1 | /*
|
---|
2 | * Project: MoleCuilder
|
---|
3 | * Description: creates and alters molecular systems
|
---|
4 | * Copyright (C) 2010 University of Bonn. All rights reserved.
|
---|
5 | * Please see the LICENSE file or "Copyright notice" in builder.cpp for details.
|
---|
6 | */
|
---|
7 |
|
---|
8 | /**
|
---|
9 | * \file potentials.dox
|
---|
10 | *
|
---|
11 | * Created on: Nov 28, 2012
|
---|
12 | * Author: heber
|
---|
13 | */
|
---|
14 |
|
---|
15 | /** \page potentials Empirical Potentials and FunctionModels
|
---|
16 | *
|
---|
17 | * On this page we explain what is meant with the Potentials sub folder.
|
---|
18 | *
|
---|
19 | * First, we are based on fragmenting a molecular system, i.e. dissecting its
|
---|
20 | * bond structure into connected subgraphs, calculating the energies of the
|
---|
21 | * fragments (ab-initio) and summing up to a good approximation of the total
|
---|
22 | * energy of the whole system, \sa fragmentation.
|
---|
23 | * Second, having calculated these energies, there quickly comes up the idea
|
---|
24 | * that one actually calculates quite similar systems all time and if one could
|
---|
25 | * not cache results in an intelligent (i.e. interpolating) fashion ...
|
---|
26 | *
|
---|
27 | * That's where so-called empirical potentials come into play. They are
|
---|
28 | * functions depending on a number of "fitted" parameters and the variable
|
---|
29 | * distances within a molecular fragment (i.e. the bond lengths) in order to
|
---|
30 | * give a value for the total energy without the need to solve a complex
|
---|
31 | * ab-initio model (essentially, not solving the electronic Schrödinger equation
|
---|
32 | * anymore). And they are accompanied by a specific binding model that
|
---|
33 | * represents what kind of many-body force is represented by the potential.
|
---|
34 | *
|
---|
35 | * Empirical potentials have been thought of by fellows such as Lennard-Jones,
|
---|
36 | * Morse, Tersoff, Stillinger and Weber, etc. And in their honor, most of the
|
---|
37 | * potential forms are named after its inventor. Hence, we speak e.g. of a
|
---|
38 | * Lennard-Jones potential.
|
---|
39 | *
|
---|
40 | * So, what we have to do in order to cache results is the following procedure:
|
---|
41 | * -# gather similar fragments
|
---|
42 | * -# perform a fit procedure to obtain the parameters for the empirical
|
---|
43 | * potential
|
---|
44 | * -# evaluate the potential instead of an ab-initio calculation
|
---|
45 | *
|
---|
46 | * However, we need more: What are similar fragments? How do we perform the
|
---|
47 | * fitting procedure? And as the potentials are mathematical functions, what
|
---|
48 | * arguments do they depend on?
|
---|
49 | *
|
---|
50 | * Similar fragments are those that share the same bond graph, i.e. they have
|
---|
51 | * the same number of nodes and the same number of edges. And each edge is
|
---|
52 | * between the same two elements.
|
---|
53 | *
|
---|
54 | * The fitting procedure works by looking at a training set, i.e. a list of
|
---|
55 | * elements where each contains an energy and a number of arguments, namely
|
---|
56 | * pair-wise distances. The error is then the difference between the energies
|
---|
57 | * in the set and all the energy values that we obtain when we feed the
|
---|
58 | * arguments into the fitted potentials. This error is minimized in the
|
---|
59 | * euclidian norm, i.e. least squares regression. But other norms might be
|
---|
60 | * possible in the future, too.
|
---|
61 | *
|
---|
62 | * And the pair-wise distances, we mentioned are the arguments.
|
---|
63 | *
|
---|
64 | * The terms, that we use, model the classes that are implemented:
|
---|
65 | * -# EmpiricalPotential: Contains the interface to a function that can be
|
---|
66 | * evaluated given a number of arguments_t, i.e. distances. Also, one might
|
---|
67 | * want to evaluate derivatives.
|
---|
68 | * -# FunctionModel: Is a function that can be fitted, i.e. it depends on a
|
---|
69 | * set of internal parameters that can be set and got.
|
---|
70 | * -# argument_t: The Argument stores not only the distance but also the index
|
---|
71 | * pair of the associated atoms and also their charges, to let the potential
|
---|
72 | * check on validity.
|
---|
73 | * -# SerializablePotential: Eventually, one wants to store to or parse from
|
---|
74 | * a file all potential parameters. This functionality is encoded in this
|
---|
75 | * class.
