Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A universal augmentation framework for long-range electrostatics in machine learning interatomic potentials

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a standalone Latent Ewald Summation (LES) module can graft long-range electrostatics onto any short-range machine learning interatomic potential, inferring atomic charges, dipoles, and Born effective charges from…

desk verdict Useful, reproducible long-range electrostatics augmentation library with real benchmarks; the large-scale comparison is confounded and the BEC inference claim needs an identifiability test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14302 v1 pith:NB3EHH4R submitted 2025-07-18 physics.chem-ph cs.LGphysics.comp-ph

Dongjin Kim , Xiaoyu Wang , Peichen Zhong , Daniel S. King , Theo Jaffrelot Inizan , Bingqing Cheng This is my paper
classification physics.chem-phcs.LGphysics.comp-ph
keywords machinelearninginteratomicpotentialslong-rangeelectrostaticsEwaldsummationlatentchargesBorneffectivefoundationmodelsmoleculardynamicsSPICEdataset
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

Most machine learning interatomic potentials cut off interactions at a few angstroms and miss the long-range electrostatics that dominate systems like water, charged peptides, and doped oxide surfaces. This paper argues that those electrostatics can be restored by a drop-in module, Latent Ewald Summation (LES), that learns a latent charge for every atom from local invariant features and adds the resulting Ewald or direct Coulomb energy to the host model's short-range energy. Because the charges come from energy and force labels already present in standard datasets, LES needs no extra supervision from atomic charges, Wannier centers, or dipoles. The paper shows improved accuracy across MACE, NequIP, CACE, and CHGNet on water, dipeptides, and gold-on-MgO, and builds a SPICE-trained organic model (MACELES-OFF) that beats its short-range baseline, predicts dipoles and Born effective charges, and describes bulk water and molecular liquids better. A sympathetic reader would care because this could turn existing short-range datasets and models into electrostatic-aware potentials without new data collection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the latent charge $q_i^{\mathrm{les}}$, predicted from the host MLIP's local invariant atomic features $B_i$ via a neural network. These charges enter the total energy as a long-range correction: $E_{\mathrm{lr}} = \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_0 V}\sum_{0<k<k_c} \frac{e^{-\sigma^2 k^2/2}}{k^2}|S(k)|^2$ for periodic systems, with $S(k)=\sum_i q_i e^{i k\cdot r_i}$, and the corresponding screened direct sum for finite systems; total energy is $E_{\mathrm{sr}} + E_{\mathrm{lr}}$ and forces and stresses come from automatic differentiation. The same $q_i$ charges, via the polarization $P=\sum_i q_i r_i$ (or its reciprocal-space analogue), define the Born effective charge tensors in Eqs. (4)-(5), so electrical response properties are derivatives of an energy that was fit only to energies and forces.

What would settle it

Train an LES-augmented model on a dataset that includes configurations under applied electric fields or strongly polarizable ions where reference charges change with field, and compare predicted BECs or long-range energies to DFT; if the fixed local-feature charges cannot reproduce the field-induced changes, the central claim about general electrostatic inference fails. A second check is whether different random initializations of the same LES model yield different latent charges but nearly identical energies, which would reveal that energy and force labels do not uniquely determine the charges on which the BEC predictions depend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that long-range electrostatics, polarization, and Born effective charges (BECs) can be inferred from total energy and force training data alone, and that this inference works as a universal augmentation for any short-range MLIP that produces atomic features. LES assigns each atom a latent charge $q_i^{\mathrm{les}}$ through a neural network on the host model's invariant features; the long-range energy is computed by Ewald summation in periodic cells or direct Coulomb sums with an erfc screening factor in finite systems, and added to the short-range energy before forces and stresses are obtained by automatic differentiation. BECs follow from differentiating the predicted polarization with respect to atomic positions, using the high-frequency permittivity as an extra input. The paper reports that LES-augmented models consistently reduce energy and force errors across architectures and systems, predict BECs and dipoles in good agreement with reference DFT, and that a large model trained on SPICE (MACELES-OFF) is more accurate than MACE-OFF on the same data, with better liquid densities and heats of vaporization and a qualitatively correct free-energy surface for alanine dipeptide.

Load-bearing premise

Each atom's latent charge is assumed to depend only on local invariant features, with no response to the environment's electric field; the paper explicitly says LES does not handle field-dependent atomic charges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing energy-plus-force dataset can be upgraded to include long-range electrostatics without collecting charge, dipole, or Wannier-center labels.
  • LES-augmented models should improve accuracy most where the baseline perceptive field is short, for example low-body-order or small-cutoff models, as seen in the gold-on-MgO benchmarks.
  • Electrical response properties such as dipoles, Born effective charges, IR spectra, and dielectric response become available from models trained only on energies and forces.
  • A large chemically diverse LES model (MACELES-OFF) can beat its short-range counterpart on organic molecules, and improves bulk liquid density and enthalpy of vaporization predictions.
  • Because LES is a standalone PyTorch module, it can be patched into new and existing MLIP architectures with minimal changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the non-uniqueness of latent charges is not resolved, so several charge assignments could give nearly identical energies and forces while differing per-atom, which matters for BEC predictions on out-of-distribution configurations.
  • Beyond the paper: adding dipole labels, which the paper notes are often available, is a natural next step that could pin down charges and improve BEC transferability without requiring periodic-system charge labels.
  • Beyond the paper: extending LES to field-dependent charges, flagged by the authors as ongoing work, would open the door to simulations under applied electric fields and strongly polarizable interfaces, exactly the regimes the current local-feature assumption may bias.
  • Beyond the paper: the gold-on-MgO results suggest LES could replace explicit charge training in older-generation neural network potentials, potentially improving systems where charge equilibration was previously needed.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents LES as a standalone PyTorch module that adds an explicit Ewald or direct-sum long-range electrostatic term to short-range MLIPs by learning 'latent charges' q_i^LES from per-atom local invariant features. The authors integrate LES with MACE, NequIP, CACE, and CHGNet and benchmark these on bulk water, polar dipeptides, and Au2/MgO(001), reporting reductions in energy and force RMSEs as well as Born effective charges that agree with DFT references. They then train MACELES-OFF on the SPICE dataset and report test errors comparable to MACE-OFF23, accurate dipole and BEC predictions, improved bulk-liquid densities and enthalpies of vaporization, an IR spectrum for water, and qualitatively reasonable biomolecular simulations. The central claim is that long-range electrostatics, polarization, and Born effective charges can be inferred from energy and force data without auxiliary charge or dipole labels.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable contribution: it makes long-range electrostatics a drop-in addition to diverse MLIP architectures, removes the need for charge or dipole training labels, and provides access to electrical response properties from standard E/F datasets. The manuscript is concrete and unusually reproducible: the LES library, integration patches, training scripts, and trained MACELES-OFF model are all released, and the benchmarks include independent DFT comparisons of BECs and dipoles, bulk-liquid thermodynamics, and long-timescale dynamics. The consistency of the accuracy gains across four architectures and the successful scale-up to the chemistry-diverse SPICE set are genuine strengths. The main caveats are that the 'inference' claim is not yet supported by an identifiability analysis of the latent charges, and the MACELES-OFF comparison is not an apples-to-apples short-range ablation. These issues are addressable but need to be fixed before the strong wording of the abstract is fully justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4)-(5), and Section V] The central claim that LES 'infers' atomic charges, BECs, and dipoles from energy and force data requires an identifiability analysis that is not provided. Since q_i^LES is a learned function of local invariant features and the training labels are only total energies and forces, many different charge maps can leave E and F unchanged on the training distribution; Eqs. (4)-(5) define the reported dipole and BEC predictions directly as functions of this non-unique map. The external parity checks in Figs. 2b, 3b, and 6b-c show that a chosen model matches DFT BECs, but they do not establish that the E/F data uniquely determine those charges. Please add a concrete robustness test: train several LES models with different initializations or feature maps on the same dataset and show that near-identical E/F RMSEs imply similar charge/BEC predictions, or compare the learned latent charges against reference partial charges on a held-out set. Without such a test, 'LES infers ... BECs just by learning from energy and force training data' is too strong.
  2. [Section IV, Table II, and Fig. 5] The claim that MACELES-OFF is more accurate than 'its short-range counterpart' trained on the same dataset is not supported by a controlled comparison. MACELES-OFF uses r=4.5 Å with k=192, ℓ=1, float32, whereas MACE-OFF23(S) uses k=96, ℓ=0, float64 and MACE-OFF23(M) uses r=5.0 Å, k=128, ℓ=1. The reported improvements in Table III (e.g., PubChem force RMSE 35.26 vs 61.83 meV/Å) conflate the LES addition with changes in channel width, rotation order, cutoff, and numerical precision. Please train a short-range MACE baseline with the same hyperparameters and data split, or otherwise ablate the LES contribution. The same issue affects the 1FSV comparison in Fig. 10, which uses MACE-OFF24(M) trained on SPICE 2 rather than SPICE 1. Until such a baseline is provided, the abstract's superiority claim is not established.
  3. [Section II and Section V] The statements that LES infers 'polarization' and enables simulations under applied electric fields are stronger than the implemented model, because the latent charges are fixed functions of local features and do not respond to an external or internal electric field. The Discussion concedes this ('the issue of the field-dependence of atomic charges, which LES currently does not handle'), but the Introduction and Abstract should not imply field-dependent polarization without qualification. Please either soften these claims or add a benchmark that quantifies the error incurred by the fixed-charge approximation in a system where field-induced charge redistribution is expected, such as an ion or a polarizable molecule in an external field.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2c] Energy RMSE values for the water benchmark are said to be uniformly low but are omitted from the figure; please report them in the text or in a table for reproducibility.
  2. [Table III] MACELES-OFF is not uniformly better than MACE-OFF23(L); for example, the QMugs energy RMSE is 0.94 vs 0.58 meV/atom. The text should mention this exception when describing the two models as comparable.
  3. [Section IVc, Fig. 10] The RMSD discussion appears self-contradictory: a lower RMSD (4.43 Å) is described as drift/over-compaction while a higher RMSD (5.14 Å) is described as close to AMBER. Please clarify what is being measured and why the lower value is interpreted as a failure.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (1) and (3)] The Ewald expression assumes charge neutrality or a compensating background for periodic systems, but the manuscript does not state whether the learned latent charges are constrained to sum to zero; please clarify this implementation detail.
  5. [Eq. (5)] BEC prediction for periodic systems requires the high-frequency permittivity ε∞ as an external input; the text should state prominently in the Abstract or Results that this parameter is obtained from experiment or DFPT and is not inferred from energy/force labels alone.
  6. [Section VI, Methods] The LES defaults σ=1 Å and dl=2 Å are used for all benchmarks, but no sensitivity analysis is provided for these Ewald parameters; a short sensitivity test would strengthen the claim that the reported gains are not artifacts of these choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: dipole and BEC outputs are held-out observables validated against external DFT, not re-statements of training labels.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. LES defines per-atom latent charges q_i from local invariant features (Sec. II), computes the long-range energy E_lr via Ewald/pairwise Coulomb sums (Eqs. 1-3), and then defines the dipole as P = sum q_i r_i and BECs as derivatives of P with respect to positions (Eqs. 4-5). These quantities are not training labels: the models are trained only on energies and forces, and the dipole/BEC values are then compared against DFT reference values on held-out configurations (Fig. 2b,d; Fig. 3b,e; Fig. 6b,c; Secs. III and IV). A prediction is not circular merely because it is a deterministic function of fitted parameters; circularity requires the predicted quantity to be equivalent, by construction, to the training target or to an input label. Here the energy/force labels do not algebraically determine the dipole or BEC values, so the reported agreement with external DFT is an independent empirical test. The heavy self-citation of Refs. [25-27] is prior work by the same group, but the BEC formalism from Ref. [27] is directly benchmarked against DFT in this paper, which provides independent external grounding under the stated rules. The Discussion's concession that LES does not currently handle field-dependent atomic charges is a physical limitation and an identifiability caveat, not a circular step; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem to rule out alternative charge assignments. The Au2/MgO adsorption-energy observables are also computed with the trained model against held-out DFT reference values. Overall, I find no specific step in which a claimed prediction reduces to its own inputs by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LES ansatz: total energy equals a short-range local term plus the Coulomb energy of latent charges, on the physical meaning of those charges for BEC and dipole extraction, and on an external high-frequency permittivity for periodic BECs. No new physical entities beyond latent charges are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma (Gaussian smearing factor) = 1 Å (default)
    Controls the Ewald/direct-sum split in Eqs. 1 and 3; chosen by hand, not learned; affects the long-range energy and BEC values.
  • dl (real-space cutoff / k-space grid parameter) = 2 Å (default, kc = pi)
    Controls Ewald summation mesh; fixed default for all benchmarks; influences accuracy and speed.
  • epsilon_inf (high-frequency relative permittivity) = 1.78 (bulk water), 1 (vacuum molecules)
    External input required in Eq. 5 for periodic BEC prediction; taken from experiment or DFPT, not learned.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Total energy separates additively into a short-range local term and a Coulomb term from latent atomic charges.
    Core LES ansatz in Section II, Eqs. 1-3; if wrong, the long-range correction is mis-specified.
  • domain assumption Latent charges are determined by local invariant features and are field-independent.
    Charge prediction reads local Bi features in Section II; the Discussion concedes field-dependence is not handled.
  • domain assumption Born effective charges are obtained as derivatives of the latent-charge polarization, with an external epsilon_inf for periodic systems.
    Section II Eqs. 4-5; depends on latent charges being physical and on the external epsilon_inf input.
  • ad hoc to paper Training on energies and forces uniquely determines physically meaningful latent charges.
    No identifiability analysis is provided; if multiple charge assignments fit the same energies and forces, BEC inference is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Reference DFT energies, forces, and BECs are accurate ground truth.
    Benchmarks use RPBE-D3, omegaB97M-D3(BJ), and PySCF/DFT references as truth.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent atomic charges q_i^LES independent evidence
    purpose: Carry long-range electrostatics; computed from local features and used in Ewald/pairwise energy and BEC/dipole extraction.
    Not supervised by charge labels; validated indirectly via BEC and dipole parity against DFT, which is a falsifiable handle outside training.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A universal augmentation framework for long-range electrostatics in machine learning interatomic potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NB3EHH4R

