The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Nested Molecule-Independent Neural Network Approach for High-Quality Potential Fits
Abstract
It is shown that neural networks (NNs) are efficient and effective tools for fitting potential energy surfaces. For H2O, a simple NN approach works very well. To fit surfaces for HOOH and H2CO, we develop a nested neural network technique in which we first fit an approximate NN potential and then use another NN to fit the difference of the true potential and the approximate potential. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the H2O surface is 1 cm(-1). For the 6-D HOOH and H2CO surfaces, the nested approach does almost as well attaining a RMSE of 2 cm(-1). The quality of the NN surfaces is verified by calculating vibrational spectra. For all three molecules, most of the low-lying levels are within 1 cm(-1) of the exact results. On the basis of these results, we propose that the nested NN approach be considered a method of choice for both simple potentials, for which it is relatively easy to guess a good fitting function, and complicated (e.g., double well) potentials for which it is much harder to deduce an appropriate fitting function. The number of fitting parameters is only moderately larger for the 6-D than for the 3-D potentials, and for all three molecules, decreasing the desired RMSE increases only slightly the number of required fitting parameters (nodes). NN methods, and in particular the nested approach we propose, should be good universal potential fitting tools.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 · Cited by 21,728
On the approximate realization of continuous mappings by neural networks
Funahashi, K.-I. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90003-8 · Cited by 4,206
Sexton, R. S., Dorsey, R. E., & Johnson, J. D. (1999) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00114-3 · Cited by 235
Cited by
On representing chemical environments
Bartók, A. P., Kondor, R., & Csányi, G. (2013) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.184115 · Cited by 2,572
Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations
Behler, J. (2016) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4966192 · Cited by 1,448
Permutationally invariant potential energy surfaces in high dimensionality
Braams, B. J., & Bowman, J. M. (2009) · International Reviews in Physical Chemistry · doi:10.1080/01442350903234923 · Cited by 937
Four Generations of High-Dimensional Neural Network Potentials
Behler, J. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00868 · Cited by 873
Neural network potential-energy surfaces in chemistry: a tool for large-scale simulations
Behler, J. (2011) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c1cp21668f · Cited by 781
Metadata
- Authors
- Manzhos, S., Wang, X., Dawes, R., & Carrington, T.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-12-16
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 5295-5304
- ISSN
- 1089-5639 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5215
- OpenAlex
- W1998860313
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.