 \[fig:vsLiC\], yellow area), while only the LiC$_{12}$ interlayer distances assume correct values (see Figure \[fig:vsLiC\], green areas), yet outside the plateau.

![Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50%, grey-purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, bright purple) as a function of Li-C repulsion cutoff, with a fixed C-C cutoff set to 2.6 Å. The repulsion was trained on a set analogous to Set 1 ([*cf.*]{} text), where  45% of the structures were replaced by geometries randomly extracted from intra-layer Li diffusion paths. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance is the average between the values for the filled and the empty gallery. The dashed lines show the experimental layer distances. The yellow coloured area represents the range within which the results are stable, however at a wrong value.[]{data-label="fig:vsLiC"}](./all_vs_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

![Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50%, grey-purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, bright purple) as a function of Li-C repulsion cutoff, with a fixed C-C cutoff set to 2.6 Å. The repulsion was trained on a set analogous to Set 2 ([*cf.*]{} text), where  55% of the structures were replaced by geometries with MBD-corrected forces. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance is the average between the values for the filled and the empty gallery. The dashed lines show the experimental layer distances. []{data-label="fig:vsLiC_set3"}](./all_vs_LiC_set3.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

![image](./landscapes.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

This behaviour suggests that our problem here does not lie in the choice of the training set, but rather in the treatment of long-ranged interactions.

Let us consider the underlying predicament: so far, the DFTB-part of the force residues used for the ML process is calculated without LJ dispersion correction. We then construct the repulsion potential with the purpose of making those DFTB calculations match references based on PBE-DFT, which reliably predicts layer distances for Li
\[fig: vsLiC\ ], yellow area), while only the LiC$_{12}$ interlayer distances wear right values (see Figure   \[fig: vsLiC\ ], fleeceable areas), yet outside the tableland. 

! [ Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50% , grey - purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100% , bright purple) as a routine of Li - C repugnance cutoff, with a fixed C - C cutoff set up to 2.6 Å. The repulsion was trained on a bent analogous to Set 1 ([ * californium. * ] { } text), where   45% of the structures were replaced by geometries randomly extracted from intra - layer Li dissemination paths. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance is the average between the values for the fill and the empty gallery. The dashed lines show the experimental layer distance. The yellow coloured area represents the range within which the result are stable, however at a wrong value.[]{data - label="fig: vsLiC"}](./all_vs_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\linewidth " } 

! [ Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50% , grey - purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100% , bright purple) as a function of Li - C repulsion cutoff, with a fixed C - C cutoff set to 2.6 Å. The repulsion was trained on a set analogous to Set 2 ([ * cf. * ] { } text), where   55% of the structure were replaced by geometries with MBD - correct force. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance is the average between the values for the filled and the empty veranda. The dashed lines show the experimental layer distances. [ ] { datum - label="fig: vsLiC_set3"}](./all_vs_LiC_set3.png){width="0.9\linewidth " } 

! [ image](./landscapes.png){width="0.9\linewidth " } 

 This behaviour suggests that our problem here does not lie in the choice of the training set, but rather in the treatment of long - ranged interactions. 

 Let us study the implicit in predicament: so far, the DFTB - part of the force residues used for the ML procedure is calculated without LJ dispersion correction. We then manufacture the repulsion potential with the purpose of making those DFTB calculation match references establish on PBE - DFT, which reliably predict layer distance for Li
 \[fig:gsLiC\], yellow area), while unly the LiC$_{12}$ injeelayer distahces assjme correct values (see Figurx \[fig:csLiC\], green areas), yet outsiae the plwteau.

![Intwrlaber distances foc LiC$_{12}$ (SOG 50%, grsn-purpnx) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, nright purpne) as a functimn oy Li-C repulsion cutoff, with a fixed S-C cutogf set to 2.6 Å. The tepulxyon sas trained on a set analogous to Aet 1 ([*cf.*]{} text), where  45% pf the structures were reppacef by geometries rajdomly extrqcteq from intra-lxyer Li diffusion patha. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayef discance is thg zvftage between the nalues for thc filleg and tne empty gallevy. Thx dawhed lines show the eeperimental layer diftances. Tve yellow coloured qrwa rekresetts gye fanfe wjthin ahirh the resumts are stavle, however at a wrpnd value.[]{data-labsl="fig:vfLyC"}](./all_vs_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

![Interlayeg diatances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50%, grwy-purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, bright ptrple) as a function of Li-C repulsion cutoff, with d fixxd C-C cmtofw sft to 2.6 Å. The repulsion was trained on a set anwmobols to Set 2 ([*cf.*]{} texb), where  55% of the sttuftites were replazed by gekmetries with MBD-clrrecteq forxes. For LyC$_{12}$, tne plotted interlayer distabce is the anerate between the valbes for the yilled and yhe empty gallery. The dcshed mines show hhe experjoental layer disganbes. []{gata-label="fig:vsLiC_set3"}](./all_vs_LyC_set3.png){wmdth="0.9\lnnewidth"}

![kmagg](./landscwpes.png){widhh="0.9\lincfidth"}

This behavioug sugyests that our oroblem here does not lie in thx choice of tne trdining szt, but rather in thq treatment of long-rauged ivteractiona.

Let us consider tre underlying kredicament: sm far, thq DFRB-paet of tfd force residurs used for the ML process is calculabed wkfhout LJ disperwiob correction. We thdn sojsvruct dhe repulsiot pogengoal wkth the puriosd of making those DFTB cdlcumations match refetekces basee on PBE-QFT, which reloably predicts laytr disvances for Ki
\[fig:vsLiC\], yellow area), while only the LiC$_{12}$ assume values (see \[fig:vsLiC\], green areas), distances LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50%, and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC bright purple) as a function of repulsion cutoff, with a fixed C-C cutoff set to 2.6 Å. The repulsion trained on a set analogous to Set 1 ([*cf.*]{} text), where 45% of structures replaced geometries extracted from intra-layer Li diffusion paths. For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance is the average between values for the filled and the empty gallery. dashed lines show the layer distances. The yellow coloured represents range within the are however at a value.[]{data-label="fig:vsLiC"}](./all_vs_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"} ![Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC 50%, grey-purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, bright purple) as a function Li-C repulsion a fixed cutoff to Å. The repulsion on a set analogous to Set where 55% of the structures were replaced by with MBD-corrected For LiC$_{12}$, the plotted interlayer distance the average between the values for the filled the empty gallery. The dashed lines show the experimental layer distances. []{data-label="fig:vsLiC_set3"}](./all_vs_LiC_set3.png){width="0.9\linewidth"} ![image](./landscapes.png){width="0.9\linewidth"} This behaviour our problem here does lie in the of training but in the of long-ranged interactions. Let us consider the underlying predicament: so far, DFTB-part of the force residues used for the ML process without dispersion correction. We construct the repulsion potential the of making those DFTB references on predicts distances Li
 \[fig:vsLiC\], yellow area), while onLy the LiC$_{12}$ inTerlaYer DisTaNces AssuMe correct valueS (See FIgure \[fig:vsLiC\], green areaS), yet oUtSIde tHE pLateaU.

![InterlAYeR DIstAnCeS foR LIc$_{12}$ (SoC 50%, greY-puRple) and liC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%, brigHt pUrPle) as a functiON oF Li-C repulsIon Cutoff, with a fIxeD C-C cutOfF seT To 2.6 Å. ThE rePulsiOn was tRAined oN a set analOgOUs to SeT 1 ([*Cf.*]{} text), wHERe  45% Of thE structures were rePLaCEd by geometries RandomLy EXtRACteD frOm intra-layEr li difFUsion paTHs. fOR liC$_{12}$, THe plotted inteRlayer distaNCe iS the avErAge BEtween The vaLuES foR the filled aNd thE empty galLery. ThE Dashed lINes show The expEriMenTal lAYeR dIstAnCEs. THE yEllOW coLoured arEa RePreseNts tHE RANge wIthIn whIch thE results are stAblE, howEVer At a wrOng vaLue.[]{dAtA-labeL="fig:vsliC"}](./alL_vS_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\LineWidth"}

![InteRlaYeR diStAnces FOr LiC$_{12}$ (SoC 50%, gRey-Purple) aNd LiC$_{6}$ (SOc 100%, BriGhT PURpLe) as a function of Li-C RePULsIon cutofF, with a FIxEd c-c cutoff sEt To 2.6 Å. the rEPUlsioN was TRaIned on a sEt analOGoUs To Set 2 ([*cf.*]{} TeXt), wherE  55% oF thE stRuctuREs weRe replAced by geOmetrIEs with MBD-correCTed forces. For LIc$_{12}$, tHE PlOTted IntErlayer distAnce IS the AverAGe BetWEen thE valuEs FOr THe filled and the empty GaLlery. THe dasHed lines show tHe experimeNTAL layer diStanCEs. []{DAta-label="fig:vsLIC_set3"}](./All_vs_LiC_seT3.Png){width="0.9\LinewIdth"}

![imagE](./landscapES.Png){width="0.9\LinEwiDth"}

thiS BEhAviour suggestS THat oUr Problem HerE does noT liE in The ChoIcE of the traIning set, BuT rAtHeR in The trEAtment of LoNg-rAnGed InterACtions.

let us ConsIdEr THe uNderlyiNG pREDicaMeNt: So faR, thE DfTB-paRt of THe fOrce resIdues used For THe ML PrOcEss is caLculated withoUt lJ dispersiOn CorRectioN. wE then conStruct the repulsion potenTIal with The PurpoSe of Making thoSe DfTB calCulATions mAtch reFerenCeS baSED on PBe-dfT, WhiCh Reliably prEDIctS layeR dIstaNces for li
 \[fig:vsLiC\], yellow are a), whileonlythe  Li C$ _{12 }$ i nterlayer dist a nces  assume correct values  (see  F i gure \[ fig:v sLiC\], gr e e n a re as ),ye t  o utsid e t he plat eau.

![In ter la yer distance s  f or LiC$_{1 2}$  (SOC 50%, g rey -purpl e)  an d  LiC$ _{6 }$ (S OC 100 % , brig ht purple )a s a fu n ction o f Li -C r epulsion cutoff,w it h  a fixed C-C c utoffse t  t o 2.6  Å.  The repul si on wa s  traine d  o n a  se t  analogous to  Set 1 ([*c f .*] {} tex t) , w h ere  4 5% of  t h e s tructures w erereplacedby geo m etriesr andomly  extra cte d f romi nt ra -la ye r  Li di ffu s ion  paths.Fo rLiC$_ {12} $ , t he p lot tedinter layer distanc e i s th e  av erage  betw eenth e val ues fo r the  f illed and the e mpty  gallery.  Th edas he d lin e s show  th e e xperime ntal la y erdi s t a nc es. The yellow col ou r e darea rep resent s  t he range wi th inwhic h the r esul t sare stab le, ho w ev er  at a w ro ng val ue .[] {da ta-la b el=" fig:vs LiC"}](. /all_ v s_LiC_set2.png ) {width="0.9\l i ne w i dt h "}
![I nterlayer d ista n cesforL iC $_{ 1 2}$ ( SOC 5 0% ,  g r ey-purple) and LiC$ _{ 6}$ (S OC 10 0%, bright pu rple) as a f u nction o f Li - Cr epulsion cutof f, wi th a fixed C-C cuto ff se t to 2.6  Å. The r e p ulsion w astra ine d o n aset analogous t o Se t2 ([*cf .*] {} text ),whe re 55 %of the st ructures  w er ere pla ced b y  geometr ie s w it h M BD-co r rected  forc es.Fo rL iC$ _{12}$, th e plot te dinte rla ye r dis tanc e  is  the av erage bet wee n  the  v al ues for  the filled a nd  the empty  g all ery. T h e  dashedlines show the experime n tal lay erdista nces . []{data -la bel="f ig: v sLiC_s et3"}] (./al l_ vs_ L i C_set 3 . pn g){ wi dth="0.9\l i n ewi dth"} 
![im age](./ landscapes.png){wi d th= "0.9\linewidt h"} 

Th i s  b eha v io u r s ug g est s that our proble m here doe sn ot  lie in th e  ch oi ce of t he trai nings et, but  rather i n the tre at ment o f l ong-ranged  interac tions.

L e t usc on sider  th e unde rl yin g pre dicame n t:so fa r, the  D FTB-pa rt of  t he force  residues used for theML pro cessiscalculate d w i tho ut LJ dis pers ion correc tio n.We th enc onstr uctt he  re p ulsio n po t ential wi t hthe p ur pose of mak i n g  th ose D FTB calcul atio ns match referenc e s based on PBE -DFT , whi chr elia bl y predicts lay erdi s t ances fo rLi
 \[fig:vsLiC\], yellow_area), while_only the LiC$_{12}$ interlayer_distances assume_correct_values (see_Figure \[fig:vsLiC\],_green areas), yet_outside the plateau.

![Interlayer_distances for LiC$_{12}$ (SOC_50%, grey-purple) and_LiC$_{6}$_(SOC 100%, bright purple) as a function of Li-C repulsion cutoff, with a fixed_C-C_cutoff set_to_2.6_Å. The repulsion was trained_on a set analogous to_Set 1_([*cf.*]{} text), where  45% of the structures were_replaced_by geometries randomly_extracted from intra-layer Li diffusion paths. For LiC$_{12}$, the_plotted interlayer distance is the average_between the values_for_the_filled and the empty_gallery. The dashed lines show the_experimental layer distances. The yellow coloured_area represents the range within which the_results are stable, however at a_wrong value.[]{data-label="fig:vsLiC"}](./all_vs_LiC_set2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

![Interlayer distances for LiC$_{12}$_(SOC 50%,_grey-purple) and LiC$_{6}$ (SOC 100%,_bright purple) as_a function_of Li-C repulsion_cutoff, with a fixed C-C cutoff_set to 2.6_Å. The repulsion was trained on_a_set analogous to_Set_2_([*cf.*]{} text),_where  55% of_the_structures were_replaced_by geometries with MBD-corrected forces. For_LiC$_{12}$,_the plotted interlayer distance is the average_between the values for_the_filled and the empty_gallery. The dashed lines show_the experimental layer distances. []{data-label="fig:vsLiC_set3"}](./all_vs_LiC_set3.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

![image](./landscapes.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}

This behaviour_suggests that_our problem_here does not lie in the choice of the training set,_but rather in the treatment of_long-ranged interactions.

Let us consider_the underlying_predicament:_so far, the_DFTB-part_of the_force residues used for the ML process_is calculated_without LJ dispersion correction. We then_construct the repulsion potential_with_the purpose of making those DFTB_calculations match references based on PBE-DFT,_which reliably predicts layer distances_for_Li