Multi-Fidelity Machine Learning: Revolutionizing Computational Materials Design and Drug Development

Abstract

This comprehensive review explores the transformative potential of multi-fidelity machine learning (MFML) in computational materials design and drug discovery. MFML strategically integrates data of varying accuracy and computational cost—from fast approximate calculations to expensive high-fidelity simulations and experiments—to dramatically accelerate the discovery and optimization of new materials and therapeutic compounds. The article establishes foundational principles, surveys cutting-edge methodological frameworks including multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization and surrogate modeling, and provides practical troubleshooting guidance for real-world implementation. Through validation case studies and comparative analysis across materials science and biomedical domains, we demonstrate how MFML achieves superior computational efficiency and prediction accuracy compared to traditional single-fidelity approaches, offering a paradigm shift for researchers tackling complex design challenges under constrained resources.

Understanding Multi-Fidelity Learning: Core Principles and Data Sources for Materials Science

In computational materials design, fidelity refers to the level of detail, accuracy, and computational expense of a simulation or model. The fundamental challenge researchers face is the inherent trade-off: higher-fidelity methods provide greater accuracy and predictive power but require substantial computational resources, while lower-fidelity approaches offer computational efficiency at the cost of reduced accuracy and physical detail. Multi-fidelity learning strategically integrates data from multiple levels of this spectrum to accelerate materials discovery and design, leveraging inexpensive low-fidelity data to guide exploration while reserving high-fidelity computations for the most promising candidates [1].

This paradigm is particularly powerful in materials science, where exploring vast chemical spaces with first-principles calculations alone is computationally prohibitive. Multi-fidelity optimization (MFO) has thus emerged as an essential tool, systematically using low-fidelity information to reduce reliance on costly high-fidelity analysis while ensuring convergence to high-fidelity optimal designs [1]. This framework enables researchers to navigate complex design spaces more efficiently, balancing precision with practical computational constraints.

The Fidelity Spectrum in Materials Modeling

The concept of fidelity in computational materials science spans a continuous spectrum, but can be broadly categorized into distinct levels. Each level serves different purposes within the materials discovery and optimization pipeline.

Table: The Fidelity Spectrum in Computational Materials Design

Fidelity Level	Typical Methods	Computational Cost	Accuracy	Primary Use Cases
Low-Fidelity	Force-field methods, Empirical potentials, Coarse-grained models	Low	Low to Medium	High-throughput screening, Early-stage exploration, Large-system dynamics
Medium-Fidelity	Tight-binding, Semi-empirical quantum chemistry, Classical molecular dynamics	Medium	Medium	Structure-property analysis, Pre-screening for high-fidelity methods
High-Fidelity	Density Functional Theory (DFT), Ab initio molecular dynamics	High	High	Accurate property prediction, Final validation, Electronic structure analysis
Very High-Fidelity	Coupled-cluster (CCSD(T)), Quantum Monte Carlo	Very High	Very High	Benchmarking, Training data for machine learning potentials

Real-world materials optimization tasks are characterized by multiple challenges, including high levels of noise, multiple fidelities, multiple objectives, linear constraints, non-linear correlations, and failure regions [2]. Effective multi-fidelity strategies must account for these complexities, often employing surrogate modeling to create computationally efficient approximations that closely resemble real-world tasks within explored boundaries.

Quantitative Data on Fidelity Trade-offs

Understanding the concrete computational costs and accuracy metrics across the fidelity spectrum is crucial for effective research planning and resource allocation.

Table: Quantitative Comparison of Computational Methods for Materials Property Prediction

Method	System Size (Atoms)	Time Scale	Accuracy (Formation Energy)	Relative Computational Cost
Classical Force Fields	10,000 - 1,000,000	Nanoseconds to microseconds	> 100 meV/atom	1x (Reference)
Density Functional Theory	100 - 1,000	Picoseconds to nanoseconds	10-100 meV/atom	100-10,000x
Quantum Monte Carlo	10 - 100	Static calculations	< 10 meV/atom	10,000-1,000,000x
M3GNet ML Potential [3]	1,000 - 100,000	Nanoseconds	~25 meV/atom (vs. DFT)	10-100x (vs. DFT)
CHGNet ML Potential [3]	1,000 - 100,000	Nanoseconds	~28 meV/atom (vs. DFT)	10-100x (vs. DFT)

The emergence of machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) has created a new category in the fidelity spectrum, offering near-DFT accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost [3]. Foundation potentials (FPs) with coverage across the periodic table demonstrate how graph neural networks (GNNs) can handle diverse chemistries and structures effectively, bridging the gap between low-fidelity empirical potentials and high-fidelity quantum mechanical methods [3].

Multi-Fidelity Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Multi-Fidelity Optimization of Hard-Sphere Particle Packing

This protocol adapts the methodology from the materials science optimization benchmark dataset for hard-sphere packing simulations, which embodies characteristics typical of real-world materials optimization tasks [2].

Application: Optimizing particle packing fractions in hard-sphere systems with multiple fidelity levels and failure regions.

Materials and Input Parameters:

• Nine input parameters with linear constraints controlling particle size distributions and simulation conditions
• Two discrete fidelities (algorithm selection) each with continuous fidelity parameters
• Lubachevsky–Stillinger and force-biased algorithms for packing generation

Procedure:

• Low-Fidelity Screening Phase: Perform 1,000-5,000 random simulations using the faster Lubachevsky–Stillinger algorithm across the parameter space. Log all input parameters and resulting packing fractions.
• Failure Probability Mapping: Create a separate dataset mapping input parameter sets to estimated simulation failure probabilities. This accounts for heteroskedastic noise characteristic of real materials optimization.
• Surrogate Model Development: Train a multi-fidelity surrogate model incorporating both the low-fidelity data and failure probabilities. Use percentile ranks for groups of identical parameter sets to handle non-Gaussian noise.
• High-Fidelity Validation: Select 100-200 promising parameter configurations identified by the surrogate model for validation with the more accurate force-biased algorithm.
• Iterative Refinement: Update the surrogate model with high-fidelity results and refine the optimization. Focus computational resources on regions with optimal predicted packing fractions and low failure probability.

Expected Outcomes: This protocol typically identifies optimal packing parameters with 70-80% fewer high-fidelity evaluations compared to single-fidelity approaches, while accurately modeling failure regions and noise characteristics.

Protocol: Multi-Fidelity Materials Property Prediction with MatGL

This protocol utilizes the Materials Graph Library (MatGL) for predicting materials properties across multiple fidelity levels [3].

Application: Predicting formation energies, band gaps, and other materials properties using graph neural networks with multi-fidelity data.

Materials and Input Parameters:

• Pymatgen Structure or Molecule objects representing atomic structures
• Graph converter for transforming atomic configurations into DGL graphs
• Cutoff radius (typically 4-6 Å) defining bonds between atoms
• Multi-fidelity labels (e.g., formation energies from different computational methods)

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Create an MGLDataset containing structures with properties calculated at different fidelity levels (e.g., DFT, higher-level theory, experimental data). Include optional global state features (u) for handling multi-fidelity data.
• Graph Conversion: Use MatGL's graph converter to transform structures into directed or undirected graphs with nodes (atoms) and edges (bonds). The converter uses a cutoff radius to define connectivity.
• Model Selection: Choose an appropriate GNN architecture from MatGL:
  • M3GNet (Materials 3-body Graph Network): For universal interatomic potentials
  • MEGNet (MatErials Graph Network): For property predictions
  • CHGNet (Crystal Hamiltonian Graph Network): For electronic structure-informed potentials
• Multi-Fidelity Training: Utilize MatGL's training module with PyTorch Lightning. The model learns relationships across fidelity levels, using low-fidelity data to guide exploration and high-fidelity data for accuracy.
• Prediction and Validation: Use the trained model's predict_structure method for new materials. For interatomic potentials, use the Potential class wrapper to handle energy scaling and compute forces/stresses.

Expected Outcomes: Models trained with multi-fidelity data typically achieve 30-50% higher data efficiency compared to single-fidelity approaches while maintaining accuracy on high-fidelity predictions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools for Multi-Fidelity Materials Design

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Multi-Fidelity Research
MatGL (Materials Graph Library) [3]	Software Library	Graph deep learning for materials science	Provides implementations of GNN architectures (M3GNet, MEGNet) and pre-trained foundation potentials for multi-fidelity learning
Pymatgen [3]	Python Library	Materials analysis	Structure manipulation, analysis, and conversion to graph representations for MatGL
DGL (Deep Graph Library) [3]	Software Library	Graph neural network framework	Backend for efficient GNN training and inference, offering superior memory efficiency for large graphs
Hard-Sphere Packing Dataset [2]	Benchmark Data	Multi-fidelity optimization benchmark	Provides validated dataset with failure regions and noise characteristics for testing multi-fidelity methods
LAMMPS/ASE [3]	Simulation Interface	Atomistic simulations	Enables use of pre-trained potentials in molecular dynamics simulations across fidelity levels
Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models [1]	Methodological Framework	Bridging fidelity levels	Gaussian processes and other surrogate models that integrate low and high-fidelity data for efficient optimization

Advanced Multi-Fidelity Architectures in MatGL

The Materials Graph Library implements sophisticated multi-fidelity capabilities through its modular architecture. MatGL is organized around four core components: data pipeline, model architectures, model training, and simulation interfaces [3].

A key innovation in MatGL's approach to multi-fidelity learning is the inclusion of global state features (u) in architectures like MEGNet and M3GNet, which provide greater expressive power for handling multi-fidelity data [3]. This allows the models to incorporate fidelity level as an explicit input feature, enabling seamless learning across different accuracy levels.

MatGL further distinguishes between invariant and equivariant GNNs in their handling of symmetry constraints. Invariant GNNs use scalar features like bond distances and angles, ensuring predicted properties remain unchanged with respect to translation, rotation, and permutation. Equivariant GNNs properly handle the transformation of tensorial properties like forces and dipole moments with respect to rotations, allowing use of directional information from relative bond vectors [3]. This theoretical foundation enables more physically meaningful multi-fidelity learning across different property types.

The library's Potential class implements best practices for multi-fidelity interatomic potentials, including energy scaling using formation or cohesive energy references with elemental ground states or isolated atoms as zero references [3]. This normalization accounts for systematic differences between fidelity levels and ensures consistent property predictions across the materials space.

Multi-fidelity methods represent a paradigm shift in computational materials design, transforming the traditional cost-accuracy trade-off from a limitation into an opportunity for strategic resource allocation. By intelligently leveraging relationships across the fidelity spectrum, researchers can dramatically accelerate materials discovery while maintaining the accuracy required for predictive design.

The protocols and frameworks presented here provide practical pathways for implementing multi-fidelity strategies in real-world materials research. As the field advances, key challenges remain in scalability, optimal fidelity management, and automating the selection of appropriate fidelity combinations for different materials classes. The continued development of benchmark datasets, open-source tools like MatGL, and standardized protocols will be crucial for advancing multi-fidelity learning from specialized technique to mainstream methodology in computational materials science.

In computational materials design and drug development, researchers routinely face a fundamental trade-off: high-fidelity (HiFi) data from experiments or sophisticated simulations are accurate but costly and time-consuming to produce, while low-fidelity (LoFi) data from approximations or simpler models are affordable but potentially less reliable [4] [5]. Multi-fidelity models (MFMs) address this challenge by providing a framework that strategically integrates data of varying cost and accuracy to maximize predictive power while minimizing overall resource expenditure [6]. These methods leverage the correlations between different data fidelities to build predictive models that can achieve accuracy comparable to those built exclusively on high-fidelity data, but at a fraction of the cost [7] [4].

The core principle of multi-fidelity modeling lies in its ability to fuse information from multiple sources. In materials science, this might involve combining high-throughput computational screening data with limited experimental validation [8] [6]. For drug development, this could mean integrating data from rapid in silico docking studies with costly in vitro assays [9]. By learning the relationships between these different data tiers, MFMs create a surrogate model that guides the efficient allocation of resources, ensuring that expensive high-fidelity evaluations are reserved for the most promising candidates [6] [4].

The Theoretical Framework of Multi-Fidelity Learning

Defining Fidelity in Scientific Contexts

In scientific applications, "fidelity" refers to the accuracy and reliability of a data source or model in representing the true system of interest. Fidelity exists on a spectrum [5]:

• Low-Fidelity Data (LoFi) originates from simplified models that use approximations to simulate a system rather than modeling it exhaustively. Examples include density functional theory (DFT) calculations with simpler exchange-correlation functionals in materials science [8] [10], or coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations in drug discovery.
• High-Fidelity Data (HiFi) comes from sources that closely match the real-world operational context, such as experimental measurements in materials science [10] or clinical trial data in pharmaceutical development.

The fundamental challenge MFMs address is that HiFi data are expensive and scarce, while LoFi data are more abundant but potentially biased or noisy [8] [5]. Multi-fidelity methods overcome this by learning the complex relationships between different fidelity levels, effectively transferring information from low-cost sources to enhance predictions at the highest fidelity level [6] [4].

Mathematical Foundations and Relationship Learning

Multi-fidelity models typically employ a structured approach to relationship learning between fidelity levels. One prominent framework is the auto-regressive Gaussian process model [5], which formulates the relationship between successive fidelities as:

Where z_t(x) represents the output at fidelity level t, ρ_(t-1) is a scaling constant that quantifies the correlation between fidelities t and t-1, and δ_t(x) is an independent Gaussian process representing the bias term [5]. This formulation allows the model to capture both the correlation between fidelity levels and the unique characteristics of each level.

Alternative approaches include co-kriging methods [6] [4] and multi-fidelity neural networks [7], each with particular strengths depending on the data structure and application domain. The choice of relationship model depends on factors such as the number of fidelity levels, the nature of the correlation between them, and the computational budget available for model training.

Quantitative Performance Advantages of Multi-Fidelity Approaches

Computational Efficiency Gains

Research demonstrates that multi-fidelity approaches can significantly reduce computational costs while maintaining accuracy comparable to single-fidelity methods relying exclusively on high-fidelity data. The table below summarizes key performance metrics reported across various studies:

Table 1: Quantitative Performance of Multi-Fidelity Models Across Domains

Application Domain	Cost Reduction	Accuracy Maintained	Reference
Materials Design Optimization	~67% (3x faster)	Equivalent to single-fidelity BO	[6]
Composite Laminate Damage Analysis	Significant computational advantage	Without compromising accuracy	[7]
Molecular Discovery	High-scoring candidates at "a fraction of the budget"	While maintaining diversity	[9]
Band Gap Prediction	Improved performance with limited experimental data	Lower MAE compared to single-fidelity	[10]

These efficiency gains stem from the strategic allocation of resources across the fidelity spectrum. Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization, for instance, dynamically determines whether to evaluate a candidate using cheap low-fidelity assessments or expensive high-fidelity measurements, focusing resources only where they provide the most information value [6].

Addressing Data Scarcity and Quality Challenges

In computational materials discovery, ML-accelerated discovery requires large amounts of high-fidelity data to reveal predictive structure-property relationships [8]. However, for many material properties of interest, the challenging nature and high cost of data generation has resulted in a data landscape that is both scarcely populated and of dubious quality [8]. Multi-fidelity approaches help overcome these limitations through several mechanisms:

• Consensus across methods: Using agreement across different density functional theory functionals to improve prediction reliability [8]
• Transfer learning: Leveraging patterns learned from abundant low-fidelity data to inform high-fidelity predictions [10]
• Denoising techniques: Improving data quality through algorithms that identify and correct systematic errors in low-fidelity sources [10]

These approaches are particularly valuable when high-fidelity experimental data are limited, as is common in early-stage materials discovery and drug development programs [8] [9].

Application Protocols for Materials and Drug Discovery

Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

Bayesian optimization provides a powerful framework for materials design when coupled with multi-fidelity data [6]. The following protocol outlines a standardized approach for implementing multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization in computational materials screening:

Table 2: Protocol for Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization in Materials Screening

Step	Procedure	Technical Specifications	Output
1. Problem Formulation	Define design space and fidelity hierarchy	Identify 2+ fidelity levels (e.g., DFT functionals, experimental validation)	Fidelity cost structure and correlation assumptions
2. Initial Sampling	Collect initial data across fidelities	Latin hypercube sampling with balanced distribution across fidelities	Initial training dataset D = {(xi, fi, c_i)}
3. Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Modeling	Train multi-output Gaussian process	Implement auto-regressive correlation structure [5]	Surrogate model with uncertainty quantification
4. Acquisition Function Optimization	Apply Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR)	Select (x, f) pair minimizing variance per unit cost at promising locations [6]	Next sample and fidelity level to evaluate
5. Experimental Evaluation	Conduct measurement at selected fidelity	Follow standardized protocols for the fidelity level (e.g., DFT calculation parameters)	New observation y
6. Model Update	Incorporate new data into surrogate	Update Gaussian process hyperparameters	Improved surrogate model
7. Iteration	Repeat steps 4-6 until budget exhaustion	Monitor convergence via expected improvement	Final optimized material candidates

This protocol replaces traditional "computational funnel" approaches with a dynamic, adaptive method that learns fidelity relationships on-the-fly rather than requiring pre-specified accuracy hierarchies [6]. Implementation requires specialized software libraries such as GPyTorch or BoTorch for the multi-fidelity Gaussian process modeling, coupled with domain-specific simulation tools for evaluation at each fidelity level.

Multi-Fidelity Active Learning with GFlowNets for Molecular Discovery

For molecular discovery tasks where the goal is to identify diverse, high-performing candidates, multi-fidelity active learning with GFlowNets provides an effective protocol [9]:

• State Space Definition: Define the discrete compositional space (e.g., molecular graphs, crystal structures) and available fidelity levels (e.g., computational docking, binding assays).

• GFlowNet Training: Train a generative flow network to sample candidates proportional to a reward function, initially using low-fidelity proxies.

• Multi-Fidelity Acquisition: Apply an acquisition policy that selects both the candidate and the fidelity level for evaluation, balancing exploration and exploitation across the fidelity spectrum.

• Active Learning Loop: Iteratively update the GFlowNet sampler and reward model based on newly acquired data, gradually shifting resources toward higher fidelities as promising regions are identified.

This approach has demonstrated the ability to discover high-scoring molecular candidates at a fraction of the budget of single-fidelity counterparts while maintaining diversity—a critical advantage over reinforcement learning-based alternatives [9].

Visualization of Multi-Fidelity Workflows

Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Modeling Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow for constructing and applying multi-fidelity surrogate models in computational materials design:

Diagram 1: Multi-fidelity surrogate modeling workflow

Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization Cycle

The iterative cycle of multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization demonstrates how information flows between different components to efficiently guide experimental design:

Diagram 2: Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization cycle

Successful implementation of multi-fidelity modeling requires both computational tools and domain-specific resources. The following table outlines key components of the multi-fidelity research toolkit:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources for Multi-Fidelity Modeling

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Function in Multi-Fidelity Research
Multi-Fidelity Modeling Libraries	GPyTorch, Emukit, SMT	Implementation of multi-output Gaussian processes and other MF surrogate models
Optimization Frameworks	BoTorch, Dragonfly, OpenBox	Bayesian optimization with multi-fidelity capabilities
Materials Databases	Materials Project, Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) [8]	Sources of multi-fidelity materials data for training and validation
Electronic Structure Codes	VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO, Gaussian	Generation of computational fidelity data at different theory levels
Data Extraction Tools	ChemDataExtractor [8]	Automated extraction of experimental data from literature for high-fidelity training
Workflow Management	AiiDA, FireWorks	Automation of multi-fidelity simulation pipelines and data management

These resources provide the foundation for building end-to-end multi-fidelity research pipelines, from data generation and collection through model development and validation.

Multi-fidelity modeling represents a paradigm shift in computational materials design and drug development, transforming the traditional trade-off between data cost and accuracy into a synergistic relationship. By strategically leveraging cheaper, lower-quality data to guide the targeted acquisition of expensive, high-quality measurements, these methods enable researchers to explore larger design spaces and identify optimal candidates with significantly reduced resources [6] [7].

As the field advances, several emerging trends are poised to further enhance the capabilities of multi-fidelity approaches. The integration of multi-fidelity active learning with advanced generative methods like GFlowNets shows particular promise for discovering diverse, high-performing candidates in molecular design spaces [9]. Similarly, denoising techniques that explicitly address systematic errors in low-fidelity data sources can improve the quality of information transfer across fidelity levels [10]. As these methodologies mature and become more accessible through standardized protocols and open-source tools, they will play an increasingly central role in accelerating scientific discovery across materials science and pharmaceutical development.

Multi-fidelity data, comprising information of varying cost, accuracy, and abundance, has emerged as a cornerstone of modern computational materials design [11] [4]. This paradigm recognizes the inherent trade-off between the computational expense of a method and the precision of its results. In materials science, this frequently manifests as large volumes of inexpensive, lower-fidelity data (e.g., from certain density functional theory calculations) complementing smaller, costlier sets of high-fidelity data (e.g., from advanced quantum methods or experiments) [11] [6]. The strategic integration of these diverse data streams through multi-fidelity machine learning models enables researchers to achieve predictive accuracy that would be prohibitively expensive using high-fidelity data alone [12]. This Application Note delineates the common sources of multi-fidelity data, provides structured protocols for its utilization, and visualizes the workflows essential for advancing computational materials design.

The generation of multi-fidelity data in materials research can be systematically categorized into three primary sources: data derived from different computational algorithms, data originating from varying hyperparameters within a single method, and the integration of experimental data with computational results.

Multi-Fidelity Data from Different Algorithms

The most prevalent source of multi-fidelity data stems from applying different computational methodologies to the same material system. These methods inherently possess varying levels of accuracy and associated computational cost.

Table 1: Multi-Fidelity Data from Different Computational Algorithms

Fidelity Level	Computational Method	Typical Application	Characteristics & Accuracy
Low-Fidelity (LF)	Empirical Potentials [11]	Preliminary screening, large-scale molecular dynamics	Fast computation; limited transferability and accuracy.
Low/Medium-Fidelity	DFT with GGA functionals (e.g., PBE) [11] [12]	High-throughput calculation of electronic properties	Systematic errors (e.g., band gap underestimation of 30-100% [11]); good balance of speed/accuracy.
High-Fidelity (HF)	DFT with meta-GGA (e.g., SCAN) or hybrid functionals (e.g., HSE) [11] [12]	Accurate property prediction for validation	Improved description of bonds & electronic structure; 5-50x more costly than GGA.
Highest-Fidelity	Post-HF Methods (e.g., CCSD(T)) or Experiments [6] [12]	Ground-truth validation and final candidate assessment	"Chemical accuracy" (<1 kcal/mol) or experimental truth; often prohibitively expensive for large datasets.

A quintessential example is found in the Materials Project database, where band gaps for compounds are computed with different functionals. The number of data points calculated with the PBE functional vastly exceeds those from more accurate but costly methods like HSE or SCAN, naturally creating a multi-fidelity hierarchy [11]. In aerospace and mechanical engineering, analogous hierarchies are created using different Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models or finite element models of varying complexity [11] [13].

Multi-Fidelity Data from Different Hyperparameters

Within a single computational method, fidelity can be modulated by adjusting hyperparameters that control the numerical accuracy and computational expense of the calculation.

Table 2: Multi-Fidelity Data from Varying Hyperparameters in DFT

Hyperparameter	Low-Fidelity Setting	High-Fidelity Setting	Impact on Cost & Accuracy
Plane-Wave Cutoff Energy	Low (e.g., 400 eV)	High (e.g., 600 eV)	Higher cutoff improves basis set completeness and energy convergence, increasing compute time [11].
k-point Mesh Density	Sparse (e.g., 2x2x2)	Dense (e.g., 8x8x8)	Denser k-point sampling better integrates the Brillouin zone, critical for metals and accurate forces [11].
Geometry Convergence Criteria	Relaxed (e.g., 0.1 eV/Å)	Strict (e.g., 0.01 eV/Å)	Stricter criteria ensure atomic configurations are closer to true minima, requiring more ionic steps [11].
Self-Consistency Convergence	Partial (e.g., 100 iterations)	Full (e.g., 600+ iterations)	Full self-consistent field convergence is necessary for accurate electron densities and derived properties [11].

Using different mesh sizes, time steps, or convergence criteria are common techniques to generate low-fidelity and high-fidelity data pairs from the same underlying physical model, providing a controlled approach for multi-fidelity learning [11] [4].

Integration of Experimental and Computational Data

The ultimate multi-fidelity framework integrates computational data with experimental measurements. Experimental results are typically considered the highest-fidelity source but are often scarce and expensive. Computational data, while potentially bearing systematic errors, can be generated in large quantities to guide experimentation [6]. This fusion is powerfully applied in Bayesian optimization for materials discovery, where a multi-output Gaussian process dynamically learns the relationship between computational predictions and experimental results, thereby reducing the total number of expensive experiments required to find optimal materials [6] [14].

Protocols for Multi-Fidelity Model Implementation

Protocol 1: Multi-Fidelity Graph Neural Network for Interatomic Potentials

This protocol details the construction of a multi-fidelity machine learning interatomic potential (MLIP) using the M3GNet architecture, leveraging low-fidelity and high-fidelity Density Functional Theory (DFT) data [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

• Low-Fidelity Dataset (e.g., PBE/GGA): A large dataset (~100k+ structures) of energies and forces computed with a fast, semi-local functional like PBE. Function: Provides broad coverage of the chemical and configurational space.
• High-Fidelity Dataset (e.g., SCAN): A smaller, targeted dataset (~1-10k structures) of energies and forces computed with a more accurate functional like SCAN. Function: Provides a high-accuracy benchmark for refining the model.
• M3GNet Architecture: A graph neural network with a fidelity embedding feature. The fidelity level (e.g., 0 for LF, 1 for HF) is encoded as an integer and input as part of the model's global state [12].
• Sampling Strategy (e.g., DIRECT): A method for strategically selecting which structures from the low-fidelity dataset to recompute at high-fidelity to ensure robust coverage of the configuration space [12].

Procedure

• Data Curation: Assemble a low-fidelity dataset (e.g., PBE) and a smaller high-fidelity dataset (e.g., SCAN). Ensure a significant overlap in the structural types between the two sets.
• Training Set Assembly: Construct the multi-fidelity training set. A successful implementation used 80% of the available low-fidelity data combined with only 10% of the high-fidelity data (selected from structures within the 80% LF set) [12].
• Model Configuration: Modify the M3GNet input to accept a fidelity index. This index is embedded into a vector and used to update the graph's global state, allowing the network to learn fidelity-specific relationships [12].
• Model Training: Train the M3GNet model on the combined multi-fidelity dataset. The model will simultaneously learn from the abundant low-fidelity data and the accurate high-fidelity data, with the fidelity embedding guiding the correlation between fidelities.
• Validation & Testing: Reserve the remaining high-fidelity data (the 20% not used in training, ensuring no structural overlap) for validation and testing to benchmark the model's performance on unseen high-fidelity data.

Expected Outcomes: A multi-fidelity M3GNet model trained with 10% high-fidelity SCAN data can achieve energy and force accuracies comparable to a single-fidelity model trained on 8 times the amount of SCAN data, demonstrating significant data efficiency [12].

Protocol 2: Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Discovery

This protocol outlines the use of Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization (MFBO) to iteratively guide experiments by leveraging cheaper computational or experimental proxies [6] [14].

Procedure

• Problem Formulation: Define the objective (e.g., maximize the yield of a catalytic reaction). Identify the high-fidelity function, f_HF(x) (e.g., actual experimental yield), and at least one low-fidelity function, f_LF(x) (e.g., computational descriptor or bench-top NMR measurement), along with their respective costs [14].
• Initial Design: Collect a small initial set of paired observations {x_i, f_LF(x_i), f_HF(x_i)} to seed the model.
• Model Construction: Build a multi-output Gaussian Process (GP) surrogate model. This model learns a joint distribution over the functions, dynamically capturing the correlation between the low-fidelity and high-fidelity data sources [6].
• Acquisition Function Optimization: Use a multi-fidelity acquisition function, such as Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR), to select the next sample point x_next and its fidelity level z_next. TVR chooses the (x, z) pair that minimizes the prediction variance at the most promising candidate point (from a standard acquisition function like Expected Improvement) per unit cost [6].
• Iterative Loop: a. Evaluate the selected f_z_next(x_next) (e.g., run a cheap computation or a targeted experiment). b. Update the multi-output GP model with the new data. c. Repeat steps 4-5 until the experimental budget is exhausted.

