MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416361365 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c01261

Melting Transitions in Small Aluminum Clusters Simulated with Energies Approaching DFT Accuracy

2025· article· en· W4416361365 on OpenAlexafffund
Anirudh Krishnadas, Nicholas E. Charron, René Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsParallel temperingMolecular dynamicsMelting pointMonte Carlo methodDensity functional theoryInteratomic potentialPoint (geometry)Icosahedral symmetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a computational framework for modeling melting-like transitions in atomic clusters that combines first-principles energy calculations, global optimization, and machine-learned interatomic potentials. A diverse set of configurations is generated by global optimization, and Density Functional Theory calculates the associated energies. These energies are then fitted to an accuracy of 10 meV/atom or better with an Allegro E(3)-equivariant neural network potential. The resulting model allows for efficient parallel tempering Monte Carlo simulations with near-DFT-level accuracy. This methodology is validated by simulating Na 20 and comparing it to earlier experimental and computational results. Using this approach, we study melting-like transitions in Al n + clusters ( n = 9 to 16), Al n and Al n – ( n = 12, 13, 14). The simulated heat capacity of these clusters, in particular Al 16 +, is in qualitative agreement with experiments. We also observe that the melting point of Al n + clusters with n = 11–16 are well above the bulk melting point (934 K), with the closed-shell Al 13 – species possessing an exceptionally high melting point close to 2100 K.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207