Advertisement

On the Effectiveness of the Fast Automatic Differentiation Methodology

  • Alla Albu
  • Andrei Gorchakov
  • Vladimir ZubovEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 974)

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the three approaches for calculating the gradient of a complex function of many variables. The compared approaches are: the use of precise, analytically derived formulas; the usage of formulas derived with the aid of the Fast Automatic Differentiation methodology; the use of standard software packages that implement the ideas of Fast Automatic Differentiation methodology. Comparison of approaches is carried out with the help of a complex function that represents the energy of atoms system whose interaction potential is the Tersoff potential. As a comparison criterion, the computer time required to calculate the gradient of the function is used. The results show the superiority of the Fast Automatic Differentiation methodology in comparison with the approach using analytical formulas. Standard packages compute the function gradient around the same time as using the formula of the Fast Automatic Differentiation methodology.

Keywords

Fast Automatic Differentiation Standard software packages Tersoff potential 

References

  1. 1.
    Abgaryan, K.K., Posypkin, M.A.: Optimization methods as applied to parametric identification of interatomic potentials. Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 54, 1929–1935 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542514120021MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evtushenko, Y.G.: Computation of exact gradients in distributed dynamic systems. Optim. Methods Softw. 9, 45–75 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10556789808805686MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albu, A.F.: Application of the fast automatic differentiation to the computation of the gradient of the tersoff potential. Informacionnye tekhnologii i vychislitel’nye sistemy 1, 43–49 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evtushenko, Y.G., Lurie, S.A., Posypkin, M.A., et al.: Application of optimization methods for finding equilibrium states of two-dimensional crystals. Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 56, 2001–2010 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542516120083MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evtushenko, Y., Lurie, S., Posypkin, M.: New optimization problems arising in modelling of 2D-crystal lattices. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1776 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4965341
  6. 6.
    Albring, T., et al.: An aerodynamic design framework based on algorithmic differentiation. ERCOFTAC Bull. 102, 10–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hogan, R.J.: Fast reverse-mode automatic differentiation using expression templates in C++. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. (TOMS) 40(4), 26–42 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2560359MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gorchakov, A.Y.: On software packages of fast automatic differentiation. Informacionnye tekhnologii i vychislitel’nye sistemy 1, 30–36 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dorodnicyn Computing Centre, Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control” of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Nuclear Safety Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations