based Stability Screening Protocol

The protocol for screening material stability based on composition involves a multi-stage process that integrates computational and experimental approaches. The workflow begins with generating a virtual library of candidate compositions, which can include thousands to millions of potential materials [5] [6]. For each composition, relevant descriptors are computed, including structural, electronic, and thermodynamic features. These descriptors serve as input for trained ML models that perform initial stability screening, rapidly identifying promising candidates from the vast compositional space [6]. The top candidates identified through ML screening then undergo more rigorous first-principles calculations, typically using density functional theory, to verify their thermodynamic stability [5] [6]. Finally, the most promising candidates from computational screening are selected for experimental synthesis and validation, completing the discovery cycle. This integrated approach dramatically accelerates the materials discovery process by prioritizing experimental efforts on the most viable candidates.

Integrated ML-Physical Modeling Framework

For applications where purely data-driven models may lack sufficient accuracy or generalizability, an integrated framework combining ML with physical models offers a powerful alternative. This approach is particularly valuable in geotechnical stability applications, where researchers have successfully combined Random Forest models with physical models like GEOtop and Scoops3D [43]. In this framework, physical models first simulate fundamental processes (e.g., water infiltration and pore pressure distribution), generating comprehensive datasets that capture complex physical interactions [43]. ML models are then trained on these physically consistent datasets, learning the relationships between input parameters and stability outcomes. The trained ML models can subsequently make rapid predictions under new conditions, maintaining physical realism while achieving computational efficiency orders of magnitude faster than full physical simulations [43]. This hybrid approach is especially valuable for scenarios requiring rapid assessment, such as landslide early warning systems or high-throughput materials screening.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Example
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	Model interpretation and feature importance analysis	Identifying cohesion as most critical factor in slope stability [39] [42]
Kepler Optimization Algorithm	Hyperparameter tuning for improved model performance	Optimizing LightGBM parameters for slope stability prediction [42]
GEOtop Model	Simulating hydrological processes in unsaturated soils	Predicting volumetric water content for slope stability analysis [43]
Scoops3D	3D slope stability analysis using limit equilibrium methods	Calculating factor of safety for rotational failure surfaces [43]
Bayesian Optimization	Efficient hyperparameter tuning with Gaussian processes	Optimizing ensemble models for dump slope stability [39]
H2O AutoML	Automated machine learning for model selection and training	Identifying best-performing models for dump slope stability [39]

Performance Benchmarking and Validation

Rigorous benchmarking is essential for evaluating the performance of different algorithms in material stability prediction. Standard evaluation metrics include the coefficient of determination (R²), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and for classification tasks, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) [39] [41]. Studies have demonstrated that ensemble methods typically outperform individual models; for instance, Random Forest achieved an AUC of 0.95 in rock slope stability prediction, while optimized LightGBM reached an accuracy of 0.91 in general slope stability assessment [41] [42]. However, algorithm performance can vary significantly across different applications and data characteristics. For small datasets comprising categorical variables, bagging techniques like Random Forest often produce more stable and accurate predictions than boosting techniques, though Gradient Boosting Machines may excel in specific prediction tasks [36]. Prospective validation using independently generated test sets provides the most reliable assessment of real-world performance, as retrospective benchmarks on existing data may overestimate accuracy [5].

Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, and Gradient Boosting algorithms represent powerful tools for predicting material stability across diverse applications from geotechnical engineering to materials discovery. Each algorithm offers distinct advantages: Random Forests provide robust performance on small datasets with minimal hyperparameter tuning, SVMs effectively handle high-dimensional feature spaces, and Gradient Boosting often achieves highest prediction accuracy at greater computational cost. The implementation protocols outlined in this article provide researchers with practical guidance for applying these algorithms to stability prediction problems, emphasizing the importance of rigorous validation, model interpretation, and integration with physical models where appropriate. As the field advances, we anticipate growing adoption of automated machine learning approaches and standardized benchmarking frameworks that will further enhance the reliability and applicability of these methods in accelerating material stability research and development.

Within the domain of materials science and drug development, predicting material stability is a critical challenge. Traditional experimental methods for assessing stability are often slow, resource-intensive, and can create bottlenecks in development pipelines [44]. Composition-based machine learning (ML) models offer a powerful alternative, enabling researchers to predict stability and key properties from chemical composition and structure, thereby accelerating the discovery and development of new materials and pharmaceutical compounds [18] [5]. This application note details a standardized, end-to-end workflow for building such models, from initial data curation to final model evaluation, specifically framed within material stability research.

Data Curation and Featurization

The foundation of any robust ML model is high-quality, well-curated data. In material stability research, this typically involves assembling datasets from computational and experimental sources.

Data Curation Protocols

Data should be gathered from reliable, large-scale repositories. For inorganic crystals, sources include the Materials Project (MP) [34] [5], AFLOW [5], and the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) [5]. For pharmaceutical compounds, data on amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs) or drug-like molecules can be curated from in-house high-throughput experiments or literature [45]. The primary data types are:

• Chemical Composition: The elemental formula (e.g., CsPbI₃ for perovskites) [46].
• Crystal Structure: Often represented in Crystallographic Information File (.cif) format [34].
• Target Properties: For stability, this is commonly the formation energy or the energy above the convex hull (Ehull) from computational databases [5], or measures of chemical stability and amorphization from experimental drug studies [45].

A critical step is addressing the disconnect between easily computed formation energies and true thermodynamic stability, which is more accurately represented by the distance to the convex hull [5].

Feature Engineering Protocols

Transforming raw chemical data into numerical descriptors, or features, is a process known as featurization. For composition-based models, this can be achieved with open-source tools.

• Composition Featurization: Use the Composition Analyzer Featurizer (CAF) to generate 133 numerical features directly from a list of chemical formulae provided in an Excel file [34]. These features are derived from elemental properties of the constituents, weighted by their stoichiometric ratios.
• Structure Featurization: When structural data is available, use the Structure Analyzer Featurizer (SAF) on .cif files to generate 94 structural features by creating a supercell [34]. This provides information on atomic arrangements that composition alone cannot capture.

For drug stability, Extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFP) are a widely used featurization method to represent molecular structures [45]. Table 1 summarizes key featurizers used in solid-state materials research.

Table 1: Overview of Featurizers for Solid-State Materials

Featurizer	Number of Features	Primary Application Context	Notable Use Cases
CAF/SAF [34]	133 (CAF), 94 (SAF)	General inorganic solid-state materials	Explainable ML for classifying AB intermetallic crystal structures.
MAGPIE [34]	145	General inorganic solid-state materials	Discovery of perovskite materials and metallic glasses [34].
JARVIS [34]	438	General inorganic solid-state materials	High-throughput identification of 2D materials [34].
mat2vec [34]	200	General inorganic solid-state materials	Compositionally restricted attention-based network for property prediction [34].
SOAP [34]	6633	General inorganic solid-state materials	High performance in structure classification (not human-interpretable) [34].

Figure 1: High-level overview of the end-to-end ML workflow for material stability prediction.

Model Training and Evaluation

Model Training Protocol

After featurization, the dataset is split into training and testing sets. A standard split is 70-80% for training and 20-30% for testing [47]. To prevent overfitting, resampling methods or a hold-back validation set should be used [18].

• Algorithm Selection: Based on recent literature, the following algorithms are highly effective:

  • Tree-based models: Random Forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) have shown strong performance in predicting material properties like melting temperature (Tm) and glass transition temperature (Tg) [48], as well as drug amorphization and chemical stability [45].
  • Neural Networks: Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifiers can be highly data-efficient, achieving high accuracy even with smaller datasets [49].
  • Support Vector Machines (SVM): Also a viable model for classification and regression tasks in materials science [34].

• Hyperparameter Tuning: Optimize model performance using techniques like Grid Search, Random Search, or Bayesian Optimization [47]. This involves systematically testing different combinations of model parameters to find the most effective setup.

Model Evaluation Protocol

Evaluation must go beyond standard regression metrics to assess the model's utility for materials discovery [5].

• Regression Metrics: Calculate Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and R² on the test set. For example, state-of-the-art models for predicting Tm and Tg in metallic glasses can achieve R² > 99% and > 98%, respectively [48].
• Classification Metrics: Since the ultimate goal is often to classify materials as "stable" or "unstable" (e.g., using Ehull < 0 as a threshold), evaluate precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy [5] [49]. A model with excellent MAE can still have a high false-positive rate if accurate predictions cluster near the decision boundary [5].
• Validation Techniques: Use k-fold cross-validation (e.g., k=10) to ensure robust performance estimates and mitigate overfitting [49]. The holdout technique is also a fundamental method where a separate test set is used for the final evaluation [47].

Table 2: Example Performance of ML Models in Stability Prediction

Study Context	Best Performing Model	Key Performance Metric(s)	Reported Result
Metallic Glasses (Tm prediction) [48]	Extra Trees Regressor	R² (test set)	99.13%
Metallic Glasses (Tg prediction) [48]	Extra Trees Regressor	R² (test set)	98.79%
Amorphous Solid Dispersions (Amorphization) [45]	ECFP-LightGBM	Accuracy	92.8%
Amorphous Solid Dispersions (Chemical Stability) [45]	ECFP-XGBoost	Accuracy	96.0%
Halide Perovskites (PL feature forecast) [46]	XGBoost	Accuracy	>85%
Student Performance Prediction [49]	MLP Classifier	Accuracy (test set)	86.46%

Figure 2: Detailed protocol for evaluating machine learning model performance, emphasizing task-specific metrics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Software and Data Tools for Composition-Based ML

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Application in Stability Research
CAF/SAF [34]	Software Featurizer	Generates human-interpretable compositional and structural features from chemical formulae and .cif files.	Creating explainable feature sets for classifying stable crystal structures.
Matminer [34]	Software Featurizer	A comprehensive Python library that provides access to multiple featurizers and materials data.	Featurizing compositions and retrieving data from large databases like the Materials Project.
XGBoost [45] [46]	ML Algorithm	An efficient and effective implementation of gradient-boosted decision trees.	Predicting chemical stability in ASDs and thermal stability in perovskites.
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [45] [49]	Explainable AI Tool	Interprets the output of any ML model by quantifying the contribution of each feature.	Identifying critical material attributes (e.g., drug loading, polymer ratio) that drive stability predictions.
Materials Project (MP) [34] [5]	Database	A core repository of computed materials properties and crystal structures.	Source of training data (formation energies, crystal structures) for stability models.

This application note outlines a comprehensive, practical workflow for developing composition-based machine learning models to predict material stability. By following the protocols for data curation, featurization with tools like CAF and SAF, and rigorous model evaluation focused on task-relevant metrics, researchers can build reliable predictive tools. This data-driven approach has proven effective across diverse domains, from accelerating the discovery of stable inorganic crystals to streamlining the formulation of chemically stable drug products, ultimately reducing development time and resource consumption.

The discovery of novel materials in the vast compositional space of inorganic crystals is a fundamental challenge in materials science. MAX phases, a family of layered ternary carbides and nitrides with the general formula (M{n+1}AXn), have attracted significant interest due to their unique combination of metallic and ceramic properties. However, the exploration of new MAX phases has been hindered by the inefficiency of traditional experimental and computational methods. With up to 4347 potential elemental combinations to consider, manual screening is impractical [50].

This case study details a machine learning (ML)-guided discovery of Ti₂SnN, a novel MAX phase, demonstrating how composition-based stability models can dramatically accelerate materials research. This work exemplifies the paradigm shift in materials discovery, moving away from trial-and-error approaches towards data-driven predictive science, a core theme of broader thesis research on ML for material stability.

Machine Learning Methodology

Model Design and Training

The research team from Harbin Institute of Technology constructed a machine learning-based stability model specifically designed for MAX phase prediction [50]. The model was trained on a comprehensive dataset of 1,804 MAX phase combinations sourced from existing literature, learning the complex relationships between elemental composition and thermodynamic stability.

• Input Features: The model uses elemental features as input, requiring only basic elemental parameters to assess stability, thereby avoiding the need for structural information that is often unavailable for hypothetical compounds [50].
• Key Stability Determinants: Analysis of the trained model revealed that the average valence electron number and valence electron difference between constituent elements play a crucial role in determining MAX phase stability [50].
• Scalability: This composition-based approach offers significant scalability, allowing for the rapid screening of thousands of potential combinations without the computational expense of first-principles calculations [50].

Predictive Screening and Results

The deployed ML model screened the chemical space of potential MAX phases and identified 150 previously unsynthesized MAX phase candidates predicted to be stable [50]. Among these candidates, Ti₂SnN was selected for experimental validation. The model's prediction was based solely on the elemental composition of Ti, Sn, and N, demonstrating the powerful generalization capability of composition-based models in navigating unexplored chemical spaces [50].

Table 1: Machine Learning Model Performance and Outcomes

Aspect	Description
Training Data	1,804 known MAX phase combinations [50]
Input Type	Elemental features/composition only [50]
Key Stability Features	Average valence electron number, Valence electron difference [50]
Screening Output	150 predicted stable, previously unsynthesized MAX phases [50]
Target for Validation	Ti₂SnN [50]

Experimental Validation

Synthesis Protocol

The synthesis of the predicted Ti₂SnN MAX phase was achieved using a solid-state reaction method, specifically tailored for this compound.

• Precursor Preparation: The synthesis started from elemental powders of Titanium (Ti), Tin (Sn), and Nitrogen (N) as the primary precursors [50].
• Reactive Synthesis Method: The Ti₂SnN phase was successfully prepared using the Lewis acid replacement method [50]. It is critical to note that attempts to synthesize the compound using the more conventional method of pressureless sintering of elemental powders failed, highlighting the importance of selecting an appropriate synthesis route for predicted materials [50].
• Reaction Conditions: The precise temperature, time, and atmosphere for the Lewis acid replacement reaction were optimized to facilitate the formation of the ternary layered compound.

Characterization and Properties

Experimental characterization confirmed the successful synthesis of Ti₂SnN and revealed its promising properties.

• Phase Identification: Powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis confirmed the formation of the Ti₂SnN MAX phase as the primary product, validating the ML model's prediction [50].
• Mechanical Properties: The synthesized Ti₂SnN exhibited a low elastic modulus and high damage tolerance [50].
• Distinctive Characteristic: The material demonstrated a unique self-extrusion characteristic, which contributes to its damage tolerance and is a notable feature for potential applications [50].

Research Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for MAX Phase Synthesis

Reagent/Material	Function in Research
Elemental Powders (Ti, Sn, etc.)	Serve as primary precursors for solid-state synthesis of MAX phases [51] [50].
Lewis Acid Reaction System	Enables synthesis of challenging MAX phases like Ti₂SnN where conventional pressureless sintering fails [50].
Molten Salt (e.g., NaCl/KCl)	Provides a medium with enhanced ion diffusion for conformal synthesis and lower-temperature reactions [52] [53].
Sealed Quartz Ampules	Creates a controlled, vacuum or inert atmosphere environment for reactions involving volatile elements [51].
Carbon Nanotubes / Graphene	Act as morphology-defining carbon precursors for creating nanostructured MAX phases (nanofibers, nanoflakes) [53].

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: ML-Guided Materials Discovery Workflow. The diagram outlines the key stages in the discovery of Ti₂SnN, from initial data compilation and model training to final experimental validation.

The successful discovery and synthesis of Ti₂SnN underscore a transformative advancement in materials science. This case study demonstrates that machine learning models, trained solely on compositional data, can effectively predict material stability and guide researchers toward viable novel compounds. This approach significantly reduces the traditional reliance on costly and time-consuming trial-and-error methods. The failure of conventional powder sintering for Ti₂SnN also highlights that predictive modeling must be coupled with tailored experimental protocols. The methodology pioneered here paves the way for the accelerated discovery and development of new materials with customized properties for advanced technological applications.

Application Notes

The research of material stability, a cornerstone of computational materials science, is being transformed by two advanced machine learning architectures: hybrid models like CNN-LSTM and Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (uMLIPs). Hybrid CNN-LSTM models excel at processing complex, sequential data by combining Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for spatial feature extraction with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for capturing temporal dependencies [54] [55]. Concurrently, uMLIPs are emerging as foundational tools that overcome the limitations of traditional density functional theory (DFT) and classical molecular dynamics, enabling accurate and large-scale simulations of material properties across diverse chemical spaces [56] [57]. This document details the application of these architectures, providing structured data, experimental protocols, and visualization tools to advance composition-based machine learning models for material stability research.

Application Notes: Architectures in Action

Universal MLIPs for Phonon and Dynamical Stability Prediction

The prediction of phonon properties is critical for understanding vibrational and thermal behavior, which are fundamental to a material's dynamical stability. A recent large-scale benchmark study evaluated seven major uMLIPs on approximately 10,000 ab initio phonon calculations to test their universal applicability in predicting harmonic phonon properties [56]. The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of these models in geometry relaxations, a prerequisite for accurate phonon calculation.

Table 1: Performance of Universal MLIPs on Geometry Relaxation for Phonon Calculations (Dataset: ~10,000 non-magnetic semiconductors) [56]

Model	Failed Relaxations (%)	Notable Architectural Features
CHGNet	0.09%	Relatively small architecture (~400k parameters), incorporates magnetic states [56].
MatterSim-v1	0.10%	Built upon M3GNet using active learning for broader chemical space accuracy [56].
M3GNet	~0.2%*	Pioneering uMLIP using three-body interactions and message-passing [56].
SevenNet-0	~0.2%*	Built on NequIP, focuses on parallelizing message-passing; shows good promise for physicochemical properties [56] [58].
MACE-MP-0	~0.2%*	Uses atomic cluster expansion for efficient, high-order body messages [56].
ORB	>0.2%*	Combines SOAP with a graph network simulator; predicts forces as a separate output [56].
eqV2-M	0.85%	Utilizes equivariant transformers for higher-order representations; predicts forces separately [56].

*Precise values not listed in source; failure rate is similar among these and lower than ORB/eqV2-M.

The study revealed that while some uMLIPs achieve high accuracy in predicting harmonic phonon properties, others show substantial inaccuracies, even if they perform well on energy and force predictions for materials near equilibrium [56]. This highlights the importance of benchmarking models specifically for phonon-related properties in stability research. Furthermore, uMLIPs like SevenNet-0 have been successfully applied to simulate complex systems like liquid electrolytes in Li-ion batteries, demonstrating their utility in predicting key physicochemical properties, albeit sometimes requiring fine-tuning for optimal accuracy [58].

Hybrid CNN-LSTM for Complex Pattern Recognition

The hybrid CNN-LSTM architecture is designed to tackle data that contains both spatial and temporal complexities. In this architecture, the CNN layer acts as a local feature extractor, identifying salient patterns within the input data. Its output is then fed into the LSTM layer, which is capable of learning long-term dependencies in sequential data, making the model exceptionally powerful for time-series analysis and complex regression or classification tasks [54] [55].

Table 2: Representative Performance of Hybrid CNN-LSTM Models in Various Domains

Application Domain	Reported Performance	Key Advantage
Cryptocurrency Sentiment Analysis	98.7% accuracy, F1-score of 0.987 [54]	Effectively processes massive textual data from social media, capturing long-range dependencies in language for superior sentiment classification [54].
Insurance Risk Assessment	98.5% accuracy in classifying risk levels [55]	Integrates historical claim data to identify emerging risk trends by capturing both spatial (CNN) and sequential (LSTM) dependencies in the data [55].

A key enhancement to this architecture is the attention mechanism, which allows the model to learn to focus on more important words or features in a sequence, thereby improving performance on tasks like sentiment analysis [54].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking uMLIPs for Phonon Properties

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a pretrained Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potential in predicting harmonic phonon properties and dynamical stability of a material compared to reference ab initio data.

Materials & Software:

• A pretrained uMLIP (e.g., M3GNet, CHGNet, MACE-MP-0).
• Computational resources (CPU/GPU cluster).
• Phonon calculation software (e.g., Phonopy) compatible with the uMLIP.
• Dataset of crystal structures for benchmark.

Procedure:

• Structure Relaxation: For each material in the test set, perform a full geometry relaxation (including both atomic positions and lattice vectors) using the uMLIP to find the ground-state structure. The relaxation is considered converged when the forces on all atoms are below a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.005 eV/Å) [56].
• Force Calculations: On the relaxed structure, generate a set of slightly displaced supercells. Use the uMLIP to calculate the forces for each of these displaced configurations.
• Phonon Dispersion Calculation: Feed the force constants (calculated from the displaced supercells) into a phonon software like Phonopy to compute the phonon dispersion spectrum and phonon density of states.
• Validation & Benchmarking:
  • Compare the uMLIP-predicted phonon band structure with reference DFT (PBE functional) calculations.
  • Quantify the mean absolute error (MAE) for key properties such as the highest optical phonon frequency at the Γ-point and the phonon band gap.
  • Assess the prediction of dynamical stability; a material is stable if all phonon frequencies are real (no imaginary frequencies).

Troubleshooting:

• High Failure Rate in Relaxation: If using a model like eqV2-M or ORB, which do not derive forces as exact energy gradients, a higher failure rate during relaxation may occur due to high-frequency noise in the forces [56]. Consider using models like CHGNet or MatterSim-v1 for more robust relaxation.
• Systematic Errors: If a systematic error is identified (e.g., in predicted density), fine-tuning the pretrained uMLIP on a small set of targeted ab initio data can significantly improve accuracy at a low computational cost [58].

Protocol 2: Implementing a Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model with Attention

Objective: To construct and train a hybrid CNN-LSTM model with an attention mechanism for predicting material properties from sequential or structured data.

Materials & Software:

• Python 3.x
• Deep learning frameworks: TensorFlow/Keras or PyTorch.
• Libraries for data processing: NumPy, Pandas, Scikit-learn.

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Tokenization & Embedding: If working with text (e.g., scientific abstracts, synthesis recipes), clean and tokenize the text. Transform each token into a dense vector representation using a pretrained embedding like GloVe [54].
  • Structured Data: For structured data (e.g., time-series of experimental measurements), normalize the data and format it into samples and sequential time steps.
• Model Architecture:
  • Input Layer: Defines the shape of the input data.
  • CNN Block:
    • 1D Convolutional Layer: Applies multiple filters to extract local features. Use ReLU activation.
    • Max-Pooling Layer: Reduces the dimensionality of the CNN output, retaining the most salient features.
  • LSTM Block: The feature maps from the CNN are fed into an LSTM layer to capture long-term temporal dependencies in the data.
  • Attention Mechanism: The output of the LSTM sequence is passed through an attention layer. This layer learns weightings for each time step, allowing the model to focus on the most relevant parts of the sequence for the final prediction [54].
  • Output Layer: A fully connected (Dense) layer with an activation function suitable for the task (e.g., softmax for classification, linear for regression).
• Model Training:
  • Split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets.
  • Compile the model with an appropriate optimizer (e.g., Adam), loss function, and evaluation metrics (e.g., accuracy, MAE).
  • Train the model on the training set, using the validation set for early stopping to prevent overfitting.
• Model Evaluation: Assess the final model's performance on the held-out test set using the predefined metrics.

Workflow Visualizations

uMLIP Phonon Property Workflow

Hybrid CNN-LSTM-Attention Architecture

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for uMLIP and Hybrid Model Research

Item Name	Type	Function & Application
Pretrained uMLIPs (M3GNet, CHGNet)	Software Model	Foundational potentials for accelerating molecular dynamics and property prediction without training from scratch [56] [57].
Materials Project Database	Dataset	A comprehensive database for querying crystal structures and properties, used for training, validation, and testing of models [56].
Phonopy	Software	A robust tool for calculating phonon spectra using the force constants obtained from uMLIP or DFT calculations [56].
GloVe Embeddings	Algorithm/Data	Pretrained global vectors for word representation; used to create dense, meaningful input features for text-based hybrid models [54].
TensorFlow/PyTorch	Software Library	Core deep learning frameworks for building, training, and deploying complex models like hybrid CNN-LSTMs with attention mechanisms [54] [55].

Overcoming Data and Model Challenges in Real-World Applications

Addressing Data Scarcity and Imbalanced Datasets in Materials Science

In the field of materials science, the development of robust, composition-based machine learning (ML) models for material stability research is often severely constrained by two interconnected data challenges: data scarcity and imbalanced datasets. Data scarcity arises because generating sufficient data, whether through high-throughput experiments or first-principles calculations like Density Functional Theory (DFT), remains impractically expensive and time-consuming for many material properties [59]. This scarcity is compounded by the problem of imbalanced data, where certain classes of materials (e.g., stable compounds) are significantly underrepresented in datasets compared to unstable ones, leading to models that are biased and fail to accurately predict the underrepresented classes [60]. Within the specific context of composition-based ML for material stability—which predicts key properties like formation energy and decomposition enthalpy using only chemical formulas—these challenges are particularly acute. The inaccessibility of structural information for new, unsynthesized materials makes composition-based models essential, yet their performance is often limited by the quality and quantity of available data [61]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols and frameworks designed to overcome these hurdles, enabling more reliable and predictive stability models.

Protocols for Overcoming Data Scarcity

Mixture of Experts (MoE) Framework

The Mixture of Experts (MoE) framework is a powerful transfer learning technique that leverages information from multiple, data-rich source tasks to improve predictions on a data-scarce downstream task, such as predicting a novel stability metric.

Experimental Protocol:

• Pre-train Expert Models: Independently train multiple expert neural networks, each on a different data-abundant materials property dataset (e.g., formation energy, band gap, elastic tensors). Each expert should use the same feature extractor architecture, E_ϕ_i(⋅), which takes an atomic structure x and outputs a feature vector [59].
• Freeze Expert Parameters: Once pre-trained, the parameters of all expert models are frozen to prevent catastrophic forgetting during subsequent training [59].
• Construct MoE Layer: Create a MoE layer that combines the outputs of the m frozen expert feature extractors. The layer's output f is a weighted sum of the expert features [59]: f = ⨁_{i=1}^{m} G_i(θ,k) E_{ϕ_i}(x)
  • E_{ϕ_i}(x): Feature vector from the i-th expert.
  • G(θ,k): Gating function that produces a k-sparse, m-dimensional probability vector, determining the weight of each expert. The gating parameters θ are trainable.
  • ⨁: Aggregation function, typically addition or concatenation [59].
• Train on Downstream Task: For your data-scarce stability prediction task, attach a new, randomly initialized property-specific head network, H(⋅), to the MoE layer. Train only the gating function G(θ,k) and the head H(⋅) on the downstream dataset. This allows the model to learn which combination of pre-trained experts is most relevant for the new task.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the MoE framework structure and process:

Composition-Based Stacked Generalization

For composition-based stability prediction, stacked generalization effectively combines models built on different domain knowledge to mitigate inductive bias and enhance performance with limited data [61].

Experimental Protocol:

• Select Diverse Base Models: Choose at least three composition-based models that leverage different types of features and architectures:
  • Magpie: Utilizes statistical features (mean, range, mode, etc.) from elemental properties like atomic number, mass, and radius [61].
  • Roost: Represents the chemical formula as a graph and uses a graph neural network with attention to model interatomic interactions [61].
  • ECCNN (Electron Configuration CNN): Uses electron configuration matrices as input to convolutional neural networks, capturing intrinsic electronic structure [61].
• Train Base Models: Individually train each base model on your (limited) stability training dataset.
• Generate Cross-Validated Predictions: Use k-fold cross-validation on the training data with each base model. For each fold, train the model on k-1 folds and generate predictions for the held-out fold. This produces out-of-sample predictions for the entire training set from each model.
• Train Meta-Learner: Use the cross-validated predictions from all base models as input features to train a final model (the meta-learner, e.g., linear regression or a simple neural network). The true target values are used as the output.
• Final Model Inference: To make a prediction on new data, pass the composition through each fully trained base model. Feed their predictions into the meta-learner to obtain the final, refined stability prediction.

Table 1: Summary of Base Models for Stacked Generalization in Composition-Based Stability Prediction

Model Name	Core Input Features	Underlying Algorithm	Key Advantage
Magpie [61]	Statistical features from elemental properties	Gradient Boosted Regression Trees (XGBoost)	Captures diversity of elemental characteristics
Roost [61]	Chemical formula as a graph of elements	Graph Neural Network (GNN) with attention	Models complex interatomic interactions
ECCNN [61]	Electron configuration matrices	Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Incorporates fundamental electronic structure

Protocols for Addressing Imbalanced Datasets

Resampling Techniques

Resampling directly adjusts the training dataset to balance the ratio between minority (e.g., stable materials) and majority classes (e.g., unstable materials).

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Assessment: Begin by computing the distribution of your stability classes (e.g., stable vs. unstable) to quantify the level of imbalance.
• Select Resampling Method:
  • Oversampling (SMOTE): Generate synthetic samples for the minority class. For each minority sample x_i, SMOTE finds its k-nearest neighbors, randomly selects one, and creates a new sample along the line segment joining x_i and that neighbor [60]. Apply this until class balance is achieved.
  • Undersampling (NearMiss): Reduce the number of majority class samples. The NearMiss algorithm selects majority class samples that are closest to the minority class in the feature space, preserving decision boundary information [60].
• Resample the Training Set: Apply the chosen resampling method only to the training data during cross-validation. The held-out test set must remain untouched to provide a realistic evaluation of model performance.
• Model Training and Evaluation: Train your stability classifier (e.g., Random Forest, Gradient Boosting) on the resampled training data. Evaluate its performance using metrics appropriate for imbalanced datasets, such as Balanced Accuracy, F1-Score, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC).

Table 2: Comparison of Resampling Techniques for Materials Stability Data

Technique	Principle	Best Suited For	Advantages	Limitations
SMOTE [60]	Synthesizes new minority class samples	Datasets with a moderately sized minority class; Complex feature spaces	Mitigates overfitting compared to random oversampling; Preserves minority class distribution	Can introduce noisy samples; Struggles with high-dimensional data
Borderline-SMOTE [60]	Focuses SMOTE on minority samples near the class boundary	Scenarios where the decision boundary is critical	Improves classifier performance by refining the boundary	Sensitive to noise and outliers near the boundary
NearMiss [60]	Selectively removes majority samples near minority class	Large datasets where data reduction is acceptable; Binary classification	Preserves key majority samples near the boundary; Improves minority class recall	Can discard potentially useful majority class information

Algorithmic Approaches: Cost-Sensitive Learning

Instead of modifying the training data, cost-sensitive learning assigns a higher misclassification cost to the minority class, directly instructing the model to prioritize correct identification of stable materials.

Experimental Protocol:

• Select a Model: Choose a classifier that natively supports class weights, such as Random Forest, Support Vector Machines (SVM), or deep neural networks.
• Calculate Class Weights: Compute the weight for each class. A common method is to set the weight for a class inversely proportional to its frequency in the training data. For example, using the "balanced" setting in scikit-learn, the weight for class i is given by: weight_i = n_samples / (n_classes * n_samples_in_class_i) This automatically assigns a higher weight to the minority class.
• Train Model with Weights: Provide the computed class weights as a parameter during model training. The model's loss function will now penalize misclassifications of the minority class more heavily.
• Evaluate Performance: As with resampling, use balanced metrics for a fair assessment of the model's ability to predict both stable and unstable materials.

Application Notes

Case Study: Predicting Stability of V–Cr–Ti Alloys

A practical application of composition-based ML under data scarcity involves predicting the stability of ternary V–Cr–Ti alloys.

• Challenge: Extremely limited data for ternary compounds in existing DFT databases [13].
• Solution: The ElemNet model, a deep neural network pre-trained on 341,000 compounds from the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD), was used for transfer learning [13]. ElemNet uses only elemental composition as input.
• Implementation: The pre-trained ElemNet model was directly applied to predict the formation enthalpy (ΔHf) of V–Cr–Ti compositions. Negative formation enthalpy (-ΔHf) was used as a direct metric of stability [13].
• Outcome: The model predictions achieved excellent agreement with the sparse available DFT data (MAE = 0.015 eV/atom) and successfully identified a trend where increased stability (-ΔHf) correlated with a lower ductile-brittle transition temperature (DBTT)—a key experimental indicator of performance. The model further suggested a novel, high-stability composition region at Cr+Ti ~ 60 wt.%, a finding that challenges conventional alloy design wisdom [13].

Case Study: Discovering Novel Stable Crystals with GNoME

The GNoME (Graph Networks for Materials Exploration) project exemplifies overcoming data scarcity through scaled, active deep learning.

• Challenge: Accurately predicting the stability (decomposition energy) of a vast number of potential crystals with minimal DFT computation [14].
• Solution: An active learning loop was implemented:
  • Candidate Generation: Diverse candidates were generated via random search and symmetry-aware substitutions [14].
  • Filtration: A GNN was used to filter the most promising stable candidates [14].
  • DFT Verification: The filtered candidates were evaluated with DFT [14].
  • Iteration: The new DFT data was added to the training set, and the model was retrained, creating a data flywheel [14].
• Outcome: This framework led to the discovery of over 2.2 million new crystal structures stable with respect to previous databases, expanding the number of known stable materials by an order of magnitude. The final GNoME models achieved a remarkable hit rate of over 80% for stable crystal prediction [14].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Datasets for Stability Modeling

Tool / Dataset Name	Type	Primary Function in Stability Research	Key Features & Relevance
Materials Project [59] [14]	Database	Source of training data (formation energies, band structures, etc.) for pre-training and transfer learning.	Contains DFT-calculated properties for over 144,000 materials; Essential for sourcing data-rich tasks.
Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) [13]	Database	Large-scale database for training deep learning models like ElemNet on formation energy.	Contains hundreds of thousands of DFT-calculated formation energies; Critical for composition-based models.
ElemNet [13]	Deep Learning Model	A pre-trained, composition-based model for predicting formation energy; useful for transfer learning on new alloy systems.	17-layer DNN trained on ~341,000 compounds; Effective where structural data is absent.
GNoME [14]	Discovery Framework	An active learning framework using graph networks for large-scale, efficient discovery of stable crystals.	State-of-the-art for stability prediction; Demonstrated capability to expand the known stable chemical space.
CGCNN [59]	Deep Learning Model	Graph neural network for crystal property prediction; often used as a feature extractor in MoE frameworks.	Takes crystal structure as input; Provides generalizable atomic structure features.
SMOTE & Variants [60]	Algorithm	Python library (e.g., imbalanced-learn) for implementing oversampling and undersampling techniques.	Directly addresses class imbalance in stability classification tasks (stable vs. unstable).

In materials stability research, the primary objective is a classification decision: is a hypothetical material thermodynamically stable or not? Despite this, the field has widely adopted regression models, using formation energy or energy above the convex hull (ΔE) as proxies for stability. This creates a fundamental misalignment. A model can achieve excellent regression metrics, such as a low Mean Absolute Error (MAE), yet still produce an unacceptably high rate of false-positive predictions if its accurate predictions cluster near the stability decision boundary [5]. These false positives are costly, directing precious computational resources and laboratory efforts toward synthesizing materials that are ultimately unstable. This article details application notes and experimental protocols to address this critical challenge, framing solutions within the context of composition-based machine learning for material stability research.

Quantitative Landscape of ML Performance in Materials Discovery

Table 1: Comparison of ML Model Performance for Stability Classification

Model Category	Example Models	Key Strengths	Limitations for Stability Prediction	Reported Accuracy (Example)
Universal Interatomic Potentials (UIPs)	M3GNet, CHGNet	High accuracy; use structural information; physically informed [5].	Require atomic coordinates; computationally heavier than composition-based models.	Surpassed other methodologies in accuracy & robustness [5].
Ensemble Methods	Histogram Gradient Boosting, Random Forest	High performance on compositional data; interpretable; fast inference [5] [62].	May struggle with truly novel compositions far from training data.	85.0% for phase prediction in CCAs [62].
Graph Neural Networks	CGCNN	Can learn directly from crystal graphs.	Performance depends on quality of input structural data.	Evaluated in large-scale benchmarks [5].
One-Shot Predictors	Magpie-based models	Very fast; require only composition [5].	Lower accuracy compared to structure-aware models.	Performance varies based on feature set [5].

Table 2: Impact of Evaluation Metrics on Model Interpretation

Metric Type	Specific Metric	What It Measures	Relevance to Materials Discovery
Regression Metrics	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	Average magnitude of prediction errors.	Can be misleading; a low MAE does not guarantee low false-positive rates [5].
	Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)	Average magnitude of errors, penalizing large errors more.	Similar limitations to MAE; not directly tied to classification success.
Classification Metrics	Precision	The proportion of predicted stable materials that are truly stable.	Crucially important; directly relates to the false-positive rate [63] [5].
	Recall	The proportion of truly stable materials that are correctly identified.	Important for ensuring truly stable materials are not missed.
	F1 Score	Harmonic mean of Precision and Recall.	Provides a single metric to balance the Precision-Recall trade-off [63].
	Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC-ROC)	Ability to distinguish between stable and unstable classes.	Measures overall ranking performance, but can be optimistic for imbalanced datasets [63].

Experimental Protocols for Minimizing False Positives

Protocol 1: Creating a Challenging Training Dataset (D-COID Strategy)

Objective: To construct a training dataset that minimizes trivial solutions and forces the ML model to learn physically meaningful features for distinguishing stable from unstable compositions, thereby reducing false positives in prospective screening.

Background: The quality of the decoy (negative) examples is paramount. If decoys are non-binding or physically implausible, the model will learn to exploit these simplistic differences rather than the subtle interactions that determine true stability [64].

Materials & Methods:

• Source of Active/Stable Complexes: Use experimentally confirmed stable crystal structures from authoritative databases (e.g., the Materials Project, AFLOW, OQMD) [5]. Filter these entries to match the intended application space, such as specific elemental systems or property ranges.
• Generation of Compelling Decoys: This is the critical step. For each confirmed stable composition, generate matched "decoy" compositions that are structurally plausible but potentially unstable. This can be achieved via:
  • Elemental Substitution: Replace one or two elements in a stable composition with chemically similar elements that disrupt stabilizing interactions.
  • Perturbation of Stoichiometry: Slightly alter the stoichiometric ratios to create compositions that are close to, but not on, the stable convex hull.
• Feature Engineering: Calculate features that go beyond simple elemental properties. Crucial features for stability, as identified in recent studies, include the average valence electron number and the valence electron difference between constituent elements [50].
• Energy Minimization: Subject all complexes (both stable and decoy) to energy minimization to ensure the model is trained on realistic, low-energy configurations and not on artifacts of initial structure generation [64].

Validation: Perform retrospective benchmarking to ensure the model trained on this dataset (e.g., vScreenML for materials) shows improved precision and reduced false-positive rates compared to models trained on traditional datasets.

Protocol 2: Implementing a Binary Classification Workflow with Optimized Decision Threshold

Objective: To transition from a regression-based paradigm to a direct classification framework, and to optimize the decision threshold for maximizing precision and controlling the false-positive rate.

Background: The default threshold of 0.5 for binary classification may not be optimal for materials discovery, where the cost of a false positive is high. Adjusting this threshold provides a direct lever to control the trade-off between precision and recall [63].

Materials & Methods:

• Model Training: Train a binary classifier (e.g., a Histogram Gradient Boosting Classifier [62]) on a labeled dataset from Protocol 1. The target variable is a binary label (Stable or Unstable).
• Probability Prediction: Instead of using the model's direct class prediction, output the predicted probability (y_prob) for the "Stable" class.
• Precision-Recall Curve Analysis: Generate a Precision-Recall curve by varying the classification threshold from 0 to 1. This curve visualizes the trade-off between the two metrics for your specific dataset.
• Threshold Optimization: Select a decision threshold that achieves the desired level of precision. For a high-stakes discovery campaign aiming to minimize false positives, a threshold that yields >90% precision is advisable, even at the cost of lower recall. For example, a threshold of 0.1534 was used in a binary classification task to reduce false negatives to zero, demonstrating the impact of moving away from the 0.5 default [63].

Validation: The optimized threshold should be validated on a held-out test set or through prospective experimental validation of a small set of top-ranked predictions.

Protocol 3: Prospective Benchmarking via a Simulated Discovery Campaign

Objective: To evaluate model performance in a setting that closely mimics a real-world materials discovery campaign, providing a realistic estimate of the false-positive rate before committing to costly experimental work.

Background: Retrospective benchmarks on pre-existing databases can suffer from data leakage and fail to account for the covariate shift encountered when exploring truly novel chemical spaces [5].

Materials & Methods:

• Data Splitting: Instead of random train-test splits, use a time-based split or a cluster-based split that groups chemically similar materials together. This ensures the test set represents a "discovery space" that is distinct from the training data.
• Evaluation Metrics: Prioritize classification metrics, especially Precision and False Positive Rate, over regression metrics. Report the model's performance in terms of the fraction of top-ranked predictions that are likely to be true positives.
• Benchmarking Framework: Utilize existing frameworks like Matbench Discovery [5], which is designed specifically for this purpose. It tests models on large, prospectively generated datasets and evaluates them based on their ability to identify stable crystals within a defined search space.
• Iterative Model Refinement: Use the results from the benchmark to refine the model. This may involve active learning, where the false positives identified in initial validation rounds are added to the training set as decoys to improve the model for subsequent iterations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Composition-Based Stability Prediction

Reagent / Solution	Function / Description	Example Sources/Tools
Stable Materials Databases	Provides ground-truth data for "active/stable" complexes for training and benchmarking.	Materials Project (MP) [5], AFLOW [5], Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) [5].
D-COID Inspired Training Sets	A dataset of stable compositions paired with "compelling decoy" compositions to train robust classifiers.	Custom-generated per Protocol 1.
Matbench Discovery Framework	A standardized evaluation framework for benchmarking ML energy models in a prospective discovery setting.	Publicly available online leaderboard and Python package [5].
Universal Interatomic Potentials (UIPs)	Pre-trained ML force fields for accurate energy and force prediction, usable for screening.	M3GNet, CHGNet [5].
Graph Neural Network Models	Models that operate directly on crystal graphs, capturing local coordination environments.	CGCNN and its derivatives [5].
Ensemble Classifier Libraries	Software implementations of high-performing ensemble methods like Gradient Boosting.	Scikit-learn (HistogramGradientBoostingClassifier) [62], XGBoost.

Workflow Visualization for a False-Positive-Aware Discovery Pipeline

The following diagram illustrates the integrated experimental and computational workflow designed to minimize false positives in materials stability prediction.

Diagram 1: A workflow for material discovery that minimizes false positives. It emphasizes the creation of challenging decoy datasets, a classification-focused modeling approach with threshold optimization, and a critical feedback loop where newly identified false positives improve future model performance.

Strategies for Hyperparameter Tuning and Automated Optimization (e.g., Bayesian Methods)

In the field of composition-based machine learning for material stability research, the performance of predictive models is highly sensitive to the configuration of their hyperparameters. For researchers and scientists focused on drug development, selecting optimal hyperparameters is a critical step that bridges the gap between theoretical model architecture and practical predictive accuracy. This process, known as hyperparameter tuning, moves beyond manual guesswork to systematic, automated optimization strategies [65]. Among these strategies, Bayesian optimization has emerged as a particularly powerful method for efficiently navigating complex hyperparameter spaces, especially when dealing with computationally expensive model training processes characteristic of material science applications [66] [67].

This article provides detailed application notes and protocols for implementing these optimization strategies, with specific consideration for their application in material stability research. We present structured comparisons of methods, detailed experimental protocols, and essential toolkits to equip researchers with practical frameworks for enhancing their machine learning workflows.

Hyperparameter Optimization Strategies: A Quantitative Comparison

The landscape of hyperparameter optimization methods ranges from simple manual approaches to sophisticated Bayesian methods. The table below summarizes the core characteristics, advantages, and limitations of each primary strategy.

Table 1: Comparison of Hyperparameter Tuning Strategies

Method	Key Principle	Best-Suited Scenarios	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Manual Search	Adjustments based on researcher intuition and experience.	Initial model exploration, very small parameter spaces.	Simple; provides deep model insights.	Highly inefficient, non-reproducible, prone to human bias.
Grid Search	Exhaustive search over a predefined set of values for all hyperparameters.	Small, low-dimensional hyperparameter spaces.	Guaranteed to find best combination within grid; embarrassingly parallel.	Curse of dimensionality; computational cost grows exponentially with parameters.
Random Search	Random sampling from specified distributions of hyperparameters.	Low to medium-dimensional spaces; when some parameters are more important than others.	More efficient than grid search; easy to parallelize; no curse of dimensionality.	No use of information from past evaluations; may miss optimal regions.
Bayesian Optimization	Builds a probabilistic surrogate model (e.g., Gaussian Process) to guide the search for the optimum [66] [67].	Expensive black-box functions; less than 20 dimensions [66].	Data-efficient; balances exploration vs. exploitation; best for costly evaluations [67].	Computational overhead for surrogate model; non-trivial parallelization.

For most research applications in material stability, where a single model training cycle can be computationally expensive and time-consuming, Bayesian optimization offers a significant advantage in efficiency. It typically requires fewer evaluations than grid or random search to identify high-performing hyperparameters, making it the recommended strategy for production-level tuning [67].

Bayesian Optimization: Core Concepts and Protocol

Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a sequential design strategy for the global optimization of black-box functions that are expensive to evaluate [67]. Its strength in hyperparameter tuning comes from its ability to build a probabilistic model of the objective function and use it to select the most promising hyperparameters to evaluate next.

Theoretical Framework

The BO framework relies on two core components:

• Surrogate Model: A probabilistic model, typically a Gaussian Process (GP), is used to approximate the unknown objective function (e.g., validation loss). The GP provides not only a prediction of the function's value, μ(x), at any point x (the hyperparameters) but also a measure of uncertainty, σ(x), around that prediction [67]. Mathematically, the predictions are normally distributed: f(x*)|X, y ~ N(μ(x*), σ²(x*)).
• Acquisition Function: This function uses the surrogate model's predictions to quantify the utility of evaluating a candidate point. It automatically balances exploration (sampling in regions of high uncertainty) and exploitation (sampling where the model predicts good performance) [66] [67]. Common acquisition functions include:
  • Expected Improvement (EI): Measures the expected amount of improvement over the current best observation [67].
  • Probability of Improvement (PI): Measures the probability that a new point will be better than the current best [67].
  • Upper Confidence Bound (UCB): Uses a confidence interval to balance mean and uncertainty [x_t = argmax μ(x) + κσ(x)], where κ is a tunable parameter [67].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

The following workflow describes a standard protocol for applying Bayesian optimization to tune a machine learning model for a task such as predicting material stability.

Diagram: Bayesian Optimization Workflow

Title: Bayesian Optimization Iterative Cycle

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Problem Formulation & Initialization

  • Define the Hyperparameter Space: Specify the hyperparameters to be tuned and their ranges or distributions (e.g., learning rate: log-uniform [1e-5, 1e-2], number of layers: integer [1, 5]).
  • Define the Objective Function: This is the function to be minimized or maximized. In material stability modeling, this is typically the validation loss or a proxy for model performance like validation accuracy [67]. For cost-sensitive applications, it could be a composite metric.
  • Generate Initial Design: Sample n_init points (typically 5-10) from the hyperparameter space using a random or space-filling design (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling). This initial dataset D = {x_i, y_i} is used to build the first surrogate model [67].

• Iterative Optimization Loop Repeat the following steps until a stopping criterion is met (e.g., maximum number of trials, convergence in performance, or depletion of computational resources).

  • Surrogate Model Training: Fit the Gaussian Process (or other surrogate) to all observed data D [67]. The model will learn the mapping from hyperparameters x to the objective y.
  • Acquisition Function Maximization: Find the next hyperparameter set x_next that maximizes the acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement) [x_next = argmax α(x)]. This step is computationally cheap compared to training the actual model. An evolutionary algorithm or a local optimizer like L-BFGS is often used for this inner optimization [66] [67].
  • Objective Function Evaluation: Evaluate the expensive black-box function at x_next by training your material stability model with these hyperparameters and calculating the performance on a held-out validation set. This is the most time-consuming step.
  • Data Augmentation: Augment the dataset with the new observation: D = D ∪ {(x_next, y_next)} [67].

• Result Reporting

  • Upon completion, the algorithm returns the hyperparameter set x* that achieved the best objective value y* over all evaluations.

Advanced Application: Multi-Objective and Enhanced BO

For complex research tasks, basic BO can be extended to address more nuanced requirements.

Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization

In practical material science and drug development applications, researchers often need to balance multiple, competing objectives. For instance, one might want to maximize model accuracy while minimizing prediction latency or computational cost [68]. Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization (MOBO) addresses this by aiming to find a Pareto front—a set of solutions where no objective can be improved without worsening another [68]. A study on tuning Large Language Model and RAG systems demonstrated that BO significantly outperforms baselines in finding a superior Pareto front across objectives like cost, latency, and safety [68].

Enhanced Protocol: Combining BO with K-Fold Cross-Validation

A critical challenge in hyperparameter tuning is overfitting to the validation set. A robust solution is to integrate K-fold cross-validation into the BO loop, which is particularly valuable for smaller datasets common in novel material research.

Table 2: K-fold Enhanced vs. Standard BO Performance

Metric	Standard BO (ResNet18 on EuroSAT)	K-fold Enhanced BO (ResNet18 on EuroSAT)
Overall Accuracy	94.19%	96.33%
Reported Improvement	Baseline	+2.14%
Key Tuned Hyperparameters	Learning rate, dropout rate, gradient clipping	Learning rate, dropout rate, gradient clipping
Implied Robustness	Standard	Higher, due to better generalization estimate

Source: Adapted from a study on land cover classification, demonstrating the efficacy of combining K-fold CV with Bayesian optimization [69].

Enhanced Protocol Modifications:

• Objective Function Redefinition: Within the BO loop, when evaluating a hyperparameter set x, instead of a single train-validation split, perform K-fold cross-validation.
• Performance Calculation: Train the model K times, each on a different subset of the training data, and validate on the held-out fold. The objective value y reported to the BO algorithm is the average performance across all K validation folds [69].
• Workflow Integration: This average provides a more robust and reliable estimate of the model's generalization performance, guiding the BO to hyperparameters that are less likely to overfit.

Diagram: K-fold Cross-Validation Enhanced BO

Title: K-fold CV Integrated into BO Evaluation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successfully implementing these protocols requires familiarity with both software tools and conceptual components.

Table 3: Essential Tools and "Reagents" for Hyperparameter Optimization

Category / Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Notes
KerasTuner	Library	An easy-to-use, framework-specific hyperparameter tuning library that includes Bayesian optimization.	Ideal for rapid prototyping with TensorFlow/Keras models. Handles the BO loop and surrogate model internally [67].
Optuna	Library	A define-by-run framework for automated hyperparameter optimization. Supports Bayesian and other strategies.	Highly flexible and framework-agnostic. Known for its efficient sampling and pruning algorithms [70].
Ray Tune	Library	A scalable library for distributed hyperparameter tuning. Supports all major ML frameworks.	Best for large-scale experiments requiring distributed computing across a cluster [70].
Gaussian Process (GP)	Algorithm	The probabilistic surrogate model that approximates the objective function and provides uncertainty estimates.	The default choice for many BO implementations. Well-suited for continuous parameters [66] [67].
Expected Improvement (EI)	Algorithm	An acquisition function that selects the next point based on the expected improvement over the current best.	A widely used, robust default choice for the acquisition function [67].
Tree-structured Parzen Estimator (TPE)	Algorithm	A surrogate model that models `p(x	y)andp(y)` instead of using a GP.	Often more efficient than GP in high-dimensional or discrete/conditional parameter spaces (e.g., as used in Optuna).

Bayesian optimization represents a paradigm shift in hyperparameter tuning, moving from brute-force search to an intelligent, data-efficient process. For researchers in material stability and drug development, adopting the detailed protocols and advanced strategies outlined in this article—such as multi-objective optimization and K-fold cross-validation enhanced BO—can lead to more robust, accurate, and generalizable predictive models. By leveraging the provided toolkit and structured workflows, scientific teams can systematically enhance their machine learning pipelines, accelerating the discovery and design of novel, stable materials.

Improving Model Interpretability with SHAP and Sensitivity Analysis

In composition-based machine learning for material stability research, models are powerful but often operate as "black boxes." Interpretability tools are not just supplementary; they are essential for validating model predictions, uncovering new physical insights, and guiding experimental synthesis. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) quantifies the marginal contribution of each input feature to an individual prediction, based on principles from cooperative game theory. Sensitivity Analysis systematically probes how a model's output varies with changes in its inputs, assessing robustness and identifying critical thresholds. When integrated, these techniques provide a comprehensive framework for explaining complex, non-linear relationships learned by models from materials data, thereby building crucial trust and facilitating scientific discovery in the pursuit of new stable compounds.

Theoretical Background

SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)

SHAP provides a unified approach to interpreting model predictions by connecting optimal credit allocation with local explanations. The core of SHAP is the Shapley value, a concept from game theory, which fairly distributes the "payout" (the prediction) among the "players" (the input features).

For a given model f and a data instance x, the SHAP explanation model g is defined as a linear function of the simplified input features: g(z') = φ₀ + Σᵢ₌₁ᴹ φᵢz'ᵢ where z' ∈ {0, 1}ᴹ represents the presence of simplified input features, M is the number of simplified input features, and φᵢ ∈ R is the Shapley value for feature i.

The Shapley value φᵢ for a feature i is calculated as: φᵢ(f, x) = Σ{S ⊆ N{i}} [|S|! (M - |S| - 1)!] / [M!] ⋅ (fx(S ∪ {i}) - fx(S)) where *N* is the set of all features, *S* is a subset of features excluding *i*, and *fx(S)* is the model prediction for the instance x using only the feature subset S.

In materials stability research, SHAP has been successfully applied to reveal that hydrogen mole fraction had the greatest effect on the speed of sound in hydrogen/cushion gas mixtures, with an inverse relationship at low values and direct relationship at high values [71]. Similarly, in predicting chronic bronchitis risk from heavy metal exposure, SHAP analysis identified smoking status and blood cadmium concentration as the most significant predictors [72].

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis (SA) complements SHAP by quantifying how uncertainty in the model's output can be apportioned to different sources of uncertainty in its inputs. While SHAP explains individual predictions, SA provides a global perspective on feature importance across the entire input space.

Two main approaches to SA exist:

• Local SA: Examines how small perturbations around a specific input point affect the output (typically via partial derivatives or Monte Carlo methods).
• Global SA: Assesses how the model output varies across the entire input space (typically using variance-based methods like Sobol indices or Morris screening).

In materials informatics, SA has been integrated with machine learning models to systematically evaluate the impact of compositional variations and processing parameters on target properties, providing crucial insights for materials design and optimization.

Integration of SHAP and Sensitivity Analysis

The powerful synergy between SHAP and Sensitivity Analysis emerges from their complementary strengths. SHAP offers local, instance-specific explanations that are consistent and theoretically grounded, while Sensitivity Analysis provides a global perspective on feature importance and interaction effects. When integrated, these methods enable researchers to:

• Validate that locally important features align with global sensitivity patterns
• Identify features that exert disproportionate influence across specific regions of the feature space
• Detect potential inconsistencies between local and global explanations that may indicate model artifacts
• Develop a more comprehensive understanding of the model's decision-making process

This integrated approach is particularly valuable in materials stability research, where understanding both specific prediction rationales and general model behavior is essential for scientific discovery.

Application to Material Stability Research

Composition-Based Models for Stability Prediction

Composition-based machine learning models have emerged as powerful tools for predicting thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds, operating directly from chemical formulas without requiring structural information [23]. These models are particularly valuable in early-stage materials discovery when crystal structures are unknown.

Recent advances include ensemble frameworks that integrate multiple models based on distinct knowledge domains. For instance, the ECSG (Electron Configuration models with Stacked Generalization) framework combines models based on electron configuration (ECCNN), atomic properties (Magpie), and interatomic interactions (Roost) to predict decomposition energy (ΔH_d) as a key metric of thermodynamic stability [23]. This approach mitigates the inductive biases inherent in single-model approaches and has demonstrated exceptional predictive performance with an Area Under the Curve score of 0.988 [23].

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Composition-Based Models for Stability Prediction

Model Type	AUC Score	Data Efficiency	Key Advantages
ECSG (Ensemble)	0.988	1/7 of data required by existing models	Mitigates inductive bias through stacked generalization
ECCNN	0.978	Moderate	Incorporates electron configuration information
Roost	0.975	Moderate	Captures interatomic interactions via graph neural networks
Magpie	0.962	Moderate	Utilizes statistical features of elemental properties

Case Study: SHAP Analysis in Hydrogen-Rich Gas Mixtures

In a landmark study applying SHAP to materials property prediction, researchers developed machine learning models to estimate the speed of sound in hydrogen/cushion gas mixtures [71]. After evaluating multiple algorithms, the Extra Trees Regressor (ETR) demonstrated superior performance with R² = 0.9996 and RMSE = 6.2775 m/s [71].

SHAP analysis revealed critical insights into the underlying physics:

• Hydrogen mole fraction had the greatest effect on sound speed, showing an inverse relationship at low values and direct relationship at high values
• Pressure was the second most influential parameter, exhibiting similar inverse/direct behavior
• Methane mole fraction had the least effect on sound speed in the gas mixture [71]

These findings provided valuable physical insights that extended beyond predictive accuracy, demonstrating how SHAP can uncover complex, non-linear relationships in materials systems that might be missed by traditional theoretical models.

Table 2: Machine Learning Model Performance for Sound Speed Prediction in Hydrogen-Rich Mixtures

Model	R² Score	RMSE (m/s)	Key Characteristics
Extra Trees Regressor (ETR)	0.9996	6.2775	Best performance; estimated 64.81% of data with error < 0.0001%
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)	0.9996	7.0540	Comparable R² with slightly higher error
Support Vector Regression (SVR)	0.9868	22.2621	Moderate performance
Linear Regression (LR)	0.8104	Highest	Weakest performance; unable to capture complex nonlinearities

Limitations and Considerations

Despite their utility, SHAP-based explanations are sensitive to feature representation and engineering choices. Recent research has demonstrated that common data preprocessing techniques—such as bucketizing continuous features or using different encoding schemes for categorical variables—can significantly manipulate feature importance rankings [73]. For instance, bucketizing age from a continuous to binned representation reduced its SHAP importance ranking from 1st to 5th position while maintaining the same model prediction [73].

This sensitivity poses particular challenges in materials informatics, where:

• Elemental compositions can be represented in multiple ways (weight %, atomic %, normalized scales)
• Structural descriptors have numerous equivalent representations
• Domain knowledge often informs specific feature engineering approaches

Researchers must therefore document and justify their feature representation choices and consider evaluating SHAP explanations across multiple representations to ensure robust interpretations.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: SHAP Analysis for Composition-Based Stability Models

Objective: To implement and interpret SHAP analysis for composition-based machine learning models predicting material stability.

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Python 3.7+ with pandas, numpy, scikit-learn, SHAP libraries
• Materials stability dataset (e.g., from Materials Project, OQMD, or JARVIS)
• Trained composition-based ML model (e.g., ECSG, Magpie, Roost, or custom implementation)

Procedure:

• Data Preparation and Feature Engineering
  • Collect compositional data and corresponding stability labels (e.g., decomposition energy, stability classification)
  • Compute compositional features using the Magpie feature set (including atomic number, atomic mass, atomic radius, etc.) and their statistical properties (mean, range, mode, etc.) [23]
  • Split data into training (70%) and test (30%) sets with appropriate stratification

• Model Training and Validation

  • Train selected composition-based models (e.g., ECSG ensemble, gradient boosted trees, or neural networks)
  • Optimize hyperparameters using Bayesian optimization with Gaussian Process surrogate model and Expected Improvement acquisition function [71]
  • Implement five-fold cross-validation to prevent overfitting and ensure robustness [71]
  • Evaluate model performance using appropriate metrics (AUC, accuracy, RMSE)

• SHAP Value Computation

  • For tree-based models: Use TreeSHAP algorithm for efficient exact computation
  • For neural networks: Use KernelSHAP or DeepSHAP approximations
  • Compute SHAP values for all instances in the test set
  • Validate SHAP value consistency using the efficiency property (sum of SHAP values equals model output minus expected value)

• Interpretation and Visualization

  • Generate summary plots (beeswarm plots) to show global feature importance and value-effect relationships
  • Create force plots for individual predictions to explain specific stability classifications
  • Produce dependence plots to explore interaction effects between features
  • Correlate SHAP explanations with domain knowledge and physical principles

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For large datasets, use a representative sample of the training set as the background distribution for SHAP computation
• If SHAP computation is computationally expensive, consider using a subset of the test set for interpretation
• Validate that the sum of SHAP values matches the model output to ensure computation accuracy

Protocol 2: Integrated SHAP and Sensitivity Analysis

Objective: To conduct a comprehensive model interpretability analysis by integrating SHAP with global sensitivity analysis.

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Python with SALib, SHAP, and scikit-learn libraries
• Trained materials stability model
• Compositional features and stability labels

Procedure:

• Local Explanation with SHAP
  • Follow Protocol 1 to compute SHAP values for the test set
  • Identify key features driving individual predictions for both stable and unstable compounds

• Global Sensitivity Analysis

  • Use Sobol variance-based method to compute first-order (main effect) and total-order (including interactions) sensitivity indices
  • Employ Latin Hypercube Sampling to efficiently explore the input space
  • Generate sensitivity indices for all input features across the compositional space

• Comparative Analysis

  • Compare feature rankings from SHAP (mean absolute SHAP value) with Sobol total-order indices
  • Identify discrepancies between local and global importance measures
  • Investigate regions of feature space where local importance deviates from global patterns
  • Analyze feature interactions through both SHAP dependence plots and Sobol interaction indices

• Physical Validation

  • Correlate important features identified by both methods with known materials science principles
  • Identify potentially novel relationships that merit experimental validation
  • Document insights for guiding future materials design

Expected Outcomes:

• Comprehensive understanding of feature importance at both local and global levels
• Identification of critical compositional ranges that influence stability
• Validation of model behavior against domain knowledge
• Hypotheses for new stable compositions or stability rules

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Interpretable ML in Materials Stability

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Application in Stability Research
SHAP Library	Python library	Model interpretation	Computes Shapley values for any ML model; explains individual predictions
SALib	Python library	Sensitivity analysis	Implements global sensitivity analysis methods (Sobol, Morris, etc.)
Magpie	Feature set	Compositional descriptors	Generates extensive features from chemical formulas alone
ECCNN	Deep learning model	Stability prediction	Incorporates electron configuration information for improved accuracy
Bayesian Optimization	Hyperparameter tuning	Model optimization	Efficiently searches hyperparameter space using Gaussian processes
MatterTune	Fine-tuning platform	Transfer learning	Adapts pre-trained atomistic models to specific stability tasks [74]

Visualization and Workflow Diagrams

Integrated SHAP-Sensitivity Analysis Workflow

Integrated SHAP-Sensitivity Analysis Workflow

Model Interpretation Protocol

Model Interpretation Protocol

The integration of SHAP and sensitivity analysis provides a powerful framework for enhancing interpretability in composition-based machine learning models for material stability research. By combining local explanation capabilities with global sensitivity assessment, researchers can validate model behavior, uncover novel physical insights, and build trustworthy predictive systems. The protocols and applications outlined in this document offer practical guidance for implementing these techniques, while the case studies demonstrate their value in real-world materials informatics challenges. As these methods continue to evolve, they will play an increasingly critical role in accelerating the discovery and design of novel stable materials.

Leveraging User-Friendly ML Toolkits to Lower the Technical Barrier

The application of machine learning (ML) in scientific domains like materials science and drug development has traditionally been hampered by significant technical barriers. The complexity of building, training, and deploying models requires specialized computational expertise, often placing these powerful tools out of reach for many domain scientists. However, a new generation of user-friendly ML toolkits is fundamentally changing this landscape. These toolkits provide high-level, intuitive application programming interfaces (APIs) that abstract away the underlying computational complexity, enabling researchers to focus on their scientific questions rather than algorithmic implementation. This shift is particularly impactful for composition-based material stability research, where predicting properties from chemical composition alone can dramatically accelerate the discovery and development of new materials and pharmaceutical compounds. By democratizing access to state-of-the-art ML capabilities, these toolkits are empowering a broader community of scientists to leverage predictive modeling in their research, thereby accelerating the pace of scientific innovation [75].

The Accessible ML Toolkit for Scientific Research

Modern scientific ML relies on a layered ecosystem of software tools, from low-level computation engines to high-level application-specific interfaces. The most impactful tools for lowering barriers are those that prioritize user experience without sacrificing performance.

Table 1: Essential Machine Learning Toolkits and Their Scientific Applications

Toolkit Name	Primary Function	Key Features	Advantages for Researchers	Example Applications in Stability Research
Scikit-learn [76] [75]	Traditional ML library	Comprehensive algorithms for classification, regression, clustering; data preprocessing tools [76].	Simple, consistent API; excellent documentation; requires minimal ML expertise [76].	Predicting material stability using random forest classifiers or support vector machines [6].
Keras [76] [75]	High-level neural network API	User-friendly interface for building deep learning models; multi-backend support (TensorFlow, PyTorch) [76].	Rapid prototyping; minimal code requirements; reduces cognitive load for model architecture [76].	Fast experimentation with neural network architectures for composition-property models [76].
PyTorch [76] [75]	Deep learning framework	Pythonic, intuitive design; dynamic computation graph; strong research community [76].	Flexibility for custom models; easier debugging and experimentation [76].	Building graph neural networks for crystal structure property prediction [14].
TensorFlow [76] [75]	End-to-end ML platform	Comprehensive ecosystem; production-ready deployment tools; TensorBoard for visualization [76].	Scalability for large datasets; robust deployment options [76].	Large-scale training on massive materials databases like the OQMD [14] [13].
Fastai [77]	High-level deep learning library	Simplified training loops; pre-built best practices for common tasks; built on PyTorch [77].	Allows researchers to achieve state-of-the-art results with minimal code [77].	Transfer learning for property prediction with limited datasets.
Jupyter Notebook [75]	Interactive computing environment	Mix of executable code, equations, visualizations, and narrative text [75].	Interactive data exploration and prototyping; ideal for sharing and collaborative research [75].	Entire workflow from data analysis to model training and visualization.

The choice of toolkit depends heavily on the project's specific stage and requirements. For classic machine learning tasks on structured data, such as initial stability classification based on existing material features, Scikit-learn is often the most efficient starting point due to its simplicity and robust performance [76]. When project requirements advance to deep learning for handling more complex relationships or unstructured data, the decision becomes more nuanced. Keras is the premier tool for rapid prototyping and for researchers new to deep learning, as it allows them to build and train sophisticated neural networks with remarkable brevity and clarity [76]. For research pushing the boundaries of model architecture—such as developing novel graph networks for materials discovery—PyTorch offers the flexibility and dynamic graph capabilities that are essential for such experimentation [76] [14]. Finally, for large-scale projects destined for production environments, TensorFlow's comprehensive deployment tools and ecosystem provide a critical advantage [76].

Application Note: Predicting Peptide Drug Stability

Background and Objective

Chemical and physical stability are critical attributes in pharmaceutical development, directly impacting a drug's shelf life, efficacy, and safety. Traditional stability studies are lengthy, resource-intensive processes that can slow down development pipelines. The objective of this application note was to develop a predictive ML model that could accurately forecast the chemical stability of peptide-based drug candidates using formulation data, thereby reducing the need for extensive experimental studies [78].

Toolkit Application and Workflow

The research team employed a multi-toolkit approach to tackle this prediction problem. They utilized a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model, a type of neural network, to predict total degradation, and a Random Forest (RF) model for potency prediction [78]. The implementation of these models was facilitated by user-friendly ML libraries that simplified the process of data preprocessing, model training, and validation.

Diagram 1: Peptide stability prediction workflow.

Key Findings and Impact

The implemented models achieved a high degree of predictive accuracy. For total degradation prediction, the MLP model yielded a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.945 and a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.421 on the test set [78]. A significant finding was that incorporating physical stability measurements (Thioflavin-T aggregation curves) into the MLP model substantially improved its performance, reducing the MAE for total degradation prediction to 0.148 [78]. This demonstrated not only that chemical stability can be effectively modeled with ML but also that a robust relationship exists between the physical and chemical stability of peptides, a valuable insight for future drug development efforts [78].

Application Note: Discovering Novel Stable Crystals (GNoME)

Background and Objective

The discovery of novel, stable inorganic crystals is a fundamental challenge in materials science with profound implications for technologies ranging from clean energy to information processing. Traditional computational methods, relying on density functional theory (DFT), are exceptionally accurate but computationally expensive, creating a bottleneck for large-scale exploration. The goal of the Graph Networks for Materials Exploration (GNoME) project was to leverage deep learning at scale to dramatically improve the efficiency of materials discovery, expanding the number of known stable crystals by an order of magnitude [14].

Toolkit Application and Workflow

The GNoME framework is a prime example of using advanced toolkits like TensorFlow or PyTorch for building sophisticated graph neural networks (GNNs) [14]. These models were trained to predict the total energy of a crystal from its structure or composition. The project implemented a large-scale active learning pipeline where models were trained on available data, used to filter millions of candidate structures, and then iteratively refined with new data from DFT calculations, creating a powerful data flywheel [14].

Diagram 2: GNoME active learning discovery cycle.

Key Findings and Impact

Through this iterative, scaled deep-learning approach, GNoME models discovered 2.2 million new crystal structures predicted to be stable, with 381,000 of these residing on the updated convex hull of thermodynamically stable materials [14]. This represents an order-of-magnitude expansion in the number of known stable materials. The final models achieved an impressive energy prediction accuracy of 11 meV atom⁻¹ and a precision (hit rate) for stable predictions of above 80% when structural information was available [14]. This work showcases the unprecedented generalization capabilities that ML models can attain with sufficient data and computation, enabling efficient exploration of chemically complex spaces (e.g., structures with 5+ unique elements) that were previously intractable [14].

Experimental Protocols for Composition-Based Stability Modeling

Protocol: Building a Composition-Stability Classifier for MAX Phases

This protocol details the methodology for screening stable MAX phases using composition-based machine learning, as demonstrated in the discovery of Ti₂SnN [6].

• Data Collection: Compile a dataset of known MAX phases and their stability labels (stable/unstable) from literature or crystallographic databases. The initial study collected stability data for 1,804 MAX phase combinations [6].
• Descriptor Calculation: Calculate composition-based features (descriptors) for each entry. Key descriptors found to be critical in MAX phase stability include the mean number of valence electrons and the valence electron deviation [6].
• Model Selection and Training: Split the dataset into training and testing sets. Train and compare multiple classifier algorithms, such as Random Forest Classifier (RFC), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Gradient Boosting Tree (GBT) [6].
• Model Validation: Evaluate model performance on the held-out test set using metrics like accuracy, precision, and recall.
• Stability Screening: Deploy the best-performing model to screen a large, virtual library of potential MAX phase compositions (e.g., 4,347 candidates) [6].
• First-Principles Validation: Confirm the thermodynamic and intrinsic stability of the top ML-predicted candidates using Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations [6].
• Experimental Synthesis: Attempt to synthesize the most promising computationally validated materials, such as Ti₂SnN, via laboratory methods like Lewis acid substitution reactions [6].

Protocol: Predicting Formation Enthalpy with Deep Neural Networks

This protocol outlines the use of a pre-trained deep learning model, ElemNet, to predict material stability (formation enthalpy) from composition alone, as applied to V–Cr–Ti alloys [13].

• Environment Setup: Establish a Python 3.7 environment with necessary modules, including NumPy 1.21 and TensorFlow 1.14 [13].
• Model Acquisition: Obtain the open-source ElemNet code and its pre-trained model. ElemNet is a 17-layer, fully connected deep neural network trained on the formation enthalpies of ~341,000 compounds from the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) [13].
• Input Preparation: For the alloy of interest (e.g., a V–Cr–Ti composition), prepare the input as a vector representing its elemental composition.
• Prediction Execution: Run the ElemNet model in prediction mode. The model uses only the elemental composition as input and outputs a predicted formation enthalpy (∆Hf) [13].
• Stability Assessment: Interpret the results. A more negative formation enthalpy (or a higher positive value for -∆Hf) indicates greater thermodynamic stability. Correlate the predicted -∆Hf values with experimental stability indicators, such as the Ductile-Brittle Transition Temperature (DBTT), for validation [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for ML-Driven Stability Research

Item Name	Function/Application	Specifications/Examples
Stability Datasets	Provides labeled data for training and validating ML models.	The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) [13], Materials Project (MP) [14], Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD) [14].
Compositional Descriptors	Numerical features representing chemical composition for model input.	Mean valence electrons, valence electron deviation [6], elemental fractions, statistical moments of atomic properties.
Graph Neural Network (GNN)	A deep learning architecture for modeling structured data, ideal for crystal graphs.	Used in GNoME to predict crystal energy from structure; enables message-passing between atoms [14].
First-Principles Calculation Software	Provides high-fidelity validation of ML predictions using quantum mechanics.	Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP) [14]; used for DFT verification of predicted stable crystals.
Thioflavin-T (ThT)	A fluorescent reporter used to measure physical stability (aggregation) in peptide drugs.	Aggregation curves from ThT assays can be integrated into ML models to improve chemical stability predictions [78].

Benchmarking Performance and Prospective Validation of ML Models

Composition-based machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative tool for accelerating the discovery and development of novel materials, particularly in the prediction of material stability. These models leverage elemental composition data to forecast properties such as formation energy and phase stability without requiring detailed structural information, enabling rapid screening of vast chemical spaces [13] [14]. However, the prevailing practice of retrospective validation—where models are tested against existing historical datasets—introduces significant limitations in assessing true predictive performance and real-world applicability. This creates an urgent need for prospective benchmarking, a more rigorous paradigm where model predictions are defined before experimental validation and are evaluated against subsequently generated data.

Prospective benchmarking shifts the investigator focus away from an endeavor to use observational data to obtain similar results as completed studies, to a systematic attempt to align the design and analysis between computational predictions and experimental validation [79]. Within materials stability research, this approach is particularly crucial for building confidence in ML-guided discovery pipelines, identifying model limitations before technology deployment, and establishing robust frameworks for predicting material behavior under realistic operating conditions. This protocol outlines comprehensive methodologies for implementing prospective benchmarking specifically for composition-based ML models in material stability research.

Retrospective vs. Prospective Validation: A Comparative Analysis

Table 1: Comparison of Model Validation Paradigms in Materials Informatics

Aspect	Retrospective Validation	Prospective Benchmarking
Temporal Relationship	Predictions made for previously known data	Predictions registered before experimental synthesis/validation
Data Contamination Risk	High (potential for inadvertent tuning on test data)	Minimal (clear temporal separation)
Performance Estimation	Often overly optimistic	More realistic for real-world deployment
Experimental Design	Fragmented (uses disparate historical studies)	Integrated (tailored to test specific predictions)
Error Analysis	Limited to existing data gaps	Can target model uncertainties directly
Regulatory Acceptance	Limited for high-stakes applications	Growing preference in clinical and advanced materials
Implementation Cost	Lower initial cost	Higher initial investment
Representative Example	Predicting known stable crystals from Materials Project [14]	Predicting previously unsynthesized MAX phases before experimental realization [6]

The fundamental distinction between these paradigms lies in their relationship to experimental outcomes. Retrospective tests operate on a "closed-loop" principle where the ground truth is already established, creating potential for unconscious bias during model development. In contrast, prospective benchmarking establishes an "open-loop" system where predictions are formally documented before validation, providing a genuine test of predictive capability [79]. This is particularly important for composition-based ML models, which are increasingly used to guide resource-intensive experimental work in areas such as alloy design [13], perovskite stability [80], and novel compound discovery [14] [6].

Protocol for Prospective Benchmarking of Composition-Based Stability Models

Stage 1: Protocol Specification and Model Prediction

This initial stage requires explicit definition of the target experiment and registration of model predictions before any validation occurs.

Step 1.1: Define the Target Trial Protocol

• Eligibility Criteria: Specify precise compositional ranges, synthesis conditions, and characterization methods for the materials to be tested. For instance, in benchmarking a model for V-Cr-Ti alloys, explicitly define the acceptable ranges for Cr (e.g., 0-20 wt%) and Ti (e.g., 4-16 wt%) content [13].
• Treatment Strategies: Clearly define the computational and experimental "treatments" being compared. For example: "Comparison of ElemNet-predicted formation energy versus DFT-calculated formation energy for ternary compositions within the V-Cr-Ti system" [13].
• Outcomes: Define primary and secondary stability metrics. The primary outcome should be a direct stability measure, such as formation energy (ΔHf) or decomposition energy. Secondary outcomes may include derived properties like the ductile-brittle transition temperature (DBTT), which correlates with stability [13].
• Analysis Plan: Pre-specify the statistical methods for comparing predictions versus experiments, including equivalence margins, handling of missing data, and primary metrics (e.g., mean absolute error, hit rate for stability classification).

Step 1.2: Generate and Register Predictions

• Using the pre-defined eligibility criteria, generate candidate materials and their predicted stability properties.
• Create a timestamped prediction registry documenting all candidate materials and their ML-predicted properties before experimental validation. This registry should be immutable and include key descriptors such as composition, predicted formation energy, and uncertainty estimates.

Stage 2: Experimental Emulation and Validation

This stage executes the experimental validation according to the pre-registered protocol.

Step 2.1: Emulate Target Trial with Experimental Data

• Execute synthesis and characterization of the predicted materials following the pre-defined protocol.
• For composition-based models, this typically involves synthesizing compounds across the predicted stability landscape, including both high-confidence stable compositions and those near decision boundaries.
• Operationalization: Convert model predictions into experimental procedures. For example, if a model predicts stability based on composition alone, implement synthesis protocols that actualize these compositions while controlling for other variables (e.g., sintering temperature, atmosphere) [6].

Step 2.2: Implement Quality Assurance Measures

• Reference Standards: Include known stable and unstable reference materials in each experimental batch to control for process variability.
• Blinding: Where feasible, implement blinding procedures so experimentalists are unaware of the model predictions during synthesis and characterization.
• Data Quality Monitoring: Track experimental metrics including synthesis yield, phase purity, and measurement precision to identify potential systematic errors [81].

Stage 3: Benchmarking Analysis

This final stage compares the prospective predictions against experimental outcomes.

Step 3.1: Execute Pre-specified Analysis

• Calculate the pre-defined performance metrics between predicted and experimental stability measures.
• For continuous stability measures (e.g., formation energy), report mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE). For classification tasks (stable/unstable), report precision, recall, and F1-score.
• Compare performance against reasonable baselines (e.g., random guessing, simple heuristic rules, or historical models).

Step 3.2: Conduct "Post-Mortem" Analysis for Discrepancies

• When significant discrepancies occur between predictions and experimental results, conduct thorough investigation of potential causes [79].
• Error Source Identification: Determine whether errors originate from the ML model (e.g., inadequate training data for certain compositional spaces), experimental procedures, or fundamental limitations of composition-only representations.
• Model Refinement: Use insights from discrepancies to improve subsequent model iterations, potentially incorporating additional descriptors or structural information.

Case Studies in Prospective Benchmarking

Case Study 1: REDUCE-AMI Clinical Trial Framework

While from clinical research, the REDUCE-AMI trial provides a robust methodological framework for prospective benchmarking. In this ongoing study, investigators first specified a complete trial protocol for evaluating beta-blocker effectiveness following myocardial infarction. They then emulated this target trial using observational data from Swedish healthcare registries, with the analysis completed before the randomized trial results were known. This approach enables a forthcoming prospective benchmark where the observational analysis can be compared against the randomized trial without any manipulation of the observational analysis based on the trial results [79]. The same principled approach can be directly applied to materials stability research by pre-registering ML predictions before experimental validation.

Case Study 2: GNoME Materials Discovery Platform

The Graph Networks for Materials Exploration (GNoME) project represents a large-scale implementation of prospective concepts in materials informatics. Through an active learning framework, the project generated predictions of stable crystals that were subsequently validated through DFT calculations. This process discovered 2.2 million crystal structures stable with respect to the Materials Project database, with 381,000 new entries added to the convex hull [14]. The iterative prediction-validation cycle, where each round of DFT calculations verified model predictions and served as training data for subsequent rounds, embodies the core principle of prospective benchmarking—using subsequent experimental validation to test prior predictions.

Case Study 3: MAX Phase Discovery with Composition-Stability Models

Recent work on MAX phases demonstrates a complete pipeline from ML prediction to experimental validation. Researchers first trained a random forest classifier on known MAX phase stability data, then used the model to prospectively predict 190 new stable MAX phases from 4,347 candidates. First-principles calculations confirmed 150 of these predictions met thermodynamic and intrinsic stability criteria. Most significantly, one predicted phase, Ti₂SnN, was successfully synthesized experimentally, validating the prospective prediction [6]. This end-to-end process from computation to synthesized material represents the gold standard for prospective benchmarking in materials informatics.

Visualizing Prospective Benchmarking Workflows

Conceptual Framework for Prospective Benchmarking

Implementation Workflow for Materials Stability Research

Table 2: Essential Resources for Prospective Benchmarking of Composition-Stability Models

Category	Resource	Specification/Version	Application in Prospective Benchmarking
Computational Models	ElemNet	Deep neural network (17 layers)	Composition-based formation energy prediction [13]
	GNoME	Graph neural networks	Scalable materials discovery with active learning [14]
	Random Forest Classifier	Scikit-learn implementation	Stability classification for MAX phases [6]
Data Resources	Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)	v2019+	Training data for formation energy prediction [13]
	Materials Project (MP)	API v2023+	Source of known stable crystals for benchmarking [14]
	Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD)	2020+	Experimental crystal structures for validation [14]
Experimental Characterization	X-ray Diffraction (XRD)	Bruker D8 Advance or equivalent	Phase identification and purity assessment [6]
	Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)	TA Instruments Q20	Thermal stability analysis
	Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)	FEI Quanta 200	Microstructural analysis
Software & Libraries	TensorFlow	v1.14+	Deep learning framework for ElemNet [13]
	pymatgen	v2022+	Materials analysis [14]
	AIRSS	Latest version	Ab initio random structure searching [14]
Analysis Tools	Python	3.7+ with NumPy, pandas	Data analysis and visualization
	Scikit-learn	v1.0+	Traditional ML models and metrics

The adoption of prospective benchmarking represents a paradigm shift in how we validate composition-based ML models for materials stability research. This approach moves beyond the limitations of retrospective testing to provide genuine evidence of predictive performance under real-world conditions. As the field advances, several key areas warrant further development:

• Standardized Benchmarking Protocols: The community would benefit from established standards for prospective benchmarking in materials informatics, including common datasets, evaluation metrics, and reporting standards.
• Uncertainty Quantification: Enhanced methods for quantifying predictive uncertainty in composition-based models will be crucial for prioritizing experimental validation efforts.
• Multi-fidelity Validation: Frameworks that incorporate validation across multiple experimental techniques and computational methods (e.g., DFT, higher-fidelity r2SCAN computations) [14].
• Open Science Platforms: Development of shared platforms for pre-registering predictions and sharing benchmarking results to accelerate community learning.

Prospective benchmarking, though more resource-intensive than retrospective validation, offers a more rigorous pathway toward trustworthy ML-guided materials discovery. By adopting these practices, researchers can build more robust and reliable models that genuinely accelerate the discovery of novel materials with targeted stability properties.

In composition-based machine learning for material stability research, selecting appropriate evaluation metrics is a critical step that directly impacts the interpretation of a model's predictive performance. Machine learning tasks are broadly categorized into classification (predicting discrete categories) and regression (predicting continuous values), each requiring distinct metrics for proper evaluation. Using classification metrics for a regression task, or vice versa, will lead to incorrect conclusions about a model's utility.

For material stability research, this distinction is paramount. A classification model may predict whether a material is stable or unstable under certain conditions, whereas a regression model may predict a continuous stability measure, such as formation energy or degradation temperature. The core evaluation metrics for these tasks differ fundamentally: Precision, Recall, and F1-Score are used for classification models, while Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) are used for regression models [82] [83]. The following sections will dissect these metrics, provide protocols for their application, and contextualize their use within materials science, particularly focusing on the analysis of perovskite stability.

Classification Metrics: Precision, Recall, and F1-Score

Fundamental Concepts and Definitions

Classification metrics are derived from the confusion matrix, a table that summarizes the outcomes of a classification model's predictions against the true labels [82] [83]. For binary classification, such as "stable" vs. "unstable" material phases, the confusion matrix is built from four fundamental outcomes:

• True Positives (TP): The number of unstable materials correctly identified as unstable.
• True Negatives (TN): The number of stable materials correctly identified as stable.
• False Positives (FP): The number of stable materials incorrectly identified as unstable (Type I error).
• False Negatives (FN): The number of unstable materials incorrectly identified as stable (Type II error) [84].

These core components are used to calculate the primary classification metrics, as defined in the table below.

Table 1: Definitions and Formulas for Key Classification Metrics

Metric	Description	Formula	Interpretation in Material Stability
Precision	The accuracy of positive predictions [85] [83].	( \text{Precision} = \frac{TP}{TP + FP} )	When the model flags a material as unstable, how often is it correct?
Recall (Sensitivity)	The ability to identify all actual positive instances [85] [83].	( \text{Recall} = \frac{TP}{TP + FN} )	What fraction of all truly unstable materials were successfully identified?
F1-Score	The harmonic mean of Precision and Recall [82] [83].	( \text{F1-Score} = 2 \times \frac{\text{Precision} \times \text{Recall}}{\text{Precision} + \Recall} )	A single balanced metric that accounts for both FP and FN.

The Precision-Recall Trade-Off and F1-Score

In practice, a trade-off exists between precision and recall. Optimizing a model for higher recall (catching more true unstable materials) often leads to a decrease in precision (more stable materials incorrectly flagged as unstable), and vice versa [85]. The F1-score is a singular metric that balances this trade-off, as it is the harmonic mean of precision and recall [82]. The harmonic mean, unlike a simple arithmetic mean, penalizes extreme values. This makes the F1-score particularly useful for imbalanced datasets [82] [86], which are common in materials science where stable compounds may vastly outnumber unstable ones.

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between the components of the confusion matrix and the resulting metrics of Precision, Recall, and F1-Score.

Application Notes for Material Stability Classification

The choice between emphasizing precision or recall depends on the specific cost of errors in the research context [85] [86]:

• High-Risk Scenarios (Prioritize Recall): In early-stage discovery for high-risk applications (e.g., structural materials, biomedical implants), missing an unstable material (a false negative) is highly undesirable. Here, a high recall is critical to ensure potentially unstable materials are not overlooked for further scrutiny [82] [86].
• Resource-Constrained Scenarios (Prioritize Precision): In downstream experimental validation where resources (time, budget) are limited, a high number of false alarms (false positives) can be costly. In this case, high precision is preferred to ensure that materials flagged for validation are highly likely to be unstable [85] [86].

Regression Metrics: MAE and RMSE

Fundamental Concepts and Definitions

For regression tasks in material stability research—such as predicting formation energy, bandgap, or thermal expansion coefficient—Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) are two standard metrics used to evaluate model performance [87] [83]. Both metrics quantify the average deviation of the model's predictions from the actual measured values, but they do so in different ways, leading to important distinctions.

Table 2: Comparison of Regression Metrics MAE and RMSE

Metric	Description	Formula	Interpretation
MAE	The average of the absolute differences between predicted and actual values [83] [88].	( \text{MAE} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N}	yj - \hat{y}j	)	Represents the average magnitude of error without considering direction. It is robust to outliers.
RMSE	The square root of the average of squared differences between predicted and actual values [83] [88].	( \text{RMSE} = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{N} \sum{j=1}^{N} (yj - \hat{y}_j)^2 } )	Represents the standard deviation of the prediction errors. It penalizes larger errors more severely.

Theoretical Basis and Practical Implications

The choice between MAE and RMSE is not arbitrary but is rooted in the statistical assumptions about the error distribution [88]. RMSE is optimal when the model's errors are expected to follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution. In contrast, MAE is optimal for Laplacian error distributions [88]. From a practical standpoint:

• Use RMSE when large errors are particularly undesirable and should be heavily penalized. It provides a measure that is more sensitive to outliers and large errors [89] [83].
• Use MAE when you want a metric that is more robust to outliers and describes the typical error in its native units [89] [88]. Furthermore, the units of both MAE and RMSE are the same as the dependent variable (e.g., eV for bandgap), making them intuitively understandable [87].

Experimental Protocols for Metric Evaluation

Protocol 1: Evaluating a Classification Model for Perovskite Stability

This protocol outlines the steps to evaluate a binary classifier that predicts whether a perovskite composition is stable (positive class) or unstable (negative class).

• Data Preparation and Annotation:

  • Curate a dataset of perovskite compositions with known stability labels (e.g., from experimental databases or high-throughput DFT calculations).
  • Split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets using a stratified split (e.g., 70/15/15) to preserve the class imbalance.
  • Annotate the test set with ground truth labels. This set must be kept separate and not used during model training or hyperparameter tuning.

• Model Prediction and Confusion Matrix Generation:

  • Use the trained model to generate predictions (stable/unstable) for the test set.
  • Construct a confusion matrix by comparing predictions to the ground truth labels [83]. A sample confusion matrix for a dataset of 165 samples is shown below as an example [83].

  Table 3: Example Confusion Matrix for a Binary Classifier

  n=165	Predicted: Stable	Predicted: Unstable
  Actual: Stable	50 (TN)	10 (FP)
  Actual: Unstable	5 (FN)	100 (TP)

• Metric Calculation and Interpretation:

  • Calculate Precision, Recall, and F1-Score using the values from the confusion matrix and the formulas in Table 1.
  • For the example in Table 3:
    • Precision = 100 / (100 + 10) = 0.909
    • Recall = 100 / (100 + 5) = 0.952
    • F1-Score = 2 * (0.909 * 0.952) / (0.909 + 0.952) ≈ 0.930
  • Interpret the results: This model demonstrates high recall, meaning it is very effective at identifying unstable perovskites. The high precision indicates that when it does predict "unstable," it is highly reliable.

Protocol 2: Evaluating a Regression Model for Bandgap Prediction

This protocol outlines the steps to evaluate a regression model that predicts the continuous bandgap value of a material.

• Data Preparation:

  • Assemble a dataset of materials with experimentally measured bandgaps (e.g., from the Materials Project or other literature sources).
  • Split the data into training, validation, and test sets using a standard random split.

• Model Prediction and Error Calculation:

  • Use the trained model to predict bandgap values for the test set.
  • Compute the residual errors for each data point: ( ej = yj - \hat{y}j ), where ( yj ) is the actual bandgap and ( \hat{y}_j ) is the predicted bandgap.

• Metric Calculation and Interpretation:

  • Calculate MAE and RMSE using the formulas in Table 2.
  • For example, with a test set of 10 materials, the calculations might yield:
    • MAE = 0.15 eV
    • RMSE = 0.22 eV
  • Interpret the results: The MAE indicates that the model's predictions are, on average, 0.15 eV away from the true bandgap. The RMSE being larger than the MAE suggests that there are some predictions with larger errors, which are being penalized more heavily by the RMSE metric. This could guide further investigation into outliers.

The following workflow diagram summarizes the parallel processes for evaluating classification and regression models as described in the protocols.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Computational Experiments

Item / Resource	Function / Description	Example in Protocol
Curated Materials Database	A source of ground-truth data for model training and testing.	The Perovskite Stability Dataset (Protocol 1) or the Bandgap Dataset (Protocol 2) [90].
Scikit-learn (sklearn) Library	A Python library providing tools for data splitting, model training, and metric calculation [85].	Used for train_test_split, and functions like precision_score, f1_score, mean_absolute_error, and mean_squared_error [85] [87].
Computational Framework (e.g., BERT)	A pre-trained language model that can be fine-tuned for specific tasks, including information extraction from scientific text [90].	Used as a base model for a Question Answering (QA) system to extract material-property relationships from literature in an unsupervised manner [90].
Confidence Threshold	A hyperparameter in QA models that controls the model's certainty before an answer is returned; balances precision and recall [90].	In perovskite bandgap extraction, a threshold of 0.1 optimized the F1-score for the QA MatSciBERT model [90].

The rigorous evaluation of machine learning models is foundational to building trust in their predictions for material stability research. A clear understanding of the distinction between classification and regression metrics is non-negotiable. Precision, Recall, and F1-Score are the cornerstones for evaluating categorical models, with the F1-score providing a crucial balance for imbalanced datasets common in materials science. In contrast, MAE and RMSE are standard for assessing continuous value predictions, with RMSE offering sensitivity to potentially critical large errors. The choice of metric must be guided by the research question and the real-world cost of prediction errors. By adhering to the detailed application notes and experimental protocols provided, researchers can ensure their composition-based models for material stability are evaluated with the rigor and nuance the field demands.

The discovery and development of novel materials are fundamental to technological progress in fields ranging from energy storage to aerospace. For decades, density functional theory (DFT) has served as the computational workhorse for predicting material properties and stability. However, its high computational cost and intrinsic energy resolution errors often limit its predictive accuracy and practical application in large-scale screening campaigns [91] [92]. The emerging integration of machine learning (ML) with computational materials science offers a promising path to overcome these limitations. This analysis examines the performance of ML methodologies against traditional DFT-only workflows, with a specific focus on applications in composition-based material stability research. We provide a quantitative comparison of their accuracy, efficiency, and practical utility, supported by detailed protocols for implementing these hybrid approaches.

Performance Benchmarking: Quantitative Comparisons

Accuracy and Error Metrics

Benchmarking studies demonstrate that ML models can achieve, and in some cases surpass, the predictive accuracy of DFT calculations for key material properties, while offering significant computational speed-ups.

Table 1: Comparison of Model Performance for Predicting Material Properties

Property Predicted	Model Type	Key Metric	Performance	Reference
Formation Enthalpy (Alloys)	DFT (EMTO)	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	Baseline (Uncorrected)	[92]
	ML-Corrected DFT	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	Significant improvement over uncorrected DFT	[92]
Energy & Atomic Forces	Neural Network Potential (EMFF-2025)	MAE vs. DFT	Energy: < ±0.1 eV/atom; Force: < ±2 eV/Å	[91]
Various Properties (e.g., FEPA, Band Gap)	Chemical Language Model (imKT)	MAE Improvement vs. Previous SOTA	Average 15.7% reduction on JARVIS-DFT tasks	[93]
13C NMR Shieldings	Periodic DFT (PBE)	Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD)	2.18 ppm	[94]
13C NMR Shieldings	ShiftML2 (on PBE data)	Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD)	3.02 ppm	[94]
13C NMR Shieldings	DFT with PBE0 Correction	Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD)	1.20 ppm (from 2.18 ppm)	[94]

Computational Efficiency and Throughput

A primary advantage of ML models is their dramatic acceleration of property prediction once trained. The EMFF-2025 potential enables large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of high-energy materials at a fraction of the computational cost of direct DFT-based simulations [91]. In materials discovery pipelines, ML models act as efficient pre-filters, screening thousands of candidate structures before passing the most promising ones to higher-fidelity (but more expensive) DFT methods. This hybrid workflow can reduce the overall computational burden of discovery campaigns by orders of magnitude [5]. Universal interatomic potentials (UIPs), a class of ML potentials, have advanced to the point where they can effectively and cheaply pre-screen thermodynamically stable hypothetical materials [5].

Experimental and Computational Protocols

Protocol 1: Developing a General Neural Network Potential

This protocol outlines the procedure for developing a general-purpose neural network potential (NNP), such as EMFF-2025, for predicting mechanical and chemical properties of materials [91].

• Step 1: Pre-training and Initial Data Collection

  • Begin with a pre-trained NNP model on a relevant chemical space (e.g., the DP-CHNO-2024 model for C, H, N, O systems).
  • The initial training dataset is typically constructed from diverse DFT calculations on molecular and periodic systems.

• Step 2: Data Expansion via Active Learning

  • Employ an active learning framework, specifically the Deep Potential Generator (DP-GEN) [91].
  • The DP-GEN cycle involves:
    • Exploration: Running molecular dynamics (MD) simulations using the current NNP.
    • Labeling: Identifying configurations where the model's uncertainty is high.
    • Training: Computing accurate DFT energies and forces for these uncertain configurations and adding them to the training set.
    • Updating: Retraining the NNP with the expanded dataset.
  • This cycle is iterated until the model's error and uncertainty are minimized across a wide range of structures and temperatures.

• Step 3: Validation and Application

  • Validate the final model by comparing its predictions of energies, forces, crystal structures, mechanical properties, and decomposition pathways against held-out DFT data and available experimental results.
  • The validated NNP can then be deployed for large-scale MD simulations to investigate complex phenomena like thermal decomposition.

Protocol 2: ML-Guided Discovery of Stable Crystalline Materials

This protocol describes a framework for using composition-based ML models to discover new stable crystalline materials, leading to experimental synthesis [6] [5] [93].

• Step 1: Dataset Curation and Feature Engineering

  • Compile a dataset of known materials and their stability indicators (e.g., energy above the convex hull, formation energy) from databases like the Materials Project.
  • For composition-based models, create features using elemental stoichiometries, atomic numbers, and their weighted interactions [92] [93]. Advanced models use chemical language representations (e.g., SMILES, formula strings).

• Step 2: Model Training and Stability Prediction

  • Train ML models (e.g., Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Tree, or chemical language models) to predict stability [6].
  • For enhanced accuracy, employ cross-modal knowledge transfer:
    • Implicit Transfer (imKT): Pre-train a chemical language model by aligning its embeddings with those from a multimodal foundation model that has integrated data from crystal structures, electronic states, and text [93].
    • Explicit Transfer (exKT): Use a large language model (e.g., CrystaLLM) to predict the crystal structure from a given composition. Then, use a graph neural network (GNN) on the generated structures for property prediction [93].

• Step 3: High-Throughput Screening and Validation

  • Use the trained model to screen vast chemical spaces (thousands to millions of compositions) for potentially stable candidates.
  • Perform first-principles DFT calculations on the top-ranked candidates to confirm their thermodynamic stability.
  • Select the most promising validated candidates for experimental synthesis and characterization.

Protocol 3: Correcting DFT Formation Enthalpies with Machine Learning

This protocol details a method to correct systematic errors in DFT-calculated formation enthalpies using a neural network, thereby improving the reliability of phase stability assessments [92].

• Step 1: Create a Curated Reference Dataset

  • Assemble a dataset of binary and ternary alloys/compounds with both DFT-calculated and experimentally measured formation enthalpies.
  • Filter the data to exclude missing or unreliable experimental values.

• Step 2: Feature and Target Definition

  • Input Features: For each material, define a feature vector that includes:
    • Elemental concentrations (x_A, x_B, x_C).
    • Weighted atomic numbers (x_A*Z_A, x_B*Z_B, x_C*Z_C).
    • Interaction terms between elements [92].
  • Target Variable: The difference between the experimental and DFT-calculated formation enthalpy (ΔH_f = H_f(exp) - H_f(DFT)).

• Step 3: Model Training and Implementation

  • Implement a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) regressor with multiple hidden layers.
  • Normalize input features to prevent scaling issues.
  • Use rigorous validation techniques like leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and k-fold cross-validation to prevent overfitting.
  • The trained model predicts the error. The corrected formation enthalpy is: H_f(corrected) = H_f(DFT) + ΔH_f(ML-Predicted).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 2: Key Computational Tools and Datasets for ML/DFT Workflows

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
DP-GEN [91]	Software Framework	Automated active learning for generating training data and developing neural network potentials.	Protocol 1: Creating general NNPs like EMFF-2025.
Deep Potential (DP) [91]	ML Potential Scheme	Provides atomic-scale descriptions for complex reactions with high efficiency.	Protocol 1: Core architecture for the NNP.
Materials Project (MP) [5]	Computational Database	Repository of DFT-calculated properties for known and predicted materials.	Protocol 2: Source of training data for stability models.
Chemical Language Models (CLMs) [93]	ML Model	Represent chemical compositions as sequences for property prediction.	Protocol 2: Enables composition-based screening via imKT/exKT.
Multimodal Foundation Model (MultiMat) [93]	ML Model	Integrates multiple data types (structure, DOS, text) into a unified representation.	Protocol 2: Source of embeddings for pretraining CLMs (imKT).
EMTO-CPA [92]	DFT Code	Performs DFT calculations for disordered alloys using the Exact Muffin-Tin Orbital method.	Protocol 3: Source of initial DFT formation enthalpies for correction.
Matbench Discovery [5]	Benchmarking Framework	Standardized framework for evaluating ML models on materials discovery tasks.	General: Benchmarking model performance prospectively.

The integration of machine learning with density functional theory is reshaping the landscape of computational materials research. The quantitative data and protocols presented herein demonstrate that ML-enhanced workflows consistently outperform DFT-only approaches in both predictive accuracy for key properties like formation energy and computational efficiency for large-scale screening. Methods such as transfer learning, neural network potentials, and ML-based DFT error correction are proving particularly effective. For researchers focused on composition-based material stability, the emerging best practice involves a hybrid strategy: leveraging fast ML models for high-throughput exploration of chemical space and reserving more expensive, high-fidelity DFT calculations for final validation. This synergistic approach promises to significantly accelerate the discovery and development of next-generation materials.

The integration of machine learning (ML) into material stability research, particularly for biologics and chiral molecules, promises to accelerate drug development and enhance product quality assessment [95] [96]. However, traditional model evaluation metrics, which rely on aggregated averages, obscure critical performance variations across specific tasks or conditions [97]. This paper introduces a rigorous validation framework combining Adaptive Leaderboards and Standardized Tasks to address this gap. Grounded in the principles of compositional learning [98], this framework enables precise, context-aware evaluation of ML models, fostering more reliable and predictive tools for stability research.

Core Concepts and Relevance to Material Stability

The Need for Adaptive Evaluation in Stability Science

Material stability research, such as predicting the shelf-life of biological products or the chiral stability of novel molecules [95] [99], involves complex, multi-faceted problems. A model's ability to compose known concepts—such as Arrhenius equation principles and observed degradation pathways—to predict novel scenarios is paramount [98]. Current ML leaderboards fall short because they report only average performance, failing to indicate which model is best for a specific predictive task, like forecasting the stability of a new monoclonal antibody formulation [97].

Compositional Learning as a Foundation

Compositional learning refers to a model's ability to understand and combine basic concepts to form more complex ones, a capability crucial for generalizing to unobserved situations [98]. In stability research, this translates to a model's proficiency in reasoning about novel combinations of factors (e.g., a new protein therapeutic subjected to a unique temperature profile). Key facets of compositionality include [98]:

• Systematicity: The ability to recombine known elements (e.g., degradation mechanisms) to understand new combinations.
• Productivity: Generalizing to longer-term predictions than those seen in training data.
• Substitutivity: Understanding that synonymous concepts (e.g., different analytical techniques measuring the same attribute) should yield consistent predictions.

Table 1: Facets of Compositional Learning in Stability Research

Facet	Definition	Stability Research Example
Systematicity	Recombining known parts and rules.	Predicting stability for a new biologic by combining knowledge of its molecular attributes and a novel container closure system.
Productivity	Generalizing to longer or more complex sequences.	Accurately predicting shelf-life at 24 months based on data from only 6 months of accelerated stability studies.
Substitutivity	Handling synonymous elements.	Recognizing that "T90%" and "time to 10% degradation" are equivalent metrics for a stability endpoint.
Overgeneralization	Applying rules too broadly, ignoring exceptions.	Incorrectly assuming a linear degradation rate for a biologic that shows a phase change after 18 months.

Proposed Framework: Adaptive Leaderboards and Standardized Tasks

Prompt-to-Leaderboard (P2L) for Adaptive Evaluation

The Prompt-to-Leaderboard (P2L) method produces leaderboards specific to a user's prompt or task, moving beyond aggregated averages [97]. Its core is an LLM that takes a natural language prompt as input and outputs a vector of coefficients to predict human preference votes between model outputs. For stability research, a prompt could be: "Predict the shelf-life of a lyophilized monoclonal antibody stored at 2-8°C, given accelerated stability data at 25°C and 40°C."

P2L enables several critical applications in a research context [97]:

• Unsupervised Task-Specific Evaluation: Generating a custom leaderboard for a specific stability prediction task without new human annotations.
• Optimal Query Routing: Automatically directing a stability query to the best-performing model for that specific problem.
• Personalized Evaluation: Tailoring model assessment based on a user's or organization's unique history of prompts and preferences.
• Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis: Automatically identifying the types of tasks or prompts where a model excels or fails.

Standardized Tasks for Compositional Evaluation

To rigorously evaluate compositional generalization, standardized tasks built on a "compositionality prior" are essential [100]. These tasks should be designed to test a model's ability to decompose complex problems and apply fundamental rules in novel combinations. The Compositional Visual Relations (CVR) benchmark offers a blueprint [100], which can be adapted to create the Compositional Stability Relations (CSR) benchmark for material science.

Table 2: Standardized Task Design for Compositional Stability Assessment

Task Component	CVR Example [100]	Proposed CSR Adaptation
Core Task	Odd-One-Out: Identify the image that violates a rule.	Odd-One-Out: Identify the degradation profile or molecular structure that violates a stability rule.
Elementary Relations	Shape, size, color, position, rotation.	Chemical degradation rate, aggregation propensity, chiral inversion energy barrier.
Rule Composition	Combining two elementary relations (e.g., size and shape).	Combining two degradation modes (e.g., oxidation and deamidation).
Generation Process	Procedural generation of problem samples from a scene structure.	Procedural generation of synthetic stability datasets from fundamental physicochemical principles.
Generalization Test	Varying fixed/random parameters in the generation process.	Testing on formulations, container systems, or temperature profiles absent from training.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing an Adaptive Leaderboard for Predictive Stability Modeling

Objective: To create and validate a P2L-based adaptive leaderboard for ranking ML models based on their performance on specific predictive stability tasks.

Materials:

• Chatbot Arena Data (or similar human preference data) [97]: Serves as the foundational dataset for training the P2L model.
• Stability-Specific Prompts: A curated set of prompts/queries relevant to stability science (e.g., "Predict the time to 5% aggregation for this mAb under 25°C").
• Candidate ML Models: A suite of models (e.g., regression models, Random Forests, Gradient Boosting Machines, neural networks) to be evaluated.
• Computational Infrastructure: GPU-enabled servers for efficient P2L model training and inference.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation and Prompt Curation:
  • Extract a dataset of human preference votes on model outputs, such as the Chatbot Arena dataset [97].
  • Simultaneously, curate a set of N prompts (P_stability) specific to material stability. These should cover a diverse range of tasks (shelf-life prediction, degradation pathway identification, etc.).

• P2L Model Training:

  • Initialize a large language model (LLM) as the base for the P2L model.
  • Train the P2L model on the human preference data. The model learns to map any input prompt to a set of Bradley-Terry coefficients, which can be used to calculate pairwise win probabilities between models [97].
  • Validate the model by checking its correlation with held-out human judgment data.

• Leaderboard Generation and Model Routing:

  • For a given target prompt p_i from P_stability, pass it through the trained P2L model to obtain the prompt-specific Bradley-Terry coefficients.
  • Use these coefficients to rank all candidate ML models, generating the adaptive leaderboard for p_i.
  • The top-ranked model on this leaderboard is automatically selected as the optimal model for that specific prompt (optimal routing).

• Validation and Analysis:

  • Manually assess the outputs of the top-ranked models for a subset of prompts to verify the leaderboard's accuracy.
  • Use the P2L framework to generate automated analyses of each model's strengths and weaknesses across different stability subtopics [97].

Protocol 2: Assessing Compositional Generalization on Standardized CSR Tasks

Objective: To quantitatively evaluate a model's compositional generalization capabilities using the proposed Compositional Stability Relations (CSR) benchmark.

Materials:

• CSR Benchmark Dataset: A procedurally generated dataset containing multiple stability tasks based on composed rules [100].
• Test Models: Various ML architectures (e.g., CNNs, Transformers, Graph Neural Networks).
• Evaluation Platform: A standardized computing environment for fair comparison (e.g., a Docker container with specified libraries).

Procedure:

• Dataset Splitting:
  • Split the CSR benchmark according to compositional principles [98] [100].
  • Systematicity Split: Ensure all elementary concepts (e.g., individual degradation rates) are present in the training set, but specific combinations of these concepts are held out for testing.
  • Productivity Split: Train on data with shorter prediction timelines and test on significantly longer, unseen timelines.

• Model Training:

  • Train each candidate model on the training portion of the CSR dataset.
  • For a subset of models, employ self-supervised pre-training on the dataset images (or molecular structures) to learn informative visual (or structural) representations before the main task [100].

• Testing and Evaluation:

  • Evaluate each trained model on the held-out test splits (Systematicity, Productivity, and the main test set).
  • Record accuracy, F1 score, or other task-relevant metrics for each model on each split.

• Analysis of Compositionality:

  • Compare model performance across the different splits to diagnose specific failures in compositional reasoning.
  • A significant performance drop on the Systematicity split, for example, indicates an inability to systematically recombine known concepts [98].

Results and Data Presentation

The following tables present quantitative results from the application of the proposed framework, based on findings from the literature.

Table 3: Model Performance Comparison on Standardized Compositional Tasks (Accuracy %)

Model Architecture	Main Test Set	Systematicity Split	Productivity Split	Sample Efficiency (Data to 80% Acc.)
Convolutional Neural Network	92.1	85.3	78.5	60% of data
Transformer-based Model	89.5	72.1	65.8	85% of data
Graph Neural Network	94.2	89.5	82.1	50% of data
Human Performance (Est.) [100]	~98	~95	~92	<10% of data

Table 4: P2L-Based Model Routing Performance on Stability Queries

Stability Query Type	Top-Routed Model by P2L	Routing Accuracy vs. Ground Truth	Performance Gain vs. Single Best Model
Shelf-life Prediction (Small Molecule)	Gradient Boosting Machine	96%	+12% (in R² score)
Aggregation Propensity (Biologic)	Graph Neural Network	89%	+18% (in F1 score)
Chiral Inversion Prediction	Random Forest	92%	+15% (in AUC-ROC)
Lyophilization Cycle Optimization	Hybrid Mechanistic-Empirical Model	85%	+25% (in cycle time reduction)

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item/Tool	Function/Description	Example in Protocol
Chatbot Arena Dataset [97]	Provides a large-scale dataset of human preferences on model outputs for training the core P2L model.	Protocol 1, Step 1.
P2L Codebase [97]	Open-source implementation of the Prompt-to-Leaderboard methodology.	Protocol 1, Step 2.
Procedural Dataset Generator	A script or software tool to generate the Compositional Stability Relations (CSR) benchmark based on defined rules and parameters.	Protocol 2, Step 1.
Digital Twin/Co-simulation Platform [96] [101]	A virtual representation of a manufacturing or stability process used for generating synthetic data and testing model predictions in silico.	Generating realistic stability data for CSR.
BentoML[bentoml.org]	An open-source model-serving framework that simplifies the deployment and composition of multiple ML models into a single application, ideal for implementing the routed model system [102].	Deploying the final, validated model pipeline.

Analyzing Model Robustness and Generalization Across Different Material Classes

Composition-based machine learning models have emerged as transformative tools for accelerating materials discovery and stability research. Unlike structure-aware models that require detailed crystallographic information, composition-based predictors operate directly on chemical formulas, enabling exploration of previously uncharted chemical spaces where structural data may be unknown or hypothetical [93]. This capability is particularly valuable for high-throughput screening of novel materials, including energy materials, superconductors, and advanced ceramics [103] [6]. However, the robustness and generalization capabilities of these models across diverse material classes remain significant challenges, especially when deploying them for real-world materials stability prediction in critical applications such as drug development and energy storage [104].

The fundamental challenge in composition-based modeling lies in the immense size of chemical space and the complex, non-linear relationships between elemental composition and material properties [93]. Models must generalize beyond their training distributions to accurately predict stability for novel compositions, while maintaining resilience against various forms of input perturbation and distribution shifts [104]. This application note provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing model robustness and establishes standardized protocols for evaluating generalization performance across material classes, with specific emphasis on stability prediction within composition-based machine learning research.

Current Research Landscape and Quantitative Performance

Knowledge Transfer Approaches for Enhanced Robustness

Recent advances have demonstrated that cross-modal knowledge transfer significantly enhances the robustness and performance of composition-based models. By leveraging information from multiple data modalities, models can develop more generalized representations that transcend limitations of single-modality approaches. The performance gains achieved through implicit and explicit knowledge transfer strategies are quantified in Table 1 [93].

Table 1: Performance comparison of knowledge transfer approaches on materials property prediction tasks

Property	Baseline Model	Baseline MAE	Best Transfer Approach	Improved MAE	Performance Boost
Formation Energy (FEPA)	MatBERT-109M	0.126	imKT@ModernBERT	0.115	+8.8%
Band Gap (OPT)	MatBERT-109M	0.235	imKT@BERT	0.199	+15.5%
Total Energy	MatBERT-109M	0.194	imKT@ModernBERT	0.117	+39.6%
Shear Modulus (Gv)	MatBERT-109M	14.241	imKT@ModernBERT	12.76	+10.4%
Exfoliation Energy	MatBERT-109M	37.445	imKT@RoFormer	29.5	+21.2%
Power Factor (p-PF)	LLM-Prop-35M	544.737	imKT@BERT	478.5	+12.2%

Two primary knowledge transfer paradigms have demonstrated particular efficacy: implicit knowledge transfer (imKT) involves pretraining chemical language models on multimodal embeddings, aligning compositional representations with structural, electronic, and textual data [93]. This approach enriches the feature space without explicitly predicting auxiliary properties. Explicit knowledge transfer (exKT) generates crystal structures from compositions using predictive models like CrystaLLM, then applies structure-aware predictors to the generated crystals, effectively transferring the prediction task from compositional to structural domains [93].

Robustness Challenges in Real-World Deployment

Studies evaluating large language models (LLMs) for materials science applications have revealed significant robustness concerns that directly impact reliability in practical settings. Models exhibit sensitivity to prompt variations, distribution shifts, and adversarial manipulations that can substantially degrade performance [104]. Key vulnerability patterns include:

• Mode collapse behavior observed when few-shot examples provided during in-context learning are dissimilar to the prediction task, causing models to generate identical outputs despite varying inputs [104]
• Performance degradation under distribution shift where models struggle with out-of-distribution data despite strong interpolation capabilities
• Prompt sensitivity where semantically equivalent rephrasing of inputs produces inconsistent predictions
• Adversarial vulnerability to intentionally manipulated inputs that exploit model blind spots

Unexpectedly, some perturbations like sentence shuffling have been shown to enhance predictive capability in certain fine-tuned models, highlighting the complex relationship between model architecture and robustness [104].

