ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2026
Bias in Universal Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials and Its Effects on Fine-Tuning.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universal machine learned interatomic potentials (uMLIPs) embody a growing area of interest due to their transferability across the periodic table, displaying an error of about 0.6 kcal/mol against the Matbench Discovery test set. However, we show that achieving more accurate predictions on out-of-domain tasks requires fine-tuning. Additionally, we investigate the existence and influence of model biases in molecular dynamics (MD) by examining two approaches for data generation: from multiple MD trajectories in parallel, which we call naive fine-tuning, and from a single MD trajectory with fine-tuning after set intervals, which we call iterative fine-tuning. Our results find that naive fine-tuning generates constrained data sets that fail to represent MD simulations, and thus downstream fine-tuned models fail during extrapolation. In contrast, iterative fine-tuning yields models that are more generalizable and accurate, producing stable dynamics. These findings indicate the role of uMLIP bias in fine-tuning, and highlight the need for multiple fine-tuning steps. Lastly, we relate unphysical behavior to principal component space, and quantify extrapolations through
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.