
Machine learning (ML) approaches enable large-scale atomistic simulations with near-quantum-mechanical accuracy. With the growing availability of these methods, there arises a need for careful validation, particularly for physically agnostic models—that is, for potentials that extract the nature of atomic interactions from reference data. Here, we review the basic principles behind ML potentials and their validation for atomic-scale material modeling. We discuss the best practice in defining error metrics based on numerical performance, as well as physically guided validation. We give specific recommendations that we hope will be useful for the wider community, including those researchers who intend to use ML potentials for materials “off the shelf.”
Chemical Physics (physics.chem-ph), Condensed Matter - Materials Science, Physics - Chemical Physics, Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci), FOS: Physical sciences
Chemical Physics (physics.chem-ph), Condensed Matter - Materials Science, Physics - Chemical Physics, Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci), FOS: Physical sciences
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 106 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% |
