Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Machine learning for advancing low-temperature plasma modeling and simulation (2307.00131v2)

Published 30 Jun 2023 in physics.plasm-ph and cs.LG

Abstract: Machine learning has had an enormous impact in many scientific disciplines. Also in the field of low-temperature plasma modeling and simulation it has attracted significant interest within the past years. Whereas its application should be carefully assessed in general, many aspects of plasma modeling and simulation have benefited substantially from recent developments within the field of machine learning and data-driven modeling. In this survey, we approach two main objectives: (a) We review the state-of-the-art focusing on approaches to low-temperature plasma modeling and simulation. By dividing our survey into plasma physics, plasma chemistry, plasma-surface interactions, and plasma process control, we aim to extensively discuss relevant examples from literature. (b) We provide a perspective of potential advances to plasma science and technology. We specifically elaborate on advances possibly enabled by adaptation from other scientific disciplines. We argue that not only the known unknowns, but also unknown unknowns may be discovered due to the inherent propensity of data-driven methods to spotlight hidden patterns in data.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (217)
  1. R. A. Gottscho, C. W. Jurgensen, and D. J. Vitkavage, “Microscopic uniformity in plasma etching,” Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena 10, 2133–2147 (1992).
  2. G. S. Oehrlein and S. Hamaguchi, “Foundations of low-temperature plasma enhanced materials synthesis and etching,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 27(2), 023001 (2018).
  3. T. Tomie, “Tin laser-produced plasma as the light source for extreme ultraviolet lithography high-volume manufacturing: History, ideal plasma, present status, and prospects,” Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS 11, 021109 (2012).
  4. I. Adamovich, S. Agarwal, E. Ahedo, et al., “The 2022 Plasma Roadmap: Low temperature plasma science and technology,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55(37), 373001 (2022).
  5. R. Anirudh, R. Archibald, M. S. Asif, et al., “2022 Review of Data-Driven Plasma Science,” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 51, 1750–1838 (2023).
  6. A. D. Bonzanini, K. Shao, D. B. Graves, et al., “Foundations of machine learning for low-temperature plasmas: Methods and case studies,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 32, 024003 (2023).
  7. M. Kambara, S. Kawaguchi, H. J. Lee, et al., “Science-based, data-driven developments in plasma processing for material synthesis and device-integration technologies,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 62(SA), SA0803 (2023).
  8. R. Shadmehr, D. Angell, P. B. Chou, et al., “Principal Component Analysis of Optical Emission Spectroscopy and Mass Spectrometry: Application to Reactive Ion Etch Process Parameter Estimation Using Neural Networks,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society 139, 907–914 (1992).
  9. Sang Jeen Hong, G. S. May, and Dong-Cheol Park, “Neural network modeling of reactive ion etching using optical emission spectroscopy data,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 16, 598–608 (2003).
  10. C. Himmel and G. May, “Advantages of plasma etch modeling using neural networks over statistical techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 6, 103–111 (1993).
  11. A. Bleakie and D. Djurdjanovic, “Growing Structure Multiple Model System for Quality Estimation in Manufacturing Processes,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 29, 79–97 (2016).
  12. Sang Jeen Hong and G. S. May, “Neural-network-based sensor fusion of optical emission and mass spectroscopy data for real-time fault detection in reactive ion etching,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 52, 1063–1072 (2005).
  13. K. Suthar, D. Shah, J. Wang, et al., “Next-generation virtual metrology for semiconductor manufacturing: A feature-based framework,” Computers & Chemical Engineering 127, 140–149 (2019).
  14. M. Maggipinto, A. Beghi, S. McLoone, et al., “DeepVM: A Deep Learning-based approach with automatic feature extraction for 2D input data Virtual Metrology,” Journal of Process Control 84, 24–34 (2019).
  15. S. Park, J. Seong, Y. Noh, et al., “Micro-range uniformity control of the etching profile in the OLED display mass production referring to the PI-VM model,” Physics of Plasmas 28(10), 103505 (2021).
  16. T. van der Gaag, H. Onishi, and H. Akatsuka, “Arbitrary EEDF determination of atmospheric-pressure plasma by applying machine learning to OES measurement,” Physics of Plasmas 28, 033511 (2021).
  17. K. Shao, X. Pei, D. B. Graves, et al., “Active learning-guided exploration of parameter space of air plasmas to enhance the energy efficiency of NO$\less$sub$\greater$ x $\less$/sub$\greater$ production,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 31, 055018 (2022).
  18. Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, Z. Sun, et al., “Solving Poisson’s Equation using Deep Learning in Particle Simulation of PN Junction,” in 2019 Joint International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Sapporo and Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC Sapporo/APEMC), 305–308 (2019).
  19. J. Trieschmann, T. Gergs, Y. Liu, et al., “A machine learning approach to the solution of Poisson’s equations for plasma simulations,” in Bulletin of the American Physical Society, MW3.002, APS, (Virtual Conference) (2020).