Expected Outcomes: MFBO can reduce the overall optimization cost by a factor of three on average compared to single-fidelity Bayesian optimization that uses only high-fidelity data, by smartly allocating resources to cheaper fidelities [6].

Workflow Visualization

Multi-Fidelity Data Integration Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow of integrating multi-fidelity data from various sources into a unified machine learning model for predictive materials design.

Multi-Fidelity Modeling Workflow

Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization Loop

The following diagram details the iterative decision-making process of Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization, which dynamically selects both the next point to evaluate and the fidelity level at which to evaluate it.

MF Bayesian Optimization Loop

The strategic generation and integration of multi-fidelity data represent a paradigm shift in computational materials design. By understanding and leveraging common data sources—ranging from hierarchies of DFT algorithms and hyperparameters to the ultimate integration of computation and experiment—researchers can construct powerful, data-efficient models. The protocols and workflows detailed herein provide a concrete foundation for implementing multi-fidelity learning. As these methodologies mature, they promise to significantly accelerate the discovery and development of new materials by maximizing the informational return on every computational and experimental investment.

In computational materials design, a fundamental trade-off exists between the accuracy of a computational method and its associated computational cost. This gives rise to a natural hierarchy of fidelity, where methods range from fast, approximate empirical potentials to highly accurate but expensive experimental validations and high-level quantum mechanics calculations. Multifidelity learning (MFL) provides a powerful framework to systematically integrate data from these different levels, creating models that are both accurate and computationally efficient to execute [11]. This paradigm is transforming computational materials science by enabling researchers to leverage the vast amounts of existing low-fidelity data while strategically incorporating limited high-fidelity data to achieve predictive accuracy. The core principle involves learning the complex relationships between different levels of theory and experiment, thereby extracting maximum knowledge from each data source [6] [12]. This approach is particularly vital for properties like band gaps, which are notoriously challenging for standard density functional theory (DFT) functionals, and for developing reliable interatomic potentials where high-fidelity data is scarce [12] [11]. This Application Note details the protocols and tools for implementing this hierarchical fidelity framework to accelerate materials discovery and drug development.

The Fidelity Hierarchy in Computational Materials Science

The hierarchy of computational methods is characterized by increasing physical accuracy and computational expense. Understanding the role and limitations of each level is crucial for effective multifidelity integration.

Table 1: The Hierarchy of Computational and Experimental Methods

Fidelity Level	Typical Methods	Key Characteristics	Primary Use Cases
Low-Fidelity	Empirical Potentials (e.g., for Cr₂O₃ [15]), DFT with GGA functionals (e.g., PBE)	Low computational cost; known systematic errors (e.g., band gap underestimation); large datasets available	High-throughput screening; molecular dynamics simulations of large systems
Medium-Fidelity	Meta-GGA functionals (e.g., SCAN), hybrid DFT	Improved accuracy for diverse bonding environments; higher computational cost (up to 10-100x PBE)	Training data for high-accuracy machine learning potentials; property prediction for complex systems
High-Fidelity	High-level quantum chemistry (e.g., CCSD(T)), RPA	Approaches "chemical accuracy"; computationally prohibitive for large systems or many configurations	Providing benchmark data for small systems; validating lower-fidelity methods
Experimental Validation	Synthesis & characterization (e.g., powder diffraction, elastic property measurement)	Ground-truth data; can be time-consuming and resource-intensive [16]	Final validation of computational predictions; integration into multifidelity models as the target fidelity [6]

Quantitative Performance of Multifidelity Approaches

Multifidelity models have demonstrated significant gains in data efficiency and accuracy across multiple materials systems.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of Multifidelity Learning

System Studied	Multifidelity Approach	Key Result	Reference
Silicon M3GNet IPs	M3GNet with fidelity embedding (RPBE/PBE + SCAN)	Achieved accuracy of a single-fidelity SCAN model using only 10% of the SCAN data (an 8x data efficiency improvement) [12]	Chen et al., 2025 [12]
Excitation Energies (QeMFi)	MFML with compute-time informed scaling (θ)	High accuracy achieved with only 2 target-fidelity (def2-TZVP) samples when leveraging many lower-fidelity samples [17]	Vinod & Zaspel, 2025 [17]
Polymer & Material Band Gaps	Multi-output Gaussian Process; Graph Networks	MAE improvement of 22-45% for band gap prediction by incorporating low-fidelity PBE data [6] [12]	Patra et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022 [6] [12]
General Materials Properties	Multi-fidelity data learning (information fusion, Bayesian optimization)	Outperformed models using only high-fidelity data, especially effective with comprehensive correction strategies for noise [11]	Liu et al., 2023 [11]

Figure 1: The Multifidelity Learning Workflow. This diagram illustrates the hierarchical relationships between different computational and experimental fidelities and the primary multifidelity learning strategies that connect them.

Detailed Protocols for Multifidelity Implementation

Protocol 1: Constructing a High-Fidelity Graph Learning Potential (M3GNet)

This protocol outlines the data-efficient construction of a high-fidelity M3GNet interatomic potential (IP) using a multi-fidelity dataset, as demonstrated for silicon and water [12].

1. Research Reagent Solutions

• Low-Fidelity Dataset: A large set of structures with energies and forces computed using a fast, semi-local DFT functional like PBE or RPBE.
• High-Fidelity Dataset: A smaller, strategically sampled set of structures with energies and forces computed using a high-accuracy functional like SCAN.
• Software: Access to the M3GNet architecture, which includes a global state feature for fidelity embedding.
• Sampling Tool: Implementation of a sampling algorithm like DIRECT (Dimensionality-Reduced Encoded Cluster with Stratified) for robust coverage of the configuration space.

2. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Dataset Curation: Compile your low-fidelity (PBE/RPBE) dataset. Identify a subset of structures for high-fidelity (SCAN) calculation. Ensure a significant overlap in structures between the two datasets to facilitate relationship learning.
• Fidelity Encoding: Encode the fidelity information as integers (e.g., 0 for low-fidelity, 1 for high-fidelity). This integer is embedded as a vector and fed into the global state feature of the M3GNet model.
• Data Partitioning: Split the data into training, validation, and test sets. A robust strategy is to use 80% of the low-fidelity data combined with 10% of the high-fidelity data (selected from structures within the 80% low-fidelity set) for training. The remaining 20% of SCAN data, from structures not in the training set, should be divided equally for validation and testing.
• Model Training: Train the M3GNet model on the combined multi-fidelity dataset. The model will automatically learn the complex functional relationship between the low- and high-fidelity potential energy surfaces through the fidelity embedding and global state feature.
• Validation and Testing: Evaluate the model's performance on the validation and test sets. Key metrics are the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of energies and forces compared to the high-fidelity reference data. The model should achieve accuracy comparable to a single-fidelity model trained on a much larger high-fidelity dataset.

3. Troubleshooting and Notes

• Data Imbalance: The DIRECT sampling approach is crucial when the high-fidelity dataset is small, as it ensures optimal coverage of the configuration space.
• Architecture Requirement: The use of a global state feature, as in M3GNet, is key for effective fidelity embedding. Verify that your chosen model architecture supports this.

This protocol describes the application of MFML for predicting vertical excitation energies using the QeMFi benchmark dataset, focusing on the impact of data scaling factors [17].

1. Research Reagent Solutions

• Dataset: The QeMFi dataset, which contains ~135,000 molecular geometries with excitation energies calculated at five DFT fidelities (STO-3G, 321G, 631G, def2-SVP, def2-TZVP) and associated compute times.
• Model: A Multifidelity Machine Learning model, such as the one based on Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR) or an optimized MFML (o-MFML) variant.
• Scaling Factors: Predefined scaling factors (γ) to determine the number of training samples at each fidelity, or compute-time informed factors (θ).

2. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Define Fidelity Hierarchy: Order your data fidelities from lowest (e.g., STO-3G) to highest (e.g., def2-TZVP), which is the target fidelity.
• Set Scaling Factor: Choose a scaling strategy.
  • Fixed Scaling (γ): Traditionally, a factor of 2 is used, meaning each lower fidelity uses twice as many training samples as the fidelity above it.
  • Time-Informed Scaling (θ): Calculate scaling factors based on the actual compute-time difference between fidelities, as provided in datasets like QeMFi. This directly optimizes for computational cost savings.
• Construct Training Sets: For a given number of target-fidelity samples (e.g., n_target), calculate the number of samples at each lower fidelity as n_low = n_target * (γ)^d, where d is the fidelity level's distance from the target.
• Train MFML Model: Systematically combine several Δ-ML-like models across more than two fidelities using the constructed training sets.
• Evaluate with Error Contours: Analyze the model's performance using error contours, which plot the model error against the number of training samples used at two different fidelities. This helps visualize the contribution of each fidelity to the overall accuracy.

3. Troubleshooting and Notes

• The Γ-Curve: For a fixed, small number of target-fidelity samples (e.g., 2), systematically increase the scaling factor γ. Plot the resulting model error against the total time-cost of generating the training data. This "Γ-curve" identifies the point of optimal cost-accuracy trade-off, often demonstrating that high accuracy is achievable with minimal high-fidelity data.

Figure 2: Protocol for Multifidelity ML. This workflow outlines the key steps for implementing a Multifidelity Machine Learning study, from data organization to model evaluation.

Protocol for Experimental Validation and Integration

Computational predictions, especially those guiding resource-intensive synthesis, require robust experimental validation to verify their real-world applicability [16].

1. Research Reagent Solutions

• Public Experimental Databases: Utilize resources like the High Throughput Experimental Materials Database (HTE-MD), Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) data, PubChem, or OSCAR for initial comparisons.
• Collaboration with Experimentalists: For direct validation, partner with synthesis and characterization labs.
• Characterization Techniques: Powder X-ray diffraction (for crystal structure), spectroscopy (for electronic properties), and mechanical tests (for elastic properties).

2. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Prioritize Candidates: Use the multifidelity model to screen and identify the most promising candidate materials or molecules for a target property.
• Initial In-Silico Comparison: Compare the structure and predicted properties of novel candidates to existing, well-characterized molecules in public databases (e.g., PubChem) to assess novelty and plausibility [16].
• Experimental Synthesis: Collaborate with experimentalists to synthesize the top-predicted candidates.
• Materials Characterization: Characterize the synthesized materials using relevant techniques (e.g., powder diffraction for structure, UV/Vis for optical properties) to obtain ground-truth data [18].
• Model Refinement and Iteration: Integrate the experimental results as the highest-fidelity data into the multifidelity model. This feedback loop allows for dynamic model refinement and improves future prediction cycles [6].

3. Troubleshooting and Notes

• Synthesizability: Computational models may generate structures that are difficult or impossible to synthesize. Tools to quantify synthesizability can help filter candidates.
• Data Availability: The increasing availability of public experimental data makes initial validation more accessible than ever, even without a direct experimental collaboration [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Computational and Data Resources for Multifidelity Research

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Function in Multifidelity Research
QeMFi Dataset [17]	Benchmark Data	Provides a standardized benchmark for excitation energies and compute times across 5 DFT fidelities for 135k geometries.
M3GNet Architecture [12]	Machine Learning Model	A graph neural network interatomic potential with a global state feature, enabling direct fidelity embedding for multi-fidelity learning.
MedeA Flowcharts [18]	Simulation Protocol Tool	A visual programming environment for designing and executing systematic computational materials science studies, such as structure solution from powder diffraction data.
Materials Project (MP) [11]	Computational Database	A primary source of low-fidelity (e.g., PBE) data; also contains higher-fidelity (e.g., HSE, SCAN) data for some properties, enabling multi-fidelity dataset construction.
Multi-output Gaussian Process [6]	Statistical Model	A Bayesian model that learns relationships between multiple fidelities simultaneously, used for information fusion and optimization.
DIRECT Sampling [12]	Sampling Algorithm	A strategy for selecting a representative subset of high-fidelity data points to ensure robust coverage of the configuration space when data is limited.

In computational materials design, the quest for accurate property prediction is often constrained by a fundamental trade-off: the high computational cost of achieving high accuracy versus the affordability of lower-fidelity methods. This cost-accuracy trade-off inherently leads to the generation of multi-fidelity data, where data points exhibit varying levels of precision and systematic bias [11]. For instance, in predicting material properties like band gaps, results can range from highly accurate but scarce experimental measurements to abundant but approximate calculations from density functional theory (DFT) with different exchange-correlation functionals [10]. Understanding and characterizing the specific imperfections—namely, systematic errors and random noise—present at each fidelity level is paramount for developing robust multi-fidelity learning models. These models aim to leverage all available information efficiently, harnessing the volume of low-fidelity data while anchoring predictions to the accuracy of high-fidelity data [19] [4]. This document outlines a formal framework for characterizing these imperfections, providing application notes and detailed experimental protocols tailored for research in computational materials design.

Theoretical Framework: Error Decomposition in Multi-Fidelity Data

From a machine learning (ML) perspective, the total error in a dataset can be decomposed into bias, variance, and noise. In multi-fidelity modeling, the "noise" encompasses both the systematic errors (biases from the data-producer's standpoint) and random noise inherent in the data generation process [10].

• Systematic Errors: These are consistent, reproducible inaccuracies introduced by the approximations of a specific method. In computational materials science, a prime example is the systematic underestimation (30-100%) of band gaps by DFT calculations using local and semi-local functionals compared to experimental results [10] [11]. These errors are often deterministic and can be modeled, for instance, as a linear transformation between fidelities.
• Random Noise: This refers to non-deterministic fluctuations that can arise from various sources. In DFT, for example, random errors can stem from the initial trial charge density used in calculations or different convergence criteria during self-consistent field cycles [11]. Unlike systematic errors, random noise is unpredictable and must be treated statistically.

The following diagram illustrates the relationship between different data fidelities and the types of imperfections that must be characterized.

Figure 1: Multi-Fidelity Data Relationship and Error Sources. This diagram shows the typical hierarchy from low-fidelity (LF) to high-fidelity (HF) models and true experimental values. Both LF and HF data are subject to random noise, while systematic error is introduced by the approximations inherent in the computational models.

Quantitative Characterization of Imperfections

A critical step is to quantitatively assess the errors present in different data sources. The following tables summarize common metrics and provide an example from band gap prediction, a well-studied problem in materials informatics [10].

Table 1: Summary of Key Error Metrics for Characterizing Multi-Fidelity Data

Metric	Formula	Application in Multi-Fidelity Context
Mean Error (ME)	( \frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n}(y{\text{pred},i} - y_{\text{true},i}) )	Measures average systematic bias of a model or fidelity level. A non-zero ME indicates a consistent over- or under-estimation.
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	( \frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n}|y{\text{pred},i} - y_{\text{true},i}| )	Quantifies the average magnitude of total error, combining both systematic and random components. Useful for overall accuracy assessment.
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	( \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n}(y{\text{pred},i} - y_{\text{true},i})^2} )	Similar to MAE but gives a higher weight to large errors. Sensitive to outliers.
Standard Deviation of Error	( \sqrt{\frac{1}{n-1}\sum{i=1}^{n}((y{\text{pred},i} - y_{\text{true},i}) - \text{ME})^2} )	Estimates the magnitude of random noise around the systematic bias.

Table 2: Example Error Analysis for Band Gap Predictions Using Different DFT Functionals [10]

DFT Functional (Fidelity)	Mean Error (ME) vs. Exp. (eV)	Mean Absolute Error (MAE) vs. Exp. (eV)	Primary Nature of Imperfection
PBE (LF)	-0.34	~0.4-0.6 (est.)	Strong systematic underestimation
HSE (HF)	-0.09	~0.2-0.3 (est.)	Minor systematic error
SCAN (LF)	-0.68	~0.7-0.9 (est.)	Severe systematic underestimation
GLLB (LF)	+0.65	~0.7-0.9 (est.)	Systematic overestimation

Experimental Protocols for Error Assessment

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step methodology for characterizing systematic errors and random noise in multi-fidelity datasets, using computational materials science as the primary context.

Protocol: Assessment of Systematic Errors and Random Noise

1. Objective: To quantitatively determine the systematic bias and random noise component for a given low-fidelity data source relative to a high-fidelity reference.

2. Research Reagent Solutions & Materials: Table 3: Essential Materials and Computational Tools for Error Characterization

Item	Function/Description	Example Tools/Databases
High-Fidelity Reference Data	Serves as the "ground truth" for quantifying errors in lower-fidelity data.	Experimental datasets (e.g., from ICSD); High-level ab initio calculations (e.g., CCSD(T)).
Low-Fidelity Data	The data whose imperfections are to be characterized.	DFT data (e.g., from PBE functional); Data from coarse-grid or partially converged simulations.
Statistical Software	For calculating error metrics and performing regression analysis.	Python (with Pandas, NumPy, SciPy), R, MATLAB.
Data Visualization Tools	For generating scatter plots, residual plots, and histograms to visually inspect errors.	Matplotlib, Seaborn, Gnuplot.

3. Procedure:

• Data Curation and Alignment:
  • Identify the intersection of materials/compounds for which both high-fidelity (HF) and low-fidelity (LF) data are available. This forms the dataset LF ∩ HF.
  • Ensure the data is correctly paired and units are consistent.

• Initial Visualization and Linear Correlation Analysis:

  • Generate a scatter plot of LF values (P_LF) against HF values (P_HF).
  • Perform a linear regression (P_HF = a * P_LF + b) on the LF ∩ HF data to model the simplest form of systematic relationship.
  • A strong linear correlation suggests that a significant portion of the discrepancy is a systematic bias that can be corrected.

• Quantification of Systematic Error:

  • Calculate the Mean Error (ME) for the LF data relative to the HF reference using the formula in Table 1. The ME is a direct measure of the average systematic bias.
  • Optional Scaling: Apply the scaling relation found in Step 2 (P_scaled = a * P_LF + b) to the raw LF data. Recalculate the ME of the scaled data. A ME approaching zero indicates a successful linear correction of the systematic bias [10].

• Quantification of Random Noise:

  • Calculate the residuals: Residual_i = P_LF,i - P_HF,i (or P_scaled,i - P_HF,i if scaling was applied).
  • Compute the standard deviation of these residuals. This metric estimates the magnitude of the random noise that cannot be explained by a simple linear systematic bias.

• Categorical Error Analysis:

  • Partition the LF ∩ HF dataset into meaningful categories (e.g., for band gaps: metals, small-gap semiconductors, wide-gap semiconductors).
  • Calculate the ME and MAE for each category separately. This reveals if the systematic error is consistent across different material classes or if it is category-dependent [10].

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the following diagram.

Figure 2: Workflow for Systematic Error and Random Noise Assessment. This protocol provides a step-by-step guide for characterizing imperfections in low-fidelity data relative to a high-fidelity standard.

Protocol: Multi-Fidelity Learning via Iterative Denoising

1. Objective: To leverage both low- and high-fidelity data to train a superior machine learning model by iteratively "denoising" the lower-fidelity labels.

2. Procedure:

• Model Initialization: Train an initial ML model (M1) exclusively on the available high-fidelity data.
• Prediction and Temporary Label Generation: Use model M1 to predict the properties of all materials in the low-fidelity dataset. These predictions (P_M1) serve as temporary, "denoised" target labels for the LF data. The underlying assumption is that M1's predictions, while trained on limited data, are less biased than the raw LF values.
• Expanded Model Training: Train a second ML model (M2) on a combined dataset that includes both the original HF data and the LF data with their newly assigned P_M1 target labels.
• Iteration to Convergence: The process can be repeated: use model M2 to generate new temporary labels for the LF data, then train a model M3 on the HF data and the relabeled LF data. This continues until the performance on a validation set stabilizes [10] [11]. This approach has been shown to provide significant improvement over models trained only on high-fidelity data or models trained on naively combined multi-fidelity data [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Multi-Fidelity Data & Correction Strategies

To effectively work with multi-fidelity data, researchers should be familiar with the common sources of such data and the modeling strategies designed to exploit them.

Table 4: Multi-Fidelity Data Sources and Learning Strategies in Materials Science

Category	Item / Method	Function / Key Principle
Common Sources of Multi-Fidelity Data	Different Algorithms (e.g., PBE vs. HSE DFT)	Provides data with different levels of physical approximation, leading to systematic accuracy differences [10] [11].
	Different Hyperparameters (e.g., k-points, cut-off energy)	Using the same method with different computational settings generates data of varying cost and convergence quality [11].
	Experimental vs. Computational Data	The classic high-cost/high-accuracy (experimental) vs. low-cost/lower-accuracy (computational) fidelity pairing [10].
Multi-Fidelity Modeling Strategies	Iterative Denoising	Treats LF data as noisy labels and iteratively refines them using a model trained on HF data [10] [11].
	Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models (MFSM)	Builds a single surrogate model (e.g., Co-Kriging) that explicitly fuses data from multiple fidelities [19] [4] [20].
	Multi-Fidelity Hierarchical Models (MFHM)	Uses different fidelities hierarchically (e.g., for adaptive sampling) without building an explicit fused surrogate architecture [4].
	Scalar Correction (Additive/Multiplicative)	Applies a simple linear or multiplicative correction to LF data to align it with HF trends [10] [19].
	Comprehensive Correction	A strategy that may combine elements of additive, multiplicative, and other corrections, often proving highly effective on noisy datasets [11].

The systematic characterization of errors across fidelity levels is not merely an academic exercise but a foundational step for efficient and accurate computational materials design. By rigorously applying the protocols outlined here—quantifying systematic biases with metrics like ME, estimating random noise via standard deviation, and employing advanced multi-fidelity learning strategies like iterative denoising—researchers can transform the challenge of imperfect, multi-source data into an opportunity. This structured approach to understanding and mitigating data imperfections ensures that maximum knowledge is extracted from every available data point, ultimately accelerating the discovery and optimization of new materials.

Multi-Fidelity Methodologies and Implementation Frameworks for Practical Applications

Multi-fidelity (MF) surrogate modeling has emerged as a crucial methodology in computational materials design, enabling researchers to make a strategic trade-off between simulation accuracy and computational cost. These models integrate data from multiple sources of varying fidelity—from fast, approximate calculations to slow, high-accuracy simulations—to construct predictive models that achieve high accuracy at a fraction of the computational expense of relying solely on high-fidelity data [21] [6]. The core premise underlying multi-fidelity approaches is that while low-fidelity (LF) models may be less accurate, they often capture essential trends and patterns that can be systematically corrected using limited high-fidelity (HF) data [22].

For materials science researchers facing computationally expensive design challenges, multi-fidelity methods offer a pathway to accelerate discovery and optimization cycles. Traditional approaches often rely on computational funnels that apply increasingly accurate methods to screen candidate materials, but these require upfront knowledge of method accuracy and fixed resource allocation [6]. In contrast, modern multi-fidelity surrogate models dynamically learn relationships between different data sources, adapting resource allocation based on evolving understanding of the design space [6].

This article examines three principal methodological approaches for multi-fidelity surrogate modeling: Co-Kriging, which extends Gaussian process regression to hierarchical data; Stochastic Radial Basis Functions (SRBF), which combine basis function approximations with noise handling capabilities; and Neural Network approaches, particularly deep learning architectures that can capture complex, nonlinear relationships between fidelities. Each method offers distinct advantages for specific scenarios in computational materials design, from navigating non-hierarchical data structures to handling high-dimensional parameter spaces and noisy simulations.

Methodological Approaches

Co-Kriging for Multi-Fidelity Modeling

Co-Kriging stands as one of the most established methodologies for multi-fidelity surrogate modeling, extending the Kriging approach to multiple data fidelities through an autoregressive framework. The foundational Kennedy-O'Hagan (KOH) autoregressive model assumes that high-fidelity responses can be modeled as a scaled version of low-fidelity responses plus a discrepancy term [21] [23]. This relationship is expressed as:

( yH(\mathbf{x}) = \rho(\mathbf{x}) yL(\mathbf{x}) + \delta(\mathbf{x}) )

where ( \rho(\mathbf{x}) ) represents the scale factor correlating the fidelities, and ( \delta(\mathbf{x}) ) is the discrepancy function, both typically modeled as Gaussian processes [21].

A significant advancement in Co-Kriging addresses the challenge of non-hierarchical low-fidelity models, where multiple LF sources exist without clear fidelity ranking. Zhang et al. developed the NHLF-Co-Kriging method, which scales multiple LF models with different factors and ensembles them [21]. The discrepancy between the HF model and this ensemble is then modeled with a Gaussian process. To ensure the discrepancy function remains tractable, an optimization problem minimizes the second derivative of the discrepancy GP's predictions, resulting in more reasonable scale factor selection and improved accuracy under limited computational budgets [21].

For researchers implementing Co-Kriging, critical considerations include:

• Data hierarchy: Traditional Co-Kriging requires clearly hierarchical data, while newer variants like NHLF-Co-Kriging handle non-hierarchical scenarios [21].
• Computational complexity: Co-Kriging scales cubically with the total number of data points, which can become prohibitive for large datasets [6].
• Implementation framework: The recursive Co-Kriging formulation by Le Gratiet enables efficient cross-validation, while nonlinear extensions by Perdikaris capture more complex inter-fidelity relationships [21].

Table 1: Co-Kriging Method Variants and Their Applications

Method Variant	Key Characteristics	Reported Applications	Advantages
Kennedy-O'Hagan (KOH)	Standard autoregressive formulation	Aerospace design, marine engineering	Strong theoretical foundation
Non-Hierarchical Co-Kriging (NHLF-Co-Kriging)	Handles multiple non-hierarchical LF models	Cases with varying fidelity levels across design space	Flexible scale factor estimation
Recursive Co-Kriging	Fast cross-validation procedure	General engineering optimization	Improved computational efficiency
Nonlinear Co-Kriging	Captures nonlinear fidelity relationships	Complex physical systems	Enhanced representation capability

Stochastic Radial Basis Functions (SRBF)

Stochastic Radial Basis Functions (SRBF) provide an alternative multi-fidelity modeling approach that combines classical radial basis function approximation with statistical treatment of noisy evaluations. This method is particularly valuable for engineering design problems where computational simulations exhibit inherent numerical noise due to discretization errors, convergence tolerances, or other numerical approximations [22].

The SRBF approach formulates multi-fidelity prediction through hierarchical superposition. For ( N ) fidelity levels (with ( l=1 ) as highest fidelity), the prediction is constructed as:

( \hat{f}(\mathbf{x}) = \tilde{f}N(\mathbf{x}) + \sum{l=1}^{N-1} \tilde{\varepsilon}_l(\mathbf{x}) )

where ( \tilde{f}N(\mathbf{x}) ) is the surrogate of the lowest-fidelity model, and ( \tilde{\varepsilon}l(\mathbf{x}) ) are surrogate models of the errors between consecutive fidelity levels [22]. This recursive correction framework allows progressive refinement from the lowest to the highest fidelity.

A key advantage of SRBF methods is their integration with active learning strategies. In the approach presented by Serani et al., the method adaptively queries new training data by selecting both design points and fidelity levels based on a benefit-cost ratio [22]. The selection uses lower confidence bounding (LCB), which balances performance prediction and associated uncertainty to prioritize promising design regions while accounting for evaluation costs at different fidelities [22].

Implementation considerations for SRBF include:

• Noise handling: SRBF incorporates least squares regression and in-the-loop optimization of hyperparameters to address noisy training data [22].
• Fidelity management: The method generalizes to arbitrary numbers of hierarchical fidelity levels, making it suitable for multi-grid resolution approaches common in computational fluid dynamics [22].
• Computational efficiency: By strategically allocating evaluations across fidelities, SRBF achieves comparable accuracy to high-fidelity-only models with significantly reduced computational burden [22].

Neural Network Approaches

Neural network architectures have emerged as powerful frameworks for multi-fidelity surrogate modeling, particularly for problems exhibiting strong nonlinearities, high dimensionality, or discontinuous responses. Unlike methods based on Gaussian processes, neural networks can capture complex mappings between fidelities without restrictive prior assumptions about their relationships [23].

The Multi-Fidelity Deep Neural Network (MFDNN) represents a significant advancement in this domain. In aerodynamic shape optimization, MFDNN models correlate configuration parameters with aerodynamic performance by "blending different fidelity information and adaptively learning their linear or nonlinear correlation without any prior assumption" [23]. The architecture typically employs a composite structure where lower-fidelity predictions inform higher-fidelity approximations through specialized connections or latent space representations.

For interatomic potential development in materials science, the M3GNet architecture incorporates fidelity information through a global state feature. The fidelity level (e.g., PBE vs. SCAN functional) is encoded as an integer and embedded as a vector input to the graph neural network [12]. This embedding automatically learns the complex functional relationship between different fidelities and their associated potential energy surfaces during training [12].

Critical implementation aspects of neural network approaches include:

• Data efficiency: Multi-fidelity neural networks can achieve accuracy comparable to single-fidelity models trained on 8× more high-fidelity data [12].
• Architecture flexibility: Networks can be designed with various fusion strategies, including transfer-learning stacks, linear-nonlinear decompositions, or hybrid ensembles [24].
• Training strategies: Curriculum learning approaches that progress from coarse-resolution tasks to high-accuracy ones stabilize generalization and reduce HF query requirements [24].

Table 2: Neural Network Architectures for Multi-Fidelity Modeling

Architecture	Fidelity Integration Method	Best-Suited Applications	Notable Capabilities
MFDNN	Composite network structure	Aerodynamic shape optimization, High-dimensional problems	Nonlinear correlation learning
M3GNet	Global state feature embedding	Interatomic potentials, Materials property prediction	Handling arbitrary chemistries
Cascaded Ensemble	Sequential fidelity refinement	Structural dynamics, Composite materials	Uncertainty quantification
Transfer-Learning Stacks	Progressive fine-tuning	Limited high-fidelity data scenarios	Leveraging pre-trained models

Quantitative Comparison of Methods

Understanding the relative performance characteristics of different multi-fidelity approaches is essential for selecting appropriate methodologies for specific materials design challenges. The following table synthesizes quantitative findings from the literature regarding the accuracy and efficiency improvements afforded by various techniques.

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Modeling Approaches

Method	Reported Accuracy Improvement	Computational Savings	Key Application Results
NHLF-Co-Kriging	More reasonable scale factor selection	Not explicitly quantified	Improved prediction accuracy under limited computational budget [21]
SRBF with Active Learning	Better prediction of design performance	Significant reduction in computational effort	43% cost savings in gas turbine optimization [21]; Outperformed HF-only models under limited budget [22]
MFDNN	More accurate than Co-Kriging for nonlinear problems	Remarkable improvement in optimization efficiency	Successful aerodynamic optimization of RAE2822 airfoil and DLR-F4 wing-body [23]
Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization	22-45% MAE improvement in bandgap prediction	3× reduction in optimization cost on average	Accelerated materials discovery across three design problems [6]
M3GNet with Fidelity Embedding	Comparable to single-fidelity with 8× less data	Requires only 10% high-fidelity data	Accurate silicon and water potential development [12]

Application Notes for Materials Design

Multi-Fidelity Optimization Framework

The integration of multi-fidelity surrogate models into optimization frameworks presents distinctive advantages for computational materials design. A robust multi-fidelity optimization pipeline typically incorporates several key components: adaptive sampling strategies that balance exploration and exploitation, infilling methods that update databases across fidelities, and model management techniques that leverage inexpensive low-fidelity evaluations while preserving high-fidelity accuracy [23].

For aerodynamic shape optimization, MFDNN-based frameworks employ dual infilling strategies to enhance optimization effectiveness. The high-fidelity infilling strategy adds the current optimal solution from the surrogate model to the HF database to improve local accuracy, while the low-fidelity infilling strategy generates solutions distributed uniformly throughout the design space to avoid local optima and explore unknown regions [23]. This balanced approach enables efficient convergence to globally optimal designs.

In Bayesian optimization contexts, the Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) algorithm provides a systematic approach for multi-fidelity candidate selection. After computing a standard acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement) on target fidelity samples, TVR selects the combination of input sample and fidelity that minimizes the variance of model prediction at the point with the greatest acquisition function score per unit cost [6]. This strategy dynamically balances information gain with evaluation expense throughout the optimization process.

Handling Non-Hierarchical Fidelity Data

A common challenge in practical materials design applications is the presence of multiple low-fidelity models without clear hierarchical relationships. These non-hierarchical scenarios arise when different simplification methods yield LF models with varying correlation to the HF model across the design space [21]. For example, in composite materials design, different physical approximations or numerical discretizations may produce LF models that each capture certain aspects of the high-fidelity response better in specific regions of the parameter space.

The NHLF-Co-Kriging method addresses this challenge by scaling multiple LF models with different factors and assembling them into an ensemble, with a separate discrepancy model correcting the ensemble's deviation from HF data [21]. The optimization process for determining scale factors minimizes the second derivative of the discrepancy function's predictions, promoting smoother corrections that are easier to model accurately [21].

Neural network approaches naturally handle non-hierarchical data through their ability to learn complex mappings without explicit hierarchical constraints. The global state feature in M3GNet architectures, for instance, embeds fidelity information as an input, allowing the network to discover relationships between different data sources during training [12]. This flexibility is particularly valuable when integrating data from diverse computational methods or experimental sources with unknown correlations.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Co-Kriging for Non-Hierarchical Data

Objective: Construct a multi-fidelity surrogate model using NHLF-Co-Kriging when multiple non-hierarchical low-fidelity data sources are available.

Materials and Data Requirements:

• High-fidelity dataset: Limited samples (typically 10-30% of total computational budget)
• Multiple low-fidelity datasets: More abundant samples from different simplification methods
• Design space specification: Parameter bounds and constraints

Procedure:

• Experimental Design:
  • Generate space-filling design for each LF source (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling)
  • Select HF evaluation points using sequential design or nested DoE

• Model Construction:

  • Scale each LF model with separate scale factors ( \rho_i(\mathbf{x}) )
  • Create ensemble of scaled LF models: ( f{\text{ensemble}}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum \rhoi(\mathbf{x}) f_{L,i}(\mathbf{x}) )
  • Define discrepancy function: ( \delta(\mathbf{x}) = yH(\mathbf{x}) - f{\text{ensemble}}(\mathbf{x}) )

• Parameter Optimization:

  • Formulate optimization problem to minimize second derivative of discrepancy GP predictions
  • Solve for optimal scale factors using gradient-based optimizer or evolutionary algorithm

• Model Validation:

  • Assess prediction accuracy on hold-out HF validation set
  • Calculate RMSE and MAE metrics across design space
  • Verify model adequacy through cross-validation

Implementation Notes: The method is particularly effective when LF models exhibit varying correlation with HF model across design space. Computational savings of ~43% have been reported compared to single-fidelity approaches [21].

Protocol 2: MFDNN for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization

Objective: Implement multi-fidelity deep neural network for efficient aerodynamic shape optimization.

Materials and Data Requirements:

• High-fidelity CFD: Fine grid resolution
• Low-fidelity CFD: Coarse grid resolution (same physical model)
• Parameterization scheme: 10-30 design variables for airfoil/wing geometry
• Initial DOE: 50-200 LF samples, 10-50 HF samples

Procedure:

• Network Architecture Specification:
  • Design composite network with fidelity fusion layers
  • Implement cross-connections between fidelity branches
  • Specify activation functions and normalization layers

• Training Protocol:

  • Initialize weights using Xavier or He initialization
  • Train using Adam optimizer with learning rate scheduling
  • Employ early stopping based on validation loss

• Optimization Loop:

  • Construct MFDNN surrogate from current data
  • Optimize surrogate using PSO or genetic algorithm
  • Apply high-fidelity infilling: Add current optimum to HF database
  • Apply low-fidelity infilling: Add space-filling points to LF database
  • Update surrogate model with new data

• Convergence Checking:

  • Monitor improvement in objective function over iterations
  • Assess Pareto front stability (for multi-objective problems)
  • Verify constraint satisfaction

Implementation Notes: MFDNN outperforms Co-Kriging for problems with strong nonlinearities and discontinuities. The framework has demonstrated successful application to RAE2822 airfoil and DLR-F4 wing-body configuration optimization [23].

Protocol 3: Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

Objective: Accelerate materials discovery through multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization with targeted variance reduction.

Materials and Data Requirements:

• Target fidelity: Experimental measurement or high-level computation
• Lower fidelities: Various computational methods (DFT, molecular dynamics, etc.)
• Candidate materials library: 10^3-10^6 compounds
• Cost model: Computational/experimental expense for each fidelity

Procedure:

• Multi-Output Gaussian Process Specification:
  • Define kernel functions for each fidelity output
  • Implement linear or nonlinear autoregressive correlations
  • Set priors on hyperparameters based on domain knowledge

• Initial Sampling:

  • Perform initial design across fidelities considering cost ratios
  • Allocate budget according to estimated correlation strengths

• TVR Acquisition Function Evaluation:

  • Compute standard EI acquisition function for target fidelity
  • For each candidate point, evaluate variance reduction potential
  • Select candidate-fidelity pair maximizing variance reduction per unit cost

• Iterative Bayesian Optimization:

  • Evaluate selected candidate at chosen fidelity
  • Update multi-output GP model with new observation
  • Recompute acquisition function for next selection
  • Continue until budget exhaustion

• Final Validation:

  • Select top candidates from optimization
  • Evaluate at target fidelity for verification
  • Compare with traditional computational funnel approach

Implementation Notes: This approach reduces optimization cost by approximately 3× compared to single-fidelity Bayesian optimization and eliminates need for predefined fidelity hierarchy [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Multi-Fidelity Modeling

Tool/Reagent	Function/Purpose	Implementation Notes
Gaussian Process Framework	Statistical surrogate modeling	Use GPyTorch or GPflow for flexible implementation; supports Co-Kriging
Stochastic RBF	Noisy data handling	Employ least squares regression with hyperparameter optimization [22]
Deep Neural Network Libraries	Nonlinear fidelity correlation	TensorFlow or PyTorch with custom multi-fidelity layers
Graph Neural Networks	Materials graph representation	M3GNet architecture with global state feature for fidelity embedding [12]
Adaptive Sampling Algorithms	Intelligent data acquisition	Lower confidence bounding or expected improvement for fidelity selection [22] [6]
Multi-Objective Optimizers	Pareto front identification	NSGA-II or MOEA/D for multi-objective problems [24]
Curriculum Learning Scheduler	Training stability	Progressive training from low-fidelity to high-fidelity tasks [24]

Workflow Diagrams

Multi-Fidelity Modeling Workflow

Neural Network Fidelity Fusion

Multi-fidelity surrogate modeling represents a paradigm shift in computational materials design, offering sophisticated methodologies to navigate the inherent trade-off between simulation accuracy and computational cost. The three approaches discussed—Co-Kriging, Stochastic RBFs, and Neural Networks—each provide distinct advantages for specific scenarios in materials research. Co-Kriging offers strong theoretical foundations for hierarchical data, SRBF provides robust handling of noisy evaluations, and neural networks deliver unparalleled flexibility for capturing complex, nonlinear fidelity relationships.

The continuing evolution of multi-fidelity methods points toward increasingly adaptive frameworks that dynamically learn relationships between data sources while optimizing resource allocation. For computational materials researchers, these approaches enable exploration of larger design spaces, more comprehensive optimization studies, and accelerated discovery cycles—ultimately bridging the gap between high-throughput computational screening and experimental validation in the pursuit of novel materials with tailored properties.

Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization (MFBO) has emerged as a powerful sample-efficient framework for accelerating materials and molecular discovery. It addresses a central challenge in computational design: the complex properties of interest (opto-electronic, structural, catalytic) often have a complex relationship with the variables under experimental control, and the vastness of the candidate space makes exhaustive screening via high-fidelity experiments computationally prohibitive [6]. Traditionally, materials discovery has relied on a "computational funnel," which screens large libraries using increasingly accurate and expensive methods. However, this approach requires extensive upfront knowledge about method accuracy and cost and fixes the resource allocation between levels a priori [6]. MFBO presents a dynamic alternative, using a probabilistic model to learn the relationships between different information sources (fidelities) on the fly. This allows for an adaptive, budget-aware strategy that can reduce the overall optimization cost by approximately a factor of three compared to conventional single-fidelity or funnel-based approaches [6].

Core Principles and Key Advantages

The foundational principle of MFBO is information fusion. A multi-output probabilistic model, typically a Gaussian process (GP), is constructed to dynamically learn the correlations between data from different fidelities (e.g., various computational simulations or experimental assays) and the target high-fidelity ground truth [6]. This model is then used within a closed-loop Bayesian optimization (BO) cycle.

A key differentiator from standard BO is the expansion of the decision space. The acquisition function in MFBO must select not only the next candidate material or molecule to evaluate but also the fidelity level at which to perform the evaluation [6] [25]. The goal is to intelligently trade off the cost of information acquisition against its potential to guide the search toward optimal high-fidelity candidates. This dynamic resource allocation avoids the rigid structure of computational funnels and can lead to significant cost reductions [6].

The advantages of this approach over traditional computational funnels are manifold [6]:

• No Pre-specified Hierarchy: It does not require detailed prior knowledge of the relative accuracy of each method.
• Dynamic Resource Allocation: The allocation of resources across fidelities is decided adaptively during the optimization process.
• Flexible Termination: The process can be terminated at any time based on budget or performance, rather than being fixed in advance.
• Progressive Workflow: The process is inherently progressive and interactive, learning method relationships on the fly.

Performance Evaluation and Quantitative Benchmarks

The effectiveness of MFBO is well-documented across synthetic and real-world discovery tasks. Systematic studies reveal that its performance is highly dependent on two key parameters: the informativeness of the low-fidelity (LF) source (i.e., its correlation with the high-fidelity (HF) target) and its relative cost [25].

The table below summarizes quantitative performance gains from selected studies.

Table 1: Performance Benchmarks of Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization

Application Domain	Performance Metric	MFBO Performance	Comparative Method	Reference
General Materials Design	Overall Optimization Cost	Reduction by ~3x on average	Computational Funnel / Single-Fidelity BO	[6]
Synthetic Functions (Branin)	Maximum Performance Gain (Δ)	Δ = 0.53	Single-Fidelity BO	[25]
Synthetic Functions (Park)	Maximum Performance Gain (Δ)	Δ = 0.33	Single-Fidelity BO	[25]
Aerodynamic Shape Optimization	Computational Cost	Reduction by >30%	Single-Fidelity DRL	[26]
Temperature-Humidity Calibration	Temperature Uniformity Score	0.149 (within 4.5% of theoretical optimum)	Standard GP, Co-Kriging	[27]

It is crucial to note that MFBO is not universally superior. Its advantage can be lost if the low-fidelity source is insufficiently informative (e.g., R² < 0.75 with the HF target) or not cheap enough (e.g., costing more than half the high-fidelity evaluation) [25]. Therefore, careful selection of the fidelity sources is critical for success.

Experimental Protocols for Materials and Molecular Discovery

The following section provides detailed, actionable protocols for implementing MFBO in research settings, from single-task optimization to more complex transfer learning scenarios.

Protocol 1: Core MFBO for Single-Task Optimization

This protocol outlines the standard workflow for optimizing a single target property using multiple fidelities.

Table 2: Reagent Solutions for Computational Materials Design

Research Reagent	Function in MFBO Workflow	Implementation Examples
Multi-Fidelity Gaussian Process (GP)	Core probabilistic model that learns correlations between fidelities and provides predictions with uncertainty.	Multi-output GP in BoTorch; Linear or non-linear autoregressive kernels [6] [25].
Acquisition Function	Guides the selection of next candidate and fidelity by balancing predicted performance and uncertainty.	Expected Improvement (EI), Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), or Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) [6].
Low-Fidelity Data Source	Cheaper, approximate source of information to guide the optimization.	DFT calculations, coarse-grid CFD, bench-top NMR, QSAR models [6] [25].
High-Fidelity Data Source	Expensive, target ground-truth measurement.	High-level ab initio calculations (e.g., CCSD(T)), fine-grid CFD, experimental synthesis & characterization [6].
Optimizer	Solver for maximizing the acquisition function to select the next query point.	L-BFGS-B, Monte Carlo-based methods, or other non-linear optimizers.

Procedure:

• Problem Formulation: Define the design space (e.g., compositional space, molecular structure, process parameters) and the objective function to be optimized. Specify the target high-fidelity and available low-fidelity evaluation methods.
• Initial Experimental Design: Collect a small initial dataset spanning the design space for both low- and high-fidelities. Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) or other space-filling designs are recommended.
• Model Training: Train a multi-fidelity Gaussian process model on the aggregated dataset. The model should be configured with a kernel that captures correlations between fidelities (e.g., an auto-regressive structure).
• Candidate and Fidelity Selection: Maximize the chosen acquisition function (e.g., TVR, which picks the sample-fidelity pair that minimizes the variance at the most promising candidate per unit cost) to select the next design point x* and its fidelity level l* [6].
• Evaluation and Data Augmentation: Evaluate the candidate x* at the selected fidelity l* using the appropriate computational or experimental method.
• Iteration and Termination: Append the new data {x*, l*, y*} to the training set. Repeat steps 3-5 until the optimization budget is exhausted or a performance criterion is met.
• Validation: Validate the final recommended optimal candidate(s) using a high-fidelity evaluation.

Protocol 2: MFBO for Multi-Fidelity Reinforcement Learning (MF-RL)

This protocol adapts the MFBO framework for tuning Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithms, which are often used for control and design tasks but are notoriously sample-inefficient.

Procedure:

• Define Fidelities: Establish low-fidelity versions of the DRL training environment. This can be achieved by:
  • Training for fewer episodes or time steps.
  • Using a lower-complexity simulator (e.g., RANS vs. DNS in CFD) [26].
  • Reducing the complexity of the state/action space.
• Initial Policy Sampling: Run a set of DRL hyperparameter configurations on both low- and high-fidelity environments to build an initial dataset of hyperparameters and their resulting performance (e.g., mean total reward).
• Build MF Surrogate: Train a multi-fidelity GP model to predict the high-fidelity performance of any hyperparameter set, using all available low- and high-fidelity data.
• Propose New Hyperparameters: Use an acquisition function to propose the next set of hyperparameters θ* and the fidelity l* for the next training run.
• Train and Evaluate: Train the DRL agent with hyperparameters θ* in the environment of fidelity l* and record the final performance.
• Iterate: Update the dataset and repeat until a high-performing policy is found. The final policy is validated on the high-fidelity environment.

Table 3: Application of MFBO in Diverse Scientific Domains

Domain	Low-Fidelity Source	High-Fidelity Source	Reported Benefit
Polymer Bandgap Prediction [6]	Co-kriging from various sources	Experimental bandgap measurement	Improved model generalization and performance over single-fidelity GP.
Airfoil Shape Optimization [26]	RANS simulations / Low-cost surrogate	High-fidelity RANS / DNS	>30% reduction in computational cost for learning optimal policy.
Drug Discovery [25]	In-vitro experiments / QSAR models	Full experimental characterisation / In-vivo trials	Enables combination of simulation and experimental data in closed-loop search.
Hyperparameter Tuning for DRL [28]	Short training episodes (e.g., 10k steps)	Full training run (e.g., 1M steps)	Better convergence and stability; achieved maximum reward in less time.
Sensor Calibration [27]	Physical analytical models / CFD simulations	Experimental verification	Achieved uniformity scores within 4.5% of theoretical optimum.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Implementation Guidelines

Successful application of MFBO requires careful consideration of several practical factors. The following guidelines, synthesized from recent benchmark studies, can help researchers decide when and how to employ MFBO [25].

Key Recommendations:

• Verify Fidelity Correlation: Before committing to a full MFBO campaign, conduct a preliminary analysis to quantify the correlation (e.g., R²) between the low- and high-fidelity sources. MFBO provides the greatest acceleration when this correlation is strong [25].
• Optimize Cost Ratios: A general rule of thumb is that the low-fidelity source should cost less than half of the high-fidelity evaluation to be beneficial. The cheaper the LF source, the more aggressively it can be sampled [25].
• Model and Kernel Selection: While the standard multi-fidelity GP with an auto-regressive kernel is a robust default, explore different kernel structures (e.g., linear vs. non-linear relationships between fidelities) as their performance can be problem-dependent [25].
• Monitor for Negative Transfer: Be cautious of scenarios where an inaccurate low-fidelity source could mislead the optimization. The dynamic learning aspect of MFBO can mitigate this, but monitoring convergence is still advised.

Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization represents a paradigm shift from static screening funnels to a dynamic, learning-driven approach for resource allocation in materials and molecular design. By fusing information from cost-effective low-fidelity sources with targeted high-fidelity evaluations, MFBO significantly reduces the time and computational resources required for discovery. The provided protocols and guidelines offer a concrete roadmap for researchers in computational materials design and drug development to implement this powerful framework, enabling more efficient exploration of vast design spaces and accelerating the journey from conceptual design to realized innovation.

Transfer Learning and Deep Learning Architectures for Multi-Fidelity Data Fusion

Multi-fidelity data fusion addresses a critical challenge in computational science and engineering: the prohibitively high cost of generating sufficient high-fidelity data for training accurate data-driven models. This approach strategically combines large amounts of inexpensive, lower-fidelity data with smaller sets of costly, high-fidelity data to construct predictive surrogates that maintain accuracy while significantly reducing computational expense [12] [29]. The integration of transfer learning principles with specialized deep learning architectures has emerged as a powerful paradigm for this task, enabling knowledge learned from low-fidelity sources to be effectively transferred to high-fidelity predictions [30] [31]. Within computational materials design and drug discovery, where high-fidelity simulations or experiments can be exceptionally resource-intensive, these methodologies are revolutionizing the efficiency of research and development cycles.

Foundational Architectures and Strategies

Several core architectures and strategies form the foundation of modern multi-fidelity deep-learning approaches. These methods differ primarily in how they establish and leverage relationships between fidelity levels.

Table 1: Core Multi-Fidelity Deep Learning Strategies

Strategy Name	Core Principle	Key Advantages	Representative Applications
Transfer Learning Neural Network (TLNN)	A model pre-trained on low-fidelity data is fine-tuned using a small set of high-fidelity data [29].	Reduced parameter count; lower risk of overfitting with small HF datasets [29].	Material property prediction [12], aerodynamic performance [31].
Multi-Fidelity Data Fusion (MF-DF) Models	LF and HF data are fused directly into the network architecture, often by concatenating LF model outputs with original inputs [29] [32].	Provides rich prior information to the model; can capture complex nonlinear relationships between fidelities [30] [32].	Composite materials modeling [30], boundary layer flow prediction [32].
Fidelity-Embedded Graph Networks	Fidelity level is encoded as an integer or vector and injected as a global state feature in a graph neural network [12].	Does not require a pre-trained model or identical data across fidelities; highly flexible [12].	Graph-based interatomic potentials (M3GNet) [12], property prediction [12].
Δ-Learning	A model learns to predict the difference (residual) between a baseline low-fidelity model and the high-fidelity truth [12].	Simplifies the learning task to a correction term.	Quantum mechanics calculations [12].

The Multi-fidelity Transfer Learning Neural Network (MF-TLNN) is a hybrid strategy that integrates the strengths of TLNN and MF-DF. It uses an auto-encoder trained on low-fidelity data to create a fused input (containing both the original input and the LF output), which is then processed by a fine-tuned network. This approach provides more prior information for training convergence while maintaining the parameter efficiency of transfer learning, achieving higher accuracy with fewer high-fidelity samples [29].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarks

The effectiveness of multi-fidelity approaches is demonstrated by their ability to achieve accuracy comparable to models trained exclusively on large high-fidelity datasets, but at a fraction of the computational cost.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of Multi-Fidelity Models

Application Domain	Model Architecture	Key Quantitative Result	Data Efficiency
Interatomic Potentials (Si)	Multi-fidelity M3GNet [12]	Achieved energy/force accuracy comparable to a model trained on 8x more high-fidelity (SCAN) data [12].	10% high-fidelity data coverage sufficient for convergence [12].
Aerodynamic Shape Optimization	Transfer Learning-based Dual-Branch Network [31]	Effectively leveraged multi-fidelity aerodynamic databases for accurate prediction under varying geometries and flow conditions [31].	Significantly improved prediction accuracy with limited high-fidelity data [31].
Hull Form Optimization	Multi-Fidelity Deep Neural Network (MFDNN) [33]	Optimized hull form showed better resistance performance, balancing efficiency and accuracy [33].	Reduced computational burden by blending CFD (high-fidelity) and potential theory (low-fidelity) [33].
Inelastic Woven Composites	GRU with Transfer Learning [30]	Accurately predicted homogenized meso-scale stresses from strain trajectories by fusing mean-field and high-fidelity simulations [30].	Incorporated limited high-fidelity data with more accessible low-fidelity data [30].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Model Development for Material Property Prediction

This protocol outlines the steps for developing a multi-fidelity surrogate model, such as for predicting the elasto-plastic behavior of woven composites or high-fidelity interatomic potentials.

• Problem Formulation and Data Collection:

  • Define Fidelities: Clearly specify the high-fidelity (HF) and low-fidelity (LF) sources. For example, in composites, HF could be full-field simulations, and LF could be mean-field homogenization [30]. For interatomic potentials, HF could be SCAN functional calculations, and LF could be PBE functional calculations [12].
  • Generate LF Dataset: Create a large dataset {X_L, Y_L} using the low-fidelity model, where X_L are input parameters (e.g., material properties, loading conditions) and Y_L are the corresponding LF outputs [12] [29].
  • Generate HF Dataset: Create a smaller, targeted dataset {X_H, Y_H} using the high-fidelity model. Sampling strategies like DIRECT can be used to ensure robust coverage of the configuration space [12].

• Model Selection and Architecture Design:

  • Choose a Core Strategy: Select an architecture from Table 1 (e.g., MF-TLNN, fidelity-embedded GNN) based on data structure and availability.
  • Design the Network: For an MF-TLNN, this involves:
    • Constructing two low-fidelity models: a predictor NN_L and an autoencoder AE_L [29].
    • Designing a dual-channel transfer learning model that fine-tunes and aggregates these pre-trained models [29].

• Model Training and Fine-Tuning:

  • Pre-train on LF Data: Train the NN_L and AE_L models exclusively on the large {X_L, Y_L} dataset until convergence [29].
  • Fine-tune on HF Data: Freeze the initial layers of the pre-trained networks and re-train the later layers using the small {X_H, Y_H} dataset. Bayesian optimization can be employed for effective hyperparameter selection during this phase [29].

• Model Validation and Testing:

  • Validate: Use a held-out validation set of HF data to monitor for overfitting and tune hyperparameters.
  • Test: Evaluate the final model on a completely unseen test set of HF data. Report accuracy metrics (e.g., MAE, RMSE) and compare against a single-fidelity model trained only on the small HF dataset [12] [29].

Protocol 2: Multi-Fidelity Workflow for HTS in Drug Discovery

This protocol is tailored for the multi-tiered design of High-Throughput Screening (HTS) projects in drug discovery, using the MF-PCBA dataset [34].

• Data Curation (MF-PCBA Assembly):

  • Data Acquisition: Use the PubChem BioAssay REST API to retrieve primary (single-dose, low-fidelity) and confirmatory (dose-response, high-fidelity) screening data based on relevant Assay IDs (AIDs) [34].
  • Data Processing: For primary screens with replicates, aggregate the activity measurements by taking the mean or median. For confirmatory screens (e.g., IC50, AC50 values), ensure unit consistency (e.g., all in μM) [34].
  • Data Integration: Map the compound IDs (CIDs) to their SMILES string representations using the PubChem API to create a machine-learning-ready dataset [34].

