Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

GPU acceleration of hybrid functional calculations in the SPARC electronic structure code

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read GPU kernels make hybrid-functional DFT up to 80x cheaper in core-hours, cutting a 6,000-electron AIMD step to ~300 s on V100s.

desk verdict Solid GPU-acceleration paper with a genuine batch-Kronecker algorithmic contribution and credible speedups; lacks a GPU-vs-CPU accuracy check that should precede acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16572 v1 pith:67BJ5OWU submitted 2025-01-27 physics.comp-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xin Jing , Abhiraj Sharma , John E. Pask , Phanish Suryanarayana This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords GPUaccelerationhybridfunctionalsKroneckerproductsolverdensityfunctionaltheoryexactexchangeabinitiomoleculardynamicsNVIDIAV100real-spacefinitedifferences
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Hybrid functional DFT, which includes a portion of exact exchange, is typically one to two orders of magnitude more expensive than semilocal DFT and is the main obstacle to ab initio molecular dynamics with predictive accuracy. This paper claims that the bottleneck—solving thousands of Poisson-like linear systems for the exchange operator—can be moved onto GPUs by batching many right-hand sides through a Kronecker-product factorization of the Laplacian, and by implementing the adaptively compressed exchange operator construction and application with NVIDIA math kernels. On bulk molybdenum (HSE) and TiO2 slab (PBE0) AIMD benchmarks, the paper reports up to 8x speedup in node-hours and 80x in core-hours over CPU-only SPARC execution, with a V100 wall time near 300 seconds for a 432-atom metallic system with over 6,000 electrons. If correct, this makes hybrid functional AIMD practical on GPU clusters at a fraction of the previous allocation cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the batch Kronecker product formalism for solving $X = f(L) B$ simultaneously for many right-hand sides, where $L$ is the discrete Laplacian and $f(L)$ is $-4\pi L^{-1}$ for unscreened hybrids or $-4\pi L^{-1}(I - e^{-L/(16\pi\omega^2)})$ for screened hybrids. After diagonalizing $L$ through its 1D Kronecker factors, the solver stacks $n_c$ right-hand sides and applies $f(\Lambda)$ to all of them at once, so each system costs $6/n_c$ dense matrix-matrix multiplications instead of $4n_3+2$. This is what converts a sequential, small-matrix GPU workload into large batched GEMMs that the V100 can accelerate.

What would settle it

Run the same AIMD systems (for example Mo432 with HSE and the 384-atom TiO2 slab with PBE0) on identical V100 nodes in CPU-only and GPU modes, and compare total energies, Hellmann-Feynman forces, and a short trajectory segment; if the energies differ by more than $10^{-3}$ hartree/atom or the forces by more than the SCF tolerance, the GPU calculation is not the same calculation and the speedup claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a batch Kronecker product formalism turns the sequential solution of the many Poisson-like linear systems in hybrid functional calculations into a GPU-friendly dense linear algebra problem. For each linear system, the cost drops from $4n_3+2$ dense matrix-matrix multiplications in the original formalism to $6/n_c$ multiplications per system in the batch formalism, and even a single system benefits because the matrices involved are much larger. With $n_c=20$, the paper measures 2-4x per-system speedup over $n_c=1$ on a V100 and 24-51x over CPU-only execution for the Poisson test. Around this solver, the paper builds a modular GPU implementation of the ACE operator, with two-level ring communication for orbital redistribution, and demonstrates the resulting wall-time and core-hour speedups on the benchmark systems, identifying Alltoallv communication as the principal remaining scaling bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The reported speedups apply only if the GPU-accelerated execution reproduces the CPU-only SPARC results within the stated $10^{-3}$ hartree/atom chemical accuracy, but the paper reports only timing data and does not compare energies, forces, or trajectories between GPU and CPU runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the tested Mo and TiO2 systems, GPU execution reaches minimum MD step times of 76-337 s on V100 nodes, with up to 8x node-hour and 80x core-hour speedups over CPU-only SPARC.
  • GPU speedups increase with problem size and decrease with node count, so the largest wins come in modest-resource production runs rather than at extreme scale.
  • Replacing V100 nodes with H100 GPUs and NVLink raises the same calculations' speedup by 3.4-3.6x in the paper's tests, because Alltoallv communication over PCIe is the main scaling bottleneck.
  • The modular cuBLAS/cuSOLVER/NCCL design leaves CPUs idle during GPU work, so the paper identifies utilizing idle CPUs and extending to AMD and Intel GPUs as direct next steps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the batch Kronecker solver is a general tool: any calculation that solves many Poisson-like systems with a shared operator—response functions, RPA, or dielectric screening—could reuse the same batching to become GPU-friendly.
  • Beyond the paper, the 80x core-hour figure means allocation cost, not wall time, is where the largest practical savings appear; a group could run the same hybrid AIMD on a tenth of the previous core budget.
  • Beyond the paper, the absence of any GPU-vs-CPU comparison of energies, forces, or trajectories is the one check that would make or break the speedup numbers, since all timings assume the two codes solve the same problem.
  • Beyond the paper, the Alltoallv bottleneck suggests communication-avoiding orbital redistribution, rather than further kernel tuning, is the path to another order-of-magnitude wall-time gain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a GPU-accelerated version of the real-space SPARC electronic structure code for hybrid functional DFT. The authors introduce a batch variant of the Kronecker product-based linear solver that solves multiple Poisson-like systems simultaneously, then describe a modular, math-kernel-based implementation that offloads construction and application of the ACE operator to NVIDIA GPUs using cuBLAS, cuSOLVER, and NCCL. Benchmarks on bulk Mo (HSE) and TiO2 slabs (PBE0) report up to 8x speedup in node-hours and 80x in core-hours relative to CPU-only execution, with MD step times down to about 300 seconds for a 432-atom metallic Mo system on V100 GPUs. The paper also analyzes timing breakdowns and identifies Alltoallv communication as a key bottleneck.

