Abstract
Accessing the thermal transport properties of glasses is a major issue for the design of production strategies of glass industry, as well as for the plethora of applications and devices where glasses are employed. From the computational standpoint, the chemical and morphological complexity of glasses calls for atomistic simulations where the interatomic potentials are able to capture the variety of local environments, composition, and (dis)order that typically characterize glassy phases. Machine-learning potentials (MLPs) are emerging as a valid alternative to computationally expensive ab initio simulations, inevitably run on very small samples which cannot account for disorder at different scales, as well as to empirical force fields, fast but often reliable only in a narrow portion of the thermodynamic and composition phase diagrams. In this article, we make the point on the use of MLPs to compute the thermal conductivity of glasses, through a review of recent theoretical and computational tools and a series of numerical applications on vitreous silica and vitreous silicon, both pure and intercalated with lithium.
1 Introduction
The pursuit of improving the thermal conductivity properties of amorphous solids is central to contemporary materials science and engineering (). Glasses, characterized by their lack of crystalline order, possess unique attributes that make them invaluable across a wide range of applications. One of the prominent features of this class of materials is a inherently low thermal conductivity, a result of their disordered structure. This property is useful in various fields, such as aerospace engineering (; ), electronics (), and pharmaceutical industries (). In contrast, specific industrial applications demand a nuanced balance in the thermal properties of glasses. For example, nuclear reactors and nuclear weapon decommissioning generate radioactive waste () that must be safely stored for exceptionally long time. This waste can be solidified through vitrification, preventing accidental radionuclide release thanks to the amorphous structure of glasses, which provides radiation protection and outstanding chemical durability, thus enabling thousands of years of safe storage (). Here, effective heat management is crucial, as high thermal conductivity enhances vitrification efficiency, influencing melt rate and glass homogeneity (; ). Moreover, in long-term storage, elevated heat conductivity rapidly dissipates decay-generated heat, avoiding issues like high-temperature-assisted crystallization, porosity, and cracks (). During the last decades, a huge effort has been put forward to access the structural and thermodynamical properties of the glasses employed for nuclear waste vitrification, mainly (boro)silicates, from both the experimental (; ; ; ) and the computational sides (; ; ; ; ; ; ). Nevertheless, a microscopic description of thermal conduction in these materials beyond the celebrated Cahill-Pohl model (), as a function of temperature and composition, is still missing. The lack of computational studies on thermal conduction is shared by another important application, namely, solid-state batteries, where several designs leverage amorphous solid electrolytes (; ; ; ; ). Here, the glassy phase is also characterized by a diffusive species (like Li+ or Na+ ions) which poses further challenges for the microscopic simulation of heat transport, since lattice methods cannot be formally applied due to the lack of well defined positions of mechanical equilibrium.
Machine-learning (ML) is an increasingly popular tool in materials modeling due to its ability to train on extensive datasets precise models able to match a wide array of target properties. One route is to leverage datasets of mechanical and functional glass properties to discover new materials (; ), or to predict end-properties such as solubilities (), dissolution rates (), or transition temperatures (), to name a few (). By taking a microscopic approach, one can build surrogate models of ab initio interatomic potentials able to drive simulations to sample all kinds of properties of amorphous materials that can be accessed by atomistic simulations (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
In this article, we provide an overview of the microscopic theory of heat transport in glasses. Our focus is on methods that effectively utilize ML potentials (MLPs) for computing thermal conductivity. We explore two primary approaches: lattice dynamics, suitable for solids at temperatures significantly below their melting point, enabling the incorporation of quantum-mechanical effects in heat transport; and equilibrium molecular dynamics (EMD) simulations, a versatile tool for sampling material properties, which however is limited in its ability to account for the aforementioned quantum effects. While the basic theoretical grounds on the use of MLPs for thermal transport are well known (), the effects of the finite size of samples, the applicability of lattice methods, and spurious effects due to particle diffusion have not been extensively tested, even on simple systems. The methods, described in Section 2, are showcased via MLPs trained on an empirical force-field for vitreous silica in Section 3.1. Section 3.2 discusses the existing challenges and limitations of MLPs in lattice-dynamics calculations, due to unphysically large scattering rates exhibited by low-frequency normal modes. Finally, the need for large-scale simulations is investigated in Section 3.3 on vitreous LixSi1−x at different Li concentrations and system sizes.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Thermal transport in glasses
Heat transport is characterized by the value of the thermal conductivity, κ, whose linear-response value is given by the Green-Kubo (GK) formula, whose classical expression reads (; ; ; )where Ω is the system’s volume, kB the Boltzmann constant, T the temperature, and Jq the heat flux. The factor 1/3 comes from the assumption of isotropy. The temperature-dependent behavior of κ in glasses exhibits three distinctive, universally recognized patterns (). At extremely low temperatures, specifically when T ≲ 2K, the predominant scattering mechanism involves quantum tunneling between various local minima within the glass energy landscape, resulting in κ ∼ T2 (; ; ). As the temperature reaches a few tens of kelvins, thermal conductivity increases and eventually reaches a plateau value. Despite the absence of a firmly established theoretical consensus in the literature, this phenomenon appears to be linked to the transition from a regime dominated by quantum processes to one where propagating waves are scattered by random disorder (; ; ; ). Beyond the plateau, the behavior of the thermal conductivity is governed by the anharmonic decay of normal modes (; ), and κ starts increasing again until it saturates to its high-temperature value. We focus here on the latter range of temperatures, which is relevant for applications and can be investigated by means of atomistic simulations.
There are different techniques for computing κ. Equilibrium methods require the calculation of the heat flux appearing in Eq. 1 (), or the energy density (). Equivalently, one can compute the energy flux along with other relevant mass fluxes, as discussed below. A versatile approach for obtaining these fluxes is through EMD simulations, which allow to sample the energy flux at all orders within anharmonic perturbation theory. A downside of EMD simulations is that it is currently impossible to sample the energy flux including nuclear quantum effects (), despite extensive efforts are being made in this direction [see, e.g., (; ; ) and citations therein]. In solids, an alternative approach lies in exploiting lattice dynamics, at the cost of neglecting high-order anharmonic interactions. At temperatures well below the melting point, atomic nuclei undergo small oscillations around well-defined equilibrium positions. This behavior allows us to represent the dynamics with harmonic normal modes, which, in crystals, are described as phonon quasiparticles. In the harmonic approximation, the normal modes feature infinite lifetimes, resulting in infinite thermal conductivity, regardless of the presence of (harmonic) perturbations, such as disorder (). However, when anharmonic interactions are appropriately accounted for, e.g., through perturbation theory (; ), they induce temperature-dependent frequency shifts and broadenings, impacting phonon lifetimes and ultimately determining the thermal conductivity of materials.
Using lattice dynamics to express the heat flux in Eq. 1 in terms of phonon creation and annihilation operators, one can compute the GK formula for κ in the quasi-harmonic Green-Kubo (QHGK) approximation (; ) aswhere ωμ and γμ are the angular frequency and anharmonic linewidth of the μth normal mode, respectively; vμν is a generalized velocity matrix, and
is a generalized two-mode isochoric heat capacity, being the Bose-Einstein (BE) occupation function.
The QHGK approach employs two interconnected approximations (; ). The first is the dressed bubble approximation, where four-point correlation functions among phonon creation and annihilation operators are factorized into products of two-point correlation functions, neglecting vertex corrections (). This implies that normal modes decay independently, each interacting with a common heat bath. The second approximation, termed Markovian, disregards memory effects in the heat bath-normal mode interaction (). The combination of these approximations leads to four-point correlation functions being expressed using single-body greater Green’s functions, denoted by . The quasi-harmonic hypothesis requires , implying that only nearly-degenerate modes with |ωμ − ων|≲ γμ + γν significantly contribute to heat conductivity. The QHGK approximation works on crystals and glasses alike, reducing to the result of the Boltzmann Transport Equation in the former case, and—at the expense of neglecting anharmonic effects—to the Allen-Feldman (AF) model of harmonic disordered solids in the latter (; ; ). Neglecting anharmonic effects is no trivial matter—it remarkably transforms the finite bulk thermal conductivity of a glass into an infinite quantity, thereby emphasizing the AF calculations’ qualitative accuracy driven solely by size effects (; ).
If compared with crystals, glasses present an additional complexity in numerical computations due to their inherent aperiodic nature (). The customary application of periodic boundary conditions (PBC) to finite simulation cells, from which quantities in Eq. 2 are derived, requires cautious consideration of size effects. While the physical symmetry of crystals allows for calculations on a fine mesh in reciprocal space, in glasses the same approach is not feasible without introducing spurious contributions to the thermal conductivity (). Nonetheless, size extrapolation remains possible by leveraging the asymptotic Debye expression of the thermal conductivity of propagons—the low-frequency normal modes in glasses characterized by wave-like properties, including well-defined dispersion with small broadening (; ).
Using lattice dynamics requires to be able to compute second and third-order interatomic force constants, i.e., the second and third partial derivatives of the potential energy with respect to nuclear coordinates at equilibrium (). This can be achieved through finite differences (; ) or perturbation theory (), with the former method being more common. For large systems (i.e., containing tens of thousands of atoms) calculating interatomic force constants is computationally feasible using empirical force fields, but becomes impractical when pursued ab initio due to the scaling of second and scaling of third-order force constants. In principle, MLPs offer a partial remedy, significantly expediting interatomic force computations. Regrettably, practical implementation is often spoiled by pronounced numerical noise in interatomic force constants, impeding the computation of anharmonic linewidths through Fermi’s golden rule (), as it will be showcased below by a toy example involving vitreous silica. Inaccurate anharmonic linewidths severely hinder the computation of heat conductivities, thereby rendering the entire lattice dynamical workflow unfeasible. This concern is particularly relevant at low frequencies (), even for MLPs with good performances within the medium to high-frequency range. A potential strategy to mitigate this issue entails substituting finite-difference third-order derivatives with analytical ones, exploiting the differentiabilty of MLP descriptors through, e.g., automatic differentiation ().
Therefore, while the challenge of deriving interatomic force constants from MLPs is under scrutiny, their accuracy in reproducing ab initio results can be leveraged in MD simulations through the GK equation, Eq. 1.
2.2 Thermal conductivity from molecular dynamics simulations
The GK formula requires an expression for the heat flux. Equivalently, one can combine the energy flux with all the independent mass fluxes of the chemical species in the material (; ). The latter option is often preferable, since all the needed fluxes are readily available from EMD simulations, while the heat flux also necessitates computing partial enthalpies () through post-processing ().
The energy flux is the first spatial moment of the time derivative of the energy density ():where Rℓ and Pℓ are the position and linear momentum of the ℓth atom, respectively, and fℓ is force acting on it. There is no a priori correct way to define the energy density of a condensed matter system. However, this ambiguity does not pose an issue, as this quantity is not directly measurable in experiments. Moreover, quantities dependent on it, such as thermal conductivity, remain unaffected by the precise expression of local densities. This concept is referred to as the gauge invariance of transport coefficients (; ).
The explicit expression of the energy flux depends on the Hamiltonian of the system, which, for a classical system of N particles, takes the general form:where denotes the potential energy. Given the gauge-invariance principle, any local breakdown of the energy density into atomic contributions is suitable for computing the energy flux (; ). A valid choice is thuswhere each atomic energy, ϵℓ, is concentrated on the respective atom and can be expressed as:with the first term representing atomic kinetic energy and the second indicating the portion of potential energy assigned to the ℓth atom, such that . These atomic energies are phase-space variables dependent on time through atomic positions and momenta. Consequently, the energy flux in Eq. 4 becomes
This equation is well-defined in PBC, as it solely depends on interatomic distances calculated using the minimum-image convention. As such, the formula proves suitable for MD simulations involving bulk systems.
The concepts discussed thus far are applicable to both empirical force fields (FFs) and MLPs, regardless of the number of chemical species in the system (). In the case of the latter, it is possible to generate MD simulations of ab initio quality to sample the relevant fluxes, including the energy flux of Eq. 8, thus leading to the computation of κ. This approach becomes especially significant for glasses, where, as previously mentioned, challenges arise in lattice-dynamical calculations involving MLPs. While for semi-empirical FFs assigning the atomic energies in Eq. 7 might seem reasonable and simple, especially in the case of pairwise potentials, it is less so in the case of MLPs. MLPs typically rely on a decomposition of the global target quantity into local, atom-centered contributions. This approach offers several advantages, such as computational scalability and the possibility of retrospective interpretation of patterns of local contributions, provided that local predictions are sufficiently “rigid”, i.e., that their value is robust under perturbations of the training set and/or model parameters ().
3 Results
In this Section we first develop, for demonstration purposes, a dataset for the paradigmatic amorphous solid vitreous silica (v-SiO2) based on a referece semi-empirical FF. We train different MLPs on this dataset, and analyze their ability in reproducing thermal conductivity calculations. We then discuss the current limitations of lattice dynamics in thermal conductivity calculations with MLPs, and how these are absent in EMD simulations. We finally apply GKMD to an amorphous alloy useful in the context of solid-state electrolytes.
3.1 Toy model of vitreous silica
The reference potential is a Tersoff FF developed in as a short-range potential able to describe the amorphous phase of silica with relatively good accuracy. We choose a short-range reference potential in order to keep the model simple; moreover, the MLP to be trained is rigorously short-range, even if strategies to incorporate bona fide long-range interactions exist and are being developed (; ; ; ; ; ). The dataset is generated starting from 100 independently quenched glassy samples, equilibrated at 10 different temperatures ranging from 300 to 7,000 K. From each of the 100 simulations, 500 uncorrelated configurations are drawn once every 10 ps. The dataset thus comprises 50,000 glassy and molten configurations. Further details can be found in the Supplementary Material.
We trained a committee of four deep neural network DeePMD potentials (DPs) (; ; ) smooth edition () and a neuroevolution potential (NEP) () to reproduce energies, forces and virials of the dataset. All the MLPs have a cutoff of 3 Å, and are trained for more than 400 epochs to ensure the proper minimization of the loss function. The optimization of the loss function for the DPs is performed through the Adam stochastic gradient descent (), while for the NEP via a genetic algorithm (). Each model within the DP committee differs from the others based on the initial random seed used in the minimization. The NEP features instead a different architecture and slightly different descriptors with respect to DPs ().
We assess the performance of these models on a validation set, which consists of an additional 2,500 configurations produced using the same methodology as the training set. Figure 1 presents parity plots comparing the reference and predicted potential energies, forces, and virials for the four DP models in the committee. All the DPs exhibit comparable accuracy. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) and relative error with respect of the standard deviation of the test set (in parentheses), are 2.86 ± 0.09 meV/atom for the energy (1%), 237.04 ± 0.14 meV/A for the force (8%), and 6.96 ± 0.04 meV for the virial (5%). In Figure 1 the performance of a selected member of the DP committee is shown (red) for simplicity. The NEP features RMSEs and relative errors of 0.9 meV/atom for the energy , of 311 meV/A for the force (11%), and of 13 meV for the virial (8%).
FIGURE 1
3.2 Lattice dynamics vs. molecular dynamics
Subsequently, we test the models’ performance in replicating the reference thermal conductivity. We compute the thermal conductivity of vitreous silica as determined by Eq. 1. To do so, we sample the energy flux and the atomic mass fluxes through EMD simulations on a system with 648 atoms. Given that the Tersoff FF is a many-body potential, particular care needs to be taken when computing the energy flux (). A correct implementation of the Tersoff energy flux can be found in gpumd (). As reference, we carried out a 1 ns-long EMD simulation at 300 K using gpumd, collecting the energy and mass fluxes every 5 fs. Further computational details can be found in the Supplementary Material. We use the same trajectory to sample these quantities using the committee of DPs and the NEP, utilizing the DeePMD and NEP implementations in lammps (; ; ). Using the same trajectory to test the models allows us to isolate the effects of gauge invariance, eliminating subtle differences that may arise when employing independent EMD runs to sample different trajectories. The thermal conductivity is finally obtained through cepstral analysis of the fluxes’ time series (; ), as implemented in SporTran (). The total energy decomposition into local contributions is in general different for different models, since the latter is a task arbitrarily performed by the ML algorithm. Thus, also the fluxes differ among the pool of models. Nevertheless, what must remain consistent is the physical observable, namely, the thermal conductivity, as commanded by gauge invariance ().
In Figure 2, we show the distributions (normalized histograms) of the deviation of the atomic energies per species with respect to their average value, sampled along the trajectory, as computed by the available MLPs. The DPs feature similar distributions of such quantity, so only one member of the committee is shown, while the NEP results are quite different. Nonetheless, even within the DP committee, the average values of the atomic energies are significantly different. In particular, the set of mean energies for the Tersoff FF, the DPs, and the NEP is reported in Table 1.
FIGURE 2
TABLE 1
| Model | (eV) | (eV) | (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tersoff | −9.857 | −4.929 | −19.715 |
| DP1 | −5.413 | −7.155 | −19.723 |
| DP2 | −3.211 | −8.256 | −19.724 |
| DP3 | −4.606 | −7.555 | −19.715 |
| DP4 | −3.383 | −8.170 | −19.723 |
| NEP | −7.833 | −5.941 | −19.716 |
Average atomic energies for the different models. The last column is the stoichiometry-weighted sum of average energies. It coincides for all the models, as it should, it being a physical observable. The discrepancy among this quantity’s reported values is well below the threshold of chemical accuracy (meV).
We stress again that such a difference is expected, as the atomic energies are not target quantities in the learning scheme, and only the total energy is physically observable. The difference in atomic energies predicted by the different models is translated into a difference in energy fluxes, as shown in Figure 3A. Crucially, the thermal conductivity, as represented by the zero-frequency value of the fluxes’ power spectral density (; ), remains unchanged, as reported in Figure 3B.
FIGURE 3
We now assess the models’ performance in reproducing quantities relevant for lattice-dynamical calculations. We compute the second and third-order interatomic force constants with lammps and obtain normal-mode frequencies and linewidths using κALDo (). We use these quantities to compute the QHGK thermal conductivity with the Tersoff FF, a DP, and the NEP. Figure 4 showcases the results, including the vibrational density of states (VDOS), normal-mode linewidths, γ, and QHGK thermal conductivity. While the VDOS outcomes in Figure 4A exhibit agreement, the same cannot be said for anharmonic normal-mode linewidths (Figure 4B), which appear to be accurately captured only by the NEP. In contrast, the DP results considerably overestimate the linewidths, even surpassing the quasi-harmonic regime, denoted by the dashed black line. These disparities have direct implications for the computed QHGK thermal conductivities, as evident in Figure 4C. Specifically, while the NEP and Tersoff results align with each other, the DP results do not share this agreement.
FIGURE 4
It is essential to recognize that the apparently satisfactory performance of the NEP leads to potentially misleading outcomes. Upon closer examination of Figure 4B, a notable issue emerges: at low frequencies (in this instance, the first available finite frequency) there are disproportionately large linewidths. This stark contrast with the expected decrease in linewidths as frequencies decrease, as dictated by the hydrodynamics of solids (; ), precludes the hydrodynamic extrapolation the NEP results to obtain a size-converged value for bulk thermal conductivity (; ). As a further proof that MLPs still present some issues with lattice dynamics, we compute the anharmonic linewidths of a more complex NEP for vitreous silicon (v-Si) developed in and based on the dataset of . As shown in Figure 5, increasing the size of the sample exacerbates the issue of the low-frequency peak in the linewidths, which hinders the possibility of carrying out size-converged thermal conductivity calculations (; ). This issue persists even when manually imposing acoustic sum rules due to global translational invariance and symmetry under Cartesian-direction permutation.
FIGURE 5
Due to these limitations, lattice-dynamical calculations prove to be of limited utility when employing MLPs. Consequently, the alternative approach is to resort to GKMD simulations, albeit at the cost of neglecting the quantum BE occupation. It is worth noting that in specific instances, like vitreous silica, this omission remains notable even at room temperature (; ). Conversely, for other simple glasses like vitreous silicon, this concern does not apply (; ).
3.3 Thermal conductivity of Li-intercalated silicon
To exemplify the GKMD methodology within the context of MLPs, we conduct a thermal conductivity assessment of a PBE-accurate model describing amorphous LiSi, as developed by . This MLP was employed to investigate the properties of silicon, encompassing both crystalline and amorphous phases, as an anode material for Li-based electrolytes (). Thermal transport plays a pivotal role in the design of electrolytes, especially for solid-state systems (). Indeed, an exceedingly low thermal conductivity can lead to excessive heat generation, especially during rapid charging processes, thereby posing the risk of critical incidents such as material melting or explosions. Moreover, the management of thermal dissipation is crucial to optimizing energy conservation and utilization, requiring a delicate equilibrium between minimizing heat dissipation and maximizing electric flux throughout the charging cycle (). In addition, in situations involving materials where ionic diffusion is not only expected but also a desired attribute, such as solid-state electrolytes, one is forced to use methods that do not rely on the presence of well-defined atomic equilibrium positions ().
We conduct EMD simulations on LixSi1−x with varying concentration of intercalated lithium, denoted as x, under room temperature conditions (T = 300K, p = 0bar). Amorphous samples are prepared through a melt-quench-anneal procedure as outlined in . The samples so obtained are used as initial configurations for EMD simulations that sample the relevant fluxes in canonical runs () carried out for 3 ns at 300 K. The simulations are performed with gpumd using a NEP trained on the dataset of . Further details can be found in the Supplementary Material.
Results for the thermal conductivity as a function of Li concentration are presented in Figure 6. Size effects are important for low Li concentrations, where the system is close to pure vitreous silicon. v-Si is known for being severely affected by size effects () due to its high local order (). Thus, samples with 3,000 atoms are not converged in size, while 70,000 atoms appear to be enough, when compared to calculations on systems with 150,000 atoms.
FIGURE 6
At higher Li concentrations, even 3,000 atoms are sufficient to achieve convergence. The behavior of κ(x) features a minimum at x ≈ 0.5, followed by an increase for larger values of x. Pure v-Si features κ = 1.24 ± 0.03 W m−1 K−1. This value can be compared with calculations () done on structure of similar size that use a NEP trained on a dataset relying on PW91 DFT calculations (), rather than PBE. The results are compatible at high quenching rate, while we report a value which is % lower than the one of at the lowest quenching rate. Experimental data on the thermal conductivity of v-Si severely depend on the experimental sample size, due to the high relevance of propagons in this material. At 300 K, they can range from less than 1 W m−1 K−1 () to around 4 W m−1 K−1 (; ). While measurements exist for (poly)crystalline Li-Si alloys (), we are not aware of any experimental data on the thermal conductivity of Li-intercalated amorphous silicon.
The qualitative behavior of the thermal conductivity as a function of Li concentration aligns with calculations on crystalline alloys (), where the distinctive U-shape of κ(x) is interpreted in terms of phonon scattering due to isotopic mass disorder () at the perturbative level. Conversely, in glasses the thermal conductivity reduction with increasing concentration of different-species atoms is mostly due to the increased localization of low- and mid-frequency vibrational modes, together with the broadening of the respective linewidths, which hinders their ability to transport heat ().
4 Conclusion
In this work, we have reviewed the theory of thermal transport in amorphous solids, focusing on the role of MLPs as a tool to expedite and, in some cases, allow for thermal-transport characterization of glasses from atomistic simulations. We have build an example of MLP for vitreous silica able to reproduce the potential energy surface of a Tersoff FF, and used it to highlight some challenges still present when dealing with lattice dynamics, leaving Green-Kubo molecular dynamics as a valuable alternative to carry out calculations with MLPs. We then applied such methodologies to the Li-concentration dependence of the thermal conductivity of lithium-intercalated amorphous silicon, finding that κ features a minimum at half concentration, coherent with analogous calculations made on other amorphous alloys and interpreted in terms of the localization of propagating modes due to chemical disorder.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10225316.
Author contributions
PP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. FG: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was partially supported by the European Commission through the MaX Centre of Excellence for supercomputing applications (grant number 101093374) and by the Italian MUR, through the PRIN project FERMAT (grant number 2017KFY7XF) and the Italian National Centre from HPC, Big Data, and Quantum Computing (grant number CN00000013). FG acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action IF-EF-ST, grant agreement number 101018557 (TRANQUIL).
Acknowledgments
We thank A. Fiorentino and D. Tisi for fruitful discussions. We are grateful to S. Baroni for his valuable guidance.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmats.2024.1369034/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AllenP. B.FeldmanJ. L. (1989). Thermal conductivity of glasses: theory and application to amorphous si. Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 645–648. 10.1103/physrevlett.62.645
2
AllenP. B.FeldmanJ. L.FabianJ.WootenF. (1999). Diffusons, locons and propagons: character of atomic vibrations in amorphous Si. Philos. Mag. B79, 1715–1731. 10.1080/13642819908223054
3
Anoop KrishnanN.MangalathuS.SmedskjaerM. M.TandiaA.BurtonH.BauchyM. (2018). Predicting the dissolution kinetics of silicate glasses using machine learning. J. Non-Crystalline Solids487, 37–45. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2018.02.023
4
BarbalinardoG.ChenZ.LundgrenN. W.DonadioD. (2020). Efficient anharmonic lattice dynamics calculations of thermal transport in crystalline and disordered solids. J. Appl. Phys.128, 135104. 10.1063/5.0020443
5
BaroniS.BertossaR.ErcoleL.GrasselliF.MarcolongoA., Heat transport in insulators from ab initio green-kubo theory, Handbook of materials modeling: applications: Current and emerging materials, 809 (2020).
6
BartókA. P.KermodeJ.BernsteinN.CsányiG. (2018). Machine learning a general-purpose interatomic potential for silicon. Phys. Rev. X8, 041048. 10.1103/physrevx.8.041048
7
BeltukovY. M.KozubV. I.ParshinD. A. (2013). Ioffe-regel criterion and diffusion of vibrations in random lattices. Phys. Rev. B87, 134203. 10.1103/physrevb.87.134203
8
BertaniM.BisbrouckN.DelayeJ.-M.AngeliF.PedoneA.CharpentierT. (2023). Effects of magnesium on the structure of aluminoborosilicate glasses: NMR assessment of interatomic potentials models for molecular dynamics. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.106, 5501–5521. 10.1111/jace.19157
9
BertossaR.GrasselliF.ErcoleL.BaroniS. (2019). Theory and numerical simulation of heat transport in multicomponent systems. Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 255901. 10.1103/physrevlett.122.255901
10
BrauerD. S.RüsselC.KraftJ. (2007). Solubility of glasses in the system P2O5–CaO–MgO–Na2O–TiO2: experimental and modeling using artificial neural networks. J. Non-Crystalline Solids353, 263–270. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.12.005
11
BrorssonJ.HashemiA.FanZ.FranssonE.ErikssonF.Ala-NissilaT.et al (2022). Efficient calculation of the lattice thermal conductivity by atomistic simulations with ab initio accuracy. Adv. Theory Simulations5, 2100217. 10.1002/adts.202100217
12
BrunsD.NojehA.PhaniA. S.RottlerJ. (2022). Comment on “ultrahigh convergent thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes from comprehensive atomistic modeling”. Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 259601. 10.1103/physrevlett.128.259601
13
BuchenauU.GalperinY. M.GurevichV. L.ParshinD. A.RamosM. A.SchoberH. R. (1992). Interaction of soft modes and sound waves in glasses. Phys. Rev. B46, 2798–2808. 10.1103/physrevb.46.2798
14
BussiG.DonadioD.ParrinelloM. (2007). Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J. Chem. Phys.126, 014101. 10.1063/1.2408420
15
CahillD. G.PohlR. O. (1988). Lattice vibrations and heat transport in crystals and glasses. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.39, 93–121. 10.1146/annurev.pc.39.100188.000521
16
CaldarelliG.SimoncelliM.MarzariN.MauriF.BenfattoL. (2022). Many-body Green’s function approach to lattice thermal transport. Phys. Rev. B106, 024312. 10.1103/physrevb.106.024312
17
CassarD. R.de CarvalhoA. P. L. F.ZanottoE. D. (2018). Predicting glass transition temperatures using neural networks. Acta Mater.159, 249–256. 10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.022
18
ChongS.GrasselliF.Ben MahmoudC.MorrowJ. D.DeringerV. L.CeriottiM. (2023). Robustness of local predictions in atomistic machine learning models. J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 8020–8031. 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00704
19
DebenedettiP. G. (1988). Fluctuation-based computer calculation of partial molar properties. II. A numerically accurate method for the determination of partial molar energies and enthalpies. J. Chem. Phys.88, 2681–2684. 10.1063/1.453996
20
De GrootS. R.MazurP. (1962). Non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
21
DeringerV. L.BernsteinN.CsányiG.Ben MahmoudC.CeriottiM.WilsonM.et al (2021). Origins of structural and electronic transitions in disordered silicon. Nature589, 59–64. 10.1038/s41586-020-03072-z
22
DeringerV. L.CsányiG. (2017). Machine learning based interatomic potential for amorphous carbon. Phys. Rev. B95, 094203. 10.1103/physrevb.95.094203
23
DrigoE.IzzoM. G.BaroniS. (2023). Heat conductivity from energy-density fluctuations. J. Chem. Phys.159, 184107. 10.1063/5.0168732
24
ErcoleL.BertossaR.BisacchiS.BaroniS. (2022). Sportran: a code to estimate transport coefficients from the cepstral analysis of (multivariate) current time series. Comput. Phys. Commun.280, 108470. 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108470
25
ErcoleL.MarcolongoA.BaroniS. (2017). Accurate thermal conductivities from optimally short molecular dynamics simulations. Sci. Rep.7, 15835. 10.1038/s41598-017-15843-2
26
EwingR. C. (2015). Long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nat. Mater.14, 252–257. 10.1038/nmat4226
27
FanZ.PereiraL. F. C.WangH.-Q.ZhengJ.-C.DonadioD.HarjuA. (2015). Force and heat current formulas for many-body potentials in molecular dynamics simulations with applications to thermal conductivity calculations. Phys. Rev. B92, 094301. 10.1103/physrevb.92.094301
28
FanZ.WangY.YingP.SongK.WangJ.WangY.et al (2022). GPUMD: a package for constructing accurate machine-learned potentials and performing highly efficient atomistic simulations. J. Chem. Phys.157, 114801. 10.1063/5.0106617
29
FanZ.ZengZ.ZhangC.WangY.SongK.DongH.et al (2021). Neuroevolution machine learning potentials: combining high accuracy and low cost in atomistic simulations and application to heat transport. Phys. Rev. B104, 104309. 10.1103/physrevb.104.104309
30
FengX.OuyangM.LiuX.LuL.XiaY.HeX. (2018). Thermal runaway mechanism of lithium ion battery for electric vehicles: a review. Energy Storage Mater.10, 246–267. 10.1016/j.ensm.2017.05.013
31
FiorentinoA.BaroniS. (2023). From Green-Kubo to the full Boltzmann kinetic approach to heat transport in crystals and glasses. Phys. Rev. B107, 054311. 10.1103/physrevb.107.054311
32
FiorentinoA.DrigoE.BaroniS.PegoloP., Unearthing the foundational role of anharmonicity in heat transport in glasses, preprint at. 10.48550/arXiv.2307.093702023a).
33
FiorentinoA.PegoloP.BaroniS. (2023b). Hydrodynamic finite-size scaling of the thermal conductivity in glasses. npj Comput. Mater.9, 157. 10.1038/s41524-023-01116-2
34
FuF.WangX.ZhangL.YangY.ChenJ.XuB.et al (2023). Unraveling the atomic-scale mechanism of phase transformations and structural evolutions during (de)lithiation in si anodes. Adv. Funct. Mater.33, 2303936. 10.1002/adfm.202303936
35
FujitaY.KimuraT.DeguchiM.MotohashiK.SakudaA.TatsumisagoM.et al (2023). Structural investigation of li2o–lii amorphous solid electrolytes. J. Phys. Chem. C127, 14687–14693. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c03876
36
GargJ.BoniniN.KozinskyB.MarzariN. (2011). Role of disorder and anharmonicity in the thermal conductivity of silicon-germanium alloys: a first-principles study. Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 045901. 10.1103/physrevlett.106.045901
37
GrasselliF.BaroniS. (2021). Invariance principles in the theory and computation of transport coefficients. Eur. Phys. J. B94, 160. 10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00152-5
38
GreenM. S. (1952). Markoff random processes and the statistical mechanics of time-dependent phenomena. J. Chem. Phys.20, 1281–1295. 10.1063/1.1700722
39
GriffinA. (1968). Brillouin light scattering from crystals in the hydrodynamic region. Rev. Mod. Phys.40, 167–205. 10.1103/revmodphys.40.167
40
GrisafiA.CeriottiM. (2019). Incorporating long-range physics in atomic-scale machine learning. J. Chem. Phys.151, 204105. 10.1063/1.5128375
41
GuoH.WangQ.UrbanA.ArtrithN. (2022). Artificial intelligence-aided mapping of the structure–composition–conductivity relationships of glass–ceramic lithium thiophosphate electrolytes. Chem. Mater.34, 6702–6712. publisher: American Chemical Society. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c00267
42
HabershonS.ManolopoulosD. E.MarklandT. E.MillerT. F. (2013). Ring-polymer molecular dynamics: quantum effects in chemical dynamics from classical trajectories in an extended phase space. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.64, 387–413. 10.1146/annurev-physchem-040412-110122
43
HuY.-J.ZhaoG.ZhangM.BinB.Del RoseT.ZhaoQ.et al (2020). Predicting densities and elastic moduli of SiO2-based glasses by machine learning. npj Comput. Mater.6, 25. 10.1038/s41524-020-0291-z
44
Huguenin-DumittanK. K.LocheP.HaoranN.CeriottiM. (2023). Physics-inspired equivariant descriptors of nonbonded interactions. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, 9612–9618. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02375
45
IsaevaL.BarbalinardoG.DonadioD.BaroniS. (2019). Modeling heat transport in crystals and glasses from a unified lattice-dynamical approach. Nat. Commun.10, 3853. 10.1038/s41467-019-11572-4
46
IslamS. M.SangwanV. K.Bruce BuchholzD.WellsS. A.PengL.ZengL.et al (2021). Amorphous to crystal phase change memory effect with two-fold bandgap difference in semiconducting K2Bi8Se13. J. Am. Chem. Soc.143, 6221–6228. 10.1021/jacs.1c01484
47
JanekJ.ZeierW. G. (2023). Challenges in speeding up solid-state battery development. Nat. Energy8, 230–240. 10.1038/s41560-023-01208-9
48
KimY.MoritaK. (2017). Temperature dependence and cation effects in the thermal conductivity of glassy and molten alkali borates. J. Non-Crystalline Solids471, 187–194. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2017.05.034
49
KimY.YanabaY.MoritaK. (2015). The effect of borate and silicate structure on thermal conductivity in the molten na2o–b2o3–sio2 system. J. Non-Crystalline Solids415, 1–8. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.02.008
50
KingmaD. P.BaJ. (2017). Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG].
51
KoT. W.FinklerJ. A.GoedeckerS.BehlerJ. (2021). A fourth-generation high-dimensional neural network potential with accurate electrostatics including non-local charge transfer. Nat. Commun.12, 398. 10.1038/s41467-020-20427-2
52
KotzF.ArnoldK.BauerW.SchildD.KellerN.SachsenheimerK.et al (2017). Three-dimensional printing of transparent fused silica glass. Nature544, 337–339. 10.1038/nature22061
53
KuboR. (1957). Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. General theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.12, 570–586. 10.1143/jpsj.12.570
54
KuboR.YokotaM.NakajimaS. (1957). Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. II. Response to thermal disturbance. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.12, 1203–1211. 10.1143/jpsj.12.1203
55
LandryA.-K.BayzouR.BenayadA.TréboscJ.PourpointF.LafonO.et al (2023). Unveiling the origins of high ionic conductivity in lithium phosphorus oxynitride amorphous electrolytes. Chem. Mater.35, 9313–9324. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.3c02099
56
LangerM. F.KnoopF.CarbognoC.SchefflerM.RuppM. (2023). Heat flux for semilocal machine-learning potentials. Phys. Rev. B108, L100302. 10.1103/physrevb.108.l100302
57
LiuH.FuZ.YangK.XuX.BauchyM. (2021). Machine learning for glass science and engineering: a review. J. Non-Crystalline Solids557, 119419. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2019.04.039
58
LiuX.FeldmanJ. L.CahillD. G.CrandallR. S.BernsteinN.PhotiadisD. M.et al (2009). High thermal conductivity of a hydrogenated amorphous silicon film. Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 035901. 10.1103/physrevlett.102.035901
59
LiuY.LiangH.YangL.YangG.YangH.SongS.et al (2023). Unraveling thermal transport correlated with atomistic structures in amorphous gallium oxide via machine learning combined with experiments. Adv. Mater.35, 2210873. 10.1002/adma.202210873
60
LuD.WangH.ChenM.LinL.CarR.WE.et al (2021). 86 pflops deep potential molecular dynamics simulation of 100 million atoms with ab initio accuracy. Comput. Phys. Commun.259, 107624. 10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107624
61
LubchenkoV.WolynesP. G. (2003). The origin of the boson peak and thermal conductivity plateau in low-temperature glasses. PNAS100, 1515–1518. 10.1073/pnas.252786999
62
LundgrenN. W.BarbalinardoG.DonadioD. (2021). Mode localization and suppressed heat transport in amorphous alloys. Phys. Rev. B103, 024204. 10.1103/physrevb.103.024204
63
LvW.HenryA. (2016). Non-negligible contributions to thermal conductivity from localized modes in amorphous silicon dioxide. Sci. Rep.6, 35720. 10.1038/srep35720
64
ManthiramA.YuX.WangS. (2017). Lithium battery chemistries enabled by solid-state electrolytes. Nat. Rev. Mater.2, 16103. 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.103
65
MatzkeH.VernazE. (1993). Thermal and physicochemical properties important for the long term behavior of nuclear waste glasses. J. Nucl. Mater.201, 295–309. 10.1016/0022-3115(93)90186-3
66
MauroJ. C. (2014). Grand challenges in glass science. Front. Mater.1. 10.3389/fmats.2014.00020
67
MauroJ. C.TandiaA.VargheeseK. D.MauroY. Z.SmedskjaerM. M. (2016). Accelerating the design of functional glasses through modeling. Chem. Mater.28, 4267–4277. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b01054
68
MunetohS.MotookaT.MoriguchiK.ShintaniA. (2007). Interatomic potential for si–o systems using tersoff parameterization. Comput. Mater. Sci.39, 334–339. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.06.010
69
NarasimhanS.VanderbiltD. (1991). Anharmonic self-energies of phonons in silicon. Phys. Rev. B43, 4541–4544. 10.1103/physrevb.43.4541
70
NiuH.PiaggiP. M.InvernizziM.ParrinelloM. (2018). Molecular dynamics simulations of liquid silica crystallization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.115, 5348–5352. 10.1073/pnas.1803919115
71
OjovanM. I.LeeW. E.KalmykovS. N. (2019). An introduction to nuclear waste immobilisation. 3rd ed. Elsevier.
72
OnbaşlıM. C.TandiaA.MauroJ. C. (2020). “Mechanical and compositional design of high-strength corning Gorilla®Glass,” in Handbook of materials modeling: applications: current and emerging materials. Editors AndreoniW.YipS. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1997–2019.
73
PalliniA.BertaniM.RustichelliD.ZiebarthB.MannstadtW.PedoneA. (2023). Comparison of five empirical potential models for aluminosilicate systems: albite and anorthite as test cases. J. Non-Crystalline Solids615, 122426. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.122426
74
ParuzzoF. M.HofstetterA.MusilF.DeS.CeriottiM.EmsleyL. (2018). Chemical shifts in molecular solids by machine learning. Nat. Comm.9, 4501. 10.1038/s41467-018-06972-x
75
PasquarelloA.HybertsenM. S.CarR. (1998). Interface structure between silicon and its oxide by first-principles molecular dynamics. Nature396, 58–60. 10.1038/23908
76
PaulattoL.MauriF.LazzeriM. (2013). Anharmonic properties from a generalized third-order ab initio approach: theory and applications to graphite and graphene. Phys. Rev. B87, 214303. 10.1103/physrevb.87.214303
77
PedesseauL.IspasS.KobW. (2015). First-principles study of a sodium borosilicate glass-former. ii. the glass state. Phys. Rev. B91, 134202. 10.1103/physrevb.91.134202
78
PedoneA.BertaniM.BrugnoliL.PalliniA. (2022). Interatomic potentials for oxide glasses: past, present, and future. J. Non-Crystalline Solids X15, 100115. 10.1016/j.nocx.2022.100115
79
PegoloP.BaroniS.GrasselliF. (2022). Temperature- and vacancy-concentration-dependence of heat transport in Li3ClO from multi-method numerical simulations. NPJ Comput. Mater.8, 24. 10.1038/s41524-021-00693-4
80
PegoloP.GrasselliF., Data for “Thermal transport of glasses via machine learning driven simulations”, 10.5281/zenodo.102253162023).
81
PhillipsW. A. (1987). Two-level states in glasses. Rep. Prog. Phys.50, 1657–1708. 10.1088/0034-4885/50/12/003
82
PlimptonS.KohlmeyerA.ThompsonA.MooreS.BergerR. (2021). Lammps stable release 29 september 2021.
83
SchirmacherW. (2006). Thermal conductivity of glassy materials and the boson peak. Europhys. Lett.73, 892–898. 10.1209/epl/i2005-10471-9
84
SicilianoA.MonacelliL.CaldarelliG.MauriF. (2023). Wigner Gaussian dynamics: simulating the anharmonic and quantum ionic motion. Phys. Rev. B107, 174307. 10.1103/physrevb.107.174307
85
SimoncelliM.MarzariN.MauriF. (2019). Unified theory of thermal transport in crystals and glasses. Nat. Phys.15, 809–813. 10.1038/s41567-019-0520-x
86
SivaramanG.KrishnamoorthyA. N.BaurM.HolmC.StanM.CsányiG.et al (2020). Machine-learned interatomic potentials by active learning: amorphous and liquid hafnium dioxide. npj Comput. Mater.6, 104. 10.1038/s41524-020-00367-7
87
SørensenS. S.BødkerM. S.JohraH.YoungmanR. E.LogunovS. L.BockowskiM.et al (2021). Thermal conductivity of densified borosilicate glasses. J. Non-Crystalline Solids557, 120644. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.120644
88
SørensenS. S.CieleckiP. P.JohraH.BockowskiM.SkovsenE.YueY.et al (2022). Thermal conduction in a densified oxide glass: insights from lattice dynamics. Mater. Today Commun.32, 104160. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.104160
89
SørensenS. S.JohraH.MauroJ. C.BauchyM.SmedskjaerM. M. (2019). Boron anomaly in the thermal conductivity of lithium borate glasses. Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 075601. 10.1103/physrevmaterials.3.075601
90
SossoG. C.DeringerV. L.ElliottS. R.CsányiG. (2018). Understanding the thermal properties of amorphous solids using machine-learning-based interatomic potentials. Mol. Simul.44, 866–880. 10.1080/08927022.2018.1447107
91
SossoG. C.DonadioD.CaravatiS.BehlerJ.BernasconiM. (2012). Thermal transport in phase-change materials from atomistic simulations. Phys. Rev. B86, 104301. 10.1103/physrevb.86.104301
92
SugawaraT.KatsukiJ.ShionoT.YoshidaS.MatsuokaJ.MinamiK.et al (2014). High-temperature heat capacity and density of simulated high-level waste glass. J. Nucl. Mater.454, 298–307. 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.07.055
93
SutherlandB. J.MooreW. H. D.ManolopoulosD. E. (2021). Nuclear quantum effects in thermal conductivity from centroid molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys.154, 174104. 10.1063/5.0051663
94
SwiftG. A. (2011). Thermophysical properties of lithium alloys for thermal batteries. Int. J. Thermophys.32, 2102–2111. 10.1007/s10765-011-1081-0
95
TamuraS.-i. (1983). Isotope scattering of dispersive phonons in ge. Phys. Rev. B27, 858–866. 10.1103/physrevb.27.858
96
TangX.LiC. W.FultzB. (2010). Anharmonicity-induced phonon broadening in aluminum at high temperatures. Phys. Rev. B82, 184301. 10.1103/physrevb.82.184301
97
TisiD.ZhangL.BertossaR.WangH.CarR.BaroniS. (2021). Heat transport in liquid water from first-principles and deep neural network simulations. Phys. Rev. B104, 224202. 10.1103/physrevb.104.224202
98
VeitM.WilkinsD. M.YangY.DiStasioJ.RobertA.CeriottiM. (2020). Predicting molecular dipole moments by combining atomic partial charges and atomic dipoles. J. Chem. Phys.153, 024113. 10.1063/5.0009106
99
WangH.ZhangL.HanJ.WE. (2018). Deepmd-kit: a deep learning package for many-body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics. Comput. Phys. Commun.228, 178–184. 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.03.016
100
WangY.FanZ.QianP.CaroM. A.Ala-NissilaT. (2023). Quantum-corrected thickness-dependent thermal conductivity in amorphous silicon predicted by machine learning molecular dynamics simulations. Phys. Rev. B107, 054303. 10.1103/physrevb.107.054303
101
XieX.PerssonK. A.SmallD. W. (2020). Incorporating electronic information into machine learning potential energy surfaces via approaching the ground-state electronic energy as a function of atom-based electronic populations. J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 4256–4270. pMID: 32502350. 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00217
102
XieY.VandermauseJ.RamakersS.ProtikN. H.JohanssonA.KozinskyB. (2023). Uncertainty-aware molecular dynamics from Bayesian active learning for phase transformations and thermal transport in SiC. npj Comput. Mater.9, 36. 10.1038/s41524-023-00988-8
103
YangH.-S.CahillD. G.LiuX.FeldmanJ. L.CrandallR. S.SperlingB. A.et al (2010). Anomalously high thermal conductivity of amorphous si deposited by hot-wire chemical vapor deposition. Phys. Rev. B81, 104203. 10.1103/physrevb.81.104203
104
ZengJ.ZhangD.LuD.MoP.LiZ.ChenY.et al (2023). DeePMD-kit v2: a software package for deep potential models. J. Chem. Phys.159, 054801. 10.1063/5.0155600
105
ZhangL.HanJ.WangH.SaidiW. A.CarR.WeinanE. (2018). “End-to-end symmetry preserving inter-atomic potential energy model for finite and extended systems,” in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’18, Red Hook, NY, USA (New York, United States: Curran Associates Inc.), 4441–4451.
106
ZhangL.WangH.MunizM. C.PanagiotopoulosA. Z.CarR.WE. (2022). A deep potential model with long-range electrostatic interactions. J. Chem. Phys.156, 124107. 10.1063/5.0083669
107
ZhaoQ.StalinS.ZhaoC.-Z.ArcherL. A. (2020). Designing solid-state electrolytes for safe, energy-dense batteries. Nat. Rev. Mater.5, 229–252. 10.1038/s41578-019-0165-5
108
ZhuX.ShaoC. (2022). Effect of anharmonicity on the thermal conductivity of amorphous silica. Phys. Rev. B106, 014305. 10.1103/physrevb.106.014305
109
ZinkB. L.PietriR.HellmanF. (2006). Thermal conductivity and specific heat of thin-film amorphous silicon. Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 055902. 10.1103/physrevlett.96.055902
Summary
Keywords
thermal transport, machine learning, glasses, thermal properties, Green Kubo method, molecular dynamics, cepstral analisys
Citation
Pegolo P and Grasselli F (2024) Thermal transport of glasses via machine learning driven simulations. Front. Mater. 11:1369034. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2024.1369034
Received
11 January 2024
Accepted
19 February 2024
Published
06 March 2024
Volume
11 - 2024
Edited by
Alfonso Pedone, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy
Reviewed by
Ahmed El-Fiqi, National Resaerch Centre, Egypt
Caio Barca Bragatto, Coe College, United States
Collin Wilkinson, Alfred University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Pegolo and Grasselli.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Paolo Pegolo, paolo5194@gmail.com; Federico Grasselli, federico.grasselli@epfl.ch
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.