Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

AtomProNet: Data flow to and from machine learning interatomic potentials in materials science

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that AtomProNet, an open-source Python package, can automate the full data flow from crystal-structure retrieval through DFT job submission to neural-network training, and that in an alumina case study the resulting…

desk verdict AtomProNet is a genuinely useful automation tool, but the paper's accuracy and practicality claims are undermined by an in-distribution benchmark and an apples-to-oranges comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14039 v1 pith:ZGEPQWTJ submitted 2025-01-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Musanna Galib , Mewael Isiet , Mauricio Ponga This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords machinelearninginteratomicpotentialsdensityfunctionaltheoryneuralnetworkpotentialtrainingequivariantgraphnetworksaluminaopen-sourcesoftwareatomisticsimulationworkflowmoleculardynamicsbenchmarking
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

Guided by a global survey of the materials-science community, the authors present AtomProNet, an open-source Python package that automates the data pipeline behind machine-learning interatomic potentials: retrieving crystal structures from open databases, preparing and submitting density-functional-theory (DFT) jobs, collecting energies and forces, and formatting them for neural-network training. The authors argue this removes a major access barrier for researchers who cannot afford to stitch together many specialized tools. In a case study on alumina, the package generated and processed thousands of strained configurations, and the resulting MLIPs (Allegro and MACE) reproduced DFT elastic constants, cohesive energies, and vacancy formation energies far better than the classical reactive potentials ReaxFF and COMB3. The paper also reports that the MLIPs are computationally practical, with Allegro fastest on a single CPU core across the tested range up to 2.5 million atoms, though the classical potentials parallelize better at very large core counts when charge equilibration is run infrequently. If these claims hold, AtomProNet gives a reproducible route from a material's structure to a working machine-learned interatomic potential.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the package's four-module workflow: (a) data collection from open crystallographic databases, (b) data generation through automated DFT job creation and submission, (c) preprocessing that turns raw DFT outputs into neural-network training data, and (d) post-processing that produces parity plots, error distributions, and molecular-dynamics benchmarks. The alumina case study exercises all four modules end-to-end. The trained models are equivariant graph neural networks, meaning their features transform predictably under rotations of the atomic environment; the network outputs atomic energies, and forces are obtained by analytic gradients of those energies, which is the mechanism that lets a few thousand structures generalize to elastic and defect properties.

What would settle it

Refit or reparameterize a classical reactive potential on the same 16,000-structure alumina dataset and repeat the property comparison in Table 1; if the refitted classical potential then matches Allegro and MACE on elastic constants and vacancy energies, the claim of MLIP superiority for alumina is falsified. A second decisive check is to evaluate the trained MLIPs on out-of-distribution structures, such as other alumina polymorphs, surfaces, or high-temperature snapshots; if their error rises to classical-potential levels there, the practical-advantage claim is weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that one software layer can carry the full data flow from open crystallographic databases to trained machine-learning interatomic potentials, and that this pipeline produces potentials with clear practical advantages over generic classical potentials for alumina. The authors use AtomProNet to relax an 80-atom alumina supercell containing aluminium and oxygen vacancies, generate roughly 12,000 hydrostatically strained variants (with 16,000 structures total used after data collection), run DFT self-consistent-field calculations on them, and train two equivariant graph-neural-network potentials, Allegro and MACE, on the energies and forces. On held-out validation structures, both models reach $R^2 \approx 0.99$ for energy, MACE reaches $R^2 = 1$ for forces, and Allegro reaches $R^2 = 0.96$. Compared with DFT references, Allegro and MACE closely track lattice constants, elastic constants, cohesive energy, and vacancy formation energies, whereas ReaxFF and COMB3 overestimate elastic stiffness by hundreds of gigapascals and underestimate binding energies by more than one electronvolt per atom. The authors conclude that machine-learning potentials are both more accurate and practical, with Allegro outrunning the reactive potentials on a single CPU core for systems up to millions of atoms, while the classical potentials win only at very large core counts depending on how often charge equilibration is computed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that comparing MLIPs trained on alumina DFT data with classical potentials that were not fitted to those data is a fair test of which potential family is more accurate; if the classical potentials had been fitted to the same data, or the MLIPs tested on very different structures, the reported accuracy gap could shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher with access to density-functional-theory codes can go from a crystal structure to a trained machine-learning potential without writing custom data-handling code.
  • For ceramics like alumina, machine-learned potentials trained on DFT data can replace classical reactive potentials in simulations of strain, vacancy formation, and mechanical response.
  • Because the pipeline is scripted, MLIP training and benchmarking become reproducible and easy to share, making comparisons across materials and models more standardized.
  • The benchmark supplies a practical rule of thumb: on moderate core counts and systems up to millions of atoms, the MLIPs are both more accurate and faster, while classical potentials become competitive only when the job is large enough to amortize their better parallel scaling.
  • The training set deliberately includes vacancy and strained configurations, so the resulting potentials target defect and spall-failure studies directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The accuracy comparison is not apples-to-apples: the MLIPs were trained on the same DFT data used for evaluation, while the ReaxFF and COMB3 parameter sets were generic and not refitted to those data; refitting the classical potentials on the same 16,000 structures could shrink or close the gap.
  • The paper reports both 12,000 generated strained cases and 16,000 structures used for training; reconciling these counts is a necessary step before treating the dataset-size claim as settled.
  • A natural extension is active learning: because the package already handles data generation and collection, it could be modified to generate new DFT data for structures where the current model is most uncertain, improving transferability to phases and surfaces outside the training distribution.
  • The benchmark's hardware-dependence suggests that future comparisons should report cost curves (accuracy versus CPU-hours at fixed system size) rather than a single accuracy table, since the best potential depends on the available computing resources.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents AtomProNet, an open-source Python package that automates the data pipeline for machine-learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs), including retrieving structures from materials databases, generating and submitting DFT jobs, batch-processing outputs, and preparing training/validation data for neural network potentials. The authors motivate the package with a global survey (not detailed in the manuscript) and demonstrate it on an alumina case study, in which they train Allegro and MACE models and compare their accuracy and computational speed against the classical reactive potentials ReaxFF and COMB3. The stated goal is to lower access barriers for non-specialist researchers by streamlining the workflow from ab initio data to MLIP training and evaluation.

Significance. If the software works as described, it is a useful and welcome contribution to a real practical bottleneck: the transition from DFT datasets to MLIP training is still labor-intensive and fragmented. The provision of a public GitHub repository and a Colab demo is a genuine strength that supports reproducibility and lowers adoption costs. The paper also gives a clear, well-illustrated overview of the components of MLIP workflows, which is helpful didactic material. However, the quantitative case study—the comparison of MLIPs with classical potentials—is not a controlled benchmark: the MLIPs are fitted to DFT data for the same material and structure families used in the comparison, while ReaxFF and COMB3 are generic potentials not fitted to this dataset. The accuracy conclusions drawn from this comparison are therefore weaker than the text suggests. The survey, which is presented as a design driver, is not documented at all. These issues do not invalidate the software contribution but they do require substantial revision of the claims and the presentation of the case study.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and §3.2] There is an unresolved inconsistency in the dataset description. Section 3.1 states that hydrostatic straining of the relaxed 80-atom alumina supercell with a step size of 0.01% over ±10% generates 12,000 cases, while Section 3.2 states that energy, force, stress, and lattice data from 16,000 DFT structures were used, split into 14,000 training, 1,500 test, and 500 validation samples. The relationship between the 12,000 generated structures and the 16,000 DFT structures is not explained. This inconsistency must be resolved and the data-generation procedure described precisely (including how 12,000 arises from the stated strain range and step, and how the validation set relates to the generated configurations). Without this, the reported parity plots and training/test splits are not reproducible.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1] The accuracy comparison between MLIPs and classical potentials is confounded by in-distribution fitting. The Allegro and MACE models are trained on DFT energies and forces for alumina structures that include the same vacancy and strained configurations later used for validation (Section 3.2), and the Table 1 property evaluation concerns the same alumina phases and defect types. ReaxFF and COMB3, by contrast, are generic potentials whose parameters were fixed by previous fitting efforts and were not re-optimized against the DFT reference data used here. The accuracy gap in Table 1 is therefore the expected result of data-specific fitting, not evidence of a general superiority of MLIPs over classical potentials. To support the comparative claim, the authors should either benchmark on out-of-distribution structures (e.g., different phases, surfaces, or thermodynamic conditions not in the training set) or fit a classical potential to the same DFT data. At minimum, the text should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and soften the corresponding conclusions.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The definition of the reported 'vacancy formation energies' appears to be incorrect or at least unclear. The tabulated values for O vacancy, Al vacancy, and Al-O vacancy are negative and very close to the cohesive energy per atom (e.g., -7.343, -7.296, -7.312 eV/atom for DFT). A defect formation energy is normally a positive quantity defined as the energy difference between the defective and perfect cells with appropriate chemical-potential corrections. As presented, these numbers look like total energies per atom of the defective cells, not formation energies. In addition, the DFT reference values in Table 1 are cited to Refs. [100–102], which concern high-pressure alumina phases and MgAl2O4, not the ground-state corundum elastic constants and defect energies tabulated here. The authors need to provide a precise definition of each property, the exact formula used, and references that actually report those values.
  4. [§1 and Abstract] The paper states that a global survey was conducted and that the survey responses were implemented to design AtomProNet, yet no information is given about the survey instrument, sampling, number of respondents, geographic/demographic distribution, or any quantitative or qualitative results. The claimed link between the survey and the software design is therefore unverifiable. The authors should either report the survey methodology and a summary of the findings (in the main text or supplementary material) or remove the claim that the survey guided the design. This is a load-bearing point because the survey is presented as the motivation for the software in both the abstract and the introduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption is garbled: the subplot letters are repeated and inconsistent (e.g., '(b)' appears twice, and the cumulative distribution plots are labeled (c) and (d) in the text but (e)–(h) in the caption). Please renumber the panels to match the in-text references.
  2. [§3.1] The sentence 'The electronic energies cut-off, the kinetic-energy cutoff, Monkhorst–Pack k-points and width of Gaussian smearing were 10–6 eV, 1 meV/atom, 4 × 4 × 4, and 0.026eV, respectively' is confusing: 'electronic energies cut-off' likely means the electronic energy convergence criterion, and 'kinetic-energy cutoff' is the plane-wave cutoff. Please clarify the terms and correct the units.
  3. [§4.1] The phrase 'simulation time per computational time' is imprecise. Please define the performance metric explicitly (e.g., timesteps per second or nanoseconds of simulated time per wall-clock hour) and state the hardware and software version details for the timing runs.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'start-of-the-art' (should be 'state-of-the-art'). Minor wording issues of this kind appear throughout the manuscript; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the benchmark 'predictions' of MLIP accuracy are in-distribution recombinations of the very DFT energy/force labels the model was fitted to, while the classical potentials were not fitted to those data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 3.1-3.2 (training data) and Section 4.1/Table 1 (benchmark properties)]
    "Al and O vacancy-induced pure alumina supercell of 80 atoms ... hydrostatically strained to ±10% of the lattice parameter with a stepsize of 0.01% (12000 cases) ... which will be used an input data (energy and force) for MLIP training. ... In Table 1, DFT-calculated properties [100, 101, 102] are used as a reference to evaluate the accuracy of the IPs ... Table 1: Properties of Al2O3 predicted by the selected interatomic potential (Allegro, MACE, ReaxFF, and COMB3) with DFT."

    The MLIP loss function (Eq. 5) fits total energies, forces, and stresses to the DFT labels for exactly these vacancy-containing, hydrostatically strained alumina supercells. The Table 1 'predictions'—cohesive energy and vacancy formation energies—are linear combinations of the fitted total energies of the perfect and defect supercells, and the elastic constants are derivatives of the fitted strain-energy series. Reproducing such in-distribution properties therefore follows from the fit rather than from independent extrapolation. Since ReaxFF and COMB3 were not fitted to this DFT dataset, the accuracy gap in Table 1 reflects unequal fitting effort, not a demonstrated general superiority of MLIPs.

full rationale

AtomProNet itself is a software pipeline, and its automation claims are self-contained and not circular. The circularity is confined to the paper's benchmark framing: the MLIPs are trained on DFT energies/forces of the same alumina phases, defect types, and hydrostatic strain range later used to compute Table 1 properties and Fig. 3 parity plots. The held-out validation set is drawn from the same 16,000-structure distribution as training, so the reported R2/MAE values are interpolation checks, not transferability tests. This is standard ML validation, but it is presented alongside a comparison to classical potentials that were not re-parameterized on the same data, making the comparison expected to favor the MLIPs. The paper's cautious wording ('we showcase a comparison', 'example of important factors') lowers the severity; the central software contribution is independent. The only self-citation (Ref. [73]) is a DFT settings reference and is not load-bearing. The 12,000 versus 16,000 dataset-count inconsistency is a correctness concern rather than a circularity mechanism. Overall, one in-distribution fitted quantity is presented as a benchmark prediction, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than higher.

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

The central claims depend on the DFT ground truth, the untested representativeness of the survey, and user-chosen training hyperparameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The 12,000 vs 16,000 structure discrepancy is a clear internal inconsistency that affects the dataset description.

free parameters (4)
  • MACE loss weights (energy, forces) = 1 and 100, then 1000 and 100 after initial phase
    Chosen by hand to prioritize force learning; affects final model accuracy.
  • Allegro latent layer sizes = [32, 64, 128]
    Architecture choice, not fit to data, but changes model capacity.
  • Radial cutoff and lmax = 3.0 Å, lmax=1
    Hyperparameters chosen before training; affects the descriptors.
  • Strain range and step = ±10% with 0.01% step
    Sampling choices for generating the DFT dataset; the reported 12,000 cases do not match the 20% range divided by 0.01% (which would give 2,000 steps).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Kohn-Sham DFT with PBE functional and PAW pseudopotentials provides accurate reference energies and forces.
    All training labels and benchmark references are DFT values, so the MLIPs inherit any DFT errors.
  • domain assumption The global survey responses are representative of the materials science community and their needs are correctly translated into the software design.
    The paper states the survey guided the design but provides no survey methodology or data.
  • domain assumption The implementations of Allegro and MACE in their public repositories are correct and used as intended.
    Model training results depend on external codes; the paper does not audit them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AtomProNet: Data flow to and from machine learning interatomic potentials in materials science." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGEPQWTJ

@misc{pith2026250114039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AtomProNet: Data flow to and from machine learning interatomic potentials in materials science},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGEPQWTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14039}
}
read the original abstract

As the atomistic simulations of materials science move from traditional potentials to machine learning interatomic potential (MLIP), the field is entering the second phase focused on discovering and explaining new material phenomena. While MLIP development relies on curated data and flexible datasets from ab-initio simulations, transitioning seamlessly between ab-initio workflows and MLIP frameworks remains challenging. A global survey was conducted to understand the current standing (progress and bottleneck) of the machine learning-guided materials science research. The survey responses have been implemented to design an open-source software to reduce the access barriers of MLIP models for the global scientific community. Here, we present AtomProNet, an open-source Python package that automates obtaining atomic structures, prepares and submits ab-initio jobs, and efficiently collects batch-processed data for streamlined neural network (NN) training. Finally, we compared empirical and start-of-the-art machine learning potential, showing the practicality of using MLIPs based on computational time and resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of dataflow from quantum mechanics (database/simulations) to development of machine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Highlights of the four modules of AtomProNet software - (a) data collection from materials project database, (b) data generation using DFT simulation, (c) pre-processing for neural network, (d) visualization and validations of MLIPs, and benchmarking tests of classical molecular dynamics. 3.1. Data Collection and Generation Though there are no standard procedures to prepare the reference datasets from QMs (usu￾ally … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The parity plots illustrate the comparison between the Allegro and MACE-trained model with DFT for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computational performance of Allegro, COMB3, and ReaxFF Al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

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. NepTrain and NepTrainKit: Automated Active Learning and Visualization Toolkit for Neuroevolution Potentials

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open-source toolkit automates active learning and dataset management for neuroevolution potentials, with a CsPbI3 case study showing comparable accuracy to hand-curated NEP models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Thirty years of density functional theory in computa- tional chemistry: an overview and extensive assessment of 200 density functionals,

    N. Mardirossian and M. Head-Gordon, “Thirty years of density functional theory in computa- tional chemistry: an overview and extensive assessment of 200 density functionals,” Molecular Physics, vol. 115, no. 19, pp. 2315–2372, 2017. 11

    2017

  2. [2]

    Machine learning interatomic potentials and long-range physics,

    D. M. Anstine and O. Isayev, “Machine learning interatomic potentials and long-range physics,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry A , vol. 127, no. 11, pp. 2417–2431, 2023. PMID: 36802360

    2023

  3. [3]

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

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials , vol. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Crystallography Open Database – an open-access collection of crystal structures,

    S. Graˇ zulis, D. Chateigner, R. T. Downs, A. F. T. Yokochi, M. Quir´ os, L. Lutterotti, E. Man- akova, J. Butkus, P. Moeck, and A. Le Bail, “Crystallography Open Database – an open-access collection of crystal structures,” Journal of Applied Crystallography, vol. 42, pp. 726–729, Aug 2009

    2009

  5. [5]

    Aflowlib.org: A distributed materials properties repository from high-throughput ab initio calculations,

    S. Curtarolo, W. Setyawan, S. Wang, J. Xue, K. Yang, R. H. Taylor, L. J. Nelson, G. L. Hart, S. Sanvito, M. Buongiorno-Nardelli, N. Mingo, and O. Levy, “Aflowlib.org: A distributed materials properties repository from high-throughput ab initio calculations,” Computational Materials Science, vol. 58, pp. 227–235, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Nomad: The fair concept for big data-driven materials science,

    C. Draxl and M. Scheffler, “Nomad: The fair concept for big data-driven materials science,” MRS Bulletin , vol. 43, pp. 676–682, Sep 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    The joint automated repository for various integrated simulations (jarvis) for data-driven materials design,

    K. Choudhary, K. F. Garrity, A. C. E. Reid, B. DeCost, A. J. Biacchi, A. R. Hight Walker, Z. Trautt, J. Hattrick-Simpers, A. G. Kusne, A. Centrone, A. Davydov, J. Jiang, R. Pachter, G. Cheon, E. Reed, A. Agrawal, X. Qian, V. Sharma, H. Zhuang, S. V. Kalinin, B. G. Sumpter, G. Pilania, P. Acar, S. Mandal, K. Haule, D. Vanderbilt, K. Rabe, and F. Tavazza, “...

    2020

  8. [8]

    The materials commons: A collaboration platform and information repository for the global materials community,

    B. Puchala, G. Tarcea, E. A. Marquis, M. Hedstrom, H. V. Jagadish, and J. E. Allison, “The materials commons: A collaboration platform and information repository for the global materials community,” JOM, vol. 68, pp. 2035–2044, Aug 2016

    2016

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Improving machine-learning models in materials science through large datasets,

    J. Schmidt, T. F. Cerqueira, A. H. Romero, A. Loew, F. J¨ ager, H.-C. Wang, S. Botti, and M. A. Marques, “Improving machine-learning models in materials science through large datasets,” Materials Today Physics, vol. 48, p. 101560, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    The open quantum materials database (oqmd): assessing the accuracy of dft formation energies,

    S. Kirklin, J. E. Saal, B. Meredig, A. Thompson, J. W. Doak, M. Aykol, S. R¨ uhl, and C. Wolverton, “The open quantum materials database (oqmd): assessing the accuracy of dft formation energies,” npj Computational Materials , vol. 1, p. 15010, Dec 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

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

    L. Barroso-Luque, M. Shuaibi, X. Fu, B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, M. Gao, A. Rizvi, C. L. Zitnick, and Z. W. Ulissi, “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    An open experimental database for exploring inorganic materials,

    A. Zakutayev, N. Wunder, M. Schwarting, J. D. Perkins, R. White, K. Munch, W. Tumas, and C. Phillips, “An open experimental database for exploring inorganic materials,” Scientific Data, vol. 5, p. 180053, Apr 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    The inorganic crystal structure database (icsd)—present and future,

    M. Hellenbrandt, “The inorganic crystal structure database (icsd)—present and future,” Crys- tallography Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2004. 12

    2004

  6. [14]

    The Cambridge Structural Database,

    C. R. Groom, I. J. Bruno, M. P. Lightfoot, and S. C. Ward, “The Cambridge Structural Database,” Acta Crystallographica Section B , vol. 72, pp. 171–179, Apr 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Enhancing materials property prediction by leveraging computational and experimental data using deep transfer learning,

    D. Jha, K. Choudhary, F. Tavazza, W.-k. Liao, A. Choudhary, C. Campbell, and A. Agrawal, “Enhancing materials property prediction by leveraging computational and experimental data using deep transfer learning,” Nature Communications, vol. 10, p. 5316, Nov 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Inhomogeneous electron gas,

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, “Inhomogeneous electron gas,” Phys. Rev., vol. 136, pp. B864– B871, Nov 1964

    1964

  9. [18]

    Machine-learning interatomic potentials for materials science,

    Y. Mishin, “Machine-learning interatomic potentials for materials science,” Acta Materialia, vol. 214, p. 116980, 2021

    2021

  10. [19]

    Performance and cost assessment of machine learning interatomic potentials,

    Y. Zuo, C. Chen, X. Li, Z. Deng, Y. Chen, J. Behler, G. Cs´ anyi, A. V. Shapeev, A. P. Thompson, M. A. Wood, and S. P. Ong, “Performance and cost assessment of machine learning interatomic potentials,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry A , vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 731–745,

  11. [20]

    Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set,

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, “Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set,” Computational Materials Science , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 15–50, 1996

    1996

  12. [21]

    Quantum ESPRESSO toward the exascale,

    P. Giannozzi, O. Baseggio, P. Bonf` a, D. Brunato, R. Car, I. Carnimeo, C. Cavazzoni, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, F. Ferrari Ruffino, A. Ferretti, N. Marzari, I. Timrov, A. Urru, and S. Baroni, “Quantum ESPRESSO toward the exascale,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 152...

