Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Improving Translational Accuracy

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...

Improving Translational Accuracy

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...

Molecular Models

Molecular Models

Physical models representing molecular architectures of chemical compounds play essential roles in understanding chemistry. The use of molecular models makes it easier to visualize the structures and shapes of atoms and molecules.

Predicting Molecular Geometry

Predicting Molecular Geometry

VSEPR Theory for Determination of Electron Pair Geometries

Molecular Comparison of Gases, Liquids, and Solids

Molecular Comparison of Gases, Liquids, and Solids

Particles in a solid are tightly packed together (fixed shape) and often arranged in a regular pattern; in a liquid, they are close together with no regular arrangement (no fixed shape); in a gas, they are far apart with no regular arrangement (no fixed shape). Particles in a solid vibrate about fixed positions (cannot flow) and do not generally move in relation to one another; in a liquid, they move past each other (can flow) but remain in essentially constant contact; in a gas, they move...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Pushing the Limits of One-Dimensional NMR Spectroscopy for Automated Structure Elucidation Using Artificial Intelligence.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026

Same author

Efficient simulation of optical spectra via machine learning and physical decomposition of environmental effects.

The Journal of chemical physics·2026

Same author

Two-dimensional electronic spectra from trajectory-based dynamics: Pure-state Ehrenfest, spin-mapping, and mean classical path approaches.

The Journal of chemical physics·2025

Same author

Proton-Transfer Kinetics at Liquid-Liquid Interfaces.

Journal of the American Chemical Society·2025

Same author

Characterizing the Sequence Landscape of Peptide Fibrillization with a Bottom-Up Coarse-Grained Model.

The journal of physical chemistry. B·2025

Same author

Beyond the Vibrational Stark Effect: Unraveling the Large Redshifts of Alkyne C-H Bond in Solvation Environments.

Journal of the American Chemical Society·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 7, 2026

Protein Target Prediction and Validation of Small Molecule Compound

Protein Target Prediction and Validation of Small Molecule Compound

Published on: February 23, 2024

Accuracy and Efficiency Benchmarks of Pretrained Machine Learning Potentials for Molecular Simulations.

Peter Eastman¹, Evan Pretti¹, Thomas E Markland¹

¹Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States.

Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

|June 5, 2026

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Selecting the best pretrained Machine Learning Interatomic Potential (MLIP) is challenging. This study benchmarks 15 MLIPs for accuracy and speed, finding model size and training data are key to performance.

More Related Videos

Rapid in-silico Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Reaction Generation using 3T-VASP Multi-Scale Energy Minimization

Rapid in-silico Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Reaction Generation using 3T-VASP Multi-Scale Energy Minimization

Published on: August 22, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 7, 2026

Protein Target Prediction and Validation of Small Molecule Compound

Protein Target Prediction and Validation of Small Molecule Compound

Published on: February 23, 2024

Rapid in-silico Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Reaction Generation using 3T-VASP Multi-Scale Energy Minimization

Rapid in-silico Battery Electrolyte Electrochemical Reaction Generation using 3T-VASP Multi-Scale Energy Minimization

Published on: August 22, 2025

Area of Science:

Computational chemistry
Materials science
Machine learning

Background:

Pretrained Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) are rapidly advancing.
Selecting the optimal MLIP for specific applications is difficult due to the wide variety of available models.

Purpose of the Study:

To benchmark 15 pretrained MLIPs.
To provide an objective comparison of MLIPs based on accuracy, speed, memory usage, and simulation stability.
To identify factors influencing MLIP accuracy and performance.

Main Methods:

Benchmarking of 15 distinct pretrained MLIPs.
Evaluation metrics included accuracy, computational speed, memory requirements, and simulation stability.
Analysis of the correlation between model characteristics (parameters, training set size, energy terms) and performance.

Main Results:

Accuracy is strongly correlated with the number of model parameters and the size of the training dataset.
Explicit Coulomb energy terms did not improve accuracy in this study.
Computational speed and memory usage depend significantly on the MLIP architecture, not just model size.

Conclusions:

The study provides a quantitative basis for selecting appropriate MLIPs for molecular simulations.
Model complexity and training data volume are critical for achieving high accuracy.
MLIP architecture is a crucial factor for computational efficiency.