MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163776233 · doi:10.2172/1772296

Performant implementation of the atomic cluster expansion

2021· report· en· W3163776233 on OpenAlexaff
Yury Lysogorskiy, Cas van der Oord, Anton Bochkarev, Sarath Menon, Matteo Rinaldi, Thomas Hammerschmidt, Matous Mrovec, Aidan P. Thompson, Gábor Cśanyi, Christoph Ortner, Ralf Drautz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster expansionCluster (spacecraft)Atomic unitsCoupled clusterAtom (system on chip)Computer scienceScale (ratio)Statistical physicsComputational scienceAtomic physicsAlgorithmPhysicsParallel computingQuantum mechanicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The atomic cluster expansion is a general polynomial expansion of the atomic energy in multi-atom basis functions. Here we implement the atomic cluster expansion in the performant C++ code PACE that is suitable for use in large scale atomistic simulations. We briefly review the atomic cluster expansion and give detailed expressions for energies and forces as well as efficient algorithms for their evaluation. We demonstrate that the atomic cluster expansion as implemented in PACE shifts a previously established Pareto front for machine learning interatomic potentials towards faster and more accurate calculations. Moreover, general purpose parameterizations are presented for copper and silicon and evaluated in detail. We show that the new Cu and Si potentials significantly improve on the best available potentials for highly accurate large-scale atomistic simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207