journal article·2021-12

Exploring the necessary complexity of interatomic potentials

Joshua A. Vita, Dallas R. Trinkle

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract The application of machine learning models and algorithms towards describing atomic interactions has been a major area of interest in materials simulations in recent years, as machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) are seen as being more flexible and accurate than their classical potential counterparts. This increase in accuracy of MLIPs over classical potentials has come at the cost of significantly increased complexity, leading to higher computational costs and lower physical interpretability and spurring research into improving the speeds and interpretability of MLIPs. As an alternative, in this work we leverage “machine learning” fitting databases and advanced optimization algorithms to fit a class of spline-based classical potentials, showing that they can be systematically improved in order to achieve accuracies comparable to those of low-complexity MLIPs. These results demonstrate that high model complexities may not be strictly necessary in order to achieve near-DFT accuracy in interatomic potentials and suggest an alternative route towards sampling the high accuracy, low complexity region of model space by starting with forms that promote simpler and more interpretable interatomic potentials.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals · X-ray Diffraction in Crystallography

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (56)

Show source-provided references
1. J.E. Jones. On the determination of molecular fields. —II. from the equation of state of a gas. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 106 (738): 463–477, October 1924. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1924.0082.10.1098/rspa.1924.0082 ↗
2. The classical equation of state of gaseous helium, neon and argon10.1098/rspa.1938.0173 ↗
3. Murray S. Daw and M.I. Baskes. Embedded-atom method: Derivation and application to impurities, surfaces, and other defects in metals. Phys. Rev. B, 29 (12): 6443–6453, June 1984. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.29.6443.10.1103/PhysRevB.29.6443 ↗
4. Modified embedded-atom potentials for cubic materials and impurities10.1103/PhysRevB.46.2727 ↗
5. New empirical model for the structural properties of silicon10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.632 ↗
6. Computer simulation of local order in condensed phases of silicon10.1103/PhysRevB.31.5262 ↗
7. ReaxFF: a reactive force field for hydrocarbons10.1021/jp004368u ↗
8. Donald W Brenner, Olga A Shenderova, Judith A Harrison, Steven J Stuart, Boris Ni, and Susan B Sinnott. A second-generation reactive empirical bond order (REBO) potential energy expression for hydrocarbons. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 14 (4): 783–802, January 2002. doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/14/4/312.10.1088/0953-8984/14/4/312 ↗
9. Tzu-Ray Shan, Bryce D. Devine, Travis W. Kemper, Susan B. Sinnott, and Simon R. Phillpot. Charge-optimized many-body potential for the hafnium/hafnium oxide system. Phys. Rev. B, 81 (12), March 2010. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.81.125328.10.1103/PhysRevB.81.125328 ↗
10. Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.146401 ↗
11. Gaussian approximation potentials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.136403 ↗
12. Learning scheme to predict atomic forces and accelerate materials simulations10.1103/PhysRevB.92.094306 ↗
13. Spectral neighbor analysis method for automated generation of quantum-accurate interatomic potentials10.1016/j.jcp.2014.12.018 ↗
14. An implementation of artificial neural-network potentials for atomistic materials simulations: Performance for TiO210.1016/j.commatsci.2015.11.047 ↗
15. Amp: A modular approach to machine learning in atomistic simulations10.1016/j.cpc.2016.05.010 ↗
16. Moment tensor potentials: A class of systematically improvable interatomic potentials10.1137/15M1054183 ↗
17. SchNet – a deep learning architecture for molecules and materials10.1063/1.5019779 ↗
18. A deep learning package for many-body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics10.1016/j.cpc.2018.03.016 ↗
19. Extending the accuracy of the SNAP interatomic potential form10.1063/1.5017641 ↗
20. Embedded atom neural network potentials: Efficient and accurate machine learning with a physically inspired representation10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02037 ↗
21. Physically informed artificial neural networks for atomistic modeling of materials
22. Rahulkumar Gayatri, Stan Moore, Evan Weinberg, Nicholas Lubbers, Sarah Anderson, Jack Deslippe, Danny Perez, and Aidan P. Thompson. Rapid Exploration of Optimization Strategies on Advanced Architectures using TestSNAP and LAMMPSl. 2020.
23. Yu Xie, Jonathan Vandermause, Lixin Sun, Andrea Cepellotti, and Boris Kozinsky. Bayesian force fields from active learning for simulation of inter-dimensional transformation of stanene. npj Comput. Mater., 7 (1), March 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41524-021-00510-y.10.1038/s41524-021-00510-y ↗
24. Yunxing Zuo, Chi Chen, Xiangguo Li, Zhi Deng, Yiming Chen, Jörg Behler, Gábor Csányi, Alexander V. Shapeev, Aidan P. Thompson, Mitchell A. Wood, and Shyue Ping Ong. Performance and cost assessment of machine learning interatomic potentials. J. Phys. Chem. A, 124 (4): 731–745, January 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.9b08723.10.1021/acs.jpca.9b08723 ↗
25. Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials10.1063/1.3553717 ↗
26. On representing chemical environments10.1103/PhysRevB.87.184115 ↗
27. Second nearest-neighbor modified embedded atom method potentials for bcc transition metals
28. An interatomic potential for saturated hydrocarbons based on the modified embedded-atom method10.1039/C4CP00027G ↗
29. Highly optimized empirical potential model of silicon10.1088/0965-0393/8/6/305 ↗
30. Force-matched embedded-atom method potential for niobium10.1103/PhysRevB.81.144119 ↗
31. Ab initio based empirical potential used to study the mechanical properties of molybdenum10.1103/PhysRevB.85.214121 ↗
32. A modified embedded atom method potential for interstitial oxygen in titanium10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.07.039 ↗
33. Classical potential describes martensitic phase transformations between the α, β, and ω titanium phases10.1103/PhysRevB.78.054121 ↗
34. Modified embedded-atom method potential of niobium for studies on mechanical properties10.1016/j.commatsci.2019.01.047 ↗
35. materialsvirtuallab/mlearn repository. URL:https://github.com/materialsvirtuallab/mlearn. Accessed: 2010-09-30.
36. Potfit: effective potentials from ab initio data10.1088/0965-0393/15/3/008 ↗
37. Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: the covariance matrix adaptation
38. The CMA Evolution Strategy
39. Evaluating the CMA evolution strategy on multimodal test functions10.1007/978-3-540-30217-9_29 ↗
40. Nikolaus Hansen, Youhei Akimoto, and Petr Baudis. CMA-ES/pycma on Github. Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634, February 2019.
41. Trinklegroup/s-meam repository. https://github.com/TrinkleGroup/s-meam. Accessed: 2010-09-30.
42. Sayyed Jalil Mahdizadeh and Golnoosh Akhlamadi. Optimized tersoff empirical potential for germanene. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 72: 1–5, March 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2016.11.009.10.1016/j.jmgm.2016.11.009 ↗
43. Development of bond-order potentials that can reproduce the elastic constants and melting point of silicon for classical molecular dynamics simulation10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.07.013 ↗
44. Ebrahim Asadi, Mohsen Asle Zaeem, Sasan Nouranian, and Michael I. Baskes. Two-phase solid–liquid coexistence of ni, cu, and al by molecular dynamics simulations using the modified embedded-atom method. Acta Materialia, 86: 169–181, March 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.12.010.10.1016/j.actamat.2014.12.010 ↗
45. Property trends in simple metals: An empirical potential approach10.1103/PhysRevB.93.184101 ↗
46. Misfit-energy-increasing dislocations in vapor-deposited CoFe/NiFe multilayers10.1103/PhysRevB.69.144113 ↗
47. Error estimates for solid-state density-functional theory predictions: An overview by means of the ground-state elemental crystals10.1080/10408436.2013.772503 ↗
48. F. Ercolessi and J.B Adams. Interatomic potentials from first-principles calculations: The force-matching method. Europhys. Lett. (EPL), 26 (8): 583–588, June 1994. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/26/8/005. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/26/8/005.10.1209/0295-5075/26/8/005 ↗
49. Machine learning a general-purpose interatomic potential for silicon
50. Jonathan A Zimmerman, Huajian Gao, and Farid F Abraham. Generalized stacking fault energies for embedded atom FCC metals. Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 8 (2): 103–115, February 2000. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/8/2/302.10.1088/0965-0393/8/2/302 ↗
51. K. Lejaeghere et al. Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids. Science, 351 (6280): aad3000–aad3000, March 2016. doi: 10.1126/science.aad3000.10.1126/science.aad3000 ↗
52. Accelerating atomistic simulations with piecewise machine-learned ab initio potentials at a classical force field-like cost10.1039/D0CP05089J ↗
53. Ralf Drautz. Atomic cluster expansion for accurate and transferable interatomic potentials. Phys. Rev. B, 99 (1), January 2019. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.99.014104.10.1103/PhysRevB.99.014104 ↗
54. Gábor Csányi, and Michele Ceriotti. Incompleteness of atomic structure representations10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.166001 ↗
55. Compact atomic descriptors enable accurate predictions via linear models10.1063/5.0052961 ↗
56. Performant implementation of the atomic cluster expansion (PACE) and application to copper and silicon10.1038/s41524-021-00559-9 ↗