Crystallographers dispute the discovery claim

Assembled from 12 blocks · 1 evidence · 7 related

1. Story
2. Anthony Cheetham and Ram Seshadri published a perspective in Chemistry of Materials reporting that a random sample of the proposed stable structures contained nothing meeting a three-part test of credibility, usefulness and novelty; that many entries were compositional substitutions on known compounds; and that the outputs should be described as predicted crystalline inorganic compounds rather than as materials. Five months separated the announcement from the rebuttal, and the rebuttal came from the specialist community rather than from a general commentator — which is the mechanism by which an over-claim is normally caught, and which does not exist for claims made about labour markets or education.
3. Knowledge
4. GNoME and the materials-discovery claim
5. Crystallographers dispute the discovery claim
6. Connections
7. GNoME and the materials-discovery claim
8. Google DeepMind
9. GNoME is announced as 2.2 million new crystal structures
10. Crystallographers dispute the discovery claim
11. Evidence
12. Examining a random sample of the roughly 380,000 structures GNoME proposed as stable, the authors report finding none that met a three-part test of being credible, useful and novel; that many entries were compositional modifications of already known compounds; and that the outputs should be described as predicted crystalline inorganic compounds rather than by the more generic label "material". V55 verification basis: the article was not fetched — pubs.acs.org is blocked to this session — but search results carried the title, the DOI 10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c00643, the authors and their institution, and the substance of the three-part test and the conclusion, attributing them to this perspective. The size and selection method of their random sample were NOT retrieved and are not asserted.