ICLR 2024

FreeCG: Free the Design Space of Clebsch–Gordan Transform for Machine Learning Force Fields

Shihao Shao, Haoran Geng, Zun Wang, Qinghua Cui

Main figure for FreeCG: Free the Design Space of Clebsch–Gordan Transform for Machine Learning Force Fields

Abstract

Machine Learning Force Fields (MLFFs) are of great importance for chemistry, physics, materials science, and many other related fields. The Clebsch–Gordan Transform (CG transform) effectively encodes many-body interactions and is thus an important building block for many models of MLFFs. However, the permutation-equivariance requirement of MLFFs limits the design space of CG transform, that is, intensive CG transform has to be conducted for each neighboring edge and the operations should be performed in the same manner for all edges. This constraint results in reduced expressiveness of the model while simultaneously increasing computational demands. To overcome this challenge, we first implement the CG transform layer on the permutation-invariant abstract edges generated from real edge information. We show that this approach allows complete freedom in the design of the layer without compromising the crucial symmetry. Developing on this free design space, we further propose group CG transform with sparse path, abstract edges shuffling, and attention enhancer to form a powerful and efficient CG transform layer. Our method, known as FreeCG, achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) results in force prediction for MD17, rMD17, MD22, and is well extended to property prediction in QM9 datasets with several improvements greater than 15$\

Proposed method: FreeCG

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 7 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
6
ViSNet
actual #6 vs paper #6
0.0007
5
BOTNet
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.0007
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.0007
7
NequIP
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.0009
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.0009
9
UNiTE
actual #9 vs paper #9
0.0020
actual #9 vs paper #9
paper 0.0020
14
Allegro
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.0046
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.0046
22
PaiNN
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
0.0100
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
paper 0.1670
30
FreeCG
0.0340
This paper
36
QuinNet
actual #36 vs paper #83 47 places worse
0.0390
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #83 47 places worse
paper 0.1190
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
47
GemNet
actual #47 vs paper #90 43 places worse
0.0502
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #90 43 places worse
paper 0.1310
paper 0.1310 Δ at pub 0.0808
54
ET
actual #54 vs paper #86 32 places worse
0.0520
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #86 32 places worse
paper 0.1230
53
So3krates
actual #53 vs paper #91 38 places worse
0.0520
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #91 38 places worse
paper 0.1390
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
95
SpookeyNet
0.1510
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) 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