Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

CHIPS-FF: Evaluating Universal Machine Learning Force Fields for Material Properties

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CHIPS-FF is an open-source benchmarking platform that evaluates universal machine-learning force fields on material properties beyond energy—lattice constants, elastic constants, phonons, vacancy formation energy, surface energy…

desk verdict A genuinely useful benchmarking platform with real new data, but the headline property-level MAEs compare PBE-trained models against a vdW-DF-optB88 ground truth, so treat the rankings as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10516 v4 pith:Q45HX2RG submitted 2024-12-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Daniel Wines , Kamal Choudhary This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords Machinelearningforcefielddeepfoundationalmodelsdensityfunctionaltheoryhigh-throughputmaterialsdiscoverysemiconductors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces CHIPS-FF, an open-source benchmarking platform that evaluates universal machine-learning force fields (uMLFFs) on material properties beyond simple energy prediction—lattice constants and volume, bulk modulus and elastic tensor, phonon band structure, vacancy formation energy, surface energy, interface work of adhesion, and amorphous-phase structure from melt/quench molecular dynamics. The platform is demonstrated on 104 semiconductor-relevant materials spanning metals, semiconductors, and insulators, using 16 pretrained graph-based models, and on force prediction for close to two million atomic structures. The paper's central claim is that such a standardized workflow gives the community a robust way to compare uMLFFs on the properties that matter for device applications, and its first benchmark run identifies OMat24, ORB, MACE-MPA-0, and MatterSim as the most accurate models for surface energy (MAE of 0.16 J/$m^{2}$) and vacancy formation energy (MAE of 0.36 eV), while also exposing weaknesses such as large phonon errors at small displacements for ORB and OMat models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the CHIPS-FF workflow itself: a Python pipeline that connects an atomistic simulation environment with a materials-data toolkit and drives 16 graph-based uMLFF calculators through structural relaxation using a robust cell filter, equation-of-state fitting, elastic-tensor computation, phonon band structure via finite displacements at four magnitudes, vacancy and surface supercell generation from reference databases, interface construction using a lattice-matching algorithm, and melt/quench molecular dynamics for amorphous phases. Ground truth for the bulk, elastic, phonon, vacancy, and surface benchmarks is the vdW-DF-optB88 reference data, with errors reported as mean absolute errors and formatted for direct upload to an interactive leaderboard.

What would settle it

Re-run the CHIPS-FF benchmark on the same 104 materials and 16 models using a ground truth computed with the PBE functional (matching the training data of most models), and check whether the relative rankings by MAE for lattice constants, elastic constants, surface energy, and vacancy formation energy change materially; if they do, the reported accuracy comparisons are artifacts of the functional mismatch rather than intrinsic model quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a head-to-head comparison of 16 universal machine-learning force fields on properties beyond energy. ALIGNN-FF, trained on the same vdW-corrected reference data used for ground truth, captures lattice constants most accurately, while OMat24 and ORB models also relax structures well, with ORB roughly an order of magnitude cheaper. MACE-MPA-0 and MatterSim give the best simultaneous predictions of the elastic constants C11 and C44, and OMat24, ORB, MACE-MPA-0, and MatterSim reach the best surface-energy (0.16 J/$m^{2}$) and vacancy-formation-energy (0.36 eV) errors. Phonon calculations show that ORB and OMat models degrade sharply at small finite displacements, consistent with noisy forces in the low-force regime, while MACE and MatterSim remain stable. For amorphous silicon, invariant models such as ORB and MatterSim match or beat equivariant models on the radial distribution function, and no model predicts interface work of adhesion accurately, which the authors attribute to the lack of interface data in training sets.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark treats DFT results computed with the vdW-DF-optB88 functional as the truth for all models, even though most of those models were trained on PBE data from a different repository, so the reported errors could be dominated by a functional mismatch rather than by model quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New uMLFFs can be screened on semiconductor-relevant properties before large-scale deployment, since CHIPS-FF automatically records convergence, accuracy, and per-stage timing.
  • ORB and MatterSim emerge as cost-effective choices for relaxing large defect and surface supercells, while OMat24 and MACE-MPA-0 offer top accuracy at higher computational cost.
  • The large phonon errors of ORB and OMat at small displacements imply their forces are noisy in the low-force regime, which matters for vibrational and thermal-property calculations.
  • The consistently poor work-of-adhesion predictions mean none of the tested uMLFFs should be trusted for interface energetics without fine-tuning on interface data.
  • The comparable amorphous-Si accuracy of invariant and equivariant models raises the question of whether equivariance is necessary for such properties, a question the paper leaves for further benchmarking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consistent-functional re-benchmark (e.g., PBE ground truth from the training-data source of most models) would separate genuine model quality from training-data functional effects and could shift the model rankings for elastic and surface properties.
  • Because CHIPS-FF is dataset-agnostic, running it against experimental reference values or multiple DFT functionals would produce functional-agnostic leaderboards, addressing the limitation the paper acknowledges about biased error metrics.
  • The platform's modular design (JSON input, command-line tools, leaderboard uploads) makes it straightforward to add the uncertainty-quantification layer the paper identifies as missing for most uMLFFs.
  • The combination of strong scaling and small-displacement phonon noise in ORB suggests a targeted benchmark on anharmonic properties such as thermal conductivity would clarify whether their speed is worth the vibrational-accuracy cost in device-thermal simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CHIPS-FF, an open-source workflow that benchmarks sixteen universal machine-learning force-field (uMLFF) variants on a set of 104 semiconductor-relevant materials. The platform computes structural relaxations, elastic properties, bulk moduli, phonon spectra, vacancy formation energies, surface energies, interface adhesion, and melt/quench amorphous structures, and it reports force errors on the MLEARN set and on roughly two million structures from JARVIS-DFT and Materials Project trajectory datasets. All property-level errors are measured against JARVIS-DFT reference values computed with the vdW-DF-optB88 functional, and results are integrated with the JARVIS-Leaderboard. The central claim is that CHIPS-FF provides a universal, extensible benchmark that identifies which uMLFFs are reliable for which material properties.

