Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3447818.3460370acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Proxima: accelerating the integration of machine learning in atomistic simulations

Published: 04 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Atomistic-scale simulations are prominent scientific applications that require the repetitive execution of a computationally expensive routine to calculate a system's potential energy. Prior work shows that these expensive routines can be replaced with a machine-learned surrogate approximation to accelerate the simulation at the expense of the overall accuracy. The exact balance of speed and accuracy depends on the specific configuration of the surrogate-modeling workflow and the science itself, and prior work leaves it up to the scientist to find a configuration that delivers the required accuracy for their science problem. Unfortunately, due to the underlying system dynamics, it is rare that a single surrogate configuration presents an optimal accuracy/latency trade-off for the entire simulation. In practice, scientists must choose conservative configurations so that accuracy is always acceptable, forgoing possible acceleration. As an alternative, we propose Proxima, a systematic and automated method for dynamically tuning a surrogate-modeling configuration in response to real-time feedback from the ongoing simulation. Proxima estimates the uncertainty of applying a surrogate approximation in each step of an iterative simulation. Using this information, the specific surrogate configuration can be adjusted dynamically to ensure maximum speedup while sustaining a required accuracy metric. We evaluate Proxima using a Monte Carlo sampling application and find that Proxima respects a wide range of user-defined accuracy goals while achieving speedups of 1.02--5.5X relative to a standard

