Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Universal Spin-Orbit-Coupled Hamiltonian Model for Accelerated Quantum Material Discovery

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One trained graph neural network predicts full spin-orbit-coupled Hamiltonians for arbitrary compositions across the periodic table.

desk verdict Uni-HamGNN is a serious universal SOC Hamiltonian model with an untested self-consistency assumption and thinner TI screening validation than the bold claims suggest. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19586 v1 pith:L7KTCSGV submitted 2025-04-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Yang Zhong , Rui Wang , Xingao Gong , Hongjun Xiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords spin-orbitcouplinggraphneuralnetworkelectronicHamiltonianuniversalmodeltopologicalinsulatorhigh-throughputscreeningdeltalearningZ2invariant
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 introduces Uni-HamGNN, a single graph neural network that predicts the full spin-orbit-coupled (SOC) electronic Hamiltonian of arbitrary crystalline compounds, and argues that this makes expensive SOC-DFT calculations unnecessary for many materials tasks. The central idea is to write the Hamiltonian as H0 ⊗ I2 + ξ L·σ and train the spin-independent part H0 and the SOC strength ξ in separate channels, a delta-learning scheme that prevents the large H0 terms from masking the small SOC terms. On a held-out test set the model reaches mean absolute errors of 3.58 meV on real Hamiltonian entries and 0.0025 meV on imaginary entries, and it reproduces SOC band structures and Berry curvatures for 2D and twisted systems. If these results hold, a researcher can obtain SOC band structures, Berry curvatures, and Z2 topological invariants for unseen materials without running SOC-DFT, including in high-throughput screens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition H = H0 ⊗ I2 + Hsoc with Hsoc = ξ L·σ, where L is the orbital angular momentum operator, σ the Pauli spin vector, and ξ a learnable spin-orbit strength per orbital pair. This form preserves the SU(2) transformation rule of the full Hamiltonian while reducing the SOC fitting problem to the scalar field ξ, and it includes both on-site and off-site SOC terms. The delta-learning strategy then trains H0 and ξ separately, using the imaginary part of the SOC Hamiltonian as the target for ξ, and a two-stage protocol adds band-structure error as a regularization in the second stage.

What would settle it

Choose a heavy-element compound with strong relativistic effects and compare the H0 produced by a non-SOC DFT run with the H0 extracted from a self-consistent SOC-DFT run. If the two matrices differ by more than roughly the reported 3.58 meV real-part error, the delta-learning premise is violated and the model's errors on such materials should increase correspondingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a single model trained on about 44,000 non-SOC and 10,000 SOC Hamiltonians generalizes across the periodic table: the predicted Hamiltonian matrices agree with DFT to within a few meV, and derived band structures are visually and quantitatively consistent with DFT for heavy-element solids, 2D valleytronic materials, and twisted bilayer heterostructures. The discovery demonstration is the screening of 10,170 heavy-element structures from a machine-learning-discovered materials database, from which the model identifies 1,383 insulating candidates and, after computing Z2 invariants, predicts 120 topological insulators, three of which are verified by Wannier charge center analysis. The paper presents this as evidence that a universal, transferable SOC Hamiltonian model is feasible.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes SOC is a pure perturbation, so the spin-independent H0 appearing in an SOC-DFT calculation is exactly the same as the H0 from a non-SOC calculation, with no feedback of SOC into the charge density or scalar potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SOC-DFT calculations can be replaced by one forward pass of Uni-HamGNN for Hamiltonian-derived quantities, with reported speedups of two to three orders of magnitude.
  • High-throughput topological-insulator screening can be run on real-space Hamiltonians without constructing Wannier tight-binding models, as the 10,170-structure screen demonstrates.
  • The model transfers from 3D training data to 2D monolayers and twisted bilayers, so interfacial and valleytronic systems become cheap to evaluate.
  • The parameterization captures two-center SOC terms, which the paper argues are essential for heavy-element systems where the usual on-site-only approximation fails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spin-independent plus correction decomposition could be applied to magnetic exchange interactions, so a magnetic analogue of the delta-learning scheme seems a natural next step, extending the approach to spin Hamiltonians.
  • The 0.0025 meV imaginary-part error is far below typical SOC splittings, which suggests the model may resolve weak topological gaps and small spin splittings that could be missed in band-structure comparisons alone.
  • Because the model was trained on bulk but works on 2D and twisted geometries, it may also generalize to surfaces, interfaces, and finite-temperature structures if the zero-point renormalization can be adapted.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Uni-HamGNN, a graph-neural-network model that predicts spin-orbit-coupled (SOC) Kohn-Sham Hamiltonians for arbitrary compositions. The method decomposes the total Hamiltonian as H = H0 ⊗ I2 + Hsoc with Hsoc = ξL·σ, then uses a delta-learning scheme: a spin-independent channel is trained on non-SOC Hamiltonians from the Materials Project, and an SOC-strength channel is trained on the imaginary parts of SOC Hamiltonians. A two-stage training protocol first fits Hamiltonian matrix elements and then refines eigenvalues against band structures. The authors report a real-part MAE of 3.58 meV and an imaginary-part MAE of 0.0025 meV on a 5,000-material test set, validate band structures on selected heavy-element compounds, demonstrate transferability to 2D valleytronic materials and twisted TMD heterostructures, and use the model to screen 10,170 heavy-element GNoME structures, identifying 120 candidate topological insulators. The central claim is that a single trained model can replace expensive SOC-DFT calculations for Hamiltonian prediction and high-throughput topological screening.

Significance. If the accuracy and transferability claims hold, Uni-HamGNN would be a valuable tool: it would enable SOC band-structure and Berry-curvature calculations at a small fraction of the cost of self-consistent SOC-DFT, and it would make high-throughput topological-insulator screening practical on large structure databases. The paper has clear strengths: the physically motivated H0 + ξL·σ decomposition is elegant and preserves SU(2) symmetry; the delta-learning strategy is a sensible response to the magnitude disparity between spin-independent and SOC terms; the architecture improves tensor-product efficiency; the code is publicly available; and the validation spans bulk solids, 2D materials, and twisted heterostructures. These are substantive contributions. However, the evidence as presented is conditional: the headline imaginary-part MAE is a generalization metric for the fitted target rather than an independent test of SOC physics, the central delta-learning assumption that SOC does not feed back into H0 is never tested, and the high-throughput screening result is verified on only three of 120 candidates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Methods 4.4, Eq. (2)] The delta-learning decomposition assumes that the spin-independent part of a self-consistent SOC-DFT calculation coincides with the non-SOC H0. The model is trained with H0 from non-SOC DFT and ξ from the imaginary parts of SOC Hamiltonians, and Stage 2 explicitly 'focuses exclusively on the eigenvalues of H0 without modifying SOC parameters.' In a self-consistent SOC calculation, however, the charge density and scalar potential are recomputed with SOC, so the spin-independent block H0_SOC = (H↑↑ + H↓↓)/2 generally differs from the non-SOC H0. The manuscript never trains or tests channel I against H0_SOC. This is load-bearing for the screening claim: for heavy 5d and near-gap systems, even a few meV shift in H0 can move band inversions and change Z2 invariants. I recommend computing H0_SOC for a representative subset of test structures and reporting the channel-I MAE against it; if the deviation is comparable to the reported 3.58 meV, the high-throughput screening conclusions should be re-examined.
  2. [§2.3, Figs. 3c–3d] The reported imaginary-part MAE of 0.0025 meV is measured on the same channel used to train ξ, so it is a generalization metric for the fitted target rather than independent evidence that the model captures the physical SOC mechanism. The independent evidence consists of the band-structure and Berry-curvature comparisons in Figs. 4, 6, 7, and 8, which are illustrative rather than statistical. In addition, no error bars, per-structure variance, or quantiles are reported for any MAE, and the real-part MAE is not separated into the H0 contribution and the analytic (1/2)ξ⟨Lz⟩ diagonal term. Please report error bars and a decomposition of the real-part MAE, and state explicitly that the imaginary-part accuracy is a fit-quality measure for the ξ channel.
  3. [§2.4, Fig. 5] The high-throughput screening result of 120 topological insulators from 10,170 GNoME structures is verified on only three structures (HfZr3P4IrRh3, SrGa2IrRh, SrAs12Ru3Pt) via DFT and Wannier charge centers. This sample size is too small to establish the false-positive rate of the screening pipeline, which is essential for the claim that Uni-HamGNN enables reliable large-scale TI discovery. Please verify a random sample of the 120 predicted TIs and a sample of the trivial candidates, and report the distribution of predicted band gaps and Z2 indices. Without this, the 120-TI result is a candidate list rather than a validated screen.
  4. [Methods 4.3, Eq. (9)] The zero-point renormalization correction is written as H~' = H~ − (Σ_ij(H~_ij − H_ij)/Σ_ij S_ij) S_ij, which requires the DFT Hamiltonian H_ij. If this correction is applied only during training, the text should say so explicitly; if it is also applied at inference, the method cannot be used for new materials because the ground-truth H is unavailable. Please clarify the inference-time procedure for estimating the zero-point offset without DFT reference data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The Introduction refers to the 'GMoME' dataset, while the abstract and Section 2.4 use 'GNoME'; please harmonize the terminology.
  2. [Introduction and §2.2] The number of non-SOC training structures is given as 40,000 in the Introduction and 44,000 in Section 2.2; please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) uses a site- and bond-dependent ξij, while Eq. (3) and the text use a global ξ; please clarify how off-site ξij values are parameterized and constrained.
  4. [Methods 4.3 and 4.4] The corrected Hamiltonian is denoted H~′ in Eq. (9) and H′ in Eq. (12); please use a single notation throughout.
  5. [Fig. 3] The parity plots in Figs. 3c and 3d would be more informative with labeled axes, units, and a color bar indicating point density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the model is trained on its target channels but evaluated on held-out structures and independently benchmarked against DFT bands, Berry curvature, and Wannier charge centers.

full rationale

The central derivation is the decomposition H = H0 x I2 + Hsoc with Hsoc = xi L dot sigma (Eqs. 2-4), followed by a delta-learning scheme in which H0 is trained on non-SOC Hamiltonians and xi is trained on the imaginary parts of SOC Hamiltonians. The reported MAEs (3.58 meV real, 0.0025 meV imaginary) are computed on an independent test set of 5,000 materials not used for training; this is standard supervised generalization testing, not a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The physical validation is external: predicted SOC band structures are compared with DFT, Berry curvature distributions are compared for WSeS, and three screened topological insulator candidates have their Z2 indices confirmed by VASP Wannier charge center evolution. The self-citations (HamGNN [17] and the spinless universal Hamiltonian [20]) are architectural antecedents, not load-bearing evidence for the SOC decomposition, which rests on the standard xi L dot sigma form. A residual assumption - that the spin-independent block of a self-consistent SOC-DFT calculation equals the non-SOC H0 - is a potential accuracy limitation, not a circularity, because Eq. (2) is a modeling ansatz rather than a definition that makes the output equal to the input. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no uniqueness or existence theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed exact form of the SOC Hamiltonian (H0 plus xi L dot sigma), the perturbation treatment of SOC, the sufficiency of GNN descriptors, and the OpenMX basis. The free parameters are mostly network hyperparameters and the per-structure zero-point shift. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • band-structure loss weight lambda = 0.01
    Controls trade-off between Hamiltonian fidelity and eigenvalue agreement in stage 2 (Eq. 12); chosen by hand.
  • learning rates for stages 1 and 2 = 1e-2 and 1e-4
    Stage-dependent optimizer settings that affect convergence and final accuracy; not derived from first principles.
  • feature channel composition = e.g., 640e + 640o + 320o + 160e + ... as listed in Methods 4.1
    Model architecture capacity is a manually specified hyperparameter that affects expressiveness and accuracy.
  • spherical harmonic maximum order lmax = 5
    Sets angular resolution of bond-direction embedding; chosen by hand.
  • cutoff radius r_c = not stated numerically
    Neighborhood cutoff set to match the spatial extent of the atomic orbital basis; exact numerical value not reported.
  • zero-point shift per structure = computed from Eqs. 9 and 10, not tabulated
    A per-crystal energy offset is subtracted to align model Hamiltonian and eigenvalues with DFT; effectively a fitted alignment parameter for each structure.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The spin-orbit-coupled DFT Hamiltonian in the OpenMX basis takes the exact form H0 x I2 + xi L dot sigma with orbital-pair dependent scalar xi_ij.
    Eqs. (2)-(4) assume the full spin-dependent part is a scalar times the angular momentum operator; this is the standard on-site and off-site SOC form but is not proven exact for the OpenMX pseudopotential Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The spin-independent part H0 is identical in non-SOC and SOC self-consistent DFT calculations; SOC acts as a post-hoc perturbation and does not feed back into the charge density or scalar potential.
    Delta-learning uses non-SOC Hamiltonians to train H0 and freezes SOC parameters in stage 2; Methods 4.4 states SOC terms act as a perturbation. Any SOC-induced change to H0 is not captured.
  • domain assumption The GNN local environment descriptors (element identities, bond lengths, orientations) are sufficient to determine the full Hamiltonian matrix elements of unseen materials, including two-center SOC terms.
    Transferability to new compounds, 2D materials, and twisted bilayers assumes the message-passing representation generalizes beyond the Materials Project training distribution.
  • domain assumption The localized pseudo-atomic orbital basis of OpenMX is well-defined and transferable across all elements and structures in the training and test sets.
    Hamiltonian matrix elements are basis-dependent; the model learns OpenMX-specific representations (Methods 4.6).
  • standard math Wigner D matrices and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients correctly implement O(3) equivariance in the tensor product convolutions.
    Eqs. (1) and (7) rely on standard angular momentum algebra.
  • standard math The Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki plaquette formula correctly computes Z2 invariants for time-reversal-invariant insulators.
    Eqs. (13)-(17) use the standard lattice gauge construction for topological invariants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Universal Spin-Orbit-Coupled Hamiltonian Model for Accelerated Quantum Material Discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7KTCSGV

@misc{pith2026250419586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Universal Spin-Orbit-Coupled Hamiltonian Model for Accelerated Quantum Material Discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7KTCSGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19586}
}
read the original abstract

The accurate modeling of spin-orbit coupling (SOC) effects in diverse complex systems remains a significant challenge due to the high computational demands of density functional theory (DFT) and the limited transferability of existing machine-learning frameworks. This study addresses these limitations by introducing Uni-HamGNN, a universal SOC Hamiltonian graph neural network that is applicable across the periodic table. By decomposing the SOC Hamiltonian into spin-independent and SOC correction terms, our approach preserves SU(2) symmetry while significantly reducing parameter requirements. Based on this decomposition, we propose a delta-learning strategy to separately fit the two components, thereby addressing the training difficulties caused by magnitude discrepancies between them and enabling efficient training. The model achieves remarkable accuracy (mean absolute error of 0.0025 meV for the SOC-related component) and demonstrates broad applicability through high-throughput screening of the GNoME dataset for topological insulators, as well as precise predictions for 2D valleytronic materials and transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) heterostructures. This breakthrough eliminates the need for system-specific retraining and costly SOC-DFT calculations, paving the way for rapid discovery of quantum materials.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Long-Range Machine Learning of Electron Density for Twisted Bilayer Moir\'e Materials

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian-process density prediction with long-range LOVV descriptors extrapolates from 3×3 displaced bilayers to twisted moiré supercells of >1000 atoms with meV-level band errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Zutic, I., Fabian, J., Das Sarma, S.: Spintronics: Fundamentals and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76(2), 323–410 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.76.323

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.76.323 2004

  2. [2]

    Dieny, B., Prejbeanu, I.L., Garello, K., Gambardella, P., Freitas, P., Lehndorff, R., Raberg, W., Ebels, U., Demokritov, S.O., Akerman, J., Deac, A., Pirro, P., Adelmann, C., Anane, A., Chumak, A.V., Hirohata, A., Mangin, S., Valenzuela, S.O., Onbal, M.C., dAquino, M., Prenat, G., Finocchio, G., Lopez-Diaz, L., Chantrell, R., Chubykalo-Fesenko, O., Bortol...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Sinova, J., Valenzuela, S.O., Wunderlich, J., Back, C.., Jungwirth, T.: Spin hall effects. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87(4), 1213–1260 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1213

