ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Machine Learning Adaptive Basis Sets for Efficient Large Scale Density Functional Theory Simulation
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
  • Editors Choice
Article

Machine Learning Adaptive Basis Sets for Efficient Large Scale Density Functional Theory Simulation
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Cite this: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 8, 4168–4175
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00378
Published June 29, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

It is chemically intuitive that an optimal atom centered basis set must adapt to its atomic environment, for example by polarizing toward nearby atoms. Adaptive basis sets of small size can be significantly more accurate than traditional atom centered basis sets of the same size. The small size and well conditioned nature of these basis sets leads to large saving in computational cost, in particular in a linear scaling framework. Here, it is shown that machine learning can be used to predict such adaptive basis sets using local geometrical information only. As a result, various properties of standard DFT calculations can be easily obtained at much lower costs, including nuclear gradients. In our approach, a rotationally invariant parametrization of the basis is obtained by employing a potential anchored on neighboring atoms to ultimately construct a rotation matrix that turns a traditional atom centered basis set into a suitable adaptive basis set. The method is demonstrated using MD simulations of liquid water, where it is shown that minimal basis sets yield structural properties in fair agreement with basis set converged results, while reducing the computational cost in the best case by a factor of 200 and the required flops by 4 orders of magnitude. Already a very small training set yields satisfactory results as the variational nature of the method provides robustness.

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The rapid increase in computational power and the development of linear scaling methods (1,2) now allow for easy single-point density functional theory (DFT) energy calculations of systems with 10,000–1,000,000 atoms. (3,4) However, the approach is computationally demanding for routine application, especially if first-principles molecular dynamics or relaxation is required. The computational cost of a DFT calculation depends critically on the size and condition number of the employed basis set. Traditional linear scaling DFT implementations employ basis sets which are atom centered, static, and isotropic. Since molecular systems are never isotropic, it is apparent that isotropic basis sets are suboptimal. Therefore, in this work a scheme is presented to define small adaptive basis sets as a function of the local chemical environment. These chemical environments are subject to change, e.g., during the aforementioned relaxations or sampling. In order to map chemical environments to basis functions in a predictable fashion, a machine learning (ML) approach is used. The analytic nature of a ML framework allows for the calculation of exact analytic forces, as required for dynamic simulations.
The idea of representing the electronic structure with adapted atomic or quasi-atomic basis functions dates back several decades. It underlays, e.g., many early tools used for the investigation of bonding order. (5−10) Also more recent methods for extracting atomic orbitals from molecular orbitals build on this idea. (11−16) Besides using adaptive basis sets for analytic tasks, they can also be used to speed up SCF algorithms, which was pioneered by Adams. (17−19) The approach was later refined by Lee and Head-Gordon (20,21) and subsequently applied to linear scaling DFT by Berghold et al. (22) Many linear scaling DFT packages have also developed their own adaptive basis set scheme: The CONQUEST program (4) uses local support functions, derived either from plane waves (23) or pseudoatomic orbitals. (24) The ONETEP program (25) uses nonorthogonal generalized Wannier functions (NGWFs). (26) The BigDFT program (27) uses a minimal set of on-the-fly optimized contracted basis functions. (28) Other related methods include numeric atomic orbital (29−32) and localized filter diagonalization. (33−37) Recently Mao et al. used perturbation theory to correct for the error introduced into a DFT calculation by a minimal adaptive basis. (38)
Here, we focus on polarized atomic orbitals (PAOs) and build on the work of Berghold et al. (22) PAOs are linear combinations of atomic orbitals (AOs) on a single atomic center, called primary basis in the following, that minimize the total energy when used as a basis. As a result, small PAO basis sets are usually of good quality and their variational aspect is advantageous when computing properties, such as, e.g., nuclear gradients. While there is no fundamental restriction on the PAO basis size, minimal PAO basis sets have been studied in the most detail and are also the focus of this work. Despite their qualities, the use of PAOs in simulation has been very limited, which we attribute to the difficulty of optimizing these PAOs for each molecular geometry in addition to the implied approximation. Our aim is to exploit the adaptivity of the PAO basis but to avoid this tedious optimization step by a machine learning approach.
The application of machine learning techniques to quantum chemistry is a rather young and very active field. For a recent review see Ramakrishnan and von Lilienfeld. (39) Its aim is to mitigate the high computational cost associated with quantum calculations. Initially, the research focused mostly on predicting observable properties directly from atomic positions. (40) For example, very successful recent applications include the derivation of force fields using neural network descriptions. (41−43) However, such end-to-end predictions pose a very challenging learning problem. As a consequence they require large amounts of training data with increasing system size, and the learning must be repeated for each property. Fortunately, the past decades of research have provided a wealth of quantum chemical insights. One can therefore build onto established approximations, such as DFT, and apply machine learning only to small, but expensive, subparts of the algorithms. Examples are schemes for learning the kinetic energy functional to perform orbital free DFT (44) or learning the electronic density of states at the Fermi energy. (45) Alternatively, machine learning can be used to improve the accuracy of semiempirical methods by making their parameters configuration-dependent. (46,47) In this work, machine learning is used to predict suitable PAO basis sets for a given chemical environment. The present method is thus essentially a standard DFT calculation in a geometry-dependent, optimized basis. Contrary to methods learning specific properties, including the total energy, the present method thus provides access to all properties in DFT calculations.

2. Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Polarized Atomic Orbitals

The polarized atomic orbital basis is derived from a larger primary basis through linear combinations among functions centered on the same atom. In the following, the notation from Berghold et al. (22) has been adopted. Variables with a tilde denote objects in the smaller PAO basis, while undecorated variables refer to objects in the primary basis. Formally, a PAO basis function φ̃μ can be written as a weighted sum of primary basis functions φν, where μ and ν belong to the same atom:
(1)
As a consequence of the atom-wise contractions, the transformation matrix B assumes a rectangular block-diagonal structure. Since the primary basis is nonorthogonal, the tensor property of the involved matrices has to be taken into account. (48) Covariant matrices such as the Kohn–Sham matrix H and the overlap matrix S transform differently than the contravariant density matrix P. Hence, two transformation matrices A and B are introduced.
(2)
Notice that ATB = BTA = gives the identity matrix in the PAO basis, while ABT = BAT is the projector onto the subspace spanned by the PAO basis within the primary basis. In order to treat the matrices A and B in a simple and unified fashion, they are rewritten as a product of three matrices:
(3)
Due to the atom-wise contractions, the matrices N, U, and Y are block-diagonal as well. The matrices N±1 transform into the orthonormal basis, in which co- and contravariance coincide and the distinction can be dropped. The unitary matrix U rotates the orthonormalized primary basis functions of each atom such that the desired PAO basis functions become the first mI components. The selector matrix Y is a rectangular matrix, which selects for each atom the first mI components. Each atomic block YI of the selector matrix is a rectangular identity matrix of dimension nI·mI, where nI denotes the size of the primary basis and mI the PAO basis size for the given atom I:
(4)
In the formulation from eq 3 the PAO basis is now solely determined by the unitary diagonal blocks of matrix U, without any loss of generality. None of the matrix multiplications required in the transformation is expensive to compute, because the matrices either are block-diagonal or expressed in the small PAO basis.

2.2. Potential Parametrization

The PAO basis is determined by the unitary matrix U. In order to ensure the unitariness of U, it is constructed from the eigenvectors of an auxiliary atomic Hamiltonian Haux:
(5)
(6)
Effectivly, the lowest m states of the auxiliary Hamiltonian are taken as PAO basis functions. Here, the atomic Hamiltonian H0 describes the isolated spherical atom, and V is the polarization potential that models the influence of neighboring atoms. In the absence of V the PAO basis will reproduce the isolated atom exactly.
In the context of machine learning a parametrization should also be rotationally invariant. A parametrization without rotational invariance, on the contrary, would require training data for all possible orientations and still bear the risk of introducing artificial torque forces. In this work rotational invariant parameters X are obtained by expanding the potential V into terms Vi that are anchored on the neighboring atoms:
(7)
When the system is rotated, the potential terms Vi change accordingly, while the Xi remain invariant. As a consquence, the optimal X⃗ is independent of the system’s orientation.

Explicit Form of the Potential Terms

The explicit form of the potential terms Vi must be sufficiently flexible to span the relevant subspace. Yet, they must also depend smoothly on atomic positions, be independent of the atom ordering, and be sufficiently local in nature. While we expect that more advanced forms can be found, the following scheme has been employed:
(8)
where
(9)
is a potential that results from spherical Gaussian potentials centered on all neighboring atoms.
(10)
is a projector on shells of basis functions that share a common radial part, and the same angular momentum number l, but have different m quantum numbers. Specializing the terms by different l quantum number and radial part introduces the needed flexibility, while retaining the rotational invariance. Nonlocal pseudopotentials have some resemblance to this scheme. Finally, additional terms are added that just result from the central atom, these are give by
(11)
Trivially degenerated terms with lu = lv = 0 are included only once. The weights wJ and exponents βJ could be used for fine-tunning the potential terms. However, througout this work simply wJ = 1, βJ = 2, and k ≤ 2 are used.

2.3. Machine Learning

Machine learning essentially means to approximate a complex, usually unknown, function from a given set of training points. The amount of required training data grows with the difficulty of the learning problem. Therefore, the learning problem should be kept as small as possible by exploiting a priori knowledge about the function’s domain and codomain.
For the co-domain side this simplification is achieved through the previously described potential parametrization. It takes as input a PAO parameter vector and returns the unitary matrix that eventually determines the PAO basis: X⃗U.
For the domain side a so-called descriptor is used. It takes as input all atom positions and returns a low-dimensional feature vector that characterizes the chemical environment: {R⃗I} → q⃗. The search for a good general-purpose descriptor is an ongoing research effort. (49−51) For this work a variant of the descriptor proposed by Sadeghi et al. (52) and inspired by Rupp et al. (53) was chosen. For each atom I an overlap matrix of its surrouding atoms is constructed:
(12)
The eigenvalues of this overlap matrix are then used as descriptor. They are invariant under rotation of the system and permutation of equivalent atoms. The exponent σI acts as a screening parameter, while βJ allows the descriptor to distinguish between different atomic species. With these two simplifications in place, the learning machinery only has to perform the remaining mapping of feature vectors onto PAO parameter vectors: q⃗X⃗. A number of different learning methods have been proposed, including neural networks (54) and regression. (40) For this work a Gaussian process (GP) (55) was chosen as a relatively simple, but well characterized, ML procedure. As kernel served the popular squared exponential covariance function:
(13)
However, the PAO-ML scheme makes no assumptions about the employed ML algorithm and can be used in combination with any other machine learning method. Finally, a small number of hyper-parameters had to be optimized to achieve good results. While fixing the descriptor screening to σI = 1 and the GP noise level to ϵ = 10–4, the descriptor’s βJ and the GP length scale σ were determined with a derivative-free optimizer as βO = 0.09, βH = 0.23, and σ = 0.46 au. For an overview of the entire PAO-ML scheme see Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Overview of the PAO-ML scheme for using the potential parametrization and machine learning to calculate the PAO basis from given atomic positions.

2.4. Analytic Forces

In order to run molecular dynamics simulations, accurate forces are essential. Forces are the derivative of the total energy with respect to atom positions. While a variationally optimized PAO basis does not contribute any additional force terms, the same does not hold for approximately optimized PAO basis sets. The advantage of using a pretrained machine learning scheme is the possibility to calculate accurate forces nevertheless.
The PAO-ML scheme contributes two force terms that have to be added to the common DFT forces F⃗DFT. One term originates from the potential terms Vi from eq 8, which are anchored on neighboring atoms. The other force term arises from the descriptor, which takes atom positions as input. Both additional terms can be calculated analytically:
(14)

2.5. Training Data Acquisition

Training data are obtained by explicitly optimizing the PAO basis for a set of training structures. This poses an intricate minimization problem because the total energy must be minimal with respect to the rotation matrix U and the density matrix . Additionally, the solution has to be self-consistent because the Kohn–Sham matrix H depends on the density matrix. Significant speedups can be obtained from temporarily relaxing the self-consistency by fixing the Kohn–Sham matrix H during an optimization cycle of and U.

Regularization

For high-quality training data the optimal parameters X⃗ should be unique and vary smoothly with atomic positions. To this end, two carefully designed regularization terms were introduced. The first term is inspired by Tikhonov regularization (56) and penalizes expansion on linearly dependent potential terms in eq 7. The second term is a L2 regularization for the excess degrees of freedom in the potential V. Together both regularizations can be expressed via the overlap matrix of the potential terms:
(15)
as
(16)
Througout this work the values α = 10–6 and β = c = 1 mHa are used.

3. Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this section, the performance of the method for bulk liquid water is explored. This system has a long tradition within the first-principles MD community, as it is both important and difficult to describe. (57) From an energetic point of view, the challenge arises from the delicate balance between directional hydrogen bonding and nondirectional interactions such as van der Waals interactions. (58) The relatively weak interaction can furthermore be influenced by technical aspects, such as basis set quality. Additionally, the liquid is a disordered state, which requires sampling of configurations for a proper description. The disorder makes it also an interesting test case for the ML approach, as the variability of the environment of each molecule can be large.

3.1. Learning Curve

In order to validate the PAO-ML method a learning curve is recorded. To do this, 71 frames containing 64 water molecules, spaced 100 fs apart, are taken from an earlier MP2 MD simulation at ambient temperature and pressure. (59) The first 30 frames are used as training data while the last 30 frames serve as a test set. For each training frame the optimal PAO basis is determined via explicit optimization using DZVP-MOLOPT-GTH as the primary basis. The PAO-ML method is then used to predict basis sets for all test frames based on an increasing number of training frames. The learning curve in Figure 2 shows the standard deviation of the energy difference with respect to the primary basis taken across all 64 water molecules in all 30 test frames. It shows that already a single frame, i.e., 64 molecular geometries, is sufficient training data to yield an error below 0.1 mHa per water molecule. The curve furthermore shows good resilience against overfitting as the error continues to decrease even for large training sets, eventually reaching 0.083 mHa per molecule. In comparison, a traditional minimal (SZV-MOLOPT-GTH) basis set exhibits an error of 0.360 mHa. The learning can at best reach the accuracy of the underlying PAO approximation (0.074 mHa). It is unlikely that the current descriptor would be sufficient to attain that bound.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Learning curve showing the decreasing error of PAO-ML (blue) with increased training set size. For comparison the error of a variationally optimized PAO basis (green) and a traditional minimal SZV-MOLOPT-GTH (red) basis set are shown. With very little training data, the variational limit is approached by the ML method.

3.2. Consistency of Energy and Forces

In order to validate that the forces provided by the PAO-ML implementation are consistent with its energies, a series of short molecular dynamics simulations with different time steps was performed on a water dimer. For the integration of Newton’s law of motion the velocity–Verlet algorithm (60) has been employed, which has an integration error that is of second order in the time step. Figure 3 shows the fluctuations obtained with time steps of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1 fs. The standard variations extracted from these fluctuation curves are 5.00, 1.23, and 0.31 μHa. This matches nicely the 4-fold decrease expected for a time step halving and confirms the consistency of the PAO-ML implementation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Energy fluctuation during a series of MD simulation of a water dimer using the PAO-ML scheme. The simulations were conducted in the NVE ensemble using different time steps Δt to demonstrate the consistency of the forces and thus the controllability of the integration error.

3.3. PAO-ML Molecular Dynamics of Liquid Water

So far, we have tested the performance of the method based on frames sampled with a traditional approach. More challenging for a ML method is sampling configurations based on predicted energies, in particular, to verify that instabilities and unphysical behavior are absent when the method is given the freedom to explore phase space. To test and verify the performance, molecular dynamics simulations have been performed for 64 molecules of water at experimental density and 300 K, producing trajectories between 20 and 40 ps depending on the method. Besides PAO-ML, a traditional minimal (SZV-MOLOPT-GTH) basis set, a standard basis sets of triple-ζ quality (TZV2P-MOLOPT-GTH), and density functional tight binding (DFTB) (61,62) were used. TZV2P serves as a reference converged result, while SZV and DFTB provide insight in the performance of methods with a basis set size identical to PAO-ML. The oxygen–oxygen pair correlation functions of liquid water are shown in Figure 4. First, these results show that the PAO-ML simulation is similar to the reference TZV2P-MOLOPT-GTH. The position of the first peak in the O–O pair correlation function matches well the one of the experimental reference, which is a significant improvement over the result obtained with a SZV-MOLOPT-GTH basis. Compared to the experiment, overstructuring of the first peak can be mostly attributed to the employed PBE exchange and correlation functional, as it also shows up with the triple-ζ basis set. Comparing to the DFTB results, the difference is most significant near the second solvation shell, which is mostly absent or strongly shifted to larger distances with DFTB, whereas the PAO-ML reproduces the reference results rather accurately.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Shown are oxygen–oxygen pair correlation functions for liquid water at 300 K. As reference the experimental (green, ref (63)) and TZV2P-MOLOPT-GTH basis sets (blue) results are shown. The SZV-MOLOPT-GTH curve (red) and DFTB (orange) are examples of results typically obtained from a minimal basis sets. The adaptive basis set PAO-ML (black) reproduces the reference (TZV2P) better than any of the alternative minimal basis set methods.

3.4. Check for Unphysical Minima

We checked that the PAO-ML potential energy surface is free from unphysical minima. To this end, the 30 test frames of bulk liquid water employed in section 3.1 were geometry optimized using PAO-ML. During this optimization the energy dropped on average by 3.14 mHa per water molecule and each atom moved on average 0.212 Å. Afterward, starting from the PAO-ML minima configuration, a second geometry optimization was performed using the DZVP-MOLOPT-GTH basis. Confirming the physical nature of the PAO-ML minima, the average energy difference between the configurations optimized with PAO-ML and DZVP is a neglibile 0.028 mHa per molecule and the positions changed on average by only 0.014 Å per atom. This confirms the quality of the PAO-ML basis.

3.5. PAO-ML Speedup

The speedup obtained with PAO-ML in the context of linear scaling calculations will be quantified. As a test system, a cubic unit cell containing 6912 water molecules (∼20000 atoms) is employed. The simulations were run on a Cray XC40 using between 64 and 400 nodes each with two CPUs. Table 1 shows the timings for both the full energy calculation and the sparse matrix multiplication part alone. Linear scaling calculations are typically dominated by matrix multiplication, which made it the target of the PAO-ML method. The largest speedup for this part is observable on a few nodes, in which case the PAO-ML scheme yields a 200× wall time reduction. The number of flops actually executed decreases by 4 orders of magnitude from 61.63 × 1015 flops for DZVP-MOLOPT-GTH to only 4.07 × 1012 flops for PAO-ML. This speedup can only be partially attributed to the smaller basis set, as the reduction in flops in the dense case would be only 56× (6 vs 23 basis functions per water molecule). This demonstrates the importance of the condition number of the overlap matrix in sparse linear algebra, because the PAO basis exhibits a condition number around 6, which is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower than for the primary DZVP basis set. Due to the large speedup of the matrix multiplication, the Kohn–Sham matrix construction becomes a major contribution to the timings. Nevertheless, on 64 nodes the PAO-ML method speedup the full calculation by 60×. Running on 400 nodes allows one to perform an SCF step in just 3.3 s.
Table 1. Timings (seconds) for the Complete CP2K Energy Calculation (Full) and the Matrix Multiplication Part (mult) on a System Consisting of ∼20000 Atoms, As Described in the Texta
nodes64100169256400
PAO-ML
full8758413324
mult231713118
DZVP-MOLOPT-GTH
full52152765199618401201
mult50362655192217791165
a

The PAO-ML method outperforms a standard DFT run with a DZVP-MOLOPT-GTH basis by a factor of at least 50×.

3.6. Computational Setup

All the calculations were performed using the CP2K software. (64−66) CP2K combines a primary contracted Gaussian basis with an auxiliary plane-wave (PW) basis. This Gaussian and plane-wave (GPW) (67) scheme allows for an efficient linear-scaling calculation of the Kohn–Sham matrix. The auxiliary PW basis is used to calculate the Hartree (Coulomb) energy in linear-scaling time using fast Fourier transforms. The transformation between the Gaussian and PW basis can be computed rapidly. The cutoff for the PW basis set was chosen to be at least 400 Ry in all simulations. While the PW basis is efficient for the Hartree energy, the primary Gaussian basis set is local in nature and allows for a sparse representation of the Kohn–Sham matrix. For the simulations, the Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (68) (PBE) exchange and correlation (XC) functional and Goedecker–Teter–Hutter (GTH) pseudopotentials (69) were used. The linear-scaling calculations were performed with the implementation as described in ref (3), which in particular allows for variable sparsity patterns of the matrices. All SCF optimization used the TRS4 (70) algorithm. The SCF optimization was converged to a threshold (EPS_SCF) of 10–8 or tighter; the filtering threshold EPS_FILTER was to 10–7 or tighter. The default accuracy (EPS_DEFAULT) was set to 10–10 or tighter. All simulations were run in double precision. CP2K input files are available in the Supporting Information.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this work, the PAO-ML scheme has been presented and tested. PAO-ML employs machine learning techniques to infer geometry adapted atom centered basis sets from training data in a general way. The scheme can serve as an almost drop-in replacement for conventional basis sets to speedup otherwise standard DFT calculations. The method is similar to semiempirical models based on minimal basis sets but offers improved accuracy and quasi-automatic parametrization.
The PAO-ML approach has the interesting property that the optimal prediction of the parameters makes the energy minimal with respect to these parameters. During the actual simulation, this implies a certain stability of the simulation, as regions with poorly predicted parameters will be avoided due to their higher energy. Ultimately, the whole PAO-ML method provides basis sets that depend in an analytical way on the atomic coordinates. As such, analytic nuclear forces are available, making the method suitable for geometry optimization and energy conserving molecular dynamics simulations.
The performance of the method was demonstrated using MD simulations of liquid water, where it was shown that small basis sets yield structural properties that outperform those of other minimal basis set approaches. Interestingly, very small samples of training data yielded satisfactory results. Compared to the standard approach, the number of flops needed in matrix–matrix multiplications decreased by over 4 orders of magnitude, leading to an effective 60-fold run-time speedup.
Finally, it is clear that the approach presented in this work can be further refined and extended. Some early results have been published in a Ph.D. thesis. (71) Possible directions for improvements include the following: (a) systematic storage and extension of reference data to yield a general purpose machine learned framework for large scale simulation, including a more rigorous quantification of the expected error, which will improve usability; (b) refined parametrization of the PAO basis sets, reducing the number of parameters needed and the enhancing the robustness of the method; (c) nonminimal PAO basis sets; (d) extensions of the method to yield basis sets for fragments or molecules rather than atoms, which will increase accuracy and efficiency; (e) more advanced machine learning techniques and alternative descriptors, which will allow for larger training sets and improved transferability of reference results. These directions should be explored in future work.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00378.

  • Representative input files for most simulations (ZIP)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Author
    • Ole Schütt - Department of Materials, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
  • Funding

    This work was supported by the European Union FP7 with an ERC Starting Grant under Contract No. 277910 and by a grant from the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) under Project ID ch5.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 71 other publications.

  1. 1
    Goedecker, S. Linear scaling electronic structure methods. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1999, 71, 1085,  DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1085
  2. 2
    Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. methods in electronic structure calculations. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2012, 75, 036503,  DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/75/3/036503
  3. 3
    VandeVondele, J.; Borštnik, U.; Hutter, J. Linear Scaling Self-Consistent Field Calculations with Millions of Atoms in the Condensed Phase. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 35653573,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200897x
  4. 4
    Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. Calculations for millions of atoms with density functional theory: linear scaling shows its potential. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2010, 22, 074207,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/22/7/074207
  5. 5
    Mulliken, R. S. Criteria for the Construction of Good Self-Consistent-Field Molecular Orbital Wave Functions, and the Significance of LCAO-MO Population Analysis. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 36, 34283439,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1732476
  6. 6
    Davidson, E. R. Electronic Population Analysis of Molecular Wavefunctions. J. Chem. Phys. 1967, 46, 33203324,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1841219
  7. 7
    Roby, K. R. Quantum theory of chemical valence concepts. Mol. Phys. 1974, 27, 81104,  DOI: 10.1080/00268977400100071
  8. 8
    Heinzmann, R.; Ahlrichs, R. Population analysis based on occupation numbers of modified atomic orbitals (MAOs). Theor. Chim. Acta. 1976, 42, 3345,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00548289
  9. 9
    Ehrhardt, C.; Ahlrichs, R. Population analysis based on occupation numbers II. Relationship between shared electron numbers and bond energies and characterization of hypervalent contributions. Theor. Chim. Acta. 1985, 68, 231245,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00526774
  10. 10
    Reed, A. E.; Curtiss, L. A.; Weinhold, F. Intermolecular interactions from a natural bond orbital, donor-acceptor viewpoint. Chem. Rev. 1988, 88, 899926,  DOI: 10.1021/cr00088a005
  11. 11
    Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Extracting polarized atomic orbitals from molecular orbital calculations. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2000, 76, 169184,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-461X(2000)76:2<169::AID-QUA7>3.0.CO;2-G
  12. 12
    Mayer, I. Orthogonal effective atomic orbitals in the topological theory of atoms. Can. J. Chem. 1996, 74, 939942,  DOI: 10.1139/v96-103
  13. 13
    Cioslowski, J.; Liashenko, A. Atomic orbitals in molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 108, 44054412,  DOI: 10.1063/1.475853
  14. 14
    Lu, W. C.; Wang, C. Z.; Schmidt, M. W.; Bytautas, L.; Ho, K. M.; Ruedenberg, K. Molecule intrinsic minimal basis sets. I. Exact resolution of ab initio optimized molecular orbitals in terms of deformed atomic minimal-basis orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 26292637,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1638731
  15. 15
    Laikov, D. N. Intrinsic minimal atomic basis representation of molecular electronic wavefunctions. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2011, 111, 28512867,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.22767
  16. 16
    Knizia, G. Intrinsic Atomic Orbitals: An Unbiased Bridge between Quantum Theory and Chemical Concepts. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 48344843,  DOI: 10.1021/ct400687b
  17. 17
    Adams, W. H. On the Solution of the Hartree-Fock Equation in Terms of Localized Orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 1961, 34, 89102,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1731622
  18. 18
    Adams, W. H. Orbital Theories of Electronic Structure. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 37, 20092018,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1733420
  19. 19
    Adams, W. Distortion of interacting atoms and ions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1971, 12, 295298,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(71)85068-6
  20. 20
    Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Polarized atomic orbitals for self-consistent field electronic structure calculations. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 90859095,  DOI: 10.1063/1.475199
  21. 21
    Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Absolute and relative energies from polarized atomic orbital self-consistent field calculations and a second order correction.: Convergence with size and composition of the secondary basis. Comput. Chem. 2000, 24, 295301,  DOI: 10.1016/S0097-8485(99)00086-8
  22. 22
    Berghold, G.; Parrinello, M.; Hutter, J. Polarized atomic orbitals for linear scaling methods. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 116, 18001810,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1431270
  23. 23
    Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T.; Gillan, M. J. Recent progress in linear scaling ab initio electronic structure techniques. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2002, 14, 2781,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/303
  24. 24
    Torralba, A. S.; Todorović, M.; Brázdová, V.; Choudhury, R.; Miyazaki, T.; Gillan, M. J.; Bowler, D. R. Pseudo-atomic orbitals as basis sets for the DFT code CONQUEST. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2008, 20 (29), 294206,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/20/29/294206
  25. 25
    Skylaris, C.-K.; Haynes, P. D.; Mostofi, A. A.; Payne, M. C. Introducing ONETEP: Linear-scaling density functional simulations on parallel computers. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122, 084119,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1839852
  26. 26
    Skylaris, C.-K.; Mostofi, A. A.; Haynes, P. D.; Diéguez, O.; Payne, M. C. Nonorthogonal generalized Wannier function pseudopotential plane-wave method. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2002, 66, 035119,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.035119
  27. 27
    Mohr, S.; Ratcliff, L. E.; Genovese, L.; Caliste, D.; Boulanger, P.; Goedecker, S.; Deutsch, T. Accurate and efficient linear scaling DFT calculations with universal applicability. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 3136031370,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP00437C
  28. 28
    Mohr, S.; Ratcliff, L. E.; Boulanger, P.; Genovese, L.; Caliste, D.; Deutsch, T.; Goedecker, S. Daubechies wavelets for linear scaling density functional theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 140, 204110,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4871876
  29. 29
    Ozaki, T. Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2003, 67, 155108,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108
  30. 30
    Ozaki, T.; Kino, H. Numerical atomic basis orbitals from H to Kr. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2004, 69, 195113,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.195113
  31. 31
    Junquera, J.; Paz, O.; Sánchez-Portal, D.; Artacho, E. Numerical atomic orbitals for linear-scaling calculations. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2001, 64, 235111,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.235111
  32. 32
    Basanta, M.; Dappe, Y.; Jelínek, P.; Ortega, J. Optimized atomic-like orbitals for first-principles tight-binding molecular dynamics. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2007, 39, 759766,  DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.09.003
  33. 33
    Rayson, M. J.; Briddon, P. R. Highly efficient method for Kohn-Sham density functional calculations of 500–10000 atom systems. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2009, 80, 205104,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.205104
  34. 34
    Rayson, M. Rapid filtration algorithm to construct a minimal basis on the fly from a primitive Gaussian basis. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2010, 181, 10511056,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.02.012
  35. 35
    Nakata, A.; Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. Efficient Calculations with Multisite Local Orbitals in a Large-Scale DFT Code CONQUEST. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 48134822,  DOI: 10.1021/ct5004934
  36. 36
    Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Ying, L.; E, W. Adaptive local basis set for Kohn-Sham density functional theory in a discontinuous Galerkin framework I: Total energy calculation. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 21402154,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.11.032
  37. 37
    Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Ying, L.; E, W. Optimized local basis set for Kohn-Sham density functional theory. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 45154529,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.03.009
  38. 38
    Mao, Y.; Horn, P. R.; Mardirossian, N.; Head-Gordon, T.; Skylaris, C.-K.; Head-Gordon, M. Approaching the basis set limit for DFT calculations using an environment-adapted minimal basis with perturbation theory: Formulation, proof of concept, and a pilot implementation. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 044109,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4959125
  39. 39
    Ramakrishnan, R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A. Rev. Comput. Chem.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017; pp 225256.
  40. 40
    Hansen, K.; Montavon, G.; Biegler, F.; Fazli, S.; Rupp, M.; Scheffler, M.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Tkatchenko, A.; Müller, K.-R. Assessment and Validation of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Molecular Atomization Energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 34043419,  DOI: 10.1021/ct400195d
  41. 41
    Handley, C. M.; Popelier, P. L. A. Potential Energy Surfaces Fitted by Artificial Neural Networks. J. Phys. Chem. A 2010, 114, 33713383,  DOI: 10.1021/jp9105585
  42. 42
    Behler, J. Neural network potential-energy surfaces in chemistry: a tool for large-scale simulations. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 1793017955,  DOI: 10.1039/c1cp21668f
  43. 43
    Morawietz, T.; Singraber, A.; Dellago, C.; Behler, J. How van der Waals interactions determine the unique properties of water. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 83688373,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1602375113
  44. 44
    Snyder, J. C.; Rupp, M.; Hansen, K.; Blooston, L.; Mueller, K.-R.; Burke, K. Orbital-free bond breaking via machine learning. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 224104,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4834075
  45. 45
    Schütt, K. T.; Glawe, H.; Brockherde, F.; Sanna, A.; Müller, K. R.; Gross, E. K. U. How to represent crystal structures for machine learning: Towards fast prediction of electronic properties. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2014, 89, 205118,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.205118
  46. 46
    Dral, P. O.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Thiel, W. Machine Learning of Parameters for Accurate Semiempirical Quantum Chemical Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 21202125,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00141
  47. 47
    Kranz, J. J.; Kubillus, M.; Ramakrishnan, R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Elstner, M. Generalized Density-Functional Tight-Binding Repulsive Potentials from Unsupervised Machine Learning. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 23412352,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00933
  48. 48
    White, C. A.; Maslen, P.; Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. The tensor properties of energy gradients within a non-orthogonal basis. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1997, 276, 133138,  DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2614(97)88046-3
  49. 49
    Bartók, A. P.; Kondor, R.; Csányi, G. On representing chemical environments. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 87, 184115,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.184115
  50. 50
    De, S.; Bartok, A. P.; Csanyi, G.; Ceriotti, M. Comparing molecules and solids across structural and alchemical space. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 1375413769,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CP00415F
  51. 51
    Zhu, L.; Amsler, M.; Fuhrer, T.; Schäfer, B.; Faraji, S.; Rostami, S.; Ghasemi, S. A.; Sadeghi, A.; Grauzinyte, M.; Wolverton, C.; Goedecker, S. A fingerprint based metric for measuring similarities of crystalline structures. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 034203,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4940026
  52. 52
    Sadeghi, A.; Ghasemi, S. A.; Schäfer, B.; Mohr, S.; Lill, M. A.; Goedecker, S. Metrics for measuring distances in configuration spaces. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 184118,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4828704
  53. 53
    Rupp, M.; Tkatchenko, A.; Müller, K.-R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A. Fast and Accurate Modeling of Molecular Atomization Energies with Machine Learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 058301,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.058301
  54. 54
    Behler, J. Constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials: A tutorial review. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2015, 115, 10321050,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.24890
  55. 55
    Rasmussen, C. E.; Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning; The MIT Press, 2006; http://www.gaussianprocess.org/gpml/ (accessed Apr. 20, 2018).
  56. 56
    Tikhonov, A. N.; Goncharsky, A. V.; Stepanov, V. V.; Yagola, A. G. Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-Posed Problems; Kluwer Academic, 1995.
  57. 57
    Gillan, M. J.; Alfé, D.; Michaelides, A. Perspective: How good is DFT for water. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 130901,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4944633
  58. 58
    Del Ben, M.; Schönherr, M.; Hutter, J.; VandeVondele, J. Bulk Liquid Water at Ambient Temperature and Pressure from MP2 Theory. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 37533759,  DOI: 10.1021/jz401931f
  59. 59
    Del Ben, M.; Hutter, J.; VandeVondele, J. Probing the structural and dynamical properties of liquid water with models including non-local electron correlation. J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 143, 054506,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4927325
  60. 60
    Verlet, L. Computer ”Experiments” on Classical Fluids. I. Thermodynamical Properties of Lennard-Jones Molecules. Phys. Rev. 1967, 159, 98103,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.159.98
  61. 61
    Elstner, M.; Porezag, D.; Jungnickel, G.; Elsner, J.; Haugk, M.; Frauenheim, T.; Suhai, S.; Seifert, G. Self-consistent-charge density-functional tight-binding method for simulations of complex materials properties. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1998, 58, 72607268,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260
  62. 62
    Hu, H.; Lu, Z.; Elstner, M.; Hermans, J.; Yang, W. Simulating Water with the Self-Consistent-Charge Density Functional Tight Binding Method: From Molecular Clusters to the Liquid State. J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 56855691,  DOI: 10.1021/jp070308d
  63. 63
    Skinner, L. B.; Huang, C.; Schlesinger, D.; Pettersson, L. G. M.; Nilsson, A.; Benmore, C. J. Benchmark oxygen-oxygen pair-distribution function of ambient water from x-ray diffraction measurements with a wide Q-range. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 138, 074506,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4790861
  64. 64
    The CP2K developers group. CP2K , 2018; https://www.cp2k.org, (accessed Apr. 20, 2018).
  65. 65
    Hutter, J.; Iannuzzi, M.; Schiffmann, F.; VandeVondele, J. CP2K: atomistic simulations of condensed matter systems. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2014, 4, 1525,  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1159
  66. 66
    VandeVondele, J.; Krack, M.; Mohamed, F.; Parrinello, M.; Chassaing, T.; Hutter, J. Quickstep: Fast and accurate density functional calculations using a mixed Gaussian and plane waves approach. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2005, 167, 103128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2004.12.014
  67. 67
    Lippert, G.; Hutter, J.; Parrinello, M. A hybrid Gaussian and plane wave density functional scheme. Mol. Phys. 1997, 92, 477488,  DOI: 10.1080/00268979709482119
  68. 68
    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 38653868,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865
  69. 69
    Goedecker, S.; Teter, M.; Hutter, J. Separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1996, 54, 17031710,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.1703
  70. 70
    Niklasson, A. M.; Tymczak, C.; Challacombe, M. Trace resetting density matrix purification in self-consistent-field theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 118, 86118620,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1559913
  71. 71
    Schütt, O. Enabling Large Scale DFT Simulation with GPU Acceleration and Machine Learning. Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zürich, 2017.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 37 publications.

