MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Small-cell-based fast active learning of machine learning interatomic potentials

2025· article· en· W4410253554 on OpenAlexafffund
Zijian Meng, Hao Sun, E. Torres, Christopher I. Maxwell, Ryan E. Grant, Laurent Karim Béland

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Materials Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesQueen's University
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear EngineeringAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsInteratomic potentialActive learning (machine learning)Materials scienceComputer scienceMolecular dynamicsChemistryArtificial intelligenceComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) are often trained with on-the-fly active learning, where sampled configurations from atomistic simulations are added to the training set. However, this approach is limited by the high computational cost of ab initio calculations for large systems. Recent works have shown that MLIPs trained on small cells (1–8 atoms) rival the accuracy of large-cell models (100s of atoms) at far lower computational cost. Herein, we refer to these as small-cell and large-cell training, respectively. In this work, we iterate on earlier small-cell training approaches and characterize our resultant small-cell protocol. Potassium and sodium-potassium systems were studied: the former, a simpler system benchmarked in detail; the latter, a more complex binary system for further validation. Our small-cell training approach achieves up to two orders of magnitude of cost savings compared to large-cell (54-atom) training, with some training runs requiring fewer than 120 core-hours. Static and thermodynamic properties predicted using the MLIPs were evaluated, with small-cell training in both systems yielding strong ab initio agreement. Small cells appear to encode the necessary information to model complex large-scale phenomena—solid-liquid interfaces, critical exponents, diverse concentrations—even when the training cells themselves are too small to accommodate these phenomena. Based on these tests, we provide analysis and recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational Materials ScienceSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207