Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neural networks vs Gaussian process regression for representing potential energy surfaces: A comparative study of fit quality and vibrational spectrum accuracy

Kamath, Aditya, Vargas-Hernández, Rodrigo A., Krems, Roman V., Carrington, Tucker, Manzhos, Sergei·2018·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

For molecules with more than three atoms, it is difficult to fit or interpolate a potential energy surface (PES) from a small number of (usually ab initio) energies at points. Many methods have been proposed in recent decades, each claiming a set of advantages. Unfortunately, there are few comparative studies. In this paper, we compare neural networks (NNs) with Gaussian process (GP) regression. We re-fit an accurate PES of formaldehyde and compare PES errors on the entire point set used to solve the vibrational Schrödinger equation, i.e., the only error that matters in quantum dynamics calculations. We also compare the vibrational spectra computed on the underlying reference PES and the NN and GP potential surfaces. The NN and GP surfaces are constructed with exactly the same points, and the corresponding spectra are computed with the same points and the same basis. The GP fitting error is lower, and the GP spectrum is more accurate. The best NN fits to 625/1250/2500 symmetry unique potential energy points have global PES root mean square errors (RMSEs) of 6.53/2.54/0.86 cm−1, whereas the best GP surfaces have RMSE values of 3.87/1.13/0.62 cm−1, respectively. When fitting 625 symmetry unique points, the error in the first 100 vibrational levels is only 0.06 cm−1 with the best GP fit, whereas the spectrum on the best NN PES has an error of 0.22 cm−1, with respect to the spectrum computed on the reference PES. This error is reduced to about 0.01 cm−1 when fitting 2500 points with either the NN or GP. We also find that the GP surface produces a relatively accurate spectrum when obtained based on as few as 313 points.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.5003074

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 224

Metadata

Authors
Kamath, A., Vargas-Hernández, R. A., Krems, R. V., Carrington, T., & Manzhos, S.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
2018-03-15
Volume
148
Issue
24
Pages
241702-241702
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2792351009
Cited by
224
References
3
FWCI
11.57
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neural networks vs Gaussian process regression for representing potential energy surfaces: A comparative study of fit quality and vibrational spectrum accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.5003074
The paper
Kamath, A., Vargas-Hernández, R. A., Krems, R. V., Carrington, T., & Manzhos, S. (2018). Neural networks vs Gaussian process regression for representing potential energy surfaces: A comparative study of fit quality and vibrational spectrum accuracy. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003074

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.