Physicists Teach AI to Simulate Atomic Clusters

Physics-informed machine learning might help verify microchips

3 min read
fabricated heterostructure
Representative configuration of a fabricated heterostructure. Target S of fabricated heterostructures are computed from 𝐸̂ (𝑘,𝑏) using BTE.
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER/NPJ COMPUTATIONAL MATERIALS

Physicists love recreating the world in software. A simulation lets you explore many versions of reality to find patterns or to test possibilities. But if you want one that’s realistic down to individual atoms and electrons, you run out of computing juice pretty quickly.

Machine-learning models can approximate detailed simulations, but often require lots of expensive training data. A new method shows that physicists can lend their expertise to machine-learning algorithms, helping them train on a few small simulations consisting of a few atoms, then predict the behavior of system with hundreds of atoms. In the future, similar techniques might even characterize microchips with billions of atoms, predicting failures before they occur.

The researchers started with simulated units of 16 silicon and germanium atoms, two elements often used to make microchips. They employed high-performance computers to calculate the quantum-mechanical interactions between the atoms’ electrons. Given a certain arrangement of atoms, the simulation generated unit-level characteristics such as its energy bands, the energy levels available to its electrons. But “you realize that there is a big gap between the toy models that we can study using a first-principles approach and realistic structures,” says Sanghamitra Neogi, a physicist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the paper’s senior author. Could she and her co-author, Artem Pimachev, bridge the gap using machine learning? 

The idea, published in June, in npj Computational Materials, was to train machine-learning models to predict energy bands from 16-atom arrangements, then feed the models larger arrangements and see if they could predict their energy bands. “Essentially, we’re trying to poke this world of billions of atoms,” Neogi says. “That physics is completely unknown.”

A traditional model might require ten thousand training examples, Neogi says. But she and Pimachev thought they could do better. So they applied physics principles to generate the right training data.

First, they knew that strain changes energy bands, so they simulated 16-atom units with different amounts of strain, rather than wasting time generating a lot of simulations with the same strain. 

[shortcode ieee-pullquote quote=""Essentially, we're trying to poke this world of billions of atoms," Neogi says. "That physics is completely unknown."" float="right" expand=1]

Second, they spent a year finding a way to describe the atomic arrangements that would be useful for the model, a way to “fingerprint” the units. They decided to represent a unit as a set of 3D shapes with flat walls, one for each atom. A shapes’ walls were defined by points that were equidistant between the atom and its neighbors. (Together, the shapes fit snugly together into what’s called a Voronoi tessellation.) “If you’re smart enough to create a good set of fingerprints,” Neogi says, “that eliminates the need of a large amount of data.” Their training sets consisted of no more than 357 examples. 

Neogi and Pimachev trained two different types of models—a neural network and a random forest, or set of decision trees—and tested them on three different types of structures, comparing their data with that from detailed simulations. The first structures were “ideal superlattices,” which might contain several atomic layers of pure silicon, followed by several layers of pure germanium, and so on. They tested these in strained and relaxed conditions. The second structures were “non-ideal heterostructures,” in which a given layer might vary in its thickness or contain defects. Third were “fabricated heterostructures,” which had sections of pure silicon and sections of silicon-germanium alloys. Test cases contained up to 544 atoms. 

Across conditions, the predictions of the random forests differed from the simulation outputs by 3.7 percent to 19 percent, and the neural networks differed by 2.3 percent to 9.6 percent.

“We didn’t expect that we would be able to simulate such a large system,” Neogi says. “Five hundred atoms is a huge deal.” Further, even as the number of atoms in a system increased exponentially, the hours of computation the models required to make predictions scaled only linearly, meaning that that world of billions of atoms is relatively reachable. 

“I thought it was very clever,” Logan Ward, a computational scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, in Lemont, Illinois, says about the study. “The authors did a really neat job of mixing their understanding of the physics at different stages to get the machine learning models to work. I haven’t seen something quite like it before.”

In Neogi’s follow-up work, to be published in the coming months, her lab performed an inverse operation. Given a material’s energy bands, their system predicted its atomic arrangement. Such a system gets them closer to diagnosing faults in computer chips. If a semiconductor’s conductivity is off, they might point to the flaw. 

The framework they present has applications to other kinds of materials, as well. Regarding the physics-informed approach to generating and representing training examples, Neogi says, “a little can tell us a lot if we know where to look.”

The Conversation (0)

Will AI Steal Submarines’ Stealth?

Better detection will make the oceans transparent—and perhaps doom mutually assured destruction

11 min read
A photo of a submarine in the water under a partly cloudy sky.

The Virginia-class fast attack submarine USS Virginia cruises through the Mediterranean in 2010. Back then, it could effectively disappear just by diving.

U.S. Navy

Submarines are valued primarily for their ability to hide. The assurance that submarines would likely survive the first missile strike in a nuclear war and thus be able to respond by launching missiles in a second strike is key to the strategy of deterrence known as mutually assured destruction. Any new technology that might render the oceans effectively transparent, making it trivial to spot lurking submarines, could thus undermine the peace of the world. For nearly a century, naval engineers have striven to develop ever-faster, ever-quieter submarines. But they have worked just as hard at advancing a wide array of radar, sonar, and other technologies designed to detect, target, and eliminate enemy submarines.

The balance seemed to turn with the emergence of nuclear-powered submarines in the early 1960s. In a 2015 study for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, Bryan Clark, a naval specialist now at the Hudson Institute, noted that the ability of these boats to remain submerged for long periods of time made them “nearly impossible to find with radar and active sonar.” But even these stealthy submarines produce subtle, very-low-frequency noises that can be picked up from far away by networks of acoustic hydrophone arrays mounted to the seafloor.

Keep Reading ↓Show less
{"imageShortcodeIds":["30133857"]}