Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Fundamental Microscopic Properties as Predictors of Large-Scale Quantities of Interest: Validation through Grain Boundary Energy Trends

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper attempts to show that regression models trained on classical interatomic potentials can predict first-principles grain boundary energies, because approximate potentials and density functional theory draw from the same…

desk verdict A credible proof-of-principle for using IP ensembles to discover property correlations, but the 'same statistical pool' claim is validated on one QoI and the DFT E0 comparison may have a definitional mismatch—worth peer review with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16770 v2 pith:Y5Y5NWAC submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Benjamin A. Jasperson , Ilia Nikiforov , Amit Samanta , Brandon Runnels , Harley T. Johnson , Ellad B. Tadmor This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords grainboundaryenergyinteratomicpotentialscanonicalpropertieslatticematchingmodelstatisticalinferencesyntheticmaterialssupportvectorregressiondensityfunctionaltheory
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

The paper tries to establish that classical interatomic potentials, treated as an ensemble of "synthetic materials," can reveal correlations between fundamental microscopic properties and large-scale quantities of interest (QoIs) that hold for first-principles data and therefore for real materials. As a proof of principle, it builds a regression model that predicts the scaling factor $E_0$ of the lattice-matching model for symmetric tilt grain boundary energies in face-centered cubic (FCC) metals from canonical properties such as stacking fault energies, vacancy formation and migration energies, and elastic constants. Trained only on potential-derived data from a large curated repository, the model predicts density functional theory (DFT) $E_0$ values for seven FCC metals with per-metal errors mostly under 17 percent and a worst case near 22 percent. The authors take this agreement as evidence that potential data and DFT data belong to the same statistical pool, which is the key assumption enabling the whole approach. If the claim holds, regression models of this kind give a general route to predict large-scale QoIs from first-principles properties and to choose which properties should enter the training set of a new interatomic potential.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts. First, the lattice-matching (LM) model [22] collapses an entire orientation-dependent symmetric tilt grain boundary energy curve into a single material-dependent scaling factor $E_0$ by writing $\gamma = E_0\left(1 - c/c_0\right)$ in terms of a covariance between Gaussian-broadened lattice densities; this $E_0$ is the quantity to be predicted. Second, a large archived collection of classical interatomic potentials is treated as a pool of synthetic materials: each potential-plus-species combination gives one $E_0$ value and one set of canonical properties, yielding 300 scaling coefficients assembled from 1040 grain boundary energy curves. Third, support vector regression with a radial basis function kernel and a simpler three-factor multilinear regression are fit with nested k-fold cross-validation; the linear model $E_0 = 18.52125\,\text{uSFE-FCC} + 0.79610\,\text{rVFPE-FCC} + 0.67369\,\text{VME-FCC} - 0.15919$ is then applied to DFT-computed indicator properties and compared against $E_0$ obtained by directly fitting DFT grain boundary energies.

