NewtonNet: A Newtonian message passing network for deep learning of interatomic potentials and forces

Mojtaba Haghighatlari, Jie Li, Xingyi Guan, Oufan Zhang, A. Das, Christopher J. Stein, Farnaz Heidar‐Zadeh, Meili Liu, M. Head‐Gordon, Luke W. Bertels, Hongxia Hao, I. Leven, T. Head‐Gordon

Main figure for NewtonNet: A Newtonian message passing network for deep learning of interatomic potentials and forces

Abstract

We report a new deep learning message passing network that takes inspiration from Newton's equations of motion to learn interatomic potentials and forces. With the advantage of directional information from trainable latent force vectors, and physics-infused operators that are inspired by the Newtonian physics, the entire model remains rotationally equivariant, and many-body interactions are inferred by more interpretable physical features. We test NewtonNet on the prediction of several reactive and non-reactive high quality ab initio data sets including single small molecule dynamics, a large set of chemically diverse molecules, and methane and hydrogen combustion reactions, achieving state-of-the-art test performance on energies and forces with far greater data and computational efficiency than other deep learning models.

Proposed method: NewtonNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset SOTA at publication on 1 4 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
0.0100
best reported
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
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
63
NewtonNet
actual #63 vs paper #63
0.0610 ±0.0090
actual #63 vs paper #63
paper 0.0610 ±0.0090
64
DimeNet++
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
0.0640
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
paper 0.2040
paper 0.2040 Δ at pub 0.1400 Δ today 0.1400
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere