Would encoding quantum dispersion forces into interatomic potentials preserve accuracy across different loading rates and temperatures?

This is a sharp question about the predictive generalizability of quantum-informed interatomic potentials—a critical issue for materials simulation. Let me work through what the archive shows.

Encoding Dispersion Forces: The Framework

The most relevant work is the DFTB+MBD framework [AG-2024.04-1576], which specifically embeds quantum dispersion (van der Waals) interactions into efficient interatomic models. The key insight: many-body dispersion (MBD) captures non-covalent interactions *rooted in quantum first principles*, allowing you to fold accurate quantum effects into classical-scale simulations.

The Generalizability Challenge

Your question asks whether this preserves accuracy across different loading rates and temperatures—i.e., across different thermomechanical regimes. The preprints don't directly address this question in benchmarks.

However, three related findings matter:

1. Environment coupling is crucial [AG-2024.04-2092]. When modeling materials with polarizable embeddings, "the inclusion of the environment is crucial for obtaining results that match the experimental data." This hints that potentials trained on one thermodynamic state may not transfer cleanly to another without accounting for environmental screening effects.

2. Many-body wave function interpolation preserves accuracy under dynamics [AG-2024.02-1771]. This work shows you can interpolate correlated electronic states across atomic configurations while retaining "near-exact potential energy surfaces" during molecular dynamics. This suggests that if you embed quantum dispersion forces correctly, they should remain predictive *during trajectories*—though temperature-dependent properties (entropic effects, anharmonicity) depend on sampling adequacy.

3. Transfer learning mitigates model brittleness [AG-2024.06-1821]. Machine-learned potentials trained first on classical data then refined on quantum calculations can reduce sensitivity to data scarcity. This isn't specifically about dispersion, but it implies that potentials trained at one rate or temperature benefit from multi-regime training.

The Gap

The archive does not contain systematic tests of whether DFTB+MBD potentials (or similar) quantitatively preserve dispersion-force accuracy under rapid loading vs. quasi-static deformation, or across a wide temperature range. That's a non-trivial test: van der Waals forces are sensitive to atomic geometry and electronic polarization, both of which shift with strain rate and thermal motion.

The practical answer: Encoding MBD into potentials should *help* generalization because you're capturing the *physics* of dispersion rather than fitting an empirical curve. But rigorous validation across your specific loading-rate and temperature ranges would require benchmarking—ideally against reference quantum calculations at each state.