ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/SupportingInfo.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/SupportingInfo.tex (file contents):
Revision 2641 by chrisfen, Mon Mar 20 15:43:13 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2660 by chrisfen, Thu Mar 23 05:59:41 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   %\documentclass[prb,aps,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4}
2   \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3 < \usepackage{endfloat}
3 > %\usepackage{endfloat}
4   \usepackage{amsmath}
5   \usepackage{amssymb}
6   \usepackage{epsf}
# Line 23 | Line 23
23  
24   \begin{document}
25  
26 < This document includes system based comparisons of the studied methods with smooth particle-mesh Ewald.  Each of the seven systems comprises it's own section and has it's own discussion and tabular listing of the results for the $\Delta E$, force and torque vector magnitude, and force and torque vector direction comparisons.
26 > This document includes individual system-based comparisons of the
27 > studied methods with smooth particle-mesh Ewald.  Each of the seven
28 > systems comprises its own section and has its own discussion and
29 > tabular listing of the results for the $\Delta E$, force and torque
30 > vector magnitude, and force and torque vector direction comparisons.
31  
32 < \section{\label{app-water}Liquid Water}
32 > \section{\label{app:water}Liquid Water}
33  
34 < 500 liquid state configurations were generated as described in the Methods section using the SPC/E model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:spceTabTMag}.
34 > 500 liquid state configurations were generated as described in the
35 > Methods section using the SPC/E model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The
36 > results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
37 > magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:spce}.  The force
38 > and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
39 > table \ref{tab:spceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
40 > switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
41 > investigated.
42   \begin{table}[htbp]
43     \centering
44 <   \caption{Regression results for the liquid water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
44 >   \caption{Regression results for the liquid water system. Tabulated
45 > results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes
46 > (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure
47 > Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
48 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
49 > \infty$).}      
50     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
51        \\
52        \toprule
# Line 50 | Line 66 | GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.
66      & 0.2 & 0.992 & 0.989 & 1.001 & 0.995 & 0.994 & 0.996 \\
67      & 0.3 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.982 & 0.987 \\
68   GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.700 \\
69 < RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                              
54 <
69 > RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                
70              \midrule
56
71   PC  &     & -1.647 & 0.000 & -0.127 & 0.000 & -0.979 & 0.000 \\
72   SP  & 0.0 & 0.735 & 0.368 & 0.813 & 0.537 & 0.865 & 0.659 \\
73      & 0.1 & 0.850 & 0.612 & 0.956 & 0.887 & 0.992 & 0.979 \\
# Line 65 | Line 79 | RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
79      & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
80   GSC &     & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
81   RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\          
68
82              \midrule
70
83   PC  &     & 2.387 & 0.000 & 0.183 & 0.000 & 1.282 & 0.000 \\
84   SP  & 0.0 & 0.847 & 0.543 & 0.904 & 0.694 & 0.935 & 0.786 \\
85      & 0.1 & 0.922 & 0.749 & 0.980 & 0.934 & 0.996 & 0.988 \\
# Line 81 | Line 93 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
93   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
94        \bottomrule
95     \end{tabular}
96 <   \label{tab:spceTabTMag}
96 >   \label{tab:spce}
97   \end{table}
98  
87 Unless there is a significant change in result in any of the further systems, we are going to neglect to comment on the pure cutoff (PC) system.  It is unreasonable to expect it to perform well in either energetic or dynamic studies using molecular groups, as evidenced in previous studies and in the results displayed here and in the rest of this paper.\cite{Adams79,Steinbach94} In contrast to PC, the {\sc sp} method shows variety in the results.  In the weakly and undamped cases, the results are poor for both the energy gap and dynamics, and this is not surprising considering the energy oscillations observed by Wolf {\it et al.} and the discontinuity in the forces discussed in the main portion of this paper.\cite{Wolf99} Long cutoff radii, moderate damping, or a combination of the two are required for {\sc sp} to perform respectably.  With a cutoff greater than 12 \AA\ and $\alpha$ of 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, {\sc sp} provides result right in line with SPME.
88
89 The {\sc sf} method displays energetic and dynamic results very similar to SPME under undamped to moderately damped conditions.  The quality seems to degrade in the overdamped case ($\alpha = 0.3 \AA^{-1}$) to values identical to {\sc sp}, so it is important not to get carried away with the use of damping.  A cutoff radius choice of 12 \AA\ or higher is recommended, primarily due to the energy gap results of interest in Monte Carlo (MC) calculations.
90
91 The group switched cutoff (GSC) and reaction field (RF) methods seem to have very similar behavior, with the preference given to RF for the improved energy gap results. Neither mimics the energetics of SPME as well as the {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, and the results seem relatively independent of cutoff radius.  The dynamics for both methods, however, are quite good.  Both methods utilize switching functions, which correct and discontinuities in the potential and forces, a possible reason for the improved results.  It is interesting to compare the PC with the GSC cases, and recognize the significant improvement that group based cutoffs and switching functions provide.  This as been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic effects.
92
99   \begin{table}[htbp]
100     \centering
101 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
101 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
102 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water
103 > system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
104 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
105 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
106 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
107     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
108        \\
109        \toprule
# Line 123 | Line 134 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 &
134        & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
135        \bottomrule
136     \end{tabular}
137 <   \label{tab:spceTabAng}
137 >   \label{tab:spceAng}
138   \end{table}
139  
140 < \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
140 > For the most parts, the water results appear to parallel the combined
141 > results seen in the discussion in the main paper.  There is good
142 > agreement with SPME in both energetic and dynamic behavior when using
143 > the {\sc sf} method with and without damping. The {\sc sp} method does
144 > well with an $\alpha$ around 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, particularly with cutoff
145 > radii greater than 12 \AA. The results for both of these methods also
146 > begin to decay as damping gets too large.
147  
148 + The pure cutoff (PC) method performs poorly, as seen in the main
149 + discussion section.  In contrast to the combined values, however, the
150 + use of a switching function and group based cutoffs really improves
151 + the results for these neutral water molecules.  The group switched
152 + cutoff (GSC) shows mimics the energetics of SPME more poorly than the
153 + {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the
154 + dynamics are quite good.  The switching functions corrects
155 + discontinuities in the potential and forces, leading to the improved
156 + results.  Such improvements with the use of a switching function has
157 + been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and it
158 + is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic
159 + effects.
160 +
161 + The reaction field (RF) method simply extends the results observed in
162 + the GSC case.  Both methods are similar in form (i.e. neutral groups,
163 + switching function), but RF incorporates an added effect from the
164 + external dielectric. This similarity translates into the same good
165 + dynamic results and improved energetic results.  These still fall
166 + short of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, but they
167 + display how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings
168 + (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve results.
169 +
170 + A final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a
171 + switching function also leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc
172 + sp} and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and
173 + torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}).  {\sc sp} shows significant
174 + narrowing of the angle distribution in the cases with little to no
175 + damping and only modest improvement for the ideal conditions ($\alpha$
176 + = 0.2 \AA${-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c} \geqslant 12$~\AA).  The {\sc sf}
177 + method simply shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff
178 + ranges of interest.  Group cutoffs and the switching function do
179 + nothing for cases were error is introduced by overdamping the
180 + potentials.
181 +
182 + \section{\label{app:ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
183 +
184 + In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered
185 + molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered. The
186 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
187 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and
188 + torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
189 + \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
190 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
191 + investigated.
192 +
193   \begin{table}[htbp]
194     \centering
195 <   \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
195 >   \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$
196 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
197 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
198 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
199 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
200 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
201     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
202        \\
203        \toprule
# Line 177 | Line 244 | RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
244   RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
245        \bottomrule
246     \end{tabular}
247 <   \label{tab:iceTab}
247 >   \label{tab:ice}
248   \end{table}
249  
250   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 213 | Line 280 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 &
280        & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
281        \bottomrule
282     \end{tabular}
283 <   \label{tab:iceTabAng}
283 >   \label{tab:iceAng}
284   \end{table}
285  
286 < \section{\label{app-melt}NaCl Melt}
286 > Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise systems
287 > in that they lack the periodicity inherent to the Ewald summation.  As
288 > expected, the energy gap agreement with SPME reduces for the {\sc sp}
289 > and {\sc sf} with parameters that were perfectly acceptable for the
290 > disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ remedies
291 > this degraded performance, though at increase in computational cost.
292 > However, the dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude
293 > and direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the
294 > Ewald behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the
295 > previous section.
296  
297 + It is also worth noting that RF exhibits a slightly improved energy
298 + gap results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is
299 + that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net
300 + dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} =
301 + \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization
302 + by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff
303 + sphere.  
304 +
305 + \section{\label{app:melt}NaCl Melt}
306 +
307 + A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the
308 + pairwise summation methods in a highly charge disordered system. The
309 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
310 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force
311 + and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
312 + table \ref{tab:meltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
313 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
314 + investigated.
