Data-driven materials science: status, challenges and perspectives L. Himanen,1 A. Geurts,1, 2, 3 A. S. Foster,1, 4, 5 and P. Rinke1, 6, ∗ 1Department of Applied Physics, Aalto University, P.O. Box 11100, 00076 Aalto, Espoo, Finland 2Department of Management Studies, Aalto University, P.O. Box 11100, 00076 Aalto, Espoo, Finland 3TNO, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Expertise Center for Strategy and Policy, Anna van Beurenplein 1, 2595 DA The Hague 4Graduate School Materials Science in Mainz, Staudinger Weg 9, 55128, Germany 5WPI Nano Life Science Institute (WPI-NanoLSI), Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa 920-1192, Japan 6Theoretical Chemistry and Catalysis Research Centre, Technische Universität München, Lichtenbergstr. 4, D-85747 Garching, Germany (Dated: August 20, 2019) Data-driven science is heralded as a new paradigm in materials science. In this field, data is the new resource, and knowledge is extracted from materials data sets that are too big or complex for traditional human reasoning - typically with the intent to discover new or improved materials or materials phenomena. Multiple factors, including the open science movement, national funding, and progress in information technology, have fueled its development. Such related tools as materials databases, machine learning, and high-throughput methods are now established as parts of the materials research toolset. However, there are a variety of challenges that impede progress in data-driven materials science: data veracity, integration of experimental and computational data, data longevity, standardization, and the gap between industrial interests and academic efforts. In this perspective article, we discuss the historical development and current state of data-driven materials science, building from the early evolution of open science to the rapid expansion of materials data infrastructures. We also review key successes and challenges so far, providing a perspective on the future development of the field. Keywords: materials science, open science, open innovation, data science, database, machine learning, artificial intelligence, materials I. INTRODUCTION are discovered, designed, developed, manufactured, and deployed remains slow, costly, and highly inefficient: By In this perspective article, we review the current state the time a new material comes to market, the patent pro- of data-driven materials science with a focus on materials tection of the original invention is at the end of its tenure, 2 data infrastructures. Data-driven invokes associations and proprietary advantage is lost (see also Ref. 3). By with big data, data management, open data and artificial applying data science to materials research, we now have a intelligence (e.g. machine learning). The public debate of way to accelerate the materials value chain from discovery these terms is currently dominated by internet giants like to deployment. Google, Amazon, and Facebook who also lead the techno- logical development of data infrastructures, algorithms, Traditional approach Database driven approach and analysis tools. Compared to these e-commerce and (1st, 2nd, 3rd paradigms) (4th paradigm) social media developments, the field of data-driven mate- rials science is still under construction. By way of analogy, it is nonetheless still instructive to imagine a Materials “Google” – the Materials Ultimate Search Engine (MUSE). In this article, we address what it takes to develop such a search tool for materials. Materials science, the study of the characteristics and applications of materials, is a well established discipline collect and share arXiv:1907.05644v2 [physics.comp-ph] 19 Aug 2019 that combines chemistry, physics, and engineering re- search. Materials scientists frequently dream of designing new materials new materials new materials from scratch for use in society1. However, instead of finding new materials using the MUSE, they discover new materials through conventional experimen- FIG. 1. Materials discovery schematic. In the traditional tal, theoretical, or computational research (see left panel approach, new materials are discovered by experimentation, of Fig. 1). This pipeline through which new materials theory, or computation (also referred to as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd paradigms and symbolized by the three icons at the top of the left panel). In the 4th paradigm of data-driven materials science, available data is gathered in data infrastructures, and ∗ Corresponding author: patrick.rinke@aalto.fi machine learning approaches discover new materials. 2 Data science has developed out of the growing demand frastructures. We discuss how these infrastructures grew for open science combined with the meteoric rise of AI historically from simple databases into data centres that and machine learning. As these innovative technologies then progressed into materials discovery platforms, and allow ever-larger datasets to be processed and hidden cor- we detail the current state of data infrastructure. A list relations to be unveiled, data-driven science is emerging of current challenges provides the gateway to the second as the fourth scientific paradigm4,5 (cf. Fig. 1) following part of this article, in which we delve deeper into data the first three eras of experimentally, theoretically, and organization, acquisition, quality, and machine learning. computationally propelled scientific discoveries. Often We conclude with an industrial perspective that addresses connected to the fourth industrial revolution6 or the sec- the future and longevity of materials data infrastructures. ond machine age,7 such data-driven approaches permeate science, business, politics, and even social life. Since ma- terials innovation is a critical, well-recognized driver of II. OPEN SCIENCE MOVEMENT economic development and societal progress, it is impor- tant that new trends, such as data science, are embraced Many of the fundamental aspects of data-driven mate- if they have the potential to advance the field. rials science are built upon the key elements of the Open Data-driven materials science and materials informat- Science movement. The European Commission outlines24 ics are umbrella terms for the scientific practice of sys- Open Science as “...a new approach to the scientific pro- tematically extracting knowledge from materials datasets. cess based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing This practice differs from traditional scientific approaches knowledge by using digital technologies and new collabo- in materials research by the volume of processed data rative tools. ” Here we reflect on those aspects of Open and the more automated way information is extracted (cf. Science that are particularly relevant to the birth and Fig. 1), for example, through the use of machine learning future of data-driven materials science. (see Ref. 5, 8–23 for recent review articles on machine Openness in science was initially curtailed by the pres- learning in materials science). In our MUSE analogy, this tige wars between the patrons of early scientists and their would be the search and find part. In addition to data associated, convoluted encryption schemes25. Once more processing and data analysis tools, data-driven materials professional scientific practice developed, scientists em- science also requires physical infrastructures that host braced the idea of accessibility of research as a cornerstone and preserve that data. These would be the data storage of progress, and this has been generally mandated by pub- part of our MUSE example, which, as physical infrastruc- lic policy. As early as 1710 in the UK, the Copyright Act tures, require dedicated community efforts and sustained endowed the ownership of copyright to authors rather than investment to become and remain operational. publishers, encouraging authors to deposit manuscripts Stakeholders in academia, industry, governments, and into national libraries to make them publicly accessible. In the public attach different meanings and expectations addition to accessibility, public accountability and scien- to data-driven materials science. The actual material tific reproducibility have remained powerful driving forces science is carried out in academia and research and de- in the way science has been conducted and disseminated, velopment (R&D) departments in industry. Scientists at and significant deviations from these norms are of great universities and companies not only produce materials concern to the community26. More recently in the 1990s, data that could then be stored in data facilities, they the development of the internet transformed this debate are also the primary user group of materials data infras- as it became possible to make nearly all aspects of the sci- tructures. In the wake of digitalization, industry has a entific research process easily accessible, from preliminary further interest in digitizing materials data and incor- data to final publications. While arguments over fair allo- porating data-driven materials science into their value cation of rewards for scientific achievement versus full and chain. Policy makers and governmental or private funding early research dissemination remain challenging27, and agencies may have an interest in promoting open science intellectual property management regularly introduces data and can stir scientific developments through policy conflicts28, the era of Open Science29,30 (or indeed Open and funding decisions. The general public benefits from Innovation31) is here to stay and contributes to scientific materials science