MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401734166 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c02882

Modeling Intermolecular Interactions with Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Dispersion Corrections to Neural Network Potentials

2024· review· en· W4401734166 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDipoleDispersion (optics)Moment (physics)Artificial neural networkIntermolecular forceDensity functional theoryAb initioStatistical physicsPhysicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural network potentials (NNPs) are an innovative approach for calculating the potential energy and forces of a chemical system. In principle, these methods are capable of modeling large systems with an accuracy approaching that of a high-level ab initio calculation, but with a much smaller computational cost. Due to their training to density-functional theory (DFT) data and neglect of long-range interactions, some classes of NNPs require an additional term to include London dispersion physics. In this Perspective, we discuss the requirements for a dispersion model for use with an NNP, focusing on the MLXDM (Machine Learned eXchange-Hole Dipole Moment) model developed by our groups. This model is based on the DFT-based XDM dispersion correction, which calculates interatomic dispersion coefficients in terms of atomic moments and polarizabilities, both of which can be approximated effectively using neural networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it