Atomistic simulations of matter, especially those that leverage first-principles (ab initio) electronic structure theory, provide a microscopic view of the world, underpinning much of our understanding of chemistry and materials science. Over the last decade or so, machine-learned force fields have transformed atomistic modeling by enabling simulations of ab initio quality over unprecedented time and length scales. However, early machine-learning (ML) force fields have largely been limited by (i) the substantial computational and human effort required to develop and validate potentials for each particular system of interest and (ii) a general lack of transferability from one chemical system to the next. Here, we show that it is possible to create a general-purpose atomistic ML model, trained on a public dataset of moderate size, that is capable of running stable molecular dynamics for a wide range of molecules and materials. We demonstrate the power of the MACE-MP-0 model—and its qualitative and at times quantitative accuracy—on a diverse set of problems in the physical sciences, including properties of solids, liquids, gases, chemical reactions, interfaces, and even the dynamics of a small protein. The model can be applied out of the box as a starting or “foundation” model for any atomistic system of interest and, when desired, can be fine-tuned on just a handful of application-specific data points to reach ab initio accuracy. Establishing that a stable force-field model can cover almost all materials changes atomistic modeling in a fundamental way: experienced users obtain reliable results much faster, and beginners face a lower barrier to entry. Foundation models thus represent a step toward democratizing the revolution in atomic-scale modeling that has been brought about by ML force fields.

The Pauling rules have been used for decades to rationalise the crystal structures of ionic compounds. Despite their importance, there has been no statistical assessment of the performances of these five empirical rules so far. Here, we rigorously and automatically test all five Pauling rules for a large data set of around 5000 known oxides. We discuss each Pauling rule separately, stressing their limits and range of application in terms of chemistries and structures. We conclude that only 13 % of the oxides simultaneously satisfy the last four rules, indicating a much lower predictive power than expected.