| Literature DB >> 35111731 |
Hadi Abroshan1, H Shaun Kwak1, Yuling An2, Christopher Brown2, Anand Chandrasekaran2, Paul Winget2, Mathew D Halls3.
Abstract
Data-driven methods are receiving increasing attention to accelerate materials design and discovery for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). Machine learning (ML) has enabled high-throughput screening of materials properties to suggest new candidates for organic electronics. However, building reliable predictive ML models requires creating and managing a high volume of data that adequately address the complexity of materials' chemical space. In this regard, active learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful strategy to efficiently navigate the search space by prioritizing the decision-making process for unexplored data. This approach allows a more systematic mechanism to identify promising candidates by minimizing the number of computations required to explore an extensive materials library with diverse variables and parameters. In this paper, we applied a workflow of AL that accounts for multiple optoelectronic parameters to identify materials candidates for hole-transport layers (HTL) in OLEDs. Results of this work pave the way for efficient screening of materials for organic electronics with superior efficiencies before laborious simulations, synthesis, and device fabrication.Entities:
Keywords: HTL; OLED; machine learning; materials; optoelectronics; screening
Year: 2022 PMID: 35111731 PMCID: PMC8802167 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.800371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
FIGURE 1Active Learning workflow for the design and discovery of novel optoelectronic molecules.
FIGURE 2Chemical structure of NBP, which is used as a reference for the oxidation potential.
FIGURE 3(A) MPO score of all materials in the HTL dataset and (B) those used in the training set as a function of .
FIGURE 4Some of the materials candidates with top MPO scores for the hole transport layer.
Calculated LUMO and triplet state energy (T1) for some of the materials shown in Figure 3 and NPB. All energies are given in eV.
| Material | LUMO | T1 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | −2.48 | 2.84 |
| 2 | −1.89 | 3.10 |
| 3 | −2.75 | 1.35 |
| 4 | −2.76 | 1.35 |
| 5 | −2.62 | 2.75 |
| 6 | −2.64 | 1.34 |
| 7 | −2.74 | 1.33 |
| 8 | 2.70 | 1.25 |
| NPB | −2.30 | 2.46 |
FIGURE 5Linear correlation of MPO scores of materials in the HTL dataset obtained during the training of the ML model in the framework of AL and the scores estimated by using the ML model thus generated for the same dataset.