-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 290
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Issue in ML NEB Run (cattsunami) #946
Comments
This issue has been marked as stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
Hi @K-Manan - with some of the older models, you need to set the tags on the system so it knows which atoms are surface atoms (free), adsorbate atoms (free) or subsurface atoms (fixed, energies/forces not fitted, sometimes not used); these choices were made to help with model training early on in the project. The newer models like the EquiformerV2 checkpoints no longer require this and are much easier to use. As a starting point I would try the Here's a guide on how to use the models for NEBs: https://fair-chem.github.io/tutorials/fairchem_models_for_nebs.html Let me know if that doesn't fix the problem for you! |
Thanks Zach, we tested the CO dissociation on Cu(111) surface using the EquiformerV2 and tagged each layer the slab (in reactant.traj and product.traj), but still the NEB calculation stopped without iterations. Is there something that we are missing out? Attached the files in zip. Also, we generated checkpoints based on our training data (without atom tags) and end up with the same issue. In that case, do you suggest we also include atom tags in the configurations before training? We constrained the bottom two layers in the slab but how do we let the GNN know that these layers are frozen. Or is there a way to construct checkpoints without tagging the atoms? |
Hi - you don't need to tag the atoms when using the EquiformerV2 checkpoints. I'm a little confused about your comment re the GNN knowing some are frozen - ASE handles the constraints and should zero out the forces on the frozen atoms automatically. Similarly, using your favorite quantum chemistry calculator (e.g. VASP) wouldn't know about the constraints either. I don't know exactly what's happening without your exact structures, but a couple things I would do to debug:
|
Hello, I was able to reproduce on my end but I think there isn't an issue? It looks like
Maybe I am missing something, but I hope this is helpful |
Working on CO dissociation with higher coverage on Cu111 catalyst surface, fmax in the NEB calculation (as attached) converges in a single step which seems highly unlikely. What could be the causation for this? Please suggest which part of the script maybe causing this issue and how to rectify it.
Output:
Script: neb_frame_set.txt
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: