Neural networks vs Gaussian process regression for representing potential energy surfaces: A comparative study of fit quality and vibrational spectrum accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For molecules with more than three atoms, it is difficult to fit or interpolate a potential energy surface (PES) from a small number of (usually ab initio) energies at points. Many methods have been proposed in recent decades, each claiming a set of advantages. Unfortunately, there are few comparative studies. In this paper, we compare neural networks (NNs) with Gaussian process (GP) regression. We re-fit an accurate PES of formaldehyde and compare PES errors on the entire point set used to solve the vibrational Schrödinger equation, i.e., the only error that matters in quantum dynamics calculations. We also compare the vibrational spectra computed on the underlying reference PES and the NN and GP potential surfaces. The NN and GP surfaces are constructed with exactly the same points, and the corresponding spectra are computed with the same points and the same basis. The GP fitting error is lower, and the GP spectrum is more accurate. The best NN fits to 625/1250/2500 symmetry unique potential energy points have global PES root mean square errors (RMSEs) of 6.53/2.54/0.86 cm−1, whereas the best GP surfaces have RMSE values of 3.87/1.13/0.62 cm−1, respectively. When fitting 625 symmetry unique points, the error in the first 100 vibrational levels is only 0.06 cm−1 with the best GP fit, whereas the spectrum on the best NN PES has an error of 0.22 cm−1, with respect to the spectrum computed on the reference PES. This error is reduced to about 0.01 cm−1 when fitting 2500 points with either the NN or GP. We also find that the GP surface produces a relatively accurate spectrum when obtained based on as few as 313 points.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".