Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 613

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment and Validation of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Molecular Atomization Energies

Open access
Hansen, Katja, Montavon, Grégoire, Biegler, Franziska, Fazli, Siamac, Rupp, Matthias, Scheffler, Matthias, von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole, Tkatchenko, Alexandre, Müller, Klaus-Robert·2013·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

The accurate and reliable prediction of properties of molecules typically requires computationally intensive quantum-chemical calculations. Recently, machine learning techniques applied to ab initio calculations have been proposed as an efficient approach for describing the energies of molecules in their given ground-state structure throughout chemical compound space (Rupp et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 058301). In this paper we outline a number of established machine learning techniques and investigate the influence of the molecular representation on the methods performance. The best methods achieve prediction errors of 3 kcal/mol for the atomization energies of a wide variety of molecules. Rationales for this performance improvement are given together with pitfalls and challenges when applying machine learning approaches to the prediction of quantum-mechanical observables.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ct400195d

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 613

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, K., Montavon, G., Biegler, F., Fazli, S., Rupp, M., Scheffler, M., von Lilienfeld, O. A., Tkatchenko, A., & Müller, K.-R.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2013-07-30
Volume
9
Issue
8
Pages
3404-3419
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W1998260904
Cited by
613
References
87
FWCI
8.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.