TMLR 2022

Forces are not Enough: Benchmark and Critical Evaluation for Machine Learning Force Fields with Molecular Simulations

Xiang Fu, Zhenghao Wu, Wujie Wang, T. Xie, S. Keten, Rafael Gómez‐Bombarelli, T. Jaakkola

Main figure for Forces are not Enough: Benchmark and Critical Evaluation for Machine Learning Force Fields with Molecular Simulations

Abstract

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation techniques are widely used for various natural science applications. Increasingly, machine learning (ML) force field (FF) models begin to replace ab-initio simulations by predicting forces directly from atomic structures. Despite significant progress in this area, such techniques are primarily benchmarked by their force/energy prediction errors, even though the practical use case would be to produce realistic MD trajectories. We aim to fill this gap by introducing a novel benchmark suite for learned MD simulation. We curate representative MD systems, including water, organic molecules, peptide, and materials, and design evaluation metrics corresponding to the scientific objectives of respective systems. We benchmark a collection of state-of-the-art (SOTA) ML FF models and illustrate, in particular, how the commonly benchmarked force accuracy is not well aligned with relevant simulation metrics. We demonstrate when and how selected SOTA methods fail, along with offering directions for further improvement. Specifically, we identify stability as a key metric for ML models to improve. Our benchmark suite comes with a comprehensive open-source codebase for training and simulation with ML FFs to facilitate future work.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Quantum Chemistry

MD17

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Force; the dataset default is MAE. Values below use Force only.

Sorted by Force. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelForce ↓Paper
1
Equiformer
0.2860
2
SphereNet
actual #2 vs paper #6 4 places worse
0.5460
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #6 4 places worse
paper 1.5000
3
GemNet-T
actual #3 vs paper #6 3 places worse
0.5580
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #6 3 places worse
paper 1.5000
4
PaiNN
actual #4 vs paper #9 5 places worse
0.5720
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #9 5 places worse
paper 3.8000
5
NequIP
1.1000
This paper
6
SchNet
actual #6 vs paper #13 7 places worse
1.2030
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #13 7 places worse
paper 16.8000
7
GemNet-dT
1.7000
This paper
10
DimeNet++
4.2000
This paper
11
DeepPot-SE
8.9000
This paper
13
ForceNet
9.9000
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere