Abstract
In materials design, we typically want to answer questions such as “Can we optimize the probability that a structure will produce the desired properties within some tolerance?” or “Can we optimize the probability that a transition will occur between the desired initial and final states?” In the vast majority of cases, these problems are addressed indirectly, and with a reduced-dimensional model that approximates the actual system. Why? The tools and techniques traditionally used are not sufficient to provide a general rigorous algorithmic approach to determining and/or validating models of the system. Solving for the structure that maximizes some property very likely will be a global optimization over a nonlinear surface with several local minima and nonlinear constraints, while the tools generally used are linear (or at best quadratic) solvers. This approximation is made to handle the large dimensionality of the problem and be able to apply some basic constraints on the space of possible solutions. Unfortunately, constraints from data, measurements, theory, and other physical information are often only applied post-optimization as a binary form of model validation. Additionally, sampling techniques like Monte Carlo, as well as machine learning and Bayesian inference (which strongly rely on existing observed data to infer the form of the solution), will not perform well when, in terms of structural configurations, discovering the materials in the state that produces the desired property is a rare-event. This is unfortunately the rule, rather than the exception—and thus most searches either require the solution to already have been observed, or at least to be in the locality of the optimum. Fortunately, recent developments in applied mathematics and numerical optimization provide a new suite of tools that should overcome the existing limitations, and make rigorous automated materials discovery and design possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
\(\delta _x\) is the Dirac delta mass on x, i.e. the measure of probability on Borel subsets \(A \subset \mathbb {R}\) such that \(\delta _x(A)=1\) if \(x\in A\) and \(\delta _x(A)=0\) otherwise. The first Dirac delta mass is located at the minimum of the interval \([a,\infty ]\) (since we are interested in maximizing the probability of the event \(\mu [f(X)\ge a]\)). The second Dirac delta mass is located at \(x = a - D\) because we seek to maximize \(p_{\max }\) under the constraints \(p_{\max } a + (1 - p_{\max }) x \le b\) and \(a - x \le D\).
- 2.
This technical requirement is not a serious restriction in practice, since it is satisfied by most common parameter and function spaces. A Radon space is a topological space on which every Borel probability measure \(\mu \) is inner regular in the sense that, for every measurable set E, \(\mu (E) = \sup \{ \mu (K) \mid K \subseteq E \text { is compact} \}\). A simple example of a non-Radon space is the unit interval [0, 1] with the lower limit topology [78, Example 51]: this topology generates the same \(\sigma \)-algebra as does the usual Euclidean topology, and admits the uniform (Lebesgue) probability measure, yet the only compact subsets are countable sets, which necessarily have measure zero.
- 3.
This is a “philosophically reasonable” position to take, since one can verify finitely many such inequalities in finite time.
References
B. Adams, W. Bohnhoff, K. Dalbey, J. Eddy, M. Eldred, D. Gay, K. Haskell, P. Hough, L. Swiler, DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: Version 5.0 user’s manual. Technical report, Dec 2009. Sandia Technical Report SAND2010-2183
M. Adams, A. Lashgari, B. Li, M. McKerns, J. Mihaly, M. Ortiz, H. Owhadi, A.J. Rosakis, M. Stalzer, T.J. Sullivan, Rigorous model-based uncertainty quantification with application to terminal ballistics. Part II. Systems with uncontrollable inputs and large scatter. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 60(5), 1002–1019 (2012)
I. Babuška, F. Nobile, R. Tempone, A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data. SIAM Rev. 52(2), 317–355 (2010)
R.E. Barlow, F. Proschan, Mathematical theory of reliability, in Classics in Applied Mathematics, vol. 17 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1996). With contributions by L. C. Hunter, Reprint of the 1965 original [MR 0195566]
J.L. Beck, Bayesian system identification based on probability logic. Struct. Control Health Monit. 17, 825–847 (2010)
J.L. Beck, L.S. Katafygiotis, Updating models and their uncertainties: Bayesian statistical framework. J. Eng. Mech. 124(4), 455–461 (1998)
S. Benson, L. Curfman McInnes, J. More, T. Munson, J. Sarich, TAO user manual (revision 1.10.1) (2010)
J.O. Berger, An overview of robust Bayesian analysis. Test 3(1), 5–124 (1994). With comments and a rejoinder by the author
D. Bertsimas, I. Popescu, Optimal inequalities in probability theory: a convex optimization approach. SIAM J. Optim. 15(3), 780–804 (electronic) (2005). https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623401399903
M. Bieri, C. Schwab, Sparse high order FEM for elliptic sPDEs. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 198(13–14), 1149–1170 (2009)
Boeing, Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents worldwide operations 1959–2009. Technical report, Aviation Safety Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, U.S.A., July 2010
A. Certik et al., SymPy: Python Library for Symbolic Mathematics (2011)
M.J. Cliffe, M.T. Dove, D.A. Drabold, A.L. Goodwin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 125501 (2010)
C. Cortes, V. Vapnik, Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20(3), 273–297 (1995)
W.I.F. David, K. Shankland, L.B. McCusker, C. Baerlocher (eds.), Structure Determination from Powder Diffraction Data (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)
E. Delage, Y. Ye, Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Oper. Res. 58(3), 595–612 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0741
P. Diaconis, D. Freedman, On the consistency of Bayes estimates. Ann. Stat. 14(1), 1–67 (1986). With a discussion and a rejoinder by the authors
P.W. Diaconis, D. Freedman, Consistency of Bayes estimates for nonparametric regression: normal theory. Bernoulli 4(4), 411–444 (1998)
A. Doostan, H. Owhadi, A non-adapted sparse approximation of PDEs with stochastic inputs (2010)
R.F. Drenick, P.C. Wang, C.B. Yun, A.J. Philippacopoulos, Critical seismic response of nuclear reactors. J. Nucl. Eng. Des. 58(3), 425–435 (1980)
T. Egami, S.J.L. Billinge, Underneath the Bragg Peaks: Structural Analysis of Complex Materials (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 2003)
I. Egorov, G. Kretinin, I. Leshchenko, S. Kuptzov, IOSO optimization toolkit—novel software to create better design (2002)
I.H. Eldred, C.G. Webster, P.G. Constantine, Design under uncertainty employing stochastic expansion methods. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2008–6001 (2008)
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, Toward machine wald. in Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification (2016)
L. Esteva, Seismic risk and seismic design, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (The M.I.T. Press, 1970), pp. 142–182
D.L. Kroshko et al., OpenOpt
O. Gereben, L. Pusztai, Phys. Rev. B 50, 14136 (1994)
R. Ghanem, Ingredients for a general purpose stochastic finite elements implementation. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 168(1–4), 19–34 (1999)
R. Ghanem, S. Dham, Stochastic finite element analysis for multiphase flow in heterogeneous porous media. Transp. Porous Media 32(3), 239–262 (1998)
W.D. Gillford, Risk analysis and the acceptable probability of failure. Struct. Eng. 83(15), 25–26 (2005)
J. Goh, M. Sim, Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Oper. Res. 58(4, part 1), 902–917 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0795
S. Han, M. Tao, U. Topcu, H. Owhadi, R.M. Murray, Convex optimal uncertainty quantification (2014). arXiv:1311.7130
