A theoretical case study of the generalization of machine-learned potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) are typically trained on datasets that encompass a restricted subset of possible input structures, which presents a potential challenge for their generalization to a broader range of systems outside the training set. Nevertheless, MLIPs have demonstrated impressive accuracy in predicting forces and energies in simulations involving intricate and complex structures. In this paper we aim to take steps towards rigorously explaining the excellent observed generalization properties of MLIPs. Specifically, we offer a comprehensive theoretical and numerical investigation of the generalization of MLIPs in the context of dislocation simulations. We quantify precisely how the accuracy of such simulations is directly determined by a few key factors: the size of the training structures, the choice of training observations (e.g., energies, forces, virials), and the level of accuracy achieved in the fitting process. Notably, our study reveals the crucial role of fitting virials in ensuring the consistency of MLIPs for dislocation simulations. Our series of careful numerical experiments encompassing screw, edge, and mixed dislocations, supports existing best practices in the MLIPs literature but also provides new insights into the design of data sets and loss functions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".