It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
This work examines challenges associated with the accuracy of machine-learned force fields (MLFFs) for bulk solid and liquid phases of d-block elements. In exhaustive detail, we contrast the performance of force, energy, and stress predictions across the transition metals for two leading MLFF models: a kernel-based atomic cluster expansion method implemented using sparse Gaussian processes (FLARE), and an equivariant message-passing neural network (NequIP). Early transition metals present higher relative errors and are more difficult to learn relative to late platinum- and coinage-group elements, and this trend persists across model architectures. Trends in complexity of interatomic interactions for different metals are revealed via comparison of the performance of representations with different many-body order and angular resolution. Using arguments based on perturbation theory on the occupied and unoccupied d states near the Fermi level, we determine that the large, sharp d density of states both above and below the Fermi level in early transition metals leads to a more complex, harder-to-learn potential energy surface for these metals. Increasing the fictitious electronic temperature (smearing) modifies the angular sensitivity of forces and makes the early transition metal forces easier to learn. This work illustrates challenges in capturing intricate properties of metallic bonding with current leading MLFFs and provides a reference data set for transition metals, aimed at benchmarking the accuracy and improving the development of emerging machine-learned approximations.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Harvard University, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X); Harvard University, John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X)
2 Harvard University, John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X); Toyota Research Institute, Los Altos, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 6359 2664)
3 Harvard University, John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X)
4 Harvard University, John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X); Robert Bosch LLC Research and Technology Center, Watertown, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c)