MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401753269 · doi:10.1109/asap61560.2024.00047

Raising Compute Density of Molecular Dynamics Simulation Through Approximate Memoization

2024· article· en· W4401753269 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Khemira, Xinyuan Wang, Yutaka Tamiya, Makoto Taiji, Takahide Yoshikawa, Jason H. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)MemoizationComputer scienceDynamics (music)Molecular dynamicsParallel computingComputational scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringParsing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation involves simulating the interactions of particles. MD has many applications in basic biological sciences, drug discovery, materials science, and other fields. Simulating <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$1\mu \mathrm{s}$</tex> of a 100K-atom system can take hours or days<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup><sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>https://www.bdr.riken.jp/en/research/labs/taiji-mlmdgrape4.html, where the compute-heavy aspect of MD is calculating the long-range forces between pairs of particles. In this paper, we explore the application of approximate computing in MD as a means to improve compute density. Specifically, we employ approximate memoization, where previously computed forces (and more) are stored in a table, and are retrieved in subsequent force calculations, provided the inputs to the force calculation are the same or similar. If the prior-computed table values can be used, significant computational work is avoided. In an experimental study, we apply software simulation to understand the degree to which approximation is feasible. We then propose a hardware implementation of memoization to be used within an ASIC MD simulator, MDGRAPE-4A [18]. We show that compute density, measured as <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\text{pair-interactions}/(s\cdot\mu m^{2})$</tex> is improved substantially, between 40 % and 70 % for the studied cases. This is contingent on the particular system being simulated, the table size, and permitted level of approximation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207