| 1. | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
| 1.1. | What is materials informatics? |
| 1.2. | AI opportunities at every stage of materials design and development |
| 1.3. | Problems with materials science data |
| 1.4. | Types of MI algorithms - Supervised vs unsupervised |
| 1.5. | Key areas of algorithm advancements in MI |
| 1.6. | Simulation data is an important input to MI processes |
| 1.7. | Large Language Models and MI: what are the possibilities? (I) |
| 1.8. | Large Language Models and MI: what are the possibilities? (II) |
| 1.9. | Materials informatics players - categories |
| 1.10. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches: approaches for end-users (I) |
| 1.11. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches: approaches for end-users (II) |
| 1.12. | For MI end-users, there is no one-size-fits-all approach |
| 1.13. | Key Partners and Customers of External Providers |
| 1.14. | Main industry players (I): Established leaders |
| 1.15. | Main industry players (II): Promising challengers |
| 1.16. | Notable MI consortia |
| 1.17. | Materials Informatics: the state of the industry in 2024 |
| 1.18. | Project categories in MI |
| 1.19. | Market forecast: external materials informatics players |
| 1.20. | Market outlook for external MI companies |
| 1.21. | Materials informatics - Market penetration by maturity |
| 1.22. | Materials informatics roadmap |
| 2. | INTRODUCTION |
| 2.1. | What is materials informatics? |
| 2.2. | Materials informatics - Why now? |
| 2.3. | What can ML/AI do in materials science? |
| 2.4. | Materials Informatics - Category definitions |
| 2.5. | The broader informatics space in science and engineering |
| 2.6. | Key challenges for MI across the full materials spectrum |
| 2.7. | Closing the loop on traditional synthetic approaches |
| 2.8. | High Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS) |
| 2.9. | Advantages of ML for chemistry and materials science - Acceleration |
| 2.10. | Advantages of ML for chemistry and materials science - Scoping and screening |
| 2.11. | Advantages of ML for chemistry and materials science - Scoping and screening (2) |
| 2.12. | Advantages of ML for chemistry and materials science - New species and relationships |
| 2.13. | Data infrastructures for chemistry and materials science |
| 2.14. | ELN/LIMS Software and Materials Informatics |
| 3. | TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT |
| 3.1. | Overview |
| 3.1.1. | Inputs and outputs of materials informatics algorithms |
| 3.1.2. | What is needed for materials informatics? |
| 3.1.3. | Summary of technology approaches |
| 3.1.4. | Uncertainty in experimental data undermines analysis |
| 3.1.5. | QSAR and QSPR: relating structure to properties |
| 3.2. | MI algorithms |
| 3.2.1. | Overview of MI algorithms |
| 3.2.2. | Problems with materials science data |
| 3.2.3. | Descriptors and training a model |
| 3.2.4. | Describing materials to a computer (I) |
| 3.2.5. | Describing materials to a computer (II) |
| 3.2.6. | Types of MI algorithms - Supervised vs unsupervised |
| 3.2.7. | Problem classes in supervised and unsupervised learning |
| 3.2.8. | Reinforcement learning: Learning by trial and error |
| 3.2.9. | Automated feature selection |
| 3.2.10. | Exploitation vs exploration: Use what you know or look into new areas? |
| 3.2.11. | Pure exploitation vs epsilon-greedy policies in materials informatics |
| 3.2.12. | Active learning and MI: Choosing experiments to maximize improvement |
| 3.2.13. | Supervised learning models: "More sophisticated" is not always better |
| 3.2.14. | Bayesian optimization: A versatile tool in machine learning |
| 3.2.15. | Genetic algorithms: Mimicking natural selection |
| 3.2.16. | Unsupervised learning case study - Mapping phases |
| 3.2.17. | Deep learning: Imitating the brain |
| 3.2.18. | Deep learning: Types of neural network |
| 3.2.19. | Generative vs discriminative algorithms - Explaining vs labelling |
| 3.2.20. | Transformer models are at the core of the AI boom |
| 3.2.21. | Generative algorithms in materials informatics: case study |
| 3.2.22. | Deep learning: An example in MI |
| 3.2.23. | Generative models for inorganic compounds (I) |
| 3.2.24. | Generative models for inorganic compounds (II): Generative adversarial networks |
| 3.2.25. | How to work with small material datasets |
| 3.2.26. | Deep learning with small material datasets: examples (I) |
| 3.2.27. | Deep learning with small material datasets: examples (II) |
| 3.2.28. | Large Language Models (LLMs) and Materials R&D |
| 3.2.29. | Capabilities of LLMs in science |
| 3.2.30. | Summary: Key areas of algorithm advancements in MI |
| 3.3. | Establishing a data infrastructure |
| 3.3.1. | A data infrastructure is critical for MI |
| 3.3.2. | Developments targeted for chemical and materials science |
| 3.3.3. | ELN/LIMS, materials informatics and managing R&D processes |
| 3.4. | External databases |
| 3.4.1. | Data repositories - Organizations |
| 3.4.2. | Leveraging data repositories |
| 3.4.3. | Text extraction and analysis |
| 3.4.4. | ChemDataExtractor V1.0: Data mining publications and patents |
| 3.4.5. | ChemDataExtractor V2.0: Mining relational data |
| 3.4.6. | Annotating and extracting the relevant information: The commercial space |
| 3.5. | MI with physical experiments and characterization |
| 3.5.1. | Achieving high-volumes of physical experimental data |
| 3.5.2. | Achieving high-volumes of physical experimental data (2) |
| 3.5.3. | High-throughput spectroscopy |
| 3.5.4. | In-situ spectroscopy developments |
| 3.6. | MI with computational materials science |
| 3.6.1. | Simulations for chemistry and materials science R&D |
| 3.6.2. | Density functional theory (DFT) - Quantum mechanical modelling for CAMD |
| 3.6.3. | Surrogate models reduce the computational expense of atomistic simulation |
| 3.6.4. | Simulating matter across the length scale continuum: multiscale modelling |
| 3.6.5. | ICME and the role of machine learning |
| 3.6.6. | ICME: Why is it important? |
| 3.6.7. | QuesTek Innovations and ICME: from service to SaaS |
| 3.6.8. | Thermo-Calc and CompuTherm: ICME software provision and QuesTek collaboration |
| 3.6.9. | Generating and using the largest computational materials science database |
| 3.6.10. | Explorative design utilizing cloud-based simulation |
| 3.6.11. | The potential in leveraging quantum computing |
| 3.6.12. | Computation autonomy for materials discovery |
| 3.6.13. | Summary: simulation data is an important input to MI processes |
| 3.7. | Autonomous labs |
| 3.7.1. | The future - fully autonomous labs |
| 3.7.2. | The future - "Chemputer" |
| 3.7.3. | DeepMatter and the Chemputer |
| 3.7.4. | Workflow management for laboratory automation |
| 3.7.5. | Autonomous high throughput experimentation |
| 3.7.6. | Commercial self-driving-laboratories |
| 3.7.7. | Gearu: attempting to commercialize mobile autonomous robotic scientists |
| 3.7.8. | Retrosynthesis through to robot execution |
| 3.7.9. | Technology pillars for chemical autonomy |
| 4. | INDUSTRY ANALYSIS |
| 4.1. | Overview |
| 4.1.1. | Materials Informatics: the state of the industry in 2024 |
| 4.2. | Strategic approaches to MI |
| 4.2.1. | Materials informatics players - categories |
| 4.2.2. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches: approaches for end-users (I) |
| 4.2.3. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches: approaches for end-users (II) |
| 4.2.4. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches; approaches for external materials informatics companies (I) |
| 4.2.5. | Conclusions and outlook for strategic approaches; approaches for external materials informatics companies (II) |
| 4.3. | Player analysis |
| 4.3.1. | Materials informatics players - overview |
| 4.3.2. | Key Partners and Customers of External Providers |
| 4.3.3. | Partnerships with engineering simulation software |
| 4.3.4. | Funding raised by private companies (I): in-house development leads to high capital requirements |
| 4.3.5. | Funding raised by private companies (II): the AI boom may be raising interest in MI |
| 4.3.6. | NobleAI: MI, Microsoft, the AI boom and cloud marketplaces |
| 4.3.7. | Main industry players (I): Established leaders |
| 4.3.8. | Main industry players (II): Promising challengers |
| 4.3.9. | Major MI players: on a path to profitability? |
| 4.3.10. | What are the barriers to profitability for MI SaaS players? |
| 4.3.11. | Taking materials informatics in-house |
| 4.3.12. | Offering in-housed operations as a service |
| 4.3.13. | Taking the operation in-house: What needs to happen first? |
| 4.3.14. | Enthought: Digital transformation in scientific/engineering R&D |
| 4.3.15. | Resonac/Showa Denko - from external engagements to in-housed MI strategy? |
| 4.3.16. | Retrosynthesis prediction: "Can I make this compound?" |
| 4.3.17. | Commercial retrosynthesis predictors |
| 4.3.18. | Notable MI consortia (1) - NIMS and Materials Open Platforms |
| 4.3.19. | Notable MI consortia (2) - AIST Data-Driven Consortium |
| 4.3.20. | Notable MI consortia (3) - Toyota Research Institute and university collaboration |
| 4.3.21. | Notable MI consortia (4) - The Global Acceleration Network |
| 4.3.22. | Notable past MI consortia (1) - IBM collaborations |
| 4.3.23. | Notable past MI consortia (2): CHiMaD and the CMD Network |
| 4.3.24. | Public-private collaborations |
| 4.3.25. | The Open Catalyst Project: Crowdsourcing MI |
| 4.3.26. | Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) |
| 4.3.27. | Materials Genome Engineering (MGE) or National Materials Genome Project (China) |
| 4.3.28. | Additional key initiatives and research centers around the world (1) |
| 4.3.29. | Additional key initiatives and research centers around the world (2) |
| 4.3.30. | Conclusion: for MI end-users, there is no one-size-fits-all approach |
| 4.4. | Applications of materials informatics |
| 4.4.1. | Project categories in MI |
| 4.4.2. | Application Progression |
| 4.4.3. | Materials informatics roadmap |
| 4.5. | Market forecast and outlook |
| 4.5.1. | Signs of growth in the MI industry |
| 4.5.2. | Market forecast: external materials informatics players |
| 4.5.3. | Forecast data and market outlook |
| 4.6. | MI industry player data |
| 4.6.1. | Lists of MI players |
| 4.6.2. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (1) |
| 4.6.3. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (2) |
| 4.6.4. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (3) |
| 4.6.5. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (4) |
| 4.6.6. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (5) |
| 4.6.7. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (6) |
| 4.6.8. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (7) |
| 4.6.9. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (8) |
| 4.6.10. | Full player list - Commercial companies (confirmed operational) (9) |
| 4.6.11. | Full player list - Commercial companies (likely industry leavers in 2023) |
| 4.6.12. | Player list - Public organizations (I) |
| 4.6.13. | Player list - Public organizations (II) |
| 5. | COMPANY PROFILES |
| 5.1. | Albert Invent |
| 5.2. | Alchemy Cloud |
| 5.3. | Ansatz AI |
| 5.4. | Citrine Informatics (2020) |
| 5.5. | Citrine Informatics (2022) |
| 5.6. | Citrine Informatics (2023/4 update) |
| 5.7. | Copernic Catalysts |
| 5.8. | Cynora |
| 5.9. | Elix, Inc |
| 5.10. | Enthought |
| 5.11. | Exomatter |
| 5.12. | Exponential Technologies |
| 5.13. | FEHRMANN MaterialsX |
| 5.14. | Fluence Analytics |
| 5.15. | Intellegens |
| 5.16. | Kebotix (2020) |
| 5.17. | Kebotix (2022) |
| 5.18. | Kyulux |
| 5.19. | MaterialsIn |
| 5.20. | Materials Zone (2020) |
| 5.21. | Materials Zone (2022) |
| 5.22. | Matmerize |
| 5.23. | META |
| 5.24. | OTI Lumionics |
| 5.25. | Phaseshift Technologies |
| 5.26. | Polymerize |
| 5.27. | Preferred Computational Chemistry/Matlantis |
| 5.28. | QuesTek Innovations LLC |
| 5.29. | Schrödinger |
| 5.30. | Stoicheia |
| 5.31. | Uncountable (2020) |
| 5.32. | Uncountable (2022) |
| 5.33. | Xinterra |