ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Completeness of Fixed-Order Atom-Centered Descriptors

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

atom-centered-descriptor-completenessGeometry & topologyposed by Sergey N. Pozdnyakov, Michael J. Willatt, Albert P. Bartók, Christoph Ortner, Gábor Csányi, Michele Ceriotti, 2020recorded: disproved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Pozdnyakov, Willatt, Bartók, Ortner, Csányi and Ceriotti showed in 2020 that the 2-, 3- and 4-point correlations of an atomic neighbour density are incomplete: noncongruent environments can share them exactly. Every degeneracy found since was dissolved by going to a higher correlation order, leaving open whether the trispectrum (5-body correlations), or any fixed finite order, separates all noncongruent environments. It does not. There are noncongruent three-dimensional environments agreeing on every cluster of up to seven neighbours, and for each finite correlation order and angular cutoff there are continuous families of noncongruent environments with identical retained features.

Context

The key ingredients were already in the literature, decades old and in distant fields; what was missing was anyone connecting them to this question.

A six-year-old completeness question from the atomistic machine-learning literature, settled negatively at every fixed order. The authors themselves note the degenerate structures are far from plausible chemistry and largely reinforce a view the field had already reached.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    constructionClaude Opus 4.8 and Fable, Codex 5.5 and Sol 5.6 with Michelangelo Domina, Michele Ceriotti ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    Claude Opus 4.8 and Fable, Codex 5.5 and Sol 5.6
    people
    Michelangelo Domina, Michele Ceriotti

    The paper is as much about the usage pattern as the result, and says so in its title. The authors had been stuck on these questions for years and could not get past the known Pozdnyakov examples. Coding agents built on Claude (Opus 4.8 and Fable) and Codex (5.5 and Sol 5.6) were given a summary of the field's literature and, across unstructured iteration, produced the degenerate configurations by locating results in unrelated communities and recognising what they implied here, among them the homometric structures studied in musical rhythm theory. The authors verified the constructions manually and with model-generated code, and lifted the cyclic degeneracies to three dimensions themselves. They also ran a reproducibility experiment, eight runs per model under each of two prompt conditions, to test how reliably a query of this kind lands.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.