Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 2Machine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesModel Reduction and Neural Networks

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing High-Fidelity Neural Network Potentials through Low-Fidelity Sampling

Open access
Jung, Gang Seob·2024·APL Machine Learning

Preprint — published as 10.1063/5.0222779 · Paper page

Abstract

The efficacy of neural network potentials (NNPs) critically depends on the quality of the configurational datasets used for training. Prior research using empirical potentials has shown that well-selected liquid-solid transitional configurations of a metallic system can be translated to other metallic systems. This study demonstrates that such validated configurations can be relabeled using density functional theory (DFT) calculations, thereby enhancing the development of high-fidelity NNPs. Training strategies and sampling approaches are efficiently assessed using empirical potentials and subsequently relabeled via DFT in a highly parallelized fashion for high-fidelity NNP training. Our results reveal that relying solely on energy and force for NNP training is inadequate to prevent overfitting, highlighting the necessity of incorporating stress terms into the loss functions. To optimize training involving force and stress terms, we propose employing transfer learning to fine-tune the weights, ensuring the potential surface is smooth for these quantities composed of energy derivatives. This approach markedly improves the accuracy of elastic constants derived from simulations in both empirical potential-based NNP and relabeled DFT-based NNP. Overall, this study offers significant insights into leveraging empirical potentials to expedite the development of reliable and robust NNPs at the DFT level.

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 · 10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-1s25h

Cites

1 of 1 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

Metadata

Authors
Jung, G. S.
Affiliations
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Jung, Gang Seob
Venue
APL Machine Learning
Published
2024-05-23
Volume
2
Issue
4
ISSN
2770-9019 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403336420
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • APL Machine Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (DE--AC05--00OR22725)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Model Reduction and Neural Networks
Keywords
neural network potentials, metallic systems, empirical potentials, density functional theory, overfitting, transfer learning, elastic constants, interatomic potentials

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.