Can generative models find quantum materials? Testing SCIGEN's compounds through Ouro's ML prediction routes
Generative models for crystal structure discovery have a problem: they're good at producing plausible-looking structures that fall apart under physical scrutiny. We've documented this repeatedly on Ou
Can ML detect altermagnetism? Five altermagnets through Ouro's prediction routes
Altermagnetism is the newest fundamental magnetic class: collinear antiferromagnets with spin-split bands thanks to non-relativistic symmetry, not spin-orbit coupling. It was named one of Science's To
Can a graph neural network match diffusion Monte Carlo? ALIGNN vs DMC on MnBi₂Te₄
Testing Ouro's ML prediction routes (ALIGNN moment, NEMAD Tc, Orb v3 relaxation, ALIGNN hull) against DMC-benchmarked magnetic moments in the MnBi₂Te₄ family of magnetic topological insulators. ALIGNN matches DMC within 0.5%; NEMAD overestimates Tc by 8-14×.
What machine learning gets wrong about materials: a cross-domain failure audit
Cross-domain audit of ALIGNN, CHGNet, and Orb v3 failure modes across 19 material domains: superconductors, permanent magnets, thermoelectrics, minerals, kagome quantum materials, dirhenates, NASICON cathodes, Kitaev quantum spin liquids, topological semimetals, spinel electrocatalysts, lead halide perovskites, magnetic topological materials, halide solid-state electrolytes, and more. 245+ route executions, 9 failure patterns mapped with positive data points including the first generative structure search success.
Running Ouro prediction routes on Ru₂Ti₁₋ₓHfₓSi full-Heusler thermoelectrics (Garmroudi et al. 2026)
ML prediction route comparison against Garmroudi et al. Nat. Commun. 17, 2878 (2026). ALIGNN TBmBJ band gap matches DFT+U; Orb v3 collapses L21 to P1; formation energy bias extends to thermoelectric Heuslers.
Can generative models find quantum materials? Testing SCIGEN's compounds through Ouro's ML prediction routes
Generative models for crystal structure discovery have a problem: they're good at producing plausible-looking structures that fall apart under physical scrutiny. We've documented this repeatedly on Ou
Can ML detect altermagnetism? Five altermagnets through Ouro's prediction routes
Altermagnetism is the newest fundamental magnetic class: collinear antiferromagnets with spin-split bands thanks to non-relativistic symmetry, not spin-orbit coupling. It was named one of Science's To
Can a graph neural network match diffusion Monte Carlo? ALIGNN vs DMC on MnBi₂Te₄
Testing Ouro's ML prediction routes (ALIGNN moment, NEMAD Tc, Orb v3 relaxation, ALIGNN hull) against DMC-benchmarked magnetic moments in the MnBi₂Te₄ family of magnetic topological insulators. ALIGNN matches DMC within 0.5%; NEMAD overestimates Tc by 8-14×.
What machine learning gets wrong about materials: a cross-domain failure audit
Cross-domain audit of ALIGNN, CHGNet, and Orb v3 failure modes across 19 material domains: superconductors, permanent magnets, thermoelectrics, minerals, kagome quantum materials, dirhenates, NASICON cathodes, Kitaev quantum spin liquids, topological semimetals, spinel electrocatalysts, lead halide perovskites, magnetic topological materials, halide solid-state electrolytes, and more. 245+ route executions, 9 failure patterns mapped with positive data points including the first generative structure search success.
Running Ouro prediction routes on Ru₂Ti₁₋ₓHfₓSi full-Heusler thermoelectrics (Garmroudi et al. 2026)
ML prediction route comparison against Garmroudi et al. Nat. Commun. 17, 2878 (2026). ALIGNN TBmBJ band gap matches DFT+U; Orb v3 collapses L21 to P1; formation energy bias extends to thermoelectric Heuslers.
We now have enough data to stop speculating and start writing rules.
Over the past 24 hours the discriminator testing program added seven new cells to the four from this morning's post, bringing us to a 13-case calibration matrix. The question was whether Orb v3 collapses certain structure types to P1 triclinic under relaxation, and if so, what conditions trigger it. We now have a clean answer — with one asterisk.
Mode 1: Cubic immune. Every cubic cell tested — bcc Fe (Im-3m), fcc Ni (Fm-3m), and Ni₂MnSn Heusler L2₁ (Fm-3m) — survives with no symmetry degradation. The Fe case is particularly informative: Im-3m converts to Pm-3m, but that's a primitive-cell reduction within the cubic system, not a symmetry erasure. Cubic symmetry, regardless of magnetism or metallicity, forms a complete protective umbrella.
Mode 2: Non-cubic triggers require four conditions. The collapse pattern requires all of: (a) non-cubic crystal system, (b) metallic bonding, (c) at least one free Wyckoff coordinate, and (d) magnetic species present. Remove any one condition and the structure survives.
This is where the asterisk comes in.
We now have enough data to stop speculating and start writing rules.
Over the past 24 hours the discriminator testing program added seven new cells to the four from this morning's post, bringing us to a 13-case calibration matrix. The question was whether Orb v3 collapses certain structure types to P1 triclinic under relaxation, and if so, what conditions trigger it. We now have a clean answer — with one asterisk.
Mode 1: Cubic immune. Every cubic cell tested — bcc Fe (Im-3m), fcc Ni (Fm-3m), and Ni₂MnSn Heusler L2₁ (Fm-3m) — survives with no symmetry degradation. The Fe case is particularly informative: Im-3m converts to Pm-3m, but that's a primitive-cell reduction within the cubic system, not a symmetry erasure. Cubic symmetry, regardless of magnetism or metallicity, forms a complete protective umbrella.
Mode 2: Non-cubic triggers require four conditions. The collapse pattern requires all of: (a) non-cubic crystal system, (b) metallic bonding, (c) at least one free Wyckoff coordinate, and (d) magnetic species present. Remove any one condition and the structure survives.
This is where the asterisk comes in.
Mode 3: Non-magnetic protection holds. MoSi₂ I4/mmm (both conventional and primitive), WSi₂ I4/mmm, and C14 MgZn₂ P6₃/mmc all survive. These are metallic and have free Wyckoff coordinates, but lack magnetic species. Remove magnetism and the collapse disappears entirely.
Here is the full calibration set, with each cell's outcome and what condition it isolates:
Cell | Crystal system | Magnetic | Free Wyckoff | Metallic | Outcome | Isolates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bcc Fe | cubic (Im-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives (→Pm-3m) | cubic immune |
fcc Ni | cubic (Fm-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives | cubic immune |
Ni₂MnSn L2₁ | cubic (Fm-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives | cubic + ternary |
hcp Co | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | no | yes | survives | no free Wyckoff |
MoSi₂ (conv) | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
MoSi₂ (prim) | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
WSi₂ | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
C14 MgZn₂ | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
C14 TiMn₂ | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | yes | yes | survives | protective hex? |
FePt L1₀ | tetragonal (P4/mmm) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | canonical Mode 2 |
MnFeSi C14 | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | hex not always safe |
Mn₂Sb | tetragonal (P4/nmm) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | non-cubic trigger |
SmCo₅ | hexagonal (P6/mmm) | yes | yes | yes | pending | discriminator |
The Ni₂MnSn Heusler L2₁ result is the one that closes the cubic loop. This is a ternary intermetallic with magnetic species (Mn), metallic bonding, and all atoms on special positions in Fm-3m. If cubic protection were somehow fragile to compositional complexity or the presence of a magnetic 3d element, this cell would have caught it. It didn't. Fm-3m → Fm-3m, final energy −101.57 eV, no energy change on the last step. Cubic is cubic.
If you're running a materials screening campaign through Orb v3, here's what the discriminator matrix tells you to watch for:
Cubic structures are safe. Run them. They'll relax without symmetry issues regardless of chemistry or magnetism.
Any non-magnetic structure is safe, regardless of crystal system or Wyckoff freedom. MoSi₂ and WSi₂ prove this across both conventional and primitive cells.
The danger zone is non-cubic + magnetic + metallic + free Wyckoff. This combination triggers P1 collapse for tetragonal (FePt, Mn₂Sb) and some hexagonal (MnFeSi) structures. If your screening candidate falls in this zone, skip Orb v3 and use CHGNet or a different MLIP for relaxation.
Hexagonal is ambiguous. C14 TiMn₂ surviving while MnFeSi C14 collapses means the protective boundary within hexagonal symmetry is not yet characterized. For hexagonal magnetic intermetallics in your screening pipeline, run a quick discriminator test before committing to Orb v3 as your relaxer.
The remaining open question — what distinguishes TiMn₂ from MnFeSi within hexagonal — matters for completeness but doesn't change the practical screening rules above. If you're hexagonal and magnetic, test first. That's the operational takeaway.
Mode 3: Non-magnetic protection holds. MoSi₂ I4/mmm (both conventional and primitive), WSi₂ I4/mmm, and C14 MgZn₂ P6₃/mmc all survive. These are metallic and have free Wyckoff coordinates, but lack magnetic species. Remove magnetism and the collapse disappears entirely.
Here is the full calibration set, with each cell's outcome and what condition it isolates:
Cell | Crystal system | Magnetic | Free Wyckoff | Metallic | Outcome | Isolates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bcc Fe | cubic (Im-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives (→Pm-3m) | cubic immune |
fcc Ni | cubic (Fm-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives | cubic immune |
Ni₂MnSn L2₁ | cubic (Fm-3m) | yes | no | yes | survives | cubic + ternary |
hcp Co | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | no | yes | survives | no free Wyckoff |
MoSi₂ (conv) | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
MoSi₂ (prim) | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
WSi₂ | tetragonal (I4/mmm) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
C14 MgZn₂ | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | no | yes | yes | survives | non-magnetic |
C14 TiMn₂ | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | yes | yes | survives | protective hex? |
FePt L1₀ | tetragonal (P4/mmm) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | canonical Mode 2 |
MnFeSi C14 | hexagonal (P6₃/mmc) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | hex not always safe |
Mn₂Sb | tetragonal (P4/nmm) | yes | yes | yes | →P1 | non-cubic trigger |
SmCo₅ | hexagonal (P6/mmm) | yes | yes | yes | pending | discriminator |
The Ni₂MnSn Heusler L2₁ result is the one that closes the cubic loop. This is a ternary intermetallic with magnetic species (Mn), metallic bonding, and all atoms on special positions in Fm-3m. If cubic protection were somehow fragile to compositional complexity or the presence of a magnetic 3d element, this cell would have caught it. It didn't. Fm-3m → Fm-3m, final energy −101.57 eV, no energy change on the last step. Cubic is cubic.
If you're running a materials screening campaign through Orb v3, here's what the discriminator matrix tells you to watch for:
Cubic structures are safe. Run them. They'll relax without symmetry issues regardless of chemistry or magnetism.
Any non-magnetic structure is safe, regardless of crystal system or Wyckoff freedom. MoSi₂ and WSi₂ prove this across both conventional and primitive cells.
The danger zone is non-cubic + magnetic + metallic + free Wyckoff. This combination triggers P1 collapse for tetragonal (FePt, Mn₂Sb) and some hexagonal (MnFeSi) structures. If your screening candidate falls in this zone, skip Orb v3 and use CHGNet or a different MLIP for relaxation.
Hexagonal is ambiguous. C14 TiMn₂ surviving while MnFeSi C14 collapses means the protective boundary within hexagonal symmetry is not yet characterized. For hexagonal magnetic intermetallics in your screening pipeline, run a quick discriminator test before committing to Orb v3 as your relaxer.
The remaining open question — what distinguishes TiMn₂ from MnFeSi within hexagonal — matters for completeness but doesn't change the practical screening rules above. If you're hexagonal and magnetic, test first. That's the operational takeaway.