Significance. If the reported benchmarks were robust, CHIPS-FF would be a valuable community resource: it is open source, covers a broader set of properties than typical energy/force leaderboards, and it benchmarks the main current uMLFF models in a single workflow. The integration with JARVIS-Leaderboard and the inclusion of computational timings and convergence statistics are practical strengths, and the paper makes concrete, falsifiable statements about model ranking. However, the validity of those ranking statements depends on controlling for the reference DFT functional, the statistical uncertainty of the error metrics, and the overlap between training data and test data. These controls are currently missing or only partially acknowledged, so the platform's usefulness for model selection is not yet demonstrated at the level claimed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods (reference DFT functional) and Tables 2, 3; Fig. 3] The benchmark ground truth is JARVIS-DFT (vdW-DF-optB88), while all models except ALIGNN-FF and mace-alexandria were trained on PBE/PBEsol data. The Methods text itself concedes that comparing uMLFF results to DFT with an arbitrary exchange-correlation functional "may result in biased or inconclusive error metrics." This is precisely the situation for the headline property MAEs: the low lattice-constant errors of ALIGNN-FF in Table 2 (0.011 Å versus 0.015–0.068 Å) are attributed by the text to its training on JARVIS-DFT, and the surface-energy (0.16 J/m²) and vacancy-formation-energy (0.36 eV) successes claimed in the context of Fig. 3 for OMat24, ORB, MACE-MPA-0 and MatterSim are measured against a functional these models never saw. The reported rankings therefore conflate model quality with training-functional compatibility. The paper should either add a consistent-functional comparison (e.g., PBE references for at least a subset) or explicitly re-label the metrics as "mixed-functional MAE" and soften the claim that the platform provides "robust evaluation."
  2. [Methods (amorphous Si) and Fig. 4] The amorphous-Si comparison uses mismatched melt/quench protocols: uMLFFs at 3500 K for 10 ps followed by 300 K for 20 ps with Berendsen NVT, versus AIMD at 2000 K for 5 ps followed by 300 K for 5 ps with Nosé-Hoover. Differences in the resulting RDFs can arise from protocol (quench rate, thermostat, thermal history) as much as from model accuracy, so the MAE and R² values in Fig. 4 are not a clean benchmark of the force fields' predictive quality. The authors should either run matched protocols (same temperatures, durations, and thermostat) or restrict the conclusion to "agreement under the specified protocols."
  3. [Tables 2–4; Fig. 3–4] No uncertainty estimates accompany any of the reported MAEs. With 104 materials and per-model differences as small as 0.001 Å (e.g., Table 2: eqV2 31M omat versus eqV2 31M omat mp salex for lattice constant a), the ranking statements are not statistically meaningful without standard errors, bootstrap intervals, or per-property distributions. The paper discusses uncertainty quantification for MLFFs as a future need, but for a benchmarking claim, reporting only point estimates is insufficient. Add at least standard deviations or interquartile ranges across the test set.
  4. [Table 5] The force-error table on ALIGNN FF DB, MPF, and MPTrj measures predictions on datasets used to train several of the benchmarked models (ALIGNN-FF, M3GNet/MatGL, CHGNet, MACE, SevenNet, ORB, OMat24). These are in-distribution checks, not held-out evaluations, and they can reflect memorization rather than transferability. The text acknowledges that these datasets were used to train uMLFFs, but the framing as a benchmark conflates reproduction with generalization. The authors should separate training-set reproduction from held-out force prediction (e.g., MLEARN) and clearly label Table 5 as a training-data consistency test.
  5. [Methods (relaxation) and Table 1 vs. Fig. 3] The workflow includes unconverged relaxations in subsequent property calculations: "If a calculation did not reach convergence within 200 steps, the final structure and energy at 200 steps was logged and used for subsequent portions of the workflow." With ALIGNN-FF showing 44% unconverged surfaces and 35% unconverged vacancies (Table 1), the surface-energy and vacancy-formation MAEs for that model in Fig. 3 are at least partly errors on non-relaxed structures. Reporting results for the converged subset alongside the full set, or excluding unconverged entries from the MAE, would make the comparison fair and reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states "16 graph-based MLFF models," but Table 2 lists 16 model variants across 8 architectures; please disambiguate the wording.
  2. [Methods, vacancy formation] Equation (1) uses the elemental solid as the chemical-potential reservoir; for compounds, this convention differs from other defect-formation definitions and should be explicitly justified or compared with the JARVIS-DFT vacancy database convention.
  3. [Results, vdW discussion] The sentence "some of these models such as MACE and ORB have explicit dispersion corrections" is imprecise; MACE-MP-0 does not include a D3 correction by default, so specify which checkpoint or version adds dispersion.
  4. [General] There are minor typographical issues: "Aprroximation" (p. 12), "Wycoff" (p. 9), "outweighing factors" (p. 7), "a users own" (p. 12), and "Wychkoff" (Fig. S1).
  5. [Data availability] The statement that data will be made available "upon publication" is vague; provide a persistent DOI or repository link in the manuscript.
  6. [Fig. 3c] The work-of-adhesion MAE is computed against a mixed experimental/theoretical reference set; specify which entries are experimental and which are computed, since the two are not directly commensurable.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Two disclosed in-distribution evaluations -- ALIGNN-FF scored against its own JARVIS-DFT training data, and Table 5 force errors computed on the models' training sets -- make some reported metrics partially circular, but the central platform claim and most external benchmarks remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, paragraph after Table 2 (lattice-constant and elastic benchmark)]
    "ALIGNN-FF does an excellent job of simultaneously capturing a, b, and c. This is expected due to the fact that ALIGNN-FF was trained on the JARVIS-DFT dataset (vdW-DF-optB88) and the target/“ground truth”, in addition to the initial structures, are from JARVIS-DFT."

    The Table 2 MAEs use JARVIS-DFT as ground truth, and ALIGNN-FF's parameters were fitted to JARVIS-DFT relaxations and energies. Its lowest lattice-constant errors therefore partly measure training-set reconstruction rather than independent predictive accuracy. The 'excellent job' claim is forced by the overlap between training data and reference data. The authors disclose this overlap explicitly, which prevents the step from being deceptive, but the ranking in Table 2 still presents an in-distribution score as a benchmark result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Force-prediction benchmark, paragraph preceding Table 5]
    "In addition, we benchmarked the accuracy of force predictions on very large datasets that were used to train uMLFFs. These datasets included ALIGNN FF DB (307,000 used to train ALIGNN-FF), MPF (188,000 used to train M3GNet), and MPTrj (1.58 million used to train CHGNet, MACE, SevenNet and used in the training of ORB and OMat models)."

    Table 5 reports force MAEs on the exact datasets on which the scored models were trained (ALIGNN FF DB, MPF, MPTrj). These are training-reconstruction errors, not prediction errors: low values are expected because each model's loss function was minimized on those structures. Labeling this 'benchmarking the accuracy of force predictions' renames fitted input as prediction. The paper's own word 'Unsurprisingly' signals the expected nature, but the table is still presented as a comparative benchmark.

full rationale

Most of CHIPS-FF is a genuine, externally anchored benchmark: MLEARN force errors (Table 4), phonons against JARVIS-DFT phonon data, surface and vacancy energies against JARVIS-DFT, and Wad against experimental/theoretical data from Ref. 123 are independent comparisons for models not trained on those exact targets. JARVIS-DFT is an independent DFT database (vdW-DF-optB88), not a fitted parameter of this paper. The two circular elements are disclosed in the text: ALIGNN-FF is trained on JARVIS-DFT and benchmarked against JARVIS-DFT in Table 2, so its lowest lattice-constant MAE partly measures training-set reconstruction, and Table 5 measures force errors on datasets used to train the very models being scored, making those numbers in-distribution fits rather than predictions. Both are peripheral to the central claim that the CHIPS-FF workflow runs and reports property-level metrics, and the weaknesses are not hidden. The vdW-DF-optB88-versus-PBE reference mismatch and the different a-Si melt/quench protocols are limitation and correctness concerns, not circularity; the paper itself concedes that comparing with an 'arbitrary exchange-correlation functional ... may result in biased or inconclusive error metrics.' Overall, circularity is partial and confined to disclosed in-distribution evaluations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the choice of DFT reference (JARVIS-DFT, vdW-DF-optB88) and on the equivalence of simulation protocols between uMLFF and AIMD for amorphous silicon. No free parameters are fitted; all settings are disclosed procedural choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT computed with vdW-DF-optB88 (JARVIS-DFT) is an appropriate ground truth for all benchmarked models.
    All error metrics in Tables 2-5 and Fig. 3 are computed relative to JARVIS-DFT values, yet most models were trained on PBE data from MPTrj or OMat; this functional mismatch is acknowledged but not corrected.
  • domain assumption The melt/quench protocols used for uMLFF (3500 K, 10 ps melt; 300 K, 20 ps quench) and for AIMD (2000 K, 5 ps melt; 300 K, 5 ps quench) produce comparable amorphous silicon structures.
    The RDF comparison in Fig. 4 assumes the two protocols reach similar amorphous states; differences in temperature and duration could bias the MAE.
  • domain assumption A 2x2x2 supercell with up to 0.2 Å displacements in the finite-displacement phonopy calculation yields converged phonon band structures.
    Phonon MAEs are computed for all models with this supercell; convergence is not independently verified against larger supercells.
  • domain assumption The 104 materials are representative of semiconductor device components.
    The paper states this set contains metals, semiconductors and insulators to be representative of the various parts and interfaces of integrated circuits, but no statistical argument is provided.
  • standard math Standard open-source packages (ASE, phonopy, elastic, JARVIS-Tools, InterMat) are correctly implemented.
    The workflow relies on these packages for relaxation, phonons, and elasticity; no independent verification is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CHIPS-FF: Evaluating Universal Machine Learning Force Fields for Material Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q45HX2RG

@misc{pith2026241210516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CHIPS-FF: Evaluating Universal Machine Learning Force Fields for Material Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q45HX2RG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10516}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we introduce CHIPS-FF (Computational High-Performance Infrastructure for Predictive Simulation-based Force Fields), a universal, open-source benchmarking platform for machine learning force fields (MLFFs). This platform provides robust evaluation beyond conventional metrics such as energy, focusing on complex properties including elastic constants, phonon spectra, defect formation energies, surface energies, and interfacial and amorphous phase properties. Utilizing 16 graph-based MLFF models including ALIGNN-FF, CHGNet, MatGL, MACE, SevenNet, ORB, MatterSim and OMat24, the CHIPS-FF workflow integrates the Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) with JARVIS-Tools to facilitate automated high-throughput simulations. Our framework is tested on a set of 104 materials, including metals, semiconductors and insulators representative of those used in semiconductor components, with each MLFF evaluated for convergence, accuracy, and computational cost. Additionally, we evaluate the force-prediction accuracy of these models for close to 2 million atomic structures. By offering a streamlined, flexible benchmarking infrastructure, CHIPS-FF aims to guide the development and deployment of MLFFs for real-world semiconductor applications, bridging the gap between quantum mechanical simulations and large-scale device modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A full schematic of the CHIPS-FF workflow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Scaling analysis of various uMLFF up to 10,000 atoms (for a supercell of Cu), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parity plots for a) surface energy (in J/m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The calculated radial distribution function ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Benchmarking Universal Interatomic Potentials on Zeolite Structures

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Universal machine-learned interatomic potentials, especially eSEN-30M-OAM, accurately reproduce DFT-level geometries and energies for zeolites, while classical universal force fields largely fail.

  2. Universal machine learning interatomic potentials poised to supplant DFT in modeling general defects in metals and random alloys

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EquiformerV2 universal machine learning potentials predict energies and forces of metal and alloy defects with errors below 5 meV/atom and 100 meV/A on most benchmark datasets, approaching DFT accuracy.

  3. The Evolution of Machine Learning Potentials for Molecules, Reactions and Materials

    physics.chem-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A structured review of machine learning interatomic potentials that organizes the field by descriptor type, message-passing architecture, long-range corrections, and universal models, with open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B.; Miller, R

    Tadmor, E. B.; Miller, R. E. Modeling materials: continuum, atomistic and multiscale techniques; Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Xia, W.; Pestana, L. A. R. Fundamentals of Multiscale Modeling of Structural Materials; Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Martin, R. M. Electronic structure: basic theory and practical methods; Cambridge university press, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    P.; Tildesley, D

    Allen, M. P.; Tildesley, D. J. Computer simulation of liquids; Oxford university press, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    M.; Klimeck, G

    Vasileska, D.; Goodnick, S. M.; Klimeck, G. Computational Electronics: semiclassical and quantum device modeling and simulation; CRC press, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    T.; Oviedo, F.; Canepa, P

    Butler, K. T.; Oviedo, F.; Canepa, P. Machine Learning in Materials Science; ACS In Focus; American Chemical Society, 2021; pp --1

    2021

  7. [7]

    E.; Scourtas, A.; Schmidt, K.; Price-Skelly, O.; Engler, W.; Foster, I.; Blaiszik, B.; Voyles, P

    Jacobs, R.; Schultz, L. E.; Scourtas, A.; Schmidt, K.; Price-Skelly, O.; Engler, W.; Foster, I.; Blaiszik, B.; Voyles, P. M.; Morgan, D. Machine learning materials properties with accurate predictions, uncertainty estimates, domain guidance, and persistent online accessibility. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2024, 5, 045051

    2024

  8. [8]

    Schmidt, J.; Marques, M. R. G.; Botti, S.; Marques, M. A. L. Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science. npj Computational Materials 2019, 5, 83

    2019

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    W.; Choudhary, A.; Agrawal, A.; Billinge, S

    Choudhary, K.; DeCost, B.; Chen, C.; Jain, A.; Tavazza, F.; Cohn, R.; Park, C. W.; Choudhary, A.; Agrawal, A.; Billinge, S. J., et al. Recent advances and applications of deep learning methods in materials science. npj Computational Materials 2022, 8, 59

    2022

  2. [10]

    AI-driven inverse design of materials: Past, present and future

    Han, X.-Q.; Wang, X.-D.; Xu, M.-Y.; Feng, Z.; Yao, B.-W.; Guo, P.-J.; Gao, Z.-F.; Lu, Z.-Y. AI-driven inverse design of materials: Past, present and future. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09429

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Atomgpt: Atomistic generative pretrained transformer for forward and inverse materials design

    Choudhary, K. Atomgpt: Atomistic generative pretrained transformer for forward and inverse materials design. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2024, 15, 6909--6917

    2024

  4. [12]

    Jablonka, K. M. et al. 14 examples of how LLMs can transform materials science and chemistry: a reflection on a large language model hackathon. Digital Discovery 2023, 2, 1233--1250

    2023

  5. [13]

    L.; Van de Walle, C

    Lyons, J. L.; Van de Walle, C. G. Computationally predicted energies and properties of defects in GaN. npj Computational Materials 2017, 3, 12

    2017

  6. [14]

    Equilibrium point defect and charge carrier concentrations in a material determined through calculation of the self-consistent Fermi energy

    Buckeridge, J. Equilibrium point defect and charge carrier concentrations in a material determined through calculation of the self-consistent Fermi energy. Computer Physics Communications 2019, 244, 329--342

    2019

  7. [15]

    Choudhary, K.; Sumpter, B. G. Can a deep-learning model make fast predictions of vacancy formation in diverse materials? AIP Advances 2023, 13, 095109

    2023

  8. [16]

    H.; Gollapalli, P.; Manganaris, P.; Yadav, S

    Rahman, M. H.; Gollapalli, P.; Manganaris, P.; Yadav, S. K.; Pilania, G.; DeCost, B.; Choudhary, K.; Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A. Accelerating defect predictions in semiconductors using graph neural networks . APL Machine Learning 2024, 2, 016122

    2024

  9. [17]

    E.; Alkauskas, A.; Engel, M.; Kresse, G.; Wickramaratne, D.; Shen, J.-X.; Dreyer, C

    Turiansky, M. E.; Alkauskas, A.; Engel, M.; Kresse, G.; Wickramaratne, D.; Shen, J.-X.; Dreyer, C. E.; Van de Walle , C. G. Nonrad: Computing nonradiative capture coefficients from first principles. Computer Physics Communications 2021, 267, 108056

    2021

  10. [18]

    Broberg, D.; Bystrom, K.; Srivastava, S.; Dahliah, D.; Williamson, B. A. D.; Weston, L.; Scanlon, D. O.; Rignanese, G.-M.; Dwaraknath, S.; Varley, J.; Persson, K. A.; Asta, M.; Hautier, G. High-throughput calculations of charged point defect properties with semi-local density ...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Density functional descriptions of interfacial electronic structure

    Liu, Z.-F. Density functional descriptions of interfacial electronic structure . Chemical Physics Reviews 2023, 4, 031307

    2023

  12. [20]

    Choudhary, K.; Garrity, K. F. InterMat: accelerating band offset prediction in semiconductor interfaces with DFT and deep learning. Digital Discovery 2024, 3, 1365--1377

    2024

  13. [21]

    T.; Walsh, A

    Park, J.-S.; Jung, Y.-K.; Butler, K. T.; Walsh, A. Quick-start guide for first-principles modelling of semiconductor interfaces. Journal of Physics: Energy 2018, 1, 016001

    2018

  14. [22]

    T.; Sai Gautam, G.; Canepa, P

    Butler, K. T.; Sai Gautam, G.; Canepa, P. Designing interfaces in energy materials applications with first-principles calculations. npj Computational Materials 2019, 5, 19

    2019

  15. [23]

    Band alignment of semiconductors from density-functional theory and many-body perturbation theory

    Hinuma, Y.; Gr\"uneis, A.; Kresse, G.; Oba, F. Band alignment of semiconductors from density-functional theory and many-body perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. B 2014, 90, 155405

    2014

  16. [24]

    A.; Ong, S

    Tran, R.; Xu, Z.; Radhakrishnan, B.; Winston, D.; Sun, W.; Persson, K. A.; Ong, S. P. Surface energies of elemental crystals. Scientific Data 2016, 3, 160080

    2016

  17. [25]

    Huang, J.; Lin, F.; Hin, C. Density-functional-theory approach to determine band offsets and dielectric breakdown properties across metal/crystal oxide and metal/amorphous oxide interfaces: A case study of Al/SiO2. Applied Surface Science 2019, 483, 616--625

    2019

  18. [26]

    Siron, M.; Chandrasekhar, N.; Persson, K. A. Enabling automated high-throughput Density Functional Theory studies of amorphous material surface reactions. Computational Materials Science 2023, 226, 112192

    2023

  19. [27]

    L.; Bernstein, N.; Bart \'o k, A

    Deringer, V. L.; Bernstein, N.; Bart \'o k, A. P.; Cliffe, M. J.; Kerber, R. N.; Marbella, L. E.; Grey, C. P.; Elliott, S. R.; Cs \'a nyi, G. Realistic Atomistic Structure of Amorphous Silicon from Machine-Learning-Driven Molecular Dynamics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry L...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zheng, H.; Sivonxay, E.; Gallant, M.; Luo, Z.; McDermott, M.; Huck, P.; Persson, K. A. The ab initio amorphous materials database: Empowering machine learning to decode diffusivity. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00177

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hong, S. et al. Ultralow-dielectric-constant amorphous boron nitride. Nature 2020, 582, 511--514

    2020

  22. [30]

    C.; Dongale, T

    Khot, A. C.; Dongale, T. D.; Nirmal, K. A.; Sung, J. H.; Lee, H. J.; Nikam, R. D.; Kim, T. G. Amorphous Boron Nitride Memristive Device for High-Density Memory and Neuromorphic Computing Applications. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14, 10546--10557

    2022

  23. [31]

    K.; Casewit, C

    Rappe, A. K.; Casewit, C. J.; Colwell, K. S.; Goddard, W. A. I.; Skiff, W. M. UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1992, 114, 10024--10035

    1992

  24. [32]

    Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces

    Behler, J.; Parrinello, M. Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces. Physical review letters 2007, 98, 146401

    2007

  25. [33]

    P.; Payne, M

    Bart \'o k, A. P.; Payne, M. C.; Kondor, R.; Cs \'a nyi, G. Gaussian approximation potentials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons. Physical review letters 2010, 104, 136403

    2010

  26. [34]

    A.; Thompson, A

    Wood, M. A.; Thompson, A. P. Extending the accuracy of the SNAP interatomic potential form. The Journal of chemical physics 2018, 148, 241721

    2018

  27. [35]

    J.; Kornbluth, M.; Kozinsky, B

    Musaelian, A.; Batzner, S.; Johansson, A.; Sun, L.; Owen, C. J.; Kornbluth, M.; Kozinsky, B. Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics. Nature Communications 2023, 14, 579

    2023

  28. [36]

    P.; Hautier, G.; Chen, W.; Richards, W

    Jain, A.; Ong, S. P.; Hautier, G.; Chen, W.; Richards, W. D.; Dacek, S.; Cholia, S.; Gunter, D.; Skinner, D.; Ceder, G.; Persson, K. A. Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation . APL Materials 2013, 1, 011002

    2013

  29. [37]

    F.; DeCost, B.; Biacchi, A

    Wines, D.; Gurunathan, R.; Garrity, K. F.; DeCost, B.; Biacchi, A. J.; Tavazza, F.; Choudhary, K. Recent progress in the JARVIS infrastructure for next-generation data-driven materials design . Applied Physics Reviews 2023, 10, 041302

    2023

  30. [38]

    Choudhary, K. et al. The joint automated repository for various integrated simulations (JARVIS) for data-driven materials design. npj Computational Materials 2020, 6, 173

    2020

  31. [39]

    E.; Kirklin, S.; Aykol, M.; Meredig, B.; Wolverton, C

    Saal, J. E.; Kirklin, S.; Aykol, M.; Meredig, B.; Wolverton, C. Materials Design and Discovery with High-Throughput Density Functional Theory: The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD). JOM 2013, 65, 1501--1509

    2013

  32. [40]

    E.; Meredig, B.; Thompson, A.; Doak, J

    Kirklin, S.; Saal, J. E.; Meredig, B.; Thompson, A.; Doak, J. W.; Aykol, M.; R \"u hl, S.; Wolverton, C. The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD): assessing the accuracy of DFT formation energies. npj Computational Materials 2015, 1, 15010

    2015

  33. [41]

    Schmidt, J.; Hoffmann, N.; Wang, H.-C.; Borlido, P.; Carri c o, P. J. M. A.; Cerqueira, T. F. T.; Botti, S.; Marques, M. A. L. Machine-Learning-Assisted Determination of the Global Zero-Temperature Phase Diagram of Materials. Advanced Materials 2023, 35, 2210788

    2023

  34. [42]

    Wang, H.-C.; Schmidt, J.; Marques, M. A. L.; Wirtz, L.; Romero, A. H. Symmetry-based computational search for novel binary and ternary 2D materials. 2D Materials 2023, 10, 035007

    2023

  35. [43]

    Schmidt, J.; Pettersson, L.; Verdozzi, C.; Botti, S.; Marques, M. A. L. Crystal graph attention networks for the prediction of stable materials. Science Advances 2021, 7, eabi7948

    2021

  36. [44]

    F.; Romero, A

    Schmidt, J.; Cerqueira, T. F.; Romero, A. H.; Loew, A.; J \"a ger, F.; Wang, H.-C.; Botti, S.; Marques, M. A. Improving machine-learning models in materials science through large datasets. Materials Today Physics 2024, 48, 101560

    2024

  37. [45]

    A.; Ceder, G

    Deng, B.; Choi, Y.; Zhong, P.; Riebesell, J.; Anand, S.; Li, Z.; Jun, K.; Persson, K. A.; Ceder, G. Systematic softening in universal machine learning interatomic potentials. npj Computational Materials 2025, 11, 9

    2025

  38. [46]

    Freitas, L

    Focassio, B.; M. Freitas, L. P.; Schleder, G. R. Performance Assessment of Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials: Challenges and Directions for Materials'Surfaces. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2024,

    2024

  39. [47]

    S.; Armiento, R.; Alling, B

    Casillas-Trujillo, L.; Parackal, A. S.; Armiento, R.; Alling, B. Evaluating and improving the predictive accuracy of mixing enthalpies and volumes in disordered alloys from universal pretrained machine learning potentials. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2024, 8, 113803

    2024

  40. [48]

    Data-driven design of high pressure hydride superconductors using DFT and deep learning

    Wines, D.; Choudhary, K. Data-driven design of high pressure hydride superconductors using DFT and deep learning. Materials futures 2024, 3, 025602

    2024

  41. [49]

    Examining Generalizability of AI Models for Catalysis

    Wang, S.-H.; Xin, H.; Achenie, L.; Choudhary, K. Examining Generalizability of AI Models for Catalysis. 2024,

    2024

  42. [50]

    Thermal Conductivity Predictions with Foundation Atomistic Models

    Pota, B.; Ahlawat, P.; Csanyi, G.; Simoncelli, M. Thermal Conductivity Predictions with Foundation Atomistic Models. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00755

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G.; Zitnick, C

    Gruver, N.; Sriram, A.; Madotto, A.; Wilson, A. G.; Zitnick, C. L.; Ulissi, Z. Fine-tuned language models generate stable inorganic materials as text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04379 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Accelerated Data-Driven Discovery and Screening of Two-Dimensional Magnets Using Graph Neural Networks

    Elrashidy, A.; Della-Giustina, J.; Yan, J.-A. Accelerated Data-Driven Discovery and Screening of Two-Dimensional Magnets Using Graph Neural Networks. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2024, 128, 6007--6018

    2024

  45. [53]

    Batatia, I. et al. A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00096

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Orb: A Fast, Scalable Neural Network Potential

    Neumann, M.; Gin, J.; Rhodes, B.; Bennett, S.; Li, Z.; Choubisa, H.; Hussey, A.; Godwin, J. Orb: A Fast, Scalable Neural Network Potential. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22570

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    OMAT24 Model

    Team, F.-C. OMAT24 Model. https://huggingface.co/fairchem/OMAT24, 2024; https://huggingface.co/fairchem/OMAT24, Accessed: 2024-10-22

    2024

  48. [56]

    Chen, C.; Zuo, Y.; Ye, W.; Li, X.; Ong, S. P. Learning properties of ordered and disordered materials from multi-fidelity data. Nature Computational Science 2021, 1, 46--53

    2021

  49. [57]

    Atomistic Line Graph Neural Network for improved materials property predictions

    Choudhary, K.; DeCost, B. Atomistic Line Graph Neural Network for improved materials property predictions. npj Computational Materials 2021, 7, 185

    2021

  50. [58]

    F.; Choudhary, K

    Garrity, K. F.; Choudhary, K. Fast and accurate prediction of material properties with three-body tight-binding model for the periodic table. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2023, 7, 044603

    2023

  51. [59]

    Tight-Binding Density Functional Theory: An Approximate Kohn-Sham DFT Scheme

    Seifert, G. Tight-Binding Density Functional Theory: An Approximate Kohn-Sham DFT Scheme. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2007, 111, 5609--5613

    2007

  52. [60]

    Chen, C.; Ong, S. P. A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table. Nature Computational Science 2022, 2, 718--728

    2022

  53. [61]

    https://github.com/materialsvirtuallab/matgl, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    Materials Virtual Lab , MatGL: Graph Learning for Materials Science. https://github.com/materialsvirtuallab/matgl, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  54. [63]

    Paszke, A. et al. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. 2019; https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01703

    2019 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Chen, C.; Ye, W.; Zuo, Y.; Zheng, C.; Ong, S. P. Graph Networks as a Universal Machine Learning Framework for Molecules and Crystals. Chemistry of Materials 2019, 31, 3564--3572

    2019

  56. [65]

    Unified graph neural network force-field for the periodic table: solid state applications

    Choudhary, K.; DeCost, B.; Major, L.; Butler, K.; Thiyagalingam, J.; Tavazza, F. Unified graph neural network force-field for the periodic table: solid state applications. Digital Discovery 2023, 2, 346--355

    2023

  57. [66]

    J.; Ceder, G

    Deng, B.; Zhong, P.; Jun, K.; Riebesell, J.; Han, K.; Bartel, C. J.; Ceder, G. CHGNet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling. Nature Machine Intelligence 2023, 5, 1031--1041

    2023

  58. [67]

    P.; Simm, G

    Batatia, I.; Kovacs, D. P.; Simm, G. N. C.; Ortner, C.; Csanyi, G. MACE : Higher Order Equivariant Message Passing Neural Networks for Fast and Accurate Force Fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2022

    2022

  59. [68]

    P.; Musaelian, A.; Simm, G

    Batatia, I.; Batzner, S.; Kov \'a cs, D. P.; Musaelian, A.; Simm, G. N. C.; Drautz, R.; Ortner, C.; Kozinsky, B.; Cs \'a nyi, G. The Design Space of E(3)-Equivariant Atom-Centered Interatomic Potentials. 2022

    2022

  60. [69]

    Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials

    Drautz, R. Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials. Phys. Rev. B 2019, 99, 014104

    2019

  61. [70]

    Atomic cluster expansion: Completeness, efficiency and stability

    Dusson, G.; Bachmayr, M.; Cs \'a nyi, G.; Drautz, R.; Etter, S.; van der Oord , C.; Ortner, C. Atomic cluster expansion: Completeness, efficiency and stability. Journal of Computational Physics 2022, 454, 110946

    2022

  62. [71]

    MACE-MP: ACE Multi-Physics Framework

    Team, A. MACE-MP: ACE Multi-Physics Framework. https://github.com/ACEsuit/mace-mp/releases/tag/mace_mpa_0, 2024; https://github.com/ACEsuit/mace-mp/releases/tag/mace_mpa_0, Version 0 release

    2024

  63. [72]

    Scalable Parallel Algorithm for Graph Neural Network Interatomic Potentials in Molecular Dynamics Simulations

    Park, Y.; Kim, J.; Hwang, S.; Han, S. Scalable Parallel Algorithm for Graph Neural Network Interatomic Potentials in Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024, 20, 4857--4868

    2024

  64. [73]

    P.; Kornbluth, M.; Molinari, N.; Smidt, T

    Batzner, S.; Musaelian, A.; Sun, L.; Geiger, M.; Mailoa, J. P.; Kornbluth, M.; Molinari, N.; Smidt, T. E.; Kozinsky, B. E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data-efficient and accurate interatomic potentials. Nature Communications 2022, 13, 2453

    2022

  65. [74]

