SoLiD26: A First Principles Solid-Liquid Interface Dataset for Machine-learned Interatomic Potentials

Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have become a hallmark of AI for scientific simulation. While efforts on new architectures and datasets have led to increasingly accurate and general models, the choice of optimizer for training has largely remained unexplored, defaulting to Adam and its variants in the community. Here, we implement and systematically compare a class of recently proposed matrix-structured optimizers, including Muon, SOAP, and the hybrid SOAP-Muon, for training NequIP and Allegro MLIP models. We find that these optimizers can substantially outperform Adam in both convergence speed and final accuracy. SOAP and SOAP-Muon emerge as robust and consistently strong methods, while Muon only provides partial gains relative to Adam. The improvements are particularly pronounced under partial force supervision. Our results indicate that optimizer choice is an overlooked yet impactful design axis for MLIPs.

Foundation machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have enabled atomistic simulations across broad regions of chemical and materials space, but many remain computationally expensive and lack explicit electrostatics, limiting their use for systems governed by long-range interactions and electrical response. Previously, we introduced Latent Ewald Summation (LES), which learns latent atomic charges and long-range electrostatics from density functional theory (DFT) energy and force labels alone. Here, we use LES to extract electrostatics that are latent in foundation models: energies and forces predicted by a teacher model are used to train a lightweight LES-augmented student MLIP, with optional fine-tuning on additional DFT data. The resulting models reduce computational cost while providing access to Born effective charge tensors, and infrared spectra. We benchmark student models distilled from a broad set of foundation MLIPs, including UMA, MACE, Orb, eSEN, GemNet-OC, PET, and EquiformerV2-based models, against experimental infrared spectra for liquid water, concentrated hydrochloric acid, and the anatase TiO2(101)-water interface. Across these systems, electrostatic response can be extracted from most foundation MLIPs. The benchmark further shows that the underlying DFT level and dataset used to train the teacher model play a larger role than architecture in determining electrostatic and spectroscopic accuracy. For the TiO2-water interface, fine-tuning with a modest amount of higher-level DFT data improves structural and infrared predictions. LES-based distillation therefore provides a practical route for converting foundation MLIPs into efficient, electrically responsive models, while also testing the physical fidelity encoded in foundation models.

Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) approximate quantum-mechanical energies and forces---conventionally computed by density functional theory (DFT) or wave-function methods---at a fraction of the cost. The field encompasses a growing ecosystem of algorithms, training datasets, hyperparameters, and target materials, yet the metadata needed to systematically compare, reproduce, and build upon MLIP studies remains scattered across papers, scripts, and ad-hoc file formats. We present the MLIPs ontology, an OWL 2 DL ontology that captures the concepts needed to describe MLIP methods, their hyperparameters, training datasets with DFT provenance, and published benchmarks. The ontology is organized into three modules---Method, Training Data, and Benchmark---and connects existing ontologies in materials science (MDO, CMSO/ASMO) and machine learning (ML-Schema), complementing dataset-side schemas such as Croissant. It declares 27 formal axioms enforcing data completeness and consistency, including property chains that link trained models to their methods and training data. We demonstrate the ontology through a running example based on Moment Tensor Potentials and evaluate it through competency-question execution on a 20-paper seeded knowledge graph, OWL reasoning, and comparison with existing ontologies.