C$_6$. By then using LJ (required to obtain the correct empty layer distance in graphite) in our actual DFTB calculations (after the parametrization process), we cause the aforementioned offset for highly lithiated compounds. Using LJ already for the force-residue calculations during the ML seems like the obvious solution to this problem. However, this presents a new issue in the lower-saturation range (Li$_x$C$_6$, $x<0.5$). There, we previously fitted the repulsion to PBE-DFT references, which are not correct in that range without dispersion correction. The resulting DFTB forces are then shifted by LJ towards the correct value (as is indicated by the quite decent results for LiC$_{12}$ with Set 2). But after the modification, we would then fit the *final* DFTB forces (that result after applying the LJ) to the (incorrect) PBE-DFT references, thus improving our performance for highly saturated system states, but ruining it for dilute ones, by effectively double counting dispersive contributions. It becomes apparent that in order to make this approach work, we need to utilize dispersion corrected DFT reference forces which are also correct for low saturation states and, at the same time, compatible with the computationally cheap DFTB-LJ correction.

Our ansatz is that we can essentially—to a degree—encode the difference between the LJ dispersion and the “true” dispersion into the repulsion potential. At this point we stress that *ideally*, both the true, non-local exchange correlation functional in DFT and an ideal repulsion energy in DFTB would already encompass all dispersion effects, and it is solely due to approximations in the derivations, [*e.g.*]{} of GGAs, that they do not in these models. Therefore, rather than mixing our repulsion potential with something fundamentally different (which would be physically questionable), what we do here simply corresponds to partially adding a contribution back in, that should have been there in the first place. To our knowledge, the currently best way to calculate dispersion corrected lithium intercalated graphite, with correct layer distances predicted for the entire saturation range, is the MBD correction [@Tkatchenko2012]. This method is computationally rather expensive, but since we only need to run DFT calculations for our training data set, which is very limited in size, this is not vital to us. We do realize that this approach most likely comes with some cost in terms of transfer
C$ _ 6$. By then using LJ (required to obtain the correct empty level distance in graphite) in our actual DFTB calculation (after the parametrization process), we cause the aforementioned stolon for highly lithiated compound. Using LJ already for the force - remainder calculations during the ML seems like the obvious solution to this problem. However, this introduce a new issue in the low - saturation range (Li$_x$C$_6 $, $ x<0.5 $). There, we previously fitted the repulsion to PBE - DFT references, which are not correct in that scope without dispersion correction. The resulting DFTB force are then shifted by LJ towards the correct value (as is indicated by the quite decent consequence for LiC$_{12}$ with Set 2). But after the modification, we would then fit the * final * DFTB forces (that result after apply the LJ) to the (incorrect) PBE - DFT references, thus improving our performance for highly saturated arrangement states, but ruining it for dilute ones, by effectively double counting dispersive contributions. It becomes apparent that in ordering to make this approach oeuvre, we necessitate to utilize dispersion corrected DFT citation power which are also correct for gloomy saturation states and, at the same time, compatible with the computationally bum DFTB - LJ correction. 

 Our ansatz is that we can essentially — to a degree — encode the difference between the LJ distribution and the “ true ” distribution into the repulsion potential. At this point we stress that * ideally *, both the true, non - local exchange correlation coefficient functional in DFT and an ideal repulsion energy in DFTB would already encompass all dispersion effects, and it is solely due to approximations in the derivation, [ * e.g. * ] { } of GGAs, that they do not in these model. Therefore, rather than blend our repulsion electric potential with something fundamentally different (which would be physically questionable), what we do here plainly corresponds to partially adding a contribution back in, that should have been there in the beginning place. To our cognition, the currently best way to forecast dispersion corrected lithium intercalated graphite, with correct layer distance predicted for the entire impregnation range, is the MBD correction   [ @Tkatchenko2012 ]. This method is computationally rather expensive, but since we only need to run DFT calculation for our training data set, which is very limited in size, this is not vital to us. We do realize that this approach about likely comes with some cost in terms of transfer
C$_6$. Bj then using LJ (required to obtain the eirrect empty layer dkstance in graphite) in our artuao DFTV calculations (after tfe paramenrization proress), we cause thx aforemcutionsf ofysxt for highly llthiated cokpounds. Using NJ apready for the force-residue calculaeions dirlng the ML seeis lpkq ths obvious solution to this problem. Howeveg, this presents a new issue in the lower-satkratlon range (Li$_x$C$_6$, $x<0.5$). Tjere, we precioufoy fitted thd repulsion to PBE-DFT teferences, which are not correct in tkat range wutyouh dispersion corrvction. The resulting GFTB fotces are then xhihted by LJ towards the cocrect value (as is inqicated bf che quite decent resuotw for LiC$_{12}$ witf Seg 2). Guv arter tje jodificatikn, we would then fit the *final* DSNN forces (thaf resujt after applying the LJ) to the (incorrect) PBS-DFT references, thus improving our performanfe for hidhly saturated system states, but ruining it for dhlute unew, ny ewdeftively double counting dispersive contributijhs. In becomes apparenb that in order to mwkr this approacf work, we need to utilize dlspersijn coerected DST rrference forces which are aoso correct yor low saturation stctes and, at che sake tike, compatible with the eomputztionally cjeap DFTB-MG correction.