315 +
316   \begin{table}[htbp]
317     \centering
318     \caption{Regression results for the molten NaCl system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}  
# Line 231 | Line 326 | PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 &
326              Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
327              \midrule
328   PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 & 0.020 \\
329 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.999 \\
330 <    & 0.1 & 1.004 & 0.999 & 0.958 & 1.000 & 0.928 & 0.994 \\
329 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.928 & 0.996 & 0.931 & 0.998 & 0.950 & 0.999 \\
330 >    & 0.1 & 0.977 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
331      & 0.2 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
332      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
333 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 0.949 & 1.000 & 1.008 & 1.000 \\
334 <    & 0.1 & 1.025 & 1.000 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.929 & 0.994 \\
333 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
334 >    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 1.000 & 1.024 & 1.000 & 1.007 & 1.000 \\
335      & 0.2 & 0.966 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
336      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
337              \midrule
338   PC  &     & 1.103 & 0.000 & 0.989 & 0.000 & 0.802 & 0.000 \\
339 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.976 & 0.983 & 1.001 & 0.991 & 0.985 & 0.995 \\
340 <    & 0.1 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
339 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.973 & 0.981 & 0.975 & 0.988 & 0.979 & 0.992 \\
340 >    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.992 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
341      & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
342      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
343 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
344 <    & 0.1 & 1.001 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
343 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
344 >    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
345      & 0.2 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
346      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
347        \bottomrule
348     \end{tabular}
349 <   \label{tab:meltTab}
349 >   \label{tab:melt}
350   \end{table}
351  
352   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 276 | Line 371 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
371      & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
372        \bottomrule
373     \end{tabular}
374 <   \label{tab:meltTabAng}
374 >   \label{tab:meltAng}
375   \end{table}
376  
377 < \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
377 > The molten NaCl system shows more sensitivity to the electrostatic
378 > damping than the water systems. The most noticeable point is that the
379 > undamped {\sc sf} method does very well at replicating the {\sc spme}
380 > configurational energy differences and forces. Light damping appears
381 > to minimally improve the dynamics, but this comes with a deterioration
382 > of the energy gap results. In contrast, this light damping improves
383 > the {\sc sp} energy gaps and forces. Moderate and heavy electrostatic
384 > damping reduce the agreement with {\sc spme} for both methods. From
385 > these observations, the undamped {\sc sf} method is the best choice
386 > for disordered systems of charges.
387  
388 + \section{\label{app:salt}NaCl Crystal}
389 +
390 + A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accuracy of the
391 + pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of charged
392 + particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
393 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
394 + \ref{tab:salt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results
395 + are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:saltAng}, where the effect
396 + of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and
397 + {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
398 +
399   \begin{table}[htbp]
400     \centering
401 <   \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
401 >   \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl
402 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and
403 > force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
404 > Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
405     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
406        \\
407        \toprule
# Line 314 | Line 432 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
432      & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
433        \bottomrule
434     \end{tabular}
435 <   \label{tab:saltTab}
435 >   \label{tab:salt}
436   \end{table}
437  
438   \begin{table}[htbp]
439     \centering
440 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
440 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
441 > distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC
442 > = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
443 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
444 > \infty$).}      
445     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
446        \\
447        \toprule
# Line 339 | Line 461 | SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
461      & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
462        \bottomrule
463     \end{tabular}
464 <   \label{tab:saltTabAng}
464 >   \label{tab:saltAng}
465   \end{table}
466  
467 < \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
467 > The crystalline NaCl system is the most challenging test case for the
468 > pairwise summation methods, as evidenced by the results in tables
469 > \ref{tab:salt} and \ref{tab:saltAng}. The undamped and weakly damped
470 > {\sc sf} methods with a 12 \AA\ cutoff radius seem to be the best
471 > choices. These methods match well with {\sc spme} across the energy
472 > gap, force magnitude, and force directionality tests.  The {\sc sp}
473 > method struggles in all cases with the exception of good dynamics
474 > reproduction when using weak electrostatic damping with a large cutoff
475 > radius.
476  
477 + The moderate electrostatic damping case is not as good as we would
478 + expect given the good long-time dynamics results observed for this
479 + system. Since these results are a test of instantaneous dynamics, this
480 + indicates that good long-time dynamics comes in part at the expense of
481 + short-time dynamics. Further indication of this comes from the full
482 + power spectra shown in the main text. It appears as though a
483 + distortion is introduced between 200 to 300 cm$^{-1}$ with increased
484 + $\alpha$.
485 +
486 + \section{\label{app:solnWeak}Weak NaCl Solution}
487 +
488 + In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular
489 + systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into
490 + the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4
491 + ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results
492 + for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
493 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The
494 + force and torque vector directionality results are displayed
495 + separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of
496 + group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
497 + sf} potentials are investigated.
498 +
499   \begin{table}[htbp]
500     \centering
501 <   \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}      
501 >   \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution
502 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
503 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
504 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
505 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
506 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
507 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
508     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
509        \\
510        \toprule
# Line 393 | Line 551 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
551   RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
552        \bottomrule
553     \end{tabular}
554 <   \label{tab:sol1Tab}
554 >   \label{tab:solnWeak}
555   \end{table}
556  
557   \begin{table}[htbp]
558     \centering
559 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl solution system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}    
559 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
560 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl
561 > solution system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF =
562 > Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where
563 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted
564 > Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}    
565     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
566        \\
567        \toprule
# Line 429 | Line 592 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 &
592        & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
593        \bottomrule
594     \end{tabular}
595 <   \label{tab:sol1TabAng}
595 >   \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
596   \end{table}
597  
598 < \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
598 > This weak ionic strength system can be considered as a perturbation of
599 > the pure liquid water system. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods are
600 > not significantly affected by the inclusion of a few ions. The aspect
601 > of cutoff sphere neutralization aids in the smooth incorporation of
602 > these ions; thus, all of the observations regarding these methods
603 > carry over from section \ref{app:water}. The differences between these
604 > systems are visible for the {\sc rf} method. Though good force
605 > reproduction is still maintained, the energy gaps show a significant
606 > increase in the data scatter. This foreshadows the breakdown of the
607 > method as we introduce system inhomogeneities.
608  
609 + \section{\label{app:solnStr}Strong NaCl Solution}
610 +
611 + The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was
612 + further developed by considering a high ionic strength system
613 + consisting of 40 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1
614 + M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and
615 + torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
616 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
617 + results are displayed separately in table\ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
618 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
619 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
620 +
621   \begin{table}[htbp]
622     \centering
623 <   \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
623 >   \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution
624 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
625 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
626 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
627 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
628 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
629     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
630        \\
631        \toprule
# Line 483 | Line 672 | RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.
672   RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
673        \bottomrule
674     \end{tabular}
675 <   \label{tab:sol10Tab}
675 >   \label{tab:solnStr}
676   \end{table}
677  
678   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 519 | Line 708 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 &
708        & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
709        \bottomrule
710     \end{tabular}
711 <   \label{tab:sol10TabAng}
711 >   \label{tab:solnStrAng}
712   \end{table}
713  
714 < \section{\label{app-argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
714 > The {\sc rf} method struggles with the jump in ionic strength. The
715 > configuration energy difference degrade to unuseable levels while the
716 > forces and torques degrade in a more modest fashion. The {\sc rf}
717 > method was designed for homogeneous systems, and this restriction is
718 > apparent in these results.
719  
720 + The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods require larger cutoffs to maintain
721 + their agreement with {\sc spme}. With these results, we still
722 + recommend no to moderate damping for the {\sc sf} method and moderate
723 + damping for the {\sc sp} method, both with cutoffs greater than 12
724 + \AA.
725 +
726 + \section{\label{app:argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
727 +
728 + The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Argon solvated by
729 + SPC/E water. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
730 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
731 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
732 + results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
733 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
734 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
735 +
736   \begin{table}[htbp]
737     \centering
738 <   \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in liquid water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
738 >   \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in liquid
739 > water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set),
740 > force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes
741 > (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted
742 > Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
743 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
744     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
745        \\
746        \toprule
# Line 573 | Line 787 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
787   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
788        \bottomrule
789     \end{tabular}
790 <   \label{tab:argonTab}
790 >   \label{tab:argon}
791   \end{table}
792  
793   \begin{table}[htbp]
794     \centering
795 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of argon in liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}
795 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
796 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of
797 > argon in liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
798 > Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF =
799 > Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group
800 > Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
801     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
802        \\
803        \toprule
# Line 609 | Line 828 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
828        & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
829        \bottomrule
830     \end{tabular}
831 <   \label{tab:argonTabAng}
831 >   \label{tab:argonAng}
832   \end{table}
833  
834 + This system appears not to show in any significant deviation in the previously observed results. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods give result qualities similar to those observed in section \ref{app:water}. The only significant difference is the improvement for the configuration energy differences for the {\sc rf} method. This is surprising in that we are introducing an inhomogeneity to the system; however, this inhomogeneity is charge-neutral and does not result in charged cutoff spheres. The charge-neutrality, which the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods explicity enforce, seems to play a greater role in the stability of the {\sc rf} method than the necessity of a homogeneous environment.
835 +
836   \newpage
837  
838   \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
839   \bibliography{electrostaticMethods}
840  
841 < \end{document}
841 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines