Regularized machine learning on molecular graph model explains systematic error in DFT enthalpies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major goal of materials research is the discovery of novel and efficient heterogeneous catalysts for various chemical processes. In such studies, the candidate catalyst material is modeled using tens to thousands of chemical species and elementary reactions. Density Functional Theory (DFT) is widely used to calculate the thermochemistry of these species which might be surface species or gas-phase molecules. The use of an approximate exchange correlation functional in the DFT framework introduces an important source of error in such models. This is especially true in the calculation of gas phase molecules whose thermochemistry is calculated using the same planewave basis set as the rest of the surface mechanism. Unfortunately, the nature and magnitude of these errors is unknown for most practical molecules. Here, we investigate the error in the enthalpy of formation for 1676 gaseous species using two different DFT levels of theory and the 'ground truth values' obtained from the NIST database. We featurize molecules using graph theory. We use a regularized algorithm to discover a sparse model of the error and identify important molecular fragments that drive this error. The model is robust to rigorous statistical tests and is used to correct DFT thermochemistry, achieving more than an order of magnitude improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".