equations of motion [@Hoover1985CanonicalDistributions] derived by Shinoda et al [@Shinoda2004RapidStress]. Reported RDFs were calculated (bin size of 0.05 Å) by averaging 100 instantaneous RDFs, which were 0.1 ps apart, in the final 10 ps of the NVT equilibration. A timestep of 1 fs was used for these simulations. We find ANI-Al melt simulations to be most accurate near the melting temperature of $T_\textrm{melt} \approx {{933}\,\mathrm{K}}$. At higher temperatures, however, deviations become visibly apparent. This increased error may stem from the fact that the physically correct potential should actually be *temperature-dependent*, whereas our DFT training data was entirely calculated at zero electronic temperature. Figure \[fig:rdfdensity\]b compares ANI-Al predicted densities at various temperatures (still at atmospheric pressure) to multiple experimental values [@Assael2006ReferenceIron; @Smith1999MeasurementTechnique; @YatsenkoSPKononenkoVI1972ExperimentalGa; @CoyW.J.Mateer1955CoyMateer; @LevinE.S.AyushinaG.D.Geld1968LevinDensity; @GebhardtE.BeckerM.andDorner1955GebhardtAl]. All temperatures are above the melting point. The agreement between ANI-Al predictions and experiment is comparable to the variation between different experiments.

Predicting liquid-solid phase boundaries {#results:meltcurve}
----------------------------------------

![(a) Aluminum melt curves calculated from DFT [@Sjostrom2016MultiphaseTheory], ANI-Al, and the Mendelev et al. EAM potential [@Mendelev2008AnalysisCu], compared with experimental data [@Hanstrom2000HighAluminium]. Below [${120}\,\mathrm{GPa}$]{} we show FCC-liquid coexistence. Above [${240}\,\mathrm{GPa}$]{} we show BCC-liquid coexistence. The inset zooms to pressures from 0 to [${20}\,\mathrm{GPa}$]{}. (b) Errors in predicting 