Closed Matt-A-Thompson closed 2 weeks ago
I am not sure I understand the question. ReaxFF and MACE are two different packages. What would want to do exactly?
Effectively, I have a system I'd like to develop a ReaxFF force field for, which requires re-parameterisation of an existing model (i.e. a standard MACE interatomic potential (one which does not allow bond breaking, etc.)). I know that LAMMPS can run ReaxFF, and so is it possible to have MACE work with a FF designed for ReaxFF? I have DFT training data on the system, but an actual workflow is something I'm uncertain of. I know that Skylaris et al (https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/66fd266d12ff75c3a1278cec) have written about this (sort of, the paper compares existing ReaxFF to new MACE-ML models), but I couldn't find any discussion on whether MACE can accept and train ReaxFF force fields.
Apologies - very new to this!
MACE is reactive so if that is what you want to do, you can directly use MACE. If you have training data, you can train a MACE (or finetune one of our foundation model like mace-off) and run your simulations in lammps.
Have a look at the tutorials to see how this works.
Thank you so much for clarifying, and apologies for the confusion - I'll go ahead and close this!
Just to clarify further, mace and reaxff are alternatives to each other, you don't use mace to fit reaxff and vice versa. both can cope with reactivity.
Thank you for this!
I am entirely new to ReaxFF, and wanted to know if this is possible (I couldn't find anything in the documentation).