You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello everyone,
I'm currently using the "se_e2_a" model to train a force field that describes phase transitions in carbon materials. However, I've learned from the documentation that the "se_e3" model is better suited for describing the three-body interactions in carbon. Unfortunately, after trying it out, I've found that our current computational resources within the group are insufficient to support the use of the "se_e3" model. My question is, can I still obtain a relatively good force field using the "se_e2_a" model?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello everyone,
I'm currently using the "se_e2_a" model to train a force field that describes phase transitions in carbon materials. However, I've learned from the documentation that the "se_e3" model is better suited for describing the three-body interactions in carbon. Unfortunately, after trying it out, I've found that our current computational resources within the group are insufficient to support the use of the "se_e3" model. My question is, can I still obtain a relatively good force field using the "se_e2_a" model?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions