Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Enhanced Sampling with Machine Learning: A Review (2306.09111v2)

Published 15 Jun 2023 in cond-mat.stat-mech, cs.LG, physics.chem-ph, and physics.comp-ph

Abstract: Molecular dynamics (MD) enables the study of physical systems with excellent spatiotemporal resolution but suffers from severe time-scale limitations. To address this, enhanced sampling methods have been developed to improve exploration of configurational space. However, implementing these is challenging and requires domain expertise. In recent years, integration of ML techniques in different domains has shown promise, prompting their adoption in enhanced sampling as well. Although ML is often employed in various fields primarily due to its data-driven nature, its integration with enhanced sampling is more natural with many common underlying synergies. This review explores the merging of ML and enhanced MD by presenting different shared viewpoints. It offers a comprehensive overview of this rapidly evolving field, which can be difficult to stay updated on. We highlight successful strategies like dimensionality reduction, reinforcement learning, and flow-based methods. Finally, we discuss open problems at the exciting ML-enhanced MD interface.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. Frenkel D, Smit B. 2000. Molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications
  2. Hollingsworth SA, Dror RO. 2018. Molecular dynamics simulation for all. Neuron 99(6):1129–1143
  3. Tiwary P, Parrinello M. 2015. A time-independent free energy estimator for metadynamics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 119(3):736–742PMID: 25046020
  4. Torrie G, Valleau J. 1977. Monte carlo study of a phase-separating liquid mixture by umbrella sampling. The Journal of chemical physics 66(4):1402–1408
  5. Invernizzi M, Parrinello M. 2020. Rethinking metadynamics: From bias potentials to probability distributions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11(7):2731–2736PMID: 32191470
  6. Piana S, Laio A. 2008. Advillin folding takes place on a hypersurface of small dimensionality. Physical review letters 101(20):208101
  7. Husic BE, Pande VS. 2018. Markov state models: From an art to a science. Journal of the American Chemical Society 140(7):2386–2396PMID: 29323881
  8. Schwantes CR, Pande VS. 2013. Improvements in markov state model construction reveal many non-native interactions in the folding of ntl9. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 9(4):2000–2009PMID: 23750122
  9. Marinari E, Parisi G. 1992. Simulated tempering: A new monte carlo scheme. Europhysics Letters 19(6):451
  10. Piana S, Laio A. 2007. A bias-exchange approach to protein folding. The journal of physical chemistry B 111(17):4553–4559
  11. Tiwary P, van de Walle A. 2013. Accelerated molecular dynamics through stochastic iterations and collective variable based basin identification. Physical Review B 87(9):094304
  12. Tiwary P, Parrinello M. 2013. From metadynamics to dynamics. Physical review letters 111(23):230602
  13. Van der Maaten L, Hinton G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research 9(11)
  14. M. Sultan M, Pande VS. 2017. tica-metadynamics: accelerating metadynamics by using kinetically selected collective variables. Journal of chemical theory and computation 13(6):2440–2447
  15. Ma A, Dinner AR. 2005. Automatic method for identifying reaction coordinates in complex systems. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109(14):6769–6779
  16. Peters B, Trout BL. 2006. Obtaining reaction coordinates by likelihood maximization. The Journal of chemical physics 125(5):054108
  17. Noé F, Nuske F. 2013. A variational approach to modeling slow processes in stochastic dynamical systems. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 11(2):635–655
  18. Noé F, Clementi C. 2015. Kinetic distance and kinetic maps from molecular dynamics simulation. Journal of chemical theory and computation 11(10):5002–5011
  19. Schwantes CR, Pande VS. 2015. Modeling molecular kinetics with tica and the kernel trick. Journal of chemical theory and computation 11(2):600–608
  20. Wu H, Noé F. 2020. Variational approach for learning markov processes from time series data. Journal of Nonlinear Science 30(1):23–66
  21. Shmilovich K, Ferguson AL. 2023. Girsanov reweighting enhanced sampling technique (grest): On-the-fly data-driven discovery of and enhanced sampling in slow collective variables. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
  22. Wang Y, Tiwary P. 2020. Understanding the role of predictive time delay and biased propagator in rave. The Journal of Chemical Physics 152(14):144102
  23. Bicout D, Szabo A. 1998. Electron transfer reaction dynamics in non-debye solvents. The Journal of chemical physics 109(6):2325–2338
  24. Hinton GE, Salakhutdinov RR. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. science 313(5786):504–507
  25. Chen W, Ferguson AL. 2018. Molecular enhanced sampling with autoencoders: On-the-fly collective variable discovery and accelerated free energy landscape exploration. Journal of computational chemistry 39(25):2079–2102
  26. Wehmeyer C, Noé F. 2018. Time-lagged autoencoders: Deep learning of slow collective variables for molecular kinetics. The Journal of chemical physics 148(24):241703
  27. Kingma DP, Welling M. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114
  28. Wang D, Tiwary P. 2021. State predictive information bottleneck. The Journal of Chemical Physics 154(13):134111
  29. Tiwary P, Berne B. 2016. Spectral gap optimization of order parameters for sampling complex molecular systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(11):2839–2844
  30. Zhang J, Chen M. 2018. Unfolding hidden barriers by active enhanced sampling. Physical review letters 121(1):010601
  31. Rydzewski J, Valsson O. 2021. Multiscale reweighted stochastic embedding: Deep learning of collective variables for enhanced sampling. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 125(28):6286–6302
  32. Zimmerman MI, Bowman GR. 2015. Fast conformational searches by balancing exploration/exploitation trade-offs. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 11(12):5747–5757PMID: 26588361
  33. Szepesvári C. 2010. Algorithms for reinforcement learning. Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning 4(1):1–103
  34. Gosavi A. 2009. Reinforcement learning: A tutorial survey and recent advances. INFORMS Journal on Computing 21(2):178–192
  35. Auer P. 2002. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3(Nov):397–422
  36. Galvelis R, Sugita Y. 2017. Neural network and nearest neighbor algorithms for enhancing sampling of molecular dynamics. Journal of chemical theory and computation 13(6):2489–2500
  37. Valsson O, Parrinello M. 2014. Variational approach to enhanced sampling and free energy calculations. Physical review letters 113(9):090601
  38. Sidky H, Whitmer JK. 2018. Learning free energy landscapes using artificial neural networks. The Journal of Chemical Physics 148(10):104111
  39. Do HN, Miao Y. 2023. Deep boosted molecular dynamics: Accelerating molecular simulations with gaussian boost potentials generated using probabilistic bayesian deep neural network. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14:4970–4982
  40. Bennett CH. 1976. Efficient estimation of free energy differences from monte carlo data. Journal of Computational Physics 22(2):245–268
  41. Shirts MR, Chodera JD. 2008. Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. The Journal of Chemical Physics 129(12):124105
  42. Jarzynski C. 2002. Targeted free energy perturbation. Physical Review E 65(4)
  43. Lelièvre T, Stoltz G. 2016. Partial differential equations and stochastic methods in molecular dynamics. Acta Numerica 25:681–880
  44. Mehdi S, Tiwary P. 2022. Thermodynamics of interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13475
  45. ten Wolde PR, Frenkel D. 1998. Computer simulation study of gas–liquid nucleation in a lennard-jones system. The Journal of chemical physics 109(22):9901–9918
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Shams Mehdi (6 papers)
  2. Zachary Smith (6 papers)
  3. Lukas Herron (8 papers)
  4. Ziyue Zou (9 papers)
  5. Pratyush Tiwary (53 papers)
Citations (8)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.