Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42086846›Full record

ArticleCommunications chemistry2026

Evaluating mechanical property prediction across material classes using molecular dynamics simulations with universal machine-learned interatomic potentials.

Konstantin Stracke, Connor W Edwards, Jack D Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Konstantin StrackeSchool of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2277-9996
Connor W EdwardsSchool of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9518-8292
Jack D EvansSchool of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. j.evans@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-2601

Funding

Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) DE220100163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulating the mechanical and thermal properties of materials requires accurate treatment of interatomic interactions, yet quantum-mechanical methods can be computationally prohibitive for the time scales needed. Universal machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) offer a promising alternative, but their reliability for dynamics across diverse material classes remains largely untested. Here, we assess the accuracy of six universal MLIPs for predicting the temperature and pressure response of 13 diverse materials (nine metal-organic frameworks and four inorganic compounds), computing bulk modulus, thermal expansion, and thermal decomposition. These MLIPs employ three architectures (graph neural networks, graph network simulators, and graph transformers) with varying training datasets. We observe qualitative agreement with experiment, outperforming UFF4MOF, but also systematic underestimation of bulk modulus and overestimation of thermal expansion across all models, consistent with potential energy surface softening. From all tested models, three top performers arise; 'MACE-MP-0a', 'fairchem_OMAT', and 'Orb-v3', with average error across metrics and materials of 41%, 43%, and 43%, respectively. Beyond overall performance, dataset homogeneity and structural representation dominate model accuracy, while certain architectures can compensate for biases, a step closer to truly universal MLIPs.

Identifiers

PMID42086846
PMCPMC13350857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.