  20. M. W. M. G. Dissanayake and N. Phan-Thien, “Neural-network-based approximations for solving partial differential equations,” Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 10(3), 195–201 (1994).
  21. X. Aguilar and S. Markidis, “A Deep Learning-Based Particle-in-Cell Method for Plasma Simulations,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER), 692–697 (2021).
  22. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation,” ICS Report 8506, University of California, San Diego (California), USA (1985).
  23. K. Fukushima, “Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position,” Biological Cybernetics 36, 193–202 (1980).
  24. L. Cheng, E. A. Illarramendi, G. Bogopolsky, et al., “Using neural networks to solve the 2D Poisson equation for electric field computation in plasma fluid simulations,” (2021).
  25. A. G. Özbay, A. Hamzehloo, S. Laizet, et al., “Poisson CNN: Convolutional neural networks for the solution of the Poisson equation on a Cartesian mesh,” Data-Centric Engineering 2, e6 (2021).
  26. O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, N. Navab, J. Hornegger, W. M. Wells, et al., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 234–241, Springer International Publishing, (Cham) (2015).
  27. X. Zeng, S. Zhang, C. Ren, et al., “Physics informed neural networks for electric field distribution characteristics analysis,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 165202 (2023).
  28. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics 378, 686–707 (2019).
  29. L. Lu, X. Meng, Z. Mao, et al., “DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations,” arXiv:1907.04502 [physics, stat] (2020).
  30. A. G. Baydin, B. A. Pearlmutter, A. A. Radul, et al., “Automatic Differentiation in Machine Learning: A Survey,” Journal of Machine Learning Research 18, 43 (2018).
  31. I. Siffa, M. M. Becker, K.-D. Weltmann, et al., “Towards a Machine-Learned Poisson Solver for Low-Temperature Plasma Simulations in Complex Geometries,” (2023).
  32. G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. van der Maaten, et al., “Densely Connected Convolutional Networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2261–2269, (Honolulu, HI, USA) (2017).
  33. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, et al., “Attention is All you Need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, Curran Associates, Inc. (2017).
  34. J. Chen, Y. Lu, Q. Yu, et al., “TransUNet: Transformers Make Strong Encoders for Medical Image Segmentation,” (2021).
  35. Z. Wang, A. Bovik, H. Sheikh, et al., “Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 600–612 (2004).
  36. Mihir Desai, Pratik Ghosh, Ahlad Kumar, et al., “Deep-Learning Architecture-Based Approach for 2-D-Simulation of Microwave Plasma Interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 70(12), 5359–5368 (2022).
  37. N. Rahaman, A. Baratin, D. Arpit, et al., “On the Spectral Bias of Neural Networks,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 5301–5310, PMLR (2019).
  38. A. K. Verma, X. Li, S. Ganta, et al., “Surrogate Models for Low Temperature Plasma Simulations with Deep Learning,” in Bulletin of the American Physical Society, PR24.003, APS, (Virtual Conference) (2021).
  39. M. Ichikawa, K. Ikuse, K.-L. Chen, et al., “Construction of a surrogate model for low-temperature plasma simulation using machine learning,” in 69th Japan Society of Applied Physics (JSAP) Spring Meeting 2022, (2022).
  40. M. J. Kushner, “Hybrid modelling of low temperature plasmas for fundamental investigations and equipment design,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42(19), 194013 (2009).
  41. J. Ko, J. Bae, M. Park, et al., “Computational approach for plasma process optimization combined with deep learning model,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 344001 (2023).
  42. Y.-T. Zhang, S.-H. Gao, and F. Ai, “Efficient numerical simulation of atmospheric pulsed discharges by introducing deep learning,” Frontiers in Physics 11 (2023).
  43. Y.-T. Zhang, S.-H. Gao, and Y.-Y. Zhu, “Efficient numerical simulation on dielectric barrier discharges at atmospheric pressure integrated by deep neural network,” Journal of Applied Physics 133, 053303 (2023).
  44. X.-C. Wang and Y.-T. Zhang, “Modeling of discharge characteristics and plasma chemistry in atmospheric CO2 pulsed plasmas employing deep neural network,” Journal of Applied Physics 133, 143301 (2023).
  45. S. Kawaguchi, K. Takahashi, H. Ohkama, et al., “Deep learning for solving the Boltzmann equation of electrons in weakly ionized plasma,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 025021 (2020).
  46. S. Kawaguchi and T. Murakami, “Physics-informed neural networks for solving the Boltzmann equation of the electron velocity distribution function in weakly ionized plasmas,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 61, 086002 (2022).
  47. S. Wang, Y. Teng, and P. Perdikaris, “Understanding and Mitigating Gradient Flow Pathologies in Physics-Informed Neural Networks,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 43, A3055–A3081 (2021).
  48. J. S. Kim, K. Denpoh, S. Kawaguchi, et al., “Numerical strategy for solving the Boltzmann equation with variable E/N using physics-informed neural networks,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 344002 (2023).
  49. L. Zhong, Q. Gu, and B. Wu, “Deep learning for thermal plasma simulation: Solving 1-D arc model as an example,” Computer Physics Communications 257, 107496 (2020).
  50. L. Zhong, B. Wu, and Y. Wang, “Low-temperature plasma simulation based on physics-informed neural networks: Frameworks and preliminary applications,” Physics of Fluids 34, 087116 (2022).
  51. L. Zhong, B. Wu, and Y. Wang, “Accelerating physics-informed neural network based 1D arc simulation by meta learning,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 074006 (2023).
  52. A. F. Psaros, K. Kawaguchi, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Meta-learning PINN loss functions,” Journal of Computational Physics 458, 111121 (2022).
  53. S. Kawaguchi, K. Takahashi, and K. Satoh, “Data-driven discovery of electron continuity equations in electron swarm map for determining electron transport coefficients in argon,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 244003 (2023).
  54. T. Xiao and D. Ni, “Multiscale Modeling and Recurrent Neural Network Based Optimization of a Plasma Etch Process,” Processes 9, 151 (2021).
  55. T. Xiao, Z. Wu, P. D. Christofides, et al., “Recurrent Neural-Network-Based Model Predictive Control of a Plasma Etch Process,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 61, 638–652 (2022).
  56. “Report on Science Challenges and Research Opportunities for Plasma Applications in Microelectronics,” tech. rep., Department of Energy Office of Science Fusion Energy Sciences Workshop (2023).
  57. M. M. Turner, “Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in complex plasma chemistry models,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 25(1), 015003 (2016).
  58. L. L. Alves, M. M. Becker, J. van Dijk, et al., “Foundations of plasma standards,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 32, 023001 (2023).
  59. W. L. Morgan, “Use of numerical optimization algorithms to obtain cross sections from electron swarm data,” Physical Review A 44, 1677–1681 (1991).
  60. P. W. Stokes, D. G. Cocks, M. J. Brunger, et al., “Determining cross sections from transport coefficients using deep neural networks,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 055009 (2020).
  61. P. W. Stokes, S. P. Foster, M. J. E. Casey, et al., “An improved set of electron-THFA cross sections refined through a neural network-based analysis of swarm data,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 154, 084306 (2021).
  62. LXCat-Team, “https://nl.lxcat.net/home/,” (2023).
  63. V. Jetly and B. Chaudhury, “Extracting electron scattering cross sections from swarm data using deep neural networks,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 035025 (2021).
  64. G. J. M. Hagelaar and L. C. Pitchford, “Solving the Boltzmann equation to obtain electron transport coefficients and rate coefficients for fluid models,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 14, 722 (2005).
  65. L. Zhong, “Fast prediction of electron-impact ionization cross sections of large molecules via machine learning,” Journal of Applied Physics 125, 183302 (2019).
  66. A. L. Harris and J. Nepomuceno, “A Data-Driven Machine Learning Approach for Electron-Molecule Ionization Cross Sections,” (2023).
  67. D. Reiser, A. von Keudell, and T. Urbanietz, “Determining Chemical Reaction Systems in Plasma-Assisted Conversion of Methane Using Genetic Algorithms,” Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing 41, 793–813 (2021).
  68. M. Hanicinec, S. Mohr, and J. Tennyson, “A regression model for plasma reaction kinetics,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 374001 (2023).
  69. J. Tennyson, S. Rahimi, C. Hill, et al., “QDB: A new database of plasma chemistries and reactions,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 26(5), 055014 (2017).
  70. V. Wakelam, E. Herbst, J.-C. Loison, et al., “A Kinetic Database for Astrochemistry (KIDA),” The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 199, 21 (2012).
  71. J.-H. Park, H. Choi, W.-S. Chang, et al., “A New Version of the Plasma Database for Plasma Physics in the Data Center for Plasma Properties,” Applied Science and Convergence Technology 29, 5–9 (2020).
  72. D. McElroy, C. Walsh, A. J. Markwick, et al., “The UMIST database for astrochemistry 2012,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 550, A36 (2013).
  73. I. T. Jolliffe and J. Cadima, “Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374, 20150202 (2016).
  74. U. Maas and S. B. Pope, “Simplifying chemical kinetics: Intrinsic low-dimensional manifolds in composition space,” Combustion and Flame 88, 239–264 (1992).
  75. K. Peerenboom, A. Parente, T. Kozák, et al., “Dimension reduction of non-equilibrium plasma kinetic models using principal component analysis,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 24, 025004 (2015).
  76. T. Rehman, E. Kemaneci, W. Graef, et al., “Simplifying plasma chemistry via ILDM,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 682, 012035 (2016).
  77. O. Sakai, K. Nobuto, S. Miyagi, et al., “Analysis of weblike network structures of directed graphs for chemical reactions in methane plasmas,” AIP Advances 5, 107140 (2015).
  78. O. Sakai, S. Kawaguchi, and T. Murakami, “Complexity visualization, dataset acquisition, and machine-learning perspectives for low-temperature plasma: A review,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 61, 070101 (2022).
  79. S. R. Sun, H. X. Wang, and A. Bogaerts, “Chemistry reduction of complex CO2 chemical kinetics: Application to a gliding arc plasma,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 025012 (2020).
  80. T. Murakami and O. Sakai, “Rescaling the complex network of low-temperature plasma chemistry through graph-theoretical analysis,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 115018 (2020).
  81. Y. Mizui, T. Kojima, S. Miyagi, et al., “Graphical Classification in Multi-Centrality-Index Diagrams for Complex Chemical Networks,” Symmetry 9, 309 (2017).
  82. T. D. Holmes, R. H. Rothman, and W. B. Zimmerman, “Graph Theory Applied to Plasma Chemical Reaction Engineering,” Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing 41, 531–557 (2021).
  83. S. Venturi, W. Yang, I. Kaganovich, et al., “An uncertainty-aware strategy for plasma mechanism reduction with directed weighted graphs,” Physics of Plasmas 30, 043904 (2023).
  84. Y. Zhu, Y. Bo, X. Chen, et al., “Tailoring electric field signals of nonequilibrium discharges by the deep learning method and physical corrections,” Plasma Processes and Polymers 19(3), e2100155 (2022).
  85. J. Pan, Y. Liu, S. Zhang, et al., “Deep learning-assisted pulsed discharge plasma catalysis modeling,” Energy Conversion and Management 277, 116620 (2023).
  86. J. P. Biersack and L. G. Haggmark, “A Monte Carlo computer program for the transport of energetic ions in amorphous targets,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods 174, 257 (1980).
  87. Y. Ding, Y. Zhang, G. Orkoulas, et al., “Microscopic modeling and optimal operation of plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design 159, 439–454 (2020).
  88. F. Burden and D. Winkler, “Bayesian Regularization of Neural Networks,” in Artificial Neural Networks: Methods and Applications, D. J. Livingstone, Ed., Methods in Molecular Biology, 23–42, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ (2009).
  89. Y. Ding, Y. Zhang, H. Y. Chung, et al., “Machine learning-based modeling and operation of plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition of hafnium oxide thin films,” Computers & Chemical Engineering 144, 107148 (2021).
  90. R. Sheil, J. M. P. Martirez, X. Sang, et al., “Precise Control of Nanoscale Cu Etching via Gas-Phase Oxidation and Chemical Complexation,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 125, 1819–1832 (2021).
  91. Y. Xia and P. Sautet, “Plasma Oxidation of Copper: Molecular Dynamics Study with Neural Network Potentials,” ACS Nano 16, 20680–20692 (2022).
  92. H. M. Aktulga, J. C. Fogarty, S. A. Pandit, et al., “Parallel reactive molecular dynamics: Numerical methods and algorithmic techniques,” Parallel Computing 38, 245–259 (2012).
  93. W. Zhu, H. Gong, Y. Han, et al., “Development of a Reactive Force Field for Simulations on the Catalytic Conversion of C/H/O Molecules on Cu-Metal and Cu-Oxide Surfaces and Application to Cu/CuO-Based Chemical Looping,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 124, 12512–12520 (2020).
  94. M. Wan, H. Yue, J. Notarangelo, et al., “Deep Learning-Assisted Investigation of Electric Field–Dipole Effects on Catalytic Ammonia Synthesis,” JACS Au 2, 1338–1349 (2022).
  95. F. Scarselli, M. Gori, A. C. Tsoi, et al., “The Graph Neural Network Model,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20, 61–80 (2009).
  96. Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, et al., “A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 32, 4–24 (2021).
  97. T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, (2022).
  98. Y. M. Kedalo, A. A. Knizhnik, and B. V. Potapkin, “Applicability of the Fridman–Macheret α𝛼\alphaitalic_α-Model to Heterogeneous Processes in the Case of Dissociative Adsorption of N2 on the Ru Surface,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 127, 11536–11541 (2023).
  99. A. P. Bartók, R. Kondor, and G. Csányi, “On representing chemical environments,” Physical Review B 87, 184115 (2013).
  100. K. M. Bal and E. C. Neyts, “Quantifying the impact of vibrational nonequilibrium in plasma catalysis: Insights from a molecular dynamics model of dissociative chemisorption,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 54, 394004 (2021).
  101. D. Mendels, G. Piccini, and M. Parrinello, “Collective Variables from Local Fluctuations,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 9, 2776–2781 (2018).
  102. O. Valsson and M. Parrinello, “Variational Approach to Enhanced Sampling and Free Energy Calculations,” Physical Review Letters 113, 090601 (2014).
  103. A. Barducci, G. Bussi, and M. Parrinello, “Well-Tempered Metadynamics: A Smoothly Converging and Tunable Free-Energy Method,” Physical Review Letters 100, 020603 (2008).
  104. A. Laio and M. Parrinello, “Escaping free-energy minima,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 12562–12566 (2002).
  105. M. Siron, N. Chandrasekhar, and K. A. Persson, “Enabling automated high-throughput Density Functional Theory studies of amorphous material surface reactions,” Computational Materials Science 226, 112192 (2023).
  106. A. Hamedani, J. Byggmästar, F. Djurabekova, et al., “Primary radiation damage in silicon from the viewpoint of a machine learning interatomic potential,” Physical Review Materials 5, 114603 (2021).
  107. A. P. Bartók, M. C. Payne, R. Kondor, et al., “Gaussian Approximation Potentials: The Accuracy of Quantum Mechanics, without the Electrons,” Physical Review Letters 104, 136403 (2010).
  108. K. Nordlund, N. Runeberg, and D. Sundholm, “Repulsive interatomic potentials calculated using Hartree-Fock and density-functional theory methods,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 132, 45–54 (1997).
  109. F. H. Stillinger and T. A. Weber, “Computer simulation of local order in condensed phases of silicon,” Physical Review B 31, 5262–5271 (1985).
  110. J. Tersoff, “New empirical approach for the structure and energy of covalent systems,” Physical Review B 37, 6991–7000 (1988).
  111. A. Hamedani, J. Byggmästar, F. Djurabekova, et al., “Insights into the primary radiation damage of silicon by a machine learning interatomic potential,” Materials Research Letters 8, 364–372 (2020).
  112. Y. Yamamura and H. Tawara, “Energy Dependence of Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence,” Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 62(2), 149 (1996).
  113. P. Phadke, A. A. Zameshin, J. M. Sturm, et al., “Sputter yields of monoatomic solids by Ar and Ne ions near the threshold: A Bayesian analysis of the Yamamura Model,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 520, 29–39 (2022).
  114. W. Möller and W. Eckstein, “Tridyn - A TRIM simulation code including dynamic composition changes,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 2, 814 (1984).
  115. W. Eckstein and R. Preuss, “New fit formulae for the sputtering yield,” Journal of Nuclear Materials 320, 209 (2003).
  116. R. Preuss, R. Arredondo, and U. von Toussaint, “Bayesian Determination of Parameters for Plasma-Wall Interactions,” Entropy 21(12), 1175 (2019).
  117. W. Eckstein, R. Dohmen, A. Mutzke, et al., “SDTrimSP: Ein Monte-Carlo Code zur Berechnung von Stossereignissen in ungeordneten Targets,” Tech. Rep. 12/3, Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching (2007).
  118. N. Wiener, “The Homogeneous Chaos,” American Journal of Mathematics 60(4), 897–936 (1938).
  119. F. Krüger, T. Gergs, and J. Trieschmann, “Machine learning plasma-surface interface for coupling sputtering and gas-phase transport simulations,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 28(3), 035002 (2019).
  120. T. Gergs, B. Borislavov, and J. Trieschmann, “Efficient plasma-surface interaction surrogate model for sputtering processes based on autoencoder neural networks,” Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B 40(1), 012802 (2022).
  121. D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes,” in International Conference on Learning Representations 2014, (2013).
  122. D. J. Rezende, S. Mohamed, and D. Wierstra, “Stochastic Backpropagation and Approximate Inference in Deep Generative Models,” in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 32, 1278–1286 (2014).
  123. I. Higgins, L. Matthey, A. Pal, et al., “β𝛽\betaitalic_β-VAE: Learning Basic Visual Concepts with a Constrained Variational Framework,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 22 (2017).
  124. B. Kim, J. Bae, H. Jeong, et al., “Deep neural network-based reduced-order modeling of ion–surface interactions combined with molecular dynamics simulation,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56, 384005 (2023).
  125. P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, et al., “Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1096–1103, ACM Press, (Helsinki, Finland) (2008).
  126. K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, “Learning Structured Output Representation using Deep Conditional Generative Models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, (2015).
  127. T. Gergs, T. Mussenbrock, and J. Trieschmann, “Physics-separating artificial neural networks for predicting sputtering and thin film deposition of AlN in Ar/N2 discharges on experimental timescales,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56(19), 194001 (2023).
  128. K. M. Bal and E. C. Neyts, “On the time scale associated with Monte Carlo simulations,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 141, 204104 (2014).
  129. M. J. Mees, G. Pourtois, E. C. Neyts, et al., “Uniform-acceptance force-bias Monte Carlo method with time scale to study solid-state diffusion,” Physical Review B 85, 134301 (2012).
  130. E. C. Neyts and A. Bogaerts, “Combining molecular dynamics with Monte Carlo simulations: Implementations and applications,” Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 132(2), 1320 (2013).
  131. T. Gergs, T. Mussenbrock, and J. Trieschmann, “Molecular dynamics study on the role of Ar ions in the sputter deposition of Al thin films,” Journal of Applied Physics 132(6), 063302 (2022).
