Multi-objective parametrization of interatomic potentials for large deformation pathways and fracture of two-dimensional materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This investigation presents a generally applicable framework for parameterizing interatomic potentials to accurately capture large deformation pathways. It incorporates a multi-objective genetic algorithm, training and screening property sets, and correlation and principal component analyses. The framework enables iterative definition of properties in the training and screening sets, guided by correlation relationships between properties, aiming to achieve optimal parametrizations for properties of interest. Specifically, the performance of increasingly complex potentials, Buckingham, Stillinger-Weber, Tersoff, and modified reactive empirical bond-order potentials are compared. Using MoSe 2 as a case study, we demonstrate good reproducibility of training/screening properties and superior transferability. For MoSe 2 , the best performance is achieved using the Tersoff potential, which is ascribed to its apparent higher flexibility embedded in its functional form. These results should facilitate the selection and parametrization of interatomic potentials for exploring mechanical and phononic properties of a large library of two-dimensional and bulk materials.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it