ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Analyzing Atomic Interactions in Molecules as Learned by Neural Networks.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training a force field for proteins and small molecules from scratch.Chemical science · 2026Article
- MSF-HierGNN: a multi-source substructure-fusion hierarchical GNN method and web server to predict molecular property for drug design.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Machine-Learned Extrapolation of Quantum Mechanical Energies in Implicit Solvent from Short to Long Oligopeptides.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Approaches in Soft Matter Molecular Simulation and Materials Characterization: Challenges and Perspectives.ChemPlusChem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While machine learning (ML) models have been able to achieve unprecedented accuracies across various prediction tasks in quantum chemistry, it is now apparent that accuracy on a test set alone is not a guarantee for robust chemical modeling such as stable molecular dynamics (MD). To go beyond accuracy, we use explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to develop a general analysis framework for atomic interactions and apply it to the SchNet and PaiNN neural network models. We compare these interactions with a set of fundamental chemical principles to understand how well the models have learned the underlying physicochemical concepts from the data. We focus on the strength of the interactions for different atomic species, how predictions for intensive and extensive quantum molecular properties are made, and analyze the decay and many-body nature of the interactions with interatomic distance. Models that deviate too far from known physical principles produce unstable MD trajectories, even when they have very high energy and force prediction accuracy. We also suggest further improvements to the ML architectures to better account for the polynomial decay of atomic interactions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.