4.7 Article

Boosting Quantum Machine Learning Models with a Multilevel Combination Technique: Pople Diagrams Revisited

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 1546-1559

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00832

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science foundation [PP00P2_138932, 200021_175747]
  2. (NCCR MARVEL)
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_175747] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inspired by Pople diagrams popular in quantum chemistry, we introduce a hierarchical scheme, based on the multilevel combination (C) technique, to combine various levels of approximations made when molecular energies are calculated. When combined with quantum machine learning (QML) models, the resulting CQML model is a generalized unified recursive kernel ridge regression that exploits correlations implicitly encoded in training data composed of multiple levels in multiple dimensions. Here, we have investigated up to three dimensions: chemical space, basis set, and electron correlation treatment. Numerical results have been obtained for atomization energies of a set of similar to 7000 organic molecules with up to 7 atoms (not counting hydrogens) containing CHONFClS, as well as for similar to 6000 constitutional isomers of C7H10O2. CQML learning curves for atomization energies suggest a dramatic reduction in necessary training samples calculated with the most accurate and costly method. In order to generate millisecond estimates of CCSD(T)/cc-pvdz atomization energies with prediction errors reaching chemical accuracy (similar to 1 kcal/mol), the CQML model requires only similar to 100 training instances at CCSD(T)/cc-pvdz level, rather than thousands within conventional QML, while more training molecules are required at lower levels. Our results suggest a possibly favorable trade-off between various hierarchical approximations whose computational cost scales differently with electron number.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据