This analysis predicts properties and classifies crystal systems in materials, suggesting improved accuracy with Riemannian geometry.
We demonstrate that Euclidean analysis of elastic stiffness tensors is fundamentally flawed: distances between materials change by up to 96,913× depending on whether stiffness or compliance representation is used. The affine-invariant Riemannian metric eliminates this representation dependence exactly. Using proprietary Riemannian descriptors, we achieve 94.4% crystal system classification accuracy from only 5 features (vs. 72.4% for 21D Voigt baseline) and 96.9% with combined features on the de Jong et al. (2015) dataset (1,181 DFT-computed materials). Scaling to 11,265 materials from the Materials Project, we identify 2,018 entries (15.2%) with non-physical elastic tensors that fail positive-definiteness validation. Property prediction achieves R² = 0.989 for bulk modulus and R² = 0.977 for shear modulus. Precomputed Riemannian features for all 11,265 materials are available via commercial API at materials.omnisciences.io.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sloan Austermann (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: