## An accelerating approach of designing ferromagnetic

## materials via machine learning modeling of magnetic ground

## state and Curie temperature

T. Long, N. M. Fortunato, Yixuan Zhang, O. Gutfleisch, and H. Zhang*

Institute of Materials Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt 64287, Germany

*Corresponding to Hongbin Zhang, hzhang@tmm.tu-darmstadt.de

## Abstract

Magnetic materials have a plethora of applications ranging from informatics to energy harvesting and conversion. However, such functionalities are limited by the magnetic ordering temperature. In  this  work,  we  performed  machine  learning  on  the  magnetic  ground  state  and  the  Curie temperature (TC), using generic chemical and crystal structural descriptors. Based on a database of 2805 known intermetallic compounds, a random forest model is trained to classify ferromagnetic and  antiferromagnetic  compounds  and  to  do  regression  on  the  TC  for  the  ferromagnets.  The resulting accuracy is about 86% for classification and 92% for regression (with a mean absolute error  of  58K).  Composition  based  features  are  sufficient  for  both  classification  and  regression, whereas structural descriptors improve the performance. Finally, we predict the magnetic ordering and TC for all the intermetallic magnetic materials in the Materials Project. Our work paves the way to accelerate the development of magnetic materials for technological applications.

## Introduction

The continued growth of the global population has raised issues about sustainability and energy future,  demanding  improved  efficiency  of  electricity  production  and  consumption.  Magnetic materials  have  a  wide  spectrum  of  applications,  particularly  in  efficient  energy  harvesting, conversion, and utilization. 1,2 Specifically, permanent magnets (PMs) are the key components for the energy related technologies, such as conventional generators, e-mobility, automatization and refrigeration. 3,4 Currently,  two  classes  of  PMs,  namely,  the  ferrites  and  AlNiCo,  and  the  high performance PMs based on Nd-Fe-B and Sm-Co are widely used, with a gap in between to be filled by novel PMs, ideally those without critical elements such as heavy rare earths. Moreover, FM  materials  have  been  widely  applied  in  spintronics,  such  as  sensing,  memory  and  logic, whereas the emerging antiferromagnetic (AFM)  spintronics have recently drawn intense attention. 4,5 Two fundamental properties desired for promising candidate magnetic materials are a ferromagnetic  (FM)  ground  state  with  strong  magnetization  and  a  high  Curie  temperature  (T C) which  governs  the  temperature  range  of  functioning.  These  properties  are  also  important  for magnetic refrigeration which promises enhanced energy efficiency over the conventional cooling technologies. 6

Although TC is readily experimentally measurable, synthesis and optimization of real materials are time-consuming  and  mostly  done  based  on  trial  and  error. Thus,  the development  of  a methodology to accelerate the development of magnetic materials with a theoretical pre-screening is of natural interest. Typical theoretical approaches to evaluate TC rely on the parameterization of density functional theory (DFT) electronic structure to construct a Heisenberg Hamiltonian, which can be solved via atomistic Monte Carlo simulation. This approach fails even for elemental metal like Co and Ni, due to the strong itinerant nature of magnetism therein. 7,8 Moreover, DFT is not sufficient  in  describing  the  strongly  correlated  4f  electrons  in  rare-earths,   while  the  orbital 9 dependent  functional  (e.g.,  DFT+U)  treatment  is  often  chosen  to  fit  to  experiments.  The state-of-the-art DFT plus dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) method can be applied to tackle the electronic correlation problem but is numerically expensive. Whereas the TC evaluated for bcc Fe  based  on  DFT+DMFT  is  50%  off  the  experimental  value. 10,11 Therefore,  there  is  a  great impetus for a predictive approach to obtain TC, which is applicable to compounds with arbitrary compositions and crystal structures.

Machine learning is an emerging tool in materials science, being applied successfully to model the thermodynamic  stability, 12 band  gap, 13 elastic properties, 14 inter-atomic  potentials 15 and  in predicting  potential  high  temperature  superconductors. 16 However,  regression  models  to  predict ordering  temperature  of  magnetic  materials  have  only  been  reported  in  a  limited  scope  while classification  models  to  distinguish  AFM  and  FM  are  absent  in  literature  to  the  best  of  our knowledge. Sanvito et al. trained a linear regression model over 40 intermetallic Heusler alloys (with experimental TC), and  made  predictions for another 20 compounds.  By  validating experiments, they discovered Co2MnTi with a remarkably high TC of 900K. 17 Dam et al. focused on  selecting  the  best  features  for  predicting  T C  of  binary  3d-4f  intermetallic  compounds  by applying Gaussian kernel regression on 108 compounds. The add-one-in test accuracy can reach above 95% when only eight descriptors are used, with the rare-earth concentration being the most relevant. 18

In this work, we develop a FM/AFM classification model along with a regression model to predict the TC for intermetallic FM compounds, using the random forest (RF) method. These models are then used to identify the magnetic ground state of 5183 magnetic intermetallic compounds from the Materials Project database and to predict the TC of those classified as FM. It is demonstrated that our machine learning framework is efficient and predictive, and can be used to accelerate the screening  for  FM  compounds  which  are  promising  for  spintronics  and  permanent  magnets applications.

## Results

## Data

Using the AtomWork database, 19 1749 FM and 1056 AFM inter-metallic compounds are collected, where  oxides,  sulfites,  chlorides,  and  fluorides  having  been  excluded,  along  with  compounds without either of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni atoms, which are the typical magnetic atoms in transition metal based intermetallic  magnetic materials. The corresponding crystal structures  are collected from  AtomWork  and  Inorganic  Crystal  Structure  Database  (ICSD). 20 For  compounds  with multiple magnetic phase transitions, the critical temperature is defined as the magnetic transition temperature from a disordered paramagnetic state to an ordered FM state. In this way, materials with the first-order magneto-volume, magneto-structural, and temperature dependent spin-reorientation transitions are excluded for the current work.

The distribution of experimental FM ordering temperatures is shown in Fig. 1(A). It is dominated by compounds with low TC, with a maximum value around 1400 K, e.g., 1410 K and 1388 K for Co  in  face-centered-cubic  (space  group  225)  and  hexagonal-closed-pack  (space  group  194) structures, respectively. The element resolved TC distributions are highlighted in Fig. 1(B-D) for Fe-, Co-, and Mn-based compounds, whereas the TC for Ni-based compounds are mostly in the low-temperature  range  (Fig.  S1(A))  and  there  are  limited  number  of  Cr-based  ferromagnetic materials (Fig. S1(B)). It is clear that all compounds with TC higher than 1200K are Co-based (Fig. 1(D)),  the  Fe-based  compounds  (Fig.  1(C))  consist  of  1/3  of  the  database  with  T C  normally distributed around 600K, while the TC of Mn-based compounds (Fig. 1(B)) are mostly found at relative low temperature (with a peak at 300 K) range. Thus, the Fe- and Co-based compounds are optimal for high temperature applications, and in the room temperature range all three classes are interesting.

Moreover, the distribution of experimental AFM ordering Neel temperatures (TN) is shown in Fig. S2(A), where TN of most compounds are less than 100K. The element resolved TN distributions in Fig. S2(B-F) indicate that Fe- and Mn- based compounds are more suitable for high temperature application.  It  is  noted  that  there  are  many  more  AFM  compounds  such  as  oxides,  thus  the collection of AFM intermetallic compounds in this work serves only for classification and we save the  regression  of  T N  for  future  study.  We  have  also  collected  5193  magnetic  intermetallic compounds  from  Materials  Project, 21 in  order  to  make  predictions  by  applying  the  machine learning models for magnetic ground state classification and TC regression, as discussed in detail below.

Fig. 1. Distribution of TC for the FM database. (A) Histogram of TC for 1749 FM materials in the  database.  Green,  blue,  cyan,  gray  and  yellow  represents  Ni,  Co,  Fe,  Mn  and  Cr  based compounds,  respectively. (B) Histogram  of  Fe  based  FM  compound  categorized  by  TC. (C) Histogram  of  Co  based  FM  compound  categorized  by  TC. (D) Histogram  of  Mn  based  FM compound categorized by TC. The bin size is fixed to be 50K.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00926v2-figure-83fd9ba4-a8a0-4608-afa5-cb3421baaeb8.jpg)