    Yang, H. et al. MatterSim: A Deep Learning Atomistic Model Across Elements, Temperatures and Pressures. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04967

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    S.; Aykol, M.; Cheon, G.; Cubuk, E

    Merchant, A.; Batzner, S.; Schoenholz, S. S.; Aykol, M.; Cheon, G.; Cubuk, E. D. Scaling deep learning for materials discovery. Nature 2023, 624, 80--85

    2023

  67. [76]

    Takamoto, S. et al. Towards universal neural network potential for material discovery applicable to arbitrary combination of 45 elements. Nature Communications 2022, 13, 2991

    2022

  68. [77]

    https://github.com/microsoft/mattersim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-12-06

    Microsoft, MatterSim: Simulator for Visual Language Navigation. https://github.com/microsoft/mattersim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-12-06

    2024

  69. [78]

    https://github.com/orbital-materials/orb-models, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    Orbital Materials , Orb-Models: Machine Learning Models for Orbital Materials. https://github.com/orbital-materials/orb-models, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  70. [79]

    https://www.orbitalmaterials.com/post/technical-blog-introducing-the-orb-ai-based-interatomic-potential, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    Orbital Materials , Introducing the Orb AI-Based Interatomic Potential. https://www.orbitalmaterials.com/post/technical-blog-introducing-the-orb-ai-based-interatomic-potential, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  71. [80]

    Matbench Discovery: A Benchmark for AI-Accelerated Materials Discovery

    Riebesell, J.; Goodall, R.; Benner, P.; Chiang, Y.; Deng, B.; Lee, A.; Jain, A.; Persson, K. Matbench Discovery: A Benchmark for AI-Accelerated Materials Discovery. https://matbench-discovery.materialsproject.org/preprint, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  72. [81]

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, A.; Godwin, J.; Pfaff, T.; Ying, R.; Leskovec, J.; Battaglia, P. W. Learning to Simulate Complex Physics with Graph Networks. 2020; https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09405

    2020 arXiv

  73. [82]

    S.; Riley, P

    Gilmer, J.; Schoenholz, S. S.; Riley, P. F.; Vinyals, O.; Dahl, G. E. Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry. 2017; https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01212

    2017 arXiv

  74. [83]

    M.; Dzamba, M.; Gao, M.; Rizvi, A.; Zitnick, C

    Barroso-Luque, L.; Shuaibi, M.; Fu, X.; Wood, B. M.; Dzamba, M.; Gao, M.; Rizvi, A.; Zitnick, C. L.; Ulissi, Z. W. Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) Inorganic Materials Dataset and Models. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    EquiformerV2: Improved Equivariant Transformer for Scaling to Higher-Degree Representations

    Liao, Y.-L.; Wood, B.; Das, A.; Smidt, T. EquiformerV2: Improved Equivariant Transformer for Scaling to Higher-Degree Representations. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12059

    2024 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Riebesell, J.; Goodall, R. E. A.; Benner, P.; Chiang, Y.; Deng, B.; Lee, A. A.; Jain, A.; Persson, K. A. Matbench Discovery -- A framework to evaluate machine learning crystal stability predictions. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14920

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Choudhary, K. et al. JARVIS-Leaderboard: a large scale benchmark of materials design methods. npj Computational Materials 2024, 10, 93

    2024

  78. [87]

    https://pages.nist.gov/jarvis_leaderboard/, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) , JARVIS Leaderboard: Benchmarking Models for Materials Science. https://pages.nist.gov/jarvis_leaderboard/, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  79. [88]

    Systematic assessment of various universal machine-learning interatomic potentials

    Yu, H.; Giantomassi, M.; Materzanini, G.; Wang, J.; Rignanese, G.-M. Systematic assessment of various universal machine-learning interatomic potentials. Materials Genome Engineering Advances n/a, e58

  80. [89]

    Accelerating CALPHAD-based Phase Diagram Predictions in Complex Alloys Using Universal Machine Learning Potentials: Opportunities and Challenges

    Zhu, S.; Arróyave, R.; Sarıtürk, D. Accelerating CALPHAD-based Phase Diagram Predictions in Complex Alloys Using Universal Machine Learning Potentials: Opportunities and Challenges. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15351

    2024 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Loew, A.; Sun, D.; Wang, H.-C.; Botti, S.; Marques, M. A. L. Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials are Ready for Phonons. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16551

    2024 arXiv

  82. [91]

    High-throughput Identification and Characterization of Two-dimensional Materials using Density functional theory

    Choudhary, K.; Kalish, I.; Beams, R.; Tavazza, F. High-throughput Identification and Characterization of Two-dimensional Materials using Density functional theory. Scientific Reports 2017, 7, 5179

    2017

  83. [92]

    P.; Schmidt, K

    Perdew, J. P.; Schmidt, K. Jacob’s ladder of density functional approximations for the exchange-correlation energy . AIP Conference Proceedings 2001, 577, 1--20

    2001

  84. [93]

    Hjorth Larsen, A. et al. The atomic simulation environment---a Python library for working with atoms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2017, 29, 273002

    2017

  85. [94]

    W.; Wood, B

    Qi, J.; Ko, T. W.; Wood, B. C.; Pham, T. A.; Ong, S. P. Robust training of machine learning interatomic potentials with dimensionality reduction and stratified sampling. npj Computational Materials 2024, 10, 43

    2024

  86. [95]

    A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu

    Grimme, S.; Antony, J.; Ehrlich, S.; Krieg, H. A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2010, 132, 154104

    2010

  87. [96]

    P.; Ruzsinszky, A.; Csonka, G

    Perdew, J. P.; Ruzsinszky, A.; Csonka, G. I.; Vydrov, O. A.; Scuseria, G. E.; Constantin, L. A.; Zhou, X.; Burke, K. Restoring the Density-Gradient Expansion for Exchange in Solids and Surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 100, 136406

    2008

  88. [97]

    2D Universal Force Field CPU Model (Alexandria v2)

    Team, H. 2D Universal Force Field CPU Model (Alexandria v2). https://github.com/hyllios/utils/blob/main/models/alexandria_v2/mace/2D_universal_force_field_cpu.model, 2024; https://github.com/hyllios/utils/blob/main/models/alexandria_v2/mace/2D_universal_force_field_cpu.model, ...

    2024

  89. [98]

    Structural Relaxation Made Simple

    Bitzek, E.; Koskinen, P.; G\"ahler, F.; Moseler, M.; Gumbsch, P. Structural Relaxation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 170201

    2006

  90. [99]

    https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase/ase/filters.html, 2025; Accessed: March 12, 2025

    Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) Developers , ASE Filters Documentation . https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase/ase/filters.html, 2025; Accessed: March 12, 2025

    2025

  91. [100]

    Jochym, P. T. Module for calculating elastic tensor of crystals. https://github.com/jochym/Elastic/, 2022

    2022

  92. [101]

    T.; Parlinski, K.; Sternik, M

    Jochym, P. T.; Parlinski, K.; Sternik, M. TiC lattice dynamics from ab initio calculations. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 1999, 10, 9--13

    1999

  93. [102]

    T.; Parlinski, K

    Jochym, P. T.; Parlinski, K. Ab initio lattice dynamics and elastic constants of ZrC. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 2000, 15, 265--268

    2000

  94. [103]

    Distributions of phonon lifetimes in Brillouin zones

    Togo, A.; Chaput, L.; Tanaka, I. Distributions of phonon lifetimes in Brillouin zones. Phys. Rev. B 2015, 91, 094306

    2015

  95. [104]

    Implementation strategies in phonopy and phono3py

    Togo, A.; Chaput, L.; Tadano, T.; Tanaka, I. Implementation strategies in phonopy and phono3py. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2023, 35, 353001

    2023

  96. [105]

    Phonon-phonon interactions in transition metals

    Chaput, L.; Togo, A.; Tanaka, I.; Hug, G. Phonon-phonon interactions in transition metals. Phys. Rev. B 2011, 84, 094302

    2011

  97. [106]

    First-principles phonon calculations of thermal expansion in Ti _ 3 SiC _ 2 , Ti _ 3 AlC _ 2 , and Ti _ 3 GeC _ 2

    Togo, A.; Chaput, L.; Tanaka, I.; Hug, G. First-principles phonon calculations of thermal expansion in Ti _ 3 SiC _ 2 , Ti _ 3 AlC _ 2 , and Ti _ 3 GeC _ 2 . Phys. Rev. B 2010, 81, 174301

    2010

  98. [107]

    Efficient Iterative Schemes for ab initio Total-energy Calculations Using a Plane-wave Basis Set

    Kresse, G.; Furthm\"uller, J. Efficient Iterative Schemes for ab initio Total-energy Calculations Using a Plane-wave Basis Set . Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169--11186

    1996

  99. [108]

    From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-wave Method

    Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-wave Method . Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758--1775

    1999

  100. [109]

    A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods

    Nose, S. A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1984, 81, 511--519

    1984

  101. [110]

    Constant Temperature Molecular Dynamics Methods

    Shuichi, N. Constant Temperature Molecular Dynamics Methods. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 1991, 103, 1--46

    1991

  102. [111]

    Hoover, W. G. Canonical dynamics: Equilibrium phase-space distributions. Phys. Rev. A 1985, 31, 1695--1697

    1985

  103. [112]

    G.; Martin, R

    Van de Walle, C. G.; Martin, R. M. Theoretical study of band offsets at semiconductor interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 1987, 35, 8154--8165

    1987

  104. [113]

    Band offset in semiconductor heterojunctions

    Di Liberto, G.; Pacchioni, G. Band offset in semiconductor heterojunctions. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2021, 33, 415002

    2021

  105. [114]

    Zur, A.; McGill, T. C. Lattice match: An application to heteroepitaxy . Journal of Applied Physics 1984, 55, 378--386

    1984

  106. [115]

    R.; Michaelides, A

    Klimeš, J.; Bowler, D. R.; Michaelides, A. Chemical accuracy for the van der Waals density functional. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2009, 22, 022201

    2009

  107. [116]

    P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M

    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865--3868

    1996

  108. [117]

    Blundell, B. L. A. P. C.; Lakshminarayanan, B.; Pritzel, A. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Proceedings of Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 2017

    2017

  109. [118]

    Deep evidential regression

    Amini, A.; Schwarting, W.; Soleimany, A.; Rus, D. Deep evidential regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020-Decem (NeurIPS) 2020, 1--19

    2020

  110. [119]

    A.; Weigend, A

    Nix, D. A.; Weigend, A. S. Estimating the mean and variance of the target probability distribution. Proceedings of 1994 ieee international conference on neural networks (ICNN'94). 1994; pp 55--60

    1994

  111. [120]

    Fast uncertainty estimates in deep learning interatomic potentials

    Zhu, A.; Batzner, S.; Musaelian, A.; Kozinsky, B. Fast uncertainty estimates in deep learning interatomic potentials. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 158

    2023

  112. [121]

    R.; Urata, S.; Goldman, S.; Dietschreit, J

    Tan, A. R.; Urata, S.; Goldman, S.; Dietschreit, J. C. B.; G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R. Single-model uncertainty quantification in neural network potentials does not consistently outperform model ensembles. npj Computational Materials 2023, 9, 225

    2023

  113. [122]

    A.; Samanta, A.; Zhou, F.; Lordi, V

    Vita, J. A.; Samanta, A.; Zhou, F.; Lordi, V. LTAU-FF: Loss Trajectory Analysis for Uncertainty in Atomistic Force Fields. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00853

    2024 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Project, U. N. I. Interface.csv dataset. https://github.com/usnistgov/intermat/blob/temp/intermat/Interface.csv, 2024; Accessed: 2024-10-23

    2024

  115. [124]

    Benchmark surface energies with PFP

    Iwase, S. Benchmark surface energies with PFP. 2025; https://tech.preferred.jp/en/blog/benchmark-surface-energies-with-pfp/, Preferred Networks Research & Development Blog

    2025

  116. [126]

    Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation

    Zur, A.; McGill, T. C. Lattice match: An application to heteroepitaxy . Journal of Applied Physics 1984, 55, 378--386 mcitethebibliography si.bib0000664000000000000000000042325414766432574010703 0ustar rootroot@article jarvis-vdw, abstract = We introduce a simple criterion to ...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.