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

Comparing trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/electrostaticMethods.tex (file contents):
Revision 2620 by chrisfen, Wed Mar 15 04:34:51 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2624 by gezelter, Wed Mar 15 17:09:09 2006 UTC

# Line 98 | Line 98 | In a recent paper by Wolf \textit{et al.}, a procedure
98  
99   \subsection{The Wolf and Zahn Methods}
100   In a recent paper by Wolf \textit{et al.}, a procedure was outlined
101 < for an accurate accumulation of electrostatic interactions in an
101 > for the accurate accumulation of electrostatic interactions in an
102   efficient pairwise fashion.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.} observed
103   that the electrostatic interaction is effectively short-ranged in
104   condensed phase systems and that neutralization of the charge
# Line 111 | Line 111 | Ewald sum) to aid convergence
111   function (identical to that seen in the real-space portion of the
112   Ewald sum) to aid convergence
113   \begin{equation}
114 < V^{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
114 > V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
115   \label{eq:WolfPot}
116   \end{equation}
117   Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) is essentially the common form of a shifted
118   potential.  However, neutralizing the charge contained within each
119   cutoff sphere requires the placement of a self-image charge on the
120   surface of the cutoff sphere.  This additional self-term in the total
121 < potential enables Wolf {\it et al.}  to obtain excellent estimates of
121 > potential enabled Wolf {\it et al.}  to obtain excellent estimates of
122   Madelung energies for many crystals.
123  
124   In order to use their charge-neutralized potential in molecular
# Line 126 | Line 126 | procedure gives an expression for the forces,
126   derivative of this potential prior to evaluation of the limit.  This
127   procedure gives an expression for the forces,
128   \begin{equation}
129 < F^{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij}) = q_i q_j\left\{-\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r^2_{ij}}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2)}}{r_{ij}}\right]+\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right]\right\},
129 > F_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij}) = q_i q_j\left\{-\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r^2_{ij}}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2)}}{r_{ij}}\right]+\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right]\right\},
130   \label{eq:WolfForces}
131   \end{equation}
132   that incorporates both image charges and damping of the electrostatic
# Line 134 | Line 134 | force expressions for use in simulations involving wat
134  
135   More recently, Zahn \textit{et al.} investigated these potential and
136   force expressions for use in simulations involving water.\cite{Zahn02}
137 < In their work, they pointed out that the method that the forces and
138 < derivative of the potential are not commensurate.  Attempts to use
139 < both Eqs. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) and (\ref{eq:WolfForces}) together will
140 < lead to poor energy conservation.  They correctly observed that taking
141 < the limit shown in equation (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) {\it after} calculating
142 < the derivatives is mathematically invalid.
137 > In their work, they pointed out that the forces and derivative of
138 > the potential are not commensurate.  Attempts to use both
139 > Eqs. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) and (\ref{eq:WolfForces}) together will lead
140 > to poor energy conservation.  They correctly observed that taking the
141 > limit shown in equation (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) {\it after} calculating the
142 > derivatives gives forces for a different potential energy function
143 > than the one shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}).
144  
145   Zahn \textit{et al.} proposed a modified form of this ``Wolf summation
146   method'' as a way to use this technique in Molecular Dynamics
# Line 147 | Line 148 | potential,
148   \ref{eq:WolfForces}, they proposed a new damped Coulomb
149   potential,
150   \begin{equation}
151 < V^{\textrm{Zahn}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left\{\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}-\left[\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right]\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\right\}.
151 > V_{\textrm{Zahn}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left\{\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}-\left[\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right]\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\right\}.
152   \label{eq:ZahnPot}
153   \end{equation}
154   They showed that this potential does fairly well at capturing the
# Line 158 | Line 159 | al.} are constructed using two different (and separabl
159  
160   The potentials proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.} and Zahn \textit{et
161   al.} are constructed using two different (and separable) computational
162 < tricks: \begin{itemize}
162 > tricks: \begin{enumerate}
163   \item shifting through the use of image charges, and
164   \item damping the electrostatic interaction.