Significance. If the speedups hold for calculations that are numerically equivalent to the CPU-only path, this is a practically important advance: hybrid functional AIMD, which is normally very costly, becomes affordable on GPU clusters. The batch Kronecker solver is a clean algorithmic contribution that avoids inefficient small matrix-matrix multiplications and should be transferable to other real-space codes. The strong-scaling study with detailed per-kernel timings is useful for the community, and the explicit identification of Alltoallv communication as the limiting factor provides a concrete direction for further optimization. The main weakness is that no accuracy comparison between GPU and CPU results is presented, so the central speedup claim currently rests on an unverified assumption of numerical equivalence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figs. 4-6] The performance section reports only wall-clock timings and speedups; no physical observable is compared between the GPU and CPU runs. The stated 1e-3 ha/atom chemical accuracy is a criterion for choosing grid spacings and SCF tolerances, not a verification that the GPU path produces the same energies, forces, or trajectories as the CPU path. Because the headline claims are speedups relative to CPU-only execution, the implied equivalence of the two calculations is load-bearing. Please add, for at least one Mo and one TiO2 system, a comparison of converged total energy, atomic forces, and preferably a short AIMD trajectory segment between GPU and CPU runs, with tolerances commensurate with the stated chemical accuracy.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 4] The strong-scaling timings appear to be based on single, unreplicated measurements. The text says the wall time per step is collected after about 10 AIMD steps once stabilized, but no error bars, standard deviations, or number of repeated runs are reported. Given that speedups of 3.4x-8.0x and MD step times are presented as precise numbers, the absence of any variance information makes it impossible to assess whether the observed differences are larger than run-to-run noise. Please provide at least three independent timings per configuration (mean and standard deviation), or explicitly state that single measurements are used and give evidence that the spread is negligible.
  3. [Section II.B, Eqs. (11)-(16)] The batch Kronecker formalism is derived algebraically and evaluated only in terms of wall-clock speed in Figs. 1-2; its numerical correctness is not demonstrated. The four data reorganizations in Eqs. (12)-(15) involve nontrivial index permutations, and an indexing or layout error could alter the computed solutions without affecting timing benchmarks. Since the ACE construction in Section III relies on these solutions, please verify the batch solver against the original non-batch Kronecker solver (e.g., report the maximum relative residual or the max-norm difference for the Poisson problems studied), or show that the ACE operator constructed via the batch path is numerically identical to that from the CPU path.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A] There is a typo: "using which the the solution" should read "using which the solution".
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a doubled period: "while holding the grid spacing constant..".
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (11a)] Equation (11a) appears to have unbalanced parentheses in the typeset form; please re-format it so the bracketing of the four reorganizations is unambiguous.
  4. [Data availability statement] The statement "available within the article and from the corresponding author upon reasonable request" makes independent reproduction of the timing results difficult; consider including input files, parameter settings, and a minimal benchmark script as supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported speedups are measured against CPU-only execution of the same code, and the batch solver is an algebraic extension of an externally published Kronecker formalism.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are wall-time, node-hour, and core-hour speedups of a GPU-accelerated hybrid-functional implementation relative to CPU-only SPARC execution. These claims are supported by measured timings in Section IV (Figs. 4-6), not by a quantity that was fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The batch Kronecker solver (Eqs. 9-16) is derived by algebraic reorganization of the earlier single-system Kronecker formalism (Eqs. 4-8), which is cited to Ref. [59], an independent prior algorithmic result; the derivation does not assume the speedups it later reports. Self-citations to the prior SPARC GPU work (Ref. [74]) are contextual: the present implementation extends that code, but the extension's correctness and performance are established by the timings shown, not by the citation itself. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The absence of GPU-versus-CPU comparisons of energies, forces, or trajectories is a validation gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the paper does not claim to derive those observables from the speedup data. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical constants or material parameters are fitted; the only data-picked number is the performance hyperparameter nc=20. The calculation depends on standard DFT numerical infrastructure (ACE, CheFSI, Pulay mixing, pseudopotentials) whose reliability is assumed. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Batch size nc = 20
    Selected from Fig. 1 performance benchmark where speedup stagnates at O(20); a performance hyperparameter, not a physics parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The discrete Laplacian on a uniform 3D grid admits the Kronecker product eigen-decomposition used in Eq. (6).
    Standard property of separable finite-difference operators; basis for the Kronecker solver in Sec. II A.
  • domain assumption The ACE operator exactly represents the exact exchange operator within the occupied subspace at each outer iteration.
    Adopted from Lin, JCTC 2016 (Ref. 47) and used in Sec. III; convergence and accuracy of ACE compression are assumed rather than re-derived.
  • domain assumption Chebyshev filtered subspace iteration with restarted periodic Pulay mixing converges to the self-consistent ground state.
    Standard eigensolver and SCF choices in SPARC; used in Sec. III without convergence analysis in this paper.
  • domain assumption The pseudopotentials, grid spacings, and SCF tolerances used in the benchmarks reach the stated chemical accuracy of 1e-3 ha/atom.
    Stated in Sec. IV; no convergence tests or accuracy verification are provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption cuBLAS, cuSOLVER, and NCCL routines produce numerically equivalent results to the CPU MKL and MPI implementations used in CPU-only runs.
    The paper relies on this for correctness of the GPU results, but reports no numerical comparison in Sec. IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GPU acceleration of hybrid functional calculations in the SPARC electronic structure code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67BJ5OWU

@misc{pith2026250116572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GPU acceleration of hybrid functional calculations in the SPARC electronic structure code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67BJ5OWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16572}
}
read the original abstract

We present a GPU-accelerated version of the real-space SPARC electronic structure code for performing hybrid functional calculations in generalized Kohn-Sham density functional theory. In particular, we develop a batch variant of the recently formulated Kronecker product-based linear solver for the simultaneous solution of multiple linear systems. We then develop a modular, math kernel based implementation for hybrid functionals on NVIDIA architectures, where computationally intensive operations are offloaded to the GPUs while the remaining workload is handled by the CPUs. Considering bulk and slab examples, we demonstrate that GPUs enable up to 8x speedup in node-hours and 80x in core-hours compared to CPU-only execution, reducing the time to solution on V100 GPUs to around 300 seconds for a metallic system with over 6,000 electrons, and significantly reducing the computational resources required for a given wall time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16572 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Time to solution per linear system (Poisson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time to solution per linear system (Poisson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Illustration of the two-level ring communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Strong scaling of the MD step time for GPU-accelerated hybrid functional calculations in SPARC on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Breakdown of the timings for GPU-accelerated and CPU-only SPARC execution on the minimum number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Breakdown of the timings for GPU-accelerated and CPU-only SPARC execution on the maximum number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kohn \ and\ author L

    author author W. Kohn \ and\ author L. J. \ Sham ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 140 ,\ pages A1133 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965

  2. [2]

    Hohenberg \ and\ author W

    author author P. Hohenberg \ and\ author W. Kohn ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 136 ,\ pages B864 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964

  3. [3]

    author author A. D. \ Becke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 140 ,\ pages 18A301 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  4. [4]

    Burke ,\ @noop journal journal J

    author author K. Burke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 136 ,\ pages 150901 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  5. [5]

    Kumar , author X

    author author S. Kumar , author X. Jing , author J. E. \ Pask , \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 31 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  6. [6]

    author author R. M. \ Martin ,\ @noop title Electronic structure: basic theory and practical methods \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  7. [7]

    Kresse \ and\ author J

    author author G. Kresse \ and\ author J. Furthm\"uller ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 54 ,\ pages 11169 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  8. [8]

    author author S. J. \ Clark , author M. D. \ Segall , author C. J. \ Pickard , author P. J. \ Hasnip , author M. I. \ Probert , author K. Refson , \ and\ author M. C. \ Payne ,\ @noop journal journal Zeitschrift f \"u r Krist. - Cryst. Mater. \ volume 220 ,\ pages 567 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Gonze , author J

    author author X. Gonze , author J. M. \ Beuken , author R. Caracas , author F. Detraux , author M. Fuchs , author G. M. \ Rignanese , author L. Sindic , author M. Verstraete , author G. Zerah , author F. Jollet , author M. Torrent , author A. Roy , author M. Mikami , author P....

    2002

  2. [10]

    Giannozzi , author S

    author author P. Giannozzi , author S. Baroni , author N. Bonini , author M. Calandra , author R. Car , author C. Cavazzoni , author D. Ceresoli , author G. L. \ Chiarotti , author M. Cococcioni , author I. Dabo , author A. D. \ Corso , author S. de Gironcoli , author S. Fabri...

    2009

  3. [11]

    Marx \ and\ author J

    author author D. Marx \ and\ author J. Hutter ,\ @noop journal journal Modern methods and algorithms of quantum chemistry \ volume 1 ,\ pages 301 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  4. [12]

    Ismail-Beigi \ and\ author T

    author author S. Ismail-Beigi \ and\ author T. A. \ Arias ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  5. [13]

    Gygi ,\ @noop journal journal IBM J.Res.Dev

    author author F. Gygi ,\ @noop journal journal IBM J.Res.Dev. \ volume 52 ,\ pages 137 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  6. [14]

    Valiev , author E

    author author M. Valiev , author E. Bylaska , author N. Govind , author K. Kowalski , author T. Straatsma , author H. V. \ Dam , author D. Wang , author J. Nieplocha , author E. Apra , author T. Windus , \ and\ author W. de Jong ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \...

