This paper introduces the Chemical Environment Modeling Theory (CEMT), a novel, generalized framework designed to overcome the limitations inherent in traditional atom-centered Machine Learning Force Field (MLFF) models, widely used in atomistic simulations of chemical systems. CEMT demonstrated enhanced flexibility and adaptability by allowing reference points to exist anywhere within the modeled domain and thus, enabling the study of various model architectures. Utilizing Gaussian Multipole (GMP) featurization functions, several models with different reference point sets, including finite difference grid-centered and bond-centered models, were tested to analyze the variance in capabilities intrinsic to models built on distinct reference points. The results underscore the potential of non-atom-centered reference points in force training, revealing variations in prediction accuracy, inference speed and learning efficiency. Finally, a unique connection between CEMT and real-space orbital-free finite element Density Functional Theory (FE-DFT) is established, and the implications include the enhancement of data efficiency and robustness. It allows the leveraging of spatially-resolved energy densities and charge densities from FE-DFT calculations, as well as serving as a pivotal step towards integrating known quantum-mechanical laws into the architecture of ML models.

Natural Language Processing (NLP), a cornerstone field within artificial intelligence, has been increasingly utilized in the field of materials science literature. Our study conducts a reproducibility analysis of two pioneering works within this domain: "Machine-learned and codified synthesis parameters of oxide materials" by Kim et al., and "Unsupervised word embeddings capture latent knowledge from materials science literature" by Tshitoyan et al. We aim to comprehend these studies from a reproducibility perspective, acknowledging their significant influence on the field of materials informatics, rather than critiquing them. Our study indicates that both papers offered thorough workflows, tidy and well-documented codebases, and clear guidance for model evaluation. This makes it easier to replicate their results successfully and partially reproduce their findings. In doing so, they set commendable standards for future materials science publications to aspire to. However, our analysis also highlights areas for improvement such as to provide access to training data where copyright restrictions permit, more transparency on model architecture and the training process, and specifications of software dependency versions. We also cross-compare the word embedding models between papers, and find that some key differences in reproducibility and cross-compatibility are attributable to design choices outside the bounds of the models themselves. In summary, our study appreciates the benchmark set by these seminal papers while advocating for further enhancements in research reproducibility practices in the field of NLP for materials science. This balance of understanding and continuous improvement will ultimately propel the intersecting domains of NLP and materials science literature into a future of exciting discoveries.