Pushing charge equilibration-based machine learning potentials to their limits
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) has demonstrated its potential in atomistic simulations to bridge the gap between accurate first-principles methods and computationally efficient empirical potentials. This is achieved by learning mappings between a system’s structure and its physical properties. State-of-the-art models for potential energy surfaces typically represent chemical structures through (semi-)local atomic environments. However, this approach neglects long-range interactions (most notably electrostatics) and non-local phenomena such as charge transfer, leading to significant errors in the description of molecules or materials in polar anisotropic environments. To address these challenges, ML frameworks that predict self-consistent charge distributions in atomistic systems using the Charge Equilibration (QEq) method are currently popular. In this approach, atomic charges are derived from an electrostatic energy expression that incorporates environment-dependent atomic electronegativities. Herein, we explore the limits of this concept at the example of the previously reported Kernel Charge Equilibration (kQEq) approach, combined with local short-ranged potentials. To this end we consider prototypical systems with varying total charge states and applied electric fields. We find that charge equilibration-based models perform well in most situations. However, we also find that some pathologies of conventional QEq carry over to the ML variants in the form of spurious charge transfer and overpolarization in the presence of static electric fields. This indicates a need for new methodological developments.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Electronic and Structural Properties of Oxides · Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (65)
Show source-provided references
1. Deringer, V. L. et al. Gaussian process regression for materials and molecules. Chem. Rev. 121, 10073–10141 (2021).10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00022 ↗
2. Behler, J. Four generations of high-dimensional neural network potentials. Chem. Rev. 121, 10037–10072 (2021).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00868 ↗
3. Unke, O. T. et al. Machine learning force fields. Chem. Rev. 121, 10142–10186 (2021).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01111 ↗
4. Batatia, I. et al. A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00096 (2024).
5. Deringer, V., Caro, M. & Csányi, G. A general-purpose machine-learning force field for bulk and nanostructured phosphorus. Nat. Commun. 11, 5461 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-19168-z ↗
6. Deringer, V. L. et al. Origins of structural and electronic transitions in disordered silicon. Nature 589, 59–64 (2021).10.1038/s41586-020-03072-z ↗
7. Vandenhaute, S., Cools-Ceuppens, M., DeKeyser, S., Verstraelen, T. & Van Speybroeck, V. Machine learning potentials for metal-organic frameworks using an incremental learning approach. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 19 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-00969-x ↗
8. Batatia, I., Kovács, D. P., Simm, G. N. C., Ortner, C. & Csányi, G. Mace: higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 2022.
9. Kovács, D. P., Batatia, I., Arany, E. S. & Csányi, G. Evaluation of the mace force field architecture: from medicinal chemistry to materials science. J. Chem. Phys. 159, 044118 (2023).10.1063/5.0155322 ↗
10. Bartók, A. P., Payne, M. C., Kondor, R. & Csányi, G. Gaussian approximation potentials: the accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 136403 (2010).10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.136403 ↗
11. Klawohn, S. et al. Gaussian approximation potentials: theory, software implementation and application examples. J. Chem. Phys. 159, 174108 (2023).10.1063/5.0160898 ↗
12. Staacke, C. G. et al. On the role of long-range electrostatics in machine-learned interatomic potentials for complex battery materials. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4, 12562–12569 (2021).10.1021/acsaem.1c02363 ↗
13. Schütt, K. T., Arbabzadah, F., Chmiela, S., Müller, K. R. & Tkatchenko, A. Quantum-chemical insights from deep tensor neural networks. Nat. Commun. 8, 13890 (2017).10.1038/ncomms13890 ↗
14. Schütt, K. T., Sauceda, H. E., Kindermans, P.-J., Tkatchenko, A. & Müller, K.-R. SchNet - a deep learning architecture for molecules and materials. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241722 (2018).10.1063/1.5019779 ↗
15. Lubbers, N., Smith, J. S. & Barros, K. Hierarchical modeling of molecular energies using a deep neural network. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241715 (2018).10.1063/1.5011181 ↗
16. Batzner, S. et al. E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data-efficient and accurate interatomic potentials. Nat. Commun. 13, 2453 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-29939-5 ↗
17. Musaelian, A. et al. Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics. Nat. Commun. 14, 579 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-36329-y ↗
18. Grisafi, A. & Ceriotti, M. Incorporating long-range physics in atomic-scale machine learning. J. Chem. Phys. 151, 204105 (2019).10.1063/1.5128375 ↗
19. Huguenin-Dumittan, K. K., Loche, P., Haoran, N. & Ceriotti, M. Physics-inspired equivariant descriptors of nonbonded interactions. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 9612–9618 (2023).10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02375 ↗
20. Faller, C., Kaltak, M. & Kresse, G. Density-based long-range electrostatic descriptors for machine learning force fields. J. Chem. Phys. 161, 214701 (2024).10.1063/5.0245615 ↗
21. Xie, X., Persson, K. A. & Small, D. W. Incorporating electronic information into machine learning potential energy surfaces via approaching the ground-state electronic energy as a function of atom-based electronic populations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 4256–4270 (2020).10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00217 ↗
22. Zhang, L. et al. A deep potential model with long-range electrostatic interactions. J. Chem. Phys. 156, 124107 (2022).10.1063/5.0083669 ↗
23. Gao, A. & Remsing, R. C. Self-consistent determination of long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials. Nat. Commun. 13, 1572 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-29243-2 ↗
24. Joll, K., Schienbein, P., Rosso, K. M. & Blumberger, J. Machine learning the electric field response of condensed phase systems using perturbed neural network potentials. Nat. Commun. 15, 8192 (2024).10.1038/s41467-024-52491-3 ↗
25. Grisafi, A., Bussy, A., Salanne, M. & Vuilleumier, R. Predicting the charge density response in metal electrodes. Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.7.125403 (2023).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.7.125403 ↗
26. Rossi, M., Rossi, K., Lewis, A. M., Salanne, M. & Grisafi, A. Learning the electrostatic response of the electron density through a symmetry-adapted vector field model. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 16, 2326–2332 (2025).10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00165 ↗
27. Bergmann, N., Bonnet, N., Marzari, N., Reuter, K. & Hörmann, N. G. Machine learning the energetics of electrified solid/liquid interfaces. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19745 (2025).
28. Ghasemi, S. A., Hofstetter, A., Saha, S. & Goedecker, S. Interatomic potentials for ionic systems with density functional accuracy based on charge densities obtained by a neural network. Phys. Rev. B 92, 045131 (2015).10.1103/PhysRevB.92.045131 ↗
29. Faraji, S. et al. High accuracy and transferability of a neural network potential through charge equilibration for calcium fluoride. Phys. Rev. B 95, 104105 (2017).10.1103/PhysRevB.95.104105 ↗
30. Khajehpasha, E. R., Finkler, J. A., Kühne, T. D. & Ghasemi, S. A. CENT2: improved charge equilibration via neural network technique. Phys. Rev. B 105, 144106 (2022).10.1103/PhysRevB.105.144106 ↗
31. Ko, T. W., Finkler, J. A., Goedecker, S. & Behler, J. A fourth-generation high-dimensional neural network potential with accurate electrostatics including non-local charge transfer. Nat. Commun. 12, 398 (2021).10.1038/s41467-020-20427-2 ↗
32. Gubler, M., Finkler, J. A., Schäfer, M. R., Behler, J. & Goedecker, S. Accelerating fourth-generation machine learning potentials using quasi-linear scaling particle mesh charge equilibration. J. Chem. Theory Comput. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00334 (2024).10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00334 ↗
33. Jacobson, L. D. et al. Transferable neural network potential energy surfaces for closed-shell organic molecules: extension to ions. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 2354–2366 (2022).10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00821 ↗
34. Shaidu, Y., Pellegrini, F., Küçükbenli, E., Lot, R. & De Gironcoli, S. Incorporating long-range electrostatics in neural network potentials via variational charge equilibration from shortsighted ingredients. npj Comput. Mater. 10, 47 (2024).10.1038/s41524-024-01225-6 ↗
35. Rinaldi, M., Bochkarev, A., Lysogorskiy, Y. & Drautz, R. Charge-constrained atomic cluster expansion. Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, 033802 (2025).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.9.033802 ↗
36. Staacke, C. G. et al. Kernel charge equilibration: efficient and accurate prediction of molecular dipole moments with a machine-learning enhanced electron density model. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 3, 015032 (2022).10.1088/2632-2153/ac568d ↗
37. Vondrák, M., Reuter, K. & Margraf, J. T. q-pac: a Python package for machine learned charge equilibration models. J. Chem. Phys. 159, 054109 (2023).10.1063/5.0156290 ↗
38. Koski, J. P. et al. Water in an external electric field: comparing charge distribution methods using ReaxFF simulations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 580–594 (2022).10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00975 ↗
39. Chen, J. & Martínez, T. J. QTPIE: charge transfer with polarization current equalization. A fluctuating charge model with correct asymptotics. Chem. Phys. Lett. 438, 315–320 (2007).10.1016/j.cplett.2007.02.065 ↗
40. Gergs, T., Schmidt, F., Mussenbrock, T. & Trieschmann, J. Generalized method for charge-transfer equilibration in reactive molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 6691–6704 (2021).10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00382 ↗
41. Chen, J., Hundertmark, D. & Martínez, T. J. A unified theoretical framework for fluctuating-charge models in atom-space and in bond-space. J. Chem. Phys. 129, 2034 (2008).10.1063/1.3021400 ↗
42. Rakshit, A., Bandyopadhyay, P., Heindel, J. P. & Xantheas, S. S. Atlas of putative minima and low-lying energy networks of water clusters n = 3-25. J. Chem. Phys. 151, 214307 (2019).10.1063/1.5128378 ↗
43. Bannwarth, C. et al. Extended tight-binding quantum chemistry methods. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 11, e1493 (2021).10.1002/wcms.1493 ↗
44. Grimme, S., Bannwarth, C. & Shushkov, P. A robust and accurate tight-binding quantum chemical method for structures, vibrational frequencies, and noncovalent interactions of large molecular systems parametrized for all spd-block elements (z = 1-86). J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 1989–2009 (2017).10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00118 ↗
45. Bannwarth, C., Ehlert, S. & Grimme, S. GFN2-xTB-an accurate and broadly parametrized self-consistent tight-binding quantum chemical method with multipole electrostatics and density-dependent dispersion contributions. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 1652–1671 (2019).10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01176 ↗
46. Loche, P. et al. Fast and flexible long-range models for atomistic machine learning. J. Chem. Phys. 162, 142501 (2025).10.1063/5.0251713 ↗
47. Zhong, P., Kim, D., King, D. S. & Cheng, B. Machine learning interatomic potential can infer electrical response. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05169 (2025).
48. Luenser, A., Schurkus, H. F. & Ochsenfeld, C. Vanishing-overhead linear-scaling random phase approximation by Cholesky decomposition and an attenuated coulomb-metric. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 1647–1655 (2017).10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01235 ↗
49. Grimme, S. A simplified Tamm-Dancoff density functional approach for the electronic excitation spectra of very large molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 138, 454 (2013).10.1063/1.4811331 ↗
50. Jensen, F. Describing anions by density functional theory: fractional electron affinity. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 6, 2726–2735 (2010).10.1021/ct1003324 ↗
51. Ataka, K.-i, Yotsuyanagi, T. & Osawa, M. Potential-dependent reorientation of water molecules at an electrode/electrolyte interface studied by surface-enhanced infrared absorption spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 10664–10672 (1996).10.1021/jp953636z ↗
52. Toney, M. F. et al. Voltage-dependent ordering of water molecules at an electrode-electrolyte interface. Nature 368, 444–446 (1994).10.1038/368444a0 ↗
53. Saitta, A. M., Saija, F. & Giaquinta, P. V. Ab initio molecular dynamics study of dissociation of water under an electric field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 207801 (2012).10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.207801 ↗
54. Verstraelen, T., Ayers, P. W., Van Speybroeck, V. & Waroquier, M. Acks2: atom-condensed Kohn-Sham DFT approximated to second order. J. Chem. Phys. 138, 670 (2013).10.1063/1.4791569 ↗
55. Gütlein, P., Lang, L., Reuter, K., Blumberger, J. & Oberhofer, H. Toward first-principles-level polarization energies in force fields: a Gaussian basis for the atom-condensed Kohn–Sham method. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 4516–4525 (2019).10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00415 ↗
56. Mahoney, M. W. & Drineas, P. CUR matrix decompositions for improved data analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 697–702 (2009).10.1073/pnas.0803205106 ↗
57. Rappe, A. K. & Goddard, W. A. I. Charge equilibration for molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. Chem. 95, 3358–3363 (1991).10.1021/j100161a070 ↗
58. Chen, J. & Martínez, T. J. Charge conservation in electronegativity equalization and its implications for the electrostatic properties of fluctuating-charge models. J. Chem. Phys. 131, 044114 (2009).10.1063/1.3183167 ↗
59. Blum, V. et al. Ab initio molecular simulations with numeric atom-centered orbitals. Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 2175–2196 (2009).10.1016/j.cpc.2009.06.022 ↗
60. Adamo, C. & Barone, V. Toward reliable density functional methods without adjustable parameters: The PBE0 model. J. Chem. Phys. 110, 6158–6170 (1999).10.1063/1.478522 ↗
61. Bartók, A. P., Kondor, R. & Csányi, G. On representing chemical environments. Phys. Rev. B 87, 184115 (2013).10.1103/PhysRevB.87.184115 ↗
62. Csányi, G. et al. Expressive programming for computational physics in Fortran 95+, 1–24 (Newsletter of the Computational Physics Group, 2007).
63. Kermode, J. R. f90wrap: an automated tool for constructing deep Python interfaces to modern Fortran codes. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 32, 305901 (2020).10.1088/1361-648X/ab82d2 ↗
64. Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment-a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 273002 (2017).10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e ↗
65. Bahn, S. & Jacobsen, K. An object-oriented scripting interface to a legacy electronic structure code. Comput. Sci. Eng. 4, 56–66 (2002).10.1109/5992.998641 ↗