References

[1]
Katie Antypas, BA Austin, TL Butler, RA Gerber, Cary Whitney, Nick Wright, Woo-Sun Yang, and Zhengji Zhao. NERSC workload analysis on Hopper. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Technical Report, 6804:15, 2013.
[2]
Prasanna Balaprakash, Ananta Tiwari, Stefan M Wild, Laura Carrington, and Paul D Hovland. AutoMOMML: Automatic multi-objective modeling with machine learning. In International Conference on High Performance Computing, pages 219--239. Springer, 2016.
[3]
Albert P Bartók, Risi Kondor, and Gábor Csányi. On representing chemical environments. Physical Review B, 87(18):184115, 2013.
[4]
Jörg Behler. Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 145(17):170901, 2016.
[5]
F Matthias Bickelhaupt and Evert Jan Baerends. Kohn-Sham density functional theory: Predicting and understanding chemistry. Reviews in computational chemistry, 15:1--86, 2000.
[6]
Kurt Binder, Jürgen Horbach, Walter Kob, Wolfgang Paul, and Fathollah Varnik. Molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 16(5):S429, 2004.
[7]
Venkatesh Botu, Rohit Batra, James Chapman, and Rampi Ramprasad. Machine learning force fields: Construction, validation, and outlook. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 121(1):511--522, 2017.
[8]
Venkatesh Botu and Rampi Ramprasad. Adaptive machine learning framework to accelerate ab initio molecular dynamics. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(16):1074--1083, 2015.
[9]
Venkatesh Botu and Rampi Ramprasad. Learning scheme to predict atomic forces and accelerate materials simulations. Physical Review B, 92(9):094306, 2015.
[10]
Markus J Buehler. Atomistic modeling of materials failure. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[11]
Keith T Butler, Daniel W Davies, Hugh Cartwright, Olexandr Isayev, and Aron Walsh. Machine learning for molecular and materials science. Nature, 559(7715):547--555, 2018.
[12]
Marco Caccin, Zhenwei Li, James R. Kermode, and Alessandro De Vita. A framework for machine-learning-augmented multiscale atomistic simulations on parallel supercomputers. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(16):1129--1139, June 2015.
[13]
Christopher J Cramer and FM Bickelhaupt. Essentials of computational chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, 42(4):381--381, 2003.
[14]
Yixin Diao, Joseph L Hellerstein, Sujay Parekh, Rean Griffith, Gail Kaiser, and Dan Phung. Self-managing systems: A control theory foundation. In 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pages 441--448. IEEE, 2005.
[15]
Scott E Field, Chad R Galley, Jan S Hesthaven, Jason Kaye, and Manuel Tiglio. Fast prediction and evaluation of gravitational waveforms using surrogate models. Physical Review X, 4(3):031006, 2014.
[16]
Antonio Filieri, Henry Hoffmann, and Martina Maggio. Automated design of self-adaptive software with control-theoretical formal guarantees. In 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 299--310, 2014.
[17]
Nathan A Garland, Romit Maulik, Qi Tang, Xian-Zhu Tang, and Prasanna Balaprakash. Progress towards high fidelity collisional-radiative model surrogates for rapid in-situ evaluation. In 3rd Workshop on Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences. PMLR, 2020.
[18]
Luigi Genovese, Matthieu Ospici, Thierry Deutsch, Jean-François Méhaut, Alexey Neelov, and Stefan Goedecker. Density functional theory calculation on many-cores hybrid central processing unit-graphic processing unit architectures. The Journal of chemical physics, 131(3):034103, 2009.
[19]
Torkel Glad and Lennart Ljung. Control theory. CRC press, 2018.
[20]
Andrea Grisafi, David M Wilkins, Gábor Csányi, and Michele Ceriotti. Symmetry-adapted machine learning for tensorial properties of atomistic systems. Physical Review Letters, 120(3):036002, 2018.
[21]
Mohamed Hacene, Ani Anciaux-Sedrakian, Xavier Rozanska, Diego Klahr, Thomas Guignon, and Paul Fleurat-Lessard. Accelerating VASP electronic structure calculations using graphic processing units. Journal of computational chemistry, 33(32):2581--2589, 2012.
[22]
J Hafner. Atomic-scale computational materials science. Acta Materialia, 48(1):71--92, 2000.
[23]
Christopher Michael Handley and Jörg Behler. Next generation interatomic potentials for condensed systems. The European Physical Journal B, 87(7), July 2014.
[24]
Joseph L Hellerstein, Yixin Diao, Sujay Parekh, and Dawn M Tilbury. PID controllers. In Feedback Control of Computing Systems, chapter 9, pages 293--335. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004.
[25]
Lauri Himanen, Marc OJ Jäger, Eiaki V Morooka, Filippo Federici Canova, Yashasvi S Ranawat, David Z Gao, Patrick Rinke, and Adam S Foster. DScribe: Library of descriptors for machine learning in materials science. Computer Physics Communications, 247:106949, 2020.
[26]
Henry Hoffmann. CoAdapt: Predictable behavior for accuracy-aware applications running on power-aware systems. In 26th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, pages 223--232. IEEE Computer Society, 2014.
[27]
Henry Hoffmann. JouleGuard: Energy guarantees for approximate applications. In Ethan L. Miller and Steven Hand, editors, 25th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 198--214. ACM, 2015.
[28]
Henry Hoffmann, Stelios Sidiroglou, Michael Carbin, Sasa Misailovic, Anant Agarwal, and Martin C. Rinard. Dynamic knobs for responsive power-aware computing. In Rajiv Gupta and Todd C. Mowry, editors, 16th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 199--212. ACM, 2011.
[29]
Giulio Imbalzano, Andrea Anelli, Daniele Giofré, Sinja Klees, Jörg Behler, and Michele Ceriotti. Automatic selection of atomic fingerprints and reference configurations for machine-learning potentials. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148(24):241730, 2018.
[30]
T.0.167emL. Jacobsen, M.0.167emS. Jørgensen, and B. Hammer. On-the-fly machine learning of atomic potential in density functional theory structure optimization. Physical Review Letters, 120(2), January 2018.
[31]
Alireza Khorshidi and Andrew A Peterson. Amp: A modular approach to machine learning in atomistic simulations. Computer Physics Communications, 207:310--324, 2016.
[32]
Zhenwei Li, James R. Kermode, and Alessandro De Vita. Molecular dynamics with on-the-fly machine learning of quantum-mechanical forces. Physical Review Letters, 114(9), March 2015.
[33]
Martina Maggio, Alessandro Vittorio Papadopoulos, Antonio Filieri, and Henry Hoffmann. Automated control of multiple software goals using multiple actuators. In Eric Bodden, Wilhelm Schäfer, Arie van Deursen, and Andrea Zisman, editors, 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 373--384. ACM, 2017.
[34]
Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21(6):1087--1092, June 1953.
[35]
Phani Motamarri, Sambit Das, Shiva Rudraraju, Krishnendu Ghosh, Denis Davydov, and Vikram Gavini. DFT-FE--A massively parallel adaptive finite-element code for large-scale density functional theory calculations. Computer Physics Communications, 246:106853, 2020.
[36]
Andrew A Peterson, Rune Christensen, and Alireza Khorshidi. Addressing uncertainty in atomistic machine learning. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 19(18):10978--10985, 2017.
[37]
Matthias Rupp. Machine learning for quantum mechanics in a nutshell. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(16):1058--1073, 2015.
[38]
Matthias Rupp, Alexandre Tkatchenko, Klaus-Robert Müller, and O Anatole Von Lilienfeld. Fast and accurate modeling of molecular atomization energies with machine learning. Physical Review Retters, 108(5):058301, 2012.
[39]
Faizan Sahigara, Kamel Mansouri, Davide Ballabio, Andrea Mauri, Viviana Consonni, and Roberto Todeschini. Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Molecules, 17(5):4791--4810, April 2012.
[40]
Pedro Savarese and Michael Maire. Learning implicitly recurrent CNNs through parameter sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09701, 2019.
[41]
Jonathan Schmidt, Mário RG Marques, Silvana Botti, and Miguel AL Marques. Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science. npj Computational Materials, 5(1):1--36, 2019.
[42]
John C Slater. A simplification of the Hartree-Fock method. Physical review, 81(3):385, 1951.
[43]
Edward Snelson and Zoubin Ghahramani. Sparse Gaussian processes using pseudo-inputs. In Y. Weiss, B. Schölkopf, and J. Platt, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 18, pages 1257--1264. MIT Press, 2006.
[44]
Martin Törngren. Fundamentals of implementing real-time control applications in distributed computer systems. Real-time systems, 14(3):219--250, 1998.
[45]
Justin M Turney, Andrew C Simmonett, Robert M Parrish, Edward G Hohenstein, Francesco A Evangelista, Justin T Fermann, Benjamin J Mintz, Lori A Burns, Jeremiah J Wilke, Micah L Abrams, et al. Psi4: An open-source ab initio electronic structure program. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 2(4):556--565, 2012.
[46]
Jonathan Vandermause, Steven B Torrisi, Simon Batzner, Yu Xie, Lixin Sun, Alexie M Kolpak, and Boris Kozinsky. On-the-fly active learning of interpretable Bayesian force fields for atomistic rare events. npj Computational Materials, 6(1):1--11, 2020.
[47]
Max Veit, Sandeep Kumar Jain, Satyanarayana Bonakala, Indranil Rudra, Detlef Hohl, and Gábor Csányi. Equation of state of fluid methane from first principles with machine learning potentials. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 15(4):2574--2586, 2019.
[48]
Nicholas Wagner and James M Rondinelli. Theory-guided machine learning in materials science. Frontiers in Materials, 3:28, 2016.
[49]
Logan Ward, Ruoqian Liu, Amar Krishna, Vinay I Hegde, Ankit Agrawal, Alok Choudhary, and Chris Wolverton. Including crystal structure attributes in machine learning models of formation energies via Voronoi tessellations. Physical Review B, 96(2):024104, 2017.
[50]
Mitchell A Wood, Mary A Cusentino, Brian D Wirth, and Aidan P Thompson. Data-driven material models for atomistic simulation. Physical Review B, 99(18):184305, 2019.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Employing artificial intelligence to steer exascale workflows with colmenaThe International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications10.1177/10943420241288242Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MProt-DPO: Breaking the ExaFLOPS Barrier for Multimodal Protein Design Workflows with Direct Preference OptimizationProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage, and Analysis10.1109/SC41406.2024.00013(1-13)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2024
  • (2023)High Throughput Training of Deep Surrogates from Large Ensemble RunsProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis10.1145/3581784.3607083(1-16)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICS '21: Proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing
June 2021
506 pages
ISBN:9781450383356
DOI:10.1145/3447818
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 June 2021

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. control theory
  2. machine learning
  3. modeling and simulation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ICS '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

ICS '21 Paper Acceptance Rate 39 of 157 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 629 of 2,180 submissions, 29%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)164
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Employing artificial intelligence to steer exascale workflows with colmenaThe International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications10.1177/10943420241288242Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MProt-DPO: Breaking the ExaFLOPS Barrier for Multimodal Protein Design Workflows with Direct Preference OptimizationProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage, and Analysis10.1109/SC41406.2024.00013(1-13)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2024
  • (2023)High Throughput Training of Deep Surrogates from Large Ensemble RunsProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis10.1145/3581784.3607083(1-16)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Rapid simulations of atmospheric data assimilation of hourly-scale phenomena with modern neural networksProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis10.1145/3581784.3607031(1-13)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Asynchronous Execution of Heterogeneous Tasks in ML-Driven HPC WorkflowsJob Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing10.1007/978-3-031-43943-8_2(27-45)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2022)Coupling streaming AI and HPC ensembles to achieve 100–1000× faster biomolecular simulations2022 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS)10.1109/IPDPS53621.2022.00083(806-816)Online publication date: May-2022
  • (2021)Colmena: Scalable Machine-Learning-Based Steering of Ensemble Simulations for High Performance Computing2021 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Machine Learning in High Performance Computing Environments (MLHPC)10.1109/MLHPC54614.2021.00007(9-20)Online publication date: Nov-2021

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media