    2020

  13. [22]

    Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics,

    S. Plimpton, “Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics,” Journal of Com- putational Physics , vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 1995

    1995

  14. [23]

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

    A. H. Larsen, J. J. Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Du lak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, E. D. Hermes, P. C. Jennings, P. B. Jensen, J. Ker- mode, J. R. Kitchin, E. L. Kolsbjerg, J. Kubal, K. Kaasbjerg, S. Lysgaard, J. B. Marons- so...

    2017

  15. [24]

    Amp: A modular approach to machine learning in atomistic simulations,

    A. Khorshidi and A. A. Peterson, “Amp: A modular approach to machine learning in atomistic simulations,” Computer Physics Communications , vol. 207, pp. 310–324, 2016

    2016

  16. [25]

    Comp- physvienna/n2p2: Version 2.1.4,

    A. Singraber, mpbircher, S. Reeve, D. W. Swenson, J. Lauret, and philippedavid, “Comp- physvienna/n2p2: Version 2.1.4,” May 2021

    2021

  17. [26]

    An implementation of artificial neural-network potentials for atom- istic materials simulations: Performance for TiO2,

    N. Artrith and A. Urban, “An implementation of artificial neural-network potentials for atom- istic materials simulations: Performance for TiO2,” Computational Materials Science, vol. 114, pp. 135–150, 2016

    2016

  18. [27]

    Knowledgebase of interatomic models (KIM) application programming interface (API),

    R. S. Elliott and E. B. Tadmor, “Knowledgebase of interatomic models (KIM) application programming interface (API),” 2011. 13

    2011

  19. [28]

    Maise: Construction of neural network interatomic models and evolutionary structure optimization,

    S. Hajinazar, A. Thorn, E. D. Sandoval, S. Kharabadze, and A. N. Kolmogorov, “Maise: Construction of neural network interatomic models and evolutionary structure optimization,” Computer Physics Communications , vol. 259, p. 107679, 2021

    2021

  20. [29]

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

    J. Behler and M. Parrinello, “Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 98, p. 146401, Apr 2007

    2007

  21. [30]

    Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural net- work potentials,

    J. Behler, “Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural net- work potentials,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 134, p. 074106, 02 2011

    2011

  22. [31]

    Four generations of high-dimensional neural network potentials,

    J. Behler, “Four generations of high-dimensional neural network potentials,” Chemical Re- views, vol. 121, no. 16, pp. 10037–10072, 2021. PMID: 33779150

    2021

  23. [32]

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

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

    2022

  24. [33]

    e3nn: Euclidean neural networks,

    M. Geiger and T. Smidt, “e3nn: Euclidean neural networks,” 2022

    2022

  25. [34]

    How to validate machine-learned interatomic potentials,

    J. D. Morrow, J. L. A. Gardner, and V. L. Deringer, “How to validate machine-learned interatomic potentials,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 158, p. 121501, 03 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    An accurate and transferable machine learning potential for carbon,

    P. Rowe, V. L. Deringer, P. Gasparotto, G. Cs´ anyi, and A. Michaelides, “An accurate and transferable machine learning potential for carbon,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 153, p. 034702, 07 2020

    2020

  27. [36]

    Best practices in machine learning for chemistry,

    N. Artrith, K. T. Butler, F.-X. Coudert, S. Han, O. Isayev, A. Jain, and A. Walsh, “Best practices in machine learning for chemistry,” Nature Chemistry , vol. 13, pp. 505–508, Jun 2021

    2021

  28. [37]

    Evaluation guidelines for machine learning tools in the chemical sciences,

    A. Bender, N. Schneider, M. Segler, W. Patrick Walters, O. Engkvist, and T. Rodrigues, “Evaluation guidelines for machine learning tools in the chemical sciences,” Nature Reviews Chemistry, vol. 6, pp. 428–442, Jun 2022

    2022

  29. [38]

    Methods for compar- ing uncertainty quantifications for material property predictions,

    K. Tran, W. Neiswanger, J. Yoon, Q. Zhang, E. Xing, and Z. W. Ulissi, “Methods for compar- ing uncertainty quantifications for material property predictions,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 1, p. 025006, may 2020

    2020

  30. [39]

    Characterizing uncertainty in machine learning for chemistry,

    E. Heid, C. J. McGill, F. H. Vermeire, and W. H. Green, “Characterizing uncertainty in machine learning for chemistry,” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , vol. 63, no. 13, pp. 4012–4029, 2023. PMID: 37338239

    2023

  31. [40]

    Gaus- sian process regression for materials and molecules,

    V. L. Deringer, A. P. Bart´ ok, N. Bernstein, D. M. Wilkins, M. Ceriotti, and G. Cs´ anyi, “Gaus- sian process regression for materials and molecules,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 121, pp. 10073– 10141, Aug 2021

    2021

  32. [41]

    Convergence acceleration in machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations,

    D. Bayerl, C. M. Andolina, S. Dwaraknath, and W. A. Saidi, “Convergence acceleration in machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations,” Digital Discovery , vol. 1, pp. 61–69, 2022

    2022

  33. [42]

    Physics-inspired structural representations for molecules and materials,

    F. Musil, A. Grisafi, A. P. Bart´ ok, C. Ortner, G. Cs´ anyi, and M. Ceriotti, “Physics-inspired structural representations for molecules and materials,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 121, no. 16, pp. 9759–9815, 2021. PMID: 34310133. 14

    2021

  34. [43]

    Incompleteness of atomic structure representations,

    S. N. Pozdnyakov, M. J. Willatt, A. P. Bart´ ok, C. Ortner, G. Cs´ anyi, and M. Ceriotti, “Incompleteness of atomic structure representations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 125, p. 166001, Oct 2020

    2020

  35. [44]

    Choosing the right molecular machine learning potential,

    M. Pinheiro, F. Ge, N. Ferr´ e, P. O. Dral, and M. Barbatti, “Choosing the right molecular machine learning potential,” Chem. Sci. , vol. 12, pp. 14396–14413, 2021

    2021

  36. [45]

    Machine learning force fields,

    O. T. Unke, S. Chmiela, H. E. Sauceda, M. Gastegger, I. Poltavsky, K. T. Sch¨ utt, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. M¨ uller, “Machine learning force fields,”Chemical Reviews, vol. 121, no. 16, pp. 10142–10186, 2021. PMID: 33705118

    2021

  37. [46]

    Deep potential molecular dynamics: A scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics,

    L. Zhang, J. Han, H. Wang, R. Car, and W. E, “Deep potential molecular dynamics: A scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 120, p. 143001, Apr 2018

    2018

  38. [47]

    SchNet – A deep learning architecture for molecules and materials,

    K. T. Sch¨ utt, H. E. Sauceda, P.-J. Kindermans, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. M¨ uller, “SchNet – A deep learning architecture for molecules and materials,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 148, p. 241722, 03 2018

    2018

  39. [48]

    Gaussian approximation poten- tials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons,

    A. P. Bart´ ok, M. C. Payne, R. Kondor, and G. Cs´ anyi, “Gaussian approximation poten- tials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 104, p. 136403, Apr 2010

    2010

  40. [49]

    Spectral neighbor analysis method for automated generation of quantum-accurate interatomic potentials,

    A. Thompson, L. Swiler, C. Trott, S. Foiles, and G. Tucker, “Spectral neighbor analysis method for automated generation of quantum-accurate interatomic potentials,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 285, pp. 316–330, 2015

    2015

  41. [50]

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

    A. V. Shapeev, “Moment tensor potentials: A class of systematically improvable interatomic potentials,” Multiscale Modeling & Simulation , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1153–1173, 2016

    2016

  42. [51]

    Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials,

    R. Drautz, “Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 99, p. 014104, Jan 2019

    2019

  43. [52]

    A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry,

    I. Batatia, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, A. M. Elena, D. P. Kov´ acs, J. Riebesell, X. R. Advincula, M. Asta, M. Avaylon, W. J. Baldwin, F. Berger, N. Bernstein, A. Bhowmik, S. M. Blau, V. C˘ arare, J. P. Darby, S. De, F. D. Pia, V. L. Deringer, R. Elijoˇ sius, Z. El-Machachi, F. Fal...

    2024

  44. [53]

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

    B. Deng, P. Zhong, K. Jun, J. Riebesell, K. Han, C. J. Bartel, and G. Ceder, “Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling,” Nature Machine Intelligence , vol. 5, pp. 1031–1041, Sep 2023

    2023

  45. [54]

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

    C. Chen and S. P. Ong, “A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table,” Nature Computational Science , vol. 2, pp. 718–728, Nov 2022. 15

    2022

  46. [55]

    On representing chemical environments,

    A. P. Bart´ ok, R. Kondor, and G. Cs´ anyi, “On representing chemical environments,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 87, p. 184115, May 2013

    2013

  47. [56]

    Fast and accurate modeling of molecular atomization energies with machine learning,

    M. Rupp, A. Tkatchenko, K.-R. M¨ uller, and O. A. von Lilienfeld, “Fast and accurate modeling of molecular atomization energies with machine learning,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, p. 058301, Jan 2012

    2012

  48. [57]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial dif- ferential equations,

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial dif- ferential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

    2019

  49. [58]

    Neural network potential-energy surfaces in chemistry: a tool for large-scale sim- ulations,

    J. Behler, “Neural network potential-energy surfaces in chemistry: a tool for large-scale sim- ulations,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. , vol. 13, pp. 17930–17955, 2011

    2011

  50. [59]

    Die berechnung optischer und elektrostatischer gitterpotentiale,

    P. P. Ewald, “Die berechnung optischer und elektrostatischer gitterpotentiale,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 369, no. 3, pp. 253–287, 1921

    1921

  51. [60]

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

    O. T. Unke and M. Meuwly, “Physnet: A neural network for predicting energies, forces, dipole moments, and partial charges,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3678–3693, 2019. PMID: 31042390

    2019

  52. [61]

    The tensormol-0.1 model chem- istry: a neural network augmented with long-range physics,

    K. Yao, J. E. Herr, D. Toth, R. Mckintyre, and J. Parkhill, “The tensormol-0.1 model chem- istry: a neural network augmented with long-range physics,”Chem. Sci., vol. 9, pp. 2261–2269, 2018

    2018

  53. [62]

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

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, “A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H- Pu,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 132, p. 154104, 04 2010

    2010

  54. [63]

    Electronic Population Analysis on LCAO–MO Molecular Wave Functions. I,

    R. S. Mulliken, “Electronic Population Analysis on LCAO–MO Molecular Wave Functions. I,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , vol. 23, pp. 1833–1840, 10 1955

    1955

  55. [64]

    Atoms in molecules,

    R. F. W. Bader, “Atoms in molecules,” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 1985

    1985

  56. [65]

    Reaxff: A reactive force field for hydrocarbons,

    A. C. T. van Duin, S. Dasgupta, F. Lorant, and W. A. Goddard, “Reaxff: A reactive force field for hydrocarbons,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry A , vol. 105, no. 41, pp. 9396–9409, 2001

    2001

  57. [66]

    Electronegativity-equalization method for the calculation of atomic charges in molecules,

    W. J. Mortier, S. K. Ghosh, and S. Shankar, “Electronegativity-equalization method for the calculation of atomic charges in molecules,” Journal of the American Chemical Society , vol. 108, no. 15, pp. 4315–4320, 1986

    1986

  58. [67]

    Charge equilibration for molecular dynamics simula- tions,

    A. K. Rappe and W. A. I. Goddard, “Charge equilibration for molecular dynamics simula- tions,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry , vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 3358–3363, 1991

    1991

  59. [68]

    Learning representations by back- propagating errors,

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back- propagating errors,” Nature, vol. 323, pp. 533–536, Oct 1986

    1986

  60. [69]

    Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation ef- fects,

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, “Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation ef- fects,” Phys. Rev., vol. 140, pp. A1133–A1138, Nov 1965

    1965

  61. [70]

    Inhomogeneous electron gas,

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, “Inhomogeneous electron gas,” Phys. Rev., vol. 136, pp. B864– B871, Nov 1964. 16

    1964

  62. [71]

    Generalized gradient approximation made sim- ple,

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, “Generalized gradient approximation made sim- ple,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 77, pp. 3865–3868, Oct 1996

    1996

  63. [72]

    From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method,

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, “From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 59, pp. 1758–1775, Jan 1999

    1999

  64. [73]

    Engineering chemo-mechanical properties of zn surfaces via alucone coating,

    M. Galib, O. K. Orhan, and M. Ponga, “Engineering chemo-mechanical properties of zn surfaces via alucone coating,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C , vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 2481– 2492, 2023

    2023

  65. [74]

    Matbench discovery – a framework to evaluate machine learning crystal stability predictions,

    J. Riebesell, R. E. A. Goodall, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, B. Deng, A. A. Lee, A. Jain, and K. A. Persson, “Matbench discovery – a framework to evaluate machine learning crystal stability predictions,” 2024

    2024

  66. [75]

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

    I. Batatia, D. P. Kov´ acs, G. N. C. Simm, C. Ortner, and G. Cs´ anyi, “Mace: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields,” 2023

    2023

  67. [76]

    Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics,

    A. Musaelian, S. Batzner, A. Johansson, L. Sun, C. J. Owen, M. Kornbluth, and B. Kozin- sky, “Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, Feb. 2023

    2023

  68. [77]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus),

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian error linear units (gelus),” 2023

    2023

  69. [78]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” 2017

    2017

  70. [79]

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

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Kopf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-pe...

    2019

  71. [80]

    Computer “experiments

    L. Verlet, “Computer “experiments” on classical fluids. i. thermodynamical properties of lennard-jones molecules,” Physical Review, vol. 159, p. 98–103, July 1967

    1967

  72. [81]

    Interatomic potentials: achievements and chal- lenges,

    S. V. S. Martin H. M¨ user and L. Pastewka, “Interatomic potentials: achievements and chal- lenges,” Advances in Physics: X , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2093129, 2023

    2023

  73. [82]

    Review of force fields and intermolecular potentials used in atomistic computational materials research,

    J. A. Harrison, J. D. Schall, S. Maskey, P. T. Mikulski, M. T. Knippenberg, and B. H. Morrow, “Review of force fields and intermolecular potentials used in atomistic computational materials research,” Applied Physics Reviews , vol. 5, Aug. 2018

    2018

  74. [83]

    Classical and reactive molecular dynamics: Principles and applications in combustion and energy systems,

    Q. Mao, M. Feng, X. Z. Jiang, Y. Ren, K. H. Luo, and A. C. van Duin, “Classical and reactive molecular dynamics: Principles and applications in combustion and energy systems,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , vol. 97, p. 101084, July 2023

    2023

  75. [84]

    On the determination of molecular fields.—i. from the variation of the viscosity of a gas with temperature,

    J. Lennard-Jones, “On the determination of molecular fields.—i. from the variation of the viscosity of a gas with temperature,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character , vol. 106, pp. 441–462, Oct. 1924

    1924

  76. [85]

    Cohesion,

    J. Lennard-Jones, “Cohesion,” Proceedings of the Physical Society, vol. 43, p. 461–482, Sept. 1931. 17

    1931

  77. [86]

    Embedded-atom method: Derivation and application to impu- rities, surfaces, and other defects in metals,

    M. S. Daw and M. I. Baskes, “Embedded-atom method: Derivation and application to impu- rities, surfaces, and other defects in metals,” Physical Review B , vol. 29, p. 6443–6453, June 1984

    1984

  78. [87]

    Modified embedded-atom potentials for cubic materials and impurities,

    M. I. Baskes, “Modified embedded-atom potentials for cubic materials and impurities,” Phys- ical Review B , vol. 46, p. 2727–2742, Aug. 1992

    1992

  79. [88]

    Reaxff: A reactive force field for hydrocarbons,

    A. C. T. van Duin, S. Dasgupta, F. Lorant, and W. A. Goddard, “Reaxff: A reactive force field for hydrocarbons,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry A , vol. 105, p. 9396–9409, Sept. 2001

    2001

  80. [89]

    Charge optimized many-body potential for the for the si/sio2 system,

    J. Yu, S. B. Sinnott, and S. R. Phillpot, “Charge optimized many-body potential for the for the si/sio2 system,” Physical Review B , vol. 75, Feb. 2007

    2007

  81. [90]

    Classical atomistic simulations of surfaces and heterogeneous interfaces with the charge-optimized many body (comb) potentials,

    T. Liang, T.-R. Shan, Y.-T. Cheng, B. D. Devine, M. Noordhoek, Y. Li, Z. Lu, S. R. Phillpot, and S. B. Sinnott, “Classical atomistic simulations of surfaces and heterogeneous interfaces with the charge-optimized many body (comb) potentials,” Materials Science and Engineering: ...

    2013

  82. [91]

    The radial distribution function for two-dimensional lennard- jones fluids: Computer simulation results,

    F. Cuadros and A. Mulero, “The radial distribution function for two-dimensional lennard- jones fluids: Computer simulation results,” Chemical Physics, vol. 159, p. 89–97, Jan. 1992

    1992

  83. [92]

    Phase diagram of a lennard-jones system by molecular dynamics simulations,

    Y. KATAOKA and Y. YAMADA, “Phase diagram of a lennard-jones system by molecular dynamics simulations,” Journal of Computer Chemistry, Japan , vol. 13, no. 2, p. 115–123, 2014

    2014

  84. [93]

    The embedded-atom method: a review of theory and applications,

    M. S. Daw, S. M. Foiles, and M. I. Baskes, “The embedded-atom method: a review of theory and applications,” Materials Science Reports, vol. 9, p. 251–310, Mar. 1993

    1993

  85. [94]

    Variable charge many-body interatomic potentials,

    Y. K. Shin, T.-R. Shan, T. Liang, M. J. Noordhoek, S. B. Sinnott, A. C. van Duin, and S. R. Phillpot, “Variable charge many-body interatomic potentials,” MRS Bulletin , vol. 37, p. 504–512, May 2012

    2012

  86. [95]

    Reactive potentials for advanced atomistic simulations,

    T. Liang, Y. K. Shin, Y.-T. Cheng, D. E. Yilmaz, K. G. Vishnu, O. Verners, C. Zou, S. R. Phillpot, S. B. Sinnott, and A. C. van Duin, “Reactive potentials for advanced atomistic simulations,” Annual Review of Materials Research , vol. 43, p. 109–129, July 2013

    2013

  87. [96]

    Atomistic-scale analysis of carbon coating and its effect on the oxidation of aluminum nanoparticles by reaxff-molecular dynamics simulations,

    S. Hong and A. C. T. van Duin, “Atomistic-scale analysis of carbon coating and its effect on the oxidation of aluminum nanoparticles by reaxff-molecular dynamics simulations,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C , vol. 120, p. 9464–9474, Apr. 2016

    2016

  88. [97]

    Charge op- timized many-body (COMB) potential for al2o3materials, interfaces, and nanostructures,

    K. Choudhary, T. Liang, A. Chernatynskiy, S. R. Phillpot, and S. B. Sinnott, “Charge op- timized many-body (COMB) potential for al2o3materials, interfaces, and nanostructures,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , vol. 27, p. 305004, July 2015

    2015

  89. [98]

    Molecular dynamics study of hugoniot relation in shocked nickel single crystal,

    J. Choi, S. Yoo, S. Song, J. Park, and K. Kang, “Molecular dynamics study of hugoniot relation in shocked nickel single crystal,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 3273–3281, 2018

    2018

  90. [99]

    Nanoindentation in alumina coated al: Molecular dynamics simulations and experiments,

    H. Luu, S. Raumel, F. Dencker, M. Wurz, and N. Merkert, “Nanoindentation in alumina coated al: Molecular dynamics simulations and experiments,” Surface and Coatings Technol- ogy, vol. 437, p. 128342, May 2022. 18

    2022

  91. [100]

    Crystal structure of a high-pressure/high-temperature phase of alumina by in situ x-ray diffraction,

    J. Lin, O. Degtyareva, C. Prewitt, P. Dera, N. Sata, E. Gregoryanz, H. Mao, and R. J. Hemley, “Crystal structure of a high-pressure/high-temperature phase of alumina by in situ x-ray diffraction,” Nature Materials, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 389–393, 2004

    2004

  92. [101]

    First-principles calculation of kinetic barriers and metastabil- ity for the corundum-to-rh2o3 (ii) transition in al2o3,

    B. Xu, H. Stokes, and J. Dong, “First-principles calculation of kinetic barriers and metastabil- ity for the corundum-to-rh2o3 (ii) transition in al2o3,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , vol. 22, no. 31, p. 315403, 2010

    2010

  93. [102]

    First-principles simulation of high-pressure poly- morphs in mgal 2 o 4,

    S. Ono, J. P. Brodholt, and G. D. Price, “First-principles simulation of high-pressure poly- morphs in mgal 2 o 4,” Physics and Chemistry of Minerals , vol. 35, pp. 381–386, 2008. 19 Supporting Information S1. QeQ calculation influence on computational performance (a) (b) Figu...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.