  132. T. Gergs, T. Mussenbrock, and J. Trieschmann, “Physics-separating artificial neural networks for predicting initial stages of Al sputtering and thin film deposition in Ar plasma discharges,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 56(8), 084003 (2023).
  133. A. Jaramillo-Botero, S. Naserifar, and W. A. I. Goddard, “General Multiobjective Force Field Optimization Framework, with Application to Reactive Force Fields for Silicon Carbide,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10, 1426–1439 (2014).
  134. T. Gergs, T. Mussenbrock, and J. Trieschmann, “Charge-optimized many-body interaction potential for AlN revisited to explore plasma–surface interactions,” Scientific Reports 13(1), 5287 (2023).
  135. S. Berg, H.-O. Blom, T. Larsson, et al., “Modeling of reactive sputtering of compound materials,” Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 5, 202 (1987).
  136. C. Woelfel, P. Awakowicz, and J. Lunze, “Model reduction and identification of nonlinear reactive sputter processes,” IFAC-PapersOnLine 50, 13728–13734 (2017).
  137. C. Woelfel, D. Bockhorn, P. Awakowicz, et al., “Model approximation and stabilization of reactive sputter processes,” Journal of Process Control 83, 121–128 (2019).
  138. C. Woelfel, M. Oberberg, P. Awakowicz, et al., “Plasma State Control of Reactive Sputter Processes,” in Proceedings of the 6thInternational Conference of Control, Dynamic Systems, and Robotics (CDSR’19), 107, (Ottawa, Canada) (2019).
  139. C. Woelfel, M. Oberberg, B. Berger, et al., “Control-oriented plasma modeling and controller design for reactive sputtering,” IFAC Journal of Systems and Control 16, 100142 (2021).
  140. D. Gidon, D. B. Graves, and A. Mesbah, “Predictive control of 2D spatial thermal dose delivery in atmospheric pressure plasma jets,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 28(8), 085001 (2019).
  141. D. Gidon, H. S. Abbas, A. D. Bonzanini, et al., “Data-driven LPV model predictive control of a cold atmospheric plasma jet for biomaterials processing,” Control Engineering Practice 109, 104725 (2021).
  142. D. Rodrigues, K. J. Chan, and A. Mesbah, “Data-Driven Adaptive Optimal Control Under Model Uncertainty: An Application to Cold Atmospheric Plasmas,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 31, 55–69 (2023).
  143. G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley, “The Proper Orthogonal Decomposition in the Analysis of Turbulent Flows,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 25(1), 539–575 (1993).
  144. C. M. Greve, M. Majji, and K. Hara, “Real-time state estimation of low-frequency plasma oscillations in Hall effect thrusters,” Physics of Plasmas 28, 093509 (2021).
  145. C. M. Greve and K. Hara, “Estimation of plasma properties using an extended Kalman filter with plasma global models,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55, 255201 (2022).
  146. K. J. Kanarik, W. T. Osowiecki, Y. J. Lu, et al., “Human–machine collaboration for improving semiconductor process development,” Nature 616, 707–711 (2023).
  147. H. Jaeger, “A tutorial on training recurrent neural networks, covering BPPT, RTRL, EKF and the ”echo state network” approach,” tech. rep., GMD-Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik Bonn, Bonn (2002).
  148. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long Short-Term Memory,” Neural Computation 9, 1735–1780 (1997).
  149. F. A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Cummins, “Learning to Forget: Continual Prediction with LSTM,” Neural Computation 12, 2451–2471 (2000).
  150. G. Borrelli, L. Guastoni, H. Eivazi, et al., “Predicting the temporal dynamics of turbulent channels through deep learning,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 96, 109010 (2022).
  151. W. Zheng, Q. Q. Wu, M. Zhang, et al., “Disruption predictor based on neural network and anomaly detection on J-TEXT,” Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 62, 045012 (2020).
  152. B. H. Guo, D. L. Chen, B. Shen, et al., “Disruption prediction on EAST tokamak using a deep learning algorithm,” Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63, 115007 (2021).
  153. Y. Liu, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Hierarchical deep learning of multiscale differential equation time-steppers,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 380, 20210200 (2022).
  154. H. Jaeger and H. Haas, “Harnessing Nonlinearity: Predicting Chaotic Systems and Saving Energy in Wireless Communication,” Science 304, 78–80 (2004).
  155. N. A. K. Doan, W. Polifke, and L. Magri, “Physics-informed echo state networks,” Journal of Computational Science 47, 101237 (2020).
  156. S. Cuomo, V. S. Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, et al., “Scientific Machine Learning Through Physics–Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What’s Next,” Journal of Scientific Computing 92, 88 (2022).
  157. Y. Wang and L. Zhong, “NAS-PINN: Neural architecture search-guided physics-informed neural network for solving PDEs,” Journal of Computational Physics 496, 112603 (2024).
  158. L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, et al., “Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,” Nature Machine Intelligence 3, 218–229 (2021).
  159. Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, et al., “Neural Operator: Graph Kernel Network for Partial Differential Equations,” (2020).
  160. Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, et al., “Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations,” (2021).
  161. Q. Cao, S. Goswami, and G. E. Karniadakis, “LNO: Laplace Neural Operator for Solving Differential Equations,” (2023).
  162. N. Geneva and N. Zabaras, “Transformers for modeling physical systems,” Neural Networks 146, 272–289 (2022).
  163. S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
  164. S. H. Rudy, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, et al., “Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations,” Science Advances 3, e1602614 (2017).
  165. E. P. Alves and F. Fiuza, “Data-driven discovery of reduced plasma physics models from fully kinetic simulations,” Physical Review Research 4, 033192 (2022).
  166. A. A. Kaptanoglu, T. Qian, F. Wechsung, et al., “Permanent-Magnet Optimization for Stellarators as Sparse Regression,” Physical Review Applied 18, 044006 (2022).
  167. A. A. Kaptanoglu, C. Hansen, J. D. Lore, et al., “Sparse regression for plasma physics,” Physics of Plasmas 30, 033906 (2023).
  168. E. Kaiser, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for model predictive control in the low-data limit,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 474, 20180335 (2018).
  169. J. D. Lore, S. D. Pascuale, P. Laiu, et al., “Time-dependent SOLPS-ITER simulations of the tokamak plasma boundary for model predictive control using SINDy*,” Nuclear Fusion 63, 046015 (2023).
  170. B. Settles, “Active Learning Literature Survey,” technical Report, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences (2009).
  171. A. Diaw, K. Barros, J. Haack, et al., “Multiscale simulation of plasma flows using active learning,” Physical Review E 102(2), 023310 (2020).
  172. S. Bozinovski, “Reminder of the First Paper on Transfer Learning in Neural Networks, 1976,” Informatica 44 (2020).
  173. K. D. Humbird and J. L. Peterson, “Transfer learning driven design optimization for inertial confinement fusion,” Physics of Plasmas 29, 102701 (2022).
  174. L. H. Gilpin, D. Bau, B. Z. Yuan, et al., “Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning,” in 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), 80–89 (2018).
  175. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, 1135–1144, Association for Computing Machinery, (New York, NY, USA) (2016).
  176. C.-Y. Wang, T.-S. Ko, and C.-C. Hsu, “Machine Learning with Explainable Artificial Intelligence Vision for Characterization of Solution Conductivity Using Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Plasma in Aqueous Solution,” Plasma Processes and Polymers 18(12), 2100096 (2021).
  177. S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, 4768–4777, Curran Associates Inc., (Red Hook, NY, USA) (2017).
  178. Y.-J. Wang and C.-T. Lin, “Runge-Kutta neural network for identification of dynamical systems in high accuracy,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 9, 294–307 (1998).
  179. M. Zhu, B. Chang, and C. Fu, “Convolutional Neural Networks combined with Runge-Kutta Methods,” Neural Computing and Applications 35, 1629–1643 (2023).
  180. S. De Pascuale, D. L. Green, and J. D. Lore, “Data-driven linear time advance operators for the acceleration of plasma physics simulation,” Physics of Plasmas 29, 113903 (2022).
  181. J. C. S. Kadupitiya, G. C. Fox, and V. Jadhao, “Solving Newton’s equations of motion with large timesteps using recurrent neural networks based operators,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology 3, 025002 (2022).
  182. A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, N. Heess, J. T. Springenberg, et al., “Graph Networks as Learnable Physics Engines for Inference and Control,” in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, 4470–4479, PMLR (2018).
  183. A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, V. Bapst, K. Cranmer, et al., “Hamiltonian Graph Networks with ODE Integrators,” (2019).
  184. Z. Li, K. Meidani, P. Yadav, et al., “Graph Neural Networks Accelerated Molecular Dynamics,” arXiv:2112.03383 [physics] (2022).
  185. S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, “Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52(1), 477–508 (2020).
  186. R. Vinuesa and S. L. Brunton, “Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning,” Nature Computational Science 2, 358–366 (2022).
  187. S. Park, Y. Jang, T. Cha, et al., “Predictive control of the plasma processes in the OLED display mass production referring to the discontinuity qualifying PI-VM,” Physics of Plasmas 27, 083507 (2020).
  188. J. Degrave, F. Felici, J. Buchli, et al., “Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature 602, 414–419 (2022).
  189. T. Grassi, F. Nauman, J. P. Ramsey, et al., “Reducing the complexity of chemical networks via interpretable autoencoders,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 668, A139 (2022).
  190. K. S. Tang and M. Turk, “Reduced Order Model for Chemical Kinetics: A case study with Primordial Chemical Network,” (2022).
  191. E. Chiavazzo, C. W. Gear, C. J. Dsilva, et al., “Reduced Models in Chemical Kinetics via Nonlinear Data-Mining,” Processes 2, 112–140 (2014).
  192. S. Goswami, A. D. Jagtap, H. Babaee, et al., “Learning stiff chemical kinetics using extended deep neural operators,” (2023).
  193. L. Campoli, E. Kustova, and P. Maltseva, “Assessment of Machine Learning Methods for State-to-State Approach in Nonequilibrium Flow Simulations,” Mathematics 10, 928 (2022).
  194. M. Savarese, A. Cuoci, W. De Paepe, et al., “Machine learning clustering algorithms for the automatic generation of chemical reactor networks from CFD simulations,” Fuel 343, 127945 (2023).
  195. R. Mao, M. Lin, Y. Zhang, et al., “DeepFlame: A deep learning empowered open-source platform for reacting flow simulations,” (2022).
  196. “The OpenFOAM Foundation Ltd, OpenFOAM: Open Source Field Operation and Manipulation.” www.openfoam.org (2023).
  197. R. Collobert, K. Kavukcuoglu, and C. Farabet, “Torch7: A Matlab-like Environment for Machine Learning,” in NIPS 2011 Workshop BigLearn, (2011).
  198. D. G. Goodwin, “Cantera C++ User’s Guide,” tech. rep., California Institute of Technology (2002).
  199. T. Mou, H. S. Pillai, S. Wang, et al., “Bridging the complexity gap in computational heterogeneous catalysis with machine learning,” Nature Catalysis 6, 122–136 (2023).
  200. D. Chen, C. Shang, and Z.-P. Liu, “Machine-learning atomic simulation for heterogeneous catalysis,” npj Computational Materials 9, 1–9 (2023).
  201. A. V. Phelps and Z. L. Petrovic, “Cold-cathode discharges and breakdown in argon: Surface and gas phase production of secondary electrons,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 8(3), R21 (1999).
  202. M. Daksha, B. Berger, E. Schuengel, et al., “A computationally assisted spectroscopic technique to measure secondary electron emission coefficients in radio frequency plasmas,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49(23), 234001 (2016).
  203. C. Schulze, Z. Donkó, and J. Benedikt, “A computationally assisted technique to measure material-specific surface coefficients in capacitively coupled plasmas based on characteristics of the ion flux-energy distribution function,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 31, 105017 (2022).
  204. H.-Y. Chang, A. Alvarado, and J. Marian, “Calculation of secondary electron emission yields from low-energy electron deposition in tungsten surfaces,” Applied Surface Science 450, 190–199 (2018).
  205. J. T. Su and W. A. Goddard, “Mechanisms of Auger-induced chemistry derived from wave packet dynamics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 1001–1005 (2009).
  206. M. Pamperin, F. X. Bronold, and H. Fehske, “Ion-induced secondary electron emission from metal surfaces,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology 27(8), 084003 (2018).
  207. F. X. Bronold and H. Fehske, “Invariant embedding approach to secondary electron emission from metals,” Journal of Applied Physics 131, 113302 (2022).
  208. J. F. Ziegler and J. P. Biersack, “The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter,” in Treatise on Heavy-Ion Science, 93–129, Springer, New York, USA (1985).
  209. H. Wang, X. Guo, L. Zhang, et al., “Deep learning inter-atomic potential model for accurate irradiation damage simulations,” Applied Physics Letters 114, 244101 (2019).
  210. H. Niu, J. Zhao, H. Li, et al., “A machine-learning interatomic potential to understand primary radiation damage of silicon,” Computational Materials Science 218, 111970 (2023).
  211. M. A. Caro, V. L. Deringer, J. Koskinen, et al., “Growth Mechanism and Origin of High sp3 Content in Tetrahedral Amorphous Carbon,” Physical Review Letters 120, 166101 (2018).
  212. M. A. Caro, G. Csányi, T. Laurila, et al., “Machine learning driven simulated deposition of carbon films: From low-density to diamondlike amorphous carbon,” Physical Review B 102, 174201 (2020).
  213. A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, et al., “LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales,” Computer Physics Communications 271, 108171 (2022).
  214. J. S. Lim, J. Vandermause, M. A. van Spronsen, et al., “Evolution of Metastable Structures at Bimetallic Surfaces from Microscopy and Machine-Learning Molecular Dynamics,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 142, 15907–15916 (2020).
  215. G. Henkelman and H. Jónsson, “A dimer method for finding saddle points on high dimensional potential surfaces using only first derivatives,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 111, 7010–7022 (1999).
  216. G. Henkelman, B. P. Uberuaga, and H. Jónsson, “A climbing image nudged elastic band method for finding saddle points and minimum energy paths,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 113, 9901–9904 (2000).
  217. G. Henkelman and H. Jónsson, “Improved tangent estimate in the nudged elastic band method for finding minimum energy paths and saddle points,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 113, 9978–9985 (2000).
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now