=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-1787/567-572-paper-99 |storemode=property |title=Parametrization of the Reactive MD Force Field for Zn-O-H Systems |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1787/567-572-paper-99.pdf |volume=Vol-1787 |authors=Konstantin Shefov,Margarita Stepanova,Sofia Kotriakhova }} ==Parametrization of the Reactive MD Force Field for Zn-O-H Systems== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1787/567-572-paper-99.pdf
          Parametrization of the Reactive MD Force Field
                       for Zn-O-H Systems
                 K. S. Shefova, M. M. Stepanovab, S. N. Kotriakhovac
          St. Petersburg State Institute University, 7-9 University emb, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
                E-mail: a k.s.shefov@gmail.com, b mstep@mms.nw.ru, c dangemy@gmail.com


      We describe a procedure of optimizing the molecular dynamic force field for Zn-O-H chemical systems by
means of a new parallel algorithm of a multifactorial search for the global minimum. This algorithm allows one
to obtain numerous parameters of the ReaxFF classical force field based on quantum chemical computations of
various characteristics of simple compounds. The force field may be then used for simulating of large-scale
chemical systems consisting of the same elements by means of classical molecular dynamics. Our current im-
plementation of the algorithm is done in C++ using MPI. We compare characteristics of simple compounds, ob-
tained by 1) quantum chemical techniques, 2) molecular-dynamic methods using reference parameters of the
force field, and 3) MD methods using optimized parameters of the force field. With the optimized parameter set
we perform MD simulations (using LAMMPS package) of crystals of zinc and zinc oxide of various modifica-
tions at the room temperature. Finally, we compare results of the parameter optimization procedure by means of
the algorithm described above and results of a parallel implementation of an evolutionary approach to minimum
search using dynamic models of Zn and ZnO crystals. Also we discuss advantages and disadvantages of the both
methods and their efficiency for extremal problems. All computations are performed with machines of the dis-
tributed scientific complex of the Faculty of Physics of St Petersburg State University.

     Keywords: numerical simulation, chemically reactive systems, reactive force field, molecular dynamics,
parameter optimization, parallel algorithm, absolute extremum search


                                                  © 2016 Konstantin S. Shefov, Margarita M. Stepanova, Sofia N. Kotriakhova




                                                                                                                    567
Introduction
      Reactive molecular-dynamic (MD) force field ReaxFF is a function of a large number of parame-
ters. Searching optimal values of these parameters is a complicated problem. To solve it one may use
different approaches, each of them having its own advantages and disadvantages. One of the ap-
proaches is the multifactorial global search algorithm (MGSA). The aim of this work is to estimate
efficiency of MGSA technique being applied to parameter search. We compare quality of parameter
sets for Zn-O-H systems obtained by different methods: MGSA, evolutionary algorithm and one-
parameter search technique [Raymand, Duin, …, 2010]. Quality of a parameter set is estimated 1) by
comparing of physical characteristics obtained by MD-methods and quantum chemistry methods, 2)
by stability of crystal lattices of Zn and ZnO during their simulation under room temperature, and 3)
by simulation of ZnO crystal growth. For MD-simulations we use package LAMMPS.


Global Search Algorithm
                                                       The global search algorithm (GSA)
                                                 [Strongin, 1978] allows one to obtain an absolute
                                                 minimum of a target function on a segment. It is
                                                 based on probability approach. Assume we already
                                                 have a set of known target function values in sev-
                                                 eral points on a segment. We use these known
                                                 values to find an interval between neighboring
                                                 points on the segment, where absolute minimum
                                                 location is the most probable. In this interval we
                                                 take a point corresponding to a mathematical ex-
                                                 pectation of position of the minimum and compute
                                                 target function value in it. The point is added to
                                                 the list of known values and we pass to the next
                                                 iteration. The algorithm terminates, when distance
                                                 between points of the segment of two consequent
                                                 iterations becomes less than a given criteria. In
                                                 multidimensional variant of the algorithm a func-
                                                 tion of many variables is mapped on a function of
                                                 a single variable with a help of Peano scans. Mul-
                                                 tidimensional definition domain (hypercube) is
                                                 mapped on a segment of the real axis. To make the
                                                 global search algorithm parallel we use a tech-
                                                 nique of rotating scans [Strongin, Gergel, …,
                                                 2009]. Each parallel process operates with its own
                                                 scan rotated by angles ±π/2 with respect to the
                                                 basic scan in particular pair of dimensions. In total
                                                 one can perform N∙(N - 1) of such rotations for N-
 Fig. 1. MGSA parallel implementation flowchart
                                                 dimensional domain of definition. Thus, in total
                                                 the program uses N∙(N - 1) + 1 processes, each of
                                                 them performs GSA and at each iteration sends its
                                                 result to all other processes. Parallel algorithm
speeds up convergence and compensates points proximity information loss caused by use of a scan.
     As a target function we use function (1).




                                                                                                568
                 =              −            +                           −                  (1)

      Here      are potential energies of training set models (simple chemical compounds, which opti-
mization is based on),         are components of forces acting on atom α of model k, L is number of
models in the set,     are numbers of atoms in model k, and       are weight factors. Indices QC and Re-
axFF mean that corresponding characteristics are obtained either by quantum chemistry methods of by
molecular dynamics, respectively.               and          depend on parameters , , … ,           of the
force field. In our case we use multifactorial algorithm, in which in addition to the basic target func-
tion (1) we also use several functions-limitations on particular groups of addends in (1). This allows us
to set all the weights    equal to 1 and not to solve a complicated problem of weights choice.
      MGSA parallel implementation flowchart is in Fig. 1. Here points of a function definition domain
(a grid on a hypercube) are named , and values of a target function (or functions-limitations) in them
are named . Values of index (number of satisfied limitations in ) are named . Points of a grid on
the segment [0; 1], on which the hypercube is mapped, are named . Double frames in the flowchart
show that on a particular step data exchange between parallel processes takes place. Number of paral-
lel processes is named P. For more details of the algorithm see paper [Stepanova, Shefov, …, 2016].


Quantum chemistry computations
     Basic compounds that are included in the training set are presented in Table 1. QC computations
are performed with the same methods that are used in the work [Raymand, Duin, …, 2010] that is used
for comparison.

                        Table 1. Compounds computed by quantum chemistry methods
         Compound                           Modifications                         Comp. method
         ZnO lattices                      P63mc, F-43m,                   CRYSTAL09, DFT/B3LYP
                                           Fm-3m, Pm-3m                   Gauss basis, k-points 10x10x10
          Zn lattices                         hcp, fcc,                     ABINIT, DFT/PAW/PBE
                                               bcc, sc                           planewave basis
                                                                           k-points 8x8x8, Ecutoff=30 Ha
  ZnO thin films (10 layers)       (1 0 -1 0) P63mc, (1 1 -2 0) P63mc,     CRYSTAL09, DFT/B3LYP
                                      (1 1 0) Fm-3m, (1 0 0) Fm-3m         Gauss basis, k-points 10x10
      Molecule ZnOH2                 Different bond lengths Zn-OH,         GAUSSIAN09 DFT/B3LYP
                                 different angles OH-Zn-OH and Zn-O-              basis 6-311+G
                                                   H
   Molecule OHZnOZnOH               Different angles OHZn-O-ZnOH             GAUSSIAN09, DFT/B3LYP
                                                                                 basis 6-311+G
    8 ZnO cells in vacuum               P63mc, F-43m, Fm-3m                  GAUSSIAN09, DFT/B3LYP
                                                                                   Gauss basis
     In Table 2 and Table 3 there are shown results of computations of ZnO and Zn crystal lattice con-
stants and bulk moduli (BM) compared to computations from the work [Raymand, Duin, …, 2010]
and physical experiment data. Sign "+" marks those crystals that are observed in nature.


Parameters optimization
     Parameters of the ReaxFF force filed are optimized with the multifactorial global search algo-
rithm [Stepanova, Shefov, …, 2016]. We used function (1) as the target one. The optimization is done
under condition that a sum of every group of addends in (1) that corresponds to each particular mole-
cule or crystal does not exceed 1/8 of the estimate of the mean value of this sum. The mean value is




                                                                                                    569
estimated by computing every sum value in 65000 points uniformly distributed over the search do-
main.

                     Table 2. Lattice constants and bulk moduli (BM) of zinc oxide crystals
 Cryst.      Charact.     QC comp.         QC [Raymand,      ReaxFF opt.     ReaxFF [Raymand,     Exper.
                                           Duin, …, 2010]                     Duin, …, 2010]
P63mc+         a,A             3.28             3.28             3.27              3.29            3.25
P63mc+        c, A             5.28             5.28             5.24              5.28            5.21
P63mc+       BM, GPa           143               136             138                144          141, 143
 F-43m        a, A             4.62             4.60             4.62              4.62            N/A
 F-43m       BM, GPa           144               162             133                130            N/A
Fm-3m+        a, A             4.34             4.30             4.35              4.29            4.27
Fm-3m+       BM, GPa           183               202             242                283          203, 228
Pm-3m         a, A             2.68             2.68             2.77              2.61            N/A
Pm-3m        BM, GPa           178               183             211                407            N/A

                     Table 3. Lattice constants and bulk moduli (BM) of zinc metal crystals
Cryst.    Charact.   QC comp.         QC [Raymand,      ReaxFF opt.     ReaxFF [Raymand, Duin,   Exper.
                                      Duin, …, 2010]                          …, 2010]
 hcp+      a, A         2.65               2.63             2.74                 2.73             2.67
 hcp+      c, A         4.98               5.06             4.47                 4.46             4.95
 hcp+     BM, GPa       74.1               66.7             81.3                 87.7          64.5 - 75.1
  fcc      a, A         3.90               3.86             3.86                 3.86             N/A
  fcc     BM, GPa       70.7               81.8             101.2               112.4             N/A
  bcc      a, A         3.12               3.06             3.08                 3.06             N/A
  bcc     BM, GPa       67.8               84.6             73.8                 73.5             N/A
   sc      a, A         2.64               2.71             2.76                 2.71             N/A
   sc     BM, GPa       47.4               64.2             34.5                 30.2             N/A
     The full set of parameters has been preliminarily sorted by descending of their influence on the
target function [Stepanova, Shefov, …, 2016]. From that list first 24 parameters are optimized. They
are chosen by the largest correlation with the target function addends. The search for minimum is per-
formed on a grid of 4097 points per each parameter. Four parameters are optimized simultaneously.
The algorithm has performed 6 passes one time for each 4 parameters. Target function value was re-
duced 1.5 times during six passes. Each run takes from 36 to 48 hours to finish. Target function value
is computed in 1 million grid points in average during each run.
     Fig. 2 shows relative values of all 24 parameters that take part in the optimization. The values are
measured in per cent of control values [Raymand, Duin, …, 2010] ("Control") taken for 100 %.
"MGSA" - parameters optimized by multifactorial algorithm, "EA" - ones optimized by evolutionary
algorithm. One can see that the values of parameters differ from method to method, and in some cases
they differ relatively a lot. Each method has its own target function, and it results in its own minimum.
Below we check how well each of these optimized parameter sets can simulate a real physical system.


Dynamic simulation of crystals
      For three sets of parameters (Control, MGSA, EA) we performed simulation of crystals (600 at-
oms) of zinc and zinc oxide in vacuum at temperature of 300 K. The simulations were performed for
all crystal lattices that appear in Tab. 2 and Tab. 3. Those modifications of crystals that occur in nature
are adequately simulated with both the parameter set obtained by MGSA and the set obtained by the
evolutionary algorithm. This means their lattices retain their density and structure. The rest of crystal
modifications either partly deform or completely lose their form. In Tab. 4 as an example we show




                                                                                                     570
snapshots of ZnO (P63mc) crystal in the end of simulation for three different parameter sets. One can
see stable enough crystal structure in all the cases.




                Fig. 2. Comparison of ReaxFF parameters, optimized by different techniques

                            Table 4. Simulation of ZnO (P63mc) crystal at 300 K

   Crystal             Control params                 MGSA params                       EA params




ZnO (P63mc)




     Using parameters obtained by MGSA we simulate growth of ZnO crystal layer on a (0 0 1) slab
of wurtzite ZnO. In Tab. 5 there are illustrated system states with the simulation time of 10, 100 and
300 ps. When the time is 300 ps we observe formation of the first layer of crystal and partly of the se-
cond layer. Quality of the particular simulation is not worse than the one in paper [Raymand, Duin, …,
2010].

                            Table 5. Simulation of ZnO (P63mc) crystal growth




             t=10 ps                            t=100 ps                             t=300ps


Conclusion
     Both MGSA and the evolutionary algorithm allow one to obtain parameters that give adequate
results when simulating particular Zn-O-H systems. Absolute values of parameters differ which is
caused by use of different target functions. MGSA converges relatively slow but achieves absolute
minimum with a grid precision. Evolutionary approach allow one to quickly localize those domains
where minima take place but searching of precise minimum location may turn out to be a very compli-




                                                                                                    571
cated task depending on the form of multidimensional surface. Experience shows that in the given par-
ticular problem an absolute minimum of a target function does not always give the best solution since
the training set is inevitably limited. For this problem the most effective step would be introduction of
additional search criteria. This is implemented for MGSA [Stepanova, Shefov, …, 2016] but is also
reasonable for the evolutionary algorithm. Both approaches discussed here are applicable for ReaxFF
parameters search for various chemical systems.


References
Raymand D., van Duin A. C. T, Spangberg D., Goddard W. A. III, Hermansson K. Water adsorption
    on stepped ZnO surfaces from MD simulation // Surface Science. — 2010. — Vol. 604. —
    P. 741–752.
Стронгин Р.Г. Численные методы в многоэкстремальных задачах. — М.: «Наука». 1978.
     Strongin R.G. Chislennye metody v mnogoekstremalnykh zadachakh [Numerical Methods in Multi-Extremal Prob-
     lems]. — M.: «Nauka». 1978. — 240 p. (in Russian).
Стронгин Р.Г., Гергель В.П., Баркалов К.А. Паралельные методы решения задач глобальной
   оптимизации // Известия ВУЗов. Приборостроение. — 2009. — Т. 52. — С. 25-33.
     Strongin R.G., Gergel V.P., Barkalov K.A. Parallelnye metody resheniya zadach globalnoy optimizatsii [Parallel meth-
     ods of global optimization problems solution] // Izvestiya Vuzov. Priborostroenie. — 2009. — Vol. 52. — P. 25–33 (in
     Russian).
Stepanova M.M., Shefov K.S., Slavyanov S.Yu. Multifactorial global search algorithm in the problem
     of optimizing a reactive force field // Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. — 2016. —
     Vol. 187, Issue 1. — P. 603–617.
Шефов К.С., Степанова М.М. Реализация и применение параллельного алгоритма глобального
     поиска минимума к задаче оптимизации параметров молекулярно-динамического потен-
     циала ReaxFF // Компьютерные исследования и моделирование. — 2015. — Т. 7, № 3. —
     С. 745752.
     Shefov K.S., Stepanova M.M. Realizatsiya i primenenie parallelnogo algoritma globalnogo poiska minimuma k zadache
     optimizatsii parametrov molekulyarno-dinamicheskogo potentsiala ReaxFF [An implementation of a parallel global
     minimum search algorithm with an application to the ReaxFF molecular dynamic force field parameters optimization]
     // Kompyuternye issledovaniya i modelirovaniye. — 2015. — Vol. 7, No 3. — P. 745–752 (in Russian).




                                                                                                                  572