165 < \end{itemize}  Wolf \textit{et al.} treated the
165 > \end{enumerate}  Wolf \textit{et al.} treated the
166   development of their summation method as a progressive application of
167   these techniques,\cite{Wolf99} while Zahn \textit{et al.} founded
168   their damped Coulomb modification (Eq. (\ref{eq:ZahnPot})) on the
# Line 181 | Line 182 | shifted potential,
182   \textit{et al.}  and Zahn \textit{et al.} by considering the standard
183   shifted potential,
184   \begin{equation}
185 < v^\textrm{SP}(r) =      \begin{cases}
185 > v_\textrm{SP}(r) =      \begin{cases}
186   v(r)-v_\textrm{c} &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r >
187   R_\textrm{c}  
188   \end{cases},
# Line 189 | Line 190 | and shifted force,
190   \end{equation}
191   and shifted force,
192   \begin{equation}
193 < v^\textrm{SF}(r) =      \begin{cases}
194 < v(r)-v_\textrm{c}-\left(\frac{\textrm{d}v(r)}{\textrm{d}r}\right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}(r-R_\textrm{c})
193 > v_\textrm{SF}(r) =      \begin{cases}
194 > v(r)-v_\textrm{c}-\left(\frac{d v(r)}{d r}\right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}(r-R_\textrm{c})
195   &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r > R_\textrm{c}
196                                                  \end{cases},
197   \label{eq:shiftingForm}
# Line 202 | Line 203 | potential is smooth at the cutoff radius
203   potential is smooth at the cutoff radius
204   ($R_\textrm{c}$).\cite{Allen87}
205  
206 <
207 <
207 <
208 < If the derivative term is taken to be zero, we are left with the shifted Coulomb potential devised by Wolf \textit{et al.},\cite{Wolf99}
206 > The forces associated with the shifted potential are simply the forces
207 > of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cutoff sphere),
208   \begin{equation}
209 < V^\textrm{SP}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r_{ij}}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.                          \label{eq:WolfSP}
209 > F_{\textrm{SP}} = \left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
210   \end{equation}
211 < The forces associated with this potential are obtained by taking the derivative, resulting in the following,
211 > and are zero outside.  Inside the cutoff sphere, the forces associated
212 > with the shifted force form can be written,
213   \begin{equation}
214 < F^\textrm{SP}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r_{ij}^2}\right) \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
214 > F_{\textrm{SF}} = \left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) - \left(\frac{d
215 > v(r)}{dr} \right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}.
216 > \end{equation}
217 >
218 > If the potential ($v(r)$) is taken to be the normal Coulomb potential,
219 > \begin{equation}
220 > v(r) = \frac{q_i q_j}{r},
221 > \label{eq:Coulomb}
222 > \end{equation}
223 > then the Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) forms will give Wolf {\it et
224 > al.}'s undamped prescription:
225 > \begin{equation}
226 > V_\textrm{SP}(r) =
227 > q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad
228 > r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
229 > \label{eq:WolfSP}
230 > \end{equation}
231 > with associated forces,
232 > \begin{equation}
233 > F_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
234   \label{eq:FWolfSP}
235   \end{equation}
236 < These forces are identical to the forces of the standard electrostatic interaction, and this was addressed by Wolf \textit{et al.} as undesirable.  They pointed out that the effect of the image charges is neglected in the forces when they would expect there to be some pressure exerted due to their presence.\cite{Wolf99}  As a consequence the forces, though mathematically valid, may not be physically correct due to this missing component.  Additionally, there is a discontinuity in the forces.  This can be remedied with the use of a switching function to zero the potential and forces smoothly as particles near $R_\textrm{c}$.  
236 > These forces are identical to the forces of the standard Coulomb
237 > interaction, and cutting these off at $R_c$ was addressed by Wolf
238 > \textit{et al.} as undesirable.  They pointed out that the effect of
239 > the image charges is neglected in the forces when this form is
240 > used,\cite{Wolf99} thereby eliminating any benefit from the method in
241 > molecular dynamics.  Additionally, there is a discontinuity in the
242 > forces at the cutoff radius which results in energy drift during MD
243 > simulations.
244  
245 < If the derivative term in equation \ref{eq:shiftingForm} is evaluated, we obtain an hitherto undiscussed shifted force Coulomb potential,
245 > The shifted force ({\sc sf}) form using the normal Coulomb potential
246 > will give,
247   \begin{equation}
248 < V^\textrm{SF}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left[\frac{1}{r_{ij}}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}+\left(\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)(r_{ij}-R_\textrm{c})\right] \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
248 > V_\textrm{SF}(r) = q_iq_j\left[\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}+\left(\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)(r-R_\textrm{c})\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
249   \label{eq:SFPot}
250   \end{equation}
251 < Taking the derivative of this shifted force potential gives the
225 < following forces,
251 > with associated forces,
252   \begin{equation}
253 < F^\textrm{SF}(r_{ij} =  q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r_{ij}^2}+\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right) \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
253 > F_\textrm{SF}(r =  q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
254   \label{eq:SFForces}
255   \end{equation}
256 < Using this formulation rather than the simple shifted potential
257 < (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfSP}) means that there are no discontinuities in the
258 < forces in addition to the potential.  This form also has the benefit
259 < that the image charges have a force presence, addressing the concerns
260 < about a missing physical component.  One side effect of this treatment
261 < is a slight alteration in the shape of the potential that comes about
262 < from the derivative term.  Thus, a degree of clarity about the
263 < original formulation of the potential is lost in order to gain
264 < functionality in dynamics simulations.
256 > This formulation has the benefits that there are no discontinuities at
257 > the cutoff distance, while the neutralizing image charges are present
258 > in both the energy and force expressions.  It would be simple to add
259 > the self-neutralizing term back when computing the total energy of the
260 > system, thereby maintaining the agreement with the Madelung energies.
261 > A side effect of this treatment is the alteration in the shape of the
262 > potential that comes from the derivative term.  Thus, a degree of
263 > clarity about agreement with the empirical potential is lost in order
264 > to gain functionality in dynamics simulations.
265  
266   Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energetics of the
267   shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfSP}), and they found that
268 < it was still insufficient for accurate determination of the energy.
269 < The energy would fluctuate around the expected value with increasing
270 < cutoff radius, but the oscillations appeared to be converging toward
271 < the correct value.\cite{Wolf99} A damping function was incorporated to
272 < accelerate convergence; and though alternative functional forms could
273 < be used,\cite{Jones56,Heyes81} the complimentary error function was
274 < chosen to draw parallels to the Ewald summation.  Incorporating
275 < damping into the simple Coulomb potential,
268 > it was still insufficient for accurate determination of the energy
269 > with reasonable cutoff distances.  The calculated Madelung energies
270 > fluctuate around the expected value with increasing cutoff radius, but
271 > the oscillations converge toward the correct value.\cite{Wolf99} A
272 > damping function was incorporated to accelerate the convergence; and
273 > though alternative functional forms could be
274 > used,\cite{Jones56,Heyes81} the complimentary error function was
275 > chosen to mirror the effective screening used in the Ewald summation.
276 > Incorporating this error function damping into the simple Coulomb
277 > potential,
278   \begin{equation}
279 < v(r_{ij}) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}},
279 > v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
280   \label{eq:dampCoulomb}
281   \end{equation}
282 < the shifted potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfSP}) can be rederived
282 > the shifted potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfSP}) can be recovered
283   \textit{via} equation \ref{eq:shiftingForm},
284   \begin{equation}
285 < V^{\textrm{DSP}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_\textrm{c})}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
285 > v_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r}-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_\textrm{c})}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
286   \label{eq:DSPPot}
287 < \end{equation}
288 < The derivative of this Shifted-Potential can be taken to obtain forces
261 < for use in MD,
287 > \end{equation},
288 > with associated forces,
289   \begin{equation}
290 < F^{\textrm{DSP}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r^2_{ij}}-\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2)}}{r_{ij}}\right) \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
290 > f_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r^2}-\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r^2)}}{r}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
291   \label{eq:DSPForces}
292   \end{equation}
293 < Again, this Shifted-Potential suffers from a discontinuity in the
294 < forces, and a lack of an image-charge component in the forces.  To
295 < remedy these concerns, a Shifted-Force variant is obtained by
296 < inclusion of the derivative term in equation \ref{eq:shiftingForm} to
270 < give,
293 > Again, this damped shifted potential suffers from a discontinuity and
294 > a lack of the image charges in the forces.  To remedy these concerns,
295 > one may derive a Shifted-Force variant by including  the derivative
296 > term in equation \ref{eq:shiftingForm},
297   \begin{equation}
298   \begin{split}
299 < V^\mathrm{DSF}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}-\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \right] \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
299 > v_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}-\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\left(r-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
300   \label{eq:DSFPot}
301   \end{split}
302   \end{equation}
303   The derivative of the above potential gives the following forces,
304   \begin{equation}
305   \begin{split}
306 < F^\mathrm{DSF}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&-\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r^2_{ij}}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2)}}{r_{ij}}\right) \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}})}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right)\right] \quad r_{ij}\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
306 > f_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&-\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r^2)}}{r}\right) \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}})}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right)\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
307   \label{eq:DSFForces}
308   \end{split}
309   \end{equation}
# Line 285 | Line 311 | two important differences.\cite{Zahn02} First, the $v_
311   This new Shifted-Force potential is similar to equation
312   \ref{eq:ZahnPot} derived by Zahn \textit{et al.}; however, there are
313   two important differences.\cite{Zahn02} First, the $v_\textrm{c}$ term
314 < from equation \ref{eq:shiftingForm} is equal to equation
315 < \ref{eq:dampCoulomb} with $R_\textrm{c}$ supplied for $r_{ij}$.  This
316 < term is not present in the Zahn potential, resulting in a
317 < discontinuity as particles cross $R_\textrm{c}$.  Second, the sign of
318 < the derivative portion is different.  The constant $v_\textrm{c}$ term
319 < is not going to have a presence in the forces after performing the
320 < derivative, but the negative sign does effect the derivative.  In
321 < fact, it introduces a discontinuity in the forces at the cutoff,
322 < because the force function is shifted in the wrong direction and
323 < doesn't cross zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.  Thus, these alterations make
324 < for an electrostatic summation method that is continuous in both the
325 < potential and forces and incorporates the pairwise sum considerations
300 < stressed by Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99}
314 > from eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}) is equal to
315 > eq. (\ref{eq:dampCoulomb}) with $r$ replaced by $R_\textrm{c}$.  This
316 > term is {\it not} present in the Zahn potential, resulting in a
317 > potential discontinuity as particles cross $R_\textrm{c}$.  Second,
318 > the sign of the derivative portion is different.  The missing
319 > $v_\textrm{c}$ term would not affect molecular dynamics simulations
320 > (although the computed energy would be expected to have sudden jumps
321 > as particle distances crossed $R_c$).  The sign problem would be a
322 > potential source of errors, however.  In fact, it introduces a
323 > discontinuity in the forces at the cutoff, because the force function
324 > is shifted in the wrong direction and doesn't cross zero at
325 > $R_\textrm{c}$.  
326  
327 + Eqs. (\ref{eq:DSFPot}) and (\ref{eq:DSFForces}) result in an
328 + electrostatic summation method that is continuous in both the
329 + potential and forces and which incorporates the damping function
330 + proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99} In the rest of this
331 + paper, we will evaluate exactly how good these methods ({\sc sp}, {\sc
332 + sf}, damping) are at reproducing the correct electrostatic summation
333 + performed by the Ewald sum.
334 +
335 + \subsection{Other alternatives}
336 +
337 + Reaction Field blah
338 +
339 + Group-based cutoff blah
340 +
341 +
342   \section{Methods}
343  
304 \subsection{What Qualities are Important?}\label{sec:Qualities}
344   In classical molecular mechanics simulations, there are two primary
345   techniques utilized to obtain information about the system of
346   interest: Monte Carlo (MC) and Molecular Dynamics (MD).  Both of these
# Line 310 | Line 349 | configurations dictates the progression of MC sampling
349  
350   In MC, the potential energy difference between two subsequent
351   configurations dictates the progression of MC sampling.  Going back to
352 < the origins of this method, the Canonical ensemble acceptance criteria
353 < laid out by Metropolis \textit{et al.} states that a subsequent
354 < configuration is accepted if $\Delta E < 0$ or if $\xi < \exp(-\Delta
355 < E/kT)$, where $\xi$ is a random number between 0 and
356 < 1.\cite{Metropolis53} Maintaining a consistent $\Delta E$ when using
357 < an alternate method for handling the long-range electrostatics ensures
358 < proper sampling within the ensemble.
352 > the origins of this method, the acceptance criterion for the canonical
353 > ensemble laid out by Metropolis \textit{et al.} states that a
354 > subsequent configuration is accepted if $\Delta E < 0$ or if $\xi <
355 > \exp(-\Delta E/kT)$, where $\xi$ is a random number between 0 and
356 > 1.\cite{Metropolis53} Maintaining the correct $\Delta E$ when using an
357 > alternate method for handling the long-range electrostatics will
358 > ensure proper sampling from the ensemble.
359  
360 < In MD, the derivative of the potential directs how the system will
360 > In MD, the derivative of the potential governs how the system will
361   progress in time.  Consequently, the force and torque vectors on each
362 < body in the system dictate how it develops as a whole.  If the
363 < magnitude and direction of these vectors are similar when using
364 < alternate electrostatic summation techniques, the dynamics in the near
365 < term will be indistinguishable.  Because error in MD calculations is
366 < cumulative, one should expect greater deviation in the long term
367 < trajectories with greater differences in these vectors between
368 < configurations using different long-range electrostatics.
362 > body in the system dictate how the system evolves.  If the magnitude
363 > and direction of these vectors are similar when using alternate
364 > electrostatic summation techniques, the dynamics in the short term
365 > will be indistinguishable.  Because error in MD calculations is
366 > cumulative, one should expect greater deviation at longer times,
367 > although methods which have large differences in the force and torque
368 > vectors will diverge from each other more rapidly.
369  
370   \subsection{Monte Carlo and the Energy Gap}\label{sec:MCMethods}
371 < Evaluation of the pairwise summation techniques (outlined in section
372 < \ref{sec:ESMethods}) for use in MC simulations was performed through
373 < study of the energy differences between conformations.  Considering
374 < the SPME results to be the correct or desired behavior, ideal
375 < performance of a tested method was taken to be agreement between the
376 < energy differences calculated.  Linear least squares regression of the
377 < $\Delta E$ values between configurations using SPME against $\Delta E$
378 < values using tested methods provides a quantitative comparison of this
379 < agreement.  Unitary results for both the correlation and correlation
380 < coefficient for these regressions indicate equivalent energetic
381 < results between the methods.  The correlation is the slope of the
382 < plotted data while the correlation coefficient ($R^2$) is a measure of
383 < the of the data scatter around the fitted line and tells about the
384 < quality of the fit (Fig. \ref{fig:linearFit}).
371 > The pairwise summation techniques (outlined in section
372 > \ref{sec:ESMethods}) were evaluated for use in MC simulations by
373 > studying the energy differences between conformations.  We took the
374 > SPME-computed energy difference between two conformations to be the
375 > correct behavior. An ideal performance by an alternative method would
376 > reproduce these energy differences exactly.  Since none of the methods
377 > provide exact energy differences, we used linear least squares
378 > regressions of the $\Delta E$ values between configurations using SPME
379 > against $\Delta E$ values using tested methods provides a quantitative
380 > comparison of this agreement.  Unitary results for both the
381 > correlation and correlation coefficient for these regressions indicate
382 > equivalent energetic results between the method under consideration
383 > and electrostatics handled using SPME.  Sample correlation plots for
384 > two alternate methods are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:linearFit}.
385  
386   \begin{figure}
387   \centering
# Line 351 | Line 390 | quality of the fit (Fig. \ref{fig:linearFit}).
390   \label{fig:linearFit}
391   \end{figure}
392  
393 < Each system type (detailed in section \ref{sec:RepSims}) studied
394 < consisted of 500 independent configurations, each equilibrated from
395 < higher temperature trajectories. Thus, 124,750 $\Delta E$ data points
396 < are used in a regression of a single system type.  Results and
397 < discussion for the individual analysis of each of the system types
359 < appear in the supporting information, while the cumulative results
360 < over all the investigated systems appears below in section
361 < \ref{sec:EnergyResults}.
393 > Each system type (detailed in section \ref{sec:RepSims}) was
394 > represented using 500 independent configurations.  Additionally, we
395 > used seven different system types, so each of the alternate
396 > (non-Ewald) electrostatic summation methods was evaluated using
397 > 873,250 configurational energy differences.
398  
399 < \subsection{Molecular Dynamics and the Force and Torque Vectors}\label{sec:MDMethods}
400 < Evaluation of the pairwise methods (outlined in section
401 < \ref{sec:ESMethods}) for use in MD simulations was performed through
402 < comparison of the force and torque vectors obtained with those from
367 < SPME.  Both the magnitude and the direction of these vectors on each
368 < of the bodies in the system were analyzed.  For the magnitude of these
369 < vectors, linear least squares regression analysis can be performed as
370 < described previously for comparing $\Delta E$ values. Instead of a
371 < single value between two system configurations, there is a value for
372 < each particle in each configuration.  For a system of 1000 water
373 < molecules and 40 ions, there are 1040 force vectors and 1000 torque
374 < vectors.  With 500 configurations, this results in 520,000 force and
375 < 500,000 torque vector comparisons samples for each system type.
399 > Results and discussion for the individual analysis of each of the
400 > system types appear in the supporting information, while the
401 > cumulative results over all the investigated systems appears below in
402 > section \ref{sec:EnergyResults}.
403  
404 < The force and torque vector directions were investigated through
405 < measurement of the angle ($\theta$) formed between those from the
406 < particular method and those from SPME
404 > \subsection{Molecular Dynamics and the Force and Torque Vectors}\label{sec:MDMethods}
405 > We evaluated the pairwise methods (outlined in section
406 > \ref{sec:ESMethods}) for use in MD simulations by
407 > comparing the force and torque vectors with those obtained using the
408 > reference Ewald summation (SPME).  Both the magnitude and the
409 > direction of these vectors on each of the bodies in the system were
410 > analyzed.  For the magnitude of these vectors, linear least squares
411 > regression analyses were performed as described previously for
412 > comparing $\Delta E$ values.  Instead of a single energy difference
413 > between two system configurations, we compared the magnitudes of the
414 > forces (and torques) on each molecule in each configuration.  For a
415 > system of 1000 water molecules and 40 ions, there are 1040 force
416 > vectors and 1000 torque vectors.  With 500 configurations, this
417 > results in 520,000 force and 500,000 torque vector comparisons.
418 > Additionally, data from seven different system types was aggregated
419 > before the comparison was made.
420 >
421 > The {\it directionality} of the force and torque vectors was
422 > investigated through measurement of the angle ($\theta$) formed
423 > between those computed from the particular method and those from SPME,
424   \begin{equation}
425 < \theta_F = \frac{\vec{F}_\textrm{SPME}}{|\vec{F}_\textrm{SPME}|}\cdot\frac{\vec{F}_\textrm{Method}}{|\vec{F}_\textrm{Method}|}.
425 > \theta_f = \cos^{-1} \hat{f}_\textrm{SPME} \cdot \hat{f}_\textrm{Method},
426   \end{equation}
427 + where $\hat{f}_\textrm{M}$ is the unit vector pointing along the
428 + force vector computed using method $M$.  
429 +
430   Each of these $\theta$ values was accumulated in a distribution
431 < function, weighted by the area on the unit sphere.  Non-linear fits
432 < were used to measure the shape of the resulting distributions.
431 > function, weighted by the area on the unit sphere.  Non-linear
432 > Gaussian fits were used to measure the width of the resulting
433 > distributions.
434  
435   \begin{figure}
436   \centering
# Line 395 | Line 443 | Lorentzian.  Since this distribution is a measure of a
443   non-linear fits.  The solid line is a Gaussian profile, while the
444   dotted line is a Voigt profile, a convolution of a Gaussian and a
445   Lorentzian.  Since this distribution is a measure of angular error
446 < between two different electrostatic summation methods, there is
447 < particular reason for the profile to adhere to a specific shape.
448 < Because of this and the Gaussian profile's more statistically
449 < meaningful properties, Gaussian fits was used to compare all the
450 < tested methods.  The variance ($\sigma^2$) was extracted from each of
451 < these fits and was used to compare distribution widths.  Values of
452 < $\sigma^2$ near zero indicate vector directions indistinguishable from
453 < those calculated when using SPME.
446 > between two different electrostatic summation methods, there is no
447 > {\it a priori} reason for the profile to adhere to any specific shape.
448 > Gaussian fits was used to compare all the tested methods.  The
449 > variance ($\sigma^2$) was extracted from each of these fits and was
450 > used to compare distribution widths.  Values of $\sigma^2$ near zero
451 > indicate vector directions indistinguishable from those calculated
452 > when using the reference method (SPME).
453 >
454 > \subsection{Short-time Dynamics}
455  
456   \subsection{Long-Time and Collective Motion}\label{sec:LongTimeMethods}
457   Evaluation of the long-time dynamics of charged systems was performed
# Line 752 | Line 801 | electrostatic potential,
801   clearly, we show how damping strength affects a simple real-space
802   electrostatic potential,
803   \begin{equation}
804 < V_\textrm{damped}=\sum^N_i\sum^N_{j\ne i}q_iq_j\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}({\alpha r_{ij}})}{r_{ij}}\right]S(r),
804 > V_\textrm{damped}=\sum^N_i\sum^N_{j\ne i}q_iq_j\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}({\alpha r})}{r}\right]S(r),
805   \end{equation}
806   where $S(r)$ is a switching function that smoothly zeroes the
807   potential at the cutoff radius.  Figure \ref{fig:dampInc} shows how

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines