Cartesian atomic cluster expansion for machine learning interatomic potentials

Bingqing Cheng

Main figure for Cartesian atomic cluster expansion for machine learning interatomic potentials

Abstract

Machine learning interatomic potentials are revolutionizing large-scale, accurate atomistic modelling in material science and chemistry. Many potentials use atomic cluster expansion or equivariant message passing frameworks. Such frameworks typically use spherical harmonics as angular basis functions,. This approach provides a complete set of polynormially independent features of atomic environments while maintaining interaction body orders. Additionally, we integrate low-dimensional embeddings of various chemical elements, and inter-atomic message passing. The resulting potential, named Cartesian Atomic Cluster Expansion (CACE), exhibits good accuracy, stability, and generalizability. We validate its performance in diverse systems, including bulk water, small molecules, and 25-element high-entropy alloys.

Proposed method: CACE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 8 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
7
NequIP
actual #7 vs paper #118 111 places worse
0.0009
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #118 111 places worse
paper 2.2000
21
GemNet-T
actual #21 vs paper #119 98 places worse
0.0070
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #119 98 places worse
paper 3.7000
22
PaiNN
actual #22 vs paper #119 97 places worse
0.0100
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #119 97 places worse
paper 2.7000
46
SchNet
actual #46 vs paper #119 73 places worse
0.0500
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #119 73 places worse
paper 3.5000
52
SphereNet
actual #52 vs paper #122 70 places worse
0.0520
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #122 70 places worse
paper 9.0000
61
sGDML
actual #61 vs paper #119 58 places worse
0.0600
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #119 58 places worse
paper 3.0000
paper 3.0000 Δ at pub 2.9400
63
NewtonNet
actual #63 vs paper #119 56 places worse
0.0610
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #119 56 places worse
paper 2.6000
64
DimeNet++
actual #64 vs paper #119 55 places worse
0.0640
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #119 55 places worse
paper 2.8000
paper 2.8000 Δ at pub 2.7360 Δ today 2.7360
119
CACE
2.3700
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)