Closed davkovacs closed 3 years ago
CF script and data at
https://github.com/cortner/acebug_david_maxdeg
to test this. Running with maxdeg = 0.95
causes extremely strange results.
@davkovacs did we ever sort this out? I have a vague memory we explained what happened and decided what to do about it, but I'm not sure this constitutes closing the issue?
I don't remember explaining it. I think we just settled with not changing maxdeg
from 1.0
I see - maybe I'll leave it open and we can revisit after the 2.0 rewrite.
I think this still is a bug, it's giving me issues too
Can you say more please?
Essentially it seems that when you set up a basis using /examples/new_degree.jl what happens is that your adjusted basis (controlled by maxdeg
) ends up having very weird force test errors.
I don’t understand what this could have to do with training / test errors... it just chooses a basis
Let me try to put together a MWE
My bad it has weird force errors for both test/train, I've put together a MWE in the-knowledge/ACE/ACE_basis_bug
including my .tomls
In ACE2 I've now introduced a new BasisSelector
interface, where all these problems should just go away. There is now a single object, e.g., SparseBasis
which takes a basis function as input, e.g.,
bb = [ (n = 2, l = 3, m = -1), (n = 3, l = 2, m = 1), ... ]
and determines things like degree
, whether it is part of the basis (isadmissible
) etc. Even the correlation-order is part of this interface now and no longer a separate property.
When the maxdeg parameter is changed from 1.0 even a bit (to 0.95) to decrease the overall size of the basis set, it causes large errors in the forces (but not in the energies).