Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials are Ready for Phonons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Universal machine-learning interatomic potentials are ready for phonons, with MatterSim-v1 matching DFT accuracy while force-only models fail.

desk verdict A valuable, mostly credible benchmark of seven uMLIPs for phonons, with the caveat that the poor showing of non-conservative models is partly protocol-dependent because the frozen-phonon displacement is never stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16551 v2 pith:LKKKOKFU submitted 2024-12-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Antoine Loew , Dewen Sun , Hai-Chen Wang , Silvana Botti , Miguel A. L. Marques This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords phononsmachinelearninginteratomicpotentialsuniversalMLIPsbenchmarkharmonicMatterSim-v1dynamicalstabilityPBEdataset
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 asks whether universal machine-learning interatomic potentials (uMLIPs), models trained to predict energies and forces for any chemistry, can be trusted for harmonic phonons, the small-displacement response properties that control thermal behavior and dynamical stability. To answer it, the authors recalculate about 10,000 ab initio phonon calculations with the PBE functional and test seven uMLIPs on maximum phonon frequency, phonon density of states, sound velocity, vibrational entropy, free energy, and heat capacity. The central result is that one model, MatterSim-v1, reproduces PBE phonons with mean absolute errors smaller than the difference between two DFT functionals, meaning it can replace DFT for semiconductor phonon calculations. The paper also shows that two otherwise excellent models, ORB and eqV2-M, produce largely imaginary phonons because their forces are not energy derivatives, and it releases a consistent PBE phonon dataset for future development.

What carries the argument

The central object is the harmonic phonon force constant, obtained by the frozen-phonon finite-displacement method: atoms are displaced by small amounts, forces are collected, and the dynamical matrix is built from numerical second derivatives of the energy. The paper's yardstick for good enough accuracy is the difference between two DFT exchange-correlation functionals, PBE and PBEsol, which bounds the intrinsic uncertainty of the reference; any uMLIP error smaller than this functional spread is treated as DFT-level accuracy. The distinction that carries the argument is conservative versus non-conservative force models: when forces are computed as exact energy gradients, finite-displacement force constants are well-behaved, but when forces are separate outputs, the implied potential is non-conservative and the second derivatives depend on the chosen displacement, which the paper identifies as the source of the imaginary phonons.

What would settle it

Repeat the ORB and eqV2-M phonon calculations with a range of frozen-phonon displacement amplitudes, from roughly 0.001 to 0.05 angstroms, and check whether their mean absolute phonon-frequency errors collapse toward the level of MatterSim-v1 or remain catastrophic; if they improve substantially, the paper's ranking of these two models is an artifact of the chosen displacement, while if they stay poor, the non-conservative-force explanation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a clear ranking of seven uMLIPs for harmonic phonons. MatterSim-v1 is the most accurate: its mean absolute errors are 17 K for maximum phonon frequency, 15 J/K/mol for vibrational entropy, and 5 kJ/mol for Helmholtz free energy, all smaller than the corresponding PBE-versus-PBEsol differences (33 K, 25 J/K/mol, and 10 kJ/mol), so it can be used as a DFT-level calculator for phonons of non-magnetic semiconductors. SevenNet-0 is the next best, followed by MACE-MP-0, CHGNet, and M3GNet, all of which systematically soften phonon frequencies. ORB and eqV2-M, despite excellent geometry predictions, fail catastrophically on phonons: their frequency distributions peak at zero and over 80 percent of dynamically unstable systems are misclassified as stable, because they output forces as independent network predictions rather than as derivatives of the energy, making the force constants required for phonons ill-defined.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's validity rests on the assumption that a frozen-phonon finite-displacement calculation with one default displacement amplitude is a fair, model-independent test, even though for non-conservative models the resulting force constants depend on the displacement chosen, and the paper does not state what that default amplitude is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MatterSim-v1 can be used as a drop-in replacement for DFT in high-throughput phonon screening of non-magnetic semiconductors, making dynamical-stability and thermal-property searches orders of magnitude cheaper.
  • Training data and its coverage matter at least as much as model architecture: a scaled-up M3GNet-style conservative model outperforms more complex equivariant networks on response properties.
  • Universal potentials that output forces as separate predictions are not reliable for phonons and should be redesigned to be conservative, or used with an energy-consistent correction, before being applied to response properties.
  • The newly released PBE phonon dataset removes the functional mismatch that previously made benchmarking uMLIP phonons ambiguous, since all tested models were trained on PBE data.
  • Among the models trained on the same 1.58-million-structure dataset, SevenNet-0 is clearly the best for phonons, indicating that within a fixed training set, representation and training details still set the ceiling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The catastrophic ORB and eqV2-M phonon errors are probably amplified by the default displacement amplitude; a displacement-size study could give these non-conservative models a fairer test, so the ranking's bottom two entries should be read with this caveat.
  • The paper's protocol suggests a cheap addition to any uMLIP release: report phonon density of states or force-constant Hessians on a fixed benchmark, since energy and force mean absolute errors near equilibrium do not predict response-property quality.
  • One untested direction is to train a conservative uMLIP with phonon-derived Hessian labels or with energy-consistent force constraints; this could lift the remaining systematic softening errors seen in M3GNet, CHGNet, MACE-MP-0, and SevenNet-0.
  • Because the dataset excludes magnetic and metallic materials, universal readiness is demonstrated only for non-magnetic semiconductors; extending the benchmark to those classes could change the ranking.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks seven universal machine-learning interatomic potentials (M3GNet, CHGNet, MACE-MP-0, SevenNet-0, MatterSim-v1, ORB, eqV2-M) for harmonic phonon properties against a dataset of ~10,000 non-magnetic semiconductors. The authors recalculated the MDR phonon database with the PBE functional to match the training data of the models, and they evaluate geometry errors, maximum phonon frequency, phonon DOS, vibrational entropy, Helmholtz free energy, heat capacity, sound velocity, and dynamical stability. They report that MatterSim-v1 has the smallest phonon errors, with MAEs below the PBE–PBEsol difference, while ORB and eqV2-M produce severely distorted phonons, attributed to their non-conservative force output. The paper also releases the PBE phonon dataset.

Significance. The benchmark is externally grounded: the seven models are frozen public checkpoints, no parameters are fitted to the phonon reference data, and the PBE reference is consistent with the models' training sets. The finding that non-conservative force models (ORB, eqV2-M) fail for finite-displacement phonons is important and aligns with existing analyses (Ref. 45). The new PBE phonon dataset is a valuable resource. However, the central ranking, especially the categorical dismissal of ORB and eqV2-M, rests on a frozen-phonon protocol whose displacement amplitude is not reported, and the claim of DFT-comparable accuracy for MatterSim-v1 lacks statistical error bars and sensitivity analysis of the ad hoc thresholds. If the displacement dependence is quantified and the statistical claims are substantiated, the paper would provide a trustworthy benchmark and a useful guide for uMLIP development.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV A and III] The amplitude of the frozen-phonon displacement is never reported in Section IV A, which only states that force constants were obtained via the finite displacement method as implemented in phonopy. For conservative models this is a minor omission, but for ORB and eqV2-M, whose forces are not energy derivatives, the finite-difference force constants depend explicitly on the chosen displacement, as the paper acknowledges in Section III ('The problem can be alleviated, but far from resolved, by using larger displacements in the frozen-phonon workflow'). The large MAEs and imaginary-mode fractions in Tables II and III for these two models may therefore be an artifact of the chosen displacement rather than evidence of intrinsic inability. Please report the displacement value (and any related convergence criteria), and provide a displacement-convergence test, e.g., varying the amplitude by an order of magnitude for a representative subset, to show that the ranking of ORB/eqV2-M is protocol-independent.
  2. [II B, Table II, and Table III] The claim that MatterSim-v1's MAEs are 'considerably smaller than the difference between PBE and PBEsol' is used to conclude that it can replace DFT for phonon calculations. However, the MAE values are reported without uncertainties, and no statistical test is provided for the comparison against the PBE-PBEsol scale. Moreover, the confusion matrix in Table III depends on the ad hoc thresholds of -50 K for imaginary acoustic modes and 0.1 states/THz for the DOS. Please provide error bars (e.g., bootstrap over the dataset or standard errors across materials), and test the sensitivity of the dynamical-stability classification to these thresholds.
  3. [Title, Abstract, and II A] The benchmark is restricted to non-magnetic semiconductors, yet the title claims that 'Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials are Ready for Phonons' and the abstract refers to 'universal applicability.' This overstates the scope of the study. The authors do mention 'semiconductors' in the main text, but the title and abstract should be tempered to reflect the material class actually tested, or the paper should explicitly discuss the potential limitations of transferring these conclusions to metals, magnetic materials, and other systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Refs. 29 and 45 share the identical arXiv identifier (2408.00755), but they refer to different papers; one of the identifiers must be corrected.
  2. [Table II] The caption contains a typo: 'velocities' is written as 'velocties'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The word 'acoustic' is misspelled as 'accoustic' in the caption.
  4. [IV A] The code name is written as 'v asp' in the text; it should be 'VASP'.
  5. [Fig. 1(a) axis label] The label 'T etragonal' contains an erroneous space; it should read 'Tetragonal'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark compares frozen public model checkpoints against an externally recalculated PBE phonon dataset, with no parameter fitted to the target properties.

full rationale

This paper is a benchmark, not a derivation. The seven uMLIPs are public, frozen checkpoints whose weights were trained on independent datasets, and no model parameter is fitted to the phonon reference data produced here. The reference phonons are obtained by finite-displacement force constants from PBE VASP calculations, following the MDR workflow with only the exchange-correlation functional changed from PBEsol to PBE (Section IV A). The central comparison is therefore externally grounded: the models were not constructed or tuned to match these 10,000 phonon calculations. The PBE-versus-PBEsol spread is used only as a scale for interpreting errors, not as an input to any model. Hand-set analysis thresholds, such as the -50 K imaginary-frequency cutoff and the 0.1 states/THz DOS floor, are evaluation choices that do not feed back into the models. The paper cites prior work by its own authors (e.g., Refs. 15, 37, 44), but none of these citations carries a load-bearing premise for the benchmark; the phonon dataset (Ref. 34) and the non-conservative-force analysis (Ref. 45) are external. The discussion of ORB and eqV2-M force-energy inconsistency raises a protocol-sensitivity concern (finite-displacement amplitude is not reported), but that is a correctness or reproducibility issue, not circularity: the conclusion may depend on an unstated protocol choice, yet it does not reduce to the benchmark's own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities. The three listed free parameters are hand-chosen or unreported evaluation settings rather than model parameters. The central claim rests on assumptions about the reference functional, the frozen-phonon protocol, the representativeness of the dataset, and Fourier interpolation.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma-point imaginary frequency threshold for dynamical stability = -50 K
    Hand-chosen cutoff in Section II; changing it alters the confusion-matrix percentages, though the qualitative ranking is probably stable.
  • DOS cutoff below 0.1 states/THz = 0.1 states/THz
    Hand-chosen lower cutoff for phonon DOS and derived properties; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Frozen-phonon displacement amplitude = not reported (phonopy default)
    Force constants are computed by finite displacement but the displacement size is not given; this is load-bearing for non-conservative models such as ORB and eqV2-M.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE reference phonons are the appropriate ground truth for benchmarking uMLIPs
    All uMLIPs were trained on PBE data, so comparing to PBE is consistent, but PBE is not exact and the paper does not compare against experiments or higher-level functionals.
  • domain assumption Finite displacement method with phonopy gives converged force constants at the chosen displacement
    No convergence test or displacement value is reported in Section IV A; if the displacement is too small for non-conservative models, phonon errors are inflated.
  • domain assumption The MDR-derived semiconductor dataset is representative enough to support universal applicability
    The dataset excludes triclinic systems, over-represents oxides, and under-represents magnetic 3d elements, Mo and W; the paper asserts these biases 'should not be relevant' without evidence.
  • domain assumption Fourier interpolation from the coarse q-grid to a 20x20x20 grid introduces only systematic errors
    Stated in Section II; interpolation error is assumed to cancel because the grids are consistent across DFT and uMLIP calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials are Ready for Phonons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKKKOKFU

@misc{pith2026241216551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials are Ready for Phonons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKKKOKFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16551}
}
read the original abstract

There has been an ongoing race for the past several years to develop the best universal machinelearning interatomic potential. This progress has led to increasingly accurate models for predictingenergy, forces, and stresses, combining innovative architectures with big data. Here, we benchmarkthese models on their ability to predict harmonic phonon properties, which are critical for under-standing the vibrational and thermal behavior of materials. Using around 10 000 ab initio phononcalculations, we evaluate model performance across various phonon-related parameters to test theuniversal applicability of these models. The results reveal that some models achieve high accuracyin predicting harmonic phonon properties. However, others still exhibit substantial inaccuracies,even if they excel in the prediction of the energy and the forces for materials close to dynamicalequilibrium. These findings highlight the importance of considering phonon-related properties inthe development of universal machine learning interatomic potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Distribution of (a) number of different chemical el [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Periodic tables showing the frequency of the chemical elements in the structures from the dataset. Elements in gray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Violin plot of the errors in the volume of the unit cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Violin plots of the errors in (a) the maximum phonon frequency, (b) the vibrational entropy, (c) the Helmholtz free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Highest frequencies predicted for each structure for all models and from the original PBEsol MDR database. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. CLOUD: A Scalable and Physics-Informed Foundation Model for Crystal Representation Learning

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CLOUD, a BERT-style model pretrained on 6.3 million crystal structures with a new symmetry-aware string encoding (SCOPE), gives competitive property predictions and, when combined with the Debye model, extrapolates he...

  2. chemtrain-deploy: A parallel and scalable framework for machine learning potentials in million-atom MD simulations

    physics.comp-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A model-agnostic JAX-to-LAMMPS framework runs machine learning potentials in million-atom multi-GPU molecular dynamics with near-ideal strong and weak scaling.

  3. Benchmarking Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials for Real-Time Analysis of Inelastic Neutron Scattering Data

    physics.comp-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Several universal machine learning interatomic potentials, especially ORB v3, MatterSim, and MACE-OFF, reach near-DFT phonon accuracy and match many experimental neutron spectra, with important caveats about test-set ...

  4. Accelerating point defect photo-emission calculations with machine learning interatomic potentials

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Universal machine learning interatomic potentials reproduce DFT-quality Huang-Rhys factors and photoluminescence lineshapes for hundreds of point defects at a fraction of the computational cost.

  5. High-performance training and inference for deep equivariant interatomic potentials

    physics.comp-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A redesigned NequIP framework using torch.compile, AOT Inductor compilation, and a custom Triton tensor product kernel accelerates Allegro MD inference by up to 18x and enables distributed training on large datasets.

  6. 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.

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

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CHIPS-FF benchmarks 16 universal machine learning force fields on 104 semiconductor materials across elastic, phonon, surface, defect, interface, and amorphous properties, finding that no model works well for interfaces.

  8. LAMBench: A Benchmark for Large Atomistic Models

    physics.comp-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LAMBench evaluates ten large atomistic models on out-of-distribution accuracy, property prediction, fine-tuning, speed, and stability, finding a large gap to a universal potential and DPA-3.1-3M at the top.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H.C.W and M.A.L.M would like to thank the NHR Centre PC2 for providing computing time on the Noctua 2 supercomputers. VIII. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS A.L. and M.A.L.M developed the high-throughput workflow; A.L. , D.S., and M.A.L.M performed the response calculations; A.L. and M.A.L.M. performed the machine learning validations; H.-C. W., S.B., and M.A.L.M dir...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Behler, Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations, J

    J. Behler, Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 170901 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Graser, S

    J. Graser, S. K. Kauwe, and T. D. Sparks, Machine learning and energy minimization approaches for crystal structure predictions: A review and new horizons, Chem. Mater. 30, 3601–3612 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Schmidt, M

    J. Schmidt, M. R. G. Marques, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science, npj Comput. Mater. 5, 83 (2019). 9

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    O. T. Unke, S. Chmiela, H. E. Sauceda, M. Gastegger, I. Poltavsky, K. T. Schütt, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. Müller, Machine learning force fields, Chem. Rev.121, 10142–10186 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Behler and M

    J. Behler and M. Parrinello, Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy sur- faces, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 146401 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    A. P. Bartók, R. Kondor, and G. Csányi, On representing chemical environments, Phys. Rev. B87, 184115 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Gasteiger, J

    J. Gasteiger, J. Groß, and S. Günnemann, Directional message passing for molecular graphs, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Batzner, A

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

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gastegger, K

    M. Gastegger, K. T. Schütt, and K.-R. Müller, Machine learning of solvent effects on molecular spectra and reac- tions, Chem. Sci.12, 11473–11483 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Gilmer, S

    J. Gilmer, S. S. Schoenholz, P. F. Riley, O. Vinyals, and G. E. Dahl, Neural message passing for quantum chem- istry, inProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 70, edited by D. Precup and Y. W. Teh (...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Schütt, P.-J

    K. Schütt, P.-J. Kindermans, H. E. Sauceda Felix, S. Chmiela, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. Müller, SchNet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural network for model- ing quantum interactions, inAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems , Vol. 30, edited by I. Guyon, U.V...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Jain, S.P.Ong, G.Hautier, W.Chen, W.D.Richards, S

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

    2013

  6. [14]

    Kirklin, J

    S. Kirklin, J. E. Saal, B. Meredig, A. Thompson, J. W. Doak, M. Aykol, S. Rühl, and C. Wolverton, The open quantum materials database (OQMD): assessing the ac- curacy of DFT formation energies, npj Comput. Mater. 1, 15010 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Curtarolo, W

    S. Curtarolo, W. Setyawan, S. Wang, J. Xue, K. Yang, R. H. Taylor, L. J. Nelson, G. L. Hart, S. San- vito, M. Buongiorno-Nardelli, N. Mingo, and O. Levy, AFLOWLIB.ORG: A distributed materials properties repository from high-throughput ab initio calculations, Comput. Mater. Sci...

    2012

  8. [16]

    Schmidt, T

    J. Schmidt, T. F. Cerqueira, A. H. Romero, A. Loew, F. Jäger, H.-C. Wang, S. Botti, and M. A. Marques, Improving machine-learning models in materials science through large datasets, Mater. Today Phys.48, 101560 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Scheidgen, L

    M. Scheidgen, L. Himanen, A. N. Ladines, D. Sikter, M. Nakhaee, A. Fekete, T. Chang, A. Golparvar, J. A. Márquez, S. Brockhauser, S. Brückner, L. M. Ghir- inghelli, F. Dietrich, D. Lehmberg, T. Denell, A. Al- bino, H. Näsström, S. Shabih, F. Dobener, M. Küh- bach, R. Mozumder,...

    2023

  10. [18]

    C. Chen, W. Ye, Y. Zuo, C. Zheng, and S. P. Ong, Graph networks as a universal machine learning framework for molecules and crystals, Chem. Mater. 31, 3564–3572 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Chen and S

    C. Chen and S. P. Ong, A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table, Nat. Com- put. Sci. 2, 718–728 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Batatia, D

    I. Batatia, D. P. Kovacs, G. Simm, C. Ortner, and G. Csanyi, MACE: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 35, edited by S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgr...

  13. [21]

    Neumann, J

    M. Neumann, J. Gin, B. Rhodes, S. Bennett, Z. Li, H. Choubisa, A. Hussey, and J. Godwin, Orb: A fast, scalable neural network potential, arXiv , 2410.22570 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Y. Park, J. Kim, S. Hwang, and S. Han, Scalable parallel algorithm for graph neural network interatomic poten- tialsinmoleculardynamicssimulations,J.Chem.Theory Comput. 20, 4857–4868 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Y.-L. Liao, B. M. Wood, A. Das, and T. Smidt, EquiformerV2: Improved equivariant transformer for scaling to higher-degree representations, inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    B. Deng, P. Zhong, K. Jun, J. Riebesell, K. Han, C. J. Bartel, and G. Ceder, CHGNet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling, Nat. Mach. Intell.5, 1031–1041 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Choudhary and B

    K. Choudhary and B. DeCost, Atomistic line graph neu- ral network for improved materials property predictions, npj Comput. Mater.7, 185 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Riebesell, R

    J. Riebesell, R. E. A. Goodall, P. Benner, Y. Chi- ang, B. Deng, A. A. Lee, A. Jain, and K. A. Persson, Matbench discovery – a framework to evaluate machine learning crystal stability predictions, arXiv , 2308.14920 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y.-L. Liao, T. Smidt, M. Shuaibi, and A. Das, Gener- alizing denoising to non-equilibrium structures improves equivariant force fields, arXiv , 2403.0954 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Barroso-Luque, M

    L. Barroso-Luque, M. Shuaibi, X. Fu, B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, M. Gao, A. Rizvi, C. L. Zitnick, and Z. W. Ulissi, Open materials 2024 (OMat24) inorganic materi- als dataset and models, arXiv , 2410.12771 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Focassio, L

    B. Focassio, L. P. M. Freitas, and G. R. Schleder, Per- formance assessment of universal machine learning inter- atomic potentials: Challenges and directions for materi- als’ surfaces, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    H. Yu, M. Giantomassi, G. Materzanini, J. Wang, and G.-M. Rignanese, Systematic assessment of various uni- versal machine-learning interatomic potentials, Mater. Genome Eng. Adv.2, e58 (2024)

    2024

  23. [32]

    H. Yang, C. Hu, Y. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Li, G. Li, Z. Chen, S. Chen, C. Zeni, M. Horton, R. Pinsler, A. Fowler, D. Zügner, T. Xie, J. Smith, L. Sun, Q. Wang, L. Kong, C. Liu, H. Hao, and Z. Lu, Mattersim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pr...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Drautz, Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials, Phys

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

    2019

  25. [34]

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, J

    A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, J. Godwin, T. Pfaff, R. Ying, J. Leskovec, and P. W. Battaglia, Learning to simulate complex physics with graph networks, arXiv , 2002.09405 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  26. [35]

    National Institute for Materials Science Japan, MDR phonon calculation database,https://mdr.nims.go.jp/ collections/8g84ms862?locale=en, Accessed: Novem- ber 04, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Restoring the density-gradient expansion for exchange in solids and surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 136406 (2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    G. I. Csonka, J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, P. H. T. Philipsen, S. Lebègue, J. Paier, O. A. Vydrov, and J. G. Ángyán, Assessing the performance of recent density functionals for bulk solids, Phys. Rev. B 79, 155107 (2009)

    2009

  29. [38]

    Hussein, J

    R. Hussein, J. Schmidt, T. Barros, M. A. L. Marques, and S. Botti, Machine-learning correction to density- functional crystal structure optimization, MRS Bull.47, 765–771 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    L. He, F. Liu, G. Hautier, M. J. T. Oliveira, M. A. L. Marques, F. D. Vila, J. J. Rehr, G.-M. Rignanese, and A. Zhou, Accuracy of generalized gradient approxima- tion functionals for density-functional perturbation the- ory calculations, Phys. Rev. B89, 064305 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  32. [41]

    Bergerhoff, R

    G. Bergerhoff, R. Hundt, R. Sievers, and I. D. Brown, The inorganic crystal structure data base, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 23, 66–69 (1983)

    1983

  33. [42]

    Haastrup, M

    S. Haastrup, M. Strange, M. Pandey, T. Deilmann, P. S. Schmidt, N. F. Hinsche, M. N. Gjerding, D. Torelli, P. M. Larsen, A. C. Riis-Jensen, J. Gath, K. W. Jacobsen, J. Jørgen Mortensen, T. Olsen, and K. S. Thygesen, The computational 2D materials database: high-throughput mode...

    2018

  34. [43]

    Z. Zhu, J. Park, H. Sahasrabuddhe, A. M. Ganose, R. Chang, J. W. Lawson, and A. Jain, A high-throughput framework for lattice dynamics, npj Comput. Mater.10, 258 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    Choudhary, K

    K. Choudhary, K. F. Garrity, V. Sharma, A. J. Biacchi, A. R. Hight Walker, and F. Tavazza, High-throughput density functional perturbation theory and machine learning predictions of infrared, piezoelectric, and dielec- tric responses, npj Comput. Mater.6, 64 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    T. F. T. Cerqueira, A. Sanna, and M. A. L. Marques, Sampling the materials space for conventional supercon- ducting compounds, Adv. Mater.36, 2307085 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    F. Bigi, M. Langer, and M. Ceriotti, The dark side of the forces: assessing non-conservative force models for atomistic machine learning, arXiv , 2408.00755 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficiency of ab-initio to- tal energy calculations for metals and semiconductors us- ing a plane-wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15–50 (1996)

    1996

  39. [48]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  40. [49]

    Togo, First-principles phonon calculations with Phonopy and Phono3py, J

    A. Togo, First-principles phonon calculations with Phonopy and Phono3py, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 012001 (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

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

    2015

  42. [51]

    Hjorth Larsen, J

    A. Hjorth Larsen, J. Jørgen Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Dułak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, E. D. Hermes, P. C. Jennings, P. Bjerre Jensen, J. Kermode, J. R. Kitchin, E. Leonhard Kolsbjerg, J. Kubal, K. Kaasb- jerg, S. Lysgaard,...

    2017

  43. [52]

    Bitzek, P

    E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. Gähler, M. Moseler, and P. Gumbsch, Structural relaxation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170201 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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