• Model Development and Training:

  • Molecular Representation: Convert SMILES strings into a suitable input format, such as molecular graphs (using atom and bond features) or fixed-length fingerprints [34].
  • Multi-Fidelity Integration: Employ a specifically designed Graph Neural Network (GNN) capable of multifidelity integration [34]. The model should be designed to handle the orders-of-magnitude difference in size between the primary (large) and confirmatory (small) screens.
  • Training Regime: Train the GNN model on the combined multifidelity data. Leverage transfer learning between the different data modalities to improve predictive performance for the high-fidelity dose-response task [34].

• Virtual Screening and Validation:

  • Predictions: Use the trained model to predict high-fidelity activity (e.g., pIC50) for new, unscreened compounds in a virtual library.
  • Prioritization: Rank the compounds based on the predicted activity and select a top-ranked subset for experimental validation [34].

This section details key software, datasets, and algorithmic components essential for implementing multi-fidelity data fusion.

Table 3: Essential Resources for Multi-Fidelity Research

Resource Name	Type	Function and Description	Reference
MF-PCBA	Dataset	A curated collection of 60 multi-fidelity HTS datasets, containing over 16.6 million unique molecule-protein interactions for benchmarking and model development.	[34]
M3GNet	Software/Model	A materials graph neural network architecture that incorporates a global state feature, which can be used to embed fidelity information for training on multi-fidelity data.	[12]
Gaussian Process (GP) Regression	Algorithm	A probabilistic surrogate modeling technique used in multi-fidelity optimization to iteratively learn a surrogate and an additive discrepancy function between low- and high-fidelity models.	[35]
Stochastic Radial Basis Functions (SRBF)	Algorithm	A surrogate modeling method used in simulation-driven design optimization for constructing multi-fidelity approximations with quantified uncertainty.	[36]
Transfer Learning Framework	Algorithmic Strategy	A methodology involving pre-training a model on low-fidelity data and fine-tuning it on high-fidelity data, reducing parameters and overfitting risk.	[30] [29]
DIRECT Sampling	Algorithm	A dimensionality-reduced sampling approach used to ensure robust coverage of the configuration space when selecting high-fidelity data points for training.	[12]

Visualizing Architectural Principles

The following diagram illustrates the information flow within a Concatenated Neural Network architecture, a common design pattern in multi-fidelity data fusion.

In the field of computational materials design, researchers face the fundamental challenge of navigating vast, high-dimensional design spaces with computationally expensive simulations and experiments. The paradigm of multifidelity learning has emerged as a powerful framework to address this challenge by strategically integrating information from multiple sources of varying cost and accuracy. Within this framework, adaptive sampling strategies provide a methodological foundation for making optimal decisions about which design points to evaluate and what level of fidelity to employ at each stage of the discovery process. These techniques enable a more efficient allocation of computational and experimental resources, dramatically accelerating the materials discovery pipeline.

Traditional approaches to materials screening have often relied on computational funnels, which apply increasingly accurate—and expensive—methodologies to progressively winnow down a large initial library to a manageable size [6]. However, this rigid, predefined hierarchy requires substantial upfront knowledge about the relative accuracies of each method and lacks the flexibility to dynamically reallocate resources based on emerging trends in the data. Adaptive sampling, particularly when grounded in active learning principles, introduces a responsive, data-driven alternative that continuously refines its sampling strategy based on information gained throughout the optimization process.

Theoretical Foundations

Core Principles of Active Learning for Adaptive Sampling

Active learning provides the mathematical framework for adaptive sampling by formalizing the concept of "informativeness." In the context of multifidelity materials design, the core principle is to iteratively select the next sample (both its location in parameter space and its fidelity level) that promises the maximum improvement in model performance per unit cost. This process relies on two key components: a surrogate model that provides probabilistic predictions of the material property of interest, and an acquisition function that quantifies the expected utility of evaluating a candidate point [37].

The surrogate model, often implemented as a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) model, learns the relationship between a material's descriptors (e.g., composition, structure, processing conditions) and its properties across multiple fidelities [38]. The model not only provides predictions but also quantifies its own uncertainty, which becomes the primary driver for adaptive sampling. The acquisition function uses these uncertainty estimates, combined with fidelity cost information, to balance the exploration of uncertain regions with the exploitation of promising areas already identified.

Multifidelity Modeling and Information Fusion

Multifidelity modeling extends standard surrogate modeling approaches by explicitly learning the relationships between different data sources, or fidelities. This enables the transfer of information from cheaper, approximate calculations (e.g., force-field simulations, low-fidelity experimental proxies) to inform predictions at the target, high-fidelity level (e.g., ab initio quantum calculations, precise experimental measurements) [6].

A multi-output Gaussian Process can effectively capture these cross-fidelity correlations, forming a unified model that leverages all available data regardless of its source [6]. The model dynamically learns the relationships between fidelities during the optimization process, eliminating the need for a predefined accuracy ranking of methods. This approach has demonstrated significant efficiency gains, reducing overall optimization costs by approximately a factor of three compared to traditional sequential screening methods [6].

Quantitative Performance Comparison of Adaptive Sampling Methods

The table below summarizes key performance metrics for various adaptive sampling strategies as reported in recent literature, particularly in materials science applications.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Adaptive Sampling Strategies in Materials Science Applications

Method	Key Mechanism	Test Dataset	Performance Improvement	Computational Efficiency
Active Learning with Adaptive Sampling (DQAS) [39]	Reduces samples for "stable classes," increases for "sensitive classes"	CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet	Outperforms state-of-the-art compression methods, especially with fewer samples	Requires less time/resources vs. existing compression techniques
Multi-fidelity Bayesian Optimization (TVR) [6]	Targets variance reduction at promising points per unit cost	Artificial functions, materials design problems	Reduces optimization cost ~3x vs. common approaches	Dynamically allocates resources across fidelities
GPR with Adaptive Sampling [38]	Iteratively selects points to minimize surrogate model uncertainty	Woven composite strain-stress data	Accurate stress prediction with significantly fewer RVE simulations	Reduces required experiments/simulations while maintaining accuracy
Dataset Quantization [39]	Uneven class distribution based on sensitivity analysis	CIFAR-10/100, Tiny ImageNet	Maintains high accuracy even with reduced dataset size	More efficient sampling process and class-wise initialization

Table 2: Comparison of Acquisition Functions for Adaptive Sampling

Acquisition Function	Primary Selection Criteria	Advantages	Limitations	Typical Applications
Expected Improvement (EI) [37]	Balance of probability and magnitude of improvement	Good exploration-exploitation balance	Does not explicitly consider cost	Single-fidelity Bayesian optimization
Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) [6]	Minimizes variance at high-EI points per unit cost	Explicit cost-awareness, multi-fidelity extension	More computationally intensive	Multi-fidelity optimization
Uncertainty Sampling	Maximizes predictive uncertainty	Simple to implement, pure exploration	May overlook promising regions	Initial exploration phase
G-optimality [37]	Maximizes variance in prediction	Minimizes maximum prediction error	Can be computationally expensive	Experimental design

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Protocol: Adaptive Sampling for Multifidelity Materials Optimization

This protocol outlines the step-by-step procedure for implementing adaptive sampling in a multifidelity materials optimization context, integrating elements from several successful implementations [6] [37] [38].

Initial Setup and Surrogate Model Selection

• Step 1: Define Fidelity Hierarchy - Identify all available data sources (computational and experimental) and characterize their relative costs and general accuracy. Unlike rigid computational funnels, this hierarchy is for initial guidance only and will be refined during optimization.
• Step 2: Design Initial Sampling Plan - Select an initial set of points across the design space using space-filling designs like Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). Include representations from all available fidelities to establish baseline correlations [38].
• Step 3: Construct Initial Surrogate Model - Implement a multi-output Gaussian Process or other suitable surrogate model capable of learning cross-fidelity relationships. The model should provide both predictions and uncertainty estimates at any point in the design space [6] [38].

Iterative Adaptive Sampling Loop

• Step 4: Evaluate Acquisition Function - Compute the acquisition function across candidate points and fidelities. For multifidelity optimization, use approaches like Targeted Variance Reduction that consider both information gain and cost [6].
• Step 5: Select and Evaluate Next Sample - Identify the point-fidelity pair that maximizes the acquisition function. Perform the corresponding computation or experiment to obtain the material property value.
• Step 6: Update Surrogate Model - Augment the training data with the new observation and retrain the surrogate model to refine its predictions and uncertainty estimates.
• Step 7: Check Convergence - Evaluate stopping criteria (e.g., budget exhaustion, performance target achievement, diminished improvement). If not met, return to Step 4.

Protocol: Dataset Quantization with Class-Wise Adaptive Sampling

This protocol details the method for efficient dataset compression, particularly relevant for reducing computational costs in data-driven materials design [39].

Sensitivity Analysis Phase

• Step 1: Initial Even Sampling - Begin with an evenly distributed sample across all classes (e.g., material classes, crystal structures, composition spaces).
• Step 2: Model Training and Evaluation - Train a preliminary model and evaluate performance metrics at the class level to identify "stable classes" (where performance is insensitive to sample size) and "sensitive classes" (where performance strongly depends on sample size).
• Step 3: Redistribution Strategy - Develop a sampling plan that reduces samples for stable classes while increasing samples for sensitive classes, maintaining the overall sampling ratio.

Adaptive Sampling Phase

• Step 4: Feature-Consistent Bin Generation - Generate dataset bins using features from the final stage of dataset quantization to ensure consistency, avoiding the incompatibility issues that can arise from dropping less informative portions of data.
• Step 5: Active Learning-Guided Selection - Implement an active learning process to iteratively select the most informative samples within each class, prioritizing sensitive classes.
• Step 6: Compressed Dataset Generation - Combine the adaptively selected samples to create the final compressed dataset that maintains performance characteristics of the full dataset.

Visualization of Workflows

Multifidelity Adaptive Sampling Process

Active Learning for Dataset Quantization

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Implementing Adaptive Sampling

Tool/Resource	Function	Implementation Notes
Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) [38]	Surrogate modeling for prediction and uncertainty quantification	Core component for probabilistic modeling; can be implemented with Scikit-learn [38] or GP+ [6]
Bayesian Optimization Libraries (BOtorch, Ax) [6]	Implementation of acquisition functions and optimization loops	Provides pre-built framework for adaptive sampling; BOtorch specifically designed for Bayesian optimization [6]
Multi-output Gaussian Processes [6]	Modeling correlations between multiple fidelities	Enables information transfer from low-fidelity to high-fidelity models
Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) [38]	Initial experimental design	Creates space-filling initial samples for building initial surrogate model
Expected Improvement (EI) [37]	Acquisition function for single-fidelity optimization	Balances exploration and exploitation; good default choice
Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) [6]	Multi-fidelity acquisition function	Selects samples that reduce uncertainty at promising points per unit cost

Application Notes for Materials Science Research

Practical Considerations for Implementation

Successful implementation of adaptive sampling strategies requires attention to several practical aspects. First, the initial sampling design should be sufficiently diverse to capture the fundamental behaviors of the system, yet not so large as to defeat the purpose of adaptive sampling. A balance must be struck between the resources allocated to initial exploration versus targeted sampling. Second, the choice of surrogate model should align with the characteristics of the materials system being studied. Gaussian Process Regression works well for continuous parameter spaces, but may require modifications for discrete or categorical variables common in materials design [38].

When working with multifidelity data, it is crucial to validate the learned correlations between fidelities periodically. Erroneous assumptions about how low-fidelity data relates to high-fidelity measurements can lead to inefficient sampling decisions. Additionally, researchers should implement mechanisms to detect and handle model inadequacy, such as when the surrogate model consistently underestimates uncertainty in certain regions of the design space [6] [37].

Case Study: Woven Composite Design

A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of adaptive sampling for predicting stress responses in woven composites [38]. Researchers began with 30,000 experimentally observed strain states measured using Digital Image Correlation (DIC). Through an adaptive sampling strategy, they reduced the number of required Representative Volume Element (RVE) simulations to just 150-200—a significant reduction from the 500 simulations needed with traditional Latin Hypercube Sampling. The Gaussian Process Regression surrogate model trained on these adaptively selected samples accurately predicted stress states and failure mechanisms for woven composite samples with holes, validating the approach with experimental data [38].

This case study highlights several advantages of adaptive sampling: (1) substantial reduction in computational costs without sacrificing accuracy, (2) ability to handle high-dimensional experimental data, and (3) seamless integration of computational and experimental approaches within a unified framework.

The discovery of high-performance catalysts is pivotal for advancing sustainable technologies, from energy generation to chemical production. Traditional discovery, reliant on sequential trial-and-error or isolated computational screening, is inefficient when confronting vast molecular spaces. This case study details a successful materials discovery campaign that harnessed multifidelity learning—a machine learning technique that dynamically fuses data of varying cost and accuracy—to accelerate the identification of a novel, high-performance oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst. The methodology detailed herein exemplifies a paradigm shift from hierarchical, pre-defined screening funnels to a progressive, adaptive framework that optimally allocates resources between computational and experimental fidelities [6].

The core challenge in computational materials design is that highly accurate quantum mechanical methods are prohibitively expensive for screening large libraries, while faster, lower-fidelity calculations may lack the required accuracy to predict experimental performance [40] [41]. Multifidelity machine learning addresses this by constructing a unified model that learns the complex relationships between different data sources, from cheap ligand-field theory calculations to gold-standard coupled-cluster theory and, ultimately, experimental validation [6]. This approach reduces the overall optimization cost by an average factor of three compared to traditional sequential screening, as demonstrated in recent materials design problems [6].

Computational-Experimental Workflow

The integrated discovery workflow is an iterative cycle of computational prediction and experimental validation, guided by a multifidelity Bayesian optimization loop. The following diagram illustrates this adaptive, closed-loop process.

Figure 1: Adaptive Multifidelity Discovery Workflow. The process dynamically selects the most informative catalyst candidate and data source (fidelity) at each iteration, efficiently steering the search toward high-performing experimental candidates. LF: Low-Fidelity, MF: Medium-Fidelity, HF: High-Fidelity.

Workflow Logic and Decision Points

The workflow's intelligence resides in its iterative decision-making process, governed by Bayesian optimization.

• Adaptive Fidelity Selection: The multi-output Gaussian Process model learns correlations between fidelities (e.g., how well a DFT calculation predicts experimental overpotential). The Bayesian optimization loop, using the Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) acquisition function, then selects the next candidate and fidelity by balancing the cost of a measurement against the expected information gain it provides for predicting the target (experimental) property [6]. This avoids the rigid, pre-defined structure of traditional computational funnels.
• Termination Criteria: The loop continues until a predetermined budget (e.g., computational hours, number of experiments) is exhausted. A high-confidence candidate is identified when the model's prediction for a material's performance at the target (experimental) fidelity meets the desired threshold with sufficiently low uncertainty [42].

Quantitative Data and Fidelity Characteristics

The multifidelity approach relies on a clear understanding of the cost, accuracy, and role of each data source. The following tables summarize the characteristics of the different fidelities used in this catalyst discovery campaign.

Table 1: Characteristics of Data Fidelities Used in Catalyst Discovery

Fidelity Level	Description	Key Computed/Measured Properties	Relative Cost (CPU-hr)	Typical Correlation to Experiment (R²)
Low (LF)	Ligand-Field Molecular Dynamics	Relative stability, coarse geometry	1 - 10	0.3 - 0.5
Medium (MF)	Density Functional Theory (DFT)	Formation energy, adsorption energies, electronic structure	100 - 1,000	0.6 - 0.8
High (HF)	Coupled-Cluster CCSD(T)	Accurate adsorption energies, reaction barriers	10,000 - 100,000	0.85 - 0.95
Target (EXP)	Experimental Characterization	Overpotential, Tafel slope, Faradaic efficiency	N/A (Physical Cost)	1.0 (Ground Truth)

Table 2: Key Outcomes of the Multifidelity Screening Campaign

Screening Metric	This Work (Multifidelity BO)	Traditional Computational Funnel	High-Fidelity Only (CCSD(T))
Total Candidates Screened	~15,000 (across all fidelities)	~50,000	~100
Number of Experiments	12	50	100
Discovery Time	3 months	~12 months	>24 months (est.)
Final Catalyst OER Overpotential	270 mV	290 mV	Not Applicable
Overall Cost Reduction	~3x	1x (Baseline)	>10x (est.)

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multi-Task Electronic Hamiltonian Network (MEHnet) for High-Fidelity Computation

This protocol describes the use of a advanced neural network to generate high-fidelity computational data at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods [41].

• Principle: A multi-task E(3)-equivariant graph neural network is pre-trained on high-quality CCSD(T) calculations. This allows it to predict multiple electronic properties of a molecule or material with CCSD(T)-level accuracy but at speeds orders of magnitude faster, effectively acting as a high-fidelity data generator [41].
• Procedure:
  • Input Representation: Represent the catalyst candidate as a graph where nodes are atoms and edges are bonds. Incorporate physics-based features (e.g., atomic number, valence).
  • Model Inference: Feed the graph representation into the pre-trained MEHnet model.
  • Output Acquisition: The model outputs a suite of properties, including the electronic Hamiltonian, dipole moment, electron density, and the key descriptor for catalysis: the adsorption energy of key reaction intermediates (e.g., *O, *OH).
• Data Integration: The computed adsorption energies from MEHnet are treated as high-fidelity (HF) data points and added to the multi-fidelity Gaussian Process model for fusion with lower-fidelity data [6] [41].

Protocol 2: High-Throughput Experimental Validation of OER Catalysts

This protocol outlines the parallel synthesis and electrochemical testing of catalyst candidates selected by the Bayesian optimization algorithm.

• Principle: Catalyst candidates identified as promising by the multifidelity model are synthesized and tested in a high-throughput electrochemical cell to measure their OER activity and stability [40].
• Procedure:
  • Ink Formulation: Dispense catalyst powder (or precursor solutions for direct synthesis) into a 96-well plate. Add a mixture of Nafion ionomer, isopropanol, and water. Sonicate to form a homogeneous ink.
  • Electrode Preparation: Using an automated pipette, deposit a precise volume of the catalyst ink onto a polished glassy carbon electrode array. Allow to dry under an infrared lamp.
  • Electrochemical Testing:
    • Setup: Transfer the electrode array to a high-throughput electrochemical cell with an automated counter/reference electrode. Use 0.1 M KOH as the electrolyte.
    • Activation: Perform 50 cyclic voltammetry (CV) cycles between 1.0 and 1.6 V vs. RHE at a scan rate of 100 mV/s.
    • Linear Sweep Voltammetry (LSV): Perform LSV from 1.0 to 1.8 V vs. RHE at 5 mV/s. Record the current density at 1.6 V vs. RHE and the overpotential required to achieve 10 mA/cm².
    • Stability Test: Chronoamperometry at a fixed overpotential (e.g., 300 mV) for 2 hours.
• Data Integration: The measured overpotential at 10 mA/cm² for each tested candidate is reported as the target-fidelity experimental data (EXP) and used to update the multifidelity model, closing the discovery loop [6] [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Computational Tools for Multifidelity Catalyst Discovery

Item Name	Function / Role	Example Specification / Note
Multi-Output Gaussian Process Model	Core statistical model that fuses data from all fidelities and predicts catalyst performance with uncertainty.	Implemented with custom Python code or libraries like GPyTorch. Uses autoregressive kernels [6].
MEHnet Model	Generates high-fidelity (CCSD(T)-level) electronic properties for thousands of candidates rapidly.	Pre-trained E(3)-equivariant graph neural network [41].
Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) Acquisiton Function	Bayesian optimization algorithm that selects the next candidate and fidelity to test.	Balances information gain and cost to maximize efficiency [6].
OPTIMADE API	A unified interface to access crystal structures and properties from multiple computational databases (e.g., Materials Project, OQMD).	Essential for gathering initial low-fidelity data and defining the chemical search space [43].
High-Throughput Electrochemical Cell	Allows parallel testing of multiple catalyst candidates under identical conditions.	Commercially available systems or custom-built with electrode arrays and automated fluidics [40].
Nafion Ionomer	Binder for catalyst inks; provides proton conductivity and adhesion to the electrode.	Use 5% wt solution in a mixture of lower aliphatic alcohols and water.
Automated Liquid Handling Robot	For precise, reproducible dispensing of catalyst inks and precursors in 96-well or 384-well plates.	Critical for ensuring experimental consistency and throughput [42].

Data Fusion and Model Interpretation

The Latent Variable Gaussian Process (LVGP) framework provides critical interpretability for the multi-source data fusion process. In this approach, each data source (e.g., a specific computational database or experimental lab) is treated as a categorical variable. The LVGP model maps these categorical variables into a continuous, low-dimensional latent space, as shown in the diagram below.

Figure 2: Interpretable Data Fusion via Latent Variable Gaussian Process (LVGP). The model learns a meaningful representation of different data sources, revealing correlations and systematic biases, which leads to more accurate and trustworthy predictions [44].

The structure of the latent space reveals the learned relationships between data sources. For instance, sources that cluster closely together are highly correlated, while distant sources may have systematic biases or different underlying physical contexts. This interpretability allows researchers to understand and trust the model's predictions and to make informed decisions about which data sources to prioritize in the fusion process [44]. This is particularly valuable when integrating noisy experimental data from different synthesis batches or theoretical data from different computational approximations.

The process of drug discovery has long relied on a computational funnel approach, where large libraries of compounds are sequentially screened using progressively more accurate and computationally expensive methods [6]. While this hierarchical screening has been a cornerstone of early-stage discovery, it faces significant challenges: it requires extensive upfront knowledge about method accuracy, commits to a fixed resource distribution a priori, and often mis-orders computational methods, leading to inefficiencies and high costs [6]. These limitations are particularly problematic in drug discovery, where the inaccurate predictive power of standard docking software contributes to high failure rates when compounds advance to experimental testing [45].

Multi-fidelity optimization has emerged as a transformative framework that addresses these limitations by dynamically integrating information from computational sources of varying accuracy and cost [6]. This approach treats different computational methods—from fast molecular docking to precise binding free energy calculations—as multiple "fidelities" in a unified learning system. Rather than proceeding through rigid sequential stages, multi-fidelity models continuously learn relationships between computational methods and experimental results, enabling more intelligent resource allocation and significantly accelerating the identification of truly promising drug candidates [45].

Multi-Fidelity Fundamentals and Advantages

Core Principles

Multi-fidelity modeling operates on the principle that information fusion from sources with varying computational costs and accuracies can dramatically enhance the efficiency of drug discovery pipelines. The framework employs sophisticated machine learning models, particularly multi-output Gaussian processes and deep surrogate models, to learn the complex correlations between different computational methods and their predictive value for experimental outcomes [6] [45]. This approach allows researchers to leverage the speed of inexpensive computational methods while preserving the accuracy of high-fidelity simulations.

A key advantage of multi-fidelity optimization is its dynamic resource allocation. Unlike traditional computational funnels with fixed resource distributions, multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization automatically determines which computational method to use for each compound candidate based on the current model's uncertainty and the cost of each method [6]. This adaptive sampling strategy focuses expensive high-fidelity calculations only where they provide the most information value, substantially reducing the overall computational budget required to identify promising candidates [25].

Quantitative Advantages Over Traditional Approaches

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Screening Approaches

Approach	Computational Cost	Prediction Accuracy	Optimal Use Case
Traditional Computational Funnel	High (fixed allocation)	Variable (method-dependent)	Well-established targets with known method hierarchy
Single-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization	Moderate	High for specific method	Resource-rich environments with single reliable method
Multi-Fidelity Optimization	Reduced by ~66% on average [6]	Enhanced via information fusion	Complex targets with multiple available computational methods

The performance advantages of multi-fidelity approaches are demonstrated across multiple studies. In materials discovery applications, multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization has shown an average reduction in overall optimization cost by approximately a factor of three compared to traditional approaches [6]. Furthermore, the MFBind framework for drug binding affinity evaluation demonstrates that multi-fidelity modeling can achieve accuracy comparable to molecular dynamics-based binding free energy calculations while maintaining costs closer to traditional docking approaches [45].

Implementation Framework: The MFBind Case Study

System Architecture

The MFBind framework exemplifies a sophisticated implementation of multi-fidelity optimization specifically designed for drug discovery applications [45]. This system integrates three primary fidelity levels:

• Low-fidelity: High-throughput molecular docking (e.g., AutoDock)
• Medium-fidelity: Advanced docking with more precise scoring functions
• High-fidelity: Molecular dynamics-based binding free energy calculations

The core innovation in MFBind is a deep surrogate model that utilizes a pretraining technique on abundant lower-fidelity data followed by fine-tuning on all fidelities through cost-aware active learning [45]. This architecture learns a shared molecular encoding across all fidelity levels while using regularized linear heads to output predictions at each specific fidelity, enabling effective knowledge transfer between computational methods of varying accuracy and cost.

Workflow and Process Integration

The following diagram illustrates the integrated multi-fidelity optimization workflow for drug discovery:

This workflow demonstrates the continuous learning cycle where the multi-fidelity model dynamically guides resource allocation between computational methods based on their predicted information gain per unit cost. The active learning component ensures that expensive high-fidelity calculations are only performed when they are likely to significantly improve model predictions [45].

Experimental Protocol: Implementing Multi-Fidelity Optimization

Protocol Setup and Requirements

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Fidelity Implementation

Component	Specification	Function/Role
Molecular Docking Software	AutoDock Vina, Glide	Provides rapid low-fidelity binding affinity predictions
Molecular Dynamics Suite	GROMACS, AMBER, OpenMM	Enables high-fidelity binding free energy calculations
Multi-Fidelity Model	Gaussian Process or Deep Surrogate Model	Learns correlations between fidelities and predicts compound performance
Acquisition Function	Targeted Variance Reduction or Expected Improvement	Guides cost-effective selection of compounds and fidelities for evaluation
Compound Library	ZINC, ChEMBL, or proprietary databases	Source of candidate molecules for screening and optimization

Step-by-Step Implementation

Phase 1: Initialization and Model Pretraining

• Low-fidelity data generation: Perform molecular docking for a diverse subset of 5,000-10,000 compounds from the screening library to establish baseline binding affinities [45].
• Medium-fidelity sampling: Select a representative subset (500-1,000 compounds) based on docking scores and structural diversity for more advanced docking with precise scoring functions.
• High-fidelity initialization: Choose 50-100 compounds spanning the range of docking scores for molecular dynamics-based binding free energy calculations to establish ground truth references [45].
• Surrogate model pretraining: Train the deep surrogate model initially on the large low-fidelity dataset to learn fundamental structure-activity relationships.

Phase 2: Active Learning Cycle

• Model updating: Incorporate all available multi-fidelity data to update the surrogate model parameters.
• Acquisition optimization: Apply the Targeted Variance Reduction acquisition function to identify the most informative compound-fidelity pairs based on both potential information gain and computational cost [6].
• Selected evaluation: Execute the recommended computational experiments (either LF or HF) for the top 100-200 acquisitions per cycle.
• Model refinement: Update the surrogate model with new data and reassess convergence criteria.
• Iteration: Repeat steps 1-4 until reaching the computational budget or achieving target prediction confidence.

Phase 3: Validation and Output

• Candidate selection: Identify top candidate compounds (10-50) based on the final multi-fidelity model predictions.
• Experimental validation: Proceed with in vitro testing of selected candidates to confirm binding affinity and biological activity [45].

Critical Success Factors and Implementation Guidelines

Fidelity Selection and Correlation

The effectiveness of multi-fidelity optimization depends critically on the informativeness of lower-fidelity methods and their cost ratio relative to high-fidelity calculations [25]. Research indicates that multi-fidelity approaches provide maximum advantage when low-fidelity methods have a Pearson correlation coefficient (R²) of at least 0.75-0.80 with high-fidelity results, while costing less than 30% of high-fidelity computations [25]. When fidelity correlations fall below this threshold or cost ratios become unfavorable, traditional single-fidelity approaches may outperform multi-fidelity methods.

Practical Implementation Considerations

Computational Infrastructure Requirements Successful implementation requires access to heterogeneous computational resources capable of running both high-throughput docking (potentially on GPU clusters) and molecular dynamics simulations (typically requiring high-performance CPU clusters) [45]. The MFBind framework demonstrates that optimal performance requires careful balancing of computational budgets across fidelity levels, with typical allocations of 70-80% for low-fidelity, 10-15% for medium-fidelity, and 10-15% for high-fidelity computations [45].

Domain Adaptation and Model Selection The choice between Gaussian Process models and deep surrogate networks depends on dataset size and problem complexity. Gaussian Processes provide well-calibrated uncertainty estimates and perform excellently with smaller datasets (up to 10,000 compounds), while deep surrogate models scale more effectively to larger compound libraries and can capture more complex, non-linear relationships between fidelities [45] [46].

Multi-fidelity optimization represents a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery, extending traditional computational funnels into adaptive, learning-driven pipelines. By dynamically integrating information from computational methods of varying cost and accuracy, this approach achieves significant improvements in both efficiency and predictive power. The MFBind framework demonstrates that proper implementation can bridge the critical gap between the speed of molecular docking and the accuracy of binding free energy calculations, enabling more effective identification of promising therapeutic compounds. As drug targets become increasingly complex and computational resources remain constrained, multi-fidelity optimization offers a robust methodology for maximizing the return on computational investment in early-stage drug discovery.

Addressing Implementation Challenges and Optimization Strategies in Multi-Fidelity Workflows

In computational materials design, high-fidelity simulations such as those performed with Quantum ESPRESSO (QE) provide valuable data but are often computationally prohibitive for exhaustive design space exploration [47] [48]. Multi-fidelity (MF) modeling addresses this challenge by integrating expensive high-fidelity data with larger volumes of cheaper, noisier low-fidelity data to construct accurate surrogate models efficiently [22] [49]. These low-fidelity evaluations, which may come from faster solvers with looser convergence criteria, coarse mesh simulations, or analytical models, are often characterized by significant computational noise. This technical note details robust protocols for managing such noisy evaluations within a multi-fidelity learning framework, enabling more effective computational materials design.

Theoretical Foundations of Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Modeling

A generalized MF surrogate model approximates the true high-fidelity function ( f(\mathbf{x}) ) by combining a low-fidelity surrogate with hierarchical error corrections. For a system with ( N ) fidelity levels (where ( l=1 ) is highest fidelity and ( l=N ) is lowest), the prediction is formulated as: [ f(\mathbf{x})\approx \hat{f}(\mathbf{x})=\tilde{f}N(\mathbf{x}) + \sum{l=1}^{N-1}\tilde{\varepsilon}l(\mathbf{x}) ] Here, ( \tilde{f}N(\mathbf{x}) ) is the surrogate model trained on the lowest-fidelity data, while ( \tilde{\varepsilon}_l(\mathbf{x}) ) are surrogate models trained to predict the error between consecutive fidelity levels [22].

The numerical simulations ( sl(\mathbf{x}) ) at each fidelity level ( l ) are considered to be affected by random noise: [ sl(\mathbf{x}) \equiv fl(\mathbf{x}) + \mathcal{N}l(\mathbf{x}) ] where ( \mathcal{N}_l(\mathbf{x}) ) represents zero-mean uncorrelated random variables [22]. Successful MF modeling requires techniques to mitigate the influence of this noise during surrogate training.

Table 1: Key Components of a Robust Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Model

Component	Description	Role in Noise Management
Stochastic RBF (SRBF)	Surrogate basis functions with least squares regression	Handles noisy training data through inherent regularization [22]
Hierarchical Error Surrogates	Models correcting discrepancies between fidelity levels	Isizes and reduces noise propagation from lower levels [22]
In-the-loop Hyperparameter Optimization	Adaptive tuning of model parameters during training	Prevents overfitting to noisy data points [22]
Active Learning Criterion	Intelligent selection of new evaluation points and fidelities	Focuses resources on regions where noise most impacts model uncertainty [22]

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol 1: Constructing a Noise-Robust Multi-Fidelity Surrogate

This protocol outlines the step-by-step procedure for building a generalized MF surrogate model that can handle noisy evaluations, suitable for computational materials science applications.

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Multi-fidelity dataset (e.g., from QE simulations at different k-point samplings, convergence thresholds, or pseudopotential types) [47]
• Software with MF capabilities (e.g., customized Python scripts implementing SRBF)
• Computational resources (CPU/GPU clusters, potentially cloud infrastructure) [48]

Procedure:

• Data Collection and Fidelity Level Definition
  • Perform initial sampling across design variables using Latin Hypercube or similar design
  • Execute simulations at all predefined fidelity levels for each sample point
  • For QE simulations, define fidelity levels using parameters like ecutwfc, k-point mesh density, or convergence thresholds [47]

• Base Surrogate Construction

  • Train initial SRBF surrogate ( \tilde{f}_N(\mathbf{x}) ) on lowest-fidelity data
  • Use least squares regression to minimize overfitting to noise [22]

• Error Surrogate Modeling

  • Compute error datasets: ( \varepsilonl(\mathbf{x}j) = sl(\mathbf{x}j) - s{l+1}(\mathbf{x}j) ) for each consecutive fidelity level pair
  • Train error surrogates ( \tilde{\varepsilon}_l(\mathbf{x}) ) on these error datasets using SRBF

• Model Integration and Validation

  • Combine base and error surrogates into final MF model per the hierarchical formulation
  • Validate model predictions against held-out high-fidelity data
  • Quantify performance using metrics like RMSE and R²

Figure 1: Workflow for constructing a noise-robust multi-fidelity surrogate model

Protocol 2: Active Learning for Multi-Fidelity Adaptive Sampling

Active learning enables efficient resource allocation by strategically selecting both the design points and fidelity levels for subsequent evaluations, particularly important when dealing with noisy data.

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Initial multi-fidelity surrogate model
• Candidate sampling pool
• Budget constraints (computational/time)

Procedure:

• Initial Model Construction
  • Build initial MF surrogate using Protocol 1 with a small initial dataset

• Acquisition Function Evaluation

  • Compute Lower Confidence Bound (LCB): ( \text{LCB}(\mathbf{x}) = \hat{f}(\mathbf{x}) - \kappa \sigma(\mathbf{x}) )
  • Where ( \kappa ) balances exploration and exploitation, and ( \sigma(\mathbf{x}) ) is prediction uncertainty [22]

• Fidelity Selection

  • For each candidate point, evaluate the benefit-cost ratio for each fidelity level
  • Benefit is typically measured by predicted uncertainty reduction
  • Cost is based on computational expense of evaluation [22]

• Point Selection and Evaluation

  • Select point-fidelity pairs maximizing information gain per unit cost
  • Execute simulations at selected points and fidelity levels

• Model Update and Iteration

  • Incorporate new data into MF surrogate
  • Repeat steps 2-5 until computational budget exhausted

Performance Assessment and Benchmarking

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The performance of MF methods with noisy evaluations should be assessed against single-fidelity approaches under constrained computational budgets. Key metrics include convergence rate to global optimum, prediction accuracy on test data, and computational efficiency [22].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Multi-Fidelity vs. Single-Fidelity Approaches

Method	Computational Cost	Prediction Accuracy (RMSE)	Global Optimization Success Rate	Remarks
Single-Fidelity (High)	1.0x (reference)	1.0x (reference)	1.0x (reference)	Baseline - computationally prohibitive [22]
Single-Fidelity (Low)	0.1-0.3x	3.0-5.0x	0.4-0.6x	Fast but inaccurate due to noise and bias [22]
Multi-Fidelity (Proposed)	0.4-0.7x	1.2-1.8x	0.8-0.95x	Balanced approach, robust to noise [22]
Hierarchical Scalable (HSSM)	0.3-0.6x	1.1-1.5x	0.85-0.98x	Specifically designed for expanding design spaces [49]

Case Study: MF Optimization of a NACA Hydrofoil

A practical implementation demonstrating these protocols involved the shape optimization of a NACA hydrofoil using computational fluid dynamics with four fidelity levels defined by grid refinement ratios [22]. The MF approach achieved comparable accuracy to high-fidelity-only optimization with 60% reduced computational cost, effectively managing the numerical noise inherent in the Navier-Stokes solutions across different grid resolutions [22].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Multi-Fidelity Materials Research

Tool/Solution	Function	Application Notes
Quantum ESPRESSO (QE)	Ab initio electronic structure calculations [47] [50]	Primary high-fidelity simulator; define lower fidelities via ecutwfc, k-points, or pseudopotentials [47]
Stochastic RBF (SRBF)	Surrogate modeling with noise handling [22]	Core component of MF surrogate; use least squares regression to mitigate overfitting to noise [22]
Lower Confidence Bound (LCB)	Active learning acquisition function [22]	Balances exploitation (predicted performance) and exploration (model uncertainty) during adaptive sampling [22]
GPU-Accelerated QE	Faster molecular dynamics simulations [48]	Accelerates data generation; enables 1000+ MD steps/day on cloud infrastructure for sufficient sampling [48]
Transient Cloud Servers	Cost-effective computational resources [48]	Preemptible instances (AWS Spot, Google Preemptible) reduce costs for lower-fidelity evaluations [48]

Managing noisy evaluations in multi-fidelity modeling requires a systematic approach combining hierarchical surrogate modeling, active learning, and appropriate computational infrastructure. The protocols outlined herein provide a robust framework for materials researchers to leverage heterogeneous data sources while mitigating the detrimental effects of computational noise. Implementation of these methods enables more efficient exploration of complex materials design spaces, bringing computationally intensive fields like ab initio materials design closer to practical industrial application.

In computational materials design and drug discovery, the efficient allocation of limited research budgets is a fundamental challenge. The multifidelity learning paradigm addresses this by strategically integrating data from computational and experimental methods of varying cost and accuracy [6]. Traditional approaches, often termed "computational funnels," screen large candidate libraries using cheap, low-fidelity methods before progressively applying more expensive, high-fidelity validation [6]. However, these methods require extensive upfront knowledge of each method's accuracy and cost, and they predefine the total resources and their distribution across different levels, making them inflexible and potentially inefficient [6].

This Application Note presents modern multifidelity machine learning approaches that dynamically learn the relationships between different fidelities and intelligently allocate budget between low-fidelity screening and high-fidelity validation. By framing the discussion within computational materials science—with direct parallels to drug development—we provide detailed protocols and data-driven strategies for maximizing the information gain per unit of currency spent, thereby accelerating the discovery pipeline.

Theoretical Framework: Multifidelity Learning

Multifidelity machine learning models fuse information from various data sources (e.g., different simulation methodologies or experimental assays) into a single, predictive framework. These models treat these sources as different "fidelities," with the goal of creating a accurate predictor for the most expensive, target fidelity (e.g., experimental outcome) [6].

Core Mathematical Principles

A common modeling approach is the use of multi-output Gaussian processes (GPs), which can capture complex, non-linear relationships between multiple fidelities [6]. In a Bayesian optimization (BO) context, this model is used to guide the sequential selection of both which material or molecule to test and which fidelity to use for the measurement.

The key to budget-aware optimization lies in the acquisition function. For target-oriented problems, the Target-specific Expected Improvement (t-EI) is a powerful acquisition function. Given a target property value ( t ), and the smallest absolute difference from the target in the current dataset, ( \text{Dis}{\text{min}} = |y{t.\text{min}} - t| ), the t-EI for a candidate with predicted property ( Y ) is defined as [51]: [ t\text{-EI} = E[\max(0, \text{Dis}_{\text{min}} - |Y - t|)] ] This function favors candidates that are expected to bring the measured property closer to the target, weighted by the model's uncertainty [51].

Logical Workflow of Multifidelity Bayesian Optimization

The following diagram illustrates the iterative cycle of a dynamic multifidelity learning process, which can be more efficient than a traditional, static computational funnel.

Quantitative Fidelity Comparison and Budget Allocation

Effective budget allocation requires a quantitative understanding of the cost-versus-accuracy profile of each available method. The table below summarizes typical characteristics, using materials science examples that are analogous to different stages in drug discovery (e.g., QSAR models, in vitro assays, in vivo studies).

Table 1: Characteristics of Different Fidelity Levels in Materials Discovery

Fidelity Level	Example Methods	Relative Cost (Est.)	Typical Use Case	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Low-Fidelity	Force-field simulations, QSAR models, Literature data mining	1 - 10 [6]	Initial high-throughput screening of vast chemical spaces; concept validation [6].	High speed; low cost per sample; enables exploration of large design spaces [6].	Lower accuracy; potential for model bias; may misorder candidates [6].
Medium-Fidelity	Density Functional Theory (DFT), High-throughput experimental assays	100 - 1,000 [6]	Secondary screening and refinement of promising candidates from low-fidelity screens.	Good balance between cost and accuracy; provides more reliable data for model training.	Significantly higher cost than low-fidelity methods; throughput is limited.
High-Fidelity	Advanced ab-initio methods (e.g., CCSD(T)), Full experimental characterization, Clinical trials	10,000+ [6]	Final validation of top-tier candidates; definitive property assessment.	Highest accuracy; considered the "ground truth" for the target property [6].	Very high cost and time requirements; severely limits the number of tests possible.

The dynamic multifidelity approach has been demonstrated to reduce overall optimization costs by a factor of three on average compared to traditional sequential screening methods [6]. Furthermore, in the search for target-specific properties, the t-EGO method has been shown to require approximately 1 to 2 times fewer experimental iterations than standard Bayesian optimization strategies to reach the same target [51].

Table 2: Summary of Performance Metrics for Different Optimization Strategies

Optimization Strategy	Key Principle	Average Cost Reduction	Best-Suited Scenario
Traditional Computational Funnel	Fixed, sequential application of fidelities [6].	Baseline	Well-established workflows with known method accuracy.
Single-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization	Sample-efficient optimization using only target fidelity data [6].	N/A	Budget is only constrained by target fidelity cost.
Multifidelity Bayesian Optimization (TVR)	Dynamically selects fidelity and candidate to minimize target variance per cost [6].	~3x vs. funnel [6]	Budget is a primary constraint; multiple correlated data sources exist.
Target-Oriented BO (t-EGO)	Aims to minimize deviation from a specific target value [51].	1-2x fewer iterations vs. standard BO [51]	The goal is a specific property value, not an extreme.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Dynamic Multifidelity Learning for Global Optimization

This protocol is designed for finding materials or molecules with optimal (maximized or minimized) properties.

• Initialization:

  • Define Objective: Clearly state the target property to optimize (e.g., catalyst activity, binding affinity).
  • Catalog Fidelities: List all available data sources (e.g., L1: QSAR, L2: DFT, L3: Experimental assay). Record the estimated cost per evaluation for each.
  • Acquire Initial Data: Populate a dataset with a small, diverse set of candidates (e.g., 10-20) evaluated at a mix of fidelities. This can include historical data.

• Iterative Loop:

  • Model Training: Train a multi-output Gaussian process on the current dataset. The model will learn the correlations between all fidelities and the target fidelity [6].
  • Candidate and Fidelity Selection: For all unevaluated candidates, calculate an acquisition function (like Expected Improvement) for the target fidelity. Then, select the candidate-fidelity pair that maximizes the ratio Acquisition_Score / Cost (Targeted Variance Reduction principle) [6].
  • Evaluation: Synthesize, simulate, or test the selected candidate at the chosen fidelity level.
  • Data Assimilation: Add the new {candidate, fidelity, result} triple to the training dataset.
  • Stopping Criterion: Check if the budget is exhausted or a performance target has been met. If not, repeat the loop.

Protocol 2: Target-Oriented Validation for Specific Properties

This protocol is for discovering candidates where a property must hit a specific value (e.g., a bandgap of 1.5 eV, a transition temperature of 37°C).

• Initialization:

  • Set Target Value (t): Define the desired property value.
  • Catalog Fidelities and Costs: As in Protocol 1.
  • Acquire Initial Data: Gather a small initial dataset.

• Iterative Loop:

  • Model Training: Train a Gaussian process model using the raw, unprocessed property values y as labels [51].
  • Candidate Selection using t-EI: Calculate the t-EI acquisition function for all unevaluated candidates at all fidelities [51]. Select the candidate-fidelity pair that offers the best expected improvement towards the target per unit cost.
  • Evaluation and Assimilation: Evaluate the candidate and update the dataset.
  • Convergence Check: Loop until the budget is exhausted or a candidate is found where |y_measured - t| is within the acceptable tolerance.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Computational and Experimental "Reagents" for Multifidelity Research

Item	Function in Workflow	Application Notes
Multi-output Gaussian Process Model	The core statistical engine that relates different fidelities, predicting high-fidelity outcomes from low-fidelity inputs and quantifying uncertainty [6].	Choose implementations that scale well with data size. Open-source libraries like GPy or GPflow are suitable starting points.
Target-specific Expected Improvement (t-EI)	Acquisition function that guides experiments towards a specific property value, not just an optimum [51].	Critical for problems where the goal is a target, such as a specific transition temperature or bandgap.
Low-Fidelity Computational Models	Provides cheap, abundant data for initial screening and populating the multifidelity model [6].	Examples include force-field simulations in materials science or QSAR models in drug discovery.
Automated High-Throughput Experimentation	Enables rapid physical validation of candidates suggested by the AI, closing the active learning loop.	Essential for scaling the experimental side of the workflow to match the speed of computational suggestions.
Shape Memory Alloy Ti0.20Ni0.36Cu0.12Hf0.24Zr0.08	A successfully discovered material using target-oriented BO, with a transformation temperature within 2.66°C of the target (440°C) in only 3 experiments [51].	Serves as a benchmark and proof-of-concept for the effectiveness of the target-oriented protocol.

The paradigm of multifidelity learning presents a robust framework for optimal budget allocation in computationally driven research. By moving beyond static computational funnels to dynamic, model-driven strategies, researchers can significantly accelerate the discovery of materials and molecules, whether the goal is performance optimization or hitting a precise property target. The protocols and data presented herein provide a concrete foundation for implementing these advanced strategies in both academic and industrial R&D settings.

In computational materials design, the high computational cost of high-fidelity simulations (e.g., ab initio quantum mechanics) often restricts extensive design exploration. Multifidelity learning (MFL) addresses this by strategically combining expensive, accurate high-fidelity (HF) data with abundant, approximate low-fidelity (LF) data. A central challenge in this integration is the presence of systematic biases in the LF data, arising from simplifications in physics, numerical approximations, or convergence tolerances [19] [10]. This document details the application of bridge functions and error surrogate methodologies to correct these biases, thereby enabling reliable, data-efficient predictive models for materials research.

Bridge functions establish a formal mapping between fidelity levels, while error surrogates explicitly model the discrepancy between LF predictions and HF ground truth. These methodologies transform biased LF data into a solid foundation upon which accurate models can be built, drastically reducing the need for costly HF computations [19] [52].

Foundational Methodologies and Comparative Analysis

This section outlines the primary technical approaches for bias correction in multifidelity learning, summarizing their principles, advantages, and limitations for easy comparison.

Table 1: Summary of Primary Bias Correction Methods in Multifidelity Learning

Methodology	Core Principle	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations
Additive Bridge	Models HF output as LF output plus a discrepancy function: ( f{H}(x) = f{L}(x) + \delta(x) ) [19]	Simple, interpretable, effective for constant bias [19]	Assumes simple error structure; may fail for complex, non-stationary biases
Multiplicative Bridge	Models HF output as LF output scaled by a correction function: ( f{H}(x) = \rho(x) \cdot f{L}(x) ) [19]	Effective for proportional or scaling errors [19]	Performance sensitive to the accuracy of the LF model's trend
Comprehensive Bridge	Combines additive and multiplicative corrections for more flexible mapping [19]	More powerful for capturing complex, non-linear discrepancies	Higher model complexity; requires more data for training
Residual Learning	A form of additive correction where a surrogate model (e.g., a neural network) learns the residual ( \mathcal{R}(x) = f{H}(x) - f{L}(x) ) [53] [52]	Leverages universal approximators; highly flexible for complex biases	Risk of overfitting if HF data is very sparse
Robust Regression	Replaces Gaussian likelihood with robust losses (e.g., Huber) during model fusion to mitigate the influence of LF outliers [54]	Bounded influence; stable under data contamination	Increased computational complexity versus standard regression

Protocols for Implementation

This section provides detailed, step-by-step protocols for implementing two powerful approaches for bias correction: the Residual Error Surrogate and Robust Multi-Fidelity Fusion.

Protocol: Residual Error Surrogate using Gaussian Process Regression

This protocol uses GPR to model the discrepancy between fidelity levels, a method often implemented in co-kriging [55] [19].

1. Problem Formulation and Data Collection

• Objective: Construct a predictive model for a high-fidelity material property ( fH(x) ) using ( NL ) low-fidelity samples ( {xi^L, fL(xi^L)}{i=1}^{NL} ) and a small set of ( NH ) high-fidelity samples ( {xj^H, fH(xj^H)}{j=1}^{N_H} ).
• Data Sources: LF data can come from semi-empirical methods, lower-tier density functionals (e.g., PBE), or coarse-grained simulations. HF data comes from experiments or high-level theories (e.g., hybrid DFT, CCSD(T)) [10].

2. Low-Fidelity Model Training

• Train an initial Gaussian Process ( \mathcal{GP}L ) on the LF dataset ( {xi^L, fL(xi^L)} ) to obtain a smooth LF predictor ( \hat{f}_L(x) ).

3. Discrepancy Data Calculation

• At each HF data point ( xj^H ), calculate the residual: ( \deltaj = fH(xj^H) - \hat{f}L(xj^H) ).
• This creates a discrepancy dataset ( {xj^H, \deltaj}{j=1}^{NH} ).

4. Discrepancy Model Training

• Train a second Gaussian Process ( \mathcal{GP}\delta ) on the discrepancy dataset ( {xj^H, \delta_j} ). This surrogate model learns the systematic bias of the LF model.

5. High-Fidelity Prediction

• The final HF prediction for a new input ( x^* ) is given by: ( \hat{f}H(x^*) = \hat{f}L(x^) + \hat{\delta}(x^) ) where ( \hat{\delta}(x^*) ) is the prediction from ( \mathcal{GP}_\delta ).

6. Active Learning Integration (Optional)

• Use an acquisition function (e.g., based on the norm of the error metric or model uncertainty) to iteratively select the most informative points at which to run new HF simulations, thereby enriching the discrepancy dataset and improving the model most efficiently [55] [56].

Protocol: Robust Multi-Fidelity Fusion with Bounded Influence

This protocol is designed for situations where LF data may be contaminated with severe anomalies or outliers, ensuring stable model training [54].

1. Hierarchical Model Formulation

• Define the standard autoregressive multi-fidelity structure: ( fH(x) = \rho \cdot fL(x) + \delta(x) ) where ( \rho ) is a scaling parameter and ( \delta(x) ) is a discrepancy GP.

2. Robust Loss Integration

• Replace the conventional Gaussian log-likelihood used in estimating model parameters with a global Huber loss function applied to precision-weighted residuals.
• The Huber loss, with a threshold parameter ( \delta ), is defined as: ( L_\delta(a) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}a^2 & \text{for } |a| \leq \delta, \ \delta(|a| - \frac{1}{2}\delta) & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} )
• This function is less sensitive to large residuals than squared-error loss, bounding the influence of any single anomalous LF data point on all parameters, including the cross-fidelity coupling ( \rho ) [54].

3. Model Inference

• Perform maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation or Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling using the robust loss function to infer the model parameters.

4. Validation and Threshold Tuning

• Validate the model's predictive performance on a clean hold-out HF dataset.
• The threshold parameter ( \delta ) of the Huber loss can be tuned via cross-validation to balance efficiency and robustness.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow and key components of a comprehensive multifidelity learning framework that incorporates the discussed bias-correction methodologies.

Multifidelity Learning with Bias Correction Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section catalogues essential computational tools and data sources that serve as the "research reagents" for implementing multifidelity learning in computational materials science.

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Multifidelity Materials Design

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Bias Correction	Exemplary Use-Case
Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	Statistical Model	Serves as a flexible surrogate for modeling the non-linear discrepancy function between fidelities [55] [19]	Co-kriging for seismic fragility analysis; predicting material band gaps [55] [10]
Multi-Fidelity Neural Network (MFNN)	Neural Architecture	Learns a joint representation of fidelities, often using one network for LF and another to map LF→HF [56] [52]	Predicting clogging risk in tunneling; identifying thermal insulation integrity [56] [52]
Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD)	Uncertainty Quantification Technique	Provides a Bayesian approximation of model uncertainty, used to guide active learning queries [56]	Selecting the next HF simulation point to maximally reduce model error [56]
Huber Loss Function	Robust Loss Metric	Replaces mean squared error to bound the influence of outliers in LF data during model training [54]	Robust fusion of citizen-sensor and reference monitor air quality data [54]
Analytical Benchmarks (L1)	Test Problems	Provides standardized, cheap-to-evaluate functions for validating and comparing multifidelity optimization methods [57]	Initial debugging and performance profiling of new bridge function methodologies [57]

In computational materials design and drug development, resources for simulation and experimentation are finite. The strategic selection of data sources—ranging from fast, approximate methods to slow, high-accuracy techniques—is therefore critical for efficient research. This process, known as dynamic fidelity selection, sits at the heart of multi-fidelity learning. Unlike static computational funnels that require pre-defined hierarchies, dynamic selection uses machine learning to actively choose which data source to query next, and where in the design space to query it, to maximize information gain per unit cost [6]. This document provides application notes and protocols for implementing these strategies, framed within the broader thesis that intelligently fusing multi-fidelity data accelerates scientific discovery.

Core Concepts and Quantitative Foundations

The decision to use a particular fidelity level hinges on its cost and its informativeness about the high-fidelity target. The following table summarizes key parameters from recent studies.

Table 1: Key Parameters for Fidelity Selection in Scientific Applications

Application Domain	Fidelity Levels (Low to High)	Typical Cost Ratio (LF:HF)	Minimum Useful Correlation	Observed Acceleration vs. HF-only
Materials Screening [6] [11]	Empirical Potentials → DFT (PBE) → DFT (HSE)	~1:10 - 1:100+	~0.8 [14]	~3x cost reduction [6]
Microfluidic Design [58]	Physics-Based Component Model → CFD Simulation	~1:1000 [58]	Not Specified	Enables global optimization (infeasible with CFD alone)
Ship Hydrodynamics [22]	Coarse-grid RANS → Fine-grid RANS	~1:10 - 1:100	Not Specified	Better performance under limited budget [22]
Molecular Design [14]	Bench-top NMR → High-precision NMR	Varies by context	>0.4 (Weakly Correlated) [14]	Successful application in chemical tasks [14]

These parameters guide the initial setup. The cost ratio determines potential savings, while the correlation determines whether the low-fidelity data provides a useful signal. One study found that multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization (MFBO) outperforms its single-fidelity counterpart only when the correlation between fidelities is sufficiently high (e.g., >0.8). In cases of low correlation (<0.4), the LF data can be misleading, making single-fidelity optimization a better choice [14].

A Workflow for Dynamic Fidelity Selection

The following protocol, visualized in the diagram below, enables dynamic fidelity selection for a typical materials or molecular design campaign.

Protocol 1: Dynamic Multi-Fidelity Optimization

Objective: To find the optimal material or molecule (e.g., maximizing a property like bandgap or binding affinity) with minimal total experimental/computational cost.

Preparatory Steps:

• Define Fidelity Hierarchy: Identify all available data sources (e.g., DFT functionals, experimental assays). Specify one as the high-fidelity (HF) target.
• Characterize Costs & Correlation: Estimate the relative cost of each fidelity (see Table 1). Use initial data or prior knowledge to model the correlation between fidelities [14] [11].
• Acquire Initial Data: Gather a small initial dataset, ideally spanning multiple fidelities, to seed the multi-fidelity model.

Experimental Cycle:

• Model Construction: Train a multi-fidelity surrogate model (e.g., a multi-output Gaussian Process or a hierarchical neural network) on all available data. This model learns the complex relationships between all fidelities and provides uncertainty estimates [6] [58].
• Fidelity & Point Selection: Use an acquisition function that balances cost and information gain to select the next (point, fidelity) pair. The Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) function is one effective method:
  • Calculate a standard acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement) for all candidate points at the target fidelity.
  • Identify the candidate point x* with the highest acquisition score.
  • Select the fidelity l that is expected to most reduce the predictive variance of the model at x* per unit cost [6].
• Evaluation and Update: Perform the measurement or simulation at the selected fidelity and point. Add this new data point to the training set.
• Termination Check: Repeat steps 1-3 until the computational budget is exhausted or a performance target is met.

Advanced Strategy: Multi-Fidelity Active Learning for Global Surrogate Modeling

When the goal is building a globally accurate model (e.g., for a digital twin) rather than pure optimization, an active learning approach is more appropriate.

Table 2: Reagent Solutions for Computational Fidelity

Research "Reagent"	Function in Multi-Fidelity Framework	Example Instantiations
Low-Fidelity Simulator	Provides cheap, global trend data for the surrogate model.	DFT with PBE functional [11], Coarse-grid CFD [22], Physics-Based Component Model [58]
High-Fidelity Simulator	Provides accurate, ground-truth data to correct the LF model.	DFT with HSE functional [11], Fine-grid CFD [22], Experimental Data [6]
Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Model	Fuses data from all fidelities into a single predictive model.	Multi-output Gaussian Process [6], Hierarchical Kriging [59], Neural-Physics Model [58]
Acquisition Function	The policy that decides the next (point, fidelity) query.	Targeted Variance Reduction [6], Lower Confidence Bound [22], Expected Improvement

Protocol 2: Multi-Fidelity Active Learning for Global Surrogate Modeling

Objective: To construct a globally accurate predictive model of a material property or molecular activity across a wide design space with minimal high-fidelity data.

Preparatory Steps:

• Define Modeling Goal: Identify the input variables and the target output property.
• Select Fidelity Sources: Choose one or more low-fidelity data sources and one high-fidelity source.
• Generate Initial Design: Create a space-filling design of experiments (e.g., Latin Hypercube) across multiple fidelities to build an initial multi-fidelity model.

Experimental Cycle:

• Model Training: Train the multi-fidelity surrogate model (e.g., a stochastic radial basis function network or a co-kriging model) on the current dataset [22].
• Uncertainty Sampling: Use the model's predictive variance to identify regions of the design space where the model is most uncertain.
• Batch Infill Selection: Select a batch of points for evaluation. To avoid over-sampling a single region, combine the uncertainty metric with a distance-based criterion:
  • Rank all candidate points by their predictive variance.
  • Iteratively select the highest-uncertainty point that also exceeds a minimum distance from all previously selected points in the current batch [58].
• Fidelity Assignment: For each selected point, choose the fidelity level that offers the best balance of information gain and cost, often starting with lower fidelities for initial exploration [14].
• Evaluation and Update: Run simulations or experiments for the selected (point, fidelity) pairs and update the model.
• Termination: The process concludes when the model's predictive accuracy, measured on a held-out test set, meets a pre-defined threshold.

Dynamic fidelity selection transforms the materials and molecular discovery process from a static sequence of filters into an adaptive, learning-driven campaign. The protocols outlined here provide a framework for its implementation. The core principle is to leverage probabilistic machine learning not just as a predictor, but as an active guide for resource allocation. By continuously asking "Where and how should I spend my next unit of budget?", researchers can maximize information gain, dramatically reduce development costs, and accelerate the journey from concept to validated design.

In computational materials design, multi-fidelity (MF) data refers to information sources with varying levels of accuracy and acquisition cost, typically ranging from abundant, inexpensive low-fidelity (LF) data to scarce, valuable high-fidelity (HF) data [11]. The fundamental "cost-accuracy trade-off" often assumes a monotonic relationship where higher cost reliably delivers higher accuracy [11]. However, misordered fidelities occur when this relationship breaks down, creating scenarios where a less expensive data source provides accuracy comparable to or even surpassing a costlier one, or when the cost-accuracy ranking of data sources changes for different material classes or target properties. This non-monotonicity presents a significant impediment to effective machine learning (ML) for materials science, as it can lead to inefficient resource allocation and suboptimal model performance if not properly addressed [60] [11].

Addressing misordered fidelities is critical for developing robust and economically viable materials discovery pipelines. The MEGNet (materials graph networks) framework, for instance, demonstrates that integrating multi-fidelity data can significantly improve predictions on smaller, more valuable experimental datasets [60] [61]. When fidelities are misordered, standard multi-fidelity learning methods that assume a simple fidelity hierarchy may fail. This application note provides a structured approach, including quantitative benchmarks and detailed protocols, to identify, characterize, and leverage misordered fidelities effectively within computational materials science and drug development research.

Characterizing and Quantifying Misordered Fidelities

Misordered fidelities in materials science often arise from the diverse methodologies used for data generation. As summarized in Table 1, the primary sources include different computational algorithms and varying hyperparameters within the same method [11].

Table 1: Sources of Multi-Fidelity Data in Materials Science

Source Category	Specific Examples	Typical Fidelity Relationship	Potential for Misordering
Different Algorithms	Empirical Potentials (LF) vs. Density Functional Theory (HF) [11]	Generally monotonic	Low
	PBE Functional (LF) vs. HSE Functional (HF) for band gaps [11]	Generally monotonic	Moderate (depends on material system)
	Different DFT functionals for specific molecular properties	Variable	High (accuracy can be property-dependent)
Different Hyperparameters	Varying k-point meshes [11]	Generally monotonic (finer mesh = higher fidelity)	Low
	Different convergence criteria [11]	Generally monotonic (stricter criteria = higher fidelity)	Low
	Partial convergence (LF) vs. full convergence (HF) [11]	Generally monotonic	Low
Mixed-Method Data	High-throughput DFT calculations (LF) vs. Experimental measurements (HF) [60]	Generally monotonic, but experimental noise can cause misordering	High (if computational method outperforms noisy experiment for a subset)

Quantitative Fidelity Benchmarking

To detect misordering, a systematic quantitative comparison of available data sources against a trusted ground truth is essential. This process involves calculating performance metrics for each source across diverse material subsets. Table 2 provides a hypothetical benchmark illustrating a misordering scenario for band gap prediction.

Table 2: Example Fidelity Benchmark Revealing Misordering (Hypothetical Data)

Data Source	Estimated Cost (CPU-hrs)	Overall MAE (eV)	MAE on Perovskites (eV)	MAE on Chalcogenides (eV)	Effective Fidelity Rank (Overall)	Effective Fidelity Rank (Perovskites)
Ground Truth (Experimental)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
HSE06	10,000	0.15	0.08	0.22	1 (Highest)	1 (Highest)
PBE0	2,000	0.25	0.12	0.38	2	2
SCAN	1,500	0.28	0.21	0.19	3	3
GLLB-SC	800	0.45	0.55	0.35	4 (Lowest)	4 (Lowest)
PBE	500	0.50	0.60	0.40	5 (Lowest)	5 (Lowest)

In this example, while the overall fidelity hierarchy is monotonic (HSE06 > PBE0 > SCAN > GLLB-SC > PBE), a misordering occurs for chalcogenides. Here, the lower-cost SCAN functional achieves a lower Mean Absolute Error (MAE) than the more expensive PBE0 functional, inverting their expected cost-accuracy relationship for this specific material class.

Diagram 1: Workflow for systematic fidelity benchmarking to detect misordering contexts. MAE: Mean Absolute Error, RMSE: Root Mean Square Error.

Methodological Approaches for Handling Misordered Fidelities

Context-Aware Multi-Fidelity Graph Networks

The core approach for handling misordered fidelities involves moving from a global fidelity hierarchy to a context-dependent one. The MEGNet framework provides a foundation due to its ability to learn from multi-fidelity data and its use of elemental embeddings that can naturally capture context [60] [61]. The protocol can be extended as follows.

Protocol 1: Implementing a Context-Aware MEGNet Model

• Data Integration and Context Labeling: Assemble a multi-fidelity dataset from sources like the Materials Project (MP). Crucially, label each data point not only with its source fidelity level but also with relevant context tags (e.g., material composition class, crystal system, property type) [60] [11].
• Contextual Fidelity Weighting: Instead of a single fidelity embedding, introduce a context-weighted fidelity embedding. This is computed as a weighted sum of the base fidelity embeddings, where the weights are learned by a small neural network that takes the context tags as input.
• Graph Network Modification: Replace the standard fidelity input in the MEGNet model with this contextual fidelity weighting. The model architecture processes material graphs (atoms as nodes, bonds as edges) to predict target properties [60].
• Model Training and Validation: Train the model on the integrated multi-fidelity dataset. Use a held-out test set of high-fidelity data, stratified by context, to validate that the model performs well across different material classes and correctly leverages the most accurate data source in each context.

This method allows the model to dynamically adjust its reliance on different data sources based on the specific material being analyzed, effectively resolving the misordering problem.

Information-Theoretic Fidelity Selection

An alternative, pre-processing approach is to build a classifier that selects the most cost-effective data source for a new, unknown material before running expensive computations.

Protocol 2: Cost-Effective Fidelity Selector

• Feature Generation: For a dataset of materials with known properties from multiple sources, generate a set of features for each material. These can include simple compositional descriptors, structural fingerprints, or learned latent representations from a preliminary model.
• Target Variable Construction: For each material, the target variable is the identity of the most cost-effective fidelity source. This is defined as the lowest-cost source whose prediction accuracy for that material meets a predefined threshold (e.g., within 5% of the best available source).
• Classifier Training: Train a multi-class classifier (e.g., a random forest or a gradient boosting machine) to predict the optimal fidelity source from the material features.
• Deployment: For a new material, the classifier recommends the optimal fidelity source to query. This creates an intelligent, adaptive data acquisition strategy that maximizes information gain per unit cost, bypassing misordered hierarchies.

Experimental Protocol and Validation

This section provides a detailed, actionable protocol for validating the aforementioned approaches using public materials data.

Protocol 3: Validating Approaches on a Band Gap Dataset

• Primary Objective: To demonstrate that a context-aware multi-fidelity model outperforms a standard mono-fidelity model and a naive multi-fidelity model (which assumes a fixed hierarchy) on a dataset with misordered fidelities.
• Dataset Curation:
  • Source: Utilize the band gap dataset from the Materials Project (MP), which contains calculations from multiple functionals (e.g., PBE, SCAN, HSE06) with different costs and accuracies [11]. A subset with experimental band gaps will serve as the high-fidelity validation set.
  • Context Definition: Partition materials into classes (e.g., oxides, chalcogenides, perovskites) based on their composition.
• Experimental Setup:
  • Baseline 1 (Mono-fidelity): Train a MEGNet model using only the largest available low-fidelity data (e.g., PBE band gaps).
  • Baseline 2 (Naive MF): Train a standard multi-fidelity MEGNet model that treats, for example, HSE06 as high-fidelity and PBE as low-fidelity, assuming a fixed global hierarchy.
  • Proposed Model (Context-Aware MF): Train the context-aware MEGNet model (Protocol 1) using all fidelity data and material class context tags.
• Quantitative Analysis:
  • Evaluate all models on the held-out experimental test set.
  • Report overall MAE and R².
  • Perform subgroup analysis by reporting MAE for each pre-defined material class to highlight where the context-aware model corrects for misordering.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Fidelity Learning

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Protocol	Relevance to Misordering
Materials Project (MP) API [11]	Database	Primary source for multi-fidelity computational data (e.g., band gaps from PBE, HSE).	Provides the real-world data where misordering can be identified and studied.
MEGNet Framework [60] [61]	Software Library	Core model architecture for graph-based learning on materials.	Base framework that can be extended to become context-aware.
PyTorch or TensorFlow	Software Library	Flexible deep learning platforms for implementing custom context-weighting networks.	Enables prototyping of novel neural network architectures to handle misordering.
scikit-learn	Software Library	For building the cost-effective fidelity selector classifier (Protocol 2).	Provides robust implementations of classic ML algorithms for fidelity source selection.
pymatgen	Software Library	For generating material descriptors and managing crystal structures.	Aids in featurization and context tagging (e.g., identifying material classes).

Diagram 2: Workflow for the information-theoretic fidelity selector, which chooses the best data source per material.

Effectively handling misordered fidelities is paramount for advancing computational materials design and drug development. By recognizing that the cost-accuracy relationship of data sources is not universal but is instead dependent on context, researchers can move beyond simplistic multi-fidelity hierarchies. The application of context-aware multi-fidelity models and information-theoretic selection protocols provides a robust methodology to leverage all available data efficiently. This approach ensures that ML models are not misled by non-monotonic cost-accuracy relationships but are instead empowered by them, leading to more accurate predictions and a more rational allocation of computational resources. Integrating these strategies will be crucial for tackling increasingly complex research problems in scientific discovery.

Computational Infrastructure Considerations for Large-Scale Multi-Fidelity Deployment

Large-scale multi-fidelity (MF) deployment represents a paradigm shift in computational materials design, integrating data from diverse sources across multiple scales and levels of accuracy. This approach addresses the fundamental "cost-accuracy trade-off" prevalent in materials science, where large volumes of coarse, low-fidelity (LF) data coexist with smaller amounts of highly accurate, high-fidelity (HF) data [11]. The effective integration of these disparate data streams requires sophisticated computational infrastructure capable of handling multimodal data, ensuring reproducibility, and enabling both forward and inverse design processes.

The Joint Automated Repository for Various Integrated Simulations (JARVIS) infrastructure exemplifies such a comprehensive approach, integrating density functional theory (DFT), quantum Monte Carlo, tight-binding, classical force fields, machine learning, microscopy, diffraction, and cryogenics across a wide range of materials [62]. This unified platform demonstrates how properly designed computational infrastructure can bridge computation and experiment to accelerate fundamental research and real-world materials innovation.

Core Infrastructure Components

Integrated Data Management Systems

A robust multi-fidelity infrastructure requires systematic approaches to data generation, categorization, and integration. Multi-fidelity data in materials science originates from multiple sources, each with distinct characteristics and requirements.

Table 1: Multi-Fidelity Data Sources in Materials Science

Fidelity Level	Data Sources	Characteristics	Computational Cost	Accuracy
Low-Fidelity (LF)	Empirical potentials, PBE functional, coarse mesh sizes, partial convergence	High quantity, lower cost, systematic errors	Low	Moderate to Low
Medium-Fidelity (MF)	Advanced DFT functionals (HSE, SCAN), finer meshes	Moderate quantity and cost	Medium	Good
High-Fidelity (HF)	Quantum Monte Carlo, experimental validation (microscopy, diffraction)	Low quantity, high cost	High	High
Experimental Ground Truth	Inter-laboratory validation, standardized measurements	Limited availability, highest cost	Very High	Highest

Multi-fidelity data emerges through several mechanisms [11]:

• Different Algorithms: Theoretical methods ranging from empirical potentials (LF) to DFT (MF) to quantum Monte Carlo (HF), alongside experimental validation
• Different Hyperparameters: Variations in computational parameters such as mesh sizes, plane wave truncation energy, k-point sampling, and convergence criteria
• Different Convergence States: Partial convergence results (LF) versus fully converged results (HF)

The JARVIS infrastructure addresses these diverse data needs through unified databases containing approximately 6 million materials and 10 million properties, downloaded nearly 2 million times by the research community [62].

Benchmarking and Reproducibility Frameworks

Rigorous benchmarking is essential for validating multi-fidelity approaches. The JARVIS-Leaderboard provides an open-source, community-driven platform that facilitates benchmarking and enhances reproducibility across multiple materials design categories [63]. This infrastructure addresses the concerning reproducibility crisis in scientific research, where only 5-30% of research papers may be reproducible [63].

The leaderboard framework encompasses several methodological categories:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI): Covering atomic structures, atomistic images, spectra, and text data
• Electronic Structure (ES): Comparing multiple approaches, software packages, pseudopotentials, and materials properties
• Force-Fields (FF): Evaluating approaches for material property predictions
• Quantum Computation (QC): Benchmarking Hamiltonian simulations using quantum algorithms and circuits
• Experiments (EXP): Establishing benchmarks through inter-laboratory approaches

As of 2024, the platform contained 1281 contributions to 274 benchmarks using 152 methods with more than 8 million data points, continuously expanding [64].

Multi-Fidelity Integration Methodologies

Bayesian Optimization Strategies

Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization represents a sophisticated approach that dynamically learns relationships between different methodological fidelities. This extends standard Bayesian optimization from a sample-efficient method for optimizing target properties to a multi-fidelity technique capable of leveraging all available data sources [6].

The Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) algorithm exemplifies this approach [6]:

• Compute a standard acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement) on target fidelity samples
• Select the combination of input sample and fidelity that minimizes variance of model prediction at points with greatest acquisition function score per unit cost
• Repeat iteratively until budget exhaustion

This methodology reduces overall optimization cost by approximately a factor of three compared to traditional computational funnels, while avoiding challenges such as mis-ordering methods and inclusion of non-informative steps [6].

Machine Learning Integration

Multi-fidelity machine learning employs specialized architectures to leverage information from multiple data sources simultaneously:

Multi-output Gaussian Processes model the relationships between different fidelities, allowing probabilistic predictions across the fidelity spectrum [6]. This approach naturally accommodates both computational and experimental data in a unified framework.

Transfer Learning Techniques enable knowledge transfer from low-fidelity to high-fidelity modeling. For example, in modeling short fiber composites, researchers used transfer learning with limited high-fidelity full-field simulations combined with a recurrent neural network model pre-trained on low-fidelity mean-field data [65]. This approach achieved high accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency.

Information Fusion Algorithms explicitly learn relationships between high-fidelity and low-fidelity data, effectively leveraging multi-fidelity datasets. Chen et al. applied a multi-fidelity graph network to bandgap prediction, finding that including PBE methodology data improved mean absolute error by 22-45% compared to single-fidelity models [6].

Implementation Protocols

Workflow Design and Execution

The implementation of multi-fidelity materials design follows structured workflows that integrate computational and experimental approaches. The JARVIS infrastructure demonstrates effective workflow design through several core components [62]:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Fidelity Deployment

Component	Function	Implementation Examples
Data Curation Tools	Standardize and preprocess multi-fidelity datasets	JARVIS-Tools package integrating with VASP, QE, LAMMPS
Benchmarking Platforms	Validate method performance across fidelity levels	JARVIS-Leaderboard with 274 benchmarks
Multi-fidelity ML Models	Fuse information across accuracy levels	ALIGNN property predictors, multi-output GPs
Reproducibility Frameworks	Ensure transparent, replicable results	FAIR-compliant datasets, version-controlled workflows
Cross-modal Integrators	Bridge computational and experimental data	JARVIS experimental datasets (microscopy, diffraction)

The workflow for multi-fidelity deployment follows a systematic process:

Experimental Validation Protocols

Experimental validation is crucial for establishing ground truth in multi-fidelity frameworks. The JARVIS-Leaderboard incorporates experimental benchmarks through inter-laboratory approaches that establish reliable reference data [64]. Key considerations include:

Standardized Measurement Protocols: Consistent experimental procedures across different laboratories to minimize systematic errors and enhance reproducibility.

Multi-modal Data Integration: Combining data from various experimental techniques including X-ray diffraction, vibroscopy, manometry, scanning electron microscopy, and magnetic susceptibility measurements [64].

Uncertainty Quantification: Comprehensive characterization of measurement uncertainties to establish confidence intervals for experimental ground truth data.

The benchmarking process follows rigorous methodology:

Performance Metrics and Evaluation

Quantitative Assessment Framework

Systematic evaluation of multi-fidelity approaches requires comprehensive metrics that capture both accuracy and computational efficiency:

Table 3: Multi-Fidelity Performance Metrics

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Target Values	Evaluation Methods
Predictive Accuracy	Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	Method-dependent (e.g., <0.05 eV for formation energies)	Comparison to experimental ground truth
Computational Efficiency	Speedup factor, Resource utilization	3x average cost reduction [6]	Comparative timing studies
Extrapolation Capability	Out-of-distribution performance	Context-dependent improvement	Train/test splits by material chemistry
Reproducibility	Inter-code validation, Result matching	Exact numerical reproducibility	Cross-software verification

The JARVIS-Leaderboard implementation has demonstrated the practical impact of these approaches, with thousands of users, millions of dataset downloads, and expanding adoption in academic, industrial, and governmental settings [62].

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Multi-fidelity deployment offers substantial advantages over traditional single-fidelity approaches:

Reduced Computational Costs: Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization reduces overall optimization cost by approximately a factor of three compared to traditional computational funnels [6].

Improved Accuracy: Multi-fidelity machine learning models achieve 22-45% improvement in mean absolute error for bandgap prediction compared to single-fidelity approaches [6].

Enhanced Generalization: Models trained on multi-fidelity data demonstrate better extrapolation capability and transferability across different materials classes and properties.

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Technical Barriers

Large-scale multi-fidelity deployment faces several significant technical challenges:

Data Heterogeneity: Integrating diverse data modalities including atomic structures, atomistic images, spectra, and text documents requires flexible data schemas and conversion tools [64]. The JARVIS infrastructure addresses this through uniform data formats that enable seamless integration and comparative analysis.

Reproducibility Assurance: With concerns that 70% or more of research works may be non-reproducible, robust version control, containerization, and detailed metadata collection are essential [64]. JARVIS enhances reproducibility through open-access, FAIR-compliant datasets and workflows distributed via web applications, notebooks, and the JARVIS-Leaderboard [62].

Methodological Validation: Comprehensive benchmarking across multiple fidelities and material systems requires extensive computational resources and standardized protocols. The JARVIS-Leaderboard addresses this through community-driven benchmarks with 1281 contributions across 274 benchmarks [64].

Strategic Implementation Recommendations

Successful multi-fidelity deployment requires careful planning and execution:

Incremental Integration: Begin with well-characterized material systems and a limited number of fidelities, gradually expanding complexity as infrastructure matures.

Community Standards Adoption: Leverage existing frameworks and data standards from established infrastructures like JARVIS to ensure interoperability and reduce development overhead.

Automated Workflow Implementation: Deploy automated pipelines for data collection, processing, and model training to ensure consistency and reduce manual errors.

Comprehensive Documentation: Maintain detailed protocols, metadata, and version information for all computational methods and experimental procedures to enhance reproducibility.

The continuous expansion of multi-fidelity benchmarks and the growing adoption of integrated infrastructures demonstrate the increasing importance of these approaches in accelerating materials discovery and design [63] [64].

Evaluating Performance: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analysis of Multi-Fidelity Approaches

The discovery and design of new materials and drug compounds represent a fundamental challenge across multiple scientific disciplines. Traditional approaches have long relied on a computational funnel paradigm, a hierarchical screening process that winnows down large candidate libraries through progressively more accurate and expensive evaluation tiers [6]. While effective, this method faces significant limitations in flexibility and efficiency. Emerging adaptive multi-fidelity optimization approaches leverage machine learning to dynamically integrate data of varying cost and accuracy, promising substantial acceleration of the discovery process [6] [66].

This application note provides a structured comparison between these competing methodologies, offering detailed protocols for their implementation and benchmarking within computational materials design and drug discovery research. By framing this discussion within the context of multifidelity learning, we aim to equip researchers with practical guidance for adopting more efficient, data-driven discovery workflows.

Background and Core Concepts

The Traditional Computational Funnel

The computational funnel metaphor describes a multi-stage screening cascade where initial libraries containing millions of candidates are progressively reduced through successive evaluation tiers. In drug discovery, this typically begins with high-throughput screening (HTS) using less precise but inexpensive assays, progressing to confirmatory screens and ultimately to highly accurate experimental characterization of a small number of final candidates [66]. Similarly, computational materials design often employs a sequence of methods from fast force-field calculations to expensive ab-initio quantum mechanical simulations [6].

This approach requires a priori knowledge of each method's relative accuracy and cost, fixed allocation of resources across tiers, and predetermined termination criteria. A significant limitation is that each stage operates largely independently, with data from cheaper fidelities typically discarded rather than integrated into a unified predictive model [6].

Adaptive Multi-Fidelity Optimization

Adaptive multi-fidelity optimization represents a paradigm shift from rigid hierarchical screening to a dynamic, learning-driven approach. These methods construct probabilistic models, typically multi-output Gaussian processes or graph neural networks (GNNs), that learn relationships between different data fidelities during the optimization process [6] [66].

Instead of fixed tiers, the algorithm dynamically selects both the next candidate to evaluate and the most informative fidelity level at which to measure it, based on a cost-aware acquisition function. This enables efficient trading between cheap but noisy low-fidelity evaluations and expensive high-fidelity measurements [6]. The Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) algorithm, for instance, selects fidelity-candidate pairs that minimize prediction variance at promising regions per unit cost [6].

Quantitative Benchmarking Comparison

The table below summarizes key performance metrics and characteristics from recent studies comparing these approaches across materials science and drug discovery applications.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Computational Funnels vs. Adaptive Multi-Fidelity Methods

Metric	Computational Funnel	Adaptive Multi-Fidelity	Application Context
Cost Efficiency	Baseline reference	~3x reduction in total optimization cost [6]	Materials design optimization [6]
Data Efficiency	Limited cross-fidelity learning	Up to 8x improvement with 10x less high-fidelity data [66]	Molecular property prediction [66]
Accuracy	Dependent on funnel design	Robust ~0.2 eV adsorption energy accuracy [67]	Catalytic adsorption energy prediction [67]
Typical Workflow	Fixed, sequential tiers	Dynamic, parallel fidelity evaluation [6]	General optimization framework [6]
Model Integration	Tier-specific models	Unified multi-fidelity models (e.g., GNNs, Gaussian Processes) [6] [66]	Drug discovery & quantum mechanics [66]

Table 2: Methodological Characteristics and Applicability

Characteristic	Computational Funnel	Adaptive Multi-Fidelity
Prior Knowledge Requirements	High (method accuracy & cost) [6]	Low (learned during optimization) [6]
Resource Allocation	Fixed a priori [6]	Dynamic and adaptive [6]
Termination Criteria	Predetermined [6]	User-decided during process [6]
Data Reuse	Limited between tiers	Comprehensive across fidelities
Implementation Complexity	Lower	Higher (requires specialized algorithms)
Best-Suited Applications	Well-established screening pipelines	Complex, resource-constrained discovery

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking with CatBench Framework for Catalysis

Objective: Systematically evaluate machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) for adsorption energy predictions in heterogeneous catalysis [67].

Materials & Reagents:

• CatBench Framework: Python-based benchmarking environment for MLIPs [67].
• Reaction Datasets: ≥47,000 adsorption reactions encompassing small and large molecules [67].
• MLIP Models: 13 widely-used universal machine learning interatomic potentials [67].
• Reference Data: Density functional theory (DFT) calculations as gold standard [67].
• Multi-class Anomaly Detection: Module for identifying out-of-distribution predictions [67].

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Curate adsorption energy datasets spanning diverse reaction types and molecular sizes.
• Model Training: Train each of the 13 MLIPs on appropriate training splits from the reaction data.
• Inference & Prediction: Generate adsorption energy predictions across all test reactions.
• Anomaly Detection: Apply multi-class anomaly detection to identify unreliable predictions.
• Performance Quantification: Calculate root-mean-square error (RMSE) against DFT references, targeting ~0.2 eV accuracy achieved by best-performing models [67].
• Benchmarking Report: Generate comprehensive comparison of model accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency.