What would settle it

One concrete test: compute DFT canonical properties and the directly fitted $E_0$ scaling factor from DFT grain boundary energies for a metal outside the seven studied here, such as Ir or Th, and compare the regression prediction interval trained only on potential data. If the DFT $E_0$ falls outside that interval, or if the sign of a top predictor's correlation with $E_0$ reverses, the same-statistical-pool assumption would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that correlations between canonical properties and a large-scale QoI discovered using approximate interatomic potentials survive transfer to DFT data. For the grain boundary energy scaling factor $E_0$, a three-factor linear regression trained on potential-derived results, using FCC unstable stacking fault energy, relaxed vacancy formation potential energy, and vacancy migration energy, achieves an adjusted $R^2$ of about 0.899 in nested cross-validation and predicts DFT $E_0$ values for Ag, Al, Au, Cu, Ni, Pd, and Pt with per-metal errors between about $-2.7\%$ and $-21.9\%$. Because all DFT predictions fall within the regression error bars, the authors conclude that potentials and DFT belong to the same statistical pool, which validates the proposed statistical inference approach and identifies the most relevant canonical properties to target when fitting potentials for grain-boundary-related simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the correlations between properties found using classical interatomic potentials are the same correlations that hold for density functional theory results, and hence for real materials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A regression model of this kind can estimate a large-scale QoI for a real material using only DFT values of a few small canonical properties, bypassing expensive DFT simulations of the large-scale quantity itself.
  • The properties flagged as strong predictors, such as unstable stacking fault energy, vacancy formation energy, vacancy migration energy, and the shear elastic constant $C_{44}$, are the properties that should be included in the training set of a potential designed to reproduce grain boundary energetics.
  • The same workflow can be applied to other QoIs beyond DFT reach, such as plastic flow strength, by running an ensemble of existing potentials, regressing the QoI against canonical properties, then feeding first-principles values of the top predictors into the regression.
  • The consistency between potential-based and DFT results for $E_0$ implies that past atomistic grain boundary simulations using archived potentials can be treated as samples from the same statistical distribution as first-principles results, despite the approximations in each individual potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the validation covers only one QoI, the symmetric tilt grain boundary energy scaling in seven FCC metals, so the strongest testable version of the same-statistical-pool claim would require checking other QoIs, other crystal classes, and boundary types such as twist and asymmetric grain boundaries.
  • Extension: if the pooling assumption holds generally, the approach offers a transfer check for machine-learned potentials: a potential that breaks the discovered correlations with DFT canonical properties could be identified as outside the pool before being used in large-scale simulation.
  • Extension: the discovery that vacancy migration and formation energies outperform elastic constants as predictors suggests a concrete, falsifiable recommendation for future potential fitting, namely that defect energetics should be prioritized in training sets for grain-boundary-focused potentials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a statistical strategy for discovering correlations between fundamental microscopic properties ("canonical properties") and large-scale quantities of interest (QoIs), using an ensemble of classical interatomic potentials (IPs) as "synthetic materials." As a proof of principle, the QoI is the scaling factor E0 in the lattice-matching (LM) model of symmetric tilt grain boundary (GB) energies in FCC metals. The authors extract GB energy curves and canonical properties for 235 IPs from OpenKIM, fit support vector and multilinear regression models, and identify unstable stacking fault energy, vacancy migration energy, vacancy formation energy, and C44 as the most informative predictors. They then use DFT-computed canonical properties to predict E0 and compare these predictions with E0 values fitted directly to DFT GB energies from the literature (Table 4, Fig. 6). The paper reports adjusted R-squared of 0.899 in nested k-fold cross-validation and interprets the DFT agreement as confirmation that IPs and DFT belong to the same statistical pool.

Significance. The proposed idea is genuinely useful if the same-pool assumption holds: it would allow regression models built from cheap classical IP simulations to be used with first-principles canonical properties to predict QoIs that are beyond DFT reach, and to guide the selection of properties for training new IPs. The paper has notable strengths: the use of the standardized OpenKIM test driver, the public availability of data and code on GitHub, the nested k-fold cross-validation protocol, and a genuine out-of-sample test in which a model trained on IP data is evaluated against independent DFT results. The work also recovers known GB-energy correlations and proposes new predictive relationships. The main limitations are the narrow scope of the validation (seven FCC metals and one scalar QoI) and, more importantly, the underspecified operationalization of the DFT E0 reference, which makes the central same-pool claim currently less secure than the abstract's wording suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 4, Fig. 6] The central validation is not fully operationalized. In Section 2.2 the IP E0 is defined as a least-squares fit of the LM model to GB energy curves across four tilt axes ([001], [111], [110], [112]), but Section 3.3 does not state which tilt axes, GB planes, or tilt angles from Ref. [24] were used to obtain the "Coefficient, exact fit using DFT GB energies" in Table 4. Because the LM model is approximate (as shown by the deviations in Fig. 1), E0 is not a unique material constant but depends on the set of boundaries included in the fit. If the DFT data from Ref. [24] contain only a subset of the boundaries used in the IP fits, the comparison in Table 4 would conflate a genuine same-pool test with a definitional mismatch between two differently fitted E0 values. This concern is reinforced by the systematic negative errors for Ni (-14.8%), Pd (-21.9%), and Pt (-16.5%). Please specify the exact DFT boundary set, fit the DFT E0 with the same least-squares protocol used for the IP data, and report the sensitivity of E0 to the choice of boundary set. In addition, the statement in Section 4.3 that all DFT predicted values fall within the error bars of the regression prediction is not verifiable from Fig. 6 as printed, because no error bars are shown in that figure; please provide the prediction intervals used for this claim.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Conclusions] The conclusion that IPs and DFT "belong to the same statistical pool" is stronger than the evidence presented. The validation covers only seven FCC metals, a single QoI, and one scalar descriptor (E0) of the full GB energy curves, with per-species percent errors up to 21.9% (Pd). These errors are not necessarily disqualifying if they are random and within well-calibrated error bars, but the systematic sign of the errors for Ni, Pd, and Pt is the pattern one would expect if the DFT E0 were fitted to a different and less complete set of boundaries. Please either temper the same-pool claim to reflect this limited validation, or add a robustness test, such as refitting the DFT E0 with the identical boundary set used for the IP data, a leave-one-species-out analysis, or a comparison on additional QoIs and boundary types.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text states that "This calculation across tilt axes leads to the final dataset of 300 scaling coefficients" and also mentions 235 unique IP models and 1040 GB energy curves; the relationship between these three numbers is not explained and should be clarified.
  2. [Equation (6)] The regression coefficients in Eq. (6) are reported with five significant digits, which is disproportionate to the accuracy of the model; fewer digits would be appropriate.
  3. [Table 4] The sign convention for "Percent Error" is not defined; a short sentence stating whether negative values correspond to underprediction of the DFT-fitted E0 would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption of Fig. 6 describes gray circles as "calculated scaling coefficient results that are outside of the quartiles," but the caption of Fig. S20 uses the same wording for canonical property values; please make clear in each caption whether the outlying points refer to E0 or to the property shown.
  5. [SI Section S5, Fig. S19] The caption of Fig. S19 states "Strong correlation between rVFPE and uVFPE can be seen," but the figure shows stacking fault and twinning energies; this is evidently a copy-paste error and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT validation is a genuine out-of-sample test of an IP-trained regression model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The regression model is trained on scaling coefficients E0 obtained by least-squares fitting of the LM model to IP grain-boundary energy curves across four tilt axes (Sec. 2.2), with canonical properties computed independently for the same IPs. The DFT validation (Sec. 3.3) is genuinely out-of-sample: the authors compute DFT canonical properties (C44, iSFE, uSFE) with the PBE functional, use the IP-trained regression to predict a DFT E0, and compare that prediction with an E0 fitted directly to DFT grain-boundary energies from the literature. The DFT E0 is never used to fit the regression, so the agreement reported in Table 4 and Fig. 6 is an independent test, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The same-statistical-pool hypothesis is explicitly stated as an assumption in Sec. 1 and then tested; it is not built into the regression construction. Self-citations to the LM model (Runnels et al.) and to the companion plastic-flow paper are present, but they are not used to justify the central claim: the LM model is adopted as a pre-existing definition of the QoI, and the companion paper is cited only as an example of a downstream application. The fixed LM parameters (sigma/alpha = 0.175, lambda = 0.5) are taken from prior work and are not fitted to the DFT data, so they do not create a statistical coupling. The systematic negative errors for Ni, Pd, and Pt could indicate a difference in the boundary sets used to fit IP versus DFT E0 values, but this is a methodological caveat about the validation, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the transferability of correlations from an ensemble of approximate models to first-principles data, plus the adequacy of the LM model and the unbiasedness of the dataset after exclusions. The paper introduces no new physical entities; its regression coefficients are fitted outputs rather than hidden free parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IP data and first-principles data belong to the same statistical pool.
    Stated in Section 1 as the key assumption; the entire predictive approach depends on correlations found in IP ensembles transferring to DFT and real materials. Only tested for one QoI and seven metals.
  • domain assumption The LM model with sigma/a = 0.175 and lambda = 0.5 adequately represents the scaling of symmetric tilt grain boundary energies for both IP and DFT data.
    E0 is defined as the scaling factor in the lattice-matching model of Runnels et al.; parameters are taken from previous work. If the LM model is a poor representation, the QoI itself is distorted.
  • domain assumption The OpenKIM IP ensemble is a representative, unbiased sample of FCC metal behavior.
    The paper argues statistical approaches mitigate unsuitable models, but the ensemble is curated, many IPs share functional forms (EAM and MEAM) and fitting targets, so it is not a random sample. Selection bias could produce spurious correlations.
  • ad hoc to paper Canonical property cutoffs and removal of pair potentials do not materially bias the regression.
    Section 2.2 describes removing 153 grain boundary curves, 76 pair potentials, and imposing property cutoffs; these were selected by the authors and could affect the discovered correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental Microscopic Properties as Predictors of Large-Scale Quantities of Interest: Validation through Grain Boundary Energy Trends." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5Y5NWAC

@misc{pith2026241116770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental Microscopic Properties as Predictors of Large-Scale Quantities of Interest: Validation through Grain Boundary Energy Trends},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5Y5NWAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16770}
}
read the original abstract

Correlations between fundamental microscopic properties computable from first principles, which we term canonical properties, and complex large-scale quantities of interest (QoIs) provide an avenue to predictive materials discovery. We propose that such correlations can be efficiently discovered through simulations utilizing approximate interatomic potentials (IPs), which serve as an ensemble of "synthetic materials." As a proof of principle we build a regression model relating canonical properties to the symmetric tilt grain boundary (GB) energy curves in face-centered cubic crystals, characterized by the scaling factor in the universal lattice matching model of Runnels et al. (2016), which we take to be our QoI. Our analysis recovers known correlations of GB energy to other properties and discovers new ones. We also demonstrate, using available density functional theory (DFT) GB energy data, that the regression model constructed from IP data is consistent with DFT results, confirming the assumption that the IPs and DFT belong to same statistical pool and thereby validating the approach. Regression models constructed in this fashion can be used to predict large-scale QoIs based on first-principles data and provide a general method for training IPs for QoIs beyond the scope of first-principles calculations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Zheng, H. et al. Grain boundary properties of elemental metals. en. Acta Materialia 186, 40–49. ISSN : 13596454. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359645419308699 (2023) (Mar. 2020). 15

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Die Konstitution der Mischkristalle und die Raumf ¨ullung der Atome

    Vegard, L. Die Konstitution der Mischkristalle und die Raumf ¨ullung der Atome. Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 5, 17– 26 (1921)

    1921

  3. [110]

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy 0 50 100

    work page

  4. [112]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy Figure S1 Grain boundary energy simulations for Ag. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 18 0 50

    work page

  5. [2]

    Denton, A. R. & Ashcroft, N. W. Vegard’s law. Phys. Rev. A 43, 3161–3164. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.43.3161 (6 Mar. 1991)

    1991

  6. [3]

    & Powell, H

    Hume-Rothery, W. & Powell, H. M. Z. Krist. 91, 23 (1935). 14

    1935

  7. [4]

    Atomic Theory for Students of Metallurgy (The Institute of Metals, London, 1969)

    Hume-Rothery, W. Atomic Theory for Students of Metallurgy (The Institute of Metals, London, 1969)

    1969

  8. [5]

    Hume-Rothery, W., Smallman, R. W. & Haworth, C. W. The Structure of Metals and Alloys (The Institute of Metals, London, 1969)

    1969

Show all 86 references
  1. [6]

    Cottrell, A. H. An Introduction to Metallurgy (Edward Arnold, London, 1967)

    1967

  2. [7]

    Lindemann, F. A. The calculation of molecular vibration frequencies. Physik. Z. 11, 609–612 (1910)

    1910

  3. [8]

    H., Smith, J

    Rose, J. H., Smith, J. R., Guinea, F. & Ferrante, J. Universal features of the equation of state of metals. Phys. Rev. B 29, 2963–2969 (6 1984)

    1984

  4. [9]

    & Smith, J

    Banerjea, A. & Smith, J. R. Origins of the universal binding-energy relation. Phys. Rev. B 37, 6632–6645. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.37.6632 (12 Apr. 1988)

    1988 doi

  5. [10]

    & Seidman, D

    Udler, D. & Seidman, D. N. Grain boundary and surface energies of fcc metals. en. Physical Review B 54, R11133–R11136. ISSN : 0163-1829, 1095-3795. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.R11133 (2023) (Oct. 1996)

    2023 doi

  6. [11]

    & Mishin, Y

    Suzuki, A. & Mishin, Y . Interaction of Point Defects with Grain Boundaries in fcc Metals. Interface Science 11, 425–437. ISSN : 09277056. http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1026195911339 (2023) (2003)

    2023 doi

  7. [12]

    & Mishin, Y

    Suzuki, A. & Mishin, Y . M. Diffusion Mechanisms in Grain Boundaries. Journal of Metastable and Nanocrys- talline Materials 19, 1–24. ISSN : 2297-6620. https://www.scientific.net/JMNM.19.1 (2024) (Jan. 2004)

    2024

  8. [13]

    A., Olmsted, D

    Holm, E. A., Olmsted, D. L. & Foiles, S. M. Comparing grain boundary energies in face-centered cubic metals: Al, Au, Cu and Ni. en. Scripta Materialia 63, 905–908. ISSN : 13596462. https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S1359646210004331 (2023) (Nov. 2010)

    2023

  9. [14]

    & Feaugas, X

    Hallil, A., Metsue, A., Bouhattate, J. & Feaugas, X. Correlation between vacancy formation and Sigma 3 grain boundary structures in nickel from atomistic simulations. en. Philosophical Magazine 96, 2088–2114. ISSN : 1478-6435, 1478-6443. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10...

    2024

  10. [15]

    Tadmor, E. B. & Miller, R. E. Modeling Materials: Continuum, Atomistic and Multiscale Techniques (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  11. [16]

    Machine-learning interatomic potentials for materials science

    Mishin, Y . Machine-learning interatomic potentials for materials science. Acta Materialia 214, 116980. ISSN : 1359-6454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2021.116980 (Aug. 2021)

    2021

  12. [17]

    B., Elliott, R

    Tadmor, E. B., Elliott, R. S., Sethna, J. P., Miller, R. E. & Becker, C. A. The Potential of Atomistic Simulations and the Knowledgebase of Interatomic Models. JOM 63, 17 (2011)

    2011

  13. [18]

    A., Tavazza, F., Trautt, Z

    Becker, C. A., Tavazza, F., Trautt, Z. T. & Buarque De Macedo, R. A. Considerations for choosing and using force fields and interatomic potentials in materials science and engineering. en. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 17, 277–283. ISSN : 13590286. https...

    2023

  14. [19]

    Choudhary, K. et al. The joint automated repository for various integrated simulations (JARVIS) for data- driven materials design. npj Computational Materials 6. ISSN : 2057-3960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41524- 020-00440-1 (Nov. 2020)

    doi

  15. [20]

    Open Knowledgebase of Interatomic Models (OpenKIM) Website https://openkim.org. 2024

    2024

  16. [21]

    Karls, D. S. et al. The OpenKIM processing pipeline: A cloud-based automatic material property computation engine. The Journal of Chemical Physics 153 (2020)

    2020

  17. [22]

    J., Conti, S

    Runnels, B., Beyerlein, I. J., Conti, S. & Ortiz, M. An analytical model of interfacial energy based on a lattice-matching interatomic energy. en. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 89, 174–193. ISSN : 00225096. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509...

    2023

  18. [23]

    Waters, B. et al. Automated determination of grain boundary energy and potential-dependence using the OpenKIM framework. en.Computational Materials Science220, 112057. ISSN : 09270256. https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0927025623000514 (2023) (Mar. 2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    Correlation between the energy and structure of grain boundaries in b.c.c

    Wolf, D. Correlation between the energy and structure of grain boundaries in b.c.c. metals I. Symmetrical boundaries on the (110) and (100) planes. en. Philosophical Magazine B 59, 667–680. ISSN : 1364-2812, 1463-6417. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1364281890821...

    2023 doi

  20. [26]

    Correlation between the energy and structure of grain boundaries in b.c.c

    Wolf, D. Correlation between the energy and structure of grain boundaries in b.c.c. metals. II. Symmetri- cal tilt boundaries. en. Philosophical Magazine A 62, 447–464. ISSN : 0141-8610, 1460-6992. http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01418619008244790 (2023) (Oct. 1990)

    2023 doi

  21. [28]

    Structure-energy correlation for grain boundaries in f.c.c

    Wolf, D. Structure-energy correlation for grain boundaries in f.c.c. metals—II. Boundaries on the (110) and (113) planes. en. Acta Metallurgica 37, 2823–2833. ISSN : 00016160. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/0001616089903179 (2023) (Oct. 1989)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Structure-energy correlation for grain boundaries in f.c.c

    Wolf, D. Structure-energy correlation for grain boundaries in f.c.c. metals—IV. Asymmetrical twist (general) boundaries. en. Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 38, 791–798. ISSN : 09567151. https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/095671519090031B (2023) (May 1990)

    2023

  23. [31]

    L., Foiles, S

    Olmsted, D. L., Foiles, S. M. & Holm, E. A. Survey of computed grain boundary properties in face-centered cubic metals: I. Grain boundary energy. en.Acta Materialia 57, 3694–3703. ISSN : 13596454. https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359645409002274 (2023) (Aug. 2009)

    2023

  24. [32]

    A., Coleman, S

    Tschopp, M. A., Coleman, S. P. & McDowell, D. L. Symmetric and asymmetric tilt grain boundary structure and energy in Cu and Al (and transferability to other fcc metals). Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation 4, 176–189. ISSN : 2193-9772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186...

    doi

  25. [33]

    A broken-bond model for grain boundaries in face-centered cubic metals

    Wolf, D. A broken-bond model for grain boundaries in face-centered cubic metals. en. Journal of Applied Physics 68, 3221–3236. ISSN : 0021-8979, 1089-7550. https://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/68/7/3221/20811/A- broken-bond-model-for-grain-boundaries-in-face (2023) (Oct. 1990)

    2023

  26. [34]

    & Takashima, M

    Wynblatt, P. & Takashima, M. Correlation of Grain Boundary Character with Wetting Behavior. Interface Science 9, 265–273. ISSN : 09277056. http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1015162929100 (2024) (2001)

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    & Shi, Z

    Wynblatt, P. & Shi, Z. Relation between grain boundary segregation and grain boundary character in FCC alloys. en. Journal of Materials Science 40, 2765–2773. ISSN : 0022-2461, 1573-4803. http://link.springer. com/10.1007/s10853-005-2406-9 (2024) (June 2005)

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Ratanaphan, S. et al. Grain boundary energies in body-centered cubic metals. en. Acta Materialia 88, 346–

  29. [37]

    & Boland, J

    Zhang, X. & Boland, J. J. Core shift controls grain boundary energy scaling in Cu and Al arXiv:2302.05805 [cond-mat]. Feb. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05805 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J., Conti, S

    Runnels, B., Beyerlein, I. J., Conti, S. & Ortiz, M. A relaxation method for the energy and morphology of grain boundaries and interfaces. en. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 94, 388–408. ISSN : 00225096. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00225096153...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Pair Potentials in Atomistic Computer Simulations

    Vitek, V . Pair Potentials in Atomistic Computer Simulations. en. MRS Bulletin 21, 20–23. ISSN : 0883-7694, 1938-1425. http://link.springer.com/10.1557/S088376940004625X (2024) (Feb. 1996)

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    solidsgroup WIELD repository 2024

    Runnels, B. solidsgroup WIELD repository 2024. https://github.com/solidsgroup/wield

    2024

  33. [41]

    Runnels, B. S. A Model for Energy and Morphology of Crystalline Grain Boundaries with Arbitrary Geometric Character en. Medium: PDF Version Number: Final. PhD thesis (California Institute of Technology, July 2015). https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:07082015-130125061 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    sklearn.metrics.pairwise.nan euclidean distances Mar. 2024. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/ sklearn.metrics.pairwise.nan euclidean distances.html#sklearn-metrics-pairwise-nan-euclidean-distances

    2024

  35. [43]

    Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12. Publisher: JMLR. org, 2825–2830 (2011). 16

    2011

  36. [44]

    Smola, A. J. & Sch ¨olkopf, B. A tutorial on support vector regression. en. Statistics and Computing 14, 199–

  37. [45]

    Jasperson, B. A. et al. Cross-Scale Covariance for Material Property PredictionMay 2024. arXiv: 2406.05146 [cond-mat]. (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    GB Covariance GitHub Repository 2024

    Jasperson, B. GB Covariance GitHub Repository 2024. https://github.com/bjasperson/gb covariance

    2024

  39. [47]

    & Mishin, Y

    Herzig, C. & Mishin, Y . in Diffusion in Condensed Matter (eds Heitjans, P. & K¨arger, J.) 337–366 (Springer- Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005). ISBN : 978-3-540-20043-7. (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Read, W. T. & Shockley, W. Dislocation Models of Crystal Grain Boundaries. en. Physical Review 78, 275–

  41. [49]

    & Bacon, D

    Hull, D. & Bacon, D. J. Introduction to dislocations5. ed. eng. ISBN : 978-0-08-096672-4 (Butterworth Heine- mann, Elsevier, Amsterdam Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    The Art and Science of an Analytic Potential

    Brenner, D. The Art and Science of an Analytic Potential. physica status solidi (b) 217 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    Fundamental Microscopic Properties as Pre- dictors of Large-Scale Quantities of Interest: Validation through Grain Bound- ary Energy Trends

    Schmidt, M. & Lipson, H. Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data. Science 324, 81–85. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1165893 (2009). 17 Supplementary Information for “Fundamental Microscopic Properties as Pre- dictors of Large-Scale Quantiti...

    2009 doi

  44. [59]

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy 0 25 50

  45. [60]

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy 0 100

  46. [62]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy Figure S2 Grain boundary energy simulations for Al. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  47. [63]

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2GB energy 0 25 50

  48. [64]

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25GB energy 0 100

  49. [65]

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6GB energy 0 50 100

  50. [66]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8GB energy Figure S3 Grain boundary energy simulations for Au. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  51. [67]

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50GB energy 0 25 50

  52. [70]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5GB energy Figure S4 Grain boundary energy simulations for Cu. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 19 0 50

  53. [74]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5GB energy Figure S5 Grain boundary energy simulations for Fe. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  54. [77]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0GB energy 0 50 100

  55. [78]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0GB energy Figure S6 Grain boundary energy simulations for Ni. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  56. [79]

    angle 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30GB energy 0 25 50

  57. [80]

    angle 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25GB energy 0 100

  58. [81]

    angle 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25GB energy 0 50 100

  59. [82]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30GB energy Figure S7 Grain boundary energy simulations for Pb. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 20 0 50

  60. [83]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0GB energy 0 25 50

  61. [84]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0GB energy 0 100

  62. [85]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5GB energy 0 50 100

  63. [86]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0GB energy Figure S8 Grain boundary energy simulations for Pd. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  64. [89]

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25GB energy 0 50 100

  65. [90]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50GB energy Figure S9 Grain boundary energy simulations for Pt. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 0 50

  66. [91]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5GB energy 0 25 50

  67. [92]

    angle 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5GB energy 0 100

  68. [93]

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50GB energy 0 50 100

  69. [94]

    The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green)

    angle 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50GB energy Figure S10 Grain boundary energy simulations for Rh. The average atomistic GB energy from OpenKIM (solid black) is compared with the average best fit analytical LM model (dashed green). 21 VME FCC VME BCC VME SC 10 1 100 101 10...

  70. [95]

    All bulk modulus values greater than 100,000 GPa

  71. [96]

    All absolute vacancy migration energies greater than 100 eV

  72. [97]

    All elastic constants greater than 100,000 GPa

  73. [98]

    22 C44 FCC C44 BCC C44 SC C11 FCC C11 BCC C11 SC C12 FCC C12 BCC C12 SC Bulk Mod

    All stacking fault energies greater than 0.45 ev/A 2. 22 C44 FCC C44 BCC C44 SC C11 FCC C11 BCC C11 SC C12 FCC C12 BCC C12 SC Bulk Mod. FCC Bulk Mod. BCC Bulk Mod. SC 101 102 103 104 105 106 GPa Figure S12 Elastic constants from the original dataset, extracted from OpenKIM for...

    2011

  74. [100]

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092702562030118X (2020). S256. Wang, J., Oh, S.-H. & Lee, B.-J. MEAM Potential for the Cu-Mo system developed by Wang et al. (2020) v002 OpenKIM, https://doi.org/10.25950/2f5cea4d. 2023. S257. Asadi, E., Zaeem, M. A., Nouranian...

    2020

  75. [222]

    http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88 (2023) (Aug

    ISSN : 0960-3174. http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88 (2023) (Aug. 2004)

    2023

  76. [256]

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092702562030118X (2020). S254. Wang, J., Oh, S.-H. & Lee, B.-J. MEAM Potential for the Cu-Co system developed by Wang et al. (2020) v002 OpenKIM, https://doi.org/10.25950/933c4dc4. 2023. S255. Wang, J., Oh, S.-H. & Lee, B.-J. S...

    2020 doi

  77. [289]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.78.275 (2023) (May 1950)

    ISSN : 0031-899X. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.78.275 (2023) (May 1950)

    2023 doi

  78. [354]

    https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359645415000828 (2023) (Apr

    ISSN : 13596454. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359645415000828 (2023) (Apr. 2015)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.