Speeding up particle simulation

In summary, the conversation discusses a program that simulates the interactions between particles in a 2D or 3D space. The current program has a complexity of O(n^2) and is too slow for real-time simulation. The person is considering using an octree or quadtree to approximate the interactions and improve the complexity to O(n). They also discuss ways to optimize the code and algorithm, such as using a vector math library and minimizing expensive math operations. Additionally, they mention using a distance limit for calculating interactions and potentially implementing a K-D tree for finding nearest neighbors efficiently. The conversation ends with the suggestion of using neighbor lists for identifying particles within a certain radius.
  • #1
fargoth
320
6
Hi, I've got a list of particles (where each particle has it's coordinates in space and velocity)
these particles can interact with each-other ([tex]f=\frac{a}{r^4}-\frac{b}{r^8}[/tex])
(i'll add 6 - 12 soon too)
anyway, as it is now, the program has a complexity of [tex]O(\frac{n(n-1)}{2})[/tex]
because every pair has to be calculated to get the force.

the problem is - its too slow for realtime simulation - and i want it to be interactive (changing the temperature, zooming in and out, etc.)

so, i started thinking about approximations i could do to make it work with O(n), and still get good results...
I think calculating the force for near neighbors is enough - but then i need a quick way to know who those neighbors are for a given particle (in less then O(n)).

I thought i'd use an octree (for 3D case) or quadtree (for 2D case), but i can't think of a way to maintain it - because the particles are always moving from place to place... i need to rebuild it each time...

I hope i was clear enough.. my question is - do you think my approach is the best one?
do you have any suggestion as to how to maintain the tree, or alternatively use a better approximation?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
  • #3
don't forget to optimise the code as well as the algorithm, this way you can squeeze the most out of which ever algorithm you choose (algorithmic optimisation is more important in general though)

use a vector math library if possible as it might optimise to use threads and simd instruction

also try to reduce divisions and other expensive math operations, e.g. to calculate f:

var = 1 / r*r;
var = var * var;
f = a * var;
var = var * var;
f = f - b * var;

3 multiplications is faster than 2 calls to power functions and there is only one division, the other has been exchanged for 2 multiplications in essence...

you can optimise further by accumulating the force from all of the particles before moving each one, you can remove one of the multiplies if you use 1/r^4 - (b/a)/r^8 as well, then multiply the total force by a afterwards (calculate b/a once in a variable)

in the inner loop, don't take the square root of r if possible, since you probably use its square a lot, you might be able to get away with it.

another simple trick is to not count distant particles. you are calculating r in the inner loop, if you do this first you can early out if it is above some value, gives the same effect as rounding small values to zero.

if precision doesn't matter much then use only 32-bit floats for a minor performance gain.

hope this helps.
 
  • #4
Jheriko said:
don't forget to optimise the code as well as the algorithm, this way you can squeeze the most out of which ever algorithm you choose (algorithmic optimisation is more important in general though)

use a vector math library if possible as it might optimise to use threads and simd instruction

also try to reduce divisions and other expensive math operations, e.g. to calculate f:

var = 1 / r*r;
var = var * var;
f = a * var;
var = var * var;
f = f - b * var;

3 multiplications is faster than 2 calls to power functions and there is only one division, the other has been exchanged for 2 multiplications in essence...

you can optimise further by accumulating the force from all of the particles before moving each one, you can remove one of the multiplies if you use 1/r^4 - (b/a)/r^8 as well, then multiply the total force by a afterwards (calculate b/a once in a variable)

in the inner loop, don't take the square root of r if possible, since you probably use its square a lot, you might be able to get away with it.

another simple trick is to not count distant particles. you are calculating r in the inner loop, if you do this first you can early out if it is above some value, gives the same effect as rounding small values to zero.

if precision doesn't matter much then use only 32-bit floats for a minor performance gain.

hope this helps.

thank you very much.
I will spare one division in the inner loop thanks to you..

(EDIT: after testing to see what impact it has on the speed i can tell you that using multiplications instead of divisions doesn't help - on the contrary - on my system it gave me 5% penalty... and sqrtf is VERY efficient, if i use it in the inner loop i only lose about 5% performance)

i'm already using the distance limit you've suggested - but when i cool the system down, and everything is squeezed to liquid or solid - the distance limit includes them all - i could make my distance limit change according to temperature, but i think using an efficient algorithm for finding nearest neighbors will get me better accuracy, and it might even be a better...

i'm looking into K-D trees now... see if i can use it to find nearest neighbors efficiently.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
This is probably an order n problem- because there are no long range forces.

You only have to sum over interactions which are less than rmax apart. For instance- it might be that the simulation converges by summing over a sphere of ~100 particles around each target particle.

The problem is how to work out which particles are within the sphere. This can be done using neighbor lists.
 
  • #6
las3rjock said:

thanks, I've gone over the text.
I knew I'm in the right direction.
(using the adaptive nearest neighbor approach to get [tex]O(n log(n))[/tex])
but I'm having trouble implementing it... and the paper doesn't talk about implementation...
oh well, i guess I'll have to tackle it some more =)
 

1. How can we speed up particle simulation?

There are several techniques that can be used to speed up particle simulation. One common method is to reduce the number of particles in the simulation or to decrease the complexity of the particles. This can be achieved by using simplified models or approximations. Another approach is to optimize the code and algorithms used for the simulation, such as implementing parallel processing or using more efficient data structures.

2. Can hardware upgrades help with speeding up particle simulation?

Yes, hardware upgrades can have a significant impact on the speed of particle simulation. For example, using a graphics processing unit (GPU) instead of a central processing unit (CPU) can greatly improve the speed of simulations. Additionally, increasing the amount of RAM or using specialized hardware specifically designed for simulations can also help speed up the process.

3. Is there a trade-off between accuracy and speed in particle simulation?

Yes, there is often a trade-off between accuracy and speed in particle simulation. Increasing the accuracy of the simulation usually requires more calculations and therefore can slow down the simulation. However, using advanced techniques and algorithms can help balance this trade-off and achieve both accuracy and speed.

4. Are there any software tools or libraries that can aid in speeding up particle simulation?

Yes, there are several software tools and libraries available that are specifically designed for particle simulation and can help speed up the process. Some popular examples include NAMD, GROMACS, and LAMMPS. These tools provide optimized algorithms and allow for parallel processing, which can significantly improve the speed of simulations.

5. What are some potential challenges or limitations when trying to speed up particle simulation?

One potential challenge when trying to speed up particle simulation is the complexity of the particles being simulated. More complex particles may require more calculations, which can slow down the simulation. Additionally, increasing the speed of the simulation may also require advanced hardware or specialized software, which may not be easily accessible or affordable for all researchers. Finally, balancing accuracy and speed may also be a challenge, as sacrificing accuracy for speed may not always be desirable for certain research purposes.

Similar threads

  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
644
Replies
6
Views
714
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
827
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
792
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top