## Descriptors

The Materials Agnostic Platform for Informatics and Exploration (MAGPIE) 22 proposed by Ward et al. is used to obtain the chemical descriptors, including 4 categories: stoichiometric attributes, element  properties  statistic,  electron  structure  attributes  and  ionic  compound  attributes.  In  this work,  we  regroup  them  in  the  following  5  classes,  namely,  norm  (L   norms  of  the  fractions), p magnetic  moment  of  the  constituting  elements,  atomic  number,  valence  electrons  and  other chemical descriptors. (Please check details in Methods and Table S1 and S2) These descriptors are collectively labeled as CHEM. As for structural descriptors (labeled as STR), Smooth Overlap of Atomic  Positions  (SOAP)  is  used  to  describe  the  local crystalline environment  such  as coordination  and  distance  between  atoms. 23 Space  group  number  is  considered  as  a  structural descriptor as well. In total, 139 (25) CHEM (STR) descriptors for each compound are used. In order to get a better understanding of the relative feature importance and the underlying physical picture, we  considered two models with variations of the included features labeled as CHEM+STR and CHEM.

## Classification

While the prediction of whether a material is magnetic or not can be straightforwardly done in DFT, the question of being AFM or FM is more complex. For instance, the AFM ground state is mostly  set  aside  in  the  Materials  Project,  despite  the  thermodynamic  stability  and  electronic properties hinge on the magnetic configurations. This is because that the number of possible AFM states, especially after considering non-collinear magnetic configurations, 24 would make high-throughput calculations intractable. 25

To enable the prediction of the magnetic ordering in a computationally inexpensive fashion, we perform a classification of the AFM or FM ground state. The training set consisted of 90% of the database  and  10%  are  used  for  validation.  The  quality  of  the  classification  model  is  judged  in terms of the following statistic metrics. 26 By looking at the positives (tp), false positives (fp), false negatives (fn) and true negatives (tn), the accuracy, precision, recall and F1 can be evaluated as following:

$$a c c u r a c y = \frac { t p + t n } { t p + t n + f p + f n }$$

$$p r e c i s i o n = \frac { \iota p } { t p + f p }$$

$$r e c a l l = \frac { \iota p } { t p + \i n }$$

$$\frac { \ t p } { \ t p + \jmath } \\ \frac { \ t p } { \cdot \cdot \cdot c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c _ { c | a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ { a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a } a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a. a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a c _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ c _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ c _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a a } _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ b _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _'_ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ \ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a, a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a \ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a. _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ { a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ _ a _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a _ a$$

$$F _ { 1 } = 2 \times \frac { p r e c i s i o n \times r e c a l l } { p r e c i s i o n + r e c a l l }$$

with true being FM and false AFM. The accuracy represents the overall quality of the prediction, the precision is the proportion of those correctly classified as FM within all classified as FM, the recall is the proportion of those correctly identified as FM with all known to be FM, and the F1 bridges the recall and precision metrics, denoting if there is a bias towards classifying one label. The confusion matrix (CM) is a table that represents the instances in a predicted class versus the ones  in  the  actual  class,  as  shown  in  Fig.  2(A),  together  with  the  resulting  metrics  for  10 cross-validation sets plotted in Fig. 2(B).

Obviously,  the  best  accuracy  for  classification  is  86%,  that  is,  88.8%  FM  and  82.4%  AFM compounds are correctly classified. It is achieved by taking all chemical and structural features as descriptors,  i.e.,  the  CHEM+STR  model.  This  combined  with  an  F1  score  of  89%  (Fig.  2(B))

indicates good predictability, with a slight bias towards predicting FM which might be due to the unbalanced  number  of  FM/AFM  compounds  in  the  database.  By  performing  10-fold  cross validation (Fig. 2(B)), the average accuracy is about 82%, meaning that the RF model has neither overfitting nor biased sampling.

Interestingly, in the CHEM+STR model, the descriptor group valence electrons is selected as the most important feature, contributing 47% of feature importance, while the second most important descriptor  group,  SOAP,  only  constitutes  15%,  followed  by  the  atomic  number  and  magnetic moment  of  the  constituting  elements.  The  contribution  of  valence  electrons  demonstrates  that intrinsic properties of element have the strongest significance in predicting the magnetic ordering. To confirm this, the CHEM model is considered, which eliminates an explicit description of the local crystalline environment, leading to an accuracy of 82% and an F1 score of 86% (Table S3) where  the  order  of  importance  for  the  chemical  features  remains  the  same,  reinforcing  their importance relative to each other. Excluding the structural descriptor only results in a 4% drop in accuracy, indicating that the local environment does not affect the magnetic ordering directly, but exerts influence on the valence electrons of atoms and disturbs the magnetic ordering. However, the necessity of considering interaction between atoms in magnetic ordering cannot be overlooked.

Fig.  2. Performance  of  the  classification  model. (A) :  Confusion  matrix  of  FM  and  AFM classification test set of 281 compounds. (B) : Statistical metrics for 10-folder cross validation.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00926v2-figure-05ca2e94-08ca-4058-8bf7-66d8ca75ab7a.jpg)

## Regression

Turning  now  to  the  regression  of  T C,  which  is  done  using  the  RF  with  90%/10%  partition  for training/validation of the 1749 FM compounds, the best R  obtained from the validation is as high 2 as 92%  using  the  CHEM+STR  descriptors,  indicating  very  good  agreement  between  the experimental and predicted values. As shown in Fig. 3(A), the corresponding mean absolute error

(MAE) is 58 K. The agreement has to be weighed against the variation of TC in experiments due to differences in composition, synthesis and measurement techniques, which contributes to the error. It  is  noted  that,  compared  with  those  obtained  based  on  DFT  calculations,  the  machine  learned values are more accurate. 7-9

The valence electron features are still assigned with the highest importance of 41%, while that for the magnetic moment of the constituting elements increases to 25% corresponding to the linear relationship between magnetic moment per atom with the total magnetization. Interestingly, the importance of SOAP drops to only 9%, indicating that the local crystalline environment has less importance when FM ordering is determined. When compared with the CHEM descriptors, the effect of including the crystal structure is again marginal but noticeable. For instance, using only the CHEM descriptors results in a R  of 90% and an MAE of 60K (Table S4). Nevertheless, the 2 CHEM  only  model  must  fail  for  edge  cases,  where  different  phases/volumes  of  the  same compound have different magnetic orderings or TC. For instance, Fe3Nb with space group number 225 has a predicted TC of 939K while the predicted TC is only 373.67K with space group number 139 using CHEM+STR descriptors. However, Heusler alloys with magneto-structural transitions like Ni2MnGa exhibit the same predicted TC in both cubic and tetragonal structures, probably due to the lack of data in training, e.g., only 32 compounds in the    database have isomers.

Furthermore,  in  order  to  test  the  convergence  with  respect  to  the  feature  space,  we  performed active  learning  (AL),  starting  with  10%  of  the  training  data  and  take  automatically  10%  more samples data which are the most outliers in the rest training set. In this way, the feature space that has  not  been  covered  by  the  previous  training  set  will  be  included,  enabling  to  obtain  higher accuracy with less data. 27 As shown in Fig. S3, using only 50% of the data, the resulting accuracy based on AL is already comparable with the standard model. Such training accelerating is even significant when approximately 10% data selected by AL achieves an R  of 84% compared with 2 random selection only at 72%. Therefore, covering larger region of the feature space will make the regression modeling more robust. In addition, our database is not guaranteed to be completed, the AL algorithm will make it possible to take further experimental cases into consideration.

Fig. 3. Regression model performance and feature importance. (A) Predicted vs. experiment TC for test set in general regression model. (B) 10-folder cross validation and pie chart of feature importance.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00926v2-figure-d80fb159-ea7e-4dad-bceb-4335aa6d2801.jpg)

## Prediction

Using  the  model  based  on  CHEM+STR,  we  performed  AFM/FM  classification  of  the  5193 intermetallic compounds from Materials Project, leading to 2884 (2309) FM (AFM) (see Data file S1 in the Supplementary). Fig. 4 shows the predicted TC for the classified FM compounds, ranging up to 1280 K. Obviously, the compounds with TC higher than 600 K are again mostly Co and Fe based, and the element-wise distribution is comparable to that of our training set as shown in Fig. S4. The compounds with predict TC &gt; 1100 K are listed in Table 1, which are all Co-based. It is found that the predicted TC is in good agreement with the values from the literature, which have been collected after obtaining the prediction. For instance, the largest difference is around 130K for Co17Tb2, where the predicted value is about 1283.7K while the experiment value is 1150K 28 ; whereas  the  smallest  difference  is  about  10  K  for  Co 17 PrYb  with  experimental  (predicted)  TC being  1178K 29 (1167.2  K).  We  note  the  total  computational  time  for  the  classification  and regression of these compounds is a few seconds, making it trivially inexpensive compared with the computational effort that would be required by DFT.

Table 1. List of potential high TC (&gt;1100K) FM compounds by this work.

| MP-id      | Formula       | Predicted T C (K)   | Real T C (K)   |   Space Group No. |
|------------|---------------|---------------------|----------------|-------------------|
| mp-1072089 | Co            | Around 1283.67      | -              |               227 |
| mp-669382  | Co            | Around 1283.67      | -              |               186 |
| mp-1193227 | Co            | Around 1283.67      | -              |               136 |
| mp-1096987 | Co 9 Fe       | Around 1283.67      | -              |               123 |
| mp-1201816 | Co 17 Gd 2    | Around 1283.67      | 1200 30        |               194 |
| mp-1204082 | Co 17 Lu 2    | Around 1283.67      | 1192 31        |               194 |
| mp-1195194 | Co 17 Np 2    | Around 1283.67      | -              |               194 |
| mp-568820  | Co 17 Pu 2    | Around 1283.67      | -              |               194 |
| mp-1094061 | Co 12 Sm      | Around 1283.67      | -              |               139 |
| mp-16932   | Co 17 Th 2    | Around 1283.67      | -              |               166 |
| mp-1199370 | Co 17 Tb 2    | Around 1283.67      | 1150 28        |               194 |
| mp-1196360 | Co 17 Tm 2    | Around 1283.67      | 1170 28        |               194 |
| mp-1219785 | Co 17 PrSm    | Around 1167.17      | 1200 32        |               160 |
| mp-1219295 | Co 17 GdSm    | Around 1167.17      | 1200 32        |               160 |
| mp-1220026 | Co 17 ErPr    | Around 1167.17      | 1167 29        |               160 |
| mp-1200096 | Co 17 Sm 2    | Around 1167.17      | 1150 28        |               194 |
| mp-1215870 | Co 17 PrYb    | Around 1167.17      | 1178 29        |               194 |
| mp-1199900 | Co 17 Yb 2    | Around 1167.17      | 1176 29        |               194 |
| mp-1216133 | Co 33 Yb 4 Zr | Around 1167.17      | 1175 33        |               156 |
| mp-1215883 | Co 34 Pr 3 Yb | Around 1167.17      | 1173 29        |                 8 |
| mp-1219047 | Co 17 SmY     | Around 1167.17      | 1200 32        |               160 |
| mp-356     | Co 17 Nd 2    | Around 1167.17      | 1125 34        |               166 |
| mp-1224958 | Co 33 La 4 Ta | Around 1167.17      | -              |                 8 |
| mp-1226612 | CeCo 17 Y     | Around 1167.17      | -              |               160 |
| mp-1105621 | Co 17 Pr 2    | Around 1167.17      | -              |               166 |
| mp-1220026 | Co 17 ErPr    | Around 1167.17      | -              |               160 |

Fig. 4. Histogram of TC prediction. (A) Histogram of predicted TC for 2884 FM materials in the database. Green, blue, cyan, gray and yellow represents Ni, Co, Fe, Mn and Cr based compounds, respectively. (B) The same as (A) but with predicted TC higher than 600K.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00926v2-figure-2de3d432-5da5-4006-9957-12c27aff069e.jpg)

## Discussion

It  is  demonstrated that machine learning using the RF algorithm is able to distinguish materials with FM and AFM ordering, and further predict the TC of FM compounds. This solves two critical problems  in  designing  magnetic  materials.  For  classification,  the  accuracy  reaches  86%  (82%) using  chemistry  plus  structure  (chemistry  only)  as  descriptors.  This  outperforms  the  DFT calculations 25 , which are applied on a selected set of compounds. For the resulting FM compounds, the  magnetization  can  be  straightforwardly  evaluated  using  DFT.  Furthermore,  the  TC  can  be accurately modeled with R 2  92% and MAE about 58K. This enables us to reduce the number of candidates  for  further  characterization.  For  instance,  the  magnetocrystalline  anisotropy  can  be evaluated  in  a  high  throughput  way, 35 which  sets  an  upper  limit  for  the  coercivity.  Thus,  the machine learning  model  developed  in  this  work  in  conjunction  with  DFT  enables  us  to  get  all three essential intrinsic magnetic properties evaluated.

Since  machine  learning  is  able  to  capture  the  mechanism  behind  magnetic  ordering  from  the statistical  point  of  view,  one  interesting  question  is  to  apply  the  same  modeling  on  AFM compounds to predict the Neel temperature. As the descriptors we used are robust, as suggested by comparable accuracy with different sets of descriptors, we suspect that our methods are applicable to predict the Neel temperature of AFM compounds as well. However, the AFM magnetic ground states are not uniquely defined, which requires additional development based on either machine learning modeling or high throughput DFT calculations.

