Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG] Incorrect dipole prediction with LAMMPS of new version #1381

Closed
Yi-FanLi opened this issue Dec 24, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1382
Closed

[BUG] Incorrect dipole prediction with LAMMPS of new version #1381

Yi-FanLi opened this issue Dec 24, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1382
Assignees
Labels
bug critical Critical bugs that may break the results without messages

Comments

@Yi-FanLi
Copy link
Collaborator

Yi-FanLi commented Dec 24, 2021

Summary

The following tasks give inconsistent results:
Task1: Compute dipole with DeePMD-kit python interface;
Task2: Compute dipole with DeePMD-kit C++ interface + LAMMPS (Oct29, 2020);
Task3: Compute dipole with DeePMD-kit C++ interface + LAMMPS (Sep20, 2021).

Task1 and Task2 give consistent predictions, but the result of Task3 is different from the others.

Deepmd-kit version, installation way, input file, running commands, error log, etc.

DeePMD-kit: v2.0.3 (commit 2223ff3), built from source.
LAMMPS versions:
Task2: commit 31f9f17
Task3: commit 584943f
The input scripts and the model are given in the attachment.
dipole_bug_reproduce.tar.gz

Task1 and Task2 predict the dipole of the first atom to be -0.0582886 0.0159309 -0.0381824, while Task3 predict the dipole of the first atom to be -0.0637354 0.0123003 -0.0416543.

Steps to Reproduce
For Task1, simply run the python script with
python run.py

The predicted dipole is in dipole.raw.

For Task2 and Task3, run the lammps task with
lmp_mpi -echo screen -in in.lammps >> output
The predicted dipole is in water.dump.

@Yi-FanLi Yi-FanLi added the bug label Dec 24, 2021
@njzjz
Copy link
Member

njzjz commented Dec 24, 2021

I am wondering it is the same bug as #1109... Could you try to uncomment source/lmp/compute_deeptensor_atom.cpp#L73?

// neighbor->requests[irequest]->full = 1;

@Yi-FanLi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I commented Line 73 and recompiled DeePMD-kit and LAMMPS. Now it gives the consistent results with the other test cases.

Yi-FanLi added a commit to Yi-FanLi/deepmd-kit that referenced this issue Dec 24, 2021
Yi-FanLi added a commit to Yi-FanLi/deepmd-kit that referenced this issue Dec 24, 2021
@njzjz njzjz closed this as completed Dec 24, 2021
wanghan-iapcm pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 15, 2022
…dplr (#1637)

* explicitly set neighbor request to full in compute deeptensor/atom to fix bug #1381

* Corrected the pppm_dplr forward communication for ik differentiation mode at LAMMPS version >= 20210831.
@njzjz njzjz added the critical Critical bugs that may break the results without messages label Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug critical Critical bugs that may break the results without messages
Projects
None yet
2 participants