A Framework for a Generalization Analysis of Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials
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
.Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) and force fields (i.e., interaction laws for atoms and molecules) are typically trained on limited data-sets that cover only a very small section of the full space of possible input structures. MLIPs are nevertheless capable of making accurate predictions of forces and energies in simulations involving (seemingly) much more complex structures. In this article we propose a framework within which this kind of generalization can be rigorously understood. As a prototypical example, we apply the framework to the case of simulating point defects in a crystalline solid. Here, we demonstrate how the accuracy of the simulation depends explicitly on the size of the training structures, on the kind of observations (e.g., energies, forces, force constants, virials) to which the model has been fitted, and on the fit accuracy. The new theoretical insights we gain partially justify current best practices in the MLIP literature and in addition suggest a new approach to the collection of training data and the design of loss functions.Keywordsa priori error estimateinteratomic potentialscrystal defectsMSC codes65N1265N1565Q1065Z05
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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