|
---|
76 | * -# HomologyGraph: "Similar" fragments in our case have to have the same bond
|
---|
77 | * graph. It is stored in the HomologyGraph that acts as representative.
|
---|
78 | * -# HomologyContainer: This container combines, in a ultimap fashion, all
|
---|
79 | * similar fragments with their energies together, with the HomologyGraph
|
---|
80 | * as their "key".
|
---|
81 | * -# TrainingData: Here, we combine InputVector and OutputVector that contain
|
---|
82 | * the set of distances required for the FunctionModel (e.g. only a single
|
---|
83 | * distance/argument for a pair potential, three for an angle potential,
|
---|
84 | * etc.) and also the expected OutputVector, i.e. the energy of the specific
|
---|
85 | * configuration in our case. This in combination with the FunctionModel is
|
---|
86 | * the basis for the non-linear regression used for the fitting procedure.
|
---|
87 | * -# Extractors: These set of functions yield the set of distances from a
|
---|
88 | * given fragment that is stored in the HomologyContainer.
|
---|
89 | * -# FunctionApproximation: Contains the interface to the levmar package where
|
---|
90 | * the Levenberg-Marquardt (Newton + Trust region) algorithm is used to
|
---|
91 | * perform the fit.
|
---|
92 | *
|
---|
93 | * \section potentials-fit-potential-action What happens in FitPotentialAction.
|
---|
94 | *
|
---|
95 | * First, charges and a potential type is used from the given options. This
|
---|
96 | * is used to instantiate EmpiricalPotentials via the PotentialFactory, stored
|
---|
97 | * within the PotentialRegistry. This is the available set of potentials
|
---|
98 | * (without requiring any knowledge as to the nature of the fragment employed
|
---|
99 | * in fitting).
|
---|
100 | *
|
---|
101 | * Second, the given fragment is used to get a suitable HomologyGraph from
|
---|
102 | * the World's HomologyContainer. This is given to a CompoundPotential, that in
|
---|
103 | * turn browses through the PotentialRegistry, picking out those
|
---|
104 | * EmpiricalPotential's that match with a subset of the FragmentNode's of the
|
---|
105 | * given graph. These are stored as a list of FunctionModel's within the
|
---|
106 | * CompoundPotential instance. Here comes the specific fragment into play,
|
---|
107 | * picking a subset from the available potentials.
|
---|
108 | *
|
---|
109 | * Third, we need to setup the training data. For this we need vectors of input
|
---|
110 | * and output data that are obtained from the HomologyContainer with the
|
---|
111 | * HomologyGraph as key. The output vector in our case is simply a number
|
---|
112 | * (although the interface allows for more). The input vector is the set of
|
---|
113 | * distances. In order to pre-process the input data for the specific model
|
---|
114 | * a filter is required in the TrainingData's constructor. The purpose of the
|
---|
115 | * filter is to pick out the subset of distance arguments for each model one
|
---|
116 | * after the other and concatenate them to a list. On evaluation of the model
|
---|
117 | * this concatenated list of distances is given to the model and it may easily
|
---|
118 | * dissect the list and hand over each contained potential its subset of
|
---|
119 | * arguments. See Extractors for more information.
|
---|
120 | *
|
---|
121 | * Afterwards, training may commence: The goal is to find a set of parameters
|
---|
122 | * for the model such that it as good as possible reproduces the output vector
|
---|
123 | * for a given input vector. This non-linear regression is contained in the
|
---|
124 | * levmar package and its functionality is wrapped in the FunctionApproximation
|
---|
125 | * class. An instance is initialized with both the gathered training data and
|
---|
126 | * the model containing a list of potentials. See
|
---|
127 | * [FunctionApproximation-details] for more details.
|
---|
128 | *
|
---|
129 | * During the fitting procedure, first the derivatives of the model is checked
|
---|
130 | * for consistency, then the model is initialized with a sensible guess of
|
---|
131 | * starting parameters, and afterwards the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
|
---|
132 | * commences that makes numerous calls to evaluate the model and its derivative
|
---|
133 | * to find the minimum in the L2-norm.
|
---|
134 | *
|
---|
135 | * This is done more than once as high-dimensional regression is sensitive to
|
---|
136 | * the starting values as there are possible numerous local minima. The lowest
|
---|
137 | * of the found minima is taken, either via a given threshold or the best of a
|
---|
138 | * given number of attempts.
|
---|
139 | *
|
---|
140 | * Eventually, these parameters of the best model are streamed via
|
---|
141 | * PotentialSerializer back into a potential file. Each EmpiricalPotential in
|
---|
142 | * the CompoundPotential making up the whole model is also a
|
---|
143 | * SerializablePotential. Hence, each in turn writes a single line with its
|
---|
144 | * respective subset of parameters and particle types, describing this
|
---|
145 | * particular fit function.
|
---|
146 | *
|
---|
147 | * \section potentials-function-evaluation How does the model evaluation work
|
---|
148 | *
|
---|
149 | * We now come to the question of how the model and its derivative are actually
|
---|
150 | * evaluated. We have an input vector from the training data and we have the
|
---|
151 | * model with a specific set of parameters.
|
---|
152 | *
|
---|
153 | * FunctionModel is just an abstract interface that is implemented by the
|
---|
154 | * potential functions, such as CompoundPotential, that combines multiple
|
---|
155 | * potentials into a single function for fitting, or PairPotential_Harmonic,
|
---|
156 | * that is a specific fit function for harmonic bonds.
|
---|
157 | *
|
---|
158 | * The main issue with the evaluation is picking the right set of distances from
|
---|
159 | * ones given in the input vector and feed it to each potential contained in
|
---|
160 | * CompoundPotential.
|
---|
161 | *
|
---|
162 | * Initially, the HomologyGraph only contains a list of configurations of a
|
---|
163 | * specific fragments (i.e. the position of each atom in the fragment) and an
|
---|
164 | * energy value. These first have to be converted into distances.
|
---|
165 | *
|
---|
166 | * These distances are prepared by the TrainingData instantiation, i.e. a
|
---|
167 | * fragment with all its atomic positions has already been converted to the
|
---|
168 | * set of all pair-wise interatomic distances.
|
---|
169 | *
|
---|
170 | * \section potentials-distance-picking How does the distance picking work
|
---|
171 | *
|
---|
172 | * Given a set of pair-wise distances, how do we pick the subset of distances
|
---|
173 | * needed by a particular potential.
|
---|
174 | *
|
---|
175 | * Let's make an example first: Imagine a water molecule, i.e. one oxygen and
|
---|
176 | * and two hydrogen atoms with two O-H bonds. Naturally, we obtain three pair-
|
---|
177 | * wise distances, OH1, OH2 and H1H2. Now, we would like to fit a Morse
|
---|
178 | * potential that just depends on a single interatomic distance. We would like
|
---|
179 | * it to represents the O-H bond energy. Hence, the distance picker, namely
|
---|
180 | * the Extractor function, needs to pick any subset of distance that contains
|
---|
181 | * a unique single O-H distance. In effect, it needs to return a list
|
---|
182 | * containing OH1 and OH2 as the Morse potential needs to represent both bond
|
---|
183 | * energies together.
|
---|
184 | *
|
---|
185 | * Now, this is really still quite simple as long as the potential only
|
---|
186 | * depends on a single distance. However, what if we continue and look at a
|
---|
187 | * angle potential, requiring three atoms, i.e. H-O-H?
|
---|
188 | *
|
---|
189 | * Or even more complicated: Imagine an ethane molecule (C2H6) and we would
|
---|
190 | * to represent the H-C-C angular interaction by a harmonic angle potential.
|
---|
191 | * Now, there are multiple of these at the same time, namely six angular
|
---|
192 | * interactions.
|
---|
193 | *
|
---|
194 | * What have to do is look for subgraphs inside a graph. Each potential comes
|
---|
195 | * with a small graph that represents the binding structure, in our terms
|
---|
196 | * the bond model, that we expect. And we need to find the all matching
|
---|
197 | * subgraphs in the whole graph being the fragment itself. Then, for each
|
---|
198 | * subgraph the potential tells us in what order the pair-wise distances
|
---|
199 | * associated with the subgraph are required to be. All of these subset of
|
---|
200 | * distances are eventually concatenated and fed into the model on evaluation.
|
---|
201 | *
|
---|
202 | * \section potentials-howto-use Howto use the potentials
|
---|
203 | *
|
---|
204 | * We just give a brief run-down in terms of code on how to use the potentials.
|
---|
205 | * Here, we just describe what to do in order to perform the fitting. This is
|
---|
206 | * basically what is implemented in FragmentationFitPotentialAction.
|
---|
207 | *
|
---|
208 | * \code
|
---|
209 | * // we need the homology container and the representative graph we want to
|
---|
210 | * // fit to.
|
---|
211 | * HomologyContainer homologies;
|
---|
212 | * const HomologyGraph graph = getSomeGraph(homologies);
|
---|
213 | * Fragment::atomicnumbers_t h2o;
|
---|
214 | * h2o += 8,1,1;
|
---|
215 | * // TrainingData needs so called Extractors to get the required distances
|
---|
216 | * // from the stored fragment. These functions are bound via boost::bind.
|
---|
217 | * TrainingData AngleData(
|
---|
218 | * boost::bind(&Extractors::gatherDistancesFromFragment,
|
---|
219 | * boost::bind(&Fragment::getPositions, _1),
|
---|
220 | * boost::bind(&Fragment::getAtomicNumbers, _1),
|
---|
221 | * boost::cref(h2o),
|
---|
222 | * _2)
|
---|
223 | * );
|
---|
224 | * // now we extract the distances and energies and store them
|
---|
225 | * AngleData(homologies.getHomologousGraphs(graph));
|
---|
226 | * // give ParticleTypes of this potential to make it unique
|
---|
227 | * PairPotential_Angle::ParticleTypes_t types =
|
---|
228 | * boost::assign::list_of<PairPotential_Angle::ParticleType_t>
|
---|
229 | * (8)(1)(1)
|
---|
230 | * ;
|
---|
231 | * PairPotential_Angle angle(types);
|
---|
232 | * // give initial parameter
|
---|
233 | * FunctionModel::parameters_t params(PairPotential_Angle::MAXPARAMS, 0.);
|
---|
234 | * // ... set some potential-specific initial parameters in params struct
|
---|
235 | * angle.setParameters(params);
|
---|
236 | *
|
---|
237 | * // use the potential as a FunctionModel along with prepared TrainingData
|
---|
238 | * FunctionModel &model = angle;
|
---|
239 | * FunctionApproximation approximator(AngleData, model);
|
---|
240 | * approximator(FunctionApproximation::ParameterDerivative);
|
---|
241 | *
|
---|
242 | * // obtain resulting parameters and check remaining L_2 and L_max error
|
---|
243 | * angleparams = model.getParameters();
|
---|
244 | * LOG(1, "INFO: L2sum = " << AngleData(model)
|
---|
245 | * << ", LMax = " << AngleData(model) << ".");
|
---|
246 | * \endcode
|
---|
247 | *
|
---|
248 | * The evaluation of the fitted potential is then trivial, e.g.
|
---|
249 | * \code
|
---|
250 | * // constructed someplace
|
---|
251 | * PairPotential_Angle angle(...);
|
---|
252 | *
|
---|
253 | * // evaluate
|
---|
254 | * FunctionModel::arguments_t args;
|
---|
255 | * // .. initialise args to the desired distances
|
---|
256 | * const double value = angle(args)[0]; // output is a vector!
|
---|
257 | * \endcode
|
---|
258 | *
|
---|
259 | * \section potentials-stability-of-fit note in stability of fit
|
---|
260 | *
|
---|
261 | * As we always start from random initial parameters (within a certain sensible
|
---|
262 | * range at least), the non-linear fit does not always converge. Note that the
|
---|
263 | * random values are drawn from the defined distribution and the uniform distribution
|
---|
264 | * engine is obtained from the currently set, see \ref randomnumbers. Hence, you
|
---|
265 | * can manipulate both in order to get different results or to set the seed such that
|
---|
266 | * some "randomly" drawn value always work well (e.g. for testing).
|
---|
267 | *
|
---|
268 | * In any case, the FragmentationFitPotentialAction has the option
|
---|
269 | * "take-best-of" to allow for multiple fits where the best (in terms of l2 error)
|
---|
270 | * is taken eventually. Furthermore, you can use the "set-threshold" option to
|
---|
271 | * repeat the fit procedure until the L2 error has dropped below the given
|
---|
272 | * threshold.
|
---|
273 | *
|
---|
274 | * \section potentials-howto-add Howto add new potentials
|
---|
275 | *
|
---|
276 | * Adding a new potential requires the following:
|
---|
277 | * -# Add the new modules to Potentials/Specifics
|
---|
278 | * -# Add a unit test on the potential in Potentials/Specifics/unittests
|
---|
279 | * -# Give the potential a type name and add it to PotentialTypes.def. Note
|
---|
280 | * that the name must not contain white space.
|
---|
281 | * -# Add the potential name as case to PotentialFactory such that it knows
|
---|
282 | * how to instantiate your new potential when requested.
|
---|
283 | * -# Remember to use the the RandomNumberGenerator for getting random starting
|
---|
284 | * values!
|
---|
285 | *
|
---|
286 | * PotentialTypes.def contains a boost::preprocessor sequence of all
|
---|
287 | * potential names. PotentialFactory uses this sequence to build its enum to
|
---|
288 | * type map and inverse which the user sees when specifying the potential to
|
---|
289 | * fit via PotentialTypeValidator.
|
---|
290 | *
|
---|
291 | *
|
---|
292 | * \date 2017-05-14
|
---|
293 | */
|
---|