Cited by 2,312Machine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fast and Accurate Modeling of Molecular Atomization Energies with Machine Learning

Open access
Rupp, Matthias, Tkatchenko, Alexandre, Müller, Klaus-Robert, von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole·2012·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We introduce a machine learning model to predict atomization energies of a diverse set of organic molecules, based on nuclear charges and atomic positions only. The problem of solving the molecular Schrödinger equation is mapped onto a nonlinear statistical regression problem of reduced complexity. Regression models are trained on and compared to atomization energies computed with hybrid density-functional theory. Cross validation over more than seven thousand organic molecules yields a mean absolute error of ∼10 kcal/mol. Applicability is demonstrated for the prediction of molecular atomization potential energy curves.

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 · 10.1103/physrevlett.108.058301

Cites

39 of 39 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. B. Schölkopf, 2002, Learning with Kernels

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,002

Metadata

Authors
Rupp, M., Tkatchenko, A., Müller, K.-R., & von Lilienfeld, O. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2012-01-31
Volume
108
Issue
5
Pages
058301-058301
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2104489082
Cited by
2,312
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 143 · 2025: 224 · 2024: 260 · 2023: 227 · 2022: 225 · 2021: 308 · 2020: 326 · 2019: 194 · 2018: 178 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 8
FWCI
13.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
atomization energies, machine learning, organic compounds, hybrid density functional theory, regression models, nuclear charge

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