Beyond potentials: Integrated machine learning models for 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 Over the past decade, interatomic potentials based on machine learning (ML) techniques have become an indispensable tool in the atomic-scale modeling of materials. Trained on energies and forces obtained from electronic-structure calculations, they inherit their predictive accuracy, and extend greatly the length and time scales that are accessible to explicit atomistic simulations. Inexpensive predictions of the energetics of individual configurations have facilitated greatly the calculation of the thermodynamics of materials, including finite-temperature effects and disorder. More recently, ML models have been closing the gap with first-principles calculations in another area: the prediction of arbitrarily complicated functional properties, from vibrational and optical spectroscopies to electronic excitations. The implementation of integrated ML models that combine energetic and functional predictions with statistical and dynamical sampling of atomic-scale properties is bringing the promise of predictive, uncompromising simulations of existing and novel materials closer to its full realization. Graphical abstract
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.001 |
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