Processing math: 100%
Perspective Special Issues

Factorization in molecular modeling and belief propagation algorithms


  • Received: 09 August 2023 Revised: 18 October 2023 Accepted: 19 October 2023 Published: 27 November 2023
  • Factorization reduces computational complexity, and is therefore an important tool in statistical machine learning of high dimensional systems. Conventional molecular modeling, including molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations of molecular systems, is a large research field based on approximate factorization of molecular interactions. Recently, the local distribution theory was proposed to factorize joint distribution of a given molecular system into trainable local distributions. Belief propagation algorithms are a family of exact factorization algorithms for (junction) trees, and are extended to approximate loopy belief propagation algorithms for graphs with loops. Despite the fact that factorization of probability distribution is the common foundation, computational research in molecular systems and machine learning studies utilizing belief propagation algorithms have been carried out independently with respective track of algorithm development. The connection and differences among these factorization algorithms are briefly presented in this perspective, with the hope to intrigue further development of factorization algorithms for physical modeling of complex molecular systems.

    Citation: Bochuan Du, Pu Tian. Factorization in molecular modeling and belief propagation algorithms[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(12): 21147-21162. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023935

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yuriĭ G. Nikonorov, Irina A. Zubareva . On the behavior of geodesics of left-invariant sub-Riemannian metrics on the group Aff0(R)×Aff0(R). Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(1): 181-209. doi: 10.3934/era.2025010
    [2] Guoliang Ju, Can Chen, Rongliang Chen, Jingzhi Li, Kaitai Li, Shaohui Zhang . Numerical simulation for 3D flow in flow channel of aeroengine turbine fan based on dimension splitting method. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 837-851. doi: 10.3934/era.2020043
    [3] Vladimir Rovenski . Willmore-type variational problem for foliated hypersurfaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(6): 4025-4042. doi: 10.3934/era.2024181
    [4] Alessandro Portaluri, Li Wu, Ran Yang . Linear instability of periodic orbits of free period Lagrangian systems. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(8): 2833-2859. doi: 10.3934/era.2022144
    [5] Fei Shi . Incompressible limit of Euler equations with damping. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 126-139. doi: 10.3934/era.2022007
    [6] Min Li, Xueke Pu, Shu Wang . Quasineutral limit for the compressible two-fluid Euler–Maxwell equations for well-prepared initial data. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 879-895. doi: 10.3934/era.2020046
    [7] Xuerong Hu, Yuxiang Han, Junyan Lu, Linxiang Wang . Modeling and experimental investigation of quasi-zero stiffness vibration isolator using shape memory alloy springs. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 768-790. doi: 10.3934/era.2025035
    [8] Noelia Bazarra, José R. Fernández, Ramón Quintanilla . Numerical analysis of a problem in micropolar thermoviscoelasticity. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(2): 683-700. doi: 10.3934/era.2022036
    [9] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao . A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076
    [10] Michael Barg, Amanda Mangum . Statistical analysis of numerical solutions to constrained phase separation problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(1): 229-250. doi: 10.3934/era.2023012
  • Factorization reduces computational complexity, and is therefore an important tool in statistical machine learning of high dimensional systems. Conventional molecular modeling, including molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations of molecular systems, is a large research field based on approximate factorization of molecular interactions. Recently, the local distribution theory was proposed to factorize joint distribution of a given molecular system into trainable local distributions. Belief propagation algorithms are a family of exact factorization algorithms for (junction) trees, and are extended to approximate loopy belief propagation algorithms for graphs with loops. Despite the fact that factorization of probability distribution is the common foundation, computational research in molecular systems and machine learning studies utilizing belief propagation algorithms have been carried out independently with respective track of algorithm development. The connection and differences among these factorization algorithms are briefly presented in this perspective, with the hope to intrigue further development of factorization algorithms for physical modeling of complex molecular systems.



    In the last few decades, there has been a lot of interest in the study of higher-order variational problems on Riemannian manifolds. One of the most prominent second-order variational problems has the Lagrangian function given by the squared norm of the covariant acceleration. Stationary curves for this problem are the so-called Riemannian cubics or bi-harmonic curves [1,2]. These curves have played an important role in the study of interpolation problems [4,5,6]. Approaches to this second order problem are not restricted to its variational character, it has also been studied as an optimal control problem in which the control system is an affine connection system [7,8,9,10,11,12]. From the point of view of applications, this problem can be seen as an optimal navigation problem with regard to fuel consumption, and may involve several agents, have obstacles to avoid or be conditioned by constraints [13,14,15,16,17].

    The theory of Riemannian cubics can be interpreted as a higher-order extension of the theory of geodesics. An extension of this theory to odd-degree Riemannian polynomials has been developed in [18,19,20] (for a more general setting, see also [21] and references therein). Although the concept of odd-degree Riemannian polynomials given in [18] can be seen as a higher-order generalization of the concept of geodesics, it cannot be said to be a generalization of lower-degree polynomials, starting with the cubic ones. Indeed, geodesics are particular cases of higher-degree Riemannian polynomials, but Riemannian cubics cannot in general be seen as higher-degree Riemannian polynomials.

    The notion of Riemannian polynomials given in [18] was motivated by the optimization properties of the Euclidean polynomials and, thus, can be seen as a generalization of polynomials from Euclidean spaces to Riemannian manifolds. These polynomials play an important role in the study of interpolation and data fitting problems in curved spaces. Applications range from the control theory of mechanical systems to image processing or statistical analysis of shape data. The polynomials are used to construct interpolation curves (Riemannian splines) that give trajectories of physical systems along some prescribed positions [6,20,22], or they can be combined with least squares fitting to better represent image (or shape) data [23,24]. The degree of the polynomials provides a certain smoothness of the splines and accuracy of the represented data.

