4.7 Article

A universal density matrix functional from molecular orbital-based machine learning: Transferability across organic molecules

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 150, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.5088393

关键词

-

资金

  1. AFOSR Award [FA9550-17-1-0102]
  2. National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Materials Revolution: Computational Design and Discovery of Novel Materials (MARVEL) of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
  3. Resnick Sustainability Institute
  4. Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award
  5. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We address the degree to which machine learning (ML) can be used to accurately and transferably predict post-Hartree-Fock correlation energies. Refined strategies for feature design and selection are presented, and the molecular-orbital-based machine learning (MOB-ML) method is applied to several test systems. Strikingly, for the second-order Moller-Plessett perturbation theory, coupled cluster with singles and doubles (CCSD), and CCSD with perturbative triples levels of theory, it is shown that the thermally accessible (350 K) potential energy surface for a single water molecule can be described to within 1 mhartree using a model that is trained from only a single reference calculation at a randomized geometry. To explore the breadth of chemical diversity that can be described, MOB-ML is also applied to a new dataset of thermalized (350 K) geometries of 7211 organic models with up to seven heavy atoms. In comparison with the previously reported Delta-ML method, MOB-ML is shown to reach chemical accuracy with threefold fewer training geometries. Finally, a transferability test in which models trained for seven-heavy-atom systems are used to predict energies for thirteen-heavy-atom systems reveals that MOB-ML reaches chemical accuracy with 36-fold fewer training calculations than Delta-ML (140 vs 5000 training calculations). Published under license by AIP Publishing.

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