Confidence Adjusted Surprise Measure for Active Resourceful Trials (CA-SMART): A Data-driven Active Learning Framework for Accelerating Material Discovery under Resource Constraints
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Accelerating the discovery and manufacturing of advanced materials with specific properties is a critical yet formidable challenge due to vast search space, high costs of experiments, and time-intensive nature of material characterization. In recent years, active learning, where a surrogate machine learning (ML) model mimics the scientific discovery process of a human scientist, has emerged as a promising approach to address these challenges by guiding experimentation toward high-value outcomes with a limited budget. Among the diverse active learning philosophies, the concept of surprise (capturing the divergence between expected and observed outcomes) has demonstrated significant potential to drive experimental trials and refine predictive models. Scientific discovery often stems from surprise thereby making it a natural driver to guide the search process. Despite its promise, prior studies leveraging surprise metrics such as Shannon and Bayesian surprise lack mechanisms to account for prior confidence, leading to excessive exploration of uncertain regions that may not yield useful information. To address this, we propose the Confidence-Adjusted Surprise Measure for Active Resourceful Trials (CA-SMART), a novel Bayesian active learning framework tailored for optimizing data-driven experimentation. On a high level, CA-SMART incorporates Confidence-Adjusted Surprise (CAS) to dynamically balance exploration and exploitation by amplifying surprises in regions where the model is more certain while discounting them in highly uncertain areas. We evaluated CA-SMART on two benchmark functions (Six-Hump Camelback and Griewank) and in predicting the fatigue strength of steel. The results demonstrate superior accuracy and efficiency compared to traditional surprise metrics, standard Bayesian Optimization (BO) acquisition functions and conventional ML methods.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 98 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Mar 2025.
Builds on
9 of 98 references.
References · 9
- 2015Bayesian optimization for materials designcited by 80
- 2019Bayesian Optimization for Materials Design with Mixed Quantitative and Qualitative Variablescited by 66
- 2021Benchmarking the Performance of Bayesian Optimization across Multiple Experimental Materials Science Domainscited by 48
- 2021Audacity of huge: overcoming challenges of data scarcity and data quality for machine learning in computational materials discoverycited by 10
- 2022A taxonomy of surprise definitionscited by 8
- 2020Predicting Elastic Properties of Materials from Electronic Charge Density Using 3D Deep Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 7
- 2024An Augmented Surprise-guided Sequential Learning Framework for Predicting the Melt Pool Geometrycited by 6
- 2021Data-driven method for real-time prediction and uncertainty quantification of fatigue failure under stochastic loading using artificial neural networks and Gaussian process regressioncited by 4
- 2023Accelerating material discovery with a threshold-driven hybrid acquisition policy-based Bayesian optimizationcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.