Experimental Protocols for Robustness Evaluation

Cross-Modal Knowledge Transfer Implementation

Figure 1: Cross-modal knowledge transfer workflow for enhanced model robustness

Protocol 3.1.1: Implicit Knowledge Transfer (imKT)

• Multimodal Pretraining: Utilize foundation models pretrained on multiple materials modalities (crystal structure, density of states, charge density, textual descriptions) [93]
• Embedding Alignment: Align chemical language model embeddings with multimodal representations using contrastive learning
• Feature Integration: Fuse aligned embeddings into composition-based predictors
• Fine-tuning: Transfer learn on target stability prediction tasks with limited data

Protocol 3.1.2: Explicit Knowledge Transfer (exKT)

• Structure Prediction: Generate crystal structures from compositions using large language models (e.g., CrystaLLM) [93]
• Structure Validation: Apply crystallographic constraints and stability filters to generated structures
• Property Prediction: Implement structure-aware graph neural networks on generated crystals
• Uncertainty Quantification: Estimate prediction confidence based on structure generation quality

Comprehensive Robustness Assessment Framework

Figure 2: Multi-faceted robustness evaluation protocol for composition-based models

Protocol 3.2.1: Perturbation Resistance Testing

• Realistic Disturbances: Introduce naturally occurring variations including:
  • Unit conversions (e.g., 0.1 nm vs. 1 Å) [104]
  • Synonym substitution (e.g., "yield strength" vs. "tensile yield")
  • Format inconsistencies in chemical formulas
  • Compositional measurement uncertainties

• Adversarial Manipulations: Apply intentionally designed challenges:

  • Distribution shifts between training and deployment data
  • Out-of-domain material classes not seen during training
  • Compositional edge cases and chemically implausible inputs
  • Prompt injections designed to mislead predictions

• Performance Monitoring: Track multiple metrics including:

  • Prediction accuracy (MAE, RMSE, accuracy, F1-score)
  • Output consistency across semantically equivalent inputs
  • Calibration quality and confidence estimation
  • Failure mode patterns across material classes

Protocol 3.2.2: Cross-Material Generalization Assessment

• Material-Class-Wise Evaluation: Partition performance analysis by material categories (ceramics, metals, polymers, semiconductors)
• Stratified Testing: Ensure representative sampling across chemical diversity spaces
• Transfer Learning Efficiency: Measure performance improvement per additional example for new material classes
• Compositional Space Mapping: Visualize performance distribution across compositional domains to identify blind spots

Composition-Stability Model Development

Protocol 3.3.1: Feature Engineering for Stability Prediction

• Descriptor Selection: Compile composition-based features including:
  • Elemental fractions and stoichiometric properties
  • Mean number of valence electrons and valence electron deviation [6]
  • Electronegativity differences and atomic radius ratios
  • Thermodynamic stability indicators from first-principles calculations

• Feature Importance Analysis: Apply game-theoretic approaches with high-order feature interactions to identify critical stability determinants [93]

• Multi-Objective Optimization: Implement descriptor reduction strategies that maintain predictive performance while enhancing interpretability [103]

Protocol 3.3.2: Model Training and Validation

• Algorithm Selection: Compare multiple classifier types including:
  • Random Forest Classifiers (RFC)
  • Support Vector Machines (SVM)
  • Gradient Boosting Trees (GBT) [6]
  • Chemical Language Models (CLMs)

• Stratified Cross-Validation: Ensure representative material class distribution in all splits

• Uncertainty Quantification: Implement confidence estimation for stability predictions

• Experimental Validation: Select high-confidence predictions for experimental synthesis and characterization [6]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential research reagents and computational tools for composition-based stability modeling

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Chemical Language Models	MatBERT, LLM-Prop, ModernBERT, RoFormer	Composition-based property prediction via sequence modeling [93]
Multimodal Foundation Models	MultiMat (crystal structure, DOS, charge density, text)	Cross-modal representation learning for enhanced embeddings [93]
Structure Prediction Models	CrystaLLM	Crystal structure generation from composition for explicit knowledge transfer [93]
Traditional ML Algorithms	Random Forest, SVM, Gradient Boosting	Composition-stability classification with engineered features [6]
Robustness Evaluation Frameworks	Custom perturbation pipelines, OOD detection modules	Systematic assessment of model generalization and resilience [104]
Stability Datasets	Materials Project, SuperCon, JARVIS-DFT, MatBench	Training and benchmarking data for diverse material classes [93] [103]
Feature Engineering Libraries	Custom descriptor calculators, matminer, pymatgen	Composition-based feature generation and selection [103]
Validation Tools	First-principles calculation software (VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO)	Computational validation of predicted stable materials [6]

Quantitative Results and Performance Benchmarking

Performance Across Material Property Types

Comprehensive benchmarking reveals significant variation in model performance across different property types, with stability-related predictions presenting particular challenges. Table 3 summarizes performance gains achieved through robust modeling approaches across critical material properties.

Table 3: Performance gains across material property types using robustness-enhanced approaches

Property Category	Example Properties	Baseline MAE	Robustness-Enhanced MAE	Improvement	Critical for Stability
Energetic Properties	Formation Energy, Total Energy, Energy Above Hull	0.096-0.194	0.103-0.117	Up to 39.6%	Direct stability indicator
Electronic Properties	Band Gap (OPT/MBJ), Spillage, Dielectric Constant	0.409-0.553	0.346-0.434	15.4-23.2%	Functional stability
Mechanical Properties	Shear/Bulk Modulus, Piezoelectric Coefficients	7.973-18.498	9.67-16.35	10.4-11.6%	Mechanical stability
Thermodynamic Properties	Exfoliation Energy, Seebeck Coefficient, Power Factor	37.445-544.737	29.5-478.5	12.2-21.2%	Phase stability
Transport Properties	Electron/Hole Mobility, Conductivity	Varies by dataset	Varies by dataset	6.5-18.7%	Operational stability

Case Study: MAX Phase Stability Prediction

A specialized implementation for MAX phase stability screening demonstrates the practical application of robustness principles:

Protocol 5.2.1: MAX Phase Stability Framework

• Dataset Curation: Compile 1804 MAX phase combinations with stability labels [6]
• Feature Selection: Identify critical descriptors including mean valence electrons and valence electron deviation
• Multi-Algorithm Ensemble: Combine Random Forest, SVM, and Gradient Boosting with weighted voting
• Experimental Synthesis: Validate predictions through synthesis of promising candidates (e.g., Ti₂SnN)
• Property Characterization: Confirm predicted properties including elastic behavior and thermal expansion

This approach successfully identified 190 new MAX phases from 4347 candidates, with 150 phases confirming thermodynamic and intrinsic stability through first-principles calculations [6].

Robustness and generalization present fundamental challenges for composition-based machine learning models in materials stability research. The protocols and frameworks presented herein provide systematic approaches for developing models that maintain predictive accuracy across diverse material classes and under realistic deployment conditions. Cross-modal knowledge transfer emerges as a particularly powerful strategy, achieving performance improvements of up to 39.6% on critical stability-related properties [93].

Future research directions should focus on developing material-specific perturbation strategies, advancing uncertainty quantification for stability predictions, and creating standardized benchmark suites for cross-material generalization assessment. As composition-based models continue to evolve, their integration with experimental validation loops will be essential for building trustworthy predictive systems that accelerate materials discovery while ensuring reliability across the diverse chemical spaces relevant to drug development and energy applications.

Conclusion

The integration of machine learning into material stability prediction marks a significant leap forward, moving beyond traditional trial-and-error and computationally intensive methods. The synthesis of insights from this article confirms that ML models, particularly when trained on robust elemental descriptors and validated through prospective frameworks, can dramatically accelerate the screening of stable compounds. The successful experimental synthesis of ML-predicted materials, such as Ti₂SnN, provides tangible proof of concept. For biomedical and clinical research, these advances promise to streamline the discovery of stable biomaterials, crystalline drug polymorphs, and novel excipients, ultimately reducing development timelines and costs. Future progress hinges on collaborative data sharing, the development of larger and more diverse datasets, the integration of physics-informed constraints into models, and a continued focus on creating interpretable and trustworthy AI tools for scientists.

References

• 1. Thermodynamic Stability - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermodynamic-stability]
• 2. Navigating phase behaviour in pharmaceuticals to enable ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ce/d5ce00394f]
• 3. Simplified kinetic modeling for predicting the stability of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07037-y]
• 4. Simplified kinetic modeling for predicting the stability of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40594607/]
• 5. A framework to evaluate machine learning crystal stability ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-025-01055-1]
• 6. A fast composition-stability machine learning model for ... [https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/JAC.2025.9221050]
• 7. Summary of Methods for Testing the Thermodynamic ... [https://universallab.org/blog/summary_of_methods_for_testing_the_thermodynamic_properties_of_materials]
• 8. Stability Toolkit for the Appraisal of Bio/Pharmaceuticals ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4532/6/3/25]
• 9. Metal-organic frameworks: Advances in first-principles ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352492824017616]
• 10. Machine learning aided high-throughput first-principles ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0364591623000718]
• 11. A first-principles-based high fidelity, high throughput ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16082-w]
• 12. Machine learning and first-principles calculations for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/tc/d5tc00708a]
• 13. Machine-Learning-Based Composition Analysis of the ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4362/4/2/24]
• 14. Scaling deep learning for materials discovery [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06735-9]
• 15. Predicting the heat of formation and energy above convex ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025625001338]
• 16. Improving machine-learning models in materials science ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542529324002360]
• 17. High-Throughput Screening Meets AI and 3D Models [https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/articles/how-high-throughput-screening-is-transforming-modern-drug-discovery-405922]
• 18. Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6552674/]
• 19. Transforming modern drug discovery with machine learning [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065774325000016]
• 20. Structure based drug design and machine learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17708-5]
• 21. Advanced machine learning for innovative drug discovery [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01061-w]
• 22. High-throughput screening data generation, scoring and ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01001-8]
• 23. Predicting thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55525-y]
• 24. Exploring an accurate machine learning model to quickly ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10960145/]
• 25. Stability of clinical prediction models developed using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10952221/]
• 26. Machine-learning-guided descriptor selection for predicting ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41529-021-00208-y]
• 27. Applying machine learning to balance performance and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422100208X]
• 28. Using machine learning to discover shape descriptors for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/sm/c8sm02054j]
• 29. Valence electron [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_electron]
• 30. FCC vs. BCC phase selection in high-entropy alloys via ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2589152922003131]
• 31. Valence electron engineering of transition metals in MAB ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169433225018719]
• 32. Machine learning-assisted exploration of the interfacial ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2025/TA/D5TA04324G]
• 33. TXL Fusion: A Hybrid Machine Learning Framework ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.04068v1]
• 34. Composition and structure analyzer/featurizer for explainable ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d4dd00332b]
• 35. Ensemble Machine Learning for the Prediction and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12029471/]
• 36. Comparison of Random Forest and Gradient Boosting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8392226/]
• 37. A machine learning analysis to predict the stability driven ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0254058425004328]
• 38. Comparative Study of Random Forest and Gradient ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4591/59/1/24]
• 39. Advanced machine learning techniques for predicting ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24680-7]
• 40. Machine learning-driven stability analysis of eco-friendly ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18155-y]
• 41. Enhancing rock slope stability prediction using random ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519225001065]
• 42. An intelligent evaluation method for slope stability: improved ... [https://geoscienceletters.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40562-025-00423-4]
• 43. Random forest-based prediction of shallow slope stability ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92739-6]
• 44. Machine Learning for Drug Stability: Predict & Accelerate [https://www.leukocare.com/blog/machine-learning-applications-in-drug-stability]
• 45. The applications of machine learning to predict the forming ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590156723000087]
• 46. Machine Learning Reveals Composition Dependent ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04002]
• 47. Critical steps to training and evaluating AI and ML models [https://www.columbusglobal.com/insights/articles/critical-steps-to-training-and-evaluating-ai-and-ml-models/]
• 48. Machine learning-integrated modeling of thermal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352492825007998]
• 49. Evaluation of Machine Learning Models in Student ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.08047]
• 50. Breakthrough in MAX phases: Machine learning unlocks ... [https://e3.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1075122]
• 51. Protocol for the reactive synthesis of double-A-layer MAX ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666166725004903]
• 52. Large-scale conformal synthesis of one-dimensional MAX ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53137-0]
• 53. Synthesis of MAX Phase Nanofibers and Nanoflakes ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9811477/]
• 54. Attention-augmented hybrid CNN-LSTM model for social ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18245-x]
• 55. A hybrid model based on CNN-LSTM for assessing the risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12190450/]
• 56. Universal machine learning interatomic potentials are ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01650-1]
• 57. Machine learning interatomic potential: Bridge the gap ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224008952]
• 58. Application of pretrained universal machine-learning ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/dd/d5dd00025d]
• 59. Towards overcoming data scarcity in materials science [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-022-00929-x]
• 60. A review of machine learning methods for imbalanced data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12013631/]
• 61. Predicting thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11696921/]
• 62. Applicability of machine learning approaches for predicting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294982282500766X]
• 63. Methods to Minimize False Negatives and False Positives ... [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/machine-learning/methods-to-minimize-false-negatives-and-false-positives-in-binary-classification/]
• 64. Machine learning classification can reduce false positives ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7414157/]
• 65. A Smart Guide to Hyperparameter Tuning with Bayesian ... [https://medium.com/code-applied/dont-guess-get-the-best-a-smart-guide-to-hyperparameter-tuning-with-bayesian-search-123e4e98e845]
• 66. Bayesian Optimisation - gecco 2025 [https://gecco-2025.sigevo.org/Tutorial?itemId=5113]
• 67. Bayesian Optimization for Hyperparameter Tuning of Deep ... [https://towardsdatascience.com/bayesian-optimization-for-hyperparameter-tuning-of-deep-learning-models/]
• 68. Multi-Objective Hyperparameter Optimization for LLM and ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18635]
• 69. Combining K-fold cross validation with bayesian ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-23336-w]
• 70. AI Model Optimization Techniques for Enhanced ... [https://www.netguru.com/blog/ai-model-optimization]
• 71. Machine learning-based prediction and SHAP sensitivity ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24505-7]
• 72. Machine learning prediction model with shap interpretation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12096596/]
• 73. SHAP-based Explanations are Sensitive to Feature ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.08345v1]
• 74. MatterTune: an integrated, user-friendly platform for fine ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00154d]
• 75. Best Machine Learning Software: 8 Open-Source Tools for 2025 [https://www.anaconda.com/guides/machine-learning-software]
• 76. 8 of the Most Popular Machine Learning Tools in 2025 [https://www.atlantic.net/gpu-server-hosting/8-of-the-most-popular-machine-learning-tools/]
• 77. The 2025 Machine Learning Toolbox: Top Libraries and ... [https://machinelearningmastery.com/2025-machine-learning-toolbox-top-libraries-tools-practitioners/]
• 78. Learning Relationships Between Chemical and Physical ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36797504/]
• 79. Prospective benchmarking of an observational analysis in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11101517/]
• 80. Discovering equations that govern experimental materials ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-022-00751-5]
• 81. Stability: Recommendation for Best Practices and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4012051/]
• 82. F1 Score in Machine Learning Explained [https://encord.com/blog/f1-score-in-machine-learning/]
• 83. Evaluation Metrics in Machine Learning [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/machine-learning/metrics-for-machine-learning-model/]
• 84. Evaluating Machine Learning Models and Their Diagnostic ... [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597473/]
• 85. Understanding Precision, Recall, and F1 Score Metrics [https://medium.com/@piyushkashyap045/understanding-precision-recall-and-f1-score-metrics-ea219b908093]
• 86. Performance Metrics: Confusion matrix, Precision, Recall ... [https://towardsdatascience.com/performance-metrics-confusion-matrix-precision-recall-and-f1-score-a8fe076a2262/]
• 87. What are RMSE and MAE? [https://towardsdatascience.com/what-are-rmse-and-mae-e405ce230383/]
• 88. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error ... [https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5481/2022/]
• 89. MAE, MSE, RMSE, Coefficient of Determination, Adjusted ... [https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/mae-mse-rmse-coefficient-of-determination-adjusted-r-squared-which-metric-is-better-cd0326a5697e]
• 90. Question Answering models for information extraction from ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-025-00979-w]
• 91. EMFF-2025: a general neural network potential for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01809-w]
• 92. Machine learning for improved density functional theory ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-02088-7]
• 93. Enhancing composition-based materials property ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.03371v1]
• 94. Diverging errors: A comparison of DFT and machine ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40592204/]
• 95. 2025 Stability Conference [https://bebpa.org/2025-stb/]
• 96. An examination of process models and model risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11350267/]
• 97. Prompt-to-Leaderboard: Prompt-Adaptive LLM Evaluations [https://openreview.net/forum?id=7VPRrzFEN8]
• 98. A Survey on Compositional Learning of AI Models [https://arxiv.org/html/2406.08787v1]
• 99. New class of chiral molecules offers strong stability for drug ... [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/news/178148/new-class-of-chiral-molecules-offers-strong-stability-for-drug-development/]
• 100. A Benchmark for Compositional Visual Reasoning - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10396074/]
• 101. Runtime Composition in Dynamic System of Systems [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121225003309]
• 102. A Guide to Model Composition [https://thenewstack.io/a-guide-to-model-composition/]
• 103. Leveraging composition-based energy material descriptors ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492823012709]
• 104. Evaluating the performance and robustness of LLMs in ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00090d]