4.6 Article

Comparing molecules and solids across structural and alchemical space

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 18, 期 20, 页码 13754-13769

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6cp00415f

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCCR MARVEL
  2. Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship
  3. Isaac Newton Trust
  4. EPSRC [EP/K014560/1, EP/J010847/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K014560/1, EP/J010847/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating the (dis)similarity of crystalline, disordered and molecular compounds is a critical step in the development of algorithms to navigate automatically the configuration space of complex materials. For instance, a structural similarity metric is crucial for classifying structures, searching chemical space for better compounds and materials, and driving the next generation of machine-learning techniques for predicting the stability and properties of molecules and materials. In the last few years several strategies have been designed to compare atomic coordination environments. In particular, the smooth overlap of atomic positions (SOAPs) has emerged as an elegant framework to obtain translation, rotation and permutation-invariant descriptors of groups of atoms, underlying the development of various classes of machine-learned inter-atomic potentials. Here we discuss how one can combine such local descriptors using a regularized entropy match (REMatch) approach to describe the similarity of both whole molecular and bulk periodic structures, introducing powerful metrics that enable the navigation of alchemical and structural complexities within a unified framework. Furthermore, using this kernel and a ridge regression method we can predict atomization energies for a database of small organic molecules with a mean absolute error below 1 kcal mol(-1), reaching an important milestone in the application of machine-learning techniques for the evaluation of molecular properties.

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

4.6
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