A single design choice determines whether machine learning models of materials make physically impossible predictions

arXiv:2608.18714v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine-learned models are replacing first-principles calculations across materials discovery, and physical symmetry is the central guarantee built into them. The debate over how much symmetry to hard-wire rather than learn has run on rotations, where a symmetry error is an approximation error. Some constraints are exact: symmetry forces certain property tensors to exactly zero, so a nonzero prediction is physically impossible rather than inaccurate. Here we show that whether a model can make such predictions is decided before training by one rarely reported design bit, whether its features carry parity labels, and derive a criterion, the parity gap, that computes from group theory alone which properties and crystals are exposed. Across matched architecture pairs differing only in that bit, evaluated on two thousand centrosymmetric crystals whose piezoelectric tensor must vanish, parity-labelled arms sit at the floating-point floor while rotation-only arms predict forbidden responses on 90-96% of crystals, six orders of magnitude apart, at no accuracy cost. Training on explicit zeros does not recover exactness, and a head on a frozen universal potential inherits its backbone's symmetry group. One reflection at random initialization verifies the label in seconds.

Abstract:Machine-learned models are replacing first-principles calculations across materials discovery, and physical symmetry is the central guarantee built into them. The debate over how much symmetry to hard-wire rather than learn has run on rotations, where a symmetry error is an approximation error. Some constraints are exact: symmetry forces certain property tensors to exactly zero, so a nonzero prediction is physically impossible rather than inaccurate. Here we show that whether a model can make such predictions is decided before training by one rarely reported design bit, whether its features carry parity labels, and derive a criterion, the parity gap, that computes from group theory alone which properties and crystals are exposed. Across matched architecture pairs differing only in that bit, evaluated on two thousand centrosymmetric crystals whose piezoelectric tensor must vanish, parity-labelled arms sit at the floating-point floor while rotation-only arms predict forbidden responses on 90-96% of crystals, six orders of magnitude apart, at no accuracy cost. Training on explicit zeros does not recover exactness, and a head on a frozen universal potential inherits its backbone's symmetry group. One reflection at random initialization verifies the label in seconds.

Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

arXiv:2608.18714 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

(or arXiv:2608.18714v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18714 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

A single design choice determines whether machine learning models of materials make physically impossible predictions

Subiecte conexe