    2010

  7. [15]

    author author A. D. \ Becke ,\ @noop journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 599 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989

  8. [16]

    author author J. R. \ Chelikowsky , author N. Troullier , \ and\ author Y. Saad ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 72 ,\ pages 1240 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  9. [17]

    Genovese , author A

    author author L. Genovese , author A. Neelov , author S. Goedecker , author T. Deutsch , author S. A. \ Ghasemi , author A. Willand , author D. Caliste , author O. Zilberberg , author M. Rayson , author A. Bergman , \ and\ author R. Schneider ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. ...

    2008

  10. [18]

    author author A. P. \ Seitsonen , author M. J. \ Puska , \ and\ author R. M. \ Nieminen ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 51 ,\ pages 14057 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  11. [19]

    author author S. R. \ White , author J. W. \ Wilkins , \ and\ author M. P. \ Teter ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 39 ,\ pages 5819 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989

  12. [20]

    \ Iwata , author D

    author author J.-I. \ Iwata , author D. Takahashi , author A. Oshiyama , author T. Boku , author K. Shiraishi , author S. Okada , \ and\ author K. Yabana ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 229 ,\ pages 2339 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  13. [21]

    Tsuchida \ and\ author M

    author author E. Tsuchida \ and\ author M. Tsukada ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 52 ,\ pages 5573 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  14. [22]

    Xu , author P

    author author Q. Xu , author P. Suryanarayana , \ and\ author J. E. \ Pask ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 149 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  15. [23]

    Suryanarayana , author K

    author author P. Suryanarayana , author K. Bhattacharya , \ and\ author M. Ortiz ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 230 ,\ pages 5226 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  16. [24]

    Suryanarayana , author V

    author author P. Suryanarayana , author V. Gavini , author T. Blesgen , author K. Bhattacharya , \ and\ author M. Ortiz ,\ @noop journal journal J. Mech. Phys. Solids \ volume 58 ,\ pages 256 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  17. [25]

    \ Skylaris , author P

    author author C.-K. \ Skylaris , author P. D. \ Haynes , author A. A. \ Mostofi , \ and\ author M. C. \ Payne ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 122 ,\ eid 084119 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  18. [26]

    author author D. R. \ Bowler , author R. Choudhury , author M. J. \ Gillan , \ and\ author T. Miyazaki ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Status Solidi B \ volume 243 ,\ pages 989 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  19. [27]

    Motamarri , author S

    author author P. Motamarri , author S. Das , author S. Rudraraju , author K. Ghosh , author D. Davydov , \ and\ author V. Gavini ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 246 ,\ pages 106853 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  20. [28]

    Castro , author H

    author author A. Castro , author H. Appel , author M. Oliveira , author C. A. \ Rozzi , author X. Andrade , author F. Lorenzen , author M. A. \ Marques , author E. Gross , \ and\ author A. Rubio ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Status Solidi B \ volume 243 ,\ pages 2465 ( year 2...

    2006

  21. [29]

    author author E. L. \ Briggs , author D. J. \ Sullivan , \ and\ author J. Bernholc ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 54 ,\ pages 14362 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  22. [30]

    \ Fattebert ,\ @noop journal journal J

    author author J.-L. \ Fattebert ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 149 ,\ pages 75 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  23. [31]

    Shimojo , author R

    author author F. Shimojo , author R. K. \ Kalia , author A. Nakano , \ and\ author P. Vashishta ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 140 ,\ pages 303 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  24. [32]

    Ghosh \ and\ author P

    author author S. Ghosh \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 212 ,\ pages 189 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  25. [33]

    author author T. A. \ Arias ,\ @noop journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 71 ,\ pages 267 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  26. [34]

    author author J. E. \ Pask \ and\ author P. A. \ Sterne ,\ @noop journal journal Model. Simul. Mat. Sci. Eng. \ volume 13 ,\ pages R71 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  27. [35]

    Lin , author J

    author author L. Lin , author J. Lu , author L. Ying , \ and\ author E. Weinan ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 231 ,\ pages 2140 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  28. [36]

    Xu , author A

    author author Q. Xu , author A. Sharma , author B. Comer , author H. Huang , author E. Chow , author A. J. \ Medford , author J. E. \ Pask , \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal SoftwareX \ volume 15 ,\ pages 100709 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  29. [37]

    Gavini , author S

    author author V. Gavini , author S. Baroni , author V. Blum , author D. R. \ Bowler , author A. Buccheri , author J. R. \ Chelikowsky , author S. Das , author W. Dawson , author P. Delugas , author M. Dogan , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Modelling and Simulation in Material...

    2023

  30. [38]

    \ Fattebert , author D

    author author J.-L. \ Fattebert , author D. Osei-Kuffuor , author E. W. \ Draeger , author T. Ogitsu , \ and\ author W. D. \ Krauss ,\ in\ @noop booktitle SC'16: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis \ ( or...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Seidl , author A

    author author A. Seidl , author A. G \"o rling , author P. Vogl , author J. A. \ Majewski , \ and\ author M. Levy ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 53 ,\ pages 3764 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  32. [40]

    author author P. M. \ Gill , author B. G. \ Johnson , author J. A. \ Pople , \ and\ author M. J. \ Frisch ,\ @noop journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 44 ,\ pages 319 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  33. [41]

    author author A. D. \ Becke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 1372 ( year 1993 a ) NoStop

    1993

  34. [42]

    author author A. D. \ Becke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 5648 ( year 1993 b ) NoStop

    1993

  35. [43]

    author author A. D. \ Becke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 1040 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  36. [44]

    Adamo \ and\ author V

    author author C. Adamo \ and\ author V. Barone ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 110 ,\ pages 6158 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  37. [45]

    Adamo , author G

    author author C. Adamo , author G. E. \ Scuseria , \ and\ author V. Barone ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 111 ,\ pages 2889 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  38. [46]

    author author A. J. \ Garza \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 4165 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  39. [47]

    Lin ,\ @noop journal journal J

    author author L. Lin ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 2242 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  40. [48]

    Gygi ,\ @noop journal journal Phys

    author author F. Gygi ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 102 ,\ pages 166406 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  41. [49]

    Damle , author L

    author author A. Damle , author L. Lin , \ and\ author L. Ying ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 11 ,\ pages 1463 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  42. [50]

    Damle , author L

    author author A. Damle , author L. Lin , \ and\ author L. Ying ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 334 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2017 a ) NoStop

    2017

  43. [51]

    Damle , author L

    author author A. Damle , author L. Lin , \ and\ author L. Ying ,\ @noop journal journal SIAM J. Sci. Comput. \ volume 39 ,\ pages B1178 ( year 2017 b ) NoStop

    2017

  44. [52]

    Hu , author L

    author author W. Hu , author L. Lin , \ and\ author C. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 5458 ( year 2017 a ) NoStop

    2017

  45. [53]

    Hu , author L

    author author W. Hu , author L. Lin , \ and\ author C. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 5420 ( year 2017 b ) NoStop

    2017

  46. [54]

    Mountjoy , author M

    author author J. Mountjoy , author M. Todd , \ and\ author N. J. \ Mosey ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 146 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  47. [55]

    \ Ko , author J

    author author H.-Y. \ Ko , author J. Jia , author B. Santra , author X. Wu , author R. Car , \ and\ author R. A. \ DiStasio Jr ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 3757 ( year 2020 a ) NoStop

    2020

  48. [56]

    \ Ko , author B

    author author H.-Y. \ Ko , author B. Santra , \ and\ author R. A. \ DiStasio Jr ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 17 ,\ pages 7789 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  49. [57]

    \ Ko , author M

    author author H.-Y. \ Ko , author M. F. \ Calegari Andrade , author Z. M. \ Sparrow , author J.-a. \ Zhang , \ and\ author R. A. \ DiStasio Jr ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 4182 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  50. [58]

    Subramanian , author S

    author author V. Subramanian , author S. Das , \ and\ author V. Gavini ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 20 ,\ pages 3566 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jing \ and\ author P

    author author X. Jing \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  52. [60]

    author author R. C. \ Walker \ and\ author A. W. \ Goetz ,\ @noop title Electronic Structure Calculations on Graphics Processing Units: From Quantum Chemistry to Condensed Matter Physics \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  53. [61]

    Gonze , author F

    author author X. Gonze , author F. Jollet , author F. A. \ Araujo , author D. Adams , author B. Amadon , author T. Applencourt , author C. Audouze , author J.-M. \ Beuken , author J. Bieder , author A. Bokhanchuk , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume...

