The seventh blind test of crystal structure prediction: structure ranking methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A seventh blind test of crystal structure prediction has been organized by the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. The results are presented in two parts, with this second part focusing on methods for ranking crystal structures in order of stability. The exercise involved standardized sets of structures seeded from a range of structure generation methods. Participants from 22 groups applied several periodic DFT-D methods, machine learned potentials, force fields derived from empirical data or quantum chemical calculations, and various combinations of the above. In addition, one non-energy-based scoring function was used. Results showed that periodic DFT-D methods overall agreed with experimental data within expected error margins, while one machine learned model, applying system-specific AIMnet potentials, agreed with experiment in many cases demonstrating promise as an efficient alternative to DFT-based methods. For target XXXII, a consensus was reached across periodic DFT methods, with consistently high predicted energies of experimental forms relative to the global minimum (above 4 kJ mol−1 at both low and ambient temperatures) suggesting a more stable polymorph is likely not yet observed. The calculation of free energies at ambient temperatures offered improvement of predictions only in some cases (for targets XXVII and XXXI). Several avenues for future research have been suggested, highlighting the need for greater efficiency considering the vast amounts of resources utilized in many cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".