In conclusion, we have developed a robust machine learning framework which allows screening of the  magnetic  ground  state  and  Curie  temperature  of  FM  compounds.  This  paves  the  way  to develop FM materials with systematic characterization of the intrinsic magnetic properties, with the help of further high throughput DFT calculations.

## Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Qiang Gao, Chen Shen and Ilias Samathrakis for useful discussion and suggestions.  The  authors  gratefully  acknowledge  computational  time  on  the  Lichtenberg  High Performance Supercomputer. Teng Long thanks the financial support from the China Scholarship Council. Nuno M. Fortunato thanks the financial support from European Research Council.

## Note

During the preparation of the manuscript, we noticed that Nelson and Sanvito did a similar work -Predicting the Curie temperature of ferromagnets using machine learning‖ (arXiv:1906:08534). They  focused  on  the  preselected  FM  compounds  without  classification,  where  the  accuracy  is about  88%  with  a  MAE  of  50K.  Consistent  with  our  observation,  it  is  concluded  that  only chemistry is required to model the Curie temperature.

## Reference

- 1. Gutfleisch,  O. et  al. Magnetic  Materials  and  Devices  for  the  21st  Century:  Stronger,  Lighter,  and  More Energy Efficient. Advanced Materials 23 , 821-842 (2011).
- 2. Skokov, K. P. &amp; Gutfleisch, O. Heavy rare earth free, free rare earth and rare earth free magnets - Vision and reality. Scripta Materialia 154 , 289-294 (2018).
- 3. Sander, D. et al. The 2017 Magnetism Roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 , 363001 (2017).
- 4. Chappert, C., Fert, A. &amp; Van Dau, F. N. The emergence of spin electronics in data storage. Nature Materials 6 , 813-823 (2007).
- 5. Jungwirth, T. et al. The multiple directions of antiferromagnetic spintronics. Nature Physics 14 , 200 (2018).
- 6. Gutfleisch, O. et al. Mastering hysteresis in magnetocaloric materials. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 374 , (2016).
- 7. Halilov, S. V., Eschrig, H., Perlov, A. Y. &amp; Oppeneer, P. M. Adiabatic spin dynamics from spin-density-functional theory: Application to Fe, Co, and Ni. Phys. Rev. B 58 , 293-302 (1998).
- 8. Ener, S. et al. Magnetic and magnetocaloric properties of the Co2-xMnxB system by experiment and density functional theory. Acta Materialia 165 , 270-277 (2019).
- 9. Matsumoto,  M.  &amp;  Akai,  H.  Calculated  Curie  temperatures  for  rare-earth  permanent  magnets:  ab  initio inspection  on  localized  magnetic  moments  in  d-electron  ferromagnetism. arXiv:1812.04842  [cond-mat] (2018).
- 10. Hausoel, A. et al. Local magnetic moments in iron and nickel at ambient and Earth's core conditions. Nature Communications 8 , 16062 (2017).
- 11. Han, Q., Birol, T. &amp; Haule, K. Phonon Softening due to Melting of the Ferromagnetic Order in Elemental

Iron. Physical Review Letters 120 , (2018).

- 12. Ward, L. et  al. Including  crystal  structure  attributes  in  machine  learning  models  of  formation  energies  via Voronoi tessellations. Phys. Rev. B 96 , 024104 (2017).
- 13. Zhuo,  Y.,  Mansouri  Tehrani,  A.  &amp;  Brgoch,  J.  Predicting  the  Band  Gaps  of  Inorganic  Solids  by  Machine Learning. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9 , 1668-1673 (2018).
- 14. Xie, T. &amp; Grossman, J. C. Crystal Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for an Accurate and Interpretable Prediction of Material Properties. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 145301 (2018).
- 15. Behler, J. Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials. The Journal of Chemical Physics 134 , 074106 (2011).
- 16. Stanev,  V. et  al. Machine  learning  modeling  of  superconducting  critical  temperature. npj  Computational Materials 4 , 29 (2018).
- 17. Sanvito, S. et al. Accelerated discovery of new magnets in the Heusler alloy family. Sci. Adv. 3 , e1602241 (2017).
- 18. Dam,  H.  C. et  al. A  regression-based  feature  selection  study  of  the  Curie  temperature  of  transition-metal rare-earth compounds: prediction and understanding. arXiv:1705.00978 [cond-mat] (2017).
- 19. Xu, Y., Yamazaki, M. &amp; Villars, P. Inorganic Materials Database for Exploring the Nature of Material. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50 , 11RH02 (2011).
- 20. Hellenbrandt,  M.  The  Inorganic  Crystal  Structure  Database  (ICSD)-Present  and  Future. Crystallography Reviews 10 , 17-22 (2004).
- 21. Jain, A. et  al. Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Materials 1 , 011002 (2013).
- 22. Ward, L., Agrawal, A., Choudhary, A. &amp; Wolverton, C. A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials. npj Computational Materials 2 , 16028 (2016).
- 23. Bartó k,  A.  P.,  Kondor,  R.  &amp;  Csá nyi,  G.  On  representing  chemical  environments. Phys. Rev. B 87 ,  184115 (2013).
- 24. Payne, A., Avendañ o-Franco, G., Bousquet, E. &amp; Romero, A. H. Firefly Algorithm Applied to Noncollinear Magnetic Phase Materials Prediction. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 14 , 4455-4466 (2018).
- 25. Horton, M. K., Montoya, J. H., Liu, M. &amp; Persson, K. A. High-throughput prediction of the ground-state collinear  magnetic  order  of  inorganic  materials  using  Density  Functional  Theory. npj  Computational Materials 18 (2019).
- 26. Stehman, S. V. Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment 62 , 77-89 (1997).
- 27. Podryabinkin,  E.  V.  &amp;  Shapeev,  A.  V.  Active  learning  of  linearly  parametrized  interatomic  potentials. Computational Materials Science 140 , 171-180 (2017).
- 28. Kou,    null,  Zhao,    null,  Grö ssinger,    null  &amp;  de  Boer  FR,    null.  ac-susceptibility  anomaly  and  magnetic anisotropy of R2Co17 compounds, with R=Y, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Lu. Phys. Rev., B Condens. Matter 46 , 6225-6235 (1992).
- 29. Merches,  M.,  Wallace,  W.  E.  &amp;  Craig,  R.  S.  Magnetic  and  structural  characteristics  of  some  2:  17  rare earth-cobalt systems. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 24 , 97-105 (1981).
- 30. Katayama,  T.  &amp;  Shibata,  T.  Magnetic  properties  of  some  gadolinium-Cobalt  intermetallic  compounds. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 23 , 173-182 (1981).
- 31. Givord, F. &amp; Lemaire, R. Proprietes cristallographiques et magnetiques des composes entre le cobalt et le lutecium. Solid State Communications 9 , 341-346 (1971).
- 32. Deryagin,  A. et al. Magnetic  characteristics  and  lattice  constants  of  some  pseudobinary  intermetallic

compounds of the type R2T17. physica status solidi (a) 23 , K15-K18 (1974).

- 33. Hirosawa, S. &amp; Wallace, W. E. Effect of Substitution of Zr and Pr on magnetic properties of R2Co17(R=Er, Yb). Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 30 , 238-242 (1982).
- 34. Andreev, A. V. et  al. High-field  magnetization study of a Tm2Co17 single crystal. Physical Review B 81 , 134429 (2010).
- 35. Drebov,  N. et  al. Ab  initio screening  methodology  applied  to  the  search  for  new  permanent  magnetic materials. New Journal of Physics 15 , 125023 (2013).
T. Long N. M. Fortunato Yixuan Zhang O. Gutfleisch H. Zhang
An accelerating approach of designing ferromagnetic materials via machine learning modeling of magnetic ground state and Curie temperature
Magnetic materials have a plethora of applications ranging from informatics
to energy harvesting and conversion. However, such functionalities are limited
by the magnetic ordering temperature. In this work, we performed machine
learning on the magnetic ground state and the Curie temperature (TC), using
generic chemical and crystal structural descriptors. Based on a database of
2805 known intermetallic compounds, a random forest model is trained to
classify ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic compounds and to do regression on
the TC for the ferromagnets. The resulting accuracy is about 86% for
classification and 92% for regression (with a mean absolute error of 58K).
Composition based features are sufficient for both classification and
regression, whereas structural descriptors improve the performance. Finally, we
predict the magnetic ordering and TC for all the intermetallic magnetic
materials in the Materials Project. Our work paves the way to accelerate the
development of magnetic materials for technological applications.