Our xnssts is thau we can essentialjy—to a dejree—eucode thd digferense between the LJ dispersion and tje “troe” dis[ersion inho the repulsion potential. At tims point we sjrevs nhat *ideajly*, bpth the true, gon-local exchauge corrzlatiov functionzl in DHT and an idqal repulsion gnergy in DFTU would ajreaey ebcompasr all dispersiom effects, and it is solely due to appvoximxfions in the dexnvqtions, [*e.g.*]{} of GGSs, ghae nheb do gmt in these kodeus. Gnerefure, rather bhav micing our repulsion pmtenfial with somethinb nundamentqlly difserent (which eould be physicallj quevtiunablr), wrat we do here simply correspohds to pagtiwlly adding w coktrifution bacl in, that should have been there in the first place. To oor knowledge, the currgntky best way to cwlculate gispersion corrected lithium intercalsted graphite, with codrect nayer distances predicted for the entire saturation range, is the MBD correctiob [@Tkatciegko2012]. This mefhod is cmm'utctionaljy retier expensive, but since we only need to run DFT ralculatiots for our training data set, wnizh is very lioited in size, this is nof vital yo us. We do realize that this alproach most likely comex with sime ckst in teros of transfer
C$_6$. By then using LJ (required to correct layer distance graphite) in our parametrization we cause the offset for highly compounds. Using LJ already for the calculations during the ML seems like the obvious solution to this problem. However, presents a new issue in the lower-saturation range (Li$_x$C$_6$, $x<0.5$). There, we previously the to references, are not correct in that range without dispersion correction. The resulting DFTB forces are then shifted LJ towards the correct value (as is indicated the quite decent results LiC$_{12}$ with Set 2). But the we would fit *final* forces (that result applying the LJ) to the (incorrect) PBE-DFT references, thus improving our performance for highly saturated system states, ruining it ones, by double dispersive It becomes apparent order to make this approach work, utilize dispersion corrected DFT reference forces which are correct for saturation states and, at the same compatible with the computationally cheap DFTB-LJ correction. Our is that we can essentially—to a degree—encode the difference between the LJ dispersion and the into the repulsion potential. this point we that both true, exchange correlation in DFT and an ideal repulsion energy in DFTB would already all dispersion effects, and it is solely due to approximations derivations, of GGAs, that do not in these Therefore, than mixing our repulsion something different physically what do here simply corresponds partially adding a contribution back that should have been To our knowledge, the currently best way to dispersion corrected lithium intercalated graphite, with correct distances predicted for the entire saturation range, is the MBD correction [@Tkatchenko2012]. method is expensive, but since we only need to run calculations for our training set, which is very limited in size, this is vital us. We realize that this most likely comes some cost in transfer
C$_6$. By then using LJ (required to oBtain the coRrect EmpTy lAyEr diStanCe in graphite) in OUr acTual DFTB calculations (afTer thE pARameTRiZatioN procesS), We CAUse ThE aForEmENtIoned OffSet for hIghly lithiAteD cOmpounds. UsinG lJ Already for The Force-residue CalCulatiOnS duRIng thE ML Seems Like thE ObviouS solution To THis proBLem. HoweVER, tHis pResents a new issue iN ThE Lower-saturatioN range (li$_X$c$_6$, $x<0.5$). tHEre, We pReviously fItTed thE RepulsiON tO pbe-DFt References, whiCh are not corREct In that RaNge WIthout DispeRsIOn cOrrection. ThE resUlting DFTb forceS Are then SHifted bY LJ towArdS thE corREcT vAluE (aS Is iNDiCatED by The quite DeCeNt resUlts FOR lIC$_{12}$ wiTh SEt 2). BuT afteR the modificatIon, We woULd tHen fiT the *fInal* dFtB forCes (thaT resuLt After applying thE LJ) tO the (incorRecT) PbE-DfT ReferENces, thUs iMprOving ouR perforMAncE fOR HIgHly saturated system StATEs, But ruiniNg it foR DiLuTE ones, by eFfEctIvelY DOuble CounTInG dispersIve conTRiBuTions. It BeComes aPpAreNt tHat in ORder To make This apprOach wORk, we need to utilIZe dispersion cORrECTeD dFT rEfeRence forces WhicH Are aLso cORrEct FOr low SaturAtIOn STates and, at the same tiMe, CompatIble wIth the computaTionally chEAP dFTB-LJ coRrecTIoN.

our ansatz is thaT we caN essentialLY—to a degrEe—encOde the diFference bETWeen the Lj diSpeRsiOn aND ThE “true” dispersiON Into ThE repulsIon PotentiAl. AT thIs pOinT wE stress thAt *ideallY*, bOtH tHe TruE, non-lOCal exchaNgE coRrElaTion fUNctionAl in DfT anD aN iDEal RepulsiON eNERgy iN DfTb wouLd aLrEady eNcomPAss All dispErsion effEctS, And iT iS sOlely duE to approximatIoNs in the derIvAtiOns, [*e.g.*]{} oF ggAs, that tHey do not in these models. ThERefore, rAthEr thaN mixIng our repUlsIon potEntIAl with SomethIng fuNdAmeNTAlly dIFFeRenT (wHich would bE PHysIcallY qUestIonable), What we do here simply COrrEsponds to partIalLy adDINg A coNTrIButIoN BacK IN, that should have Been there iN tHE fIrst place. TO Our KnOwledge, The currEntly BEst way tO calculatE dispersiOn CorrECTed Lithium intErcalateD graphite, WIth coRReCt layEr dIstancEs PreDicteD for thE EntIre saTuratiOn Range, iS the MbD CorrectiOn [@Tkatchenko2012]. This method iS compuTatioNalLy rather eXpeNSivE, but since We onLy need to ruN DFt caLculaTioNS for oUr trAInIng DAta seT, whiCH is very liMItEd iN SIzE, this is not vITAL to Us. We dO reALize thAt thIs approach most likELy comes with somE cosT IN teRms OF traNsFer
C$_6$. By then using LJ (r equired to  obta inthe  c orre ct e mpty layer dis t ance  in graphite) in our a ctual  D F TB c a lc ulati ons (af t er t hepa ra met ri z at ion p roc ess), w e cause th e a fo rementionedo ff set for hi ghl y lithiatedcom pounds .Usi n g LJalr eadyfor th e  force -residueca l culati o ns duri n g  t he M L seems like theo bv i ous solution t o this  p r ob l e m.How ever, this  p resen t s a new is s u e  in the lower-sat uration ran g e ( Li$_x$ C$ _6$ ,  $x<0. 5$).Th e re,  we previou slyfitted th e repu l sion to PBE-DFT  refer enc es,  whi c har e n ot cor r ec t i n  th at range  w it houtdisp e r s i on c orr ecti on. T he resultingDFT B fo r ces  arethenshif te d byLJ tow ardsth e correct value  (as  is indic ate dbyth e qui t e dece ntres ults fo r LiC$_ { 12} $w i t hSet 2). But afterth e mo dificati on, we wo ul d  then fi tthe  *fi n a l* DF TB f o rc es (that  resul t  a ft er appl yi ng the  L J)tothe ( i ncor rect)PBE-DFTrefer e nces, thus imp r oving our per f or m a nc e  for  hi ghly satura teds yste m st a te s,b ut ru ining  i t  f o r dilute ones, by e ff ective ly do uble counting  dispersiv e c ontribut ions .  I t  becomes appar ent t hat in ord e r to mak e thi s approa ch work,w e  need to  ut ili zedis p e rs ion corrected D FT r ef erencefor ces whi chare  al soco rrect for  low sat ur at io nsta tes a n d, at th esam etim e, co m patibl e wit h th eco m put ational l yc h eapDF TB -LJcor re ction .

O u r a nsatz i s that we  ca n  ess en ti ally—to  a degree—enc od e the diff er enc e betw e e n the LJ  dispersion and the “tr u e” disp ers ion i ntothe repul sio n pote nti a l. Atthis p ointwe  st r e ss th a t  * ide al ly*, botht h e t rue,no n-lo cal exc hange correlationf unc tional in DFT  an d an i de alr ep u lsi on ene r g y in DFTB would  already e nc o mp ass all di s per si on effe cts, an d iti s solel y due toapproxima ti onsi n  th e derivati ons, [*e .g.*]{} o f  GGAs ,  t hat t hey  do no tinthese  model s . T heref ore, r at her th an mi xi ng our r epulsion potential with  somet hingfun damentall y d i ffe rent (whi ch w ould be ph ysi cal ly qu est i onabl e),w ha t w e  do h eres imply cor r es pon d s  t o partially a d din g a c ont r ibutio n ba ck in, that shoul d  have been the re i n the  fi r st p la ce. To our kno wle dg e ,  the cur re ntly best w ay to ca lc u latedisper sion c orrecte d li t hium i nter cal ated grap hit e, with co rr ec t  layer  dis ta nces p redict e d fo r the entire satur ation r ange, isthe M BD  correc t ion[@Tkatchen ko2012]. Th is met hodis co mputati on ally r ath er  expensive ,  but sinc e weonly ne ed  torun  DFT c alcu l a tions  for  o urtrainingd a ta se t, whi ch i s ver ylimi ted in si z e, thisisn ot vita ltou s . We d o  r e a lize thatthi s app r o ach most l i kely co m es wi th som e cost  in ter m s o ftransfe r
C$_6$. By_then using_LJ (required to obtain_the correct_empty_layer distance_in_graphite) in our_actual DFTB calculations_(after the parametrization process),_we cause the_aforementioned_offset for highly lithiated compounds. Using LJ already for the force-residue calculations during the_ML_seems like_the_obvious_solution to this problem. However,_this presents a new issue_in the_lower-saturation range (Li$_x$C$_6$, $x<0.5$). There, we previously fitted_the_repulsion to PBE-DFT_references, which are not correct in that range without_dispersion correction. The resulting DFTB forces_are then shifted_by_LJ_towards the correct value_(as is indicated by the quite_decent results for LiC$_{12}$ with Set_2). But after the modification, we would_then fit the *final* DFTB forces_(that result after applying the_LJ) to_the (incorrect) PBE-DFT references, thus_improving our performance_for highly_saturated system states,_but ruining it for dilute ones,_by effectively double_counting dispersive contributions. It becomes apparent_that_in order to_make_this_approach work,_we need to_utilize_dispersion corrected_DFT_reference forces which are also correct_for_low saturation states and, at the same_time, compatible with the_computationally_cheap DFTB-LJ correction.

Our ansatz_is that we can essentially—to_a degree—encode the difference between the_LJ dispersion_and the_“true” dispersion into the repulsion potential. At this point we stress_that *ideally*, both the true, non-local_exchange correlation functional in_DFT and_an_ideal repulsion energy_in_DFTB would_already encompass all dispersion effects, and it_is solely_due to approximations in the derivations,_[*e.g.*]{} of GGAs, that_they_do not in these models. Therefore,_rather than mixing our repulsion potential_with something fundamentally different (which_would_be_physically questionable), what we do_here simply corresponds to partially adding_a contribution back_in, that should have been there in_the_first place. To our knowledge, the_currently_best way to calculate dispersion corrected_lithium_intercalated_graphite, with correct layer distances_predicted for the entire saturation range,_is the MBD correction [@Tkatchenko2012]. This method is computationally rather_expensive, but since_we only need to run_DFT_calculations_for our training data set, which is very limited in_size, this_is not vital_to us. We do realize that this approach most likely_comes with some cost in terms of_transfer