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.1213 2015

  4. [4]

    Qi, X.-L., Zhang, S.-C.: Topological insulators and superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys 83(4), 1057–1110 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1057

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.1057 2011

  5. [5]

    Narang, P., Garcia, C.A.C., Felser, C.: The topology of electronic band structures. Nat. Mater. 20(3), 293–300 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-00820-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-020-00820-4 2020

  6. [6]

    Xiao, J., Yan, B.: First-principles calculations for topological quantum materials. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3(4), 283–297 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00292-8

    doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00292-8 2021

  7. [7]

    MRS Bull

    Wang, K.L., Wu, Y., Eckberg, C., Yin, G., Pan, Q.: Topological quantum materials. MRS Bull. 45(5), 373–379 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2020.122

    work page doi:10.1557/mrs.2020.122 2020

  8. [8]

    Schaibley, J.R., Yu, H., Clark, G., Rivera, P., Ross, J.S., Seyler, K.L., Yao, W., Xu, X.: Valleytronics in 2d materials. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1(11), 16055 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2016.55

    doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.55 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Li, L., Shao, L., Liu, X., Gao, A., Wang, H., Zheng, B., Hou, G., Shehzad, K., Yu, L., Miao, F., Shi, Y., Xu, Y., Wang, X.: Room-temperature valleytronic transistor. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15(9), 743–749 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-0727-0

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Jiang, S., Li, L., Wang, Z., Shan, J., Mak, K.F.: Spin tunnel field-effect transistors based on two- dimensional van der waals heterostructures. Nat. Electron. 2(4), 159–163 (2019) https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41928-019-0232-3

    2019

  3. [11]

    Nature Nanotech

    Chuang, P., Ho, S.-C., Smith, L.W., Sfigakis, F., Pepper, M., Chen, C.-H., Fan, J.-C., Griffiths, J.P., Farrer, I., Beere, H.E., Jones, G.A.C., Ritchie, D.A., Chen, T.-M.: All-electric all-semiconductor spin field-effect transistors. Nature Nanotech. 10(1), 35–39 (2014) https:...

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Hegde, G., Bowen, R.C.: Machine-learned approximations to density functional theory hamiltonians. Sci. Rep. 7, 42669 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42669

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Schutt, K.T., Gastegger, M., Tkatchenko, A., Muller, K.R., Maurer, R.J.: Unifying machine learning and quantum chemistry with a deep neural network for molecular wavefunctions. Nat. Commun. 10, 5024 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12875-2

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2021arXiv210602347U

    Unke, O.T., Bogojeski, M., Gastegger, M., Geiger, M., Smidt, T., Mller, K.-R.: SE(3)-equivariant pre- diction of molecular wavefunctions and electronic densities (2021). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2021arXiv210602347U

    2021

  7. [15]

    npj Comput

    Zhang, L., Onat, B., Dusson, G., McSloy, A., Anand, G., Maurer, R.J., Ortner, C., Kermode, J.R.: Equivariant analytical mapping of first principles hamiltonians to accurate and transferable materials models. npj Comput. Mater. 8(1), 158 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-02...

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Gong, X., Li, H., Zou, N., Xu, R., Duan, W., Xu, Y.: General framework for e(3)-equivariant neural network representation of density functional theory hamiltonian. Nat. Commun. 14(1), 2848 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38468-8

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    npj Comput

    Zhong, Y., Yu, H., Su, M., Gong, X., Xiang, H.: Transferable equivariant graph neural networks for the hamiltonians of molecules and solids. npj Comput. Mater. 9(1), 182 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41524-023-01130-4

    2023

  10. [18]

    Gu, Q., Zhouyin, Z., Pandey, S.K., Zhang, P., Zhang, L., E, W.: Deep learning tight-binding approach for large-scale electronic simulations at finite temperatures with ab initio accuracy. Nat. Commun. 15(1), 6772 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51006-4

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Qiao, Z., Christensen, A.S., Welborn, M., Manby, F.R., Anandkumar, A., Miller, r. T. F.: Informing geometric deep learning with electronic interactions to accelerate quantum chemistry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(31), 2205221119 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205221119

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Zhong, Y., Yu, H., Yang, J., Guo, X., Xiang, H., Gong, X.: Universal machine learning kohn-sham hamiltonian for materials. Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 077103 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307x/41/ 7/077103

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Grisafi, A., Wilkins, D.M., Csanyi, G., Ceriotti, M.: Symmetry-adapted machine learning for tenso- rial properties of atomistic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(3), 036002 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.120.036002

    2018

  14. [22]

    Morrison, M.A., Parker, G.A.: A guide to rotations in quantum-mechanics. Aust. J. Phys.40(4), 465–497 (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    Jones, M.D., Albers, R.C.: Spin-orbit coupling in an f-electron tight-binding model: Electronic properties of th, u, and pu. Phys. Rev. B 79(4), 045107 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.045107

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    phys.: Condens

    Fernndez-Seivane, L., Oliveira, M.A., Sanvito, S., Ferrer, J.: J. phys.: Condens. matter. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 18(34), 7999–8013 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/18/34/012

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Kurita, K., Koretsune, T.: Systematic first-principles study of the on-site spin-orbit coupling in crystals. Phys. Rev. B 102(4) (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.045109

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Cuadrado, R., Robles, R., Garca, A., Pruneda, M., Ordejn, P., Ferrer, J., Cerd, J.I.: Validity of the on- site spin-orbit coupling approximation. Phys. Rev. B104(19) (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB. 104.195104

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Curran Associates Inc

    Batatia, I., Kovcs, D.P., Simm, G.N.C., Ortner, C., Csnyi, G.: MACE: higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields. Curran Associates Inc. (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    APL Mater

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

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Hasan, M.Z., Kane, C.L.: Colloquium: Topological insulators. Rev. Mod. Phys 82(4), 3045–3067 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3045 14

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    Fukui, T., Hatsugai, Y., Suzuki, H.: Chern numbers in discretized brillouin zone: Efficient method of computing (spin) hall conductances. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74(6), 1674–1677 (2005) https://doi.org/10. 1143/jpsj.74.1674

    2005

  23. [31]

    Wu, Q.S., Zhang, S.N., Song, H.F., Troyer, M., Soluyanov, A.A.: Wanniertools: An open-source software package for novel topological materials. Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 405–416 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.033

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Marzari, N., Mostofi, A.A., Yates, J.R., Souza, I., Vanderbilt, D.: Maximally localized wannier func- tions: Theory and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84(4), 1419–1475 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.84.1419

    2012

  25. [33]

    Nature 624(7990), 80–85 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06735-9

    Merchant, A., Batzner, S., Schoenholz, S.S., Aykol, M., Cheon, G., Cubuk, E.D.: Scaling deep learning for materials discovery. Nature 624(7990), 80–85 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06735-9

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2d Mater

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

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2d Mater

    Gjerding, M.N., Taghizadeh, A., Rasmussen, A., Ali, S., Bertoldo, F., Deilmann, T., Knosgaard, N.R., Kruse, M., Larsen, A.H., Manti, S., Pedersen, T.G., Petralanda, U., Skovhus, T., Svendsen, M.K., Mortensen, J.J., Olsen, T., Thygesen, K.S.: Recent progress of the computationa...

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Unke, O.T., Meuwly, M.: Physnet: A neural network for predicting energies, forces, dipole moments, and partial charges. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15(6), 3678–3693 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. jctc.9b00181

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08219v3 (2018)

    Thomas, N., Smidt, T., Kearnes, S., Yang, L., Li, L., Kohlhoff, K., Riley, P.: Tensor field net- works: Rotation- and translation-equivariant neural networks for 3d point clouds. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08219v3 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Batzner, S., Musaelian, A., Sun, L.X., Geiger, M., Mailoa, J.P., Kornbluth, M., Molinari, N., Smidt, T.E., Kozinsky, B.: E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data-efficient and accurate interatomic potentials. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 2453 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146...

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101 (2017)

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101 (2017)

    2017 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    https://ui.adsabs

    Reddi, S.J., Kale, S., Kumar, S.: On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond (2019). https://ui.adsabs. harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190409237R

    2019

  33. [41]

    Ozaki, T.: Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures. Phys. Rev. B 67(15), 155108 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108 15

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.