    In this paper, we propose studying a variational problem of order 4 which gives rise to a definition of higher-degree polynomials that is different from the one presented in [18]. The stationary curves of the proposed problem can be interpreted as the best approximations of Riemannian cubics when their existence is conditioned by boundary or interpolation conditions, and reduce naturally to Riemannian cubics when such curves exist.

    The study of this variational problem in the rotation group SO(3) was presented in [25]. In this paper, we consider the problem in a general Riemannian manifold and derive the Euler-Lagrange equation (Section 3). Then, in Section 4, we analyse what happens on Lie groups. Since the Lagrangian function is invariant, we use the higher-order Euler-Poincaré reduction presented in [26] to obtain the corresponding equation on the Lie algebra.

    In what follows (M,.,.) is an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold. The Levi-Civita connection is the mapping , which assigns to each two smooth vector fields X and Y in M, a new vector field, XY, satisfying the following properties:

    (i) is IR-bilinear in X and Y,

    (ii) fXY=fXY,

    (iii) X(fY)=(Xf)Y+fXY,

    (iv) XY is smooth in M,

    (v) XYYX=[X,Y] (Symmetry),

    (vi) XY,Z=XY,Z+Y,XZ (Compatibility),

    where X, Y and Z are smooth vector fields on M, f a smooth real valued function on M and [X,Y] denotes the Lie bracket of the vector fields X and Y defined by

    [X,Y]f=X(Yf)Y(Xf).

    The covariant derivative of a vector field X along a curve x in M is given by (DX/dt)(t)=(dx/dt)(t)X(t), where dx/dt is the velocity vector field along x. The jth-order covariant derivative DjX/dtj is the covariant derivative of the vector field Dj1X/dtj1, where j1. The jth-order covariant derivative Djx/dtj of a curve x is the (j1)th-order covariant derivative of the velocity vector field along x, for j2.

    For any vector field X along a 2-parameter curve x:(r,t)x(r,t), the covariant derivatives DX/r and DX/t are vector fields along x defined as follows: We fix t (resp., r) and consider X restricted to the curve xt:rx(r,t) (resp., xr:tx(r,t)), which leads to a vector field along xt (resp., xr). The covariant derivative of the vector field X along the curve xt (resp., xr) gives rises to the vector field DX/r (resp., DX/t) along x. As examples, we can set X equal to x/r or x/t and obtain the following higher-order covariant derivatives,

    Drxr,Drxt,Dtxr,Dtxt,

    or even higher-order ones. Note that, from the symmetry of the Levi-Civita connection (condition (5)), we get immediately that

    Drxt=Dtxr. (2.1)

    To deal with higher-order partial covariant derivatives, we shall need to define the curvature tensor.

    The curvature tensor R is given by the identity

    R(X,Y)Z=XYZYXZ[X,Y]Z, (2.2)

    where X, Y, Z are vector fields in M. Therefore, R measures how much covariant derivatives fail to commute. For any vector field X along a 2-parameter curve x:(r,t)x(r,t), we have

    DrDtXDtDrX=R(xr,xt)X. (2.3)

    From Eq (2.3) we see that R is an essential tool to interchange the order of partial covariant derivatives. For this reason, the following symmetries of R play such an important role in this paper.

    For all vector fields X, Y, Z and W in M, the curvature tensor R satisfies the skew-symmetry identities

    R(X,Y)Z+R(Y,X)Z=0, (2.4)

    and

    R(X,Y)Z,W+R(X,Y)W,Z=0, (2.5)

    and, as a consequence of (2.4) and (2.5), the symmetry by pairs identity

    R(X,Y)Z,W=R(W,Z)Y,X. (2.6)

    The cyclic permutation property

    R(X,Y)Z+R(Y,Z)X+R(Z,X)Y=0, (2.7)

    is called the first Bianchi identity.

    The covariant differential of the curvature tensor R is defined by

    (XR)(Y,Z)W=X(R(Y,Z)W)R(XY,Z)WR(Y,XZ)WR(Y,Z)XW, (2.8)

    and the symmetry properties of R lead to the following equalities.

    (XR)(Y,Z)W+(XR)(Z,Y)W=0, (2.9)
    (XR)(Y,Z)W+(XR)(Z,W)Y+(XR)(W,Y)Z=0, (2.10)
    (XR)(Y,Z)W,V=(XR)(V,W)Z,Y, (2.11)
    (XR)(Y,Z)W,V+(XR)(Y,Z)V,W=0, (2.12)

    and the second Bianchi identity

    (XR)(Y,Z)W+(YR)(Z,X)W+(ZR)(X,Y)W=0, (2.13)

    for every vector field X, Y, Z, W and V on M.

    More details about Riemannian geometry can be found in Milnor [27], Lee [28] and O'Neill [29].

    Let x be a C3-piecewise smooth curve on M and Γ(x) the vector field along x defined by

    Γ(x)=D4xdt4+R(D2xdt2,dxdt)dxdt. (3.1)

    It is well-known that the curves x satisfying

    Γ(x)=0, (3.2)

    are the so-called Riemannian cubics. They arose as a natural generalization of geodesics. In fact, the Riemannian cubics are the extremal curves of the bienergy functional

    B(x)=12T0D2xdt22dt, (3.3)

    and this functional is seen as a second order extension of the energy functional

    E(x)=12T0dxdt2dt. (3.4)

    Geodesics are the curves x satisfying

    D2xdt2=0, (3.5)

    and are critical points of the energy functional (3.3).

    The variational problem that consists in finding the curves minimizing the bienergy functional (3.3) is called the Riemannian cubic problem and appears as a natural extension of the geodesic problem. It can be formulated as a optimal control problem in the following way.

    minUT012U,Udt, (3.6)

    subject to the control system

    dxdt=V,DVdt=U, (3.7)

    and the boundary conditions

    x(0)=x0,x(T)=x1,V(0)=v01,V(T)=v11. (3.8)

    Studying this problem from the point of view of Hamiltonian systems and optimal control proved to be very interesting and led to fruitful research [7,8,10,12].

    Remark 1. Riemannian cubics and geodesics can also be seen as generalizations of Euclidean polynomials (of degree 1 and 3, respectively). This simple interpretation is based on optimization properties of these Euclidean curves. In fact, these properties are not restricted to polynomials of degree 1 and 3, but are valid for arbitrary odd-degree Euclidean polynomials. It is well-know that Euclidean polynomials x of degree 2m1 satisfy the inequality

    12T0dmxdtm2dt12T0dmydtm2dt, (3.9)

    among all Cm functions y satisfying the boundary conditions

    y(0)=x0,y(T)=x1, (3.10)

    and

    djydtj(0)=v0j,djydtj(T)=v1j,1jm1; (3.11)

    moreover, the equality occurs iff y coincides with x. The differential equation

    d2mxdt2m=0, (3.12)

    is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the m-energy functional

    12T0dmxdtm2dt.

    Seen as a solution of Eq (3.12), each Euclidean polynomial is contained in the class of Euclidean polynomial of higher-order (Property A).

    Remark 2. In [18], the Euclidean variational problem of order m is extended to Riemannian manifolds by considering the following generalization of the m-energy functional

    12T0Dmxdtm2dt.

    This variational problem gives rise to a notion of odd-degree Riemannian polynomials, for which, in general, property A fails, even when the curvature is constant.

    To extend the Riemannian cubic problem we formulate the following fourth-order variational problem.

    Consider the functional J defined by

    J(x)=12T0Γ(x)2dt. (3.13)

    The Riemannian heptic problem (P) consists in finding the curves minimizing the functional J among the set Ω of all C3-piecewise smooth curves x satisfying the boundary conditions

    x(0)=x0,x(T)=x1, (3.14)

    and

    Djxdtj(0)=v0j,Djxdtj(T)=v1j,1j3, (3.15)

    where vijTxiM, with i=0,1 and 1j3.

    The variational problem (P) can be formulated as an optimal control problem as follows:

    minUT012U,Udt, (3.16)

    subject to the control system

    dxdt=V,DVdt=Z,DZdt=W,DWdt+R(Z,V)V=U, (3.17)

    and the boundary conditions

    x(0)=x0,x(T)=x1,V(0)=v01,V(T)=v11,Z(0)=v02,Z(T)=v12,W(0)=v03,W(T)=v13. (3.18)

    When studying optimal control problems for these higher-order dynamic systems, we encounter even higher-order bundles than in the Riemannian cubic problem.

    An admissible variation of the curve xΩ is a C3-piecewise smooth one-parameter variation

    α:(ϵ,ϵ)×[0,T]M(r,t)α(r,t)=αr(t),

    such that αrΩ, for all r(ϵ,ϵ), ϵ>0. The variational vector field X associated with an admissible variation α of x is given by

    X(t)=αr(0,t),t[0,T].

    Admissible variations of x give rise to the real vector space TxΩ of all the C3 piecewise smooth vector field X along x verifying the boundary conditions

    X(0)=0,X(T)=0, (3.19)

    and

    DjXdtj(0)=DjXdtj(T)=0,1j3. (3.20)

    The first variation δJ(x) of J at the curve x is the linear form on TxΩ defined by

    δJ(x)(X)=ddrJ(αr)|r=0,

    where α is an admissible variation of x with associated variational vector field X.

    Necessary conditions for xΩ to be a local minimizer of J follow from the Hamilton variational principle through the first variation of J at x,

    δJ(x)(X)=0,XTxΩ, (3.21)

    which gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equations for the problem (P).

    To obtain the first variation formula of J at x let us consider an admissible variation α of xΩ.

    First of all, we have to compute (D/r)Γ(α). To begin, note that, although we know from (2.1) that

    Drαt=Dtαr, (3.22)

    we need to use the curvature tensor R to measure how much the second covariant derivative (D/r)(D/t)Y is symmetric in r and t, for Y an arbitrary vector field along α. From (2.3), we know that

    DrDtYDtDrY=R(αr,αt)Y. (3.23)

    Making use of these tools to interchange the order of partial covariant derivatives, we obtain

    DrD2αt2=D2dt2αr+R(αr,αt)αt,DrD3αt3=D3t3αr+Dt(R(αr,αt)αt)+R(αr,αt)D2αt2,DrD4αt4=D4t4αr+D2t2(R(αr,αt)αt)+Dt(R(αr,αt)D2αt2)+R(αr,αt)D3αt3,Dr(R(D2αt2,αt)αt)=(αrR)(D2αt2,αt)αt+R(D2t2αr,αt)αt+R(R(αr,αt)αt,αt)αt+R(D2αt2,Dtαr)αt+R(D2αt2,αt)Dtαr,

    and, consequently,

    DrΓ(α)=D4t4αr+D2t2(R(αr,αt)αt)+Dt(R(αr,αt)D2αt2)+R(αr,αt)D3αt3,(αrR)(D2αt2,αt)αt+R(D2t2αr,αt)αt+R(R(αr,αt)αt,αt)αt+R(D2αt2,Dtαr)αt+R(D2αt2,αt)Dtαr.

