Slashdot Mirror


Data Mining Used to Create New Materials

Roland Piquepaille writes "MIT researchers have successfully integrated data mining tools and modern methods of quantum mechanics. They've designed software which can help predict the crystal structures of materials. To simplify, they say they've used methods used by online sales sites to suggest books to customers. And it seems to work: they claim they can determine in days the properties of atomic structures that might have taken months before. Read more for additional references and pictures."

106 comments

  1. Excellent by cptgrudge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe now I can get that Vorpal Mace of Undying +3 in the same time that I could only get the +1 model before. This will reduce the time I spend level grinding and farming in the MMORPGs that I frequent. Finally, a technology I can use.

    --
    Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    1. Re:Excellent by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      But, but... a mace is a bludgeoning weapon!

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  2. About damn time-A Joyous noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "its about time someone did something worthwhile with datamining ... i'm so sick of everything datamining is used for being big brother/1984 related."

    That's just because the cynic grabs all the attention. Datamining has been used for years, by the fortune 500, and you don't hear much about that.

    1. Re:About damn time-A Joyous noise. by russellh · · Score: 1

      Wait till we have dataminers trapped in a network collapse.
      Rescuers will be trying to ssh tunnel in...

      ...ducks....

      --
      must... stay... awake...
  3. MIT sued by Amazon for patent infringement! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering how broadly software patents are worded now a days, I would not be surprised if MIT gets sued by Amazon for patent infringement.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:MIT sued by Amazon for patent infringement! by Landak · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! It would be the person who sold the data-mined product who'd be infringing on Amazons "Click to buy" patent! And you know what we do to Patent Infringers...

      --
      My UID is prime. Is yours?
    2. Re:MIT sued by Amazon for patent infringement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does this get modded insightful? It's just a rant about software patents, with absolutely no substance. Which Amazon patent are we talking about? Which claims would be broadly interpreted?

      It's already been demonstrated that many /. posters don't fully understand patent law, but this is just plain ridiculous.

  4. This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netcrafts confirms--Roland Piquepaille is dying!

  5. Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh J.S. Christ. For a forum of geeks you all know diddly squat about law. A software patent isn't the same as a business patent. Second you can't patent math.

    "Using a technique called data mining, the MIT team preloaded the entire body of historical knowledge of crystal structures into a computer algorithm, or program, which they had designed to make correlations among the data based on the underlying rules of physics.

    Harnessing this knowledge, the program then delivers a list of possible crystal structures for any mixture of elements whose structure is unknown. The team can then run that list of possibilities through a second algorithm that uses quantum mechanics to calculate precisely which structure is the most stable energetically -- a standard technique in the computer modeling of materials. "

    1. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only takes one idiot to make a forum looking idiotic.

    2. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      WRONG. Algorithms are NOT patentable in the U.S. Any pure algorithms that accidentally get issued as patents (due to an Examiner's ineptitude, for example) would be swiftly invalidated in the event of any litigation.

      What IS patentable in the U.S. are *applications* of algorithms for specific purposes -- such as in manufacturing, robotics, etc.

      Somebody really needs to mod the the parent and the GP down -- it's a disservice to the /. community to continue to perpetuate this degree of ignorance about patent law.

    3. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Oh J.S. Christ. For a forum of geeks you all know diddly squat about law.

      I say that every day.

      Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.

    4. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I meant that the parent and OP should be modded down.

    5. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Ignorance and patents were well on their way to be intertwined well before we got here.

    6. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you intend to qualify that statement, you're simply proving my point.

    7. Re:Poster sued by common sense for ignorance. by phatvw · · Score: 0

      "Slashdot is the Fox News of patents."

      +1 Insightful

      Although I'd make it broader: Slashdot is the Fox News of technology.

  6. Aha ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Transparent aluminum anyone ?

    1. Re:Aha ! by Takumi2501 · · Score: 1

      I'd mod ya funny if I had any points.

      --
      Sent from my computer.
      Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
    2. Re:Aha ! by Jbcarpen · · Score: 0
      --
      GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
    3. Re:Aha ! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Transparent aluminum flying car anyone?

  7. Principles of the universe by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are two surprisingly simple and "dumb" principles that exist in our world.

    The first is called evolution (random mutation, breeding of the fittest) the result of which is basically everything around us, and it has resurfaced in computer programming as genetic programming, which essentially uses random processes and selection to create new inventions, mechanisms and even intelligent virtual creatures.

    The second I'll call "intelligent observation". It's basically how animals and people learn everything they know, by observing and applying "what seems to make sense" in other areas of our lives, even without understanding the underlying mechanisms (and how we discovered fire, or tools by observing similar nature mechanisms/animals). This has resurfaced in computer programming as data mining.

    Data mining and genetic programming: these two beat any patent, any existing algorithm, because they are not crippled by our limited brain capacity to understand the world around us. Expect a lot more of both in computer science and our lives in the following years.

    1. Re:Principles of the universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly genetic *algorithms* can be very useful. Thats treating the data as gene sequences.

      But genetic programming - evolving the code itself - isnt that failed 70s stuff?

    2. Re:Principles of the universe by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yes but what did Intelligent Design resurface as?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Principles of the universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Yes but what did Intelligent Design resurface as?

      A Republican platform?

    4. Re:Principles of the universe by rm999 · · Score: 1

      genetic programming

      I disagree, I find genetic algorithms to be very limited. Data mining makes sense - we can see an animal learning something over its lifetime, study how it does so, and emulate it. This, I think, is the future of AI and anything that will follow AI.

      Genetic Algorithms, on the other hand, is trying to to emulate a process that took billions of years over countless concurrent processes in a few days. I know genetic algorithms tackle problems in a much simpler problem state space that evolution, but that is the only way it can do anything useful. As the complexity rises at an exponential rate (which it will for the complex problems we want to solve), genetic algorithms will do less and less. Note that I am not really comparing them to anything else in existence - I know that we have no better way to tackle these problems - I am just saying genetic algorithms won't really solve them.

      Actually, the most successful design process we have found is our own brains. Obviously we are limited by ourselves, but that does not mean machines will be useless in the future. Already, technology has been improving what our brains can do. The first computers were designed by hand. These computers, in hand, let us designs more complex ones using cad programs. As computers got more and more complex, so did the CAD programs that design them, leading to a positive-benefit loop.

      There is a theory called technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singul arity) that says at some point machine AIs will sort of take over the human thought-process entirely for a lot of our inventions and problems, leading to a growth in technological development beyond what we can comprehend.

    5. Re:Principles of the universe by meburke · · Score: 1

      First, I'd like to give a nod tot he the other comments made here: Interesting thinking going on.

      Second, I'd like to point out that there are certain processes alrady in exisitence (especially TRIZ and ARIZ) that are predecessors to this type of approach. In one of his earlier books, Altshuler (inventor of TRIZ) proposed that once we were able to catalog the tertiary combinations of chemical reactions, invention and innovation would blossom explosively. It looks like this is where it's happening.

      Data mining and genetic programming are not sufficient for creating new products. We still need goals and specifications. However, wouldn't it be great if we could score a material and reduce the time necessary to discover materials and techniques that reduced the negative attributes using computer searches? Maybe this is just the next level of computer simulation (a pre-processor?).

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    6. Re:Principles of the universe by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Following years? How about now?

      http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitiv e.html

      http://www.human-competitive.org/

      (2006 results aren't posted yet...)

      I was at the GECCO06 conference (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation COnference) when the Human Competitive awards were handed out. The first place winner went to a guy whu evolved an oscillator that used HALF as many capacitors and resistors than the industry standard one. The second place winner evolved input parameters to Schrodinger's equations that enabled him to model a certain chemical reaction 10 and in some cases 1000 times faster than the earlier best result in the literature. And the rest of the entries were fascinating as well.

      http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2006/entrants _table.html

      The 1st and 2nd place entries were #5 and #6 respectively.

    7. Re:Principles of the universe by GeffDE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your view on genetic algorithms is just plain wrong.

      One of the reasons that "Intelligent Design" is so palatable to so many people is that nature and life are so damn complex. There is a textbook called Molecular Biology of the Cell; this book's aim is to precisely define the chemical pathways and biological structures that constitute a living cell, and it is roughly 2000 pages long. It is still outrageously incomplete. This massive tome is looking at something that is so incredibly minute that you are formed by trillions of them. It takes a 2000 page book to incompletely describe the simplest part of you. What is mind-boggling to many people (and simply awe-inspiring to the rest) is that such a simple rule as "survival of the fittest/random mutation" could create so complex a system. The fact is, such complexity is inherent in the system, and that complexity arises out of simplicity. A great tutorial on that is Cellular Automata.

      Now, you do bring up an interesting point about the positive feedback loop that our brains have created with technology. But if you extend your scenario to a few years after "The Almighty CAD Program" is designed, you may indeed reach that technological singularity, where a machine can design another machine inside a CAD program, and, a few years later, might be able to either make that machine with the automated robots already used for assembly, or even emulate it with its own hardware. Now you have reached the point where "genetic algorithms" are doing exactly what you have claimed they cannot. Genetic algorithms only tackle problems in a simple problem state because they have not been allowed to evolve enough. Bacteria are much simpler than humans, and they also first came around billions of years ago. After nature had time to evolve from the bacteria, it got more and more complex. So too will genetic algorithms.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    8. Re:Principles of the universe by rm999 · · Score: 1

      You didn't address my main argument how a "simple" process like survival of the fittest took billions of years over a countless number of concurrent processes (every single birth could be considered a process) to do what it did. The reason why I think genetic algorithms are limited in AI is for that, and only that, reason. Maybe my view is wrong, but you don't give an argument for why it is wrong.

      And my technological singularity thing has nothing to do with gentic algorithms. I do not think an intelligent machine will use GAs to do anything because of my previous argument of inefficiency.

    9. Re:Principles of the universe by Moodie-1 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not serious when you say "intelligent virtual creatures". They don't exist yet! And they won't for quite some time to come. Don't you mean "pseudo-intelligent virtual creatures" instead?

    10. Re:Principles of the universe by GeffDE · · Score: 1

      GAs aren't inefficient. A powerful computer can chug through billions of "births" a day. Additionally, GAs are set to have a higher rate of mutation than real life. So really, they just speed up "evolution" and while they might not be the fastest logically (you might think it would be better to intelligently pick which mutations to make), you can perform the random mutations a lot faster, so it's all a wash in the end.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    11. Re:Principles of the universe by rm999 · · Score: 1

      "GAs aren't inefficient. A powerful computer can chug through billions of "births" a day."

      Yeah, but those "births" aren't in a very complex problem space. In real evolution, each of those births will take a lifetime to be judged in the world to determine if it will procreate. One of those births you speak of will take up maybe a few hundred clocks on a cpu. Truly complex problems will take up too much computer time.

      I think we are arguing apples and oranges. You are talking about basic genetic algorithms that have worked well on a subset of simple problems that involve simple strings and a computer that can process that string. I am talking about, at some point (perhaps in the next 100 years), coming up with something intelligent that can compete with human thought. I am asserting that genetic algorithms will be entirely useless in this effort due to the innate complexity of human intelligence. Humamn intelligence took billions of years to evolve in a universe far more complex than any computers we have, so I think that "evolving" intelligence is simply asking too much. I see no reason why we can't simply build it by studying the human brain and using some of our own imagination. At that point the technological singularity may take over and we can stop caring :)

    12. Re:Principles of the universe by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      While it's true the evolutionary process that generated higher life forms took millions of years, GA systems cover a more specific problem space with a more static environement. They also itterate MUCH faster (100's of generations per second rather than fractional per decade).
          However I'd agree if your point is that GA's aren't the holy grail of AI. I don't think there is ONE (emphasis on 1!).
          GA's are just a piece ofthe puzzle imho, as are expert systems, neural nets, fuzzy logic, and a host of other systmes.
          It seems to me each of these when first introduced was a hammer to the AI community at the time. AS the old saying goes when all you have is a hammer every thing looks like a nail.

      Mycroft.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    13. Re:Principles of the universe by khallow · · Score: 1
      If evolution has a goal, it is survival. Intelligence is a byproduct not a goal.

      I imagine that directed evolution starting from the same begining point would be orders of magnitude faster.

    14. Re:Principles of the universe by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Your view on genetic algorithms is just plain wrong.

      You know I could never figure out why you said my view is "plain wrong", and then went on talking about something that has nothing to do with what I said, or my view on genetic algorithms anyway.

      Also genetic algorithms and genetic programming are two different techniques and not the same thing.

    15. Re:Principles of the universe by rm999 · · Score: 1

      Probably has something to do with the fact that he was replying to me, not you?

    16. Re:Principles of the universe by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Most likely :D Pardon.

    17. Re:Principles of the universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should re-examine the goal of creating an intelligence. I think that evolution can handle all the tasks that we might give an AI, and probably do a better job of it.

      Besides, the "billions" of years before human intelligence appeared is not a measure of its complexity. This is due to a lack of direct selection pressure for intelligence, the pressure appeared out of competition with other species. Evolving for intelligence directly would be a lot simpler and be a short-cut compared to real world evolution.

  8. Sounds like AI by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds a bit like Computer Learning/ AI to me. Give it a zillion past cases to learn from and then let it predict the next one. I did some things along those lines in my AI class for machine problems (perceptron comes to mind), though not nearly as complicated. That was a fun CS class.

    --
    simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    1. Re:Sounds like AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Data mining is about asking the right sorts of questions.

      Most AI is about structure and 'teaching' bias values. It is usually also limited to what it has learned. If you go outside of that set it gets wonky.

      Most data mining is about data. Not like a few hundred cases but THOUSANDS (millions sometimes) of cases. Many times it is used to help identify problems in proccess controls. For example 'how long does it take someone to buy some food at the counter?'. You have how much the person paid, how long they waited while ordering, how long it took to prep the food, how long did it take for the casher to bring the food out, how long before the next order. You can 'infer' from that data how long it took to buy something. You can use it to help identify good/bad workers. You can use it to identify people who need training. You can use it to figure out what foods take longer to cook etc. It is a matter of asking the right questions. You usually need someone who is familar with the problems at hand to get a good data mining operation.

      At one place we put this in they were SCREAMING 'big brother' least until they found out that they could go home an hour earlier and get paid the same amount. It also put into numbers who the trouble makers were and made the people who were 'tolerating' the bad behaviour something to go to managment with. Where as before a few 'slackers' were slowing down everyone and how staging work loads made everything run smoothly. Complaints went down productivity up and pay up. Everyone was happy. It gave them a way to measure changes in process. Where as before they could change something and could not tell what was going on.

      Data mining can be used for good or evil. It is just a measurment tool.

  9. Another reason to read Digg! by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No more freaking Roland Piquepalle!

    1. Re:Another reason to read Digg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you man. The quality of the submissions on Digg are just miles above Slashdot's.

  10. Lame name. by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The second I'll call "intelligent observation"."

    You know, most people would call it statistics (in this example, using a mathematical model to predict results), or the scientific method (in general, observing repeatable events).

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Lame name. by haluness · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very true - data mining is the new buzzword. The techniques used in data mining are prettyold and standard. Thats not to say that theres no research - theres a ton of stuff that can be done especially when handling large datasets. But fundamentally, it's well known statistical modeling - just rephrased for the 'Age of Marketing' :)

    2. Re:Lame name. by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Interesting


        So wouldn't patents on methods in data mining be the same thing as patenting mathematical methods, specifically stastistical methods?

        (It's an honest question)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Lame name. by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      "The second I'll call "intelligent observation".

      You know, most people would call it statistics


      I can just imagine life with statistics a million years ago:
      "Gee, did you notice how most animals have claws they use in their attacks? According to statistics, we can make some of our own with wood..."

      Statistics and data mining are both as you call it "buzz words". Let's not spin the discussion into an argument about terms though, right...

  11. I, for one by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    I welcome our cyrstalline entity overlords. Oh, wait, they were killed off in season five.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  12. Interesting coincidence... by Lord+Aurora · · Score: 1
    Oddly enough, I was reading Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle just before I checked out /. today...and this article echoes with something of Vonnegut's idea of ice-nine. (For those of you unfamiliar with the book, ice-nine is a (fictional) form of water with a melting point well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and, when dropped in water, it "teaches" the water how to crystallize in the same way. Crappy description, I know, but ice-nine eventually is dropped into an open body of water, "teaches" all the water in the world how to freeze that way, and essentially brings about the end of the world.)

    Anyway, it'd be interesting to see what we can do with this new form of technology...ice-nine is, of course, only meant as a bit of satire, but it suggests some interesting ideas about the structure of our universe.

    --
    The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
    1. Re:Interesting coincidence... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A self-replicating catalyst could work like that provided you can make it work with water (which is unlikely since hydrogen and oxygen alone can't be used to form many things, though you may be able to make that work with oil). Hm, that'd be a nice way to kill the economy: A catalyst that turns oil into itself (plus some waste substances possibly), can't be used for the things oil can be used for and isn't easy to spot when converting oil... Drop that into a central pipeline or storage and watch the western economy break apart.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  13. I'm not sure it's that advanced by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, regression to match candidates against an existing body of data, we have dating web sites which do that these days. Nice way of quickly sorting the candidates but Nature material?

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:I'm not sure it's that advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big deal is that physicists/chemists, etc do not tend to talk to computer scientists. Ideas fleshed out in CS ten or twenty years ago are just surfacing in the natural sciences. In the particle physics community, there has been a recent surge in interest over using neural nets, boosted/bagged decision trees, and other techniques to help us fish out our signals.

      Summary: Its old to CS, but new to us.

  14. Like Amazon? Really? Cool! by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 5, Funny
    People who liked room temperature superconductors also liked:
    • transparent aluminum [Add to Cart]
    • broad spectrum LEDs [Add to Cart]
    • efficient peltier effect alloys [Add to Cart]
    • 3D holographic memory array crystals [Add to Cart]
    NOW How Much Would You Pay? (TM)
    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  15. Leave it to MIT grads to complicate a problem by kimvette · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    And it seems to work: they claim they can determine in days the properties of atomic structures that might have taken months before.


    Last time I checked, Engineers look for the easiest reliable method for finding a solution. Why are the MIT folks complicating this?

    I have them beat. I can find the properties of atomic structures, that took months to solve before, in seconds.

    How?

    Google. Why reinvent the wheel when the work has already been done? ;)

    (I know, I know, that's not what they meant, but the submitter left it open for witty comments).

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Leave it to MIT grads to complicate a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you didn't fill that opening.

  16. if they are using Amazon's data mining... by LinuxPeach · · Score: 1

    Then hopefully they'll have a better success rate at suggesting new materials than the recommendations of crap I keep getting from Amazon.

    No Amazon, I'm not interested in season 6 of DS9... nor season 2... nor season 5... nor season 3... nor the entire series! And don't you dare think about suggesting Desperate Housewives to me again!

    --
    Clean Environment. Good jobs. Dream On.
    1. Re:if they are using Amazon's data mining... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're telling me. One time I accidentally clicked on something like this and my recommendations were skewed for months afterwards.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:if they are using Amazon's data mining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just counter it with something like this?

      Wait...

    3. Re:if they are using Amazon's data mining... by Drakai · · Score: 1

      It's a trap!

  17. Use it for watching your representatives by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Use it for watching your representatives by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Representatives are people too!

      =P

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  18. Zonk gets kickbacks from Roland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true. Zonk gets paid by Roland to post his articles. This has been going on for years now, and it disgusts me to the bone.

    1. Re:Zonk gets kickbacks from Roland by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, I thought that used to be Hemos?

      And it's a sad thought that Zonk has really been around for years now...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  19. ad-aware by gooberguy25 · · Score: 0

    but, but ad-aware deletes mine!

  20. Patent Mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not feed a computer all the existing expired patents, and see what it comes up with? It's not even 'skilled in the art' so any result is so patently (yeah) obvious that it ought to be unpatentable...

    Pity you'd get sued out of existence in a heartbeat, though.

    ac

  21. Quantum Modeling isn't new... by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... I worked on it when I was employed by Eastman Kodak back in 2000. We had/have any number of sophisticated ways of modeling parameters based upon previous research- but it wasn't called data mining.

    One of the companies that has supplied hardware (or is known in the industry to do so) is PQS- http://www.pqs-chem.com/. They 'sell' hardware and software, but their software is pretty darn slick for setting up large jobs.

    Since I did mostly dye research, I'm supposing the big difference is these are more interested in metalic properties than what we were- light, colour, mp, etc- all things that might be useful for film or OLEDs.

    But still, if it's getting positive press, maybe it's time to put it back on the resume...

    1. Re:Quantum Modeling isn't new... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't called data mining because what you did isn't what's described in the article. To quote:

      "the program then delivers a list of possible crystal structures for any mixture of elements whose structure is unknown. "

      They *then* used quantum modeling software much like what you've described in order to test those structures:

      "The team can then run that list of possibilities through a second algorithm that uses quantum mechanics to calculate precisely which structure is the most stable energetically -- a standard technique in the computer modeling of materials."

      So, no, quantum modeling isn't new. Using computers to mine our current knowledge base in order to select new crystalline structures is. But, hey, way to not RTFM. ;)

    2. Re:Quantum Modeling isn't new... by purduephotog · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but I did read the article. And that's exactly what I did- using the paramaters selected I could 'guess' structures that should be compatible with our objectives. Re-run with new structures and *poof* answers.

      Time not spent in the lab? Priceless.

      I'll be more precise in the future. But thanks for the attempt at a correction.

  22. I wish I had mod points. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the funniest variation I've seen in a long time.

  23. Obligatory by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

    Metals with this spectral reading also had:

    -face-centered cubic structure
    -high melting point[CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT SUPER SAVER SHIPPING ON LASERS!]

  24. Re:About damn time by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah. Datamining killed my whole family and gave my dog the runs.

    It's the most destructive thing since the PATRIOT ACT, which wiped out most of the population of the Pacific Northwest and caused the birds in my area to sing an octave higher.

  25. Modern generalized thinking by w33t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading about how a program can find something that a human could not, or would not, brings to mind a notion I had the other day.

    I am learning Java (and OO programming best practices in general), and am pretty heavily into it at this point. I was tooling along, writing some code to test some aspects of the language when I suddenly realized that much of what I was typing I was kind of unaware of.

    When I had first begun studying in earnest a few months ago I remember how closely I paid attention to the smallest syntactical details. But now that much of this has become wrote I found myself automatically just cruising through - not really conceptualizing what I was doing. But it was still working.

    I went back into my little code and delved into a deeper reading of what I had written. It was all correct according to theory - and I could recall all the little subtleties of how Java's VM was interpreting this and that - but while I was writing it I was giving no thought to it. It just happened; it just came out of me.

    Now, hearing about these programs that can mine data and find things that human eyes would miss - and relatedly hearing about machines that can invent - I wonder if one day invention, discovery and the like will all be wrote.

    I wonder if, like my mindless coding moment, things will just happen - research will just occur - without really a second thought of the "low-level" processes that currently are held so dear.

    It's interesting. It might be akin to mathematics in some ways - wherein you can generalize a large body of calculation and come to a conclusion without actually outputting the raw numerical form.

    It is an approximation, yes. But with some work the approximation can be decomposed into elementary school level math expressions - if you really want to go through all that work.

    But why decompose it, it works fine generalized (much better for humans in fact).

    It's interesting to me - this modern high-level generalization.

    1. Re:Modern generalized thinking by Xiroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Programming is like writing in any language. Once you're sufficiently familiar with it, you don't need to think of which word to use and where to put the punctuation - you just know what you're trying to express and take the most natural path through the language to express it. The human brain is designed to work with language, and while programming is not the most natural type for it, we can use much of the wiring used for human language in coding.

    2. Re:Modern generalized thinking by w33t · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's a very good point. Interesting, I never thought of it that way actually.

    3. Re:Modern generalized thinking by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      Welcome to The Zone :)

    4. Re:Modern generalized thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! And how do you think you write? Read? (Do you sound out the words as you did when you were 5 or 6?) Think? Talk? Walk, ride a bicyle, or drive a car, or do just about anything that is learned?

      Great observation - it's true: we don't know anymore how we do things once we've learned them so well they become habitual/rote: and that's when we can use them to do truly creative stuff. It is too bad most Americans are really totally not fluent in basic math as they are in basic language.

  26. Data Mining for Politicians Electability by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    We get the characteristics of all the past politicians we liked (& hated) and plug them in and then compare them against "Our Boy".

    I just suspect we are not going like the megalomaniacal persons we will elect any better than the ones we have, but it will be interesting, because I can guarantee someone will or is doing it.

  27. Re:Another reason to re...move RP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Moving RP from /. to digg would improve the quality of both.

  28. That's nothing. by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    The Bush Administration uses data mining to create presidential powers out of whole cloth.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  29. Roland? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    What the hell? This is a Roland article and there's no stolen story link on his blog?

    What IS the world coming to?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  30. So can we make cryptonyte yet? by Raging_Bob · · Score: 1

    ZOMG! Don't let Lex Luthor get his hands on this technology! He will try to sell real estate on a crystal island after killing billions of people who had all the money to buy his real estate!

    --
    Freedom in our Lifetime www.freestateproject.org
  31. Others are doing it too by rxmd · · Score: 2, Informative

    This approach has been popular for quite some time now. For example, there is a research group at CAESAR in Bonn, Germany, called Combinatorial Material Science that has been doing something similar for the last five years or so in the field of material science, especially regarding thin films.

    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    1. Re:Others are doing it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CAESAR group appears to do combinatorial experiments, where they actually create many different materials and then try to determine the properties of the materials they've created. The research in the article uses computers to predict the likely structures of unknown materials.

  32. How useful is this? by A+Nun+Must+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1
    Ceder's group found the new algorithm could select five structures from 3,000-4,000 possibilities with a 90 percent chance of having the true structure among the five.
    If it's based on probability, and only gives the right answer 90 percent of the time (assuming that the more thorough stability analysis chooses the best of the five every time), how useful is this really?
    Does determining the structure without any doubt still require the full time consuming lab analysis, or can you easily verify the candidate structure found with the data mining approach?
    1. Re:How useful is this? by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No chemist will ever trust a computer result without doing the full lab work. This can still be incredibly useful.

      Consider if each thorough test takes 6 months for 3000-4000 possibilities. If the computer can tell you the 5-10 compounds that are likely to work, in a few years you can have a product (or a PhD). Otherwise you were looking at nearly a thousand years before finding something.

  33. Data Mining Used to Cure AIDS and Cancer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... not.

    But I did work on a project that applied data mining techniques to drug screening problems. Specifically, we used kernels on molecule data in a support vector machine to predict the outcome of AIDS and cancer screening data. It worked moderately well. (AUC of up to .94)

    So: Surprise, surprise, data mining is used for all kinds of things! Drug screening, materials engineering, process control, analyzing NMR spectra, ... it's not just marketing! Basically, every application that produces a lot of data will eventually have data mining people flock to it, trying to data mine the heck out of it.

    Regards, Sebastian

  34. Mad cow by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 1

    That sounds completely absurd with water, but that is pretty much the idea of how prion diseases like mad cow are supposed to work. The misfolded protein gets normal proteins to refold like itself.

  35. Re:About damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as salaam alinkinuum

    That is some thinkiin'

  36. It already exists. Bring $15/sq. in. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1
    1. Re:It already exists. Bring $15/sq. in. by istartedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      While it's a cool material, it's not "transparent aluminum". It's a compound with two other elements. Calling this transparent aluminum is like calling quartz transparent silicon. Many elements with opaque crystal structures form compounds that have transparent crystal structures. A true transparent aluminum would be like carbon, which can be opaque (graphite) or transparent (diamond) depending on the arrangement of atoms, with no other elements involved. Until someone finds a way to arrange aluminum at the molecular level so that it's transparent, there can be no real claim that this little bit of Star Trek has become real. It may not even be possible, or if it is possible the resulting structure might not have such desireable properties as the fictional panels, or the real compound you mentioned.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  37. Re:About damn time by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

    Uhm, how could it cause the birds to singe an octave higher?

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  38. Re:About damn time by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uhm, how could it cause the birds to singe an octave higher?

    Helium.

  39. Spoken by someone... by patio11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... who has never actually used genetic programming. Genetic programming doesn't create new inventions -- it typically tweaks parameters in an existing invention so that the output of the invention approaches a goal. For example, you could use it dynamically weigh, say, SpamAssassin test scores. It doesn't just magically evolve new tests, and it certainly doesn't evolve a regular-expression based server side spam filter, it just tweaks the efficiency of one which already exists. Even for artifically restricted problem domains, such as CoreWars or similar combative programming environments, the successful A-life programs generally revolve around optimizing a strategy and a base implementation which a human came up with. Call it "intelligent design", because thats what it is :)

    They also most certainly do not beat all existing algorithms. In some problem domains they work very well. In others (hmm, lets see: sort, calendar applications, Internet telephony, uncountably many fields of human endeavor) they're wholly 100% inapplicable.

    1. Re:Spoken by someone... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      but they can also be used to discover or predict interactions between common components we'd never think of on our own. This is just applied design of experiments. The bonus is that the computer can run millions of experiments with nothing more than time being the limitation.... as long as you have a good model. So simple chemical interactions are ripe for this type of thing. I'd think another applilcation would be bug hunting Linux distros for hardware, program, and usage interactions you'd never see with enough predictability to fix by hand. Think of a small distro rerunning the models after every package change.. get interactivity with users involved and you'd change the face of software.

    2. Re:Spoken by someone... by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree with you, it's worth mentioning that even though the practical applications of GAs tend to be limited to tweaking parameters there's no reason they couldn't generate a calendar application given appropriate scope and execution time. Imagine a GA which constructs a bit string of arbitrary length, can mutate by randomly flipping bits occasionally and can increase/decrease in size as another mutation. Given the evaluation function "Does this program organize my day?" the GA will eventually produce Microsoft Outlook (and maybe a good calendar application if you keep running it).

      The problem is that this is going to take as long as other 'million monkeys' problems.

      So in summary, technically a GA can develop any solution which is implementable on a computer but human effort is usually required to find a problem domain which can be attacked in practical time, i.e. tweaking a design which is already almost complete.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  40. Fascinating by phatvw · · Score: 0

    Someday these advanced algorithms might will even help with the most daunting task of all: choosing a Linux distribution.

    But in all seriousness, is it me, or is the subject header for the /. post misleading? They are only predicting crystalline structures, not actually creating the materials right? How do they actually go about creating the theoretical materials?

  41. short summary by davros-too · · Score: 1

    The two questions are: "given a particular chemical composition, what is the crystal structure? what are its likely properties?"

    The scientists have a database of known crystal structures (plus some unspecified physics). Step 1 is to use 'datamining' techniques to generate a shortlist of possible structures for a given composition based on the database. Step 2 they perform quantum mechanical calculations to decide the likely properties (eg band gap).

    I assume as step 3 they then investigate in more detail any materials which show signs of being interesting or matching the properties they are seeking. The methodology of steps 1-2 is necessarily guesswork not a definite answer. Nevertheless, for some time materials scientists, chemists and others have realised that there are very substantial benefits to narrowing down the possibilities before doing more in depth work.

    --
    In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
    1. Re:short summary by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      That seems to be the process. I'm going to get a hold of a copy of that Amazon software and use it to make stock predictions ; )

  42. Neat things to come by trelayne · · Score: 1

    I agree, leave it to MIT to keep it out of the hands of men with small penises, and in dire need of extension or hardening technology.

    I think this technology, and similar future software will be incredibly instrumental in building that futuristic world we like to depict in Sci-Fi shows; everything from doors that seal completely, to intelligent materials that can be reused or reconfigured over and over again for many purposes.

    Maybe even materials that are more lossless when it comes to recycling....

  43. Re:About damn time by sim82 · · Score: 1

    Right. Keeping track of all the knowledge in natural science is as hard an as important as the science itself.
    It is no wonder we have groups working on datamining at the bioinformatics department at my university.

  44. Like Amazon? by lingoman · · Score: 0

    I hope they're doing better than the Amazon recommendations -- or any other auto-may-I-suggest software. I see nothing there but the endless (and I mean endless) repetition of key words from the titles.

  45. ENOUGH DISCUSSION ALREADY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Please!! I beg you!! Just click on the fucking link a few times. That's all I ask. You don't even have to read it if you don't want to. My popularity is waning, and I'm almost done for. For the sake of Christ, can you please just help a chap out and click a few times?

    Thanks,
    Roland Picklepacker

  46. Re:How useful is this? RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ceder's group found the new algorithm could select five structures from 3,000-4,000 possibilities with a 90 percent chance of having the true structure among the five.

    RTFM or in this case RTFA. Mod this fool down.

  47. Cherry Picking by Drakai · · Score: 1

    If I understand this correctly:

        Select theoretical material.

        Determine subset of likely configurations.

        Run simulator to determine physical properties of new material for each likely configuration.

        Running this process against a large set of theoretical materials and saving those results into a database and allowing data mining on those results would allow materials scientists to perhaps cherry pick their next effort or research direction. Highest tensile strength material with low specific weight? Or some such thing, not to be specific but if the list returned could be then produced in a lab and verified, that would be pretty useful.

        It might even lead the discovery of 'unnatural' material configurations. For example, taking a known material and forcing the simulator to run against contrived or non-optimal configurations might yield interesting and perhaps highly desirable results.

  48. Transparency? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

    The question, then, is whether this wonderful data mining will be used to identify corrupt or incompetant managers, politicians etc., as well as troublesome underlings.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.