    2016

  54. [62]

    Genovese , author M

    author author L. Genovese , author M. Ospici , author T. Deutsch , author J.-F. \ M \'e haut , author A. Neelov , \ and\ author S. Goedecker ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys \ volume 131 ,\ pages 034103 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  55. [63]

    Genovese , author B

    author author L. Genovese , author B. Videau , author D. Caliste , author J.-F. \ M \'e haut , author S. Goedecker , \ and\ author T. Deutsch ,\ @noop journal journal Electronic Structure Calculations on Graphics Processing Units: From Quantum Chemistry to Condensed Matter Phy...

    2016

  56. [64]

    Manninen \ and\ author P

    author author P. Manninen \ and\ author P. \"O ster ,\ @noop title Applied Parallel and Scientific Computing: 11th International Conference, PARA 2012, Helsinki, Finland ,\ Vol.\ volume 7782 \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2012

  57. [65]

    Maintz , author B

    author author S. Maintz , author B. Eck , \ and\ author R. Dronskowski ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 182 ,\ pages 1421 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  58. [66]

    Hacene , author A

    author author M. Hacene , author A. Anciaux-Sedrakian , author X. Rozanska , author D. Klahr , author T. Guignon , \ and\ author P. Fleurat-Lessard ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Chem \ volume 33 ,\ pages 2581 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  59. [67]

    Jia , author J

    author author W. Jia , author J. Wang , author X. Chi , \ and\ author L.-W. \ Wang ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 211 ,\ pages 8 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  60. [68]

    Andrade , author J

    author author X. Andrade , author J. Alberdi-Rodriguez , author D. A. \ Strubbe , author M. J. \ Oliveira , author F. Nogueira , author A. Castro , author J. Muguerza , author A. Arruabarrena , author S. G. \ Louie , author A. Aspuru-Guzik , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal J. ...

    2012

  61. [69]

    Wilkinson \ and\ author C.-K

    author author K. Wilkinson \ and\ author C.-K. \ Skylaris ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Chem \ volume 34 ,\ pages 2446 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  62. [70]

    Jia , author J

    author author W. Jia , author J. Fu , author Z. Cao , author L. Wang , author X. Chi , author W. Gao , \ and\ author L.-W. \ Wang ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys \ volume 251 ,\ pages 102 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  63. [71]

    Romero , author E

    author author J. Romero , author E. Phillips , author G. Ruetsch , author M. Fatica , author F. Spiga , \ and\ author P. Giannozzi ,\ in\ @noop booktitle International Workshop on Performance Modeling, Benchmarking and Simulation of High Performance Computer Systems \ ( organi...

    2018

  64. [72]

    author author W. P. \ Huhn , author B. Lange , author V. W.-z. \ Yu , author M. Yoon , \ and\ author V. Blum ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 254 ,\ pages 107314 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  65. [73]

    Das , author P

    author author S. Das , author P. Motamarri , author V. Subramanian , author D. M. \ Rogers , \ and\ author V. Gavini ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 280 ,\ pages 108473 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  66. [74]

    Sharma , author A

    author author A. Sharma , author A. Metere , author P. Suryanarayana , author L. Erlandson , author E. Chow , \ and\ author J. E. \ Pask ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 158 ,\ pages 204117 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  67. [75]

    author author L. E. \ Ratcliff , author A. Degomme , author J. A. \ Flores-Livas , author S. Goedecker , \ and\ author L. Genovese ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 30 ,\ pages 095901 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  68. [76]

