Data-Efficient Adaptation of DPA-4 Force Fields to DFT+U Energetics: A Case Study in NiO

Fengyu Xie; Peiheng Jiang; Zhicheng Zhong

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Data-Efficient Adaptation of DPA-4 Force Fields to DFT+U Energetics: A Case Study in NiO

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A machine-learned force field carrying the wrong NiO phase ordering can recover the correct ordering with roughly 170 DFT+U labels, almost as efficiently as direct fine-tuning.

desk verdict A well-executed two-stage fine-tuning case study whose central demonstration holds, but the phase-reversal test rests on a fixed PBE-relaxed path, so the practical claim is narrower than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11812 v1 pith:TPBG4YOF submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Fengyu Xie , Peiheng Jiang , Zhicheng Zhong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph

keywords machine-learnedforcefieldsDPA-4DFT+UNiOfine-tuningphasestabilitymulti-fidelitylearningHubbardcorrection

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

This paper asks whether a machine-learned force field can be rescued cheaply when its pretraining data gave the wrong relative stability for two competing crystal phases. In nickel oxide (NiO), plain PBE favors a square-planar phase while PBE+U—density-functional theory with an on-site Hubbard correction—favors an octahedral phase, a reversal also seen in HSE06 calculations. The authors show that DPA-4, a graph-neural-network foundation force field, reaches energy errors near 0.5 meV/atom with roughly 170 PBE+U training labels, and that even after first being fine-tuned to the wrong no-U surface it recovers the PBE+U phase ordering almost as efficiently as direct fine-tuning. If this holds, pretraining for universal force fields can prioritize cheap, consistent, broad data, leaving application-specific physics to compact fine-tuning sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is two-stage fine-tuning of pretrained DPA-4 foundation models on target-level data selected for information diversity, with a fixed Oct–Sqr interpolation as the diagnostic. DPA-4 is a graph-neural-network interatomic potential pretrained on broad materials datasets; the target dataset consists of about 170 ferromagnetic PBE+U configurations chosen by an entropy-based selection criterion from constant-pressure ab initio molecular dynamics trajectories. The fixed interpolation between PBE-relaxed endpoints isolates the electronic-structure method's effect on phase ordering, and fine-tuning transfers the model from predicting Sqr 0.796 eV per formula unit below Oct to 0.765 eV per formula unit above, correcting the inherited preference.

What would settle it

Relax the Oct and Sqr endpoints with ferromagnetic PBE+U using consistent magnetic initialization and compare their relaxed energies; if Sqr remains below Oct at the PBE+U-relaxed geometries, the source-to-target reversal shown along the PBE-relaxed path does not reflect the true target surface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a demonstration of recoverable phase energetics. Along a fixed structural interpolation between the octahedral (Oct) and square-planar (Sqr) phases of NiO, non-spin-polarized PBE places Sqr 0.793 eV per formula unit below Oct, whereas ferromagnetic PBE+U places Sqr 0.936 eV per formula unit above Oct, with HSE06 in qualitative agreement. Pretrained DPA-4 models fine-tuned on roughly 170 ferromagnetic PBE+U configurations reach energy and force root-mean-square errors of about 0.5 meV/atom and 30 meV/Å; a two-stage model first fine-tuned to no-U PBE and then to PBE+U predicts Sqr 0.765 eV per formula unit above Oct, matching the sign of the target surface and nearly matching direct fine-tuning in data efficiency. The paper treats this as evidence that foundation force fields are transferable priors rather than zero-shot calculators.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the premise that the fixed linear interpolation between PBE-relaxed endpoints faithfully represents the target PBE+U phase energetics; if PBE+U relaxation changed the relative stability, the sign reversal could be a path artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A foundation force field can be valuable even when its pretraining data encode the wrong phase ordering for a specific material.
With roughly 170 PBE+U configurations, DPA-4 reaches energy RMSE near 0.5 meV/atom and force RMSE near 30 meV/Å on NiO.
Prior fine-tuning to the opposing no-U surface does not noticeably increase the amount of target data needed to recover the PBE+U ordering.
Foundation models should be compared by how efficiently and reproducibly they adapt, not only by zero-shot error.
Pretraining data can be chosen for consistency and affordability even if they omit Hubbard-U corrections, as long as user-side fine-tuning can impose target energetics.