@misc{pith2026250714302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A universal augmentation framework for long-range electrostatics in machine learning interatomic potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NB3EHH4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14302}
}
read the original abstract

Most current machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) rely on short-range approximations, without explicit treatment of long-range electrostatics. To address this, we recently developed the Latent Ewald Summation (LES) method, which infers electrostatic interactions, polarization, and Born effective charges (BECs), just by learning from energy and force training data. Here, we present LES as a standalone library, compatible with any short-range MLIP, and demonstrate its integration with methods such as MACE, NequIP, CACE, and CHGNet. We benchmark LES-enhanced models on distinct systems, including bulk water, polar dipeptides, and gold dimer adsorption on defective substrates, and show that LES not only captures correct electrostatics but also improves accuracy. Additionally, we scale LES to large and chemically diverse data by training MACELES-OFF on the SPICE set containing molecules and clusters, making a universal MLIP with electrostatics for organic systems including biomolecules. MACELES-OFF is more accurate than its short-range counterpart (MACE-OFF) trained on the same dataset, predicts dipoles and BECs reliably, and has better descriptions of bulk liquids. By enabling efficient long-range electrostatics without directly training on electrical properties, LES paves the way for electrostatic foundation MLIPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the LES integration with a short-ranged MLIP. The black box shows a standard MLIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Benchmark short-ranged and LES-augmented MLIPs for bulk water. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Benchmark short-ranged and LES-augmented MLIPs for dipeptide. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Benchmark short-ranged and LES-augmented MLIPs for Au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of test set root mean square errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Assessment of dipole moments and Born effective charges (BECs) predicted by the MACELES-OFF for subsets of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Predicted densities and heats of vaporization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Torsional free energy surfaces (FES) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Correlation analysis between force and Born [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Computational performance benchmarks of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Modeling phase transformations in Mn-rich disordered rocksalt cathodes with machine learning interatomic potentials

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Charge-informed machine learning molecular dynamics reveals that Mn3+ migration initiates the disordered-to-spinel-like phase transformation in Li_xMn0.8Ti0.1O1.9F0.1, with tetrahedral Mn2+ emerging only after spinel-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Combining machine learning and computational chemistry for predictive insights into chemical systems,

    John A Keith, Valentin Vassilev-Galindo, Bingqing Cheng, Stefan Chmiela, Michael Gastegger, Klaus- Robert M¨ uller, and Alexandre Tkatchenko, “Combining machine learning and computational chemistry for predictive insights into chemical systems,” Chemical reviews 121, 9816–9872 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Machine learning force fields,

    Oliver T Unke, Stefan Chmiela, Huziel E Sauceda, Michael Gastegger, Igor Poltavsky, Kristof T Sch¨ utt, Alexandre Tkatchenko, and Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, “Machine learning force fields,” Chemical Reviews 121, 10142–10186 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Learning intermolecular forces at liquid–vapor interfaces,

    Samuel P Niblett, Mirza Galib, and David T Limmer, “Learning intermolecular forces at liquid–vapor interfaces,” The Journal of chemical physics 155 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Incorporating long-range physics in atomic-scale machine learning,

    Andrea Grisafi and Michele Ceriotti, “Incorporating long-range physics in atomic-scale machine learning,” The Journal of chemical physics 151 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Physics-inspired equivariant descriptors of nonbonded interactions,

    Kevin K Huguenin-Dumittan, Philip Loche, Ni Haoran, and Michele Ceriotti, “Physics-inspired equivariant descriptors of nonbonded interactions,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 9612–9618 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    A deep potential model with long-range electrostatic interactions,

    Linfeng Zhang, Han Wang, Maria Carolina Muniz, Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos, Roberto Car, and Weinan E, “A deep potential model with long-range electrostatic interactions,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Electrostatic interactions in atomistic and machine-learned potentials for polar materials

    Lorenzo Monacelli and Nicola Marzari, “Electrostatic interactions in atomistic and machine-learned potentials for polar materials,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01642 (2024). 15

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Physnet: A neural network for predicting energies, forces, dipole moments, and partial charges,

    Oliver T Unke and Markus Meuwly, “Physnet: A neural network for predicting energies, forces, dipole moments, and partial charges,” Journal of chemical theory and computation 15, 3678–3693 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    A fourth-generation high- dimensional neural network potential with accurate electrostatics including non-local charge transfer,

    Tsz Wai Ko, Jonas A Finkler, Stefan Goedecker, and J¨ org Behler, “A fourth-generation high- dimensional neural network potential with accurate electrostatics including non-local charge transfer,” Nature communications 12, 398 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Self-consistent determination of long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials,

    Ang Gao and Richard C Remsing, “Self-consistent determination of long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials,” Nature communications 13, 1572 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Discovering a transferable charge assignment model using machine learning,

    Andrew E Sifain, Nicholas Lubbers, Benjamin T Nebgen, Justin S Smith, Andrey Y Lokhov, Olexandr Isayev, Adrian E Roitberg, Kipton Barros, and Sergei Tretiak, “Discovering a transferable charge assignment model using machine learning,” The journal of physical chemistry letters ...

    2018

  4. [12]

    A predictive machine learning force-field framework for liquid electrolyte development,

    Sheng Gong, Yumin Zhang, Zhenliang Mu, Zhichen Pu, Hongyi Wang, Xu Han, Zhiao Yu, Mengyi Chen, Tianze Zheng, Zhi Wang, Lifei Chen, Zhenze Yang, Xiaojie Wu, Shaochen Shi, Weihao Gao, Wen Yan, and Liang Xiang, “A predictive machine learning force-field framework for liquid elect...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Incorporating long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials via variational charge equilibration from shortsighted ingredients,

    Yusuf Shaidu, Franco Pellegrini, Emine K¨ u¸ c¨ ukbenli, Ruggero Lot, and Stefano de Gironcoli, “Incorporating long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials via variational charge equilibration from shortsighted ingredients,” npj Computational Materials 10, 47 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Capturing long-range interaction with reciprocal space neural network,

    Hongyu Yu, Liangliang Hong, Shiyou Chen, Xingao Gong, and Hongjun Xiang, “Capturing long-range interaction with reciprocal space neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.16684 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ewald-based long-range message passing for molecular graphs,

    Arthur Kosmala, Johannes Gasteiger, Nicholas Gao, and Stephan G¨ unnemann, “Ewald-based long-range message passing for molecular graphs,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2023) pp. 17544–17563

    2023

  8. [16]

    Force-field-enhanced neural network interactions: from local equivariant embedding to atom-in-molecule properties and long-range effects,

    Thomas Pl´ e, Louis Lagard` ere, and Jean-Philip Piquemal, “Force-field-enhanced neural network interactions: from local equivariant embedding to atom-in-molecule properties and long-range effects,” Chemical Science 14, 12554–12569 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Scalable hybrid deep neural networks/polarizable potentials biomolecular simulations including long-range effects,

    Th´ eo Jaffrelot Inizan, Thomas Pl´ e, Olivier Adjoua, Pengyu Ren, Hatice G¨ okcan, Olexandr Isayev, Louis Lagard` ere, and Jean-Philip Piquemal, “Scalable hybrid deep neural networks/polarizable potentials biomolecular simulations including long-range effects,” Chemical Scien...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Extending the range of graph neural networks: Relaying attention nodes for global encoding,

    Alessandro Caruso, Jacopo Venturin, Lorenzo Giambagli, Edoardo Rolando, Frank No´ e, and Cecilia Clementi, “Extending the range of graph neural networks: Relaying attention nodes for global encoding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13797 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Charge-constrained atomic cluster expansion,

    Matteo Rinaldi, Anton Bochkarev, Yury Lysogorskiy, and Ralf Drautz, “Charge-constrained atomic cluster expansion,” Physical Review Materials 9, 033802 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Aimnet2: a neural network potential to meet your neutral, charged, organic, and elemental-organic needs,

    Dylan M. Anstine, Roman Zubatyuk, and Olexandr Isayev, “Aimnet2: a neural network potential to meet your neutral, charged, organic, and elemental-organic needs,” Chemical Science 16, 10228–10244 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Molecular simulations with a pretrained neural network and universal pairwise force fields,

    Adil Kabylda, J. Thorben Frank, ergio Suarez Dou, Almaz Khabibrakhmanov, Leonardo Medrano Sandonas, Oliver T. Unke, Stefan Chmiela, Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, and Alexandre Tkatchenko, “Molecular simulations with a pretrained neural network and universal pairwise force fields,” Ch...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Density-based long-range electrostatic descriptors for machine learning force fields,

    Carolin Faller, Merzuk Kaltak, and Georg Kresse, “Density-based long-range electrostatic descriptors for machine learning force fields,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 161, 214701 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    A foundation model for accurate atomistic simulations in drug design,

    Thomas Pl´ e, Olivier Adjoua, Anouar Benali, Evgeny Posenitskiy, Corentin Villot, Louis Lagard` ere, and Jean-Philip Piquemal, “A foundation model for accurate atomistic simulations in drug design,” ChemRxiv (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Fast and flexible long-range models for atomistic machine learning,

    Philip Loche, Kevin K. Huguenin-Dumittan, Melika Honarmand, Qianjun Xu, Egor Rumiantsev, Wei Bin How, Marcel F. Langer, and Michele Ceriotti, “Fast and flexible long-range models for atomistic machine learning,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 162, 142501 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Latent ewald summation for machine learning of long-range interactions,

    Bingqing Cheng, “Latent ewald summation for machine learning of long-range interactions,” npj Computational Materials 11, 80 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Learning charges and long-range interactions from energies and forces,

    Dongjin Kim, Daniel S King, Peichen Zhong, and Bingqing Cheng, “Learning charges and long-range interactions from energies and forces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15455 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Machine learning interatomic potential can infer electrical response,

    Peichen Zhong, Dongjin Kim, Daniel S King, and Bingqing Cheng, “Machine learning interatomic potential can infer electrical response,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05169 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    J¨ org Behler and Michele Parrinello, “Generalized neural- network representation of high-dimensional potential- energy surfaces,” Physical review letters 98, 146401 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Gaussian approximation potentials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons,

    Albert P Bart´ ok, Mike C Payne, Risi Kondor, and G´ abor Cs´ anyi, “Gaussian approximation potentials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons,” Physical review letters 104, 136403 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    The FES was computed from reweighting

    Gaussian potentials were deposited on the energy landscape every 500 steps, and their width was adapted on the fly based on the local diffusivity [84]. The FES was computed from reweighting. For the 1FSV protein, the PDB structure [62] was placed in a cubic simulation box at a...

  23. [31]

    Moment tensor potentials: A class of systematically improvable interatomic potentials,

    Alexander V Shapeev, “Moment tensor potentials: A class of systematically improvable interatomic potentials,” Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 14, 1153– 1173 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials,

    Ralf Drautz, “Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials,” Physical Review B 99, 014104 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    E (3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data- efficient and accurate interatomic potentials,

    Simon Batzner, Albert Musaelian, Lixin Sun, Mario Geiger, Jonathan P Mailoa, Mordechai Kornbluth, Nicola Molinari, Tess E Smidt, and Boris Kozinsky, “E (3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data- efficient and accurate interatomic potentials,” Nature communications 13, 2453 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Mace: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields,

    Ilyes Batatia, David P Kovacs, Gregor Simm, Christoph Ortner, and G´ abor Cs´ anyi, “Mace: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 11423–11436 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cartesian atomic cluster expansion for machine learning interatomic potentials,

    Bingqing Cheng, “Cartesian atomic cluster expansion for machine learning interatomic potentials,” npj Computational Materials 10, 157 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    The importance of being scalable: Improving the speed and accuracy of neural network interatomic potentials across chemical domains,

    Eric Qu and Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, “The importance of being scalable: Improving the speed and accuracy of neural network interatomic potentials across chemical domains,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(2024). 16

    2024

  29. [37]

    Materials graph library (matgl), an open-source graph deep learning library for materials science and chemistry,

    Tsz Wai Ko, Bowen Deng, Marcel Nassar, Luis Barroso- Luque, Runze Liu, Ji Qi, Elliott Liu, Gerbrand Ceder, Santiago Miret, and Shyue Ping Ong, “Materials graph library (matgl), an open-source graph deep learning library for materials science and chemistry,” arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Learning smooth and expressive interatomic potentials for physical property prediction,

    Xiang Fu, Brandon M. Wood, Luis Barroso-Luque, Daniel S. Levine, Meng Gao, Misko Dzamba, and C. Lawrence Zitnick, “Learning smooth and expressive interatomic potentials for physical property prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12147 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Smooth, exact rotational symmetrization for deep learning on point clouds,

    Sergey Pozdnyakov and Michele Ceriotti, “Smooth, exact rotational symmetrization for deep learning on point clouds,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 36 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2023) pp. 79469–79501

    2023

  32. [40]

    Torchmd-net 2.0: Fast neural network potentials for molecular simulations,

    Raul P. Pelaez, Guillem Simeon, Raimondas Galvelis, Antonio Mirarchi, Peter Eastman, Stefan Doerr, Philipp Th¨ olke, Thomas E. Markland, and Gianni De Fabritiis, “Torchmd-net 2.0: Fast neural network potentials for molecular simulations,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Newtonnet: A newtonian message passing network for deep learning of interatomic potentials and forces,

    Mojtaba Haghighatlari, Jie Li, Xingyi Guan, Oufan Zhang, Akshaya Das, Christopher J. Stein, Farnaz Heidar-Zadeh, Meili Liu, Martin Head-Gordon, Luke Bertels, Hongxia Hao, Itai Leven, and Teresa Head- Gordon, “Newtonnet: A newtonian message passing network for deep learning of ...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Equiformer: Equivariant graph attention transformer for 3d atomistic graphs,

    Yi-Lun Liao and Tess Smidt, “Equiformer: Equivariant graph attention transformer for 3d atomistic graphs,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Spice, a dataset of drug-like molecules and peptides for training machine learning potentials,

    Peter Eastman, Pavan Kumar Behara, David L. Dotson, Raimondas Galvelis, John E. Herr, Josh T. Horton, Yuezhi Mao, John D. Chodera, Benjamin P. Pritchard, Yuanqing Wang, Gianni De Fabritiis, and Thomas E Markland, “Spice, a dataset of drug-like molecules and peptides for traini...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Mace-off: Short- range transferable machine learning force fields for organic molecules,

    D´ avid P´ eter Kov´ acs, J. Harry Moore, Nicholas J. Browning, Ilyes Batatia, Joshua T. Horton, Yixuan Pu, Venkat Kapil, William C. Witt, Ioan-Bogdan Magd˘ au, Daniel J. Cole, and G´ abor Cs´ anyi, “Mace-off: Short- range transferable machine learning force fields for organic...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Deepmd-kit: A deep learning package for many- body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics,

    Han Wang, Linfeng Zhang, Jiequn Han, and E Weinan, “Deepmd-kit: A deep learning package for many- body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics,” Computer Physics Communications 228, 178–184 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Schnet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural network for modeling quantum interactions,

    Kristof Sch¨ utt, Pieter-Jan Kindermans, Huziel Enoc Sauceda Felix, Stefan Chmiela, Alexandre Tkatchenko, and Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, “Schnet: A continuous-filter convolutional neural network for modeling quantum interactions,” Advances in neural information processing systems ...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Dynamical matrices, born effective charges, dielectric permittivity tensors, and interatomic force constants from density-functional perturbation theory,

    Xavier Gonze and Changyol Lee, “Dynamical matrices, born effective charges, dielectric permittivity tensors, and interatomic force constants from density-functional perturbation theory,” Physical Review B 55, 10355 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table,

    Chi Chen and Shyue Ping Ong, “A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table,” Nature Computational Science 2, 718–728 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling,

    Bowen Deng, Peichen Zhong, KyuJung Jun, Janosh Riebesell, Kevin Han, Christopher J Bartel, and Gerbrand Ceder, “Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling,” Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 1031–1041 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Deconstructing classical water models at interfaces and in bulk,

    Richard C. Remsing, Jocelyn M. Rodgers, and John D. Weeks, “Deconstructing classical water models at interfaces and in bulk,” Journal of Statistical Physics 145, 313–334 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Short solvent model for ion correlations and hydrophobic association,

    Ang Gao, Richard C. Remsing, and John D. Weeks, “Short solvent model for ion correlations and hydrophobic association,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 1293–1302 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Derivative learning of tensorial quantities—predicting finite temperature infrared spectra from first principles,

    Bernhard Schmiedmayer and Georg Kresse, “Derivative learning of tensorial quantities—predicting finite temperature infrared spectra from first principles,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 161 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Intrinsic backbone preferences are fully present in blocked amino acids,

    Franc Avbelj, Simona Golic Grdadolnik, Joze Grdadolnik, and Robert L. Baldwin, “Intrinsic backbone preferences are fully present in blocked amino acids,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 1272–1277 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Foundation models for atomistic simulation of chemistry and materials,

    Eric C.-Y. Yuan, Yunsheng Liu, Junmin Chen, Peichen Zhong, Sanjeev Raja, Tobias Kreiman, Santiago Vargas, Wenbin Xu, Martin Head-Gordon, Chao Yang, Samuel M. Blau, Bingqing Cheng, Aditi Krishnapriyan, and Teresa Head-Gordon, “Foundation models for atomistic simulation of chemi...

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Qmugs, quantum mechanical properties of drug-like molecules,

    Clemens Isert, Kenneth Atz, Jos´ e Jim´ enez-Luna, and Gisbert Schneider, “Qmugs, quantum mechanical properties of drug-like molecules,” Scientific Data 9, 273 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    The structure of water around the compressibility minimum,

    Lawrie B Skinner, CJ Benmore, Joerg C Neuefeind, and John B Parise, “The structure of water around the compressibility minimum,” The Journal of chemical physics 141, 214507 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    John E. Bertie and Zhida Lan, “Infrared intensities of liquids xx: The intensity of the oh stretching band of liquid water revisited, and the best current values of the optical constants of h2o(l) at 25 ◦c between 15,000 and 1 cm-1,” Applied Spectroscopy 50, 1047–1057 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Quantum dynamics and spectroscopy of ab initio liquid water: The interplay of nuclear and electronic quantum effects,

    Ondrej Marsalek and Thomas E Markland, “Quantum dynamics and spectroscopy of ab initio liquid water: The interplay of nuclear and electronic quantum effects,” The journal of physical chemistry letters 8, 1545–1551 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Quantum dynamics using path integral coarse-graining,

    F´ elix Musil, Iryna Zaporozhets, Frank No´ e, Cecilia Clementi, and Venkat Kapil, “Quantum dynamics using path integral coarse-graining,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 157, 181102 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    William M Haynes, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics (CRC press, 2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Nist chemistry webbook, nist standard reference database number 69,

    P Linstorm, “Nist chemistry webbook, nist standard reference database number 69,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Monograph 9, 1–1951 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Machine learning force fields for molecular liquids: Ethylene carbonate/ethyl methyl carbonate binary solvent,

    Ioan-Bogdan Magd˘ au, Daniel J Arismendi-Arrieta, Holly E Smith, Clare P Grey, Kersti Hermansson, and G´ abor Cs´ anyi, “Machine learning force fields for molecular liquids: Ethylene carbonate/ethyl methyl carbonate binary solvent,” npj Computational Materials 9, 146 (2023). 17

    2023

  55. [63]

    De Novo Protein Design: Fully Automated Sequence Selection,

    Bassil I. Dahiyat and Stephen L. Mayo, “De Novo Protein Design: Fully Automated Sequence Selection,” Science 278, 82–87 (1997)

    1997

  56. [64]

    Well-Tempered Metadynamics: A Smoothly Converging and Tunable Free-Energy Method,

    Alessandro Barducci, Giovanni Bussi, and Michele Parrinello, “Well-Tempered Metadynamics: A Smoothly Converging and Tunable Free-Energy Method,” Physical Review Letters 100, 020603 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    Do Molecular Dynamics Force Fields Capture Conformational Dynamics of Alanine in Water?

    Shuting Zhang, Reinhard Schweitzer-Stenner, and Brigita Urbanc, “Do Molecular Dynamics Force Fields Capture Conformational Dynamics of Alanine in Water?” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 510–527 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Solvation effects on alanine dipeptide: A MP2/cc-pVTZ//MP2/6-31G** study of ( ϕ, ψ) energy maps and conformers in the gas phase, ether, and water,

    Zhi-Xiang Wang and Yong Duan, “Solvation effects on alanine dipeptide: A MP2/cc-pVTZ//MP2/6-31G** study of ( ϕ, ψ) energy maps and conformers in the gas phase, ether, and water,” Journal of Computational Chemistry 25, 1699–1716 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field,

    Kresten Lindorff-Larsen, Stefano Piana, Kim Palmo, Paul Maragakis, John L. Klepeis, Ron O. Dror, and David E. Shaw, “Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field,” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 78, 1950–1958 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,

    Anubhav Jain, Shyue Ping Ong, Geoffroy Hautier, Wei Chen, William Davidson Richards, Stephen Dacek, Shreyas Cholia, Dan Gunter, David Skinner, Gerbrand Ceder, and Kristin A. Persson, “Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials inno...

    2013

  61. [69]

    The open molecules 2025 (omol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,

    Daniel S. Levine, Muhammed Shuaibi, Evan Walter Clark Spotte-Smith, Michael G. Taylor, Muhammad R. Hasyim, Kyle Michel, Ilyes Batatia, G´ abor Cs´ anyi, Misko Dzamba, Peter Eastman, Nathan C. Frey, Xiang Fu, Vahe Gharakhanyan, Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, Joshua A. Rackers, Sanjeev...

    2025

  62. [70]

    The open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxide electrocatalysts,

    Richard Tran, Janice Lan, Muhammed Shuaibi, Brandon M. Wood, Siddharth Goyal, Abhishek Das, Javier Heras-Domingo, Adeesh Kolluru, Ammar Rizvi, Nima Shoghi, Anuroop Sriram, F´ elix Therrien, Jehad Abed, Oleksandr Voznyy, Edward H. Sargent, Zachary Ulissi, and C. Lawrence Zitnic...

    2023

  63. [71]

    Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,

    Luis Barroso-Luque, Muhammed Shuaibi, Xiang Fu, Brandon M. Wood, Misko Dzamba, Meng Gao, Ammar Rizvi, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Zachary W. Ulissi, “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” arXiv prerpint arXiv:2410.12771 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Efficient long-range machine learning force fields for liquid and materials properties,

    John L. Weber, Rishabh D. Guha, Garvit Agarwal, Yujing Wei, Aidan A. Fike, Xiaowei Xie, James Stevenson, Karl Leswing, Mathew D. Halls, Robert Abel, and Leif D. Jacobson, “Efficient long-range machine learning force fields for liquid and materials properties,” arXiv preprint a...

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  66. [74]

    Spice 2.0.1,

    Peter Eastman, Pavan Kumar Behara, David Dotson, Raimondas Galvelis, John Herr, Josh Horton, Yuezhi Mao, John Chodera, Benjamin Pritchard, Yuanqing Wang, Gianni De Fabritiis, and Thomas Markland, “Spice 2.0.1,” Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/10975225 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework,

    Qiming Sun, Timothy C. Berkelbach, Nick S. Blunt, George H. Booth, Sheng Guo, Zhendong Li, Junzi Liu, James D. McClain, Elvira R. Sayfutyarova, Sandeep Sharma, Sebastian Wouters, and Garnet Kin- Lic Chan, “Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework,” Wiley Inte...

    2018

  68. [76]

    The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms,

    Ask Hjorth Larsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Jakob Blomqvist, Ivano E Castelli, Rune Christensen, Marcin Du lak, Jesper Friis, Michael N Groves, Bjørk Hammer, Cory Hargus, Eric D Hermes, Paul C Jennings, Peter Bjerre Jensen, James Kermode, John R Kitchin, Esben Leonhard Kolsbjerg...

    2017

  69. [77]

    Pubchem 2025 update,

    Sunghwan Kim, Jie Chen, Tiejun Cheng, Asta Gindulyte, Jia He, Siqian He, Qingliang Li, Benjamin A. Shoemaker, Paul A. Thiessen, Bo Yu, Leonid Zaslavsky, Jian Zhang, and Evan E. Bolton, “Pubchem 2025 update,” Nucleic Acids Research 53, D1516–D1525 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    rdkit/rdkit: 2025 03 2 (q1 2025) release,

    Greg Landrum, Paolo Tosco, Brian Kelley, Ricardo Rodriguez, David Cosgrove, Riccardo Vianello, sriniker, Peter Gedeck, Gareth Jones, Eisuke Kawashima, NadineSchneider, Dan Nealschneider, Andrew Dalke, Matt Swain, Brian Cole, Samo Turk, Aleksandr Savelev, tadhurst-cdd, Alain Va...

    2025

  71. [79]

    Gromacs: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation,

    H. J. C. Berendsen, D. van der Spoel, and R. van Drunen, “Gromacs: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation,” Computer Physics Communications 91, 43–56 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations,

    Junmei Wang, Wei Wang, Peter A Kollman, and David A Case, “Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations,” Journal of molecular graphics and modelling 25, 247–260 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Construction of higher order symplectic integrators,

    Haruo Yoshida, “Construction of higher order symplectic integrators,” Physics Letters A 150, 262–268 (1990)

    1990

  74. [82]

    Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water,

    William L. Jorgensen, Jayaraman Chandrasekhar, Jeffry D. Madura, Roger W. Impey, and Michael L. 18 Klein, “Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 79, 926–935 (1983)

    1983

  75. [83]

    Promoting transparency and reproducibility in enhanced molecular simulations,

    Massimiliano Bonomi, Giovanni Bussi, Carlo Camilloni, Gareth A. Tribello, Pavel Ban´ aˇ s, Alessandro Barducci, Mattia Bernetti, Peter G. Bolhuis, Sandro Bottaro, Davide Branduardi, Riccardo Capelli, Paolo Carloni, Michele Ceriotti, Andrea Cesari, Haochuan Chen, Wei Chen, Fran...

    2019

  76. [84]

    PLUMED 2: New feathers for an old bird,

    Gareth A. Tribello, Massimiliano Bonomi, Davide Branduardi, Carlo Camilloni, and Giovanni Bussi, “PLUMED 2: New feathers for an old bird,” Computer Physics Communications 185, 604–613 (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    Metadynamics with adaptive gaussians,

    Davide Branduardi, Giovanni Bussi, and Michele Parrinello, “Metadynamics with adaptive gaussians,” Journal of chemical theory and computation 8, 2247– 2254 (2012)

    2012

  78. [86]

    Structural relaxation made simple,

    Erik Bitzek, Pekka Koskinen, Franz G¨ ahler, Michael Moseler, and Peter Gumbsch, “Structural relaxation made simple,” Physical Review Letters 97, 1–4 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.