  1. Fabian Schwarz, Senja Barthel, Amber Mace. Understanding Mobile Particles in Solid-State Materials: From the Perspective of Potential Energy Surfaces. Chemistry of Materials 2024, 36 (23) , 11359-11376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c01822
  2. Edoardo Cignoni, Divya Suman, Jigyasa Nigam, Lorenzo Cupellini, Benedetta Mennucci, Michele Ceriotti. Electronic Excited States from Physically Constrained Machine Learning. ACS Central Science 2024, 10 (3) , 637-648. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.3c01480
  3. Alexander Hagg, Karl N. Kirschner. Open-Source Machine Learning in Computational Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2023, 63 (15) , 4505-4532. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00643
  4. Bing Huang, O. Anatole von Lilienfeld. Ab Initio Machine Learning in Chemical Compound Space. Chemical Reviews 2021, 121 (16) , 10001-10036. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01303
  5. Peng-Jian Yang, Mahito Sugiyama, Koji Tsuda, Takeshi Yanai. Artificial Neural Networks Applied as Molecular Wave Function Solvers. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16 (6) , 3513-3529. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01132
  6. Pavlo O. Dral. Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Machine Learning. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2020, 11 (6) , 2336-2347. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b03664
  7. Jeremy P. Coe. Machine Learning Configuration Interaction for ab Initio Potential Energy Curves. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2019, 15 (11) , 6179-6189. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00828
  8. Geng Sun, Philippe Sautet. Toward Fast and Reliable Potential Energy Surfaces for Metallic Pt Clusters by Hierarchical Delta Neural Networks. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2019, 15 (10) , 5614-5627. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00465
  9. Onur Çaylak, Anil Yaman, Björn Baumeier. Evolutionary Approach to Constructing a Deep Feedforward Neural Network for Prediction of Electronic Coupling Elements in Molecular Materials. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2019, 15 (3) , 1777-1784. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01285
  10. Haichen Li, Christopher Collins, Matteus Tanha, Geoffrey J. Gordon, David J. Yaron. A Density Functional Tight Binding Layer for Deep Learning of Chemical Hamiltonians. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2018, 14 (11) , 5764-5776. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00873
  11. Deming Xia, Fanqi Zeng, Wanting Chen, Hui Zhao, Hong-bin Xie, Jingwen Chen, Joseph S. Francisco. Accelerated peptide bond formation at air–water interfaces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2025, 122 (12) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2501323122
  12. Diata Traore, Olivier Adjoua, César Feniou, Ioanna-Maria Lygatsika, Yvon Maday, Evgeny Posenitskiy, Kerstin Hammernik, Alberto Peruzzo, Julien Toulouse, Emmanuel Giner, Jean-Philip Piquemal. Shortcut to chemically accurate quantum computing via density-based basis-set correction. Communications Chemistry 2024, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01348-3
  13. Xiao Zhao, Jishi Wei, Tianbing Song, Zhengren Wang, Dawei Yang, Xirong Zhang, Feng Huo, Yanqiang Zhang, Huan-Ming Xiong. Computational insights into carbon dots: Evolution of structural models and structure–activity relationships. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 481 , 148779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.148779
  14. Chao Xin, Bingqian Song, Guangyong Jin, Yongli Song, Feng Pan. Advancements in High‐Throughput Screening and Machine Learning Design for 2D Ferromagnetism: A Comprehensive Review. Advanced Theory and Simulations 2023, 6 (12) https://doi.org/10.1002/adts.202300475
  15. Mohammad Haidar, Marko J. Rančić, Thomas Ayral, Yvon Maday, Jean‐Philip Piquemal. Open source variational quantum eigensolver extension of the quantum learning machine for quantum chemistry. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2023, 13 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1664
  16. Hyuk‐Yong Kwon, Gregory M. Curtin, Zachary Morrow, C. T. Kelley, Elena Jakubikova. Adaptive basis sets for practical quantum computing. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2023, 123 (14) https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.27123
  17. William Dawson, Eisuke Kawashima, Laura E. Ratcliff, Muneaki Kamiya, Luigi Genovese, Takahito Nakajima. Complexity reduction in density functional theory: Locality in space and energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 158 (16) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0142652
  18. Israel Perez. Ab initio methods for the computation of physical properties and performance parameters of electrochemical energy storage devices. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2023, 25 (3) , 1476-1503. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CP03611H
  19. Sergei V. Kalinin, Colin Ophus, Paul M. Voyles, Rolf Erni, Demie Kepaptsoglou, Vincenzo Grillo, Andrew R. Lupini, Mark P. Oxley, Eric Schwenker, Maria K. Y. Chan, Joanne Etheridge, Xiang Li, Grace G. D. Han, Maxim Ziatdinov, Naoya Shibata, Stephen J. Pennycook. Machine learning in scanning transmission electron microscopy. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2022, 2 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00095-w
  20. Abeer Abdulaziz Alarfaj, Hanan Ahmed Hosni Mahmoud. Feature Fusion Deep Learning Model for Defects Prediction in Crystal Structures. Crystals 2022, 12 (9) , 1324. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12091324
  21. L. Fiedler, K. Shah, M. Bussmann, A. Cangi. Deep dive into machine learning density functional theory for materials science and chemistry. Physical Review Materials 2022, 6 (4) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.6.040301
  22. Behnam Parsaeifard, Stefan Goedecker. Manifolds of quasi-constant SOAP and ACSF fingerprints and the resulting failure to machine learn four-body interactions. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2022, 156 (3) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0070488
  23. Jigyasa Nigam, Michael J. Willatt, Michele Ceriotti. Equivariant representations for molecular Hamiltonians and N -center atomic-scale properties. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2022, 156 (1) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0072784
  24. Ying Shi Teh, Swarnava Ghosh, Kaushik Bhattacharya. Machine-learned prediction of the electronic fields in a crystal. Mechanics of Materials 2021, 163 , 104070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2021.104070
  25. Juan I. Gómez-Peralta, Nidia G. García-Peña, Xim Bokhimi. Crystal-Site-Based Artificial Neural Networks for Material Classification. Crystals 2021, 11 (9) , 1039. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11091039
  26. Julia Westermayr, Michael Gastegger, Kristof T. Schütt, Reinhard J. Maurer. Perspective on integrating machine learning into computational chemistry and materials science. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154 (23) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0047760
  27. Behnam Parsaeifard, Deb Sankar De, Anders S Christensen, Felix A Faber, Emir Kocer, Sandip De, Jörg Behler, O Anatole von Lilienfeld, Stefan Goedecker. An assessment of the structural resolution of various fingerprints commonly used in machine learning. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2021, 2 (1) , 015018. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/abb212
  28. Siwar Chibani, François-Xavier Coudert. Machine learning approaches for the prediction of materials properties. APL Materials 2020, 8 (8) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0018384
  29. Jorge Arturo Hernandez Zeledon, Aldo H. Romero, Pengju Ren, Xiaodong Wen, Yongwang Li, James P. Lewis. The structural information filtered features (SIFF) potential: Maximizing information stored in machine-learning descriptors for materials prediction. Journal of Applied Physics 2020, 127 (21) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0002252
  30. Thomas D. Kühne, Marcella Iannuzzi, Mauro Del Ben, Vladimir V. Rybkin, Patrick Seewald, Frederick Stein, Teodoro Laino, Rustam Z. Khaliullin, Ole Schütt, Florian Schiffmann, Dorothea Golze, Jan Wilhelm, Sergey Chulkov, Mohammad Hossein Bani-Hashemian, Valéry Weber, Urban Borštnik, Mathieu Taillefumier, Alice Shoshana Jakobovits, Alfio Lazzaro, Hans Pabst, Tiziano Müller, Robert Schade, Manuel Guidon, Samuel Andermatt, Nico Holmberg, Gregory K. Schenter, Anna Hehn, Augustin Bussy, Fabian Belleflamme, Gloria Tabacchi, Andreas Glöß, Michael Lass, Iain Bethune, Christopher J. Mundy, Christian Plessl, Matt Watkins, Joost VandeVondele, Matthias Krack, Jürg Hutter. CP2K: An electronic structure and molecular dynamics software package - Quickstep: Efficient and accurate electronic structure calculations. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 152 (19) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0007045
  31. Sergei Manzhos. Machine learning for the solution of the Schrödinger equation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2020, 1 (1) , 013002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ab7d30
  32. Tudor Luca Mitran, George Alexandru Nemnes. Prediction of Energy Gaps in Graphene—Hexagonal Boron Nitride Nanoflakes Using Artificial Neural Networks. 2020, 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37790-8_11
  33. Pavlo O. Dral. Quantum chemistry assisted by machine learning. 2020, 291-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aiq.2020.05.002
  34. Harper R. Grimsley, Sophia E. Economou, Edwin Barnes, Nicholas J. Mayhall. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. Nature Communications 2019, 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2
  35. Guillaume Fraux, Siwar Chibani, François-Xavier Coudert. Modelling of framework materials at multiple scales: current practices and open questions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2019, 377 (2149) , 20180220. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0220
  36. Gabriel R Schleder, Antonio C M Padilha, Carlos Mera Acosta, Marcio Costa, Adalberto Fazzio. From DFT to machine learning: recent approaches to materials science–a review. Journal of Physics: Materials 2019, 2 (3) , 032001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7639/ab084b
  37. Andreas Lynge Vishart, Nicolai Ree, Kurt V. Mikkelsen. Graphical user interface for an easy and reliable construction of input files to CP2K. Journal of Molecular Modeling 2019, 25 (5) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-019-3987-6

Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Cite this: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 8, 4168–4175
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00378
Published June 29, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

9790

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Overview of the PAO-ML scheme for using the potential parametrization and machine learning to calculate the PAO basis from given atomic positions.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Learning curve showing the decreasing error of PAO-ML (blue) with increased training set size. For comparison the error of a variationally optimized PAO basis (green) and a traditional minimal SZV-MOLOPT-GTH (red) basis set are shown. With very little training data, the variational limit is approached by the ML method.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Energy fluctuation during a series of MD simulation of a water dimer using the PAO-ML scheme. The simulations were conducted in the NVE ensemble using different time steps Δt to demonstrate the consistency of the forces and thus the controllability of the integration error.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Shown are oxygen–oxygen pair correlation functions for liquid water at 300 K. As reference the experimental (green, ref (63)) and TZV2P-MOLOPT-GTH basis sets (blue) results are shown. The SZV-MOLOPT-GTH curve (red) and DFTB (orange) are examples of results typically obtained from a minimal basis sets. The adaptive basis set PAO-ML (black) reproduces the reference (TZV2P) better than any of the alternative minimal basis set methods.

  • References


    This article references 71 other publications.

    1. 1
      Goedecker, S. Linear scaling electronic structure methods. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1999, 71, 1085,  DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1085
    2. 2
      Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. methods in electronic structure calculations. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2012, 75, 036503,  DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/75/3/036503
    3. 3
      VandeVondele, J.; Borštnik, U.; Hutter, J. Linear Scaling Self-Consistent Field Calculations with Millions of Atoms in the Condensed Phase. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 35653573,  DOI: 10.1021/ct200897x
    4. 4
      Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. Calculations for millions of atoms with density functional theory: linear scaling shows its potential. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2010, 22, 074207,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/22/7/074207
    5. 5
      Mulliken, R. S. Criteria for the Construction of Good Self-Consistent-Field Molecular Orbital Wave Functions, and the Significance of LCAO-MO Population Analysis. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 36, 34283439,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1732476
    6. 6
      Davidson, E. R. Electronic Population Analysis of Molecular Wavefunctions. J. Chem. Phys. 1967, 46, 33203324,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1841219
    7. 7
      Roby, K. R. Quantum theory of chemical valence concepts. Mol. Phys. 1974, 27, 81104,  DOI: 10.1080/00268977400100071
    8. 8
      Heinzmann, R.; Ahlrichs, R. Population analysis based on occupation numbers of modified atomic orbitals (MAOs). Theor. Chim. Acta. 1976, 42, 3345,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00548289
    9. 9
      Ehrhardt, C.; Ahlrichs, R. Population analysis based on occupation numbers II. Relationship between shared electron numbers and bond energies and characterization of hypervalent contributions. Theor. Chim. Acta. 1985, 68, 231245,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00526774
    10. 10
      Reed, A. E.; Curtiss, L. A.; Weinhold, F. Intermolecular interactions from a natural bond orbital, donor-acceptor viewpoint. Chem. Rev. 1988, 88, 899926,  DOI: 10.1021/cr00088a005
    11. 11
      Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Extracting polarized atomic orbitals from molecular orbital calculations. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2000, 76, 169184,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-461X(2000)76:2<169::AID-QUA7>3.0.CO;2-G
    12. 12
      Mayer, I. Orthogonal effective atomic orbitals in the topological theory of atoms. Can. J. Chem. 1996, 74, 939942,  DOI: 10.1139/v96-103
    13. 13
      Cioslowski, J.; Liashenko, A. Atomic orbitals in molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 108, 44054412,  DOI: 10.1063/1.475853
    14. 14
      Lu, W. C.; Wang, C. Z.; Schmidt, M. W.; Bytautas, L.; Ho, K. M.; Ruedenberg, K. Molecule intrinsic minimal basis sets. I. Exact resolution of ab initio optimized molecular orbitals in terms of deformed atomic minimal-basis orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 26292637,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1638731
    15. 15
      Laikov, D. N. Intrinsic minimal atomic basis representation of molecular electronic wavefunctions. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2011, 111, 28512867,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.22767
    16. 16
      Knizia, G. Intrinsic Atomic Orbitals: An Unbiased Bridge between Quantum Theory and Chemical Concepts. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 48344843,  DOI: 10.1021/ct400687b
    17. 17
      Adams, W. H. On the Solution of the Hartree-Fock Equation in Terms of Localized Orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 1961, 34, 89102,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1731622
    18. 18
      Adams, W. H. Orbital Theories of Electronic Structure. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 37, 20092018,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1733420
    19. 19
      Adams, W. Distortion of interacting atoms and ions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1971, 12, 295298,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(71)85068-6
    20. 20
      Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Polarized atomic orbitals for self-consistent field electronic structure calculations. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 90859095,  DOI: 10.1063/1.475199
    21. 21
      Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. Absolute and relative energies from polarized atomic orbital self-consistent field calculations and a second order correction.: Convergence with size and composition of the secondary basis. Comput. Chem. 2000, 24, 295301,  DOI: 10.1016/S0097-8485(99)00086-8
    22. 22
      Berghold, G.; Parrinello, M.; Hutter, J. Polarized atomic orbitals for linear scaling methods. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 116, 18001810,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1431270
    23. 23
      Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T.; Gillan, M. J. Recent progress in linear scaling ab initio electronic structure techniques. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2002, 14, 2781,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/303
    24. 24
      Torralba, A. S.; Todorović, M.; Brázdová, V.; Choudhury, R.; Miyazaki, T.; Gillan, M. J.; Bowler, D. R. Pseudo-atomic orbitals as basis sets for the DFT code CONQUEST. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2008, 20 (29), 294206,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/20/29/294206
    25. 25
      Skylaris, C.-K.; Haynes, P. D.; Mostofi, A. A.; Payne, M. C. Introducing ONETEP: Linear-scaling density functional simulations on parallel computers. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122, 084119,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1839852
    26. 26
      Skylaris, C.-K.; Mostofi, A. A.; Haynes, P. D.; Diéguez, O.; Payne, M. C. Nonorthogonal generalized Wannier function pseudopotential plane-wave method. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2002, 66, 035119,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.035119
    27. 27
      Mohr, S.; Ratcliff, L. E.; Genovese, L.; Caliste, D.; Boulanger, P.; Goedecker, S.; Deutsch, T. Accurate and efficient linear scaling DFT calculations with universal applicability. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 3136031370,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP00437C
    28. 28
      Mohr, S.; Ratcliff, L. E.; Boulanger, P.; Genovese, L.; Caliste, D.; Deutsch, T.; Goedecker, S. Daubechies wavelets for linear scaling density functional theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 140, 204110,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4871876
    29. 29
      Ozaki, T. Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2003, 67, 155108,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108
    30. 30
      Ozaki, T.; Kino, H. Numerical atomic basis orbitals from H to Kr. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2004, 69, 195113,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.195113
    31. 31
      Junquera, J.; Paz, O.; Sánchez-Portal, D.; Artacho, E. Numerical atomic orbitals for linear-scaling calculations. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2001, 64, 235111,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.235111
    32. 32
      Basanta, M.; Dappe, Y.; Jelínek, P.; Ortega, J. Optimized atomic-like orbitals for first-principles tight-binding molecular dynamics. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2007, 39, 759766,  DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.09.003
    33. 33
      Rayson, M. J.; Briddon, P. R. Highly efficient method for Kohn-Sham density functional calculations of 500–10000 atom systems. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2009, 80, 205104,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.205104
    34. 34
      Rayson, M. Rapid filtration algorithm to construct a minimal basis on the fly from a primitive Gaussian basis. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2010, 181, 10511056,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.02.012
    35. 35
      Nakata, A.; Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. Efficient Calculations with Multisite Local Orbitals in a Large-Scale DFT Code CONQUEST. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 48134822,  DOI: 10.1021/ct5004934
    36. 36
      Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Ying, L.; E, W. Adaptive local basis set for Kohn-Sham density functional theory in a discontinuous Galerkin framework I: Total energy calculation. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 21402154,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.11.032
    37. 37
      Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Ying, L.; E, W. Optimized local basis set for Kohn-Sham density functional theory. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 45154529,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.03.009
    38. 38
      Mao, Y.; Horn, P. R.; Mardirossian, N.; Head-Gordon, T.; Skylaris, C.-K.; Head-Gordon, M. Approaching the basis set limit for DFT calculations using an environment-adapted minimal basis with perturbation theory: Formulation, proof of concept, and a pilot implementation. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 044109,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4959125
    39. 39
      Ramakrishnan, R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A. Rev. Comput. Chem.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017; pp 225256.
    40. 40
      Hansen, K.; Montavon, G.; Biegler, F.; Fazli, S.; Rupp, M.; Scheffler, M.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Tkatchenko, A.; Müller, K.-R. Assessment and Validation of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Molecular Atomization Energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 34043419,  DOI: 10.1021/ct400195d
    41. 41
      Handley, C. M.; Popelier, P. L. A. Potential Energy Surfaces Fitted by Artificial Neural Networks. J. Phys. Chem. A 2010, 114, 33713383,  DOI: 10.1021/jp9105585
    42. 42
      Behler, J. Neural network potential-energy surfaces in chemistry: a tool for large-scale simulations. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 1793017955,  DOI: 10.1039/c1cp21668f
    43. 43
      Morawietz, T.; Singraber, A.; Dellago, C.; Behler, J. How van der Waals interactions determine the unique properties of water. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 83688373,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1602375113
    44. 44
      Snyder, J. C.; Rupp, M.; Hansen, K.; Blooston, L.; Mueller, K.-R.; Burke, K. Orbital-free bond breaking via machine learning. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 224104,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4834075
    45. 45
      Schütt, K. T.; Glawe, H.; Brockherde, F.; Sanna, A.; Müller, K. R.; Gross, E. K. U. How to represent crystal structures for machine learning: Towards fast prediction of electronic properties. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2014, 89, 205118,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.205118
    46. 46
      Dral, P. O.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Thiel, W. Machine Learning of Parameters for Accurate Semiempirical Quantum Chemical Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 21202125,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00141
    47. 47
      Kranz, J. J.; Kubillus, M.; Ramakrishnan, R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A.; Elstner, M. Generalized Density-Functional Tight-Binding Repulsive Potentials from Unsupervised Machine Learning. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 23412352,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00933
    48. 48
      White, C. A.; Maslen, P.; Lee, M. S.; Head-Gordon, M. The tensor properties of energy gradients within a non-orthogonal basis. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1997, 276, 133138,  DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2614(97)88046-3
    49. 49
      Bartók, A. P.; Kondor, R.; Csányi, G. On representing chemical environments. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 87, 184115,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.184115
    50. 50
      De, S.; Bartok, A. P.; Csanyi, G.; Ceriotti, M. Comparing molecules and solids across structural and alchemical space. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 1375413769,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CP00415F
    51. 51
      Zhu, L.; Amsler, M.; Fuhrer, T.; Schäfer, B.; Faraji, S.; Rostami, S.; Ghasemi, S. A.; Sadeghi, A.; Grauzinyte, M.; Wolverton, C.; Goedecker, S. A fingerprint based metric for measuring similarities of crystalline structures. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 034203,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4940026
    52. 52
      Sadeghi, A.; Ghasemi, S. A.; Schäfer, B.; Mohr, S.; Lill, M. A.; Goedecker, S. Metrics for measuring distances in configuration spaces. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 184118,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4828704
    53. 53
      Rupp, M.; Tkatchenko, A.; Müller, K.-R.; von Lilienfeld, O. A. Fast and Accurate Modeling of Molecular Atomization Energies with Machine Learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 058301,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.058301
    54. 54
      Behler, J. Constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials: A tutorial review. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2015, 115, 10321050,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.24890
    55. 55
      Rasmussen, C. E.; Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning; The MIT Press, 2006; http://www.gaussianprocess.org/gpml/ (accessed Apr. 20, 2018).
    56. 56
      Tikhonov, A. N.; Goncharsky, A. V.; Stepanov, V. V.; Yagola, A. G. Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-Posed Problems; Kluwer Academic, 1995.
    57. 57
      Gillan, M. J.; Alfé, D.; Michaelides, A. Perspective: How good is DFT for water. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 130901,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4944633
    58. 58
      Del Ben, M.; Schönherr, M.; Hutter, J.; VandeVondele, J. Bulk Liquid Water at Ambient Temperature and Pressure from MP2 Theory. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 37533759,  DOI: 10.1021/jz401931f
    59. 59
      Del Ben, M.; Hutter, J.; VandeVondele, J. Probing the structural and dynamical properties of liquid water with models including non-local electron correlation. J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 143, 054506,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4927325
    60. 60
      Verlet, L. Computer ”Experiments” on Classical Fluids. I. Thermodynamical Properties of Lennard-Jones Molecules. Phys. Rev. 1967, 159, 98103,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.159.98
    61. 61
      Elstner, M.; Porezag, D.; Jungnickel, G.; Elsner, J.; Haugk, M.; Frauenheim, T.; Suhai, S.; Seifert, G. Self-consistent-charge density-functional tight-binding method for simulations of complex materials properties. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1998, 58, 72607268,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260
    62. 62
      Hu, H.; Lu, Z.; Elstner, M.; Hermans, J.; Yang, W. Simulating Water with the Self-Consistent-Charge Density Functional Tight Binding Method: From Molecular Clusters to the Liquid State. J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 56855691,  DOI: 10.1021/jp070308d
    63. 63
      Skinner, L. B.; Huang, C.; Schlesinger, D.; Pettersson, L. G. M.; Nilsson, A.; Benmore, C. J. Benchmark oxygen-oxygen pair-distribution function of ambient water from x-ray diffraction measurements with a wide Q-range. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 138, 074506,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4790861
    64. 64
      The CP2K developers group. CP2K , 2018; https://www.cp2k.org, (accessed Apr. 20, 2018).
    65. 65
      Hutter, J.; Iannuzzi, M.; Schiffmann, F.; VandeVondele, J. CP2K: atomistic simulations of condensed matter systems. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2014, 4, 1525,  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1159
    66. 66
      VandeVondele, J.; Krack, M.; Mohamed, F.; Parrinello, M.; Chassaing, T.; Hutter, J. Quickstep: Fast and accurate density functional calculations using a mixed Gaussian and plane waves approach. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2005, 167, 103128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2004.12.014
    67. 67
      Lippert, G.; Hutter, J.; Parrinello, M. A hybrid Gaussian and plane wave density functional scheme. Mol. Phys. 1997, 92, 477488,  DOI: 10.1080/00268979709482119
    68. 68
      Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 38653868,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865
    69. 69
      Goedecker, S.; Teter, M.; Hutter, J. Separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1996, 54, 17031710,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.1703
    70. 70
      Niklasson, A. M.; Tymczak, C.; Challacombe, M. Trace resetting density matrix purification in self-consistent-field theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 118, 86118620,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1559913
    71. 71
      Schütt, O. Enabling Large Scale DFT Simulation with GPU Acceleration and Machine Learning. Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zürich, 2017.
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00378.

    • Representative input files for most simulations (ZIP)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.