    The previous identity allows to write (d/dr)J(αr) as follows:

    ddrJ(αr)=T0(D4t4αr+D2t2(R(αr,αt)αt)+Dt(R(αr,αt)D2αt2)+R(αr,αt)D3αt3+(αrR)(D2αt2,αt)αt+R(D2t2αr,αt)αt+R(R(αr,αt)αt,αt)αt+R(D2αt2,Dtαr)αt+R(D2αt2,αt)Dtαr,Γ(αr))dt.

    If we apply the properties of the curvature tensor, we see that

    ddrJ(αr)=T0(D4dt4αr+D2t2(R(αr,αt)αt)+Dt(R(αr,αt)D2αt2),Γ(αr)+αr,R(Γ(αr),D3αt3)αt+(αrR)(D2αt2,αt)αt,Γ(αr)+R(Γ(αr),αt)αt,D2t2αr+R(Γ(αr),αt)αt,R(αr,αt)αt2R(Γ(αr),αt)D2αt2,Dtαr+R(Γ(αr),D2αt2)αt,Dtαr)dt.

    Now, integrating by parts, one has

    ddrJ(αr)=li=1(D3t3αr,Γ(αr)D2t2αr,DtΓ(αr)+Ddtαr,D2t2Γ(αr)αr,D3t3Γ(αr)+Dt(R(αr,αt)αt),Γ(αr)R(αr,αt)αt,DtΓ(αr) +R(αr,αt)D2αt2,Γ(αr)+R(Γ(αr),αt)αt,DtαrDt(R(Γ(αr),αt)αt),αr2R(Γ(αr),αt)D2αt2,αr+R(Γ(αr),D2αt2)αt,αr)tit+i1
    +T0αr,D4t4Γ(αr)+R(D2t2Γ(αr),αt)αtR(DtΓ(αr),D2αt2)αt+R(Γ(αr),D3αt3)αt+(Γ(αr)R)(D2αt2,αt)αt(αtR)(Γ(αr),αt)D2αt2+(αtR)(Γ(αr),D2αt2)αt+D2t2(R(Γ(αr),αt)αt)+R(R(Γ(αr),αt)αt,αt)αt+2Dt(R(Γ(αr),αt)D2αt2)Dt(R(Γ(αr),D2αt2)αt)dt.

    When we take r=0, most of the terms above vanish due to the conditions (2.1) and the fact that both x and X are C3-piecewise smooth on [0,T]. Hence, the expression of δJ(x)(X) can be simplified as follows:

    δJ(x)(X)=l1i=1((D3Xdt3+Ddt(R(X,V)V)+2R(DVdt,V)X)t=ti,Γ(x(t+i))Γ(x(ti))+(D2Xdt2+R(X,V)V)t=ti,DΓdt(x(t+i)DΓdt(x(ti)DXdt(ti),(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t+i(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti+X(ti),Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+iDdt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti+T0X,D2dt2(D2t2Γ(x)+R(Γ(x),V)V)+R(D2dt2Γ(x)+R(Γ(x),V)V,V)V+Ddt(R(Γ(x),V)DVdt)+(Γ(x)R)(DVdt,V)VR(DdtΓ(x),DVdt)V+R(Γ(x),V)D2Vdt2+R(DVdt,V)DdtΓ(x)dt.

    Lemma 3. If α is an admissible variation of xΩ and X the variational vector field associated with α, then

    δJ(x)(X)=l1i=1((D3Xdt3+Ddt(R(X,V)V)+2R(DVdt,V)X)t=ti,Γ(x(t+i))Γ(x(ti))+(D2Xdt2+R(X,V)V)t=ti,DΓdt(x(t+i)DΓdt(x(ti)DXdt(ti),(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t+i(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti+X(ti),Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+iDdt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti)+T0X(t),Π(x(t))dt, (3.24)

    where

    Π(x)=D2dt2(D2t2Γ(x)+R(Γ(x),V)V)+R(D2dt2Γ(x)+R(Γ(x),V)V,V)V+Ddt(R(Γ(x),V)DVdt)+(Γ(x)R)(DVdt,V)VR(DdtΓ(x),DVdt)V+R(Γ(x),V)D2Vdt2+R(DVdt,V)DdtΓ(x). (3.25)

    Proposition 4. A necessary condition for the curve xΩ to be a local minimizer for the functional J over Ω is that x is smooth and satisfies

    Π(x)=0, (3.26)

    where Π(x) is given by (3.25).

    Proof. Suppose that x is a local minimizer of J over Ω. Then, by applying the Hamilton variational principle to J at x, we have δJ(x)(X)=0, XTxΩ (see (3.21)), and then the right-hand side of (3.24) is zero, for arbitrary XTxΩ.

    Let us first consider XTxΩ defined by

    X(t)=f(t)Π(x(t)),t[0,T],

    where Π(x) is the vector field along x given by (3.25) and f is a smooth real-valued function on [0,T] verifying f(k)(ti)=0, k=0,1,2,3, and f(t)>0, for t(ti1,ti), i=1,,l1. It follows from (3.24) and (3.21) that Π(x(t))=0 for t[0,T].

    To show that x is smooth, let us take the vector field XTxΩ so that

    X(ti)=Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+iDdt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti,DXdt(ti)=(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+i,(D2Xdt2+R(X,V)V)t=ti=DΓdt(x(t+i))DΓdt(x(ti)),(D3Xdt3+Ddt(R(X,V)V)+2R(DVdt,V)X)t=ti=Γ(x(ti))Γ(x(t+i)),

    for i=1,,l1. Thus, since x satisfies the Eq (3.26), it follows from (3.24) and (3.21) that

    0=δJ(x)(X)=l1i=1(Γ(x(t+i))Γ(x(ti))2+DΓdt(x(t+i)DΓdt(x(ti)2+(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t+i(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti2+Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+iDdt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti2),

    which implies that

    Γ(x(ti))=Γ(x(t+i)),DΓdt(x(t+i))=DΓdt(x(ti)),(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti=(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+i,Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=t+i=Ddt(D2Γ(x)dt2+R(Γ(x),V)V)t=ti,

    for i=1,,l1. Hence, Γ(x) is C3 on [0,T] and, consequently x is C7. Since x is a solution of the differential equation of eighth-order (3.26), it follows that the eighth-order covariant derivative of x can be written in terms of the covariant derivatives of order less than 8, so, in turn, the same argument can be used for covariant derivatives of any order. This leads us to conclude that x is smooth on [0,T].

    Definition 5. A curve x in M is said to be a Riemannian heptic if x is a smooth solution of the differential Eq (3.26).

    Let G be a connected and compact Lie group endowed with a bi-invariant Riemannian metric , and let g be its Lie algebra. We denote by Lx:GG the left-translation map by an element x of G. The left-invariant vector field associated with an element u of g is uL:xTeLxu, where TeLx is the differential of Lx at e and e the identity of G. The Levi-Civita connection induced by , is completely determined by its restriction g to g via left-translations. The bilinear map g:g2g is given by

    guz=12[u,z], (4.1)

    for each u and zg, and we have

    uLzL=(guz)L. (4.2)

    When we restrict the curvature tensor R of G to the Lie algebra g of G, we obtain the map R:g2g defined by

    R(u,z)w=14[[u,z],w]. (4.3)

    The differential of the curvature tensor R is constant and equal to zero.

    In addition, the inner product on g corresponding to the Riemannian metric verifies

    [u,z],w=u,[z,w]. (4.4)

    The property (4.4) can be described by means of the adjoint representation ad of g, that is, by saying that the map adz is skew-adjoint, for zg.

    We denote by and the musical isomorphisms between g and its dual g defined by the inner product on g. Thus, we know that

    (aduz)=aduz,u,zg.

    More details about bi-invariant metrics on Lie groups can be found in Milnor [27] and Kobayashi and Nomizu [30].

    Let x be a curve in G and V the velocity vector field of x. The lift x1 of the curve x to TG can be reduced to the Lie algebra g by considering the curve v given by V=TeLxv. The reduced curve v is described, with respect to a given basis B={e1,,en} of g, by v=ni=1viei, where v1,,vn can be seen as pseudo-velocities of x with respect to the basis B. The j-order derivative of the curve v is given by v(j)=ni=1v(j)iei, j1 (and is independent of the chosen basis).

    If x is a Riemannian heptic on G then we call Lie hexic to the corresponding reduced curve v in g. To give a characterization of Lie hexics on a Lie algebra we need to compute the expression of TxLx1Π(x).

    Higher-order covariant derivatives of the curve x can be written in terms of the curve v and its derivatives, as we can see for the first two covariant derivatives of the velocity vector field V below.

    DVdt=TeLxv,D2Vdt2=TeLx(v(2)+12[v,v]).

    Similar formulas can be obtained for the higher-order covariant derivatives of a vector field Y along x. When we consider the reduced curve y of Y in g, it follows that

    D2Ydt2+R(Y,V)V=TeLx(y(2)+12[v,y]+[v,y]).

    By taking Y=(D/dt)V, we obtain an expression for Γ(x),

    Γ(x)=TeLx(v(3)+[v,v(2)]).

    This gives rise to the reduced equation of Riemannian cubics,

    v(3)=[v(2),v], (4.5)

    and leads to the definition of Lie quadratics proposed by Noakes in [31].

    We can also derive

    Σ(x)=D2dt2Γ(x)+R(Γ(x),V)VandΔ(x)=D2dt2Σ(x)+R(Σ(x),V)V,

    in terms of the curve v and its derivatives and, after many technical entedious computations, it is possible to obtain the reduction of the Eq (3.26) to the Lie algebra g.

    Since the Lagrangian function L of the variational problem (P) is left-invariant, this reduction gives rise to the Euler-Poincaré equation for the reduced Lagrangian function l. Therefore, we chose to obtain the reduced equations by applying a variational principle to the Lagrangian function l as we are showing in the next subsection.

    The Lagrangian function L associated with the Riemannian heptic problem (P) on the Lie group G is invariant with respect to the lift of the left translation. Under these conditions, we can define the reduced Lagrangian l:g4IR given by the restriction of L to the Lie algebra g4. If we apply a variational principle to the Lagrangian function l we obtain the Euler-Poincaré equations for the problem (P).

    Let x be a curve in G. The corresponding reduced curve v in the Lie algebra g can be lifted to g4 by considering (v;v(1);v(2);v(3)). If we denote the partial functional derivative of l with respect to zg by (δl)/(δz), then we have that the curve x in G is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations (3.26) iff the reduced curve v in g is a solution of the Euler-Poincaré equations

    (tadv)(δlδvtδlδ˙v+2t2δlδv(2)3t3δlδv(3))=0.

    The restriction of L to g4 is defined as follows:

    l:g4IR;(v,˙v,v(2),v(3))12v(3)+[v,v(2)]2.

    To obtain the Euler-Poincaré equations, we begin by deriving the partial functional derivatives

    δlδv=[v(2),v(3)]adv(2)[v,v(2)],δlδ˙v=0,δlδv(2)=[v(3),v]adv[v,v(2)],δlδv(3)=v(3)+[v,v(2)].

    Then, it follows that

    δlδvtδlδ˙v+2t2δlδv(2)3t3δlδv(3)=adv(2)[v,v(2)]+2[v(5),v]+5[v(4),˙v]+2[v(3),v(2)]adv(2)[v,v(2)]2ad˙v[˙v,v(2)]2ad˙v[v,v(3)]2adv[˙v,v(3)]adv[v,v(4)]v(6). (4.6)

    If we apply the dual of the adjoint representation at v to the expression given in (4.6), we conclude that

    adv(δlδvtδlδ˙v+2t2δlδv(2)3t3δlδv(3))=2adv[v(5),v]+5adv[v(4),˙v]+2adv[v(3),v(2)]advv(6)advadv(2)[v,v(2)]advadv(2)[v,v(2)]2advad˙v[˙v,v(2)]2advad˙v[v,v(3)]2advadv[˙v,v(3)]advadv[v,v(4)]. (4.7)

    On the other hand, deriving (4.6) with respect to time, we obtain

    t(δlδvtδlδ˙v+2t2δlδv(2)3t3δlδv(3))=2adv(3)[v,v(2)]4adv(2)[˙v,v(2)]4adv(2)[v,v(3)]+2[v(6),v]+7[v(5),˙v]+7[v(4),v(2)]6ad˙v[˙v,v(3)]3ad˙v[v,v(4)]2adv[v(2),v(3)]3adv[˙v,v(4)]adv[v,v(5)]v(7). (4.8)

    Finally, combining Eqs (4.7) and (4.8) and applying the isomorphism , we get the Euler-Poincaré equation for l as follows:

    v(7)=3[v(6),v]+7[v(5),˙v]+7[v(4),v(2)]+4[v(3),[v,v(2)]]+4[v(2),[˙v,v(2)]]+2[v(2),[v,v(3)]]+6[˙v,[˙v,v(3)]]+3[˙v,[v,v(4)]]+[v,[v(5),v]]+5[v,[v(4),˙v]]+2[[[v,v(2)],v(2)],v]+2[[[˙v,v(2)],˙v],v]+2[[[v,v(3)],˙v],v]+2[[[˙v,v(3)],v],v]+[[[v,v(4)],v],v]. (4.9)

    Therefore, Lie hexics are the smooth curves on the Lie algebra g that are solutions of the Euler-Poincaré equation (4.9). Consequently, solving Eq (4.9) together with equation dx/dt=TeLxv leads to Riemannian heptics on G.

    In this paper, we study a fourth-order extension of the geodesic problem that appears as the most natural extension of the Riemannian cubic problem. We derive the Euler-Lagrange equation for this variational problem and obtain the concept of Riemannin heptics as a seventh-degree generalization of Riemannian cubics. These curves may, in fact, be seen as the best approximations to Riemannian cubics when the existence of cubics is conditioned by boundary or interpolation conditions, and reduce naturally to Riemannian cubics when such curves exist. From this point of view, Riemannian heptics are a more conceptual generalization of Euclidean heptic polynomials to Riemannian manifolds than the geometrical polynomials defined in [18,19,20].

    When we specialized the problem to Lie groups, we obtained an invariant variational problem, which allowed us to derive the corresponding Euler-Poincaré equation (4.9). Hence, this equation characterizes the Lie hexics and, consequently, the Riemannian heptics on Lie groups.

    Furthermore, this study shows the advantages of the Euler-Poincaré reduction. This method allows us to significantly simplify the calculations that we would have to do to reduce the Euler-Lagrange equation to the Lie algebra. In fact, it was possible to avoid deriving all the terms with four Lie brackets that would appear if we applied the reduction directly to the Euler-Lagrange equation (3.26) (see Subsection 4.2).

    The authors declare that they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    This work was partially supported by the Centre for Mathematics of the University of Coimbra (funded by the Portuguese Government through FCT/MCTES, DOI 10.54499/UIDB/00324/2020).

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.



    [1] I. T. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis, Springer, New York, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98835
    [2] T. F. Cox, M. A. A. Cox, Multidimensional Scaling, 2nd eddition, Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420036121
    [3] J. B. Tenenbaum, V. de Silva, J. C. Langford, A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction, Science, 290 (2000), 2319–2323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5500.2319 doi: 10.1126/science.290.5500.2319
    [4] S. T. Roweis, L. K. Saul, Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding, Science, 290 (2000), 2323–2326. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5500.2323 doi: 10.1126/science.290.5500.2323
    [5] R. R. Coifman, S. Lafon, A. B. Lee, M. Maggioni, B. Nadler, F. Warner, et al., Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: Multiscale methods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102 (2005), 7432–7437. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500896102
    [6] M. Ceriotti, G. A. Tribello, M. Parrinello, Simplifying the representation of complex free-energy landscapes using sketch-map, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108 (2011), 13023–13028. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108486108 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108486108
    [7] J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.
    [8] F. R. Kschischang, B. J. Frey, H. A. Loeliger, Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 47 (2001), 498–519. https://doi.org/10.1109/18.910572 doi: 10.1109/18.910572
    [9] D. Koller, N. Friedman, Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
    [10] H. Fu, X. Shao, W. Cai, C. Chipot, Taming rugged free energy landscapes using an average force, Acc. Chem. Res., 52 (2019), 3254–3264. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00473 doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00473
    [11] O. Valsson, P. Tiwary, M. Parrinello, Enhancing important fluctuations: Rare events and metadynamics from a conceptual viewpoint, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 67 (2016), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-040215-112229 doi: 10.1146/annurev-physchem-040215-112229
    [12] G. Bussi, A. Laio, Using metadynamics to explore complex free-energy landscapes, Nat. Rev. Phys., 2 (2020), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0153-0 doi: 10.1038/s42254-020-0153-0
    [13] D. Ramachandram, G. W. Taylor, Deep multimodal learning: A survey on recent advances and trends, IEEE Signal Process Mag., 34 (2017), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.2738401 doi: 10.1109/MSP.2017.2738401
    [14] C. Dellago, P. G. Bolhuis, P. L. Geissler, Transition path sampling, in Advances in Chemical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, (2002), 1–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471231509.ch1
    [15] J. Rogal, P. G. Bolhuis, Multiple state transition path sampling, J. Chem. Phys., 129 (2008), 224107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3029696 doi: 10.1063/1.3029696
    [16] P. Buijsman, P. G. Bolhuis, Transition path sampling for non-equilibrium dynamics without predefined reaction coordinates, J. Chem. Phys., 152 (2020), 044108. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5130760 doi: 10.1063/1.5130760
    [17] R. J. Trudeau, Introduction to Graph Theory, Dover Publications, New York, 1993.
    [18] S. L. Lauritzen, D. J. Spiegelhalter, Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B, 50 (1988), 157–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1988.tb01721.x doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1988.tb01721.x
    [19] F. V. Jensen, S. L. Lauritzen, K. G. Olesen, Bayesian updating in causal probabilistic networks by local computations, Comput. Statist. Quart., 5 (1990), 269–282.
    [20] V. Gogate, R. Dechter, A complete anytime algorithm for treewidth, in Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Arlington, Virginia, (2004), 201–208.
    [21] E. H. Bachoore, H. L Bodlaender, A branch and bound algorithm for exact, upper, and lower bounds on treewidth, in Algorithmic Aspects in Information and Management, AAIM 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, (2006), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/11775096_24
    [22] T. J. Ottosen, J. Vomlel, All roads lead to rome–new search methods for the optimal triangulation problem, Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, 53 (2012), 1350–1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2012.06.006
    [23] C. Li, M. Ueno, An extended depth-first search algorithm for optimal triangulation of bayesian networks, Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, 80 (2017), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2016.09.012
    [24] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, Turbo Codes, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471219282.eot346
    [25] J. Gonzalez, Y. Low, C. Guestrin, Parallel splash belief propagation, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 1 (2009), 1–48.
    [26] J. S. Yedidia, W. T. Freeman, Y. Weiss, Generalized belief propagation, in NIPS'00: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Neural Information Processing System, (2000), 668–674.
    [27] M. P. Kumar, P. H. S. Torr, Fast memory-efficient generalized belief propagation, in Computer Vision–ECCV 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, (2006), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/11744085_35
    [28] S. Y. Chen, H. Tong, Z. Wang, S. Liu, M. Li, B. Zhang, Improved generalized belief propagation for vision processing, Math. Probl. Eng., 2011 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/416963
    [29] J. Ortiz, T. Evans, A. J. Davison, A visual introduction to gaussian belief propagation, arXiv preprint, (2021), arXiv: 2107.02308. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02308
    [30] P. Tian, The repetitive local sampling and the local distribution theory, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 12 (2021), e1588. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1588 doi: 10.1002/wcms.1588
    [31] X. Wang, S. Ramirez-Hinestrosa, J. Dobnikar, D. Frenkel, The lennard-jones potential: When (not) to use it, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 22 (2020), 10624–10633. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9cp05445f doi: 10.1039/c9cp05445f
    [32] B. R. Brooks, C. L. Brooks, A. D. Mackerell, L. Nilsson, R. J. Petrella, B. Roux, et al., CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program, J. Comput. Chem., 30 (2009), 1545–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21287 doi: 10.1002/jcc.21287
    [33] D. A. Case, T. E. Cheatham, T. Darden, H. Gohlke, R. Luo, K. M. Merz, et al., The amber biomolecular simulation programs, J. Comput. Chem., 26 (2005), 1668–1688. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20290 doi: 10.1002/jcc.20290
    [34] D. Van Der Spoel, E. Lindahl, B. Hess, G. Groenhof, A. E. Mark, H. J. Berendsen, Gromacs: Fast, flexible, and free, J. Comput. Chem., 26 (2005), 1701–1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20291
    [35] R. H. French, V. A. Parsegian, R. Podgornik, R. F. Rajter, A. Jagota, J. Luo, et al., Long range interactions in nanoscale science, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82 (2010), 1887–1944. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1887 doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1887
    [36] A. Y. Toukmaji, J. A. Board, Ewald summation techniques in perspective: A survey, Comput. Phys. Commun., 95 (1996), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(96)00016-1 doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(96)00016-1
    [37] C. Pan, Z. Hu, Rigorous error bounds for ewald summation of electrostatics at planar interfaces, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 10 (2014), 534–542. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct400839x doi: 10.1021/ct400839x
    [38] X. Cao, P. Tian, Molecular free energy optimization on a computational graph, RSC Adv., 11 (2021), 12929–12937. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ra01455b doi: 10.1039/d1ra01455b
    [39] X. Cao, P. Tian, "Dividing and conquering" and "caching" in molecular modeling, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 22 (2021), 5053.
    [40] Z. Wang, D. W. Scott, Nonparametric density estimation for high-dimensional data–algorithms and applications, WIREs Comput. Stat., 11 (2019), e1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1461 doi: 10.1002/wics.1461
    [41] Q. Liu, J. Xu, R. Jiang, W. H. Wong, Density estimation using deep generative neural networks, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 118 (2021), e2101344118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101344118 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2101344118
    [42] H. Zhang, Z. Bei, W. Xi, M. Hao, Z. Ju, K. M. Saravanan, et al., Evaluation of residue-residue contact prediction methods: From retrospective to prospective, PLoS Comput. Biol., 17 (2021), e1009027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009027 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009027
    [43] Y. Q. Gao, An integrate-over-temperature approach for enhanced sampling, J. Chem. Phys., 128 (2008), 064105. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2825614 doi: 10.1063/1.2825614
    [44] L. Yang, C. W. Liu, Q. Shao, J. Zhang, Y. Q. Gao, From thermodynamics to kinetics: Enhanced sampling of rare events, Acc. Chem. Res., 48 (2015), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar500267n doi: 10.1021/ar500267n
    [45] R. C. Bernardi, M. C. R. Melo, K. Schulten, Enhanced sampling techniques in molecular dynamics simulations of biological systems, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1850 (2015), 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.10.019 doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.10.019
    [46] J. Comer, J. C. Gumbart, J. Hénin, T. Lelièvre, A. Pohorille, C. Chipot, The adaptive biasing force method: everything you always wanted to know but were afraid to ask, J. Phy. Chem. B, 119 (2015), 1129–1151. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp506633n doi: 10.1021/jp506633n
    [47] V. Mlynsky, G. Bussi, Exploring RNA structure and dynamics through enhanced sampling simulations, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 49 (2018), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2018.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.01.004
    [48] Y. I. Yang, Q. Shao, J. Zhang, L. Yang, Y. Q. Gao, Enhanced sampling in molecular dynamics, J. Chem. Phys., 151 (2019), 070902. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5109531 doi: 10.1063/1.5109531
    [49] W. Tschöp, K. Kremer, J. Batoulis, T. Bürger, O. Hahn, Simulation of polymer melts. I. Coarse-graining procedure for polycarbonates, Acta Polym., 49 (1998), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1521-4044(199802)49:2/3<61::Aid-apol61>3.0.Co;2-v doi: 10.1002/(sici)1521-4044(199802)49:2/3<61::Aid-apol61>3.0.Co;2-v
    [50] H. Chan, M. J. Cherukara, B. Narayanan, T. D. Loeffler, C. Benmore, S. K. Gray, et al., Machine learning coarse grained models for water, Nat. Commun., 10 (2019), 379. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08222-6 doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08222-6
    [51] F. Noe, A. Tkatchenko, K. R. Muller, C. Clementi, Machine learning for molecular simulation, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 71 (2020), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-042018-052331 doi: 10.1146/annurev-physchem-042018-052331
    [52] P. Gkeka, G. Stoltz, A. B. Farimani, Z. Belkacemi, M. Ceriotti, J. D. Chodera, et al., Machine learning force fields and coarse-grained variables in molecular dynamics: Application to materials and biological systems, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 16 (2020), 4757–4775. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00355 doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00355
    [53] J. Behler, Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations, J. Chem. Phys., 145 (2016), 170901. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4966192 doi: 10.1063/1.4966192
    [54] M. Ceriotti. Unsupervised machine learning in atomistic simulations, between predictions and understanding, J. Chem. Phys, 150 (2019), 150901. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5091842 doi: 10.1063/1.5091842
    [55] A. Lunghi, S. Sanvito, A unified picture of the covalent bond within quantum-accurate force fields: From organic molecules to metallic complexes' reactivity, Sci. Adv., 5 (2019), eaaw2210. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2210 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw2210
    [56] T. Mueller, A. Hernandez, C. Wang, Machine learning for interatomic potential models, J. Chem. Phys., 152 (2020), 050902. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5126336 doi: 10.1063/1.5126336
    [57] Z. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Ma, Clustering of cancer attributed networks by dynamically and jointly factorizing multi-layer graphs, IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf., 19 (2022), 2737–2748. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2021.3090586 doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3090586
    [58] X. Gao, X. Ma, W. Zhang, J. Huang, H. Li, Y. Li, et al., Multi-view clustering with self-representation and structural constraint, IEEE Trans. Big Data, 8 (2022), 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbdata.2021.3128906 doi: 10.1109/tbdata.2021.3128906
    [59] W. Wu, X. Ma, Network-based structural learning nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm for clustering of scrna-seq data, IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf., 20 (2023), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2022.3161131 doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2022.3161131
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1453) PDF downloads(46) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog