Crash Testing Machine Learning Force Fields for Molecules, Materials, and Interfaces: Model Analysis in the TEA Challenge 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atomistic simulations are routinely employed in academia and industry to study the behavior of molecules, materials, and their interfaces. Central to these simulations are force fields (FF), whose development is challenged by intricate interatomic interactions at different spatio-temporal scales and the vast expanse of chemical space. Machine learning (ML) FFs, trained on quantum-mechanical energies and forces, have shown the capacity to achieve sub-kcal/(mol*A) accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency. The TEA Challenge 2023 rigorously evaluated commonly used MLFFs across diverse applications, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Participants trained their models using provided datasets, and the results were systematically analyzed to assess the MLFFs' ability to reproduce potential energy surfaces, handle incomplete reference data, manage multi-component systems, and model complex periodic structures. This publication describes the datasets, outlines the proposed challenges, and presents a detailed analysis of the accuracy, stability, and efficiency of the MACE, SO3krates, sGDML, SOAP/GAP, and FCHL19* architectures in molecular dynamics simulations. The models represent the MLFF developers who participated in the TEA Challenge 2023. All results presented correspond to the state of the ML architectures as of October 2023. A comprehensive analysis of the molecular dynamics results obtained with different MLFFs will be presented in the second part of this manuscript.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".