4.7 Article

Acceleration of saddle-point searches with machine learning

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 145, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4960708

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-16-1-2355]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In atomistic simulations, the location of the saddle point on the potential-energy surface (PES) gives important information on transitions between local minima, for example, via transition-state theory. However, the search for saddle points often involves hundreds or thousands of ab initio force calls, which are typically all done at full accuracy. This results in the vast majority of the computational effort being spent calculating the electronic structure of states not important to the researcher, and very little time performing the calculation of the saddle point state itself. In this work, we describe how machine learning (ML) can reduce the number of intermediate ab initio calculations needed to locate saddle points. Since machine-learning models can learn from, and thus mimic, atomistic simulations, the saddle-point search can be conducted rapidly in the machine-learning representation. The saddle-point prediction can then be verified by an ab initio calculation; if it is incorrect, this strategically has identified regions of the PES where the machine-learning representation has insufficient training data. When these training data are used to improve the machine-learning model, the estimates greatly improve. This approach can be systematized, and in two simple example problems we demonstrate a dramatic reduction in the number of ab initio force calls. We expect that this approach and future refinements will greatly accelerate searches for saddle points, as well as other searches on the potential energy surface, as machine-learning methods see greater adoption by the atomistics community. Published by AIP Publishing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available