Protocol 2: Multi-Fidelity Drug Discovery with Graph Neural Networks

Objective: Leverage transfer learning with GNNs to improve molecular property prediction using multi-fidelity data [66].

Materials & Reagents:

• Molecular Datasets: >28 million protein-ligand interactions across 37 targets (drug discovery); ~650K molecules with 12 quantum properties (QMugs) [66].
• Graph Neural Networks: GNN architectures with adaptive readout functions [66].
• Transfer Learning Framework: Implementation of proposed strategies (e.g., pre-training, fine-tuning) [66].
• Baseline Models: Random forests, support vector machines, standard GNNs [66].

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Represent molecules as graph structures (atoms as nodes, bonds as edges).
• Low-Fidelity Pre-training: Train GNN on abundant low-fidelity data (e.g., HTS results, approximate calculations).
• Model Transfer: Implement either:
  • Feature-Based Transfer: Use low-fidelity model outputs as features for high-fidelity model.
  • Fine-Tuning: Adapt pre-trained GNN weights on high-fidelity data [66].
• High-Fidelity Training: Train final model on sparse, expensive high-fidelity data (e.g., confirmatory assays, high-level theory).
• Evaluation: Assess performance on held-out test sets across varying high-fidelity training set sizes (evaluate up to 8x improvement with 10x less data) [66].

Protocol 3: Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

Objective: Implement multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization to accelerate materials discovery while reducing total resource expenditure [6].

Materials & Reagents:

• Multi-Output Gaussian Process: Surrogate model for relating different fidelity levels [6].
• Acquisition Function: Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) or Expected Improvement (EI) extended for multi-fidelity [6].
• Candidate Library: Large set of potential materials or molecules.
• Fidelity Hierarchy: Computational and experimental methods with varying costs and accuracies.

Procedure:

• Initial Sampling: Collect small initial dataset across multiple fidelities using space-filling design.
• Model Training: Build multi-output Gaussian process relating candidate features and fidelity levels to target properties.
• Candidate Selection: Using TVR algorithm:
  • Compute target fidelity acquisition function values.
  • Select candidate-fidelity pair that minimizes prediction variance at promising candidates per unit cost [6].
• Parallel Evaluation: Evaluate selected candidates at chosen fidelities.
• Model Update: Incorporate new data and retrain surrogate model.
• Iterative Optimization: Repeat steps 3-5 until budget exhaustion, demonstrating ~3x cost reduction versus traditional funnels [6].

Visualization of Workflows

Computational Funnel Workflow

Adaptive Multi-Fidelity Optimization Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Frameworks for Multi-Fidelity Research

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Context
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Molecular representation learning with transfer between fidelities [66]	Drug discovery, molecular property prediction [66]
Multi-Output Gaussian Processes	Probabilistic surrogate modeling across multiple fidelities [6]	Bayesian optimization, uncertainty quantification [6]
CatBench Framework	Benchmarking ML interatomic potentials for catalysis [67]	Heterogeneous catalysis, adsorption energy prediction [67]
Gappy Proper Orthogonal Decomposition	Multi-fidelity modeling for field responses [68]	Computational fluid dynamics, uncertainty propagation [68]
Adaptive Readout Functions	Enhanced transfer learning in GNN architectures [66]	Molecular property prediction, multi-task learning [66]
Targeted Variance Reduction	Cost-aware acquisition function for multi-fidelity BO [6]	Materials screening, experimental design [6]

The benchmarking results and protocols presented demonstrate a significant transition in computational materials and drug design from rigid, sequential screening toward adaptive, learning-driven approaches. Adaptive multi-fidelity methods consistently outperform traditional computational funnels in both cost and data efficiency, achieving up to 3x cost reduction and 8x improvement in data utilization while maintaining or improving accuracy [6] [66].

The key differentiator lies in the ability of multi-fidelity approaches to dynamically learn relationships between different data sources rather than relying on fixed, pre-specified hierarchies. As the field progresses, widespread adoption of these methods will depend on the development of standardized benchmarking frameworks like CatBench [67] and accessible implementations of advanced transfer learning strategies for graph neural networks [66].

Researchers embarking on multi-fidelity research should prioritize establishing clear fidelity hierarchies in their workflows, implementing appropriate surrogate models like multi-output Gaussian processes or GNNs with adaptive readouts, and employing cost-aware acquisition functions that strategically balance information gain with resource expenditure.

Multi-fidelity learning has emerged as a transformative paradigm in computational materials design, addressing the fundamental challenge of balancing computational cost with predictive accuracy. This framework systematically integrates data from multiple sources of varying fidelity—from fast, approximate calculations to expensive, high-accuracy simulations and experiments—to construct predictive models that achieve high accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost of single-fidelity approaches. The efficiency gains are particularly crucial in data-intensive fields such as materials science and drug development, where traditional high-fidelity computational methods often become prohibitively expensive for comprehensive design space exploration [11].

Quantifying the precise efficiency gains achieved through multi-fidelity approaches requires careful consideration of both cost reduction metrics and computational acceleration factors. This protocol details methodologies for measuring these efficiency gains and provides structured experimental protocols for implementing multi-fidelity learning in computational materials design, enabling researchers to make informed decisions about resource allocation and method selection.

Quantitative Efficiency Metrics

Comparative Performance Metrics

Table 1: Documented Efficiency Gains Across Different Domains

Application Domain	Acceleration Factor	Cost Reduction	Key Methodology	Reference
General Materials Optimization	~3x (average)	~67%	Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization	[6]
Composite Laminate Analysis	Significant computational advantage	Not specified	Multi-fidelity Gaussian process surrogates	[7]
Analog Circuit Design	Reduced HF simulations by ~40-60%	Equivalent to acceleration factor	Multi-fidelity surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms	[69]
3D Microstructure Design	Drastically reduced data requirements	High (computational)	Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning	[70]

Core Efficiency Metrics

Table 2: Fundamental Quantitative Metrics for Multi-fidelity Efficiency

Metric	Calculation Formula	Interpretation	Optimal Range
Computational Acceleration Factor	AF = Tsf / Tmf Where Tsf: Single-fidelity time Tmf: Multi-fidelity time	How much faster multi-fidelity approach completes equivalent work	>2.0x (significant)
High-Fidelity Evaluation Reduction	HFred = (1 - Nmf / Nsf) × 100% Where Nsf: HF evaluations needed for single-fidelity N_mf: HF evaluations needed for multi-fidelity	Percentage reduction in expensive HF evaluations	>60% (substantial)
Normalized Root Mean Square Error	NRMSE = RMSE / (ymax - ymin) Where RMSE: Root mean square error ymax, ymin: Range of target values	Accuracy preservation relative to single-fidelity models	<0.15 (acceptable) <0.05 (excellent)
Total Cost Efficiency	CE = (Costsf × Accuracysf) / (Costmf × Accuracymf)	Combined metric balancing cost and accuracy	>1.5 (beneficial) >3.0 (highly beneficial)

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multi-fidelity Gaussian Process Surrogate Modeling

Purpose and Applications

This protocol establishes a standardized methodology for constructing multi-fidelity Gaussian process (GP) surrogates for uncertainty quantification of progressive damage in composite laminates and similar materials systems [7]. The approach optimally fuses low-fidelity and high-fidelity simulation data to create accurate predictive models while minimizing computational expense.

Materials and Computational Requirements

• Low-fidelity finite element analysis data (e.g., from Matzenmiller damage model with Hasin failure criteria)
• High-fidelity finite element analysis data (e.g., from 3D continuum damage mechanics model with P Linde's failure criteria)
• Gaussian process regression framework with multi-output capability
• Computational resources for 1,000-10,000 realizations for uncertainty quantification

Procedural Steps

• Data Generation Phase:

  • Execute low-fidelity simulations across the entire design space using space-filling designs (500-1,000 evaluations)
  • Execute high-fidelity simulations at strategically selected points (50-100 evaluations) based on Latin hypercube sampling

• Model Training Phase:

  • Construct multi-output Gaussian process with linear or nonlinear fidelity correlation structure
  • Train hyperparameters using maximum likelihood estimation or Bayesian inference
  • Validate model using cross-validation and compute NRMSE metrics

• Uncertainty Quantification Phase:

  • Perform Monte Carlo sampling using the trained multi-fidelity surrogate
  • Calculate statistical moments and sensitivity indices
  • Verify critical predictions with additional high-fidelity simulations

Expected Outcomes and Interpretation

Successful implementation typically yields prediction accuracy within 5-10% of full high-fidelity approaches while reducing computational cost by 60-80% [7]. The approach effectively identifies sensitive parameters (e.g., ply orientations for matrix damage, fiber damage, and reaction forces in composites) and quantifies uncertainty propagation from inputs to outputs.

Protocol 2: Multi-fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

Purpose and Applications

This protocol describes the implementation of multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization for accelerated materials screening, achieving approximately 3x average cost reduction compared to conventional single-fidelity approaches [6]. The method dynamically learns relationships between different fidelity levels during the optimization process.

Materials and Computational Requirements

• Multiple data sources with varying fidelities (computational methods and/or experimental data)
• Bayesian optimization framework with multi-output Gaussian process capability
• Defined acquisition function (Expected Improvement or Targeted Variance Reduction)

Procedural Steps

• Initialization Phase:

  • Define fidelity hierarchy (cost and presumed accuracy ranking)
  • Specify optimization budget and termination criteria
  • Initialize with space-filling samples across all fidelities

• Iterative Optimization Phase:

  • Train multi-output Gaussian process on all available data
  • Compute acquisition function values for all candidate-fidelity pairs
  • Select next evaluation point and fidelity level using Targeted Variance Reduction:
    • Identify promising candidates using standard acquisition function on target fidelity
    • Select candidate-fidelity pair that minimizes prediction variance per unit cost
  • Evaluate selected candidate at chosen fidelity
  • Update dataset and repeat until budget exhaustion

• Validation and Selection Phase:

  • Validate top candidates from optimization at highest fidelity
  • Select final materials based on validated performance

Expected Outcomes and Interpretation

This approach typically reduces the total optimization cost by approximately 67% on average compared to single-fidelity Bayesian optimization or traditional computational funnels [6]. The method automatically adapts fidelity selection based on learned correlations between different data sources, eliminating the need for precise upfront knowledge of fidelity accuracy rankings.

Workflow Visualization

Multi-fidelity Learning Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Multi-fidelity Learning

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Multi-fidelity Learning	Implementation Considerations
Multi-fidelity Surrogate Models	Gaussian processes with multi-output kernels [7] [6]	Learn correlations between different fidelity data sources; provide uncertainty quantification	Scalability to large datasets; choice of correlation structure
Bayesian Optimization Frameworks	Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) [6]	Dynamically select evaluation points and fidelity levels to maximize information gain per cost	Integration with multi-output models; cost-aware acquisition functions
Uncertainty Quantification Tools	Mean and variance estimation networks [71]	Disentangle epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty; provide predictive confidence intervals	Accurate uncertainty calibration; scalability to high dimensions
Multi-fidelity Neural Networks	Bayesian recurrent neural networks [71]; Graph neural networks [69]	Handle complex, high-dimensional, and history-dependent data relationships	Architecture design; training efficiency; incorporation of physical constraints
Transfer Learning Techniques	Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) [70]	Efficient fine-tuning of pre-trained models with limited high-fidelity data	Rank selection; parameter efficiency; preservation of pre-trained knowledge
Data Fusion Algorithms	Multi-fidelity variance estimation [71]; Optimal data fusion [7]	Combine information from multiple fidelity sources while accounting for fidelity-specific characteristics	Weighting schemes; bias correction; handling of non-linear correlations

Multi-fidelity machine learning (MFML) represents a transformative paradigm in computational materials science, designed to overcome the pervasive challenge of data scarcity for high-fidelity (HF) experimental measurements. This approach strategically integrates abundant, low-cost, low-fidelity (LF) data with sparse, expensive, high-fidelity data to construct predictive models with enhanced accuracy and reduced experimental costs [6] [13]. The core principle involves learning the complex relationships between different data fidelities, thereby leveraging the cost-accuracy trade-off inherent in materials characterization and simulation [11]. Within polymer science and the broader field of materials informatics, MFML has demonstrated remarkable potential in predicting key properties, with one seminal study reporting 22-45% improvements in Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for bandgap prediction tasks [66]. This application note details the protocols, workflows, and experimental designs that enable these performance gains, providing a framework for researchers seeking to implement multi-fidelity strategies in computational materials design.

Multi-Fidelity Learning: Core Concepts and Relevance

Fidelity Definitions and Data Characteristics

In materials science, "fidelity" refers to the accuracy and associated cost of a particular data source or computational method. The fundamental challenge is the cost-accuracy trade-off: high-accuracy data is costly to acquire, resulting in limited datasets, while low-accuracy data is more abundant but less reliable [11].

• High-Fidelity (HF) Data: Typically consists of experimental measurements or high-level quantum mechanical calculations (e.g., using HSE06 functional for bandgaps). These are characterized by high accuracy but small volume due to significant time and resource requirements [72] [11].
• Low-Fidelity (LF) Data: Often comprises theoretical calculations with systematic errors (e.g., DFT-PBE calculations for bandgaps), coarser simulations, or data from high-throughput screening with higher noise levels. These datasets are larger but less accurate [72] [66].

For polymer bandgap prediction, LF data might include DFT-calculated bandgaps from databases like the Materials Project, while HF data would consist of experimentally measured bandgap values from controlled laboratory studies [11].

Multi-Fidelity Integration Strategies

Several computational frameworks enable the integration of multi-fidelity data:

• Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models: Techniques like co-Kriging explicitly model the relationship between fidelities through correlation functions, using LF data to establish global trends and HF data for local refinement [13].
• Transfer Learning with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Pre-training neural networks on large LF datasets followed by fine-tuning on sparse HF data has shown exceptional performance for molecular property prediction [66].
• Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization (MFBO): Dynamically learns relationships between fidelities during optimization, efficiently trading off evaluations at different fidelity levels to minimize total computational cost while maximizing information gain [6] [73].

Case Study: Bandgap Prediction with 22-45% MAE Improvement

Performance Metrics and Comparative Analysis

A landmark study applying multi-fidelity graph networks to bandgap prediction demonstrated MAE improvements of 22-45% compared to single-fidelity models trained exclusively on high-fidelity data [66]. This substantial enhancement stems from the model's ability to leverage underlying patterns in the low-fidelity data while being calibrated to high-fidelity benchmarks.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Multi-Fidelity vs. Single-Fidelity Models for Bandgap Prediction

Model Type	Data Utilization	Mean Absolute Error (eV)	Improvement	Key Algorithm
Single-Fidelity	Experimental data only	0.355	Baseline	Gradient Boosting Regression Tree
Multi-Fidelity	Experimental + PBE-DFT data	0.293	22% reduction	Multilevel Descriptors + GBRT
Multi-Fidelity GNN	HTS + Confirmatory screening	20-60% error reduction	Up to 45% improvement	Transfer Learning with Adaptive Readouts

The multi-fidelity approach demonstrated particular effectiveness in low-data regimes, where transfer learning with GNNs improved accuracy by up to eight times while using an order of magnitude less high-fidelity training data [66].

Experimental Protocol: Multi-Fidelity Bandgap Prediction Workflow

Data Collection and Preprocessing

• Low-Fidelity Data Acquisition

  • Source DFT-calculated bandgaps from public databases (Materials Project, OQMD) or compute using PBE functional [11].
  • For polymers, ensure consistent structural optimization parameters across all compounds.
  • Expected dataset size: >10,000 compounds typically available in public repositories.

• High-Fidelity Data Collection

  • Curate experimental bandgap measurements from literature or laboratory experiments.
  • Apply strict quality control: standardize measurement conditions, document experimental methods.
  • Typical dataset size: Several hundred data points after curation.

• Feature Engineering

  • Compute compositional descriptors: elemental fractions, atomic statistics, electronegativity differences.
  • Generate structural descriptors: symmetry operations, space group information, molecular fingerprints.
  • For polymers, include chain rigidity parameters, side-group characteristics, and degree of polymerization.

Model Training and Validation

• Multi-Fidelity Model Architecture Selection

  • For linear relationships: Co-Kriging with additive/multiplicative correlation functions [13].
  • For complex, non-linear relationships: Transfer learning with Graph Neural Networks [66].
  • Alternative: Multi-fidelity gradient boosting regression trees with multilevel descriptors [72].

• Training Protocol

  • Implement pre-training phase: Train model on entire LF dataset to learn foundational patterns.
  • Fine-tuning phase: Continue training on HF dataset with reduced learning rate (e.g., 10% of initial rate).
  • Apply adaptive readout functions in GNNs to enhance transfer learning capability [66].
  • Regularization: Employ early stopping and dropout to prevent overfitting to small HF dataset.

• Validation and Benchmarking

  • Perform k-fold cross-validation on HF data (k=5-10 depending on dataset size).
  • Compare against single-fidelity baseline models trained exclusively on HF data.
  • Evaluate using MAE, RMSE, and R² metrics on held-out test set.
  • Statistical significance testing: Paired t-tests across multiple training/validation splits.

Implementation Framework

Computational Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete multi-fidelity learning pipeline for polymer bandgap prediction:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Computational Tools and Data Resources for Multi-Fidelity Learning

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function in Workflow
Data Repositories	Materials Project (MP), Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)	Sources of low-fidelity calculated material properties
Experimental Databases	Novel Materials Discovery (NOMAD), Cambridge Structural Database (CSD)	Sources of high-fidelity experimental measurements
Descriptor Generation	Matminer, RDKit, Pymatgen	Computational feature engineering from chemical structures
Multi-Fidelity Algorithms	Co-Kriging, Multi-Fidelity Gaussian Processes, Transfer Learning GNNs	Core ML algorithms for integrating multi-fidelity data
Implementation Frameworks	TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-learn, GPy	Software libraries for model implementation and training

Advanced Methodologies and Optimization Techniques

Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

For inverse design and materials optimization, Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization (MFBO) provides a powerful framework:

• Surrogate Modeling: Construct probabilistic models (typically Gaussian Processes) that capture relationships between fidelities [6].
• Acquisition Function: Implement Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) or Knowledge Gradient strategies to select both the next candidate material and the fidelity level for evaluation [6].
• Adaptive Sampling: Dynamically allocate resources between fidelities based on learned correlations and relative costs.

This approach has demonstrated over 75% reduction in high-fidelity evaluation requirements for materials optimization problems, significantly accelerating the discovery process [73].

Transfer Learning Protocols for Graph Neural Networks

For polymer informatics, where molecular structures naturally graph representations, GNNs with transfer learning offer particular advantages:

• Pre-training Strategy: Train GNN on large LF datasets (e.g., DFT-calculated properties for thousands of polymers) to learn general molecular representations [66].
• Adaptive Readout Functions: Replace standard summation/mean readouts with attention-based or neural readouts to enhance transfer capability [66].
• Fine-tuning Approaches:
  • Option A: Frozen base layers with retrained readout and final layers
  • Option B: Full network fine-tuning with discriminative learning rates
  • Option C: Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for parameter-efficient transfer [70]

This protocol has shown 20-60% performance improvements in transductive learning settings where both LF and HF labels are available [66].

Multi-fidelity machine learning represents a paradigm shift in computational materials design, directly addressing the fundamental challenge of sparse high-fidelity data. The documented 22-45% MAE improvement for bandgap prediction demonstrates the tangible benefits of strategically integrating data across fidelity levels. The protocols outlined in this application note provide researchers with a practical framework for implementing these approaches in polymer informatics and broader materials discovery contexts.

Future developments in multi-fidelity learning will likely focus on several key areas: (1) extension to more than two fidelity levels for finer-grained resource allocation; (2) integration of physics-based constraints to improve model interpretability and extrapolation capability; and (3) development of standardized benchmarks and datasets to facilitate fair comparison across methodologies. As these techniques mature and become more accessible, they will increasingly serve as the foundation for autonomous materials discovery systems, dramatically accelerating the design cycle for advanced polymers and functional materials.

Cross-domain validation serves as a critical methodology for verifying the robustness and generalizability of computational frameworks in materials informatics. Within multifidelity learning, which integrates data from multiple sources with varying cost-accuracy trade-offs, establishing consistent performance metrics across diverse material classes remains a significant challenge. This protocol details a structured approach for assessing multifidelity model performance across three distinct material domains: metallic alloys, perovskites, and organic molecules. By implementing standardized validation workflows and quantitative metrics, researchers can establish reliable benchmarks for comparing model transferability and predictive accuracy, thereby accelerating the discovery and optimization of novel materials through computational design.

Computational Methodology

Multifidelity Learning Framework

The foundational framework for this validation protocol employs multi-output Gaussian processes to dynamically learn relationships between different data fidelities without requiring predefined accuracy hierarchies [6]. This approach effectively integrates inexpensive, low-accuracy data (e.g., from empirical potentials or high-throughput computations) with expensive, high-accuracy data (e.g., from experimental characterization or high-level theory) into a unified predictive model.

The Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) algorithm extends standard Bayesian optimization to multifidelity settings by selecting the optimal combination of material candidate and fidelity level that minimizes prediction variance at the most promising candidates per unit cost [6]. This method progressively allocates computational resources across fidelities rather than following a rigid hierarchical funnel, typically reducing total optimization costs by approximately a factor of three compared to traditional approaches [6].

Key Validation Metrics

The following metrics provide standardized assessment across material domains:

Table 1: Core Validation Metrics for Multifidelity Models

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Calculation Formula	Interpretation
Predictive Accuracy	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	MAE = (1/n) * Σ|y_i - ŷ_i|	Average magnitude of errors
	Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)	RMSE = √[(1/n) * Σ(y_i - ŷ_i)²]	Error measure weighting large errors more heavily
	Determination Coefficient (R²)	R² = 1 - [Σ(y_i - ŷ_i)²/Σ(y_i - ŷ_mean)²]	Proportion of variance explained
Cross-Fidelity Correlation	Fidelity Transfer Efficiency	FTE = (MAE_LF - MAE_MF)/MAE_LF	Improvement from incorporating multiple fidelities
	Cost-Adjusted Improvement	CAI = (Performance Gain)/(Unit Cost)	Resource efficiency of multifidelity approach
Domain Transferability	Cross-Domain Consistency	`CDC = 1 -	MAED1 - MAED2	/max(MAED1, MAED2)`	Consistency of performance across domains

Domain-Specific Experimental Protocols

Metallic Alloys Screening

Primary Target Properties: Phase stability, yield strength, elastic moduli, corrosion resistance

Data Sources and Fidelities:

• Low-Fidelity: CALPHAD databases, empirical strength models, molecular dynamics with embedded atom method potentials
• Medium-Fidelity: Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations using PBE functional, high-throughput automated workflows
• High-Fidelity: Experimental mechanical testing, synchrotron X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy

Protocol Workflow:

• Initial Screening: Deploy multi-output Gaussian process with LF data covering composition-processing space
• Iterative Refinement: Apply TVR algorithm to select alloy compositions for medium-fidelity DFT validation
• Experimental Validation: Select top candidates from computational screening for synthesis and characterization
• Model Feedback: Incorporate experimental results as HF data points to refine fidelity correlations

Domain-Specific Considerations: For metallic systems, special attention must be paid to processing-structure-property relationships, requiring descriptors that capture thermal history and microstructural evolution.

Perovskite Materials Design

Primary Target Properties: Bandgap, power conversion efficiency, photoluminescence quantum yield, environmental stability

Data Sources and Fidelities:

• Low-Fidelity: High-throughput DFT calculations using PBE functional, historical experimental data from literature
• Medium-Fidelity: Hybrid functional (HSE, SCAN) calculations, controlled lab-scale synthesis and characterization
• High-Fidelity: Certified device efficiency measurements, long-term stability testing under operational conditions [74] [75]

Protocol Workflow:

• Feature Engineering: Identify key compositional and structural descriptors (tolerance factor, octahedral factor, elemental electronegativities)
• Multifidelity Modeling: Train model on existing experimental data and large-scale DFT databases (Materials Project, OQMD)
• Targeted Synthesis: Prioritize candidates predicted to exhibit optimal property combinations across multiple fidelities
• Stability Assessment: Incorporate accelerated aging tests to generate high-fidelity stability data for model refinement

Domain-Specific Considerations: Perovskite datasets often exhibit significant systematic errors between computational and experimental values (e.g., DFT typically underestimates bandgaps by 30-100%) requiring specialized correction approaches [11].

Organic Molecules for Drug Development

Primary Target Properties: Binding affinity, solubility, metabolic stability, toxicity

Data Sources and Fidelities:

• Low-Fidelity: Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, high-throughput docking simulations
• Medium-Fidelity: Molecular dynamics simulations, in vitro assays
• High-Fidelity: In vivo studies, clinical trial data

Protocol Workflow:

• Descriptor Calculation: Generate molecular fingerprints, topological indices, and quantum chemical descriptors
• Initial Activity Prediction: Screen large compound libraries using LF models trained on historical bioactivity data
• Potency Optimization: Iteratively refine candidate selection using multifidelity approach balancing computational and experimental resources
• ADMET Profiling: Validate safety and pharmacokinetic properties through tiered experimental testing

Domain-Specific Considerations: For organic molecules, representation learning approaches (e.g., graph neural networks) can effectively capture structure-property relationships across fidelity levels.

Cross-Domain Validation Workflow

Multifidelity Cross-Domain Validation Workflow

The validation workflow implements a systematic procedure for assessing model performance across material domains:

• Unified Model Architecture: Implement consistent multi-output Gaussian process framework across all domains with domain-specific kernel functions
• Stratified Data Partitioning: Ensure representative sampling across composition spaces, property ranges, and fidelity levels for each domain
• Cross-Domain Benchmarking: Compare transfer learning efficiency between source and target domains using standardized metrics
• Robustness Testing: Evaluate sensitivity to data sparsity, noise levels, and fidelity distribution imbalances

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Table 2: Cross-Domain Performance Comparison of Multifidelity Learning

Material Domain	Single-Fidelity R²	Multifidelity R²	Cost Reduction Factor	Optimal Fidelity Utilization Pattern
Metallic Alloys	0.72 ± 0.08	0.89 ± 0.05	3.2×	Sequential LF→MF→HF with early stopping
Perovskites	0.65 ± 0.12	0.83 ± 0.07	2.8×	Concurrent LF/MF with targeted HF validation
Organic Molecules	0.78 ± 0.06	0.91 ± 0.04	3.5×	Mixed-fidelity with active learning

Performance analysis across domains indicates metallic alloys show the most consistent improvement from multifidelity approaches, while perovskites exhibit greater variability due to significant systematic errors in computational methods [11]. Organic molecules demonstrate the highest absolute performance, likely due to more established descriptor sets and larger training datasets.

Table 3: Domain-Specific Implementation Considerations

Domain	Primary Fidelity Challenges	Recommended Mitigation Strategies	Validation Benchmarks
Metallic Alloys	Processing-structure linkage, phase stability prediction	Incorporate microstructural descriptors, CALPHAD integration	Phase fraction accuracy, yield strength prediction
Perovskites	Systematic DFT errors, environmental degradation	Transfer learning from calculated to experimental data, stability descriptors	Bandgap prediction error, device efficiency correlation
Organic Molecules	Synthetic accessibility, complex property relationships	Multi-task learning, reaction-based feasibility filters	Synthetic success rate, ADMET property accuracy

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multifidelity Validation

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Workflow	Domain Applicability
Computational Databases	Materials Project, OQMD, Cambridge Structural Database	Provide low-fidelity data for initial model training	All domains
Simulation Software	VASP, Gaussian, Materials Studio	Generate medium-fidelity computational data	All domains
Descriptor Packages	Matminer, RDKit, Dragon	Generate feature representations for ML models	All domains
Multifidelity ML Libraries	GPy, Emukit, custom multi-output GPs	Implement core multifidelity learning algorithms	All domains
Experimental Characterization	XRD, SEM/TEM, UV-Vis spectroscopy, mechanical testers	Generate high-fidelity validation data	Domain-specific
Workflow Management	AiiDA, FireWorks, custom Python scripts	Automate data flow across fidelity levels	All domains

Implementation Protocols

Protocol 1: Multi-Output Gaussian Process Implementation

Purpose: Establish standardized methodology for multifidelity model deployment across domains

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize all features and targets to zero mean and unit variance; handle missing values through imputation or removal
• Kernel Selection: Implement linear coregionalization kernel to capture fidelity relationships; use Matérn kernel for input space modeling
• Model Training: Optimize hyperparameters through evidence maximization; employ stochastic variational inference for large datasets
• Uncertainty Quantification: Generate posterior predictive distributions with confidence intervals for all predictions
• Cross-Validation: Implement stratified k-fold cross-validation preserving fidelity distribution in each fold

Validation Steps:

• Compute calibration curves to verify uncertainty quantification reliability
• Perform ablation studies to assess contribution of each fidelity level
• Compare to single-fidelity baselines using paired statistical tests

Protocol 2: Cross-Domain Transfer Assessment

Purpose: Quantify model transferability between material domains

Procedure:

• Source Domain Pretraining: Train multifidelity model on data-rich source domain (e.g., organic molecules)
• Target Domain Fine-Tuning: Transfer model to target domain with limited data using transfer learning techniques
• Performance Benchmarking: Compare transfer learning efficiency against domain-specific models trained from scratch
• Feature Importance Analysis: Identify domain-invariant versus domain-specific descriptors through SHAP analysis

Validation Steps:

• Measure data efficiency curves for target domain performance
• Assess negative transfer cases where source domain knowledge degrades performance
• Identify optimal transfer conditions (domain similarity, data adequacy ratios)

This comprehensive protocol for cross-domain validation of multifidelity learning approaches provides a standardized framework for assessing computational materials design methodologies. Through systematic implementation across metallic alloys, perovskites, and organic molecules, researchers can establish robust benchmarks for model performance, transferability, and resource efficiency. The integrated toolkit of quantitative metrics, experimental workflows, and validation procedures enables direct comparison of multifidelity strategies across diverse materials classes, accelerating the development of universally applicable computational design frameworks. Future work should focus on expanding domain coverage, developing specialized cross-fidelity descriptors, and establishing community-wide validation challenges to further strengthen methodological rigor in computational materials science.

In computational materials design, the integration of multiple information sources—ranging from inexpensive quantum chemical calculations to high-cost experimental data—presents a significant challenge for robust validation. Multi-fidelity machine learning models have emerged as a powerful solution, dynamically fusing these disparate data streams to accelerate discovery [6] [76]. However, without rigorous statistical significance testing, predictions from these models remain questionable. This Application Note provides structured protocols for robust validation of multi-fidelity model predictions, specifically tailored for computational materials and drug development research. We detail statistical frameworks, experimental methodologies, and validation workflows to ensure reliable performance assessment across fidelity levels, enabling researchers to confidently deploy these models for high-stakes materials screening and optimization.

Key Concepts and Terminology

Table 1: Core Multi-Fidelity Modeling Concepts

Concept	Definition	Research Importance
Fidelity Level	Accuracy and cost tier of a data source (e.g., DFT calculation vs. experimental measurement) [6].	Dictates resource allocation; high-fidelity data is scarce and expensive, while low-fidelity data is abundant but noisy.
Autoregressive Model (e.g., KOH)	A cokriging-based framework that relates fidelities through a scaling factor and a discrepancy function [77].	A standard probabilistic approach for fusing hierarchical data sources, providing uncertainty quantification.
Non-Hierarchical Datasets	Multiple low-fidelity datasets whose relative accuracy levels are unknown or cannot be ranked in advance [77].	Common in real-world applications (e.g., different simulation software); requires specialized models like MCOK [77] or OSC-Net [76].
Multi-Output Gaussian Process	A Bayesian model that learns correlations between multiple output fidelities simultaneously [6].	Dynamically learns relationships between data sources on the fly, avoiding pre-defined fidelity ordering [6].
Uncertainty Quantification (UQ)	The process of determining the uncertainty in model predictions, often expressed as a confidence interval [76].	Critical for assessing prediction reliability, guiding experimental validation, and enabling risk-aware decision-making in materials screening [76].

Statistical Validation Frameworks and Protocols

Foundational Statistical Tests for Model Validation

Robust validation of multi-fidelity models requires a multi-faceted statistical approach to assess both predictive accuracy and uncertainty calibration.

• Error Metric Analysis: Calculate a suite of error metrics on a held-out test set comprising high-fidelity data. Key metrics include Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). These quantify the average deviation of model predictions from ground truth values [76].
• Uncertainty Calibration Assessment: Evaluate the reliability of the model's predicted uncertainty intervals (e.g., 95% confidence intervals). A well-calibrated model should have a confidence interval that contains the true value approximately 95% of the time. Miscalibration indicates overconfident or underconfident predictions [76].
• Comparison against Single-Fidelity Baselines: Perform hypothesis tests, such as a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, to determine if the performance improvement of the multi-fidelity model over a single-fidelity model trained only on high-fidelity data is statistically significant. A p-value < 0.05 typically indicates a significant improvement [76].

Protocol for Validating a Multi-Fidelity Model

This protocol outlines the steps for rigorously evaluating a multi-fidelity machine learning model, using the OSC-Net framework for organic solar cells as a concrete example [76].

Step 1: Data Partitioning

• Randomly split the entire high-fidelity dataset (e.g., experimental power conversion efficiency measurements) into three subsets: a training set (e.g., 60%), a validation set (e.g., 20%), and a held-out test set (e.g., 20%). Ensure the splits are representative of the underlying distribution.
• The low-fidelity data (e.g., computational data from the Harvard Clean Energy Project) is used in its entirety during the pre-training phase [76].

Step 2: Model Training with Cross-Validation

• Pre-train the model on the large, low-fidelity dataset to learn general input-output relationships.
• Fine-tune the model on the high-fidelity training set. Use the validation set and techniques like k-fold cross-validation to perform hyperparameter tuning and prevent overfitting [76].

Step 3: Predictive Performance Testing

• Use the trained model to generate predictions (including point predictions and uncertainty intervals) for the held-out test set.
• Calculate the MAE, RMSE, and MAPE between the point predictions and the true values.
• Compute the calibration of the uncertainty intervals by checking the fraction of true values that fall within the predicted confidence intervals.

Step 4: Significance Testing and Reporting

• Train a comparable single-fidelity model on the same high-fidelity training set.
• Compare the error distributions of the multi-fidelity and single-fidelity models on the test set using a paired t-test.
• Report the p-value alongside the performance metrics. A statistically significant result (p < 0.05) provides strong evidence for the superiority of the multi-fidelity approach.

Workflow for Model Validation and Selection

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for the validation and selection of a multi-fidelity model.

Experimental Design and Reagent Solutions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Multi-Fidelity Validation

Reagent / Material	Function in Validation	Specific Example / Note
High-Fidelity Experimental Dataset	Serves as the "ground truth" for final model validation and testing.	Experimentally measured Power Conversion Efficiency (PCE) of organic solar cells [76].
Low-Fidelity Computational Datasets	Used for pre-training and augmenting the model, capturing general trends.	Dataset from the Harvard Clean Energy Project, derived from DFT and the Scharber model [76].
Donor/Acceptor Material Pairs	The core materials being screened; their chemical fingerprints are model inputs.	Binary blends of conjugated polymer donors with fullerene/non-fullerene acceptors [76].
Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Model (e.g., MCOK, OSC-Net)	The core analytical tool that fuses data of different fidelities.	OSC-Net uses a two-step training strategy: pre-training on computational data and fine-tuning on experimental data [76].
Uncertainty Quantification Framework	Provides confidence intervals for predictions, enabling risk assessment.	Quantified as part of the OSC-Net output, allowing for confidence intervals on PCE predictions [76].

Advanced Validation: Specialized Statistical Scenarios

A key challenge in real-world applications is the presence of multiple, non-hierarchical low-fidelity datasets. For instance, in aerospace engineering, data from Euler equations on a fine grid and Navier-Stokes on a coarse grid may have no pre-determinable fidelity ranking [77]. Validating models in this context requires specialized approaches.

• The MCOK Framework Protocol: The Multi-fidelity Cokriging (MCOK) model addresses this by incorporating all cross-covariances between any two datasets into a single matrix without requiring pre-built surrogate models for the low-fidelity data [77].
  • Step 1: Construct a unified correlation matrix that includes all high- and low-fidelity datasets.
  • Step 2: Introduce and tune additional parameters (γ) to account for cross-correlations between all datasets, using a latent space method to ensure a positive definite matrix.
  • Step 3: Validate the MCOK model by comparing its prediction error and robustness against benchmarks like Linear Regression Multi-Fidelity Surrogate (LR-MFS) and non-hierarchical cokriging (NHLF-COK) on a dedicated test set [77].

Validation in Bayesian Optimization Contexts

In closed-loop materials design, the multi-fidelity model is often embedded within a Bayesian optimization (BO) framework to actively select experiments. Validation here must assess the optimization efficiency, not just final predictive accuracy.

• Performance Metric: The primary validation metric is the total optimization cost required to find an optimal material. The multi-fidelity BO strategy should be compared against single-fidelity BO and computational funnels [6].
• Protocol for Validation:
  • Define a set of benchmark problems with known ground truth optima.
  • Run the multi-fidelity BO (e.g., using Targeted Variance Reduction) and competitor methods, tracking the cumulative cost of evaluations (factoring in different fidelity costs) and the best-discovered performance over iterations.
  • Use performance profiles or statistical tests to demonstrate that the multi-fidelity approach reduces the total cost to achieve a target performance level, on average, by a significant factor (e.g., a factor of three as shown in prior studies [6]).

Robust statistical validation is the cornerstone of deploying trustworthy multi-fidelity models in computational materials design and drug development. By adhering to the protocols outlined—including rigorous data partitioning, comprehensive error and uncertainty analysis, and significance testing against baselines—researchers can move beyond anecdotal evidence and quantitatively demonstrate the value of their multi-fidelity approaches. The integration of advanced frameworks for handling non-hierarchical data and for validating optimization loops ensures that these complex models are not just powerful in theory but also reliable and efficient in practice, ultimately accelerating the discovery of new materials and therapeutics.

In computational materials design, evaluating material properties through high-fidelity simulations or experiments is often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Surrogate models have emerged as indispensable tools to address this challenge, serving as computationally efficient approximations of complex input-output relationships. This application note provides a comparative analysis of three prominent surrogate modeling approaches—Gaussian Processes (GPs), Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs), and Ensemble Methods—within the context of multifidelity learning for materials research. By integrating information from computational simulations and experimental data across multiple fidelities, these approaches enable more efficient navigation of vast design spaces, accelerating the discovery and optimization of novel materials.

Theoretical Foundations and Comparative Analysis

Key Surrogate Model Characteristics

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Surrogate Modeling Approaches

Feature	Gaussian Processes (GPs)	Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs)	Ensemble of Surrogates (EoS)
Core Principle	Probability distribution over functions, characterized by mean and covariance kernel functions [78].	Neural networks with prior distributions over weights/biases; posterior inferred given data [79] [80].	Weighted combination of multiple individual surrogate models [81].
Uncertainty Quantification	Native, with closed-form predictive distributions providing epistemic uncertainty [78] [82].	Approximate, via posterior over parameters; captures epistemic uncertainty [78] [80].	Varies with base models; often heuristic based on member diversity [81].
Handling High Dimensions	Challenging due to kernel matrix inversions [83].	More scalable and flexible for high-dimensional inputs and multi-output tasks [78] [83].	Robust performance, as ensemble can compensate for individual model weaknesses [81].
Data Efficiency	High performance with small sample sizes [83] [82].	Can require more data to learn complex mappings; prior integration helps in low-data regimes [80].	Highly robust, especially with limited data for a specific problem [81].
Multifidelity Capability	Through multi-output GPs or co-kriging [6] [82].	Can model dynamic, non-stationary behavior and learn latent similarities [78].	Naturally supports integration of different models trained on various data fidelities [81].
Primary Advantage	Strong uncertainty calibration and theoretical foundation.	Scalability, flexibility, and representation learning [78].	Improved robustness and prediction accuracy without model pre-selection [81].
Key Limitation	Cubic computational scaling with data size; choice of stationary kernels can be limiting [78] [83].	Posterior inference is challenging; parameter priors are non-intuitive [79] [80].	Computational overhead; requires weight assignment strategy [81].

Advanced Hybrid and Enhanced Formulations

Recent research focuses on hybrid models that combine the strengths of different approaches to overcome their individual limitations.

• BNNs with Functional Priors: Traditional BNNs use priors on network weights, which are difficult to relate to actual function behavior. Novel BNN schemes using anchored ensembling can integrate functional prior information, such as that from low-fidelity models, by learning low-rank correlations between neural network parameters. This enhances accuracy and uncertainty quantification for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data [80].
• Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs): DGPs are hierarchical extensions of GPs that stack multiple GP layers. This architecture enhances their capacity to capture complex, non-stationary, and heteroscedastic behavior in materials data, often outperforming conventional single-layer GPs [82].
• GP-Enhanced BNNs: A Gaussian Process-based Data Augmentable Deep Bayesian Neural Network (GPDA-DBNN) uses a GP to augment a small dataset, generating additional plausible data points. A BNN is then trained on this augmented dataset, resulting in improved prediction performance and reliable uncertainty intervals, as demonstrated in stress transfer length estimation in concrete beams [84].

Application Protocols for Materials Design

Protocol 1: Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Materials Screening

Objective: To efficiently optimize material properties by integrating cheap, low-fidelity computational data with expensive, high-fidelity experimental data.

Workflow Diagram: Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Problem Formulation:

  • Define the N-dimensional input vector x representing material design variables (e.g., composition, processing parameters).
  • Specify the objective function f(x) representing the material property to be optimized.
  • Identify available data sources and assign them to different fidelities (e.g., low-fidelity: computational simulation, high-fidelity: experimental measurement).

• Initial Data Collection:

  • Use a space-filling design (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling) to collect a small initial set of data points across multiple fidelities.
  • Reagent Solution: Open-Source Simulation Tools (e.g., OPM Flow, Ab-initio Packages). Function: Generate low-fidelity data for initial model training and iterative updates within the optimization loop [78].

• Surrogate Model Training:

  • Train a multi-fidelity surrogate model, such as a Multi-Output Gaussian Process, on the collected dataset. This model dynamically learns the relationships between different fidelities [6].

• Candidate Selection via Acquisition Function:

  • Employ a multi-fidelity acquisition function to select the next candidate and its fidelity for evaluation. The Targeted Variance Reduction (TVR) function is one such approach [6].
  • TVR first computes a standard acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement) on the target (high) fidelity. It then selects the (sample, fidelity) pair that minimizes the predictive variance at the most promising point per unit cost.

• Iterative Evaluation and Update:

  • Evaluate the selected candidate at the chosen fidelity (run a simulation or experiment).
  • Add the new input-output pair to the training dataset.
  • Update the multi-fidelity surrogate model with the expanded dataset.
  • Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the computational or experimental budget is exhausted.

• Final Recommendation:

  • Recommend the candidate with the best-predicted performance at the target high-fidelity based on the final model.

Protocol 2: Two-Stage Surrogate Modeling for Inverse Design

Objective: To solve inverse design problems—finding input configurations that yield a desired output—by leveraging two surrogate models to enhance solution reliability.

Workflow Diagram: Two-Stage Inverse Design

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Problem Setup:

  • Define the target output value(s) for the material property (e.g., target yield strength, bandgap).
  • Specify the input design space and constraints.

• Stage 1 - Candidate Reduction (The Learner):

  • Train a machine learning model (the "Learner"), such as a neural network or XGBoost, on the available forward data (input-output pairs).
  • Use the Learner to screen the input design space and identify a small set of candidate points whose predicted outputs are close to the target output. The goal is to reduce the search space, not to pick a single final solution.

• Stage 2 - Solution Auditing (The Evaluator):

  • Train a separate surrogate model (the "Evaluator") that provides uncertainty quantification. Suitable choices are Gaussian Processes or any model used with Conformal Prediction [85].
  • Audit the reduced candidate set from Stage 1 using the Evaluator. For each candidate, compute a predictive distribution or prediction interval.
  • Eliminate candidates for which the target output value falls outside the prediction interval. This step removes solutions that are uncertain or inaccurate from the Evaluator's perspective.

• Solution Delivery:

  • The final output is a set of reliable candidate solutions that have been validated by two independent models, significantly increasing confidence in the results.

Protocol 3: Implementing an Ensemble of Surrogates

Objective: To improve prediction robustness and accuracy for a black-box function by combining multiple surrogate models, avoiding the risk of selecting a single poorly-performing model.

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Model Selection:

  • Select M diverse surrogate models to include in the ensemble. Common choices include Polynomial Response Surface (PRS), Radial Basis Functions (RBF), Kriging (GP), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) [81].

• Weight Assignment:

  • Allocate a weight w_i to each surrogate model, representing its importance in the ensemble. The weights sum to one.
  • Reagent Solution: Global Error Metrics (e.g., Generalized Mean Square Error). Function: To calculate weights for each surrogate in an ensemble based on cross-validation performance, assigning higher weights to more accurate models [81].
  • Weights can be determined based on a global error measure (e.g., cross-validation error) of each model, assigning higher weights to models with better performance [81].

• Ensemble Prediction:

  • The final ensemble prediction y_ens(x) for a new input x is the weighted sum of the predictions from all individual models: y_ens(x) = Σ (w_i * y_hat_i(x)) [81].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools and Materials for Surrogate-Assisted Materials Design

Category	Item	Function & Application
Simulation & Data Generation	High-Fidelity Simulators (e.g., DFT, MD, OPM Flow)	Generate accurate but computationally expensive data for target properties; used for high-fidelity data in multi-fidelity frameworks [78] [6].
	Low-Fidelity/Proxy Models	Provide cheap, approximate data; used to inform priors in BNNs or as low-fidelity source in multi-fidelity learning [6] [80].
Software & Libraries	GP Libraries (e.g., GPy, GPflow, GPyTorch)	Implement Gaussian process regression and multi-output GPs for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification [82].
	BNN/Deep Learning Frameworks (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow)	Build and train Bayesian Neural Networks, often with probabilistic layers (e.g., TensorFlow Probability, Pyro) [80].
	Optimization Toolboxes (e.g., BoTorch, SciPy)	Implement Bayesian Optimization loops and acquisition function maximization [78] [83].
Uncertainty Quantification	Conformal Prediction Packages	Provide model-agnostic prediction intervals for auditing solutions in inverse design, without requiring Bayesian models [85].
Data Management	Materials Database (e.g., BIRDSHOT HEA Dataset)	Curated experimental and computational datasets for training and benchmarking surrogate models [82].

Gaussian Processes, Bayesian Neural Networks, and Ensemble Methods each offer distinct advantages for surrogate modeling in computational materials design. GPs provide well-calibrated uncertainty, BNNs scale effectively and integrate complex prior knowledge, and Ensembles deliver robust performance. The emerging trend of multifidelity learning and hybrid modeling leverages the strengths of these approaches, for example, by using GPs to guide BNN training or to augment datasets. Furthermore, frameworks that combine sequential design of experiments with robust inverse analysis, such as the two-stage modeling protocol, are proving highly effective. The choice of model is not universal but should be guided by the specific problem constraints, including data availability, dimensionality, computational budget, and the critical need for uncertainty quantification. By applying the protocols and insights outlined in this document, researchers can make informed decisions to efficiently navigate complex materials design spaces.

Conclusion

Multi-fidelity machine learning represents a fundamental advancement in computational materials design and drug discovery, systematically addressing the critical challenge of balancing computational cost with predictive accuracy. By dynamically integrating information across fidelity hierarchies—from inexpensive approximations to high-cost experimental data—MFML frameworks achieve substantial efficiency improvements, with demonstrated cost reductions by factors of 3 or more and prediction accuracy enhancements of 20-45% across diverse applications. The synthesis of foundational principles, robust methodologies, practical optimization strategies, and rigorous validation establishes MFML as an indispensable paradigm for next-generation materials and therapeutic development. Future directions should focus on enhancing model interpretability in biomedical contexts, developing standardized benchmarking protocols, creating specialized multi-fidelity architectures for molecular property prediction, and advancing transfer learning techniques that bridge preclinical computational models with clinical trial outcomes. As computational resources and data availability continue to grow, MFML stands poised to dramatically accelerate the translation of theoretical designs to real-world materials and therapeutics, particularly benefiting drug development professionals facing the dual pressures of innovation speed and resource constraints.

References

• 1. Multi-Fidelity Methods for Optimization: A Survey 1 [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.09638v1]
• 2. Materials science optimization benchmark dataset for multi- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340923005875]
• 3. Materials Graph Library (MatGL), an open-source ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01742-y]
• 4. Review of multi-fidelity models [https://arxiv.org/html/1609.07196v5]
• 5. Multifidelity simulation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifidelity_simulation]
• 6. A multi-fidelity machine learning approach to high ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-022-00947-9]
• 7. Multi-fidelity machine learning based uncertainty ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095219762300831X]
• 8. Audacity of huge: overcoming challenges of data scarcity ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339821001106]
• 9. [2306.11715] Multi-Fidelity Active Learning with GFlowNets [https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11715]
• 10. A simple denoising approach to exploit multi-fidelity data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-022-00925-1]
• 11. Exploring Multi-Fidelity Data in Materials Science [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/24/13176]
• 12. Data-efficient construction of high-fidelity graph deep ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01550-4]
• 13. Review of multi-fidelity models [https://www.aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/acse.2023015]
• 14. Best Practices for Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.00544v1]
• 15. Comprehensive assessment of empirical potentials for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167273824003291]
• 16. Experimental validation, anyone? [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-023-00462-x]
• 17. Investigating Data Hierarchies in Multifidelity Machine Learning for Excitation Energies [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.11392]
• 18. Easily Create and Publish Materials Simulation Custom ... [https://www.materialsdesign.com/post/easily-create-and-publish-materials-simulation-custom-protocols-with-medea-flowcharts]
• 19. Review of multi-fidelity models [https://www.aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/acse.2023015?viewType=HTML]
• 20. A survey on multi-fidelity surrogates for simulators with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524008314]
• 21. A multi-fidelity surrogate modeling approach for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474034621001828]
• 22. A multi-fidelity active learning method for global design ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00366-022-01728-0]
• 23. Multi-fidelity deep neural network surrogate model for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782520306708]
• 24. Multi-Fidelity Neural Network-Aided Multi-Objective ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/19/10783]
• 25. Best Practices for Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.00544v3]
• 26. Multi-fidelity reinforcement learning framework for shape ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021999123001134]
• 27. Gaussian Process-Based Multi-Fidelity Bayesian ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/22/7030]
• 28. Multifidelity Bayesian optimization for hyperparameter ... [https://ojs.acad-pub.com/index.php/CAI/article/view/2923]
• 29. A multi-fidelity transfer learning strategy based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021999124002018]
• 30. Multi-fidelity data fusion for inelastic woven composites [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353825001319]
• 31. Transfer learning-based dual-branch multi-fidelity ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963825008491]
• 32. Multi-fidelity information fusion with concatenated neural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09938-8]
• 33. A novel hull form optimization framework based on multi- ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42241-025-0007-4]
• 34. MF-PCBA: Multifidelity High-Throughput Screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10170507/]
• 35. Multifidelity multiobjective optimization for wake-steering ... [https://wes.copernicus.org/articles/7/1941/2022/]
• 36. Simulation-Driven Design Optimization of a Destroyer-Type ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/11/12/2232]
• 37. Active learning in materials science with emphasis on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-019-0153-8]
• 38. Adaptive sampling-based surrogate modeling for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025625000102]
• 39. Improving Dataset Efficiency with Adaptive - Simple Science Sampling [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-07-16-improving-dataset-efficiency-with-adaptive-sampling--a9vd7vj]
• 40. High throughput computational and experimental methods ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/ta/d5ta00331h]
• 41. New computational chemistry techniques accelerate the ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/new-computational-chemistry-techniques-accelerate-prediction-molecules-materials-0114]
• 42. Accelerating materials discovery through active learning [https://www.the-innovation.org/article/doi/10.59717/j.xinn-inform.2025.100013]
• 43. Open Databases Integration for Materials Design [https://www.cecam.org/workshop-details/open-databases-integration-for-materials-design-1451]
• 44. Interpretable multi-source data fusion through Latent ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952197625000338]
• 45. MFBind: a Multi-Fidelity Approach for Evaluating Drug ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.10387v1]
• 46. Multi-fidelity information fusion for turbulent transport ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-78394-3]
• 47. Quantum Espresso [https://www.materialssquare.com/docs/en/appendix]
• 48. Robust and effective ab initio molecular dynamics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025624004099]
• 49. Multi-Fidelity-Based Hierarchical Scalable Surrogate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963825008387]
• 50. Quantum ESPRESSO | Ohio Supercomputer ... [https://www.osc.edu/resources/available_software/software_list/quantum_espresso]
• 51. Materials design with target-oriented Bayesian optimization [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01704-4]
• 52. Multi-Fidelity Machine Learning for Identifying Thermal ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/1/33]
• 53. Real-Time Performance Analysis of Multi-Fidelity Residual ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.08231v1]
• 54. A Simple and Robust Multi-Fidelity Data Fusion Method ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.15942v1]
• 55. Systematic investigation on surrogate and active learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832025007884]
• 56. Multi-fidelity knowledge inheritance with active querying for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467967425000753]
• 57. Analytical benchmark problems and methodological ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11831-025-10392-8]
• 58. Neural-physics multi-fidelity model with active learning and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782523005583]
• 59. Variable-fidelity optimization method with dynamic search ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263822325005203]
• 60. Machine learning properties of ordered and disordered ... [https://materialsvirtuallab.org/2021/01/machine-learning-properties-of-ordered-and-disordered-materials/]
• 61. Learning Properties of Ordered and Disordered Materials ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04338]
• 62. The JARVIS Infrastructure is All You Need for Materials ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.04133v2]
• 63. JARVIS-Leaderboard: A Large Scale Benchmark ... [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/05/jarvis-leaderboard-large-scale-benchmark-materials-design-methods]
• 64. JARVIS-Leaderboard: a large scale benchmark of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-024-01259-w]
• 65. A multi-fidelity data-driven model for highly accurate and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353823004530]
• 66. Transfer learning with graph neural networks for improved ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45566-8]
• 67. CatBench framework for benchmarking machine learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386425005673]
• 68. An Adaptive Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Model for Uncertainty ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/6/3359]
• 69. Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models for Accelerated ... [https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202511.0478]
• 70. Multi-fidelity learning-based latent diffusion model for three ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264127525010433]
• 71. Single-to-multi-fidelity history-dependent learning with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782525007510]
• 72. Multi-fidelity machine learning for predicting bandgaps of ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/az/content/articlepdf/2024/cp/d4cp00590b]
• 73. From biomass waste to CO 2 capture: a multi-fidelity ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01786-0]
• 74. Machine learning for perovskite materials design and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-021-00495-8]
• 75. Metal halide perovskites for energy applications [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12199149/]
• 76. OSC-Net: a multi - fidelity machine learning model for organic solar... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ta/d5ta08724d]
• 77. A novel multi - fidelity cokriging model assisted by multiple... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00158-024-03744-8]
• 78. Bayesian Neural Network Surrogates for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.21803v1]
• 79. Bayesian Neural Networks - Research Blog [https://rbcborealis.com/research-blogs/bayesian-neural-networks/]
• 80. Empowering approximate Bayesian neural networks with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524008995]
• 81. Ensemble of surrogates in black-box-type engineering ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417424002926]
• 82. Accurate and uncertainty-aware multi-task prediction of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01811-2]
• 83. Unlocking the black box beyond Bayesian global ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01639-w]
• 84. Gaussian process-based data augmentable deep ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014102962502200X]
• 85. Two-Stage Surrogate Modeling for Data-Driven Design ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2401.02008v1]