Energy prediction about MLFF
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2023 6:54 am
Hi,
I have some questions regarding the MLFF (i'm using vasp6.4.1v):
1) These are my INCAR file to generate MLFF, and I have been comparing both the geometry configuration and the single point calculation energies against the ab initio data. I think the fitted MLFF was qualitatively capable of capturing energy trends for my different geometries against the ab initio data. However, when compared against absolute energies the fitted MLFF energy predictions are overpredicting by ~0.8 eV lower compared to ab initio calculation energy. I would like some advice on possible any parameter that I can tune to close this discrepancy.
This is the INCAR file I'm using currently to fit the force field and I have used the same parameters(ex. ENCUT, EDIFFG, ISIF, etc.) excluding the MLFF training parameters as INCAR for the ab initio energy calculations.
ML_LMLFF = .TRUE.
ML_MODE = train
ENCUT = 400
PRECT = Normal
ALGO = Fast
LREAL = A
ISMEAR = 0
SIGMA = 0.1
EDIFF = 1E-05
EDIFFG = -0.05
NELM = 400
LCHARG = .FALSE.
LWAVE = .FALSE.
IVDW = 12
LDIPOL = .TRUE.
IDIPOL = 3
DIPOL = 0.5 0.5 0.5
MDALGO = 1
ISYM = 0
POTIM = 0.5
ML_CTIFOR = 0.02
ML_CX = -0.1
IBRION = 0
ISIF = 2
NSW = 6000
TEBEG = 500
ANDERSEN_PROB = 0.10
In addition to question 1 ), I even have attempted to validate the MLFF estimated energies using the training dataset as the validation dataset. Despite this redundancy for this validation process, MLFF was unable to estimate the energies with the same structure used in training (stills showing some discrepancy in energy although it could be able to predict the final geometry configuration even in geometry optimization).
I have some questions regarding the MLFF (i'm using vasp6.4.1v):
1) These are my INCAR file to generate MLFF, and I have been comparing both the geometry configuration and the single point calculation energies against the ab initio data. I think the fitted MLFF was qualitatively capable of capturing energy trends for my different geometries against the ab initio data. However, when compared against absolute energies the fitted MLFF energy predictions are overpredicting by ~0.8 eV lower compared to ab initio calculation energy. I would like some advice on possible any parameter that I can tune to close this discrepancy.
This is the INCAR file I'm using currently to fit the force field and I have used the same parameters(ex. ENCUT, EDIFFG, ISIF, etc.) excluding the MLFF training parameters as INCAR for the ab initio energy calculations.
ML_LMLFF = .TRUE.
ML_MODE = train
ENCUT = 400
PRECT = Normal
ALGO = Fast
LREAL = A
ISMEAR = 0
SIGMA = 0.1
EDIFF = 1E-05
EDIFFG = -0.05
NELM = 400
LCHARG = .FALSE.
LWAVE = .FALSE.
IVDW = 12
LDIPOL = .TRUE.
IDIPOL = 3
DIPOL = 0.5 0.5 0.5
MDALGO = 1
ISYM = 0
POTIM = 0.5
ML_CTIFOR = 0.02
ML_CX = -0.1
IBRION = 0
ISIF = 2
NSW = 6000
TEBEG = 500
ANDERSEN_PROB = 0.10
In addition to question 1 ), I even have attempted to validate the MLFF estimated energies using the training dataset as the validation dataset. Despite this redundancy for this validation process, MLFF was unable to estimate the energies with the same structure used in training (stills showing some discrepancy in energy although it could be able to predict the final geometry configuration even in geometry optimization).