BLIPs: Bayesian Learned Interatomic Potentials
Dario Coscia, Pim de Haan, Max Welling

TL;DR
BLIPs introduces a Bayesian framework for interatomic potentials that enhances predictive accuracy and provides reliable uncertainty estimates, especially in data-scarce or out-of-distribution scenarios, improving simulation reliability.
Contribution
BLIPs presents a scalable, architecture-agnostic Bayesian approach for training and fine-tuning MLIPs with calibrated uncertainties and minimal computational overhead.
Findings
Improved accuracy over standard MLIPs in chemistry tasks.
Provides well-calibrated uncertainty estimates.
Enhances performance in data-scarce and out-of-distribution regimes.
Abstract
Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) are becoming a central tool in simulation-based chemistry. However, like most deep learning models, MLIPs struggle to make accurate predictions on out-of-distribution data or when trained in a data-scarce regime, both common scenarios in simulation-based chemistry. Moreover, MLIPs do not provide uncertainty estimates by construction, which are fundamental to guide active learning pipelines and to ensure the accuracy of simulation results compared to quantum calculations. To address this shortcoming, we propose BLIPs: Bayesian Learned Interatomic Potentials. BLIP is a scalable, architecture-agnostic variational Bayesian framework for training or fine-tuning MLIPs, built on an adaptive version of Variational Dropout. BLIP delivers well-calibrated uncertainty estimates and minimal computational overhead for energy and forces prediction at…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- There is a need for MLIP uncertainty quantification methods, and the variational framework applied here has been less common for MLIPs.
A number of my concerns around the paper are understanding what utility this approach has given the progress in the field. - The MLIP field now has models trained on large, broad datasets. The experiment of training a network from scratch feels unrealistic now, such as the first example the authors look at. They are also using an architecture (PaiNN) that is outdated, with many architectures having improved on this architecture. It’s not clear if this method can actually help the best models t
The paper significantly contributes to an important problem and provides a novel approach to Bayesian modeling in computational chemistry.
The paper claims that the Bayesian approach improves predictive accuracy for out of distribution configurations, specifically out of equilibrium geometries. For out of equilibrium geometries (in case they have multireference character) even DFT will not provide accurate energies or forces, which makes this a quite fundamental issue. I have a difficult time believing that a Bayesian model should overcome this and would appreciate a more detailed elaboration, as well as an explanation of what prec
The paper is well written and easy to follow. The proposed modeling approach is reasonable and seems to work well. It is very general and can be applied to a long range of problems, also outside MLIPs.
Deep ensembles are commonly used for UQ in MLIPs, and there are several papers that focus on different ways to do this, however this literature is not cited sufficiently. In particular it would be beneficial with a discussion on how posthoc calibration is beneficial. All examples are in the small data regime and for the most part concerned with out of distribution uncertainty. Typically this means high sensitivity to hyperparameter choices. Often a slightly over-regularized model can trade in
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