Reading between the lines

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

The same two-stage recipe likely extends to other correlated oxides where generalized-gradient and DFT+U surfaces disagree; testing CoO or MnO along analogous paths would show whether the fast reversal is specific to NiO or generic.
A stronger implication for dataset design is that universal pretraining corpora might deliberately exclude U corrections across all transition-metal compounds, trading zero-shot accuracy for label consistency, provided downstream fine-tuning is always expected.
The paper's residual 0.765-versus-0.936 eV per formula unit underestimate suggests a testable prediction: adding more Sqr-like configurations to the target set should close most of the gap, because the authors attribute the error to under-coverage of the Sqr region.
Because the model learns whichever magnetic branch its labels encode, multi-branch targets may need explicit magnetic-state labeling; an experiment mixing FM and AFM PBE+U labels would reveal whether a single potential can represent both.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the two-stage fine-tuning experiment is real, clean, and novel, but the 'phase reversal' is demonstrated on a fixed PBE-relaxed path, not on relaxed PBE+U structures. That narrows the practical conclusion more than the abstract admits.

The good stuff: this is the first clear demonstration I know of that a model deliberately fine-tuned to the wrong phase preference (no-U PBE) can be redirected to the opposite PBE+U ordering with roughly the same data cost as direct fine-tuning. The control is solid—three independent splits, an HSE06 cross-check, consistent FM PBE+U labels, and the two-stage comparison isolates the effect of prior wrong energetics. The Figshare deposit is a plus, and the citation pattern is clean: the prior work on label consistency [13] and fine-tuning efficiency [14] is properly acknowledged and extended. The paper is also honest about its limits: the path is not an MEP, the Sqr basin is under-sampled, and the discussion lists what could break in other materials.

The soft spots, in order. First, the path issue. Everything hinges on PBE and PBE+U disagreeing about Oct versus Sqr along a path whose endpoints were relaxed at non-spin-polarized PBE. If PBE+U relaxation flips the ordering, then the target surface the models are corrected toward isn't the real PBE+U phase stability; it's just that one path. The authors don't test this. It's not fatal for the internal logic—the AIMD data also lives on that geometry region, so the fine-tuning works as stated—but it does limit the practical offer: you can correct your model to reproduce the target surface you chose, but we don't know if that surface is the relevant one. A few PBE+U relaxations would settle it. Second, the under-sampling of Sqr is real but minor, and the authors already flag it; it explains the 0.765 vs 0.936 eV underestimation. Third, 'nearly the same data efficiency' is a visual claim; there's no statistical test. Minor. Fourth, no commit hash or exact code version; the hyperparameters are clear, but full reproducibility would need the exact training script. Minor.

Overall, a well-executed case study with a genuinely new result. The reader's take is about right. I'd send it to peer review, but ask for a relaxation check at the target level before acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript asks whether a foundation machine-learned force field that was pretrained, or even previously fine-tuned, on electronic-structure data with qualitatively incorrect phase energetics can be efficiently corrected by fine-tuning on a compact target-level dataset. Using NiO as a case study, the authors build a common structural interpolation between an octahedral (Oct) and a square-planar (Sqr) phase and show that non-spin-polarized PBE favors Sqr while ferromagnetic PBE+U favors Oct. They fine-tune DPA-3 and DPA-4 foundation models on 50--290 PBE+U configurations, with and without an intermediate no-U fine-tuning stage, reporting energy and force RMSEs of roughly 0.5 meV/atom and 30 meV/Å with about 170 target labels. For DPA4-Neo, they further show that a model first fine-tuned on the no-U surface, when subsequently fine-tuned on PBE+U data, predicts a positive Sqr--Oct energy difference and thus recovers the qualitative PBE+U phase ordering. The paper concludes that incorrect source-level phase energetics can be reversed by target-level fine-tuning and proposes a multi-fidelity strategy in which broad, consistent pretraining is combined with system-specific fine-tuning.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and practically important for the deployment of foundation machine-learned force fields: if a small target-level dataset can override a qualitatively wrong source-level phase preference, then pretraining can prioritize label consistency and affordability over reproducing every target-level ordering. The study is well controlled in several respects: four pretrained checkpoints are compared, three independent train--test splits are used, the target-level labels are generated with consistent DFT+U settings, and HSE06 provides an external consistency check for the PBE+U ordering. The data and fine-tuned models are made publicly available. The main caveats, which I detail below, are that the target phase ordering is established only on a fixed PBE-relaxed interpolation path, and that the 'same data efficiency' claim for phase-ordering recovery is demonstrated at a single training-set size and for a single model.

major comments (2)

[Section III A, Fig. 2] The claim that PBE+U reverses the Oct--Sqr ordering is established only along a fixed linear interpolation between endpoints relaxed with non-spin-polarized PBE. Because the central transfer experiment is framed as correcting 'incorrect source-level phase energetics,' the target surface's ordering should be confirmed at PBE+U-relaxed endpoints. If PBE+U relaxation substantially stabilizes Sqr relative to Oct, the demonstrated sign reversal could be an artifact of the chosen path rather than a property of the target surface. Please add PBE+U structural relaxations of the Oct and Sqr endpoints (and ideally a small number of intermediate configurations) and report whether the ordering survives; the HSE06 check should also be extended to the relaxed endpoints if feasible. This is a load-bearing robustness test, not a presentation issue.
[Section III C, Figs. 4 and 5] The abstract claims that no-U-adapted models recover the PBE+U phase ordering 'with nearly the same target-data efficiency as models fine-tuned directly.' However, Fig. 5 shows the phase-ordering reversal only for DPA4-Neo at N_train = 170, while Fig. 4 supports data-efficiency equivalence using aggregate energy and force RMSEs. These RMSEs are dominated by Oct-like configurations because the target dataset has much greater Oct coverage, as acknowledged in Section III C, so low RMSE does not by itself establish correct Sqr--Oct energetics. Please add a panel showing the predicted Sqr--Oct energy difference (at least its sign) versus N_train for direct and two-stage fine-tuning, including both DPA-4 models and the split-to-split spread, or alternatively adjust the central claim to state explicitly that ordering recovery was verified at one training-set size for one model.

minor comments (5)

[Section III C, Fig. 5] The recovered endpoint difference is 0.765 eV/f.u. versus the PBE+U target value of 0.936 eV/f.u.; the authors attribute this to uneven Sqr coverage. It would strengthen the practical message to report how many of the 170 training configurations are Sqr-like and whether targeted enrichment of the Sqr region changes the endpoint error.
[Section II A and Fig. 2] The HSE06 agreement is described as qualitative, but the final two HSE06 points are omitted and the number of consistently converged points is not stated. Please report the range of λ for which HSE06 results were obtained and how many configurations were discarded.
[Section III A] The r2SCAN FM value of Sqr below Oct by 0.018 eV/f.u. is very small; before concluding that r2SCAN is in 'qualitative disagreement' with PBE+U and HSE06, please give an estimate of numerical uncertainty, for example from convergence tests or k-point sensitivity.
[General] The text uses informal model names such as DPA4-Air and DPA4-Neo after defining full names in Section II C; adding a table with the checkpoint identifiers and pretraining datasets would improve reproducibility.
[Section II A] There are minor typographical issues, including a missing space in '5×10−6eV/atom' and in 'PBE+Upredict' in the abstract; I also recommend giving a version or DOI for the QUESTS documentation in Ref. [27].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: fine-tuning benchmark uses independent DFT+U labels and held-out evaluations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical fitting and transfer results, not derivations from fitted parameters. The PBE+U target labels are generated by VASP independently of any MLFF, and the fine-tuned models are evaluated on held-out test configurations and on a fixed structural interpolation path that was not used in training. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the reported RMSEs are test-set errors, and the recovery of the PBE+U phase ordering is an evaluation of the fine-tuned model, not an input to the fit. The sole self-citation, Ref. [14], is contextual — it refers to prior fine-tuning work by a coauthor but is not load-bearing, since the data-efficiency and transfer conclusions are established by the present experiments. The use of the fixed PBE-relaxed interpolation path and the absence of PBE+U endpoint relaxation are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the chosen DFT+U convention, the fixed interpolation path, and the sampling distribution of the AIMD data. No invented physical entities are introduced; the MLFFs are standard published architectures. The only hand-chosen numbers that materially affect the conclusion are U_eff and the QUESTS bandwidth, with fine-tuning hyperparameters as additional protocol choices.

free parameters (2)

U_eff = 6.2 eV (U_eff = U - J, Dudarev convention)
Chosen DFT+U parameter defining the target PBE+U surface; not fitted in this work, but the central phase-ordering claim depends on it.
QUESTS kernel bandwidth h = 0.015
Chosen in Eqs. (1)-(2) to rank training configurations; affects which 50 to 290 PBE+U frames are used, and therefore the measured data efficiency.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dudarev DFT+U with U_eff = 6.2 eV applied to Ni 3d orbitals defines the correct target energetics for NiO.
Invoked in Section II A for all PBE+U calculations; the phase ordering depends on this parameter choice. It is justified only by qualitative agreement with HSE06 over a partial interpolation path, not by experiment.
domain assumption FM and AFM PBE+U branches give the same qualitative Oct-Sqr ordering, so FM can be used as the target surface.
Section III A: FM and AFM differ by less than method differences; the paper uses FM for fine-tuning. This excludes the possibility that the transfer result depends on magnetic ordering.
domain assumption A fixed linear interpolation between PBE-relaxed endpoints is a valid proxy for phase energetics.
Section III A and Fig. 2: the path is not a minimum-energy path; endpoints are relaxed with non-spin-polarized PBE. PBE+U relaxation is not tested.
domain assumption AIMD at 300, 600, 900 K with 250 steps provides sufficient configuration coverage for fine-tuning.
Section II A: only 250 steps per trajectory; the Sqr basin is under-covered, which the authors acknowledge in Section III C. The phase-reversal claim depends on the sampled configurations being representative enough.
domain assumption The pretrained DPA models contain relevant Ni-O chemistry from MP/OMat24 pretraining.
The zero-shot RMSEs (15-20 meV/atom, 125-175 meV/A) show approximate transfer; the paper assumes this prior is useful for NiO.
domain assumption QUESTS selection with h = 0.015 yields a training set whose diversity controls fine-tuning performance.
Methods Section II B; this hyperparameter is fixed and not swept.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Efficient Adaptation of DPA-4 Force Fields to DFT+U Energetics: A Case Study in NiO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPBG4YOF

@misc{pith2026260811812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Efficient Adaptation of DPA-4 Force Fields to DFT+U Energetics: A Case Study in NiO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPBG4YOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11812}
}

read the original abstract

Foundation machine-learned force fields (MLFFs) are often pretrained on broad materials datasets whose electronic-structure conventions may not reproduce the phase energetics required for a specific correlated material. Using NiO as a case study, we examine whether incorrect source-level phase energetics can be corrected efficiently through target-level fine-tuning. Along a common structural interpolation, non-spin-polarized PBE and ferromagnetic PBE+U predict opposite energetic orderings of the octahedral Oct and square-planar Sqr phases. Pretrained DPA-4 models adapt rapidly to the NiO PBE+U surface, reaching energy and force root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of approximately 0.5 meV/atom and 30 meV/{\AA}, respectively, with approximately 170 PBE+U labels. Crucially, models previously fine-tuned to the opposing no-U surface recover the qualitative PBE+U phase ordering with nearly the same target-data efficiency as models fine-tuned directly from their respective pretrained initializations. Our results show that incorrect source-level phase energetics can be reversed through target-level fine-tuning, and suggest a practical multi-fidelity strategy in which pretraining prioritizes broad, consistent, and affordable data, while compact target-level datasets impose energetics through application-specific fine-tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11812 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Correlation-sensitive energetics and site-resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Data-efficient adaptation of pretrained MLFFs to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Second-stage adaptation from the non-spin-polarized PBE surface without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Predicted relative energies, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[13]

Warford, F

T. Warford, F. L. Thiemann, and G. Cs´ anyi, Better with- out U : Impact of selective Hubbard U correction on foun- dational MLIPs, Machine Learning: Science and Tech- nology7, 035033 (2026)

work page 2026
[14]

R. Wang, Y. Gao, H. Wu, and Z. Zhong, Pre-training, fine-tuning, and distillation (PFD): Automatically gener- ating machine learning force fields from universal models, Physical Review Materials9, 113802 (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and Mott insulators: HubbardUinstead of Stoner I, Physical Review B44, 943 (1991)

work page 1991
[2]

Cococcioni and S

M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Linear response ap- proach to the calculation of the effective interaction pa- rameters in the LDA + U method, Physical Review B 71, 035105 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

A. Jain, G. Hautier, S. P. Ong, C. J. Moore, C. C. Fis- cher, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Formation enthalpies by mixing GGA and GGA + U calculations, Physical Review B84, 045115 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

Spagnoli, K

D. Spagnoli, K. Refson, K. Wright, and J. D. Gale, Den- sity functional theory study of the relative stability of the iron disulfide polymorphs pyrite and marcasite, Physical Review B81, 094106 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

O. Y. Long, G. Sai Gautam, and E. A. Carter, Evalu- ating optimal U for 3 d transition-metal oxides within the SCAN+ U framework, Physical Review Materials4, 045401 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

R. L. Kam, L. Binci, A. D. Kaplan, K. A. Persson, N. Marzari, and G. Ceder, Interplay between electron localization, magnetic order, and Jahn-Teller distortion dictates LiMnO 2 phase stability, Physical Review B111, 245132 (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 33 references

[7]

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 Materials1, 011002 (2013)

2013
[8]

M. K. Horton, P. Huck, R. X. Yang, J. M. Munro, S. Dwaraknath, A. M. Ganose, R. S. Kingsbury, M. Wen, J. X. Shen, T. S. Mathis, A. D. Kaplan, K. Berket, J. Riebesell, J. George, A. S. Rosen, E. W. C. Spotte- Smith, M. J. McDermott, O. A. Cohen, A. Dunn, M. C. Kuner, G.-M. Rign...

2025
[9]

Schmidt, H.-C

J. Schmidt, H.-C. Wang, T. F. T. Cerqueira, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals, Scientific Data9, 64 (2022)

2022
[10]

Schmidt, N

J. Schmidt, N. Hoffmann, H.-C. Wang, P. Borlido, P. J. M. A. Carri¸ co, T. F. T. Cerqueira, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, Machine-Learning-Assisted Determination of the Global Zero-Temperature Phase Diagram of Mate- rials, Advanced Materials35, 2210788 (2023)

2023
[11]

Barros-Luque, M

L. Barros-Luque, M. Shuaibi, X. Fu, B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, M. Gao, A. Rizvi, M. Uyttendaele, C. L. Zitnick, and Z. W. Ulissi, The Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) inorganic materials dataset and models, Na- ture Computational Science6, 642 (2026)

2026
[12]

F. Zhou, M. Cococcioni, C. A. Marianetti, D. Morgan, and G. Ceder, First-principles prediction of redox po- tentials in transition-metal compounds with LDA + U, Physical Review B70, 235121 (2004)

2004
[15]

Zhang, A

D. Zhang, A. Peng, C. Cai, W. Li, Y. Zhou, J. Zeng, M. Guo, C. Zhang, B. Li, H. Jiang, T. Zhu, W. Jia, L. Zhang, and H. Wang, A graph neural network for the era of large atomistic models, npj Computational Mate- rials 10.1038/s41524-026-02146-2 (2026)

2026 doi
[16]

T. Li, W. Li, A. Peng, J. Xue, L. Zhang, D. Zhang, and H. Wang, DPA4: Pushing the Accuracy-Cost Frontier of Interatomic Potentials with EMFA SO(2) Convolution (2026), arXiv:2606.02419 [physics.chem-ph]

2026 arXiv
[17]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Physical Review B47, 558 (1993)

1993
[18]

Kresse and J

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 6, 15 (1996)

1996
[19]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes forab initiototal-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Physical Review B54, 11169 (1996)

1996
[20]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Physical Review B59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[21]

S. P. Ong, W. D. Richards, A. Jain, G. Hautier, M. Kocher, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, V. L. Chevrier, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Python Materials Genomics (py- matgen): A robust, open-source python library for mate- rials analysis, Computational Materials Science68, 314 (2013)

2013
[22]

S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Electron-energy-loss spec- tra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study, Physical Review B57, 1505 (1998)

1998
[23]

J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Physical Review Letters77, 3865 (1996)

1996
[24]

J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, General- ized Gradient Approximation Made Simple [Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)], Physical Review Letters78, 1396 (1997)

1996
[25]

J. W. Furness, A. D. Kaplan, J. Ning, J. P. Perdew, and J. Sun, Accurate and Numerically Efficient r2 SCAN Meta-Generalized Gradient Approximation, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters11, 8208 (2020). 9

2020
[26]

A. V. Krukau, O. A. Vydrov, A. F. Izmaylov, and G. E. Scuseria, Influence of the exchange screening parameter on the performance of screened hybrid functionals, The Journal of Chemical Physics125, 224106 (2006)

2006
[27]

QUESTS 2024.06.21 documentation, github.io

2024
[28]

Schwalbe-Koda, S

D. Schwalbe-Koda, S. Hamel, B. Sadigh, F. Zhou, and V. Lordi, Model-free estimation of completeness, uncer- tainties, and outliers in atomistic machine learning us- ing information theory, Nature Communications16, 4014 (2025)

2025
[29]

DPA-3.1-3M model, AIS Square model repository
[30]

J. Zeng, D. Zhang, A. Peng, X. Zhang, S. He, Y. Wang, X. Liu, H. Bi, Y. Li, C. Cai, C. Zhang, Y. Du, J.-X. Zhu, P. Mo, Z. Huang, Q. Zeng, S. Shi, X. Qin, Z. Yu, C. Luo, Y. Ding, Y.-P. Liu, R. Shi, Z. Wang, S. L. Bore, J. Chang, Z. Deng, Z. Ding, S. Han, W. Jiang, G. Ke, Z. Liu...

2025 arXiv
[31]

A. D. Kaplan, R. Liu, J. Qi, T. W. Ko, B. Deng, J. Riebe- sell, G. Ceder, K. A. Persson, and S. P. Ong, A Foun- dational Potential Energy Surface Dataset for Materials (2025), arXiv:2503.04070 [cond-mat]

2025
[32]

M. C. Kuner, A. D. Kaplan, K. A. Persson, M. Asta, and D. C. Chrzan, MP-ALOE: An r2SCAN dataset for uni- versal machine learning interatomic potentials, npj Com- putational Materials11, 352 (2025)

2025
[33]

Shinagawa, S

C. Shinagawa, S. Takamoto, D. Shintani, Y.-B. Zhuang, Y. Tsuboi, K. Nishimra, K. Shinohara, S. Iwase, Y. Tanaka, and J. Li, Matlantis-PFP v8: Universal Ma- chine Learning Interatomic Potential with Better Ex- perimental Agreements via r2SCAN Functional (2026), arXiv:2603.11063...

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Warford, F

T. Warford, F. L. Thiemann, and G. Cs´ anyi, Better with- out U : Impact of selective Hubbard U correction on foun- dational MLIPs, Machine Learning: Science and Tech- nology7, 035033 (2026)

work page 2026

[2] [14]

R. Wang, Y. Gao, H. Wu, and Z. Zhong, Pre-training, fine-tuning, and distillation (PFD): Automatically gener- ating machine learning force fields from universal models, Physical Review Materials9, 113802 (2025)

work page 2025

[3] [1]

V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and Mott insulators: HubbardUinstead of Stoner I, Physical Review B44, 943 (1991)

work page 1991

[4] [2]

Cococcioni and S

M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Linear response ap- proach to the calculation of the effective interaction pa- rameters in the LDA + U method, Physical Review B 71, 035105 (2005)

work page 2005

[5] [3]

A. Jain, G. Hautier, S. P. Ong, C. J. Moore, C. C. Fis- cher, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Formation enthalpies by mixing GGA and GGA + U calculations, Physical Review B84, 045115 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [4]

Spagnoli, K

D. Spagnoli, K. Refson, K. Wright, and J. D. Gale, Den- sity functional theory study of the relative stability of the iron disulfide polymorphs pyrite and marcasite, Physical Review B81, 094106 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [5]

O. Y. Long, G. Sai Gautam, and E. A. Carter, Evalu- ating optimal U for 3 d transition-metal oxides within the SCAN+ U framework, Physical Review Materials4, 045401 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [6]

R. L. Kam, L. Binci, A. D. Kaplan, K. A. Persson, N. Marzari, and G. Ceder, Interplay between electron localization, magnetic order, and Jahn-Teller distortion dictates LiMnO 2 phase stability, Physical Review B111, 245132 (2025)

work page 2025