W. Hoeffding, On the distribution of the number of successes in independent trials. Ann. Math. Stat. 27(3), 713–721 (1956)
W. Hoeffding, The role of assumptions in statistical decisions, in Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1954–1955, vol. I (University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1956), pp. 105–114
W.A. Hustrulid, M. McCarter, D.J.A. Van Zyl (eds.), Slope Stability in Surface Mining (Society for Mining Metallurgy & Exploration, 2001)
The MathWorks Inc., Technical report, Mar 2009. Technical Report 91710v00
P. Jensen, J. Bard, Algorithms for constrained optimization (supplement to: Operations research models and methods) (2003)
E. Jones et al., SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python (2001)
P. Juhas, L. Granlund, S.R. Gujarathi, P.M. Duxbury, S.J.L. Billinge, Crystal structure solution from experimentally determined atomic pair distribution functions. J. Appl. Cryst. 43, 623–629 (2010)
P.-H.T. Kamga, B. Li, M. McKerns, L.H. Nguyen, M. Ortiz, H. Owhadi, T.J. Sullivan, Optimal uncertainty quantification with model uncertainty and legacy data. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 72, 1–19 (2014)
B.K. Kanna, S. Kramer, An augmented Lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design. J. Mech. Des. 116, 405 (1994)
K.E. Kelly, The myth of \(10^{-6}\) as a definition of acceptable risk, in Proceedings of the International Congress on the Health Effects of Hazardous Waste, Atlanta (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1993)
A. Kidane, A. Lashgari, B. Li, M. McKerns, M. Ortiz, H. Owhadi, G. Ravichandran, M. Stalzer, T.J. Sullivan, Rigorous model-based uncertainty quantification with application to terminal ballistics. Part I: Systems with controllable inputs and small scatter. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 60(5), 983–1001 (2012)
T. Leonard, J.S.J. Hsu, Bayesian Methods: An Analysis for Statisticians and Interdisciplinary Researchers. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, vol. 5 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)
J.S. Liu, Monte Carlo Strategies in Scientific Computing, Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, New York, 2008)
L.J. Lucas, H. Owhadi, M. Ortiz, Rigorous verification, validation, uncertainty quantification and certification through concentration-of-measure inequalities. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197(51–52), 4591–4609 (2008)
N. Mantel, W.R. Bryan, “Safety” testing of carcinogenic agents. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 27, 455–470 (1961)
C. McDiarmid, On the method of bounded differences, in Surveys in Combinatorics, 1989 (Norwich, 1989), London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 141 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989), pp. 148–188
C. McDiarmid, Concentration, in Probabilistic Methods for Algorithmic Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms and Combinatorics, vol. 16 (Springer, Berlin, 1998), pp. 195–248
M. McKerns, M. Aivazis, Pathos: A framework for heterogeneous computing (2010)
M. McKerns, P. Hung, M. Aivazis, Mystic: a simple model-independent inversion framework (2009)
M. McKerns, H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, T.J. Sullivan, M. Ortiz, The optimal uncertainty algorithm in the mystic framework. Caltech CACR Technical Report, Aug 2010. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1055v1
M. McKerns, L. Strand, T.J. Sullivan, A. Fang, M. Aivazis, Building a framework for predictive science, in Proceedings of the 10th Python in Science Conference (SciPy 2011), June 2011 (2011), pp. 67–78. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1056
A.C. Narayan, D. Xiu, Distributional sensitivity for uncertainty quantification. Commun. Comput. Phys. 10(1), 140–160 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.4208/cicp.160210.300710a
J.F. Nash Jr., Equilibrium points in \(n\)-person games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 36, 48–49 (1950)
J. Nash, Non-cooperative games. Ann. Math. 2(54), 286–295 (1951)
H. Niederreiter, Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 63 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1992)
H. Nyquist, IEEE Trans. 47, 617 (1928)
H. Owhadi, Bayesian numerical homogenization (2014). arXiv:1406.6668
H. Owhadi, Multi-grid with rough coefficients and multiresolution operator decomposition from hierarchical information games (2015) (To appear)
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, Qualitative Robustness in Bayesian Inference (2014). arXiv:1411.3984
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, Brittleness of Bayesian inference and new Selberg formulas. Commun. Math. Sci. (2015). arXiv:1304.7046
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, T.J. Sullivan, On the Brittleness of Bayesian Inference (2013). arXiv:1308.6306
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, T.J. Sullivan, Brittleness of Bayesian inference under finite information in a continuous world. Electron. J. Stat. 9, 1–79 (2015). arXiv:1304.6772
H. Owhadi, C. Scovel, T.J. Sullivan, M. McKerns, M. Ortiz, Optimal uncertainty quantification. SIAM Rev. 55(2), 271–345 (2013)
H. Owhadi, L. Zhang, L. Berlyand, Polyharmonic homogenization, rough polyharmonic splines and sparse super-localization. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 48(2), 517–552 (2014)
F. Rossi, A. Tsoukias (eds.), Algorithmic Decision Theory, First International Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5783 (Springer, 2009)
A. Saltelli, K. Chan, E.M. Scott (eds.), Sensitivity Analysis, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley, Chichester, 2000)
A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M. Saisana, S. Tarantola, Global Sensitivity Snalysis. The Primer (Wiley, Chichester, 2008)
C. Scovel, I. Steinwart, Hypothesis testing for validation and certification. J. Complex. (2010) (Submitted)
C.E. Shannon, Proc. IRE 37, 10 (1949)
X. Shen, L. Wasserman, Rates of convergence of posterior distributions. Ann. Stat. 29(3), 687–714 (2001)
I.H. Sloan, Sparse sampling techniques, Presented at 2010 ICMS Uncertainty Quantification workshop (2010)
I.H. Sloan, S. Joe, Lattice Methods for Multiple Integration (Oxford Science Publications, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1994)
J.E. Smith, Generalized Chebychev inequalities: theory and applications in decision analysis. Oper. Res. 43(5), 807–825 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.43.5.807
H.M. Soekkha (ed.), Aviation Safety: Human Factors, System Engineering, Flight Operations, Economics, Strategies, Management (VSP, 1997)
L.A. Steen, J.A. Seebach Jr., Counterexamples in Topology (Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 1995). Reprint of the second (1978) edition
I. Steinwart, A. Christmann, Support Vector Machines. Information Science and Statistics (Springer, New York, 2008)
R.M. Storn, K.V. Price, Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11(4), 341–359 (1997)
A.M. Stuart, Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective. Acta Numer. 19, 451–559 (2010)
T.J. Sullivan, M. McKerns, D. Meyer, F. Theil, H. Owhadi, M. Ortiz, Optimal uncertainty quantification for legacy data observations of Lipschitz functions. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 47(6), 1657–1689 (2013)
T.J. Sullivan, U. Topcu, M. McKerns, H. Owhadi, Uncertainty quantification via codimension-one partitioning. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 85(12), 1499–1521 (2011)
B.H. Toby, N. Khosrovani, C.B. Dartt, M.E. Davis, J.B. Parise, Structure-directing agents and stacking faults in the con system: a combined crystallographic and computer simulation study. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 39(1–2), 77–89 (2000)
R.A. Todor, C. Schwab, Convergence rates for sparse chaos approximations of elliptic problems with stochastic coefficients. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 27(2), 232–261 (2007)
L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, K. Comanor, Generalized Chebyshev bounds via semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev. 49(1), 52–64 (2007)
P. Venkataraman, Applied Optimization with MATLAB Programming (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009)
J. Von Neumann, H.H. Goldstine, Numerical inverting of matrices of high order. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 53, 1021–1099 (1947)
J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1944)
A. Wald, Statistical decision functions which minimize the maximum risk. Ann. Math. 2(46), 265–280 (1945)
D. Xiu, Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations: a review. Commun. Comput. Phys. 5(2–4), 242–272 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McKerns, M. (2018). Is Automated Materials Design and Discovery Possible?. In: Lookman, T., Eidenbenz, S., Alexander, F., Barnes, C. (eds) Materials Discovery and Design. Springer Series in Materials Science, vol 280. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99465-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99465-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99464-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99465-9
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)