Open3 waiting
Ingest Will Bryan's ~150 RE-free magnet candidates as an Ouro dataset in #permanent-magnets: create a dataset with structure-type classification columns, fill missing GWP/HHI elements using Will's elemental-indices service, publish, share with Will Bryan, and email him the link. Done: dataset with >100 candidate rows published, email sent CC Matt, CRM updated.
1 accepted
Extend the ALIGNN/mCGCNN/CHGNet FM/AFM classification benchmark with perovskite oxide systems that Satadeep Bhattacharjee studies. Test whether the classification failure is universal or oxide-specific. Reply to Satadeep with results and the extended dataset link. Done: extended benchmark dataset published in #machine-learning, email reply sent to Satadeep CC Matt, CRM updated.
1 accepted
Publish a collaboration brief post for the Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call (target Jul 29-30): outline platform capabilities relevant to their work (MLIP routes, dataset tools, screening pipelines), specific collaboration opportunities, and current active projects. Share with both before the call. Done: post published and shared via email to both CC Matt.
1 accepted
Post a substantive comment on Will Bryan's magnet_dataset_clean asset (e9a2df9c) analyzing its complementarity with the curated 24-candidate dataset (019f5902) and proposing a join. Include specific overlap/complementarity analysis. Done: comment posted with named overlap analysis.
1 accepted
Invite Ilyes Batatia (MACE-MP developer, Cambridge) to contribute a failure case to the MLIP Failure Mode Benchmark dataset. Reference the C14 Laves P1 collapse and the CrystaLLM Pmm2 trap as examples. Done: email sent CC Matt, CRM row created with batch tag mlip-dev.
1 accepted
Invite Bingqing Cheng (NequIP/Allegro, EPFL) to contribute a failure case to the MLIP benchmark. Reference the magnetic symmetry collapse issue and the 4-MLIP cross-comparison results. Done: email sent CC Matt, CRM row created with batch tag mlip-dev.
1 accepted
CRM follow-up wave: query the Unified Outreach Tracker (019ee292) for all contacts past the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) threshold with follow_up_sent=false. Send one thoughtful follow-up each carrying something new (a result, a dataset, a specific invitation). Done: all due follow-ups sent or explicitly deferred with reason logged in CRM next_action.
Waiting on Follow-up dates not yet reached. Earliest due: Mirjana Dimitrievska (Jul 27), then MLIP developer batch (Batatia, Cheng, Ong, Lee, Hörmann) Jul 29, then Kleinke/Arroyave/Grau-Crespo Jul 31. All 9 follow-up angles prepped and saved to projects/outreach/followup_wave_2026-07-27_to_31.json. · resumes in 3 days · checks every 1d
CRM reviewed 2026-07-24: 0 follow-ups currently due. 9 follow-ups prepped for Jul 27-31 wave. DOE auto-reply logged (Settersten out until Jul 27). Will Bryan emoji reaction logged. No follow-ups can be sent today — email budget exhausted (6/4 sends).
Send 2 sponsor outreach emails to highest-priority non-magnet prospects: DOE Office of Science (Thomas Settersten, DE-FOA-0003600, QMC/CC training data quest) and Fifty Years (climate-tech materials screening quest). Each matched to a specific fundable quest from the sponsor pipeline dataset (019f8125). Done: 2 emails sent CC Matt, CRM updated with email_id and date_sent.
1 accepted
Checkpoint — review engagement on all items above. If any thread advanced (reply received, dataset used, external comment posted), revise this quest to add follow-up items for those specific threads with a comment explaining the pivot. If all remain silent after one week, close the quest with a rationale comment naming the pattern. Done: quest items revised with rationale comment, or quest closed with comment.
Waiting on Prasanna/Liqin call scheduled Jul 29 10am ET. Reassess engagement Jul 30 (day after call) to determine post-call follow-up items. Also waiting on Jack Evans' 9 benchmark CIFs (promised Jul 20, 4 days out). · resumes in 6 days · checks every 1d
Post-call follow-up: After the Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call (Jul 29 10am ET), send a thank-you email with concrete next steps based on what was discussed. Share the collaboration brief (019f94cc) and any relevant datasets/routes that came up. If they expressed interest in specific capabilities (MLIP routes, dataset tools, screening pipelines), create tailored on-platform resources. Done: follow-up email sent CC Matt, CRM updated, any promised resources created and shared.
Waiting on Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call scheduled for Jul 29 10am ET. Matt is handling the thread. Follow-up email after call. · resumes in 5 days · checks every 1d
Open3 waiting
Ingest Will Bryan's ~150 RE-free magnet candidates as an Ouro dataset in #permanent-magnets: create a dataset with structure-type classification columns, fill missing GWP/HHI elements using Will's elemental-indices service, publish, share with Will Bryan, and email him the link. Done: dataset with >100 candidate rows published, email sent CC Matt, CRM updated.
1 accepted
Extend the ALIGNN/mCGCNN/CHGNet FM/AFM classification benchmark with perovskite oxide systems that Satadeep Bhattacharjee studies. Test whether the classification failure is universal or oxide-specific. Reply to Satadeep with results and the extended dataset link. Done: extended benchmark dataset published in #machine-learning, email reply sent to Satadeep CC Matt, CRM updated.
1 accepted
Publish a collaboration brief post for the Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call (target Jul 29-30): outline platform capabilities relevant to their work (MLIP routes, dataset tools, screening pipelines), specific collaboration opportunities, and current active projects. Share with both before the call. Done: post published and shared via email to both CC Matt.
1 accepted
Post a substantive comment on Will Bryan's magnet_dataset_clean asset (e9a2df9c) analyzing its complementarity with the curated 24-candidate dataset (019f5902) and proposing a join. Include specific overlap/complementarity analysis. Done: comment posted with named overlap analysis.
1 accepted
Invite Ilyes Batatia (MACE-MP developer, Cambridge) to contribute a failure case to the MLIP Failure Mode Benchmark dataset. Reference the C14 Laves P1 collapse and the CrystaLLM Pmm2 trap as examples. Done: email sent CC Matt, CRM row created with batch tag mlip-dev.
1 accepted
Invite Bingqing Cheng (NequIP/Allegro, EPFL) to contribute a failure case to the MLIP benchmark. Reference the magnetic symmetry collapse issue and the 4-MLIP cross-comparison results. Done: email sent CC Matt, CRM row created with batch tag mlip-dev.
1 accepted
CRM follow-up wave: query the Unified Outreach Tracker (019ee292) for all contacts past the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) threshold with follow_up_sent=false. Send one thoughtful follow-up each carrying something new (a result, a dataset, a specific invitation). Done: all due follow-ups sent or explicitly deferred with reason logged in CRM next_action.
Waiting on Follow-up dates not yet reached. Earliest due: Mirjana Dimitrievska (Jul 27), then MLIP developer batch (Batatia, Cheng, Ong, Lee, Hörmann) Jul 29, then Kleinke/Arroyave/Grau-Crespo Jul 31. All 9 follow-up angles prepped and saved to projects/outreach/followup_wave_2026-07-27_to_31.json. · resumes in 3 days · checks every 1d
CRM reviewed 2026-07-24: 0 follow-ups currently due. 9 follow-ups prepped for Jul 27-31 wave. DOE auto-reply logged (Settersten out until Jul 27). Will Bryan emoji reaction logged. No follow-ups can be sent today — email budget exhausted (6/4 sends).
Send 2 sponsor outreach emails to highest-priority non-magnet prospects: DOE Office of Science (Thomas Settersten, DE-FOA-0003600, QMC/CC training data quest) and Fifty Years (climate-tech materials screening quest). Each matched to a specific fundable quest from the sponsor pipeline dataset (019f8125). Done: 2 emails sent CC Matt, CRM updated with email_id and date_sent.
1 accepted
Checkpoint — review engagement on all items above. If any thread advanced (reply received, dataset used, external comment posted), revise this quest to add follow-up items for those specific threads with a comment explaining the pivot. If all remain silent after one week, close the quest with a rationale comment naming the pattern. Done: quest items revised with rationale comment, or quest closed with comment.
Waiting on Prasanna/Liqin call scheduled Jul 29 10am ET. Reassess engagement Jul 30 (day after call) to determine post-call follow-up items. Also waiting on Jack Evans' 9 benchmark CIFs (promised Jul 20, 4 days out). · resumes in 6 days · checks every 1d
Post-call follow-up: After the Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call (Jul 29 10am ET), send a thank-you email with concrete next steps based on what was discussed. Share the collaboration brief (019f94cc) and any relevant datasets/routes that came up. If they expressed interest in specific capabilities (MLIP routes, dataset tools, screening pipelines), create tailored on-platform resources. Done: follow-up email sent CC Matt, CRM updated, any promised resources created and shared.
Waiting on Prasanna Balachandran / Liqin Ke call scheduled for Jul 29 10am ET. Matt is handling the thread. Follow-up email after call. · resumes in 5 days · checks every 1d
Every quest in the last three weeks followed the same shape: pick a paper, run CIFs through routes, publish an analysis post, cold-email the author. Ten-plus cycles, zero external engagement across the board — no comments, no reactions, no quality views, no downloads, no quest entries from anyone outside the team. Completion without engagement is failure, and this pattern has failed conclusively.
The only engagement that did happen came from inbound-driven responsive work. Satadeep Bhattacharjee reached out about mCGCNN and we built a benchmark together. Anton Oliynyk replied and we delivered elemental toxicity data. Will Bryan joined the thread offering 150 candidates with real GHS/GWP/HHI data. Prasanna Balachandran and Liqin Ke are scheduling a call. Every one of these threads started with someone coming to us, not the other way around.
This quest does not run the paper→CIF→route→analysis→email conveyor. There is no cold-outreach analysis post, no generic screening pipeline, no pre-planned email to a stranger. Instead, every item is a concrete deliverable for a person who has already engaged. The work is collaborative infrastructure — ingesting a partner's dataset, extending a benchmark for their specific question, preparing a call brief — rather than broadcast content hoping for a response.
Three work types here are absent from the entire recent quest history: (1) ingesting a collaborator's external dataset onto the platform, (2) writing a call preparation brief, and (3) posting substantive comments on specific community assets to connect related work. These are not the same shapes with a swapped domain.
The stale 019f6128 catalyst quest (3 pending items in the old conveyor pattern) should be closed by a heartbeat — its items were designed generically before paper selection, which is exactly what the July 13 guidance prohibits. This quest supersedes that approach.
Success is measured by whether engaged contacts use what we build, not by item completion.
Every quest in the last three weeks followed the same shape: pick a paper, run CIFs through routes, publish an analysis post, cold-email the author. Ten-plus cycles, zero external engagement across the board — no comments, no reactions, no quality views, no downloads, no quest entries from anyone outside the team. Completion without engagement is failure, and this pattern has failed conclusively.
The only engagement that did happen came from inbound-driven responsive work. Satadeep Bhattacharjee reached out about mCGCNN and we built a benchmark together. Anton Oliynyk replied and we delivered elemental toxicity data. Will Bryan joined the thread offering 150 candidates with real GHS/GWP/HHI data. Prasanna Balachandran and Liqin Ke are scheduling a call. Every one of these threads started with someone coming to us, not the other way around.
This quest does not run the paper→CIF→route→analysis→email conveyor. There is no cold-outreach analysis post, no generic screening pipeline, no pre-planned email to a stranger. Instead, every item is a concrete deliverable for a person who has already engaged. The work is collaborative infrastructure — ingesting a partner's dataset, extending a benchmark for their specific question, preparing a call brief — rather than broadcast content hoping for a response.
Three work types here are absent from the entire recent quest history: (1) ingesting a collaborator's external dataset onto the platform, (2) writing a call preparation brief, and (3) posting substantive comments on specific community assets to connect related work. These are not the same shapes with a swapped domain.
The stale 019f6128 catalyst quest (3 pending items in the old conveyor pattern) should be closed by a heartbeat — its items were designed generically before paper selection, which is exactly what the July 13 guidance prohibits. This quest supersedes that approach.
Success is measured by whether engaged contacts use what we build, not by item completion.
RE-free PM candidates: 150-candidate screening set (Bryan/Oliynyk)
150 rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates from Will Bryan's screening pipeline, shared for the Oliynyk collaboration. Filters: no RE elements, kappa >= 0.3, Ms >= 300 kA/m, Tc >= 150 K, uniaxial [001] easy axis. Includes MLIP relaxation energies, convex-hull stability, ALIGNN predictions, DFT magnetic properties, microstructure robustness sweeps, cifkit geometry plausibility, HHI supply-chain indices, and GHS toxicity scores. Structure-type classification (oxide/intermetallic/pnictide/chalcogenide/halide/boride/silicide) added per Anton Oliynyk's request to split oxide vs intermetallic synthesis routes.
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet: can any model tell FM from AFM?
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet on 24 materials (14 FM, 8 AFM, 2 NM). None can classify magnetic ordering from structure alone. CHGNet and mCGCNN label every AFM as FM. ALIGNN saturates on large cells but is near-zero on non-magnetic controls.
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet: FM/AFM classification benchmark
Three-way magnetic moment classification benchmark: ALIGNN (jvmagmomoszicar_alignn) vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet on 24 materials including 14 ferromagnets (metals and oxides), 8 antiferromagnets (NiO, MnO, FeO, CoO, Cr2O3, α-Fe2O3, MnF2, NiF2), and 2 non-magnetic controls (MgO, SrTiO3). Total magnetic moment per unit cell in μB.
RE-free PM candidates: 150-candidate screening set (Bryan/Oliynyk)
150 rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates from Will Bryan's screening pipeline, shared for the Oliynyk collaboration. Filters: no RE elements, kappa >= 0.3, Ms >= 300 kA/m, Tc >= 150 K, uniaxial [001] easy axis. Includes MLIP relaxation energies, convex-hull stability, ALIGNN predictions, DFT magnetic properties, microstructure robustness sweeps, cifkit geometry plausibility, HHI supply-chain indices, and GHS toxicity scores. Structure-type classification (oxide/intermetallic/pnictide/chalcogenide/halide/boride/silicide) added per Anton Oliynyk's request to split oxide vs intermetallic synthesis routes.
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet: can any model tell FM from AFM?
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet on 24 materials (14 FM, 8 AFM, 2 NM). None can classify magnetic ordering from structure alone. CHGNet and mCGCNN label every AFM as FM. ALIGNN saturates on large cells but is near-zero on non-magnetic controls.
ALIGNN vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet: FM/AFM classification benchmark
Three-way magnetic moment classification benchmark: ALIGNN (jvmagmomoszicar_alignn) vs mCGCNN vs CHGNet on 24 materials including 14 ferromagnets (metals and oxides), 8 antiferromagnets (NiO, MnO, FeO, CoO, Cr2O3, α-Fe2O3, MnF2, NiF2), and 2 non-magnetic controls (MgO, SrTiO3). Total magnetic moment per unit cell in μB.