    \ Ko , author J

    author author H.-Y. \ Ko , author J. Jia , author B. Santra , author X. Wu , author R. Car , \ and\ author R. A. \ DiStasio Jr. ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 16 ,\ pages 3757 ( year 2020 b ) NoStop

    2020

  69. [77]

    Kokott , author F

    author author S. Kokott , author F. Merz , author Y. Yao , author C. Carbogno , author M. Rossi , author V. Havu , author M. Rampp , author M. Scheffler , \ and\ author V. Blum ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ,\ pages 024112 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  70. [78]

    Zhang , author X

    author author B. Zhang , author X. Jing , author Q. Xu , author S. Kumar , author A. Sharma , author L. Erlandson , author S. J. \ Sahoo , author E. Chow , author A. J. \ Medford , author J. E. \ Pask , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Software Impacts \ volume 20 ,\ pages 1006...

    2024

  71. [79]

    author author C. F. \ Van Loan ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Appl. Math. \ volume 123 ,\ pages 85 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  72. [80]

    Sharma \ and\ author P

    author author A. Sharma \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 700 ,\ pages 156 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  73. [81]

    author author J. P. \ Perdew , author K. Burke , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 3865 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  74. [82]

    Zhou , author Y

    author author Y. Zhou , author Y. Saad , author M. L. \ Tiago , \ and\ author J. R. \ Chelikowsky ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 74 ,\ pages 066704 ( year 2006 a ) NoStop

    2006

  75. [83]

    Zhou , author Y

    author author Y. Zhou , author Y. Saad , author M. L. \ Tiago , \ and\ author J. R. \ Chelikowsky ,\ @noop journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 219 ,\ pages 172 ( year 2006 b ) NoStop

    2006

  76. [84]

    author author A. S. \ Banerjee , author P. Suryanarayana , \ and\ author J. E. \ Pask ,\ @noop journal journal Chemical Physics Letters \ volume 647 ,\ pages 31 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  77. [85]

    Suryanarayana , author P

    author author P. Suryanarayana , author P. P. \ Pratapa , \ and\ author J. E. \ Pask ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 234 ,\ pages 278 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  78. [86]

    author author S. J. \ Sahoo , author X. Jing , author P. Suryanarayana , \ and\ author A. J. \ Medford ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry C \ volume 126 ,\ pages 2121 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  79. [87]

    Minary , author G

    author author P. Minary , author G. J. \ Martyna , \ and\ author M. E. \ Tuckerman ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 2510 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  80. [88]

    Heyd , author G

    author author J. Heyd , author G. E. \ Scuseria , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 8207 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  81. [89]

    author author A. V. \ Krukau , author O. A. \ Vydrov , author A. F. \ Izmaylov , \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 224106 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  82. [90]

    author author J. P. \ Perdew , author M. Ernzerhof , \ and\ author K. Burke ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 9982 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  83. [91]

    author author H. J. \ Monkhorst \ and\ author J. D. \ Pack ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 13 ,\ pages 5188 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

    1976

  84. [92]

    Hamann ,\ @noop journal journal Phys

    author author D. Hamann ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 88 ,\ pages 085117 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  85. [93]

    author author M. F. \ Shojaei , author J. E. \ Pask , author A. J. \ Medford , \ and\ author P. Suryanarayana ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 283 ,\ pages 108594 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  86. [94]

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) high performance computing systems: https://hpc.llnl.gov/hardware/compute-platforms,\ @noop ( year accessed 2023-01-06 ) NoStop

    2023

  87. [95]

    Shah , author B

    author author S. Shah , author B. Zhang , author H. Huang , author J. E. \ Pask , author P. Suryanarayana , \ and\ author E. Chow ,\ @noop journal journal SC '24: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis \ ( y...

    2024

  88. [96]

    Suryanarayana , author P

    author author P. Suryanarayana , author P. P. \ Pratapa , author A. Sharma , \ and\ author J. E. \ Pask ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 224 ,\ pages 288 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.