SpookyNet: Learning force fields with electronic degrees of freedom and nonlocal effects

Oliver T. Unke, Stefan Chmiela, Michael Gastegger, Kristof T. Sch\"utt, Huziel E.\ Sauceda, Klaus-Robert M\"uller

Main figure for SpookyNet: Learning force fields with electronic degrees of freedom and nonlocal effects

Abstract

Machine-learned force fields combine the accuracy of ab initio methods with the efficiency of conventional force fields. However, current machine-learned force fields typically ignore electronic degrees of freedom, such as the total charge or spin state, and assume chemical locality, which is problematic when molecules have inconsistent electronic states, or when nonlocal effects play a significant role. This work introduces SpookyNet, a deep neural network for constructing machine-learned force fields with explicit treatment of electronic degrees of freedom and nonlocality, modeled via self-attention in a transformer architecture. Chemically meaningful inductive biases and analytical corrections built into the network architecture allow it to properly model physical limits. SpookyNet improves upon the current state-of-the-art (or achieves similar performance) on popular quantum chemistry data sets. Notably, it is able to generalize across chemical and conformational space and can leverage the learned chemical insights, e.g. by predicting unknown spin states, thus helping to close a further important remaining gap for today’s machine learning models in quantum chemistry. Current machine-learned force fields typically ignore electronic degrees of freedom. SpookyNet is a deep neural network that explicitly treats electronic degrees of freedom, closing an important remaining gap for models in quantum chemistry.

Proposed method: SpookyNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset SOTA at publication on 1 3 baseline values reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Quantum Chemistry

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
QHNet
0.0000
2
QHNetV2
0.0000
3
PhiSNet
0.0000
22
PaiNN
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
0.1590
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
paper 0.1590
29
PhysNet
actual #29 vs paper #99 70 places worse
0.0300
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #99 70 places worse
paper 0.2300
46
SchNet
actual #46 vs paper #107 61 places worse
0.0500
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #107 61 places worse
paper 0.3700
51
SpookyNet
actual #51 vs paper #51
0.0520 ±0.0010
actual #51 vs paper #51
paper 0.0520 ±0.0010
61
sGDML
actual #61 vs paper #98 37 places worse
0.0600
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #98 37 places worse
paper 0.1900
paper 0.1900 Δ at pub 0.1300
98
FCHL19
0.1820
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result