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

Comparing trunk/fennellDissertation/dissertation.tex (file contents):
Revision 2968 by chrisfen, Sat Jul 29 13:10:15 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2973 by chrisfen, Fri Aug 18 15:49:29 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   \documentclass[11pt]{ndthesis}
2  
3   % some packages for things like equations and graphics
4 < \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
5 < \usepackage{amssymb}
6 < \usepackage{mathrsfs}
7 < \usepackage{tabularx}
8 < \usepackage{graphicx}
9 < \usepackage{booktabs}
10 < \usepackage{cite}
11 <
12 < \begin{document}
13 <
14 < \frontmatter
15 <
16 < \title{APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MOLECULAR DYNAMICS TECHNIQUES FOR THE
17 < STUDY OF WATER}    
18 < \author{Christopher Joseph Fennell}
19 < \work{Dissertation}
20 < \degprior{B.Sc.}
21 < \degaward{Doctor of Philosophy}
22 < \advisor{J. Daniel Gezelter}
23 < \department{Chemistry and Biochemistry}
24 <
25 < \maketitle
26 <
27 < \begin{abstract}
28 < \end{abstract}
29 <
30 < \begin{dedication}
31 < \end{dedication}
32 <
33 < \tableofcontents
34 < \listoffigures
35 < \listoftables
36 <
37 < \begin{acknowledge}
38 < \end{acknowledge}
39 <
40 < \mainmatter
41 <
42 < \chapter{\label{chap:intro}INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND}
43 <
44 < \chapter{\label{chap:electrostatics}ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTION CORRECTION
45 < TECHNIQUES}
46 <
47 < In molecular simulations, proper accumulation of the electrostatic
48 < interactions is essential and is one of the most
49 < computationally-demanding tasks.  The common molecular mechanics force
50 < fields represent atomic sites with full or partial charges protected
51 < by Lennard-Jones (short range) interactions.  This means that nearly
52 < every pair interaction involves a calculation of charge-charge forces.
53 < Coupled with relatively long-ranged $r^{-1}$ decay, the monopole
54 < interactions quickly become the most expensive part of molecular
55 < simulations.  Historically, the electrostatic pair interaction would
56 < not have decayed appreciably within the typical box lengths that could
57 < be feasibly simulated.  In the larger systems that are more typical of
58 < modern simulations, large cutoffs should be used to incorporate
59 < electrostatics correctly.
60 <
61 < There have been many efforts to address the proper and practical
62 < handling of electrostatic interactions, and these have resulted in a
63 < variety of techniques.\cite{Roux99,Sagui99,Tobias01} These are
64 < typically classified as implicit methods (i.e., continuum dielectrics,
65 < static dipolar fields),\cite{Born20,Grossfield00} explicit methods
66 < (i.e., Ewald summations, interaction shifting or
67 < truncation),\cite{Ewald21,Steinbach94} or a mixture of the two (i.e.,
68 < reaction field type methods, fast multipole
69 < methods).\cite{Onsager36,Rokhlin85} The explicit or mixed methods are
70 < often preferred because they physically incorporate solvent molecules
71 < in the system of interest, but these methods are sometimes difficult
72 < to utilize because of their high computational cost.\cite{Roux99} In
73 < addition to the computational cost, there have been some questions
74 < regarding possible artifacts caused by the inherent periodicity of the
75 < explicit Ewald summation.\cite{Tobias01}
76 <
77 < In this chapter, we focus on a new set of pairwise methods devised by
78 < Wolf {\it et al.},\cite{Wolf99} which we further extend.  These
79 < methods along with a few other mixed methods (i.e. reaction field) are
80 < compared with the smooth particle mesh Ewald
81 < sum,\cite{Onsager36,Essmann99} which is our reference method for
82 < handling long-range electrostatic interactions. The new methods for
83 < handling electrostatics have the potential to scale linearly with
84 < increasing system size since they involve only a simple modification
85 < to the direct pairwise sum.  They also lack the added periodicity of
86 < the Ewald sum, so they can be used for systems which are non-periodic
87 < or which have one- or two-dimensional periodicity.  Below, these
88 < methods are evaluated using a variety of model systems to
89 < establish their usability in molecular simulations.
90 <
91 < \section{The Ewald Sum}
92 <
93 < The complete accumulation of the electrostatic interactions in a system with
94 < periodic boundary conditions (PBC) requires the consideration of the
95 < effect of all charges within a (cubic) simulation box as well as those
96 < in the periodic replicas,
97 < \begin{equation}
98 < V_\textrm{elec} = \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{\mathbf{n}}}^\prime
99 < \left[ \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N \phi
100 < \left( \mathbf{r}_{ij} + L\mathbf{n},\bm{\Omega}_i,\bm{\Omega}_j\right)
101 < \right],
102 < \label{eq:PBCSum}
103 < \end{equation}
104 < where the sum over $\mathbf{n}$ is a sum over all periodic box
105 < replicas with integer coordinates $\mathbf{n} = (l,m,n)$, and the
106 < prime indicates $i = j$ are neglected for $\mathbf{n} =
107 < 0$.\cite{deLeeuw80} Within the sum, $N$ is the number of electrostatic
108 < particles, $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is $\mathbf{r}_j - \mathbf{r}_i$, $L$ is
109 < the cell length, $\bm{\Omega}_{i,j}$ are the Euler angles for $i$ and
110 < $j$, and $\phi$ is the solution to Poisson's equation
111 < ($\phi(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) = q_i q_j |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{-1}$ for
112 < charge-charge interactions). In the case of monopole electrostatics,
113 < eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum}) is conditionally convergent and is divergent for
114 < non-neutral systems.
115 <
116 < The electrostatic summation problem was originally studied by Ewald
117 < for the case of an infinite crystal.\cite{Ewald21}. The approach he
118 < took was to convert this conditionally convergent sum into two
119 < absolutely convergent summations: a short-ranged real-space summation
120 < and a long-ranged reciprocal-space summation,
121 < \begin{equation}
122 < \begin{split}
123 < V_\textrm{elec} = \frac{1}{2}&
124 < \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N \Biggr[ q_i q_j\Biggr( {\sum_{\mathbf{n}}}^\prime
125 < \frac{\textrm{erfc}\left( \alpha|\mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{n}|\right)}
126 < {|\mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{n}|} \\
127 < &+ \frac{1}{\pi L^3}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\ne 0}\frac{4\pi^2}{|\mathbf{k}|^2}
128 < \exp{\left(-\frac{\pi^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}{\alpha^2}\right)
129 < \cos\left(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij}\right)}\Biggr)\Biggr] \\
130 < &- \frac{\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\sum_{i=1}^N q_i^2
131 < + \frac{2\pi}{(2\epsilon_\textrm{S}+1)L^3}
132 < \left|\sum_{i=1}^N q_i\mathbf{r}_i\right|^2,
133 < \end{split}
134 < \label{eq:EwaldSum}
135 < \end{equation}
136 < where $\alpha$ is the damping or convergence parameter with units of
137 < \AA$^{-1}$, $\mathbf{k}$ are the reciprocal vectors and are equal to
138 < $2\pi\mathbf{n}/L^2$, and $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$ is the dielectric
139 < constant of the surrounding medium. The final two terms of
140 < eq. (\ref{eq:EwaldSum}) are a particle-self term and a dipolar term
141 < for interacting with a surrounding dielectric.\cite{Allen87} This
142 < dipolar term was neglected in early applications in molecular
143 < simulations,\cite{Brush66,Woodcock71} until it was introduced by de
144 < Leeuw {\it et al.} to address situations where the unit cell has a
145 < dipole moment which is magnified through replication of the periodic
146 < images.\cite{deLeeuw80,Smith81} If this term is taken to be zero, the
147 < system is said to be using conducting (or ``tin-foil'') boundary
148 < conditions, $\epsilon_{\rm S} = \infty$. Figure
149 < \ref{fig:ewaldTime} shows how the Ewald sum has been applied over
150 < time.  Initially, due to the small system sizes that could be
151 < simulated feasibly, the entire simulation box was replicated to
152 < convergence.  In more modern simulations, the systems have grown large
153 < enough that a real-space cutoff could potentially give convergent
154 < behavior.  Indeed, it has been observed that with the choice of a
155 < small $\alpha$, the reciprocal-space portion of the Ewald sum can be
156 < rapidly convergent and small relative to the real-space
157 < portion.\cite{Karasawa89,Kolafa92}
158 <
159 < \begin{figure}
160 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/ewaldProgression.pdf}
161 < \caption{The change in the need for the Ewald sum with
162 < increasing computational power.  A:~Initially, only small systems
163 < could be studied, and the Ewald sum replicated the simulation box to
164 < convergence.  B:~Now, radial cutoff methods should be able to reach
165 < convergence for the larger systems of charges that are common today.}
166 < \label{fig:ewaldTime}
167 < \end{figure}
168 <
169 < The original Ewald summation is an $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ algorithm.  The
170 < convergence parameter $(\alpha)$ plays an important role in balancing
171 < the computational cost between the direct and reciprocal-space
172 < portions of the summation.  The choice of this value allows one to
173 < select whether the real-space or reciprocal space portion of the
174 < summation is an $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calculation (with the other being
175 < $\mathscr{O}(N)$).\cite{Sagui99} With the appropriate choice of
176 < $\alpha$ and thoughtful algorithm development, this cost can be
177 < reduced to $\mathscr{O}(N^{3/2})$.\cite{Perram88} The typical route
178 < taken to reduce the cost of the Ewald summation even further is to set
179 < $\alpha$ such that the real-space interactions decay rapidly, allowing
180 < for a short spherical cutoff. Then the reciprocal space summation is
181 < optimized.  These optimizations usually involve utilization of the
182 < fast Fourier transform (FFT),\cite{Hockney81} leading to the
183 < particle-particle particle-mesh (P3M) and particle mesh Ewald (PME)
184 < methods.\cite{Shimada93,Luty94,Luty95,Darden93,Essmann95} In these
185 < methods, the cost of the reciprocal-space portion of the Ewald
186 < summation is reduced from $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ down to $\mathscr{O}(N
187 < \log N)$.
188 <
189 < These developments and optimizations have made the use of the Ewald
190 < summation routine in simulations with periodic boundary
191 < conditions. However, in certain systems, such as vapor-liquid
192 < interfaces and membranes, the intrinsic three-dimensional periodicity
193 < can prove problematic.  The Ewald sum has been reformulated to handle
194 < 2-D systems,\cite{Parry75,Parry76,Heyes77,deLeeuw79,Rhee89} but these
195 < methods are computationally expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99} More
196 < recently, there have been several successful efforts toward reducing
197 < the computational cost of 2-D lattice
198 < summations,\cite{Yeh99,Kawata01,Arnold02,deJoannis02,Brodka04}
199 < bringing them more in line with the cost of the full 3-D summation.
200 <
201 < Several studies have recognized that the inherent periodicity in the
202 < Ewald sum can also have an effect on three-dimensional
203 < systems.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00}
204 < Solvated proteins are essentially kept at high concentration due to
205 < the periodicity of the electrostatic summation method.  In these
206 < systems, the more compact folded states of a protein can be
207 < artificially stabilized by the periodic replicas introduced by the
208 < Ewald summation.\cite{Weber00} Thus, care must be taken when
209 < considering the use of the Ewald summation where the assumed
210 < periodicity would introduce spurious effects in the system dynamics.
211 <
212 <
213 < \section{The Wolf and Zahn Methods}
214 <
215 < In a recent paper by Wolf \textit{et al.}, a procedure was outlined
216 < for the accurate accumulation of electrostatic interactions in an
217 < efficient pairwise fashion.  This procedure lacks the inherent
218 < periodicity of the Ewald summation.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.}
219 < observed that the electrostatic interaction is effectively
220 < short-ranged in condensed phase systems and that neutralization of the
221 < charge contained within the cutoff radius is crucial for potential
222 < stability. They devised a pairwise summation method that ensures
223 < charge neutrality and gives results similar to those obtained with the
224 < Ewald summation.  The resulting shifted Coulomb potential includes
225 < image-charges subtracted out through placement on the cutoff sphere
226 < and a distance-dependent damping function (identical to that seen in
227 < the real-space portion of the Ewald sum) to aid convergence
228 < \begin{equation}
229 < V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_i q_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}
230 < - \lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}
231 < \left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
232 < \label{eq:WolfPot}
233 < \end{equation}
234 < Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) is essentially the common form of a shifted
235 < potential.  However, neutralizing the charge contained within each
236 < cutoff sphere requires the placement of a self-image charge on the
237 < surface of the cutoff sphere.  This additional self-term in the total
238 < potential enabled Wolf {\it et al.}  to obtain excellent estimates of
239 < Madelung energies for many crystals.
240 <
241 < In order to use their charge-neutralized potential in molecular
242 < dynamics simulations, Wolf \textit{et al.} suggested taking the
243 < derivative of this potential prior to evaluation of the limit.  This
244 < procedure gives an expression for the forces,
245 < \begin{equation}
246 < \begin{split}
247 < F_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij}) = q_i q_j \Biggr\{&
248 < \Biggr[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r^2_{ij}}
249 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2\right)}}{r_{ij}}
250 < \Biggr]\\
251 < &-\Biggr[
252 < \frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}
253 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}
254 < \frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}
255 < \Biggr]\Biggr\},
256 < \end{split}
257 < \label{eq:WolfForces}
258 < \end{equation}
259 < that incorporates both image charges and damping of the electrostatic
260 < interaction.
261 <
262 < More recently, Zahn \textit{et al.} investigated these potential and
263 < force expressions for use in simulations involving water.\cite{Zahn02}
264 < In their work, they pointed out that the forces and derivative of
265 < the potential are not commensurate.  Attempts to use both
266 < eqs. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) and (\ref{eq:WolfForces}) together will lead
267 < to poor energy conservation.  They correctly observed that taking the
268 < limit shown in equation (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) {\it after} calculating the
269 < derivatives gives forces for a different potential energy function
270 < than the one shown in eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}).
271 <
272 < Zahn \textit{et al.} introduced a modified form of this summation
273 < method as a way to use the technique in Molecular Dynamics
274 < simulations.  They proposed a new damped Coulomb potential,
275 < \begin{equation}
276 < \begin{split}
277 < V_{\textrm{Zahn}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\Biggr\{&
278 < \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}} \\
279 < &- \left[\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}
280 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}
281 < \frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}
282 < \right]\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\Biggr\},
283 < \end{split}
284 < \label{eq:ZahnPot}
285 < \end{equation}
286 < and showed that this potential does fairly well at capturing the
287 < structural and dynamic properties of water compared the same
288 < properties obtained using the Ewald sum.
289 <
290 < \section{Simple Forms for Pairwise Electrostatics}\label{sec:PairwiseDerivation}
291 <
292 < The potentials proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.} and Zahn \textit{et
293 < al.} are constructed using two different (and separable) computational
294 < tricks:
295 <
296 < \begin{enumerate}
297 < \item shifting through the use of image charges, and
298 < \item damping the electrostatic interaction.
299 < \end{enumerate}  
300 < Wolf \textit{et al.} treated the
301 < development of their summation method as a progressive application of
302 < these techniques,\cite{Wolf99} while Zahn \textit{et al.} founded
303 < their damped Coulomb modification (Eq. (\ref{eq:ZahnPot})) on the
304 < post-limit forces (Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfForces})) which were derived using
305 < both techniques.  It is possible, however, to separate these
306 < tricks and study their effects independently.
307 <
308 < Starting with the original observation that the effective range of the
309 < electrostatic interaction in condensed phases is considerably less
310 < than $r^{-1}$, either the cutoff sphere neutralization or the
311 < distance-dependent damping technique could be used as a foundation for
312 < a new pairwise summation method.  Wolf \textit{et al.} made the
313 < observation that charge neutralization within the cutoff sphere plays
314 < a significant role in energy convergence; therefore we will begin our
315 < analysis with the various shifted forms that maintain this charge
316 < neutralization.  We can evaluate the methods of Wolf
317 < \textit{et al.}  and Zahn \textit{et al.} by considering the standard
318 < shifted potential,
319 < \begin{equation}
320 < V_\textrm{SP}(r) =      \begin{cases}
321 < v(r)-v_\textrm{c} &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r >
322 < R_\textrm{c}  
323 < \end{cases},
324 < \label{eq:shiftingPotForm}
325 < \end{equation}
326 < and shifted force,
327 < \begin{equation}
328 < V_\textrm{SF}(r) = \begin{cases}
329 < v(r) - v_\textrm{c}
330 < - \left(\frac{d v(r)}{d r}\right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}(r-R_\textrm{c})
331 < &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r > R_\textrm{c}
332 < \end{cases},
333 < \label{eq:shiftingForm}
334 < \end{equation}
335 < functions where $v(r)$ is the unshifted form of the potential, and
336 < $v_c$ is $v(R_\textrm{c})$.  The Shifted Force ({\sc sf}) form ensures
337 < that both the potential and the forces goes to zero at the cutoff
338 < radius, while the Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) form only ensures the
339 < potential is smooth at the cutoff radius
340 < ($R_\textrm{c}$).\cite{Allen87}
341 <
342 < The forces associated with the shifted potential are simply the forces
343 < of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cutoff sphere),
344 < \begin{equation}
345 < F_{\textrm{SP}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
346 < \end{equation}
347 < and are zero outside.  Inside the cutoff sphere, the forces associated
348 < with the shifted force form can be written,
349 < \begin{equation}
350 < F_{\textrm{SF}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) + \left(\frac{d
351 < v(r)}{dr} \right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}.
352 < \end{equation}
353 <
354 < If the potential, $v(r)$, is taken to be the normal Coulomb potential,
355 < \begin{equation}
356 < v(r) = \frac{q_i q_j}{r},
357 < \label{eq:Coulomb}
358 < \end{equation}
359 < then the Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) forms will give Wolf {\it et
360 < al.}'s undamped prescription:
361 < \begin{equation}
362 < V_\textrm{SP}(r) =
363 < q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad
364 < r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
365 < \label{eq:SPPot}
366 < \end{equation}
367 < with associated forces,
368 < \begin{equation}
369 < F_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right)
370 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
371 < \label{eq:SPForces}
372 < \end{equation}
373 < These forces are identical to the forces of the standard Coulomb
374 < interaction, and cutting these off at $R_c$ was addressed by Wolf
375 < \textit{et al.} as undesirable.  They pointed out that the effect of
376 < the image charges is neglected in the forces when this form is
377 < used,\cite{Wolf99} thereby eliminating any benefit from the method in
378 < molecular dynamics.  Additionally, there is a discontinuity in the
379 < forces at the cutoff radius which results in energy drift during MD
380 < simulations.
381 <
382 < The shifted force ({\sc sf}) form using the normal Coulomb potential
383 < will give,
384 < \begin{equation}
385 < V_\textrm{SF}(r) = q_iq_j\left[\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}
386 < + \left(\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)(r-R_\textrm{c})\right]
387 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
388 < \label{eq:SFPot}
389 < \end{equation}
390 < with associated forces,
391 < \begin{equation}
392 < F_\textrm{SF}(r) =  q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)
393 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
394 < \label{eq:SFForces}
395 < \end{equation}
396 < This formulation has the benefits that there are no discontinuities at
397 < the cutoff radius, while the neutralizing image charges are present in
398 < both the energy and force expressions.  It would be simple to add the
399 < self-neutralizing term back when computing the total energy of the
400 < system, thereby maintaining the agreement with the Madelung energies.
401 < A side effect of this treatment is the alteration in the shape of the
402 < potential that comes from the derivative term.  Thus, a degree of
403 < clarity about agreement with the empirical potential is lost in order
404 < to gain functionality in dynamics simulations.
405 <
406 < Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energetics of the
407 < shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:SPPot}) and found that it was
408 < insufficient for accurate determination of the energy with reasonable
409 < cutoff distances.  The calculated Madelung energies fluctuated around
410 < the expected value as the cutoff radius was increased, but the
411 < oscillations converged toward the correct value.\cite{Wolf99} A
412 < damping function was incorporated to accelerate the convergence; and
413 < though alternative forms for the damping function could be
414 < used,\cite{Jones56,Heyes81} the complimentary error function was
415 < chosen to mirror the effective screening used in the Ewald summation.
416 < Incorporating this error function damping into the simple Coulomb
417 < potential,
418 < \begin{equation}
419 < v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
420 < \label{eq:dampCoulomb}
421 < \end{equation}
422 < the shifted potential (eq. (\ref{eq:SPPot})) becomes
423 < \begin{equation}
424 < V_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}
425 < - \frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\textrm{c}\right)}{R_\textrm{c}}\right)
426 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
427 < \label{eq:DSPPot}
428 < \end{equation}
429 < with associated forces,
430 < \begin{equation}
431 < F_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j
432 < \left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r^2}
433 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r^2\right)}}{r}\right)
434 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
435 < \label{eq:DSPForces}
436 < \end{equation}
437 < Again, this damped shifted potential suffers from a
438 < force-discontinuity at the cutoff radius, and the image charges play
439 < no role in the forces.  To remedy these concerns, one may derive a
440 < {\sc sf} variant by including the derivative term in
441 < eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
442 < \begin{equation}
443 < \begin{split}
444 < V_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&
445 < \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}
446 < - \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} \\
447 < &+ \left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}
448 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}
449 < \frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}
450 < \right)\left(r-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \Biggr{]}
451 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
452 < \label{eq:DSFPot}
453 < \end{split}
454 < \end{equation}
455 < The derivative of the above potential will lead to the following forces,
456 < \begin{equation}
457 < \begin{split}
458 < F_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&
459 < \left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r^2}
460 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r^2\right)}}{r}\right) \\
461 < &- \left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}
462 < {R_{\textrm{c}}^2}
463 < + \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}
464 < \frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}
465 < \right)\Biggr{]}
466 < \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
467 < \label{eq:DSFForces}
468 < \end{split}
469 < \end{equation}
470 < If the damping parameter $(\alpha)$ is set to zero, the undamped case,
471 < eqs. (\ref{eq:SPPot} through \ref{eq:SFForces}) are correctly
472 < recovered from eqs. (\ref{eq:DSPPot} through \ref{eq:DSFForces}).
473 <
474 < This new {\sc sf} potential is similar to equation \ref{eq:ZahnPot}
475 < derived by Zahn \textit{et al.}; however, there are two important
476 < differences.\cite{Zahn02} First, the $v_\textrm{c}$ term from
477 < eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}) is equal to eq. (\ref{eq:dampCoulomb})
478 < with $r$ replaced by $R_\textrm{c}$.  This term is {\it not} present
479 < in the Zahn potential, resulting in a potential discontinuity as
480 < particles cross $R_\textrm{c}$.  Second, the sign of the derivative
481 < portion is different.  The missing $v_\textrm{c}$ term would not
482 < affect molecular dynamics simulations (although the computed energy
483 < would be expected to have sudden jumps as particle distances crossed
484 < $R_c$).  The sign problem is a potential source of errors, however.
485 < In fact, it introduces a discontinuity in the forces at the cutoff,
486 < because the force function is shifted in the wrong direction and
487 < doesn't cross zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.
488 <
489 < Eqs. (\ref{eq:DSFPot}) and (\ref{eq:DSFForces}) result in an
490 < electrostatic summation method in which the potential and forces are
491 < continuous at the cutoff radius and which incorporates the damping
492 < function proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99} In the rest of
493 < this paper, we will evaluate exactly how good these methods ({\sc sp},
494 < {\sc sf}, damping) are at reproducing the correct electrostatic
495 < summation performed by the Ewald sum.
496 <
497 <
498 < \section{Evaluating Pairwise Summation Techniques}
499 <
500 < In classical molecular mechanics simulations, there are two primary
501 < techniques utilized to obtain information about the system of
502 < interest: Monte Carlo (MC) and Molecular Dynamics (MD).  Both of these
503 < techniques utilize pairwise summations of interactions between
504 < particle sites, but they use these summations in different ways.
505 <
506 < In MC, the potential energy difference between configurations dictates
507 < the progression of MC sampling.  Going back to the origins of this
508 < method, the acceptance criterion for the canonical ensemble laid out
509 < by Metropolis \textit{et al.} states that a subsequent configuration
510 < is accepted if $\Delta E < 0$ or if $\xi < \exp(-\Delta E/kT)$, where
511 < $\xi$ is a random number between 0 and 1.\cite{Metropolis53}
512 < Maintaining the correct $\Delta E$ when using an alternate method for
513 < handling the long-range electrostatics will ensure proper sampling
514 < from the ensemble.
515 <
516 < In MD, the derivative of the potential governs how the system will
517 < progress in time.  Consequently, the force and torque vectors on each
518 < body in the system dictate how the system evolves.  If the magnitude
519 < and direction of these vectors are similar when using alternate
520 < electrostatic summation techniques, the dynamics in the short term
521 < will be indistinguishable.  Because error in MD calculations is
522 < cumulative, one should expect greater deviation at longer times,
523 < although methods which have large differences in the force and torque
524 < vectors will diverge from each other more rapidly.
525 <
526 < \subsection{Monte Carlo and the Energy Gap}\label{sec:MCMethods}
527 <
528 < The pairwise summation techniques (outlined in section
529 < \ref{sec:ESMethods}) were evaluated for use in MC simulations by
530 < studying the energy differences between conformations.  We took the
531 < {\sc spme}-computed energy difference between two conformations to be the
532 < correct behavior. An ideal performance by an alternative method would
533 < reproduce these energy differences exactly (even if the absolute
534 < energies calculated by the methods are different).  Since none of the
535 < methods provide exact energy differences, we used linear least squares
536 < regressions of energy gap data to evaluate how closely the methods
537 < mimicked the Ewald energy gaps.  Unitary results for both the
538 < correlation (slope) and correlation coefficient for these regressions
539 < indicate perfect agreement between the alternative method and {\sc spme}.
540 < Sample correlation plots for two alternate methods are shown in
541 < Fig. \ref{fig:linearFit}.
542 <
543 < \begin{figure}
544 < \centering
545 < \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./figures/dualLinear.pdf}
546 < \caption{Example least squares regressions of the configuration energy
547 < differences for SPC/E water systems. The upper plot shows a data set
548 < with a poor correlation coefficient ($R^2$), while the lower plot
549 < shows a data set with a good correlation coefficient.}
550 < \label{fig:linearFit}
551 < \end{figure}
552 <
553 < Each of the seven system types (detailed in section \ref{sec:RepSims})
554 < were represented using 500 independent configurations.  Thus, each of
555 < the alternative (non-Ewald) electrostatic summation methods was
556 < evaluated using an accumulated 873,250 configurational energy
557 < differences.
558 <
559 < Results and discussion for the individual analysis of each of the
560 < system types appear in sections \ref{sec:IndividualResults}, while the
561 < cumulative results over all the investigated systems appear below in
562 < sections \ref{sec:EnergyResults}.
563 <
564 < \subsection{Molecular Dynamics and the Force and Torque
565 < Vectors}\label{sec:MDMethods} We evaluated the pairwise methods
566 < (outlined in section \ref{sec:ESMethods}) for use in MD simulations by
567 < comparing the force and torque vectors with those obtained using the
568 < reference Ewald summation ({\sc spme}).  Both the magnitude and the
569 < direction of these vectors on each of the bodies in the system were
570 < analyzed.  For the magnitude of these vectors, linear least squares
571 < regression analyses were performed as described previously for
572 < comparing $\Delta E$ values.  Instead of a single energy difference
573 < between two system configurations, we compared the magnitudes of the
574 < forces (and torques) on each molecule in each configuration.  For a
575 < system of 1000 water molecules and 40 ions, there are 1040 force
576 < vectors and 1000 torque vectors.  With 500 configurations, this
577 < results in 520,000 force and 500,000 torque vector comparisons.
578 < Additionally, data from seven different system types was aggregated
579 < before the comparison was made.
580 <
581 < The {\it directionality} of the force and torque vectors was
582 < investigated through measurement of the angle ($\theta$) formed
583 < between those computed from the particular method and those from {\sc spme},
584 < \begin{equation}
585 < \theta_f = \cos^{-1} \left(\hat{F}_\textrm{SPME}
586 < \cdot \hat{F}_\textrm{M}\right),
587 < \end{equation}
588 < where $\hat{F}_\textrm{M}$ is the unit vector pointing along the force
589 < vector computed using method M.  Each of these $\theta$ values was
590 < accumulated in a distribution function and weighted by the area on the
591 < unit sphere.  Since this distribution is a measure of angular error
592 < between two different electrostatic summation methods, there is no
593 < {\it a priori} reason for the profile to adhere to any specific
594 < shape. Thus, gaussian fits were used to measure the width of the
595 < resulting distributions. The variance ($\sigma^2$) was extracted from
596 < each of these fits and was used to compare distribution widths.
597 < Values of $\sigma^2$ near zero indicate vector directions
598 < indistinguishable from those calculated when using the reference
599 < method ({\sc spme}).
600 <
601 < \subsection{Short-time Dynamics}
602 <
603 < The effects of the alternative electrostatic summation methods on the
604 < short-time dynamics of charged systems were evaluated by considering a
605 < NaCl crystal at a temperature of 1000 K.  A subset of the best
606 < performing pairwise methods was used in this comparison.  The NaCl
607 < crystal was chosen to avoid possible complications from the treatment
608 < of orientational motion in molecular systems.  All systems were
609 < started with the same initial positions and velocities.  Simulations
610 < were performed under the microcanonical ensemble, and velocity
611 < autocorrelation functions (Eq. \ref{eq:vCorr}) were computed for each
612 < of the trajectories,
613 < \begin{equation}
614 < C_v(t) = \frac{\langle v(0)\cdot v(t)\rangle}{\langle v^2\rangle}.
615 < \label{eq:vCorr}
616 < \end{equation}
617 < Velocity autocorrelation functions require detailed short time data,
618 < thus velocity information was saved every 2 fs over 10 ps
619 < trajectories. Because the NaCl crystal is composed of two different
620 < atom types, the average of the two resulting velocity autocorrelation
621 < functions was used for comparisons.
622 <
623 < \subsection{Long-Time and Collective Motion}\label{sec:LongTimeMethods}
624 <
625 < The effects of the same subset of alternative electrostatic methods on
626 < the {\it long-time} dynamics of charged systems were evaluated using
627 < the same model system (NaCl crystals at 1000K).  The power spectrum
628 < ($I(\omega)$) was obtained via Fourier transform of the velocity
629 < autocorrelation function, \begin{equation} I(\omega) =
630 < \frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}C_v(t)e^{-i\omega t}dt,
631 < \label{eq:powerSpec}
632 < \end{equation}
633 < where the frequency, $\omega=0,\ 1,\ ...,\ N-1$. Again, because the
634 < NaCl crystal is composed of two different atom types, the average of
635 < the two resulting power spectra was used for comparisons. Simulations
636 < were performed under the microcanonical ensemble, and velocity
637 < information was saved every 5~fs over 100~ps trajectories.
638 <
639 < \subsection{Representative Simulations}\label{sec:RepSims}
640 < A variety of representative molecular simulations were analyzed to
641 < determine the relative effectiveness of the pairwise summation
642 < techniques in reproducing the energetics and dynamics exhibited by
643 < {\sc spme}.  We wanted to span the space of typical molecular
644 < simulations (i.e. from liquids of neutral molecules to ionic
645 < crystals), so the systems studied were:
646 <
647 < \begin{enumerate}
648 < \item liquid water (SPC/E),\cite{Berendsen87}
649 < \item crystalline water (Ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystals of SPC/E),
650 < \item NaCl crystals,
651 < \item NaCl melts,
652 < \item a low ionic strength solution of NaCl in water (0.11 M),
653 < \item a high ionic strength solution of NaCl in water (1.1 M), and
654 < \item a 6\AA\  radius sphere of Argon in water.
655 < \end{enumerate}
656 <
657 < By utilizing the pairwise techniques (outlined in section
658 < \ref{sec:ESMethods}) in systems composed entirely of neutral groups,
659 < charged particles, and mixtures of the two, we hope to discern under
660 < which conditions it will be possible to use one of the alternative
661 < summation methodologies instead of the Ewald sum.
662 <
663 < For the solid and liquid water configurations, configurations were
664 < taken at regular intervals from high temperature trajectories of 1000
665 < SPC/E water molecules.  Each configuration was equilibrated
666 < independently at a lower temperature (300K for the liquid, 200K for
667 < the crystal).  The solid and liquid NaCl systems consisted of 500
668 < $\textrm{Na}^{+}$ and 500 $\textrm{Cl}^{-}$ ions.  Configurations for
669 < these systems were selected and equilibrated in the same manner as the
670 < water systems. In order to introduce measurable fluctuations in the
671 < configuration energy differences, the crystalline simulations were
672 < equilibrated at 1000K, near the $T_\textrm{m}$ for NaCl. The liquid
673 < NaCl configurations needed to represent a fully disordered array of
674 < point charges, so the high temperature of 7000K was selected for
675 < equilibration. The ionic solutions were made by solvating 4 (or 40)
676 < ions in a periodic box containing 1000 SPC/E water molecules.  Ion and
677 < water positions were then randomly swapped, and the resulting
678 < configurations were again equilibrated individually.  Finally, for the
679 < Argon / Water ``charge void'' systems, the identities of all the SPC/E
680 < waters within 6\AA\ of the center of the equilibrated water
681 < configurations were converted to argon.
682 <
683 < These procedures guaranteed us a set of representative configurations
684 < from chemically-relevant systems sampled from appropriate
685 < ensembles. Force field parameters for the ions and Argon were taken
686 < from the force field utilized by {\sc oopse}.\cite{Meineke05}
687 <
688 < \subsection{Comparison of Summation Methods}\label{sec:ESMethods}
689 < We compared the following alternative summation methods with results
690 < from the reference method ({\sc spme}):
691 <
692 < \begin{enumerate}
693 < \item {\sc sp} with damping parameters ($\alpha$) of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2,
694 < and 0.3\AA$^{-1}$,
695 < \item {\sc sf} with damping parameters ($\alpha$) of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2,
696 < and 0.3\AA$^{-1}$,
697 < \item reaction field with an infinite dielectric constant, and
698 < \item an unmodified cutoff.
699 < \end{enumerate}
700 <
701 < Group-based cutoffs with a fifth-order polynomial switching function
702 < were utilized for the reaction field simulations.  Additionally, we
703 < investigated the use of these cutoffs with the {\sc sp}, {\sc sf}, and pure
704 < cutoff.  The {\sc spme} electrostatics were performed using the {\sc tinker}
705 < implementation of {\sc spme},\cite{Ponder87} while all other calculations
706 < were performed using the {\sc oopse} molecular mechanics
707 < package.\cite{Meineke05} All other portions of the energy calculation
708 < (i.e. Lennard-Jones interactions) were handled in exactly the same
709 < manner across all systems and configurations.
710 <
711 < The alternative methods were also evaluated with three different
712 < cutoff radii (9, 12, and 15\AA).  As noted previously, the
713 < convergence parameter ($\alpha$) plays a role in the balance of the
714 < real-space and reciprocal-space portions of the Ewald calculation.
715 < Typical molecular mechanics packages set this to a value dependent on
716 < the cutoff radius and a tolerance (typically less than $1 \times
717 < 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller tolerances are typically associated with
718 < increasing accuracy at the expense of computational time spent on the
719 < reciprocal-space portion of the summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann95}
720 < The default {\sc tinker} tolerance of $1 \times 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used
721 < in all {\sc spme} calculations, resulting in Ewald coefficients of 0.4200,
722 < 0.3119, and 0.2476\AA$^{-1}$ for cutoff radii of 9, 12, and 15\AA\
723 < respectively.
724 <
725 < \section{Configuration Energy Difference Results}\label{sec:EnergyResults}
726 < In order to evaluate the performance of the pairwise electrostatic
727 < summation methods for Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy
728 < differences between configurations were compared to the values
729 < obtained when using {\sc spme}.  The results for the combined
730 < regression analysis of all of the systems are shown in figure
731 < \ref{fig:delE}.
732 <
733 < \begin{figure}
734 < \centering
735 < \includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./figures/delEplot.pdf}
736 < \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of configurational energy
737 < differences for a given electrostatic method compared with the
738 < reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed line)
739 < indicate $\Delta E$ values indistinguishable from those obtained using
740 < {\sc spme}.  Different values of the cutoff radius are indicated with
741 < different symbols (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ =
742 < inverted triangles).}
743 < \label{fig:delE}
744 < \end{figure}
745 <
746 < The most striking feature of this plot is how well the Shifted Force
747 < ({\sc sf}) and Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) methods capture the energy
748 < differences.  For the undamped {\sc sf} method, and the
749 < moderately-damped {\sc sp} methods, the results are nearly
750 < indistinguishable from the Ewald results.  The other common methods do
751 < significantly less well.
752 <
753 < The unmodified cutoff method is essentially unusable.  This is not
754 < surprising since hard cutoffs give large energy fluctuations as atoms
755 < or molecules move in and out of the cutoff
756 < radius.\cite{Rahman71,Adams79} These fluctuations can be alleviated to
757 < some degree by using group based cutoffs with a switching
758 < function.\cite{Adams79,Steinbach94,Leach01} However, we do not see
759 < significant improvement using the group-switched cutoff because the
760 < salt and salt solution systems contain non-neutral groups.  Section
761 < \ref{sec:IndividualResults} includes results for systems comprised entirely
762 < of neutral groups.
763 <
764 < For the {\sc sp} method, inclusion of electrostatic damping improves
765 < the agreement with Ewald, and using an $\alpha$ of 0.2\AA $^{-1}$
766 < shows an excellent correlation and quality of fit with the {\sc spme}
767 < results, particularly with a cutoff radius greater than 12
768 < \AA .  Use of a larger damping parameter is more helpful for the
769 < shortest cutoff shown, but it has a detrimental effect on simulations
770 < with larger cutoffs.  
771 <
772 < In the {\sc sf} sets, increasing damping results in progressively {\it
773 < worse} correlation with Ewald.  Overall, the undamped case is the best
774 < performing set, as the correlation and quality of fits are
775 < consistently superior regardless of the cutoff distance.  The undamped
776 < case is also less computationally demanding (because no evaluation of
777 < the complementary error function is required).
778 <
779 < The reaction field results illustrates some of that method's
780 < limitations, primarily that it was developed for use in homogeneous
781 < systems; although it does provide results that are an improvement over
782 < those from an unmodified cutoff.
783 <
784 < \section{Magnitude of the Force and Torque Vector Results}\label{sec:FTMagResults}
785 <
786 < Evaluation of pairwise methods for use in Molecular Dynamics
787 < simulations requires consideration of effects on the forces and
788 < torques.  Figures \ref{fig:frcMag} and \ref{fig:trqMag} show the
789 < regression results for the force and torque vector magnitudes,
790 < respectively.  The data in these figures was generated from an
791 < accumulation of the statistics from all of the system types.
792 <
793 < \begin{figure}
794 < \centering
795 < \includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./figures/frcMagplot.pdf}
796 < \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the force vector
797 < magnitudes for a given electrostatic method compared with the
798 < reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed line)
799 < indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those obtained
800 < using {\sc spme}.  Different values of the cutoff radius are indicated with
801 < different symbols (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ =
802 < inverted triangles).}
803 < \label{fig:frcMag}
804 < \end{figure}
805 <
806 < Again, it is striking how well the Shifted Potential and Shifted Force
807 < methods are doing at reproducing the {\sc spme} forces.  The undamped and
808 < weakly-damped {\sc sf} method gives the best agreement with Ewald.
809 < This is perhaps expected because this method explicitly incorporates a
810 < smooth transition in the forces at the cutoff radius as well as the
811 < neutralizing image charges.
812 <
813 < Figure \ref{fig:frcMag}, for the most part, parallels the results seen
814 < in the previous $\Delta E$ section.  The unmodified cutoff results are
815 < poor, but using group based cutoffs and a switching function provides
816 < an improvement much more significant than what was seen with $\Delta
817 < E$.
818 <
819 < With moderate damping and a large enough cutoff radius, the {\sc sp}
820 < method is generating usable forces.  Further increases in damping,
821 < while beneficial for simulations with a cutoff radius of 9\AA\ , is
822 < detrimental to simulations with larger cutoff radii.
823 <
824 < The reaction field results are surprisingly good, considering the poor
825 < quality of the fits for the $\Delta E$ results.  There is still a
826 < considerable degree of scatter in the data, but the forces correlate
827 < well with the Ewald forces in general.  We note that the reaction
828 < field calculations do not include the pure NaCl systems, so these
829 < results are partly biased towards conditions in which the method
830 < performs more favorably.
831 <
832 < \begin{figure}
833 < \centering
834 < \includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./figures/trqMagplot.pdf}
835 < \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the torque vector
836 < magnitudes for a given electrostatic method compared with the
837 < reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed line)
838 < indicate torque magnitude values indistinguishable from those obtained
839 < using {\sc spme}.  Different values of the cutoff radius are indicated with
840 < different symbols (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ =
841 < inverted triangles).}
842 < \label{fig:trqMag}
843 < \end{figure}
844 <
845 < Molecular torques were only available from the systems which contained
846 < rigid molecules (i.e. the systems containing water).  The data in
847 < fig. \ref{fig:trqMag} is taken from this smaller sampling pool.
848 <
849 < Torques appear to be much more sensitive to charges at a longer
850 < distance.   The striking feature in comparing the new electrostatic
851 < methods with {\sc spme} is how much the agreement improves with increasing
852 < cutoff radius.  Again, the weakly damped and undamped {\sc sf} method
853 < appears to be reproducing the {\sc spme} torques most accurately.  
854 <
855 < Water molecules are dipolar, and the reaction field method reproduces
856 < the effect of the surrounding polarized medium on each of the
857 < molecular bodies. Therefore it is not surprising that reaction field
858 < performs best of all of the methods on molecular torques.
859 <
860 < \section{Directionality of the Force and Torque Vector Results}\label{sec:FTDirResults}
861 <
862 < It is clearly important that a new electrostatic method can reproduce
863 < the magnitudes of the force and torque vectors obtained via the Ewald
864 < sum. However, the {\it directionality} of these vectors will also be
865 < vital in calculating dynamical quantities accurately.  Force and
866 < torque directionalities were investigated by measuring the angles
867 < formed between these vectors and the same vectors calculated using
868 < {\sc spme}.  The results (Fig. \ref{fig:frcTrqAng}) are compared through the
869 < variance ($\sigma^2$) of the Gaussian fits of the angle error
870 < distributions of the combined set over all system types.
871 <
872 < \begin{figure}
873 < \centering
874 < \includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./figures/frcTrqAngplot.pdf}
875 < \caption{Statistical analysis of the width of the angular distribution
876 < that the force and torque vectors from a given electrostatic method
877 < make with their counterparts obtained using the reference Ewald sum.
878 < Results with a variance ($\sigma^2$) equal to zero (dashed line)
879 < indicate force and torque directions indistinguishable from those
880 < obtained using {\sc spme}.  Different values of the cutoff radius are
881 < indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares,
882 < and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles).}
883 < \label{fig:frcTrqAng}
884 < \end{figure}
885 <
886 < Both the force and torque $\sigma^2$ results from the analysis of the
887 < total accumulated system data are tabulated in figure
888 < \ref{fig:frcTrqAng}. Here it is clear that the Shifted Potential ({\sc
889 < sp}) method would be essentially unusable for molecular dynamics
890 < unless the damping function is added.  The Shifted Force ({\sc sf})
891 < method, however, is generating force and torque vectors which are
892 < within a few degrees of the Ewald results even with weak (or no)
893 < damping.
894 <
895 < All of the sets (aside from the over-damped case) show the improvement
896 < afforded by choosing a larger cutoff radius.  Increasing the cutoff
897 < from 9 to 12\AA\ typically results in a halving of the width of the
898 < distribution, with a similar improvement when going from 12 to 15
899 < \AA .
900 <
901 < The undamped {\sc sf}, group-based cutoff, and reaction field methods
902 < all do equivalently well at capturing the direction of both the force
903 < and torque vectors.  Using the electrostatic damping improves the
904 < angular behavior significantly for the {\sc sp} and moderately for the
905 < {\sc sf} methods.  Over-damping is detrimental to both methods.  Again
906 < it is important to recognize that the force vectors cover all
907 < particles in all seven systems, while torque vectors are only
908 < available for neutral molecular groups.  Damping is more beneficial to
909 < charged bodies, and this observation is investigated further in
910 < section \ref{sec:IndividualResults}.
911 <
912 < Although not discussed previously, group based cutoffs can be applied
913 < to both the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods.  The group-based cutoffs
914 < will reintroduce small discontinuities at the cutoff radius, but the
915 < effects of these can be minimized by utilizing a switching function.
916 < Though there are no significant benefits or drawbacks observed in
917 < $\Delta E$ and the force and torque magnitudes when doing this, there
918 < is a measurable improvement in the directionality of the forces and
919 < torques. Table \ref{tab:groupAngle} shows the angular variances
920 < obtained both without (N) and with (Y) group based cutoffs and a
921 < switching function.  Note that the $\alpha$ values have units of
922 < \AA$^{-1}$ and the variance values have units of degrees$^2$.  The
923 < {\sc sp} (with an $\alpha$ of 0.2\AA$^{-1}$ or smaller) shows much
924 < narrower angular distributions when using group-based cutoffs. The
925 < {\sc sf} method likewise shows improvement in the undamped and lightly
926 < damped cases.
927 <
928 < \begin{table}
929 < \caption{STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS ($\sigma^2$)
930 < THAT THE FORCE ({\it upper}) AND TORQUE ({\it lower}) VECTORS FROM A
931 < GIVEN ELECTROSTATIC METHOD MAKE WITH THEIR COUNTERPARTS OBTAINED USING
932 < THE REFERENCE EWALD SUMMATION}
933 <
934 < \footnotesize
935 < \begin{center}
936 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrrrr @{}} \\
937 < \toprule
938 < \toprule
939 <
940 < & &\multicolumn{4}{c}{Shifted Potential} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Shifted
941 < Force} \\
942 < \cmidrule(lr){3-6} \cmidrule(l){7-10} $R_\textrm{c}$ & Groups &
943 < $\alpha = 0$ & $\alpha = 0.1$ & $\alpha = 0.2$ & $\alpha = 0.3$ &
944 < $\alpha = 0$ & $\alpha = 0.1$ & $\alpha = 0.2$ & $\alpha = 0.3$\\
945 <
946 < \midrule
947 <    
948 < 9\AA   & N & 29.545 & 12.003 & 5.489 & 0.610 & 2.323 & 2.321 & 0.429 & 0.603 \\
949 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{2.486} & \textbf{2.160} & \textbf{0.667} & \textbf{0.608} & \textbf{1.768} & \textbf{1.766} & \textbf{0.676} & \textbf{0.609} \\
950 < 12\AA  & N & 19.381 & 3.097 & 0.190 & 0.608 & 0.920 & 0.736 & 0.133 & 0.612 \\
951 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{0.515} & \textbf{0.288} & \textbf{0.127} & \textbf{0.586} & \textbf{0.308} & \textbf{0.249} & \textbf{0.127} & \textbf{0.586} \\
952 < 15\AA  & N & 12.700 & 1.196 & 0.123 & 0.601 & 0.339 & 0.160 & 0.123 & 0.601 \\
953 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{0.228} & \textbf{0.099} & \textbf{0.121} & \textbf{0.598} & \textbf{0.144} & \textbf{0.090} & \textbf{0.121} & \textbf{0.598} \\
954 <
955 < \midrule
956 <      
957 < 9\AA   & N & 262.716 & 116.585 & 5.234 & 5.103 & 2.392 & 2.350 & 1.770 & 5.122 \\
958 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{2.115} & \textbf{1.914} & \textbf{1.878} & \textbf{5.142} & \textbf{2.076} & \textbf{2.039} & \textbf{1.972} & \textbf{5.146} \\
959 < 12\AA  & N & 129.576 & 25.560 & 1.369 & 5.080 & 0.913 & 0.790 & 1.362 & 5.124 \\
960 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{0.810} & \textbf{0.685} & \textbf{1.352} & \textbf{5.082} & \textbf{0.765} & \textbf{0.714} & \textbf{1.360} & \textbf{5.082} \\
961 < 15\AA  & N & 87.275 & 4.473 & 1.271 & 5.000 & 0.372 & 0.312 & 1.271 & 5.000 \\
962 <       & \textbf{Y} & \textbf{0.282} & \textbf{0.294} & \textbf{1.272} & \textbf{4.999} & \textbf{0.324} & \textbf{0.318} & \textbf{1.272} & \textbf{4.999} \\
963 <
964 < \bottomrule
965 < \end{tabular}
966 < \end{center}
967 < \label{tab:groupAngle}
968 < \end{table}
969 <
970 < One additional trend in table \ref{tab:groupAngle} is that the
971 < $\sigma^2$ values for both {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} converge as $\alpha$
972 < increases, something that is more obvious with group-based cutoffs.
973 < The complimentary error function inserted into the potential weakens
974 < the electrostatic interaction as the value of $\alpha$ is increased.
975 < However, at larger values of $\alpha$, it is possible to over-damp the
976 < electrostatic interaction and to remove it completely.  Kast
977 < \textit{et al.}  developed a method for choosing appropriate $\alpha$
978 < values for these types of electrostatic summation methods by fitting
979 < to $g(r)$ data, and their methods indicate optimal values of 0.34,
980 < 0.25, and 0.16\AA$^{-1}$ for cutoff values of 9, 12, and 15\AA\
981 < respectively.\cite{Kast03} These appear to be reasonable choices to
982 < obtain proper MC behavior (Fig. \ref{fig:delE}); however, based on
983 < these findings, choices this high would introduce error in the
984 < molecular torques, particularly for the shorter cutoffs.  Based on our
985 < observations, empirical damping up to 0.2\AA$^{-1}$ is beneficial,
986 < but damping may be unnecessary when using the {\sc sf} method.
987 <
988 < \section{Individual System Analysis Results}\label{sec:IndividualResults}
989 <
990 < The combined results of the previous sections show how the pairwise
991 < methods compare to the Ewald summation in the general sense over all
992 < of the system types.  It is also useful to consider each of the
993 < studied systems in an individual fashion, so that we can identify
994 < conditions that are particularly difficult for a selected pairwise
995 < method to address. This allows us to further establish the limitations
996 < of these pairwise techniques.  Below, the energy difference, force
997 < vector, and torque vector analyses are presented on an individual
998 < system basis.
999 <
1000 < \subsection{SPC/E Water Results}\label{sec:WaterResults}
1001 <
1002 < The first system considered was liquid water at 300K using the SPC/E
1003 < model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The results for the energy gap
1004 < comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are
1005 < shown in table \ref{tab:spce}.  The force and torque vector
1006 < directionality results are displayed separately in table
1007 < \ref{tab:spceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
1008 < switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are also
1009 < investigated.  In all of the individual results table, the method
1010 < abbreviations are as follows:
1011 <
1012 < \begin{itemize}
1013 < \item PC = Pure Cutoff,
1014 < \item SP = Shifted Potential,
1015 < \item SF = Shifted Force,
1016 < \item GSC = Group Switched Cutoff,
1017 < \item RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx\infty$),
1018 < \item GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and
1019 < \item GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.
1020 < \end{itemize}
1021 <
1022 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1023 < \centering
1024 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE LIQUID WATER SYSTEM FOR THE
1025 < $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}), FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it middle})
1026 < AND TORQUE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it lower})}
1027 <
1028 < \footnotesize
1029 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1030 < \\
1031 < \toprule
1032 < \toprule
1033 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1034 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1035 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1036 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1037 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1038 < \midrule
1039 < PC  &     & 3.046 & 0.002 & -3.018 & 0.002 & 4.719 & 0.005 \\
1040 < SP  & 0.0 & 1.035 & 0.218 & 0.908 & 0.313 & 1.037 & 0.470 \\
1041 <    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 0.387 & 0.965 & 0.752 & 1.006 & 0.947 \\
1042 <    & 0.2 & 0.997 & 0.962 & 1.001 & 0.994 & 0.994 & 0.996 \\
1043 <    & 0.3 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.997 & 0.985 & 0.982 & 0.987 \\
1044 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.977 & 0.974 & 0.996 & 0.992 & 0.991 & 0.997 \\
1045 <    & 0.1 & 0.983 & 0.974 & 1.001 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
1046 <    & 0.2 & 0.992 & 0.989 & 1.001 & 0.995 & 0.994 & 0.996 \\
1047 <    & 0.3 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.982 & 0.987 \\
1048 < GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.700 \\
1049 < RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                
1050 < \midrule
1051 < PC  &     & -1.647 & 0.000 & -0.127 & 0.000 & -0.979 & 0.000 \\
1052 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.735 & 0.368 & 0.813 & 0.537 & 0.865 & 0.659 \\
1053 <    & 0.1 & 0.850 & 0.612 & 0.956 & 0.887 & 0.992 & 0.979 \\
1054 <    & 0.2 & 0.996 & 0.989 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1055 <    & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
1056 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
1057 <    & 0.1 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1058 <    & 0.2 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1059 <    & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
1060 < GSC &     & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1061 < RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\          
1062 < \midrule
1063 < PC  &     & 2.387 & 0.000 & 0.183 & 0.000 & 1.282 & 0.000 \\
1064 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.847 & 0.543 & 0.904 & 0.694 & 0.935 & 0.786 \\
1065 <    & 0.1 & 0.922 & 0.749 & 0.980 & 0.934 & 0.996 & 0.988 \\
1066 <    & 0.2 & 0.987 & 0.985 & 0.989 & 0.992 & 0.990 & 0.993 \\
1067 <    & 0.3 & 0.965 & 0.973 & 0.967 & 0.975 & 0.967 & 0.976 \\
1068 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.978 & 0.990 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.993 & 0.999 \\
1069 <    & 0.1 & 0.983 & 0.991 & 0.993 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1070 <    & 0.2 & 0.986 & 0.989 & 0.989 & 0.992 & 0.990 & 0.993 \\
1071 <    & 0.3 & 0.965 & 0.973 & 0.967 & 0.975 & 0.967 & 0.976 \\
1072 < GSC &     & 0.995 & 0.981 & 0.999 & 0.991 & 1.001 & 0.994 \\
1073 < RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
1074 < \bottomrule
1075 < \end{tabular}
1076 < \label{tab:spce}
1077 < \end{table}
1078 <
1079 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1080 < \centering
1081 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR
1082 < DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE FORCE AND TORQUE VECTORS IN THE LIQUID WATER
1083 < SYSTEM}
1084 <
1085 < \footnotesize
1086 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1087 < \\
1088 < \toprule
1089 < \toprule
1090 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Torque $\sigma^2$} \\
1091 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1092 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1093 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1094 < \midrule
1095 < PC  &     & 783.759 & 481.353 & 332.677 & 248.674 & 144.382 & 98.535 \\
1096 < SP  & 0.0 & 659.440 & 380.699 & 250.002 & 235.151 & 134.661 & 88.135 \\
1097 <    & 0.1 & 293.849 & 67.772 & 11.609 & 105.090 & 23.813 & 4.369 \\
1098 <    & 0.2 & 5.975 & 0.136 & 0.094 & 5.553 & 1.784 & 1.536 \\
1099 <    & 0.3 & 0.725 & 0.707 & 0.693 & 7.293 & 6.933 & 6.748 \\
1100 < SF  & 0.0 & 2.238 & 0.713 & 0.292 & 3.290 & 1.090 & 0.416 \\
1101 <    & 0.1 & 2.238 & 0.524 & 0.115 & 3.184 & 0.945 & 0.326 \\
1102 <    & 0.2 & 0.374 & 0.102 & 0.094 & 2.598 & 1.755 & 1.537 \\
1103 <    & 0.3 & 0.721 & 0.707 & 0.693 & 7.322 & 6.933 & 6.748 \\
1104 < GSC &     & 2.431 & 0.614 & 0.274 & 5.135 & 2.133 & 1.339 \\
1105 < RF  &     & 2.091 & 0.403 & 0.113 & 3.583 & 1.071 & 0.399 \\      
1106 < \midrule
1107 < GSSP  & 0.0 & 2.431 & 0.614 & 0.274 & 5.135 & 2.133 & 1.339 \\
1108 <      & 0.1 & 1.879 & 0.291 & 0.057 & 3.983 & 1.117 & 0.370 \\
1109 <      & 0.2 & 0.443 & 0.103 & 0.093 & 2.821 & 1.794 & 1.532 \\
1110 <      & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.387 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
1111 < GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 & 0.375 \\
1112 <      & 0.1 & 1.296 & 0.210 & 0.044 & 3.055 & 0.922 & 0.330 \\
1113 <      & 0.2 & 0.433 & 0.104 & 0.093 & 2.895 & 1.797 & 1.532 \\
1114 <      & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
1115 < \bottomrule
1116 < \end{tabular}
1117 < \label{tab:spceAng}
1118 < \end{table}
1119 <
1120 < The water results parallel the combined results seen in sections
1121 < \ref{sec:EnergyResults} through \ref{sec:FTDirResults}.  There is good
1122 < agreement with {\sc spme} in both energetic and dynamic behavior when
1123 < using the {\sc sf} method with and without damping. The {\sc sp}
1124 < method does well with an $\alpha$ around 0.2\AA$^{-1}$, particularly
1125 < with cutoff radii greater than 12\AA. Over-damping the electrostatics
1126 < reduces the agreement between both these methods and {\sc spme}.
1127 <
1128 < The pure cutoff ({\sc pc}) method performs poorly, again mirroring the
1129 < observations from the combined results.  In contrast to these results, however, the use of a switching function and group
1130 < based cutoffs greatly improves the results for these neutral water
1131 < molecules.  The group switched cutoff ({\sc gsc}) does not mimic the
1132 < energetics of {\sc spme} as well as the {\sc sp} (with moderate
1133 < damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the dynamics are quite good.  The
1134 < switching functions correct discontinuities in the potential and
1135 < forces, leading to these improved results.  Such improvements with the
1136 < use of a switching function have been recognized in previous
1137 < studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and this proves to be a useful
1138 < tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic effects.
1139 <
1140 < The reaction field ({\sc rf}) method simply extends upon the results
1141 < observed in the {\sc gsc} case.  Both methods are similar in form
1142 < (i.e. neutral groups, switching function), but {\sc rf} incorporates
1143 < an added effect from the external dielectric. This similarity
1144 < translates into the same good dynamic results and improved energetic
1145 < agreement with {\sc spme}.  Though this agreement is not to the level
1146 < of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, these results
1147 < show how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings
1148 < (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve the solvent depiction.
1149 <
1150 < As a final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a
1151 < switching function leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc sp}
1152 < and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and
1153 < torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}). The {\sc sp} method shows
1154 < significant narrowing of the angle distribution when using little to
1155 < no damping and only modest improvement for the recommended conditions
1156 < ($\alpha = 0.2$\AA$^{-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c}~\geqslant~12$\AA).  The
1157 < {\sc sf} method shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff
1158 < ranges of interest.  When over-damping these methods, group cutoffs and
1159 < the switching function do not improve the force and torque
1160 < directionalities.
1161 <
1162 < \subsection{SPC/E Ice I$_\textrm{c}$ Results}\label{sec:IceResults}
1163 <
1164 < In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered
1165 < molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered.  Ice
1166 < polymorph could have been used to fit this role; however, ice
1167 < I$_\textrm{c}$ was chosen because it can form an ideal periodic
1168 < lattice with the same number of water molecules used in the disordered
1169 < liquid state case.  The results for the energy gap comparisons and the
1170 < force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
1171 < \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are
1172 < displayed separately in table \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of
1173 < group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
1174 < sf} potentials are also displayed.
1175 <
1176 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1177 < \centering
1178 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE ICE I$_\textrm{c}$ SYSTEM FOR
1179 < $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}), FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it
1180 < middle}) AND TORQUE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it lower})}
1181 <
1182 < \footnotesize
1183 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1184 < \\
1185 < \toprule
1186 < \toprule
1187 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1188 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1189 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1190 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1191 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1192 < \midrule
1193 < PC  &     & 19.897 & 0.047 & -29.214 & 0.048 & -3.771 & 0.001 \\
1194 < SP  & 0.0 & -0.014 & 0.000 & 2.135 & 0.347 & 0.457 & 0.045 \\
1195 <    & 0.1 & 0.321 & 0.017 & 1.490 & 0.584 & 0.886 & 0.796 \\
1196 <    & 0.2 & 0.896 & 0.872 & 1.011 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1197 <    & 0.3 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.992 & 0.997 & 0.991 & 0.997 \\
1198 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.943 & 0.979 & 1.048 & 0.978 & 0.995 & 0.999 \\
1199 <    & 0.1 & 0.948 & 0.979 & 1.044 & 0.983 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
1200 <    & 0.2 & 0.982 & 0.997 & 0.969 & 0.960 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1201 <    & 0.3 & 0.985 & 0.997 & 0.961 & 0.961 & 0.991 & 0.997 \\
1202 < GSC &     & 0.983 & 0.985 & 0.966 & 0.994 & 1.003 & 0.999 \\
1203 < RF  &     & 0.924 & 0.944 & 0.990 & 0.996 & 0.991 & 0.998 \\
1204 < \midrule
1205 < PC  &     & -4.375 & 0.000 & 6.781 & 0.000 & -3.369 & 0.000 \\
1206 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.515 & 0.164 & 0.856 & 0.426 & 0.743 & 0.478 \\
1207 <    & 0.1 & 0.696 & 0.405 & 0.977 & 0.817 & 0.974 & 0.964 \\
1208 <    & 0.2 & 0.981 & 0.980 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1209 <    & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1210 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.991 & 0.995 & 1.003 & 0.998 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
1211 <    & 0.1 & 0.992 & 0.995 & 1.003 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1212 <    & 0.2 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 0.981 & 0.962 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1213 <    & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.976 & 0.957 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1214 < GSC &     & 0.997 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1215 < RF  &     & 0.988 & 0.989 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1216 < \midrule
1217 < PC  &     & -6.367 & 0.000 & -3.552 & 0.000 & -3.447 & 0.000 \\
1218 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.643 & 0.409 & 0.833 & 0.607 & 0.961 & 0.805 \\
1219 <    & 0.1 & 0.791 & 0.683 & 0.957 & 0.914 & 1.000 & 0.989 \\
1220 <    & 0.2 & 0.974 & 0.991 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.993 & 0.998 \\
1221 <    & 0.3 & 0.976 & 0.992 & 0.977 & 0.992 & 0.977 & 0.992 \\
1222 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.979 & 0.997 & 0.992 & 0.999 & 0.994 & 1.000 \\
1223 <    & 0.1 & 0.984 & 0.997 & 0.996 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
1224 <    & 0.2 & 0.991 & 0.997 & 0.974 & 0.958 & 0.993 & 0.998 \\
1225 <    & 0.3 & 0.977 & 0.992 & 0.956 & 0.948 & 0.977 & 0.992 \\
1226 < GSC &     & 0.999 & 0.997 & 0.996 & 0.999 & 1.002 & 1.000 \\
1227 < RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1228 < \bottomrule
1229 < \end{tabular}
1230 < \label{tab:ice}
1231 < \end{table}
1232 <
1233 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1234 < \centering
1235 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS
1236 < OF THE FORCE AND TORQUE VECTORS IN THE ICE I$_\textrm{c}$ SYSTEM}      
1237 <
1238 < \footnotesize
1239 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1240 < \\
1241 < \toprule
1242 < \toprule
1243 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Torque
1244 < $\sigma^2$} \\
1245 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1246 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1247 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1248 < \midrule
1249 < PC  &     & 2128.921 & 603.197 & 715.579 & 329.056 & 221.397 & 81.042 \\
1250 < SP  & 0.0 & 1429.341 & 470.320 & 447.557 & 301.678 & 197.437 & 73.840 \\
1251 <    & 0.1 & 590.008 & 107.510 & 18.883 & 118.201 & 32.472 & 3.599 \\
1252 <    & 0.2 & 10.057 & 0.105 & 0.038 & 2.875 & 0.572 & 0.518 \\
1253 <    & 0.3 & 0.245 & 0.260 & 0.262 & 2.365 & 2.396 & 2.327 \\
1254 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.745 & 1.161 & 0.212 & 1.135 & 0.426 & 0.155 \\
1255 <    & 0.1 & 1.721 & 0.868 & 0.082 & 1.118 & 0.358 & 0.118 \\
1256 <    & 0.2 & 0.201 & 0.040 & 0.038 & 0.786 & 0.555 & 0.518 \\
1257 <    & 0.3 & 0.241 & 0.260 & 0.262 & 2.368 & 2.400 & 2.327 \\
1258 < GSC &     & 1.483 & 0.261 & 0.099 & 0.926 & 0.295 & 0.095 \\
1259 < RF  &     & 2.887 & 0.217 & 0.107 & 1.006 & 0.281 & 0.085 \\
1260 < \midrule
1261 < GSSP  & 0.0 & 1.483 & 0.261 & 0.099 & 0.926 & 0.295 & 0.095 \\
1262 <      & 0.1 & 1.341 & 0.123 & 0.037 & 0.835 & 0.234 & 0.085 \\
1263 <      & 0.2 & 0.558 & 0.040 & 0.037 & 0.823 & 0.557 & 0.519 \\
1264 <      & 0.3 & 0.250 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
1265 < GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 & 0.099 \\
1266 <      & 0.1 & 2.165 & 0.101 & 0.035 & 0.895 & 0.244 & 0.096 \\
1267 <      & 0.2 & 0.706 & 0.040 & 0.037 & 0.870 & 0.559 & 0.519 \\
1268 <      & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
1269 < \bottomrule
1270 < \end{tabular}
1271 < \label{tab:iceAng}
1272 < \end{table}
1273 <
1274 < Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise methods
1275 < in that they lack the implicit periodicity of the Ewald summation.  As
1276 < expected, the energy gap agreement with {\sc spme} is reduced for the
1277 < {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods with parameters that were ideal for the
1278 < disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ helps
1279 < improve the agreement, though at an increase in computational cost.
1280 < The dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude and
1281 < direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the Ewald
1282 < behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the previous
1283 < section.
1284 <
1285 < It is also worth noting that {\sc rf} exhibits improved energy gap
1286 < results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is
1287 < that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net
1288 < dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} =
1289 < \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization
1290 < by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff
1291 < sphere.
1292 <
1293 < \subsection{NaCl Melt Results}\label{sec:SaltMeltResults}
1294 <
1295 < A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the
1296 < pairwise summation methods in a disordered system of charges. The
1297 < results for the energy gap comparisons and the force vector magnitude
1298 < comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force vector
1299 < directionality results are displayed separately in table
1300 < \ref{tab:meltAng}.
1301 <
1302 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1303 < \centering
1304 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE MOLTEN SODIUM CHLORIDE SYSTEM FOR
1305 < $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}) AND FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it
1306 < lower})}
1307 <
1308 < \footnotesize
1309 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1310 < \\
1311 < \toprule
1312 < \toprule
1313 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1314 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1315 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1316 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1317 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1318 < \midrule
1319 < PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 & 0.020 \\
1320 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.928 & 0.996 & 0.931 & 0.998 & 0.950 & 0.999 \\
1321 <    & 0.1 & 0.977 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
1322 <    & 0.2 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
1323 <    & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
1324 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
1325 <    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 1.000 & 1.024 & 1.000 & 1.007 & 1.000 \\
1326 <    & 0.2 & 0.966 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
1327 <    & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
1328 <            \midrule
1329 < PC  &     & 1.103 & 0.000 & 0.989 & 0.000 & 0.802 & 0.000 \\
1330 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.973 & 0.981 & 0.975 & 0.988 & 0.979 & 0.992 \\
1331 <    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.992 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1332 <    & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
1333 <    & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
1334 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
1335 <    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1336 <    & 0.2 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
1337 <    & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
1338 < \bottomrule
1339 < \end{tabular}
1340 < \label{tab:melt}
1341 < \end{table}
1342 <
1343 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1344 < \centering
1345 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS
1346 < OF THE FORCE VECTORS IN THE MOLTEN SODIUM CHLORIDE SYSTEM}      
1347 <
1348 < \footnotesize
1349 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1350 < \\
1351 < \toprule
1352 < \toprule
1353 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} \\
1354 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1355 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1356 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1357 < \midrule
1358 < PC  &     & 13.294 & 8.035 & 5.366 \\
1359 < SP  & 0.0 & 13.316 & 8.037 & 5.385 \\
1360 <    & 0.1 & 5.705 & 1.391 & 0.360 \\
1361 <    & 0.2 & 2.415 & 7.534 & 13.927 \\
1362 <    & 0.3 & 23.769 & 67.306 & 57.252 \\
1363 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
1364 <    & 0.1 & 1.687 & 0.653 & 0.272 \\
1365 <    & 0.2 & 2.598 & 7.523 & 13.930 \\
1366 <    & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
1367 < \bottomrule
1368 < \end{tabular}
1369 < \label{tab:meltAng}
1370 < \end{table}
1371 <
1372 < The molten NaCl system shows more sensitivity to the electrostatic
1373 < damping than the water systems. The most noticeable point is that the
1374 < undamped {\sc sf} method does very well at replicating the {\sc spme}
1375 < configurational energy differences and forces. Light damping appears
1376 < to minimally improve the dynamics, but this comes with a deterioration
1377 < of the energy gap results. In contrast, this light damping improves
1378 < the {\sc sp} energy gaps and forces. Moderate and heavy electrostatic
1379 < damping reduce the agreement with {\sc spme} for both methods. From
1380 < these observations, the undamped {\sc sf} method is the best choice
1381 < for disordered systems of charges.
1382 <
1383 < \subsection{NaCl Crystal Results}\label{sec:SaltCrystalResults}
1384 <
1385 < Similar to the use of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ to investigate the role of
1386 < order in molecular systems on the effectiveness of the pairwise
1387 < methods, the 1000K NaCl crystal system was used to investigate the
1388 < accuracy of the pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of
1389 < charged particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the
1390 < force vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:salt}.
1391 < The force vector directionality results are displayed separately in
1392 < table \ref{tab:saltAng}.
1393 <
1394 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1395 < \centering
1396 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE CRYSTALLINE SODIUM CHLORIDE
1397 < SYSTEM FOR $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}) AND FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES
1398 < ({\it lower})}
1399 <
1400 < \footnotesize
1401 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1402 < \\
1403 < \toprule
1404 < \toprule
1405 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1406 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1407 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1408 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1409 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1410 < \midrule
1411 < PC  &     & -20.241 & 0.228 & -20.248 & 0.229 & -20.239 & 0.228 \\
1412 < SP  & 0.0 & 1.039 & 0.733 & 2.037 & 0.565 & 1.225 & 0.743 \\
1413 <    & 0.1 & 1.049 & 0.865 & 1.424 & 0.784 & 1.029 & 0.980 \\
1414 <    & 0.2 & 0.982 & 0.976 & 0.969 & 0.980 & 0.960 & 0.980 \\
1415 <    & 0.3 & 0.873 & 0.944 & 0.872 & 0.945 & 0.872 & 0.945 \\
1416 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.041 & 0.967 & 0.994 & 0.989 & 0.957 & 0.993 \\
1417 <    & 0.1 & 1.050 & 0.968 & 0.996 & 0.991 & 0.972 & 0.995 \\
1418 <    & 0.2 & 0.982 & 0.975 & 0.959 & 0.980 & 0.960 & 0.980 \\
1419 <    & 0.3 & 0.873 & 0.944 & 0.872 & 0.945 & 0.872 & 0.944 \\
1420 < \midrule
1421 < PC  &     & 0.795 & 0.000 & 0.792 & 0.000 & 0.793 & 0.000 \\
1422 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.916 & 0.829 & 1.086 & 0.791 & 1.010 & 0.936 \\
1423 <    & 0.1 & 0.958 & 0.917 & 1.049 & 0.943 & 1.001 & 0.995 \\
1424 <    & 0.2 & 0.981 & 0.981 & 0.982 & 0.984 & 0.981 & 0.984 \\
1425 <    & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
1426 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.997 \\
1427 <    & 0.1 & 1.003 & 0.984 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.993 & 0.997 \\
1428 <    & 0.2 & 0.983 & 0.980 & 0.981 & 0.984 & 0.981 & 0.984 \\
1429 <    & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
1430 < \bottomrule
1431 < \end{tabular}
1432 < \label{tab:salt}
1433 < \end{table}
1434 <
1435 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1436 < \centering
1437 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR
1438 < DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE FORCE VECTORS IN THE CRYSTALLINE SODIUM CHLORIDE
1439 < SYSTEM}
1440 <
1441 < \footnotesize
1442 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1443 < \\
1444 < \toprule
1445 < \toprule
1446 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} \\
1447 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1448 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1449 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1450 < \midrule
1451 < PC  &     & 111.945 & 111.824 & 111.866 \\
1452 < SP  & 0.0 & 112.414 & 152.215 & 38.087 \\
1453 <    & 0.1 & 52.361 & 42.574 & 2.819 \\
1454 <    & 0.2 & 10.847 & 9.709 & 9.686 \\
1455 <    & 0.3 & 31.128 & 31.104 & 31.029 \\
1456 < SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
1457 <    & 0.1 & 9.462 & 3.303 & 1.721 \\
1458 <    & 0.2 & 11.454 & 9.813 & 9.701 \\
1459 <    & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
1460 < \bottomrule
1461 < \end{tabular}
1462 < \label{tab:saltAng}
1463 < \end{table}
1464 <
1465 < The crystalline NaCl system is the most challenging test case for the
1466 < pairwise summation methods, as evidenced by the results in tables
1467 < \ref{tab:salt} and \ref{tab:saltAng}. The undamped and weakly damped
1468 < {\sc sf} methods seem to be the best choices. These methods match well
1469 < with {\sc spme} across the energy gap, force magnitude, and force
1470 < directionality tests.  The {\sc sp} method struggles in all cases,
1471 < with the exception of good dynamics reproduction when using weak
1472 < electrostatic damping with a large cutoff radius.
1473 <
1474 < The moderate electrostatic damping case is not as good as we would
1475 < expect given the long-time dynamics results observed for this system
1476 < (see section \ref{sec:LongTimeDynamics}). Since the data tabulated in
1477 < tables \ref{tab:salt} and \ref{tab:saltAng} are a test of
1478 < instantaneous dynamics, this indicates that good long-time dynamics
1479 < comes in part at the expense of short-time dynamics.
1480 <
1481 < \subsection{0.11M NaCl Solution Results}
1482 <
1483 < In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular
1484 < systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into
1485 < the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4
1486 < ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results
1487 < for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
1488 < magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The
1489 < force and torque vector directionality results are displayed
1490 < separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of
1491 < group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
1492 < sf} potentials are investigated.
1493 <
1494 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1495 < \centering
1496 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE WEAK SODIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION
1497 < SYSTEM FOR $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}), FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES
1498 < ({\it middle}) AND TORQUE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it lower})}
1499 <
1500 < \footnotesize
1501 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1502 < \\
1503 < \toprule
1504 < \toprule
1505 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1506 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1507 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1508 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1509 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1510 < \midrule
1511 < PC  &     & 0.247 & 0.000 & -1.103 & 0.001 & 5.480 & 0.015 \\
1512 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.935 & 0.388 & 0.984 & 0.541 & 1.010 & 0.685 \\
1513 <    & 0.1 & 0.951 & 0.603 & 0.993 & 0.875 & 1.001 & 0.979 \\
1514 <    & 0.2 & 0.969 & 0.968 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.997 \\
1515 <    & 0.3 & 0.955 & 0.966 & 0.984 & 0.992 & 0.978 & 0.991 \\
1516 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.963 & 0.971 & 0.989 & 0.996 & 0.991 & 0.998 \\
1517 <    & 0.1 & 0.970 & 0.971 & 0.995 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
1518 <    & 0.2 & 0.972 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.997 \\
1519 <    & 0.3 & 0.955 & 0.966 & 0.984 & 0.992 & 0.978 & 0.991 \\
1520 < GSC &     & 0.964 & 0.731 & 0.984 & 0.704 & 1.005 & 0.770 \\
1521 < RF  &     & 0.968 & 0.605 & 0.974 & 0.541 & 1.014 & 0.614 \\
1522 < \midrule
1523 < PC  &     & 1.354 & 0.000 & -1.190 & 0.000 & -0.314 & 0.000 \\
1524 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.720 & 0.338 & 0.808 & 0.523 & 0.860 & 0.643 \\
1525 <    & 0.1 & 0.839 & 0.583 & 0.955 & 0.882 & 0.992 & 0.978 \\
1526 <    & 0.2 & 0.995 & 0.987 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
1527 <    & 0.3 & 0.995 & 0.996 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
1528 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.998 & 0.994 & 1.000 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
1529 <    & 0.1 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1530 <    & 0.2 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
1531 <    & 0.3 & 0.995 & 0.996 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
1532 < GSC &     & 0.995 & 0.990 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 \\
1533 < RF  &     & 0.998 & 0.993 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 0.999 & 0.996 \\
1534 < \midrule
1535 < PC  &     & 2.437 & 0.000 & -1.872 & 0.000 & 2.138 & 0.000 \\
1536 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.838 & 0.525 & 0.901 & 0.686 & 0.932 & 0.779 \\
1537 <    & 0.1 & 0.914 & 0.733 & 0.979 & 0.932 & 0.995 & 0.987 \\
1538 <    & 0.2 & 0.977 & 0.969 & 0.988 & 0.990 & 0.989 & 0.990 \\
1539 <    & 0.3 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.964 & 0.971 & 0.965 & 0.970 \\
1540 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.969 & 0.977 & 0.987 & 0.996 & 0.993 & 0.998 \\
1541 <    & 0.1 & 0.975 & 0.978 & 0.993 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.998 \\
1542 <    & 0.2 & 0.976 & 0.973 & 0.988 & 0.990 & 0.989 & 0.990 \\
1543 <    & 0.3 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.964 & 0.971 & 0.965 & 0.970 \\
1544 < GSC &     & 0.980 & 0.959 & 0.990 & 0.983 & 0.992 & 0.989 \\
1545 < RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
1546 < \bottomrule
1547 < \end{tabular}
1548 < \label{tab:solnWeak}
1549 < \end{table}
1550 <
1551 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1552 < \centering
1553 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR
1554 < DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE FORCE AND TORQUE VECTORS IN THE WEAK SODIUM
1555 < CHLORIDE SOLUTION SYSTEM}
1556 <
1557 < \footnotesize
1558 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1559 < \\
1560 < \toprule
1561 < \toprule
1562 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Torque $\sigma^2$} \\
1563 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1564 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1565 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1566 < \midrule
1567 < PC  &     & 882.863 & 510.435 & 344.201 & 277.691 & 154.231 & 100.131 \\
1568 < SP  & 0.0 & 732.569 & 405.704 & 257.756 & 261.445 & 142.245 & 91.497 \\
1569 <    & 0.1 & 329.031 & 70.746 & 12.014 & 118.496 & 25.218 & 4.711 \\
1570 <    & 0.2 & 6.772 & 0.153 & 0.118 & 9.780 & 2.101 & 2.102 \\
1571 <    & 0.3 & 0.951 & 0.774 & 0.784 & 12.108 & 7.673 & 7.851 \\
1572 < SF  & 0.0 & 2.555 & 0.762 & 0.313 & 6.590 & 1.328 & 0.558 \\
1573 <    & 0.1 & 2.561 & 0.560 & 0.123 & 6.464 & 1.162 & 0.457 \\
1574 <    & 0.2 & 0.501 & 0.118 & 0.118 & 5.698 & 2.074 & 2.099 \\
1575 <    & 0.3 & 0.943 & 0.774 & 0.784 & 12.118 & 7.674 & 7.851 \\
1576 < GSC &     & 2.915 & 0.643 & 0.261 & 9.576 & 3.133 & 1.812 \\
1577 < RF  &     & 2.415 & 0.452 & 0.130 & 6.915 & 1.423 & 0.507 \\
1578 < \midrule
1579 < GSSP  & 0.0 & 2.915 & 0.643 & 0.261 & 9.576 & 3.133 & 1.812 \\
1580 <      & 0.1 & 2.251 & 0.324 & 0.064 & 7.628 & 1.639 & 0.497 \\
1581 <      & 0.2 & 0.590 & 0.118 & 0.116 & 6.080 & 2.096 & 2.103 \\
1582 <      & 0.3 & 0.953 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.347 & 7.683 & 7.849 \\
1583 < GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 & 0.496 \\
1584 <      & 0.1 & 1.541 & 0.237 & 0.050 & 6.356 & 1.202 & 0.457 \\
1585 <      & 0.2 & 0.568 & 0.118 & 0.116 & 6.166 & 2.105 & 2.105 \\
1586 <      & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
1587 < \bottomrule
1588 < \end{tabular}
1589 < \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
1590 < \end{table}
1591 <
1592 < Because this system is a perturbation of the pure liquid water system,
1593 < comparisons are best drawn between these two sets. The {\sc sp} and
1594 < {\sc sf} methods are not significantly affected by the inclusion of a
1595 < few ions. The aspect of cutoff sphere neutralization aids in the
1596 < smooth incorporation of these ions; thus, all of the observations
1597 < regarding these methods carry over from section
1598 < \ref{sec:WaterResults}. The differences between these systems are more
1599 < visible for the {\sc rf} method. Though good force agreement is still
1600 < maintained, the energy gaps show a significant increase in the scatter
1601 < of the data.
1602 <
1603 < \subsection{1.1M NaCl Solution Results}
1604 <
1605 < The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was
1606 < further developed by considering a high ionic strength system
1607 < consisting of 40 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1
1608 < M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and
1609 < torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
1610 < \ref{tab:solnStr}.  The force and torque vector directionality
1611 < results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnStrAng}, where
1612 < the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
1613 < sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
1614 <
1615 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1616 < \centering
1617 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE STRONG SODIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION
1618 < SYSTEM FOR $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}), FORCE VECTOR MAGNITUDES
1619 < ({\it middle}) AND TORQUE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it lower})}
1620 <
1621 < \footnotesize
1622 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1623 < \\
1624 < \toprule
1625 < \toprule
1626 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1627 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1628 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1629 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1630 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1631 < \midrule
1632 < PC  &     & -0.081 & 0.000 & 0.945 & 0.001 & 0.073 & 0.000 \\
1633 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.978 & 0.469 & 0.996 & 0.672 & 0.975 & 0.668 \\
1634 <    & 0.1 & 0.944 & 0.645 & 0.997 & 0.886 & 0.991 & 0.978 \\
1635 <    & 0.2 & 0.873 & 0.896 & 0.985 & 0.993 & 0.980 & 0.993 \\
1636 <    & 0.3 & 0.831 & 0.860 & 0.960 & 0.979 & 0.955 & 0.977 \\
1637 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.858 & 0.905 & 0.985 & 0.970 & 0.990 & 0.998 \\
1638 <    & 0.1 & 0.865 & 0.907 & 0.992 & 0.974 & 0.994 & 0.999 \\
1639 <    & 0.2 & 0.862 & 0.894 & 0.985 & 0.993 & 0.980 & 0.993 \\
1640 <    & 0.3 & 0.831 & 0.859 & 0.960 & 0.979 & 0.955 & 0.977 \\
1641 < GSC &     & 1.985 & 0.152 & 0.760 & 0.031 & 1.106 & 0.062 \\
1642 < RF  &     & 2.414 & 0.116 & 0.813 & 0.017 & 1.434 & 0.047 \\
1643 < \midrule
1644 < PC  &     & -7.028 & 0.000 & -9.364 & 0.000 & 0.925 & 0.865 \\
1645 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.701 & 0.319 & 0.909 & 0.773 & 0.861 & 0.665 \\
1646 <    & 0.1 & 0.824 & 0.565 & 0.970 & 0.930 & 0.990 & 0.979 \\
1647 <    & 0.2 & 0.988 & 0.981 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.991 & 0.998 \\
1648 <    & 0.3 & 0.983 & 0.985 & 0.985 & 0.991 & 0.978 & 0.990 \\
1649 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.984 & 0.998 & 0.999 \\
1650 <    & 0.1 & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.993 & 0.986 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
1651 <    & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.992 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.991 & 0.998 \\
1652 <    & 0.3 & 0.983 & 0.985 & 0.985 & 0.991 & 0.978 & 0.990 \\
1653 < GSC &     & 0.964 & 0.897 & 0.970 & 0.917 & 0.925 & 0.865 \\
1654 < RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.864 & 0.988 & 0.865 & 0.980 & 0.784 \\
1655 < \midrule
1656 < PC  &     & -2.212 & 0.000 & -0.588 & 0.000 & 0.953 & 0.925 \\
1657 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.800 & 0.479 & 0.930 & 0.804 & 0.924 & 0.759 \\
1658 <    & 0.1 & 0.883 & 0.694 & 0.976 & 0.942 & 0.993 & 0.986 \\
1659 <    & 0.2 & 0.952 & 0.943 & 0.980 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.983 \\
1660 <    & 0.3 & 0.914 & 0.909 & 0.943 & 0.948 & 0.944 & 0.946 \\
1661 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.945 & 0.953 & 0.980 & 0.984 & 0.991 & 0.998 \\
1662 <    & 0.1 & 0.951 & 0.954 & 0.987 & 0.986 & 0.995 & 0.998 \\
1663 <    & 0.2 & 0.951 & 0.946 & 0.980 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.983 \\
1664 <    & 0.3 & 0.914 & 0.908 & 0.943 & 0.948 & 0.944 & 0.946 \\
1665 < GSC &     & 0.882 & 0.818 & 0.939 & 0.902 & 0.953 & 0.925 \\
1666 < RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
1667 < \bottomrule
1668 < \end{tabular}
1669 < \label{tab:solnStr}
1670 < \end{table}
1671 <
1672 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1673 < \centering
1674 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS
1675 < OF THE FORCE AND TORQUE VECTORS IN THE STRONG SODIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION
1676 < SYSTEM}
1677 <
1678 < \footnotesize
1679 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1680 < \\
1681 < \toprule
1682 < \toprule
1683 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Torque $\sigma^2$} \\
1684 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1685 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1686 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1687 < \midrule
1688 < PC  &     & 957.784 & 513.373 & 2.260 & 340.043 & 179.443 & 13.079 \\
1689 < SP  & 0.0 & 786.244 & 139.985 & 259.289 & 311.519 & 90.280 & 105.187 \\
1690 <    & 0.1 & 354.697 & 38.614 & 12.274 & 144.531 & 23.787 & 5.401 \\
1691 <    & 0.2 & 7.674 & 0.363 & 0.215 & 16.655 & 3.601 & 3.634 \\
1692 <    & 0.3 & 1.745 & 1.456 & 1.449 & 23.669 & 14.376 & 14.240 \\
1693 < SF  & 0.0 & 3.282 & 8.567 & 0.369 & 11.904 & 6.589 & 0.717 \\
1694 <    & 0.1 & 3.263 & 7.479 & 0.142 & 11.634 & 5.750 & 0.591 \\
1695 <    & 0.2 & 0.686 & 0.324 & 0.215 & 10.809 & 3.580 & 3.635 \\
1696 <    & 0.3 & 1.749 & 1.456 & 1.449 & 23.635 & 14.375 & 14.240 \\
1697 < GSC &     & 6.181 & 2.904 & 2.263 & 44.349 & 19.442 & 12.873 \\
1698 < RF  &     & 3.891 & 0.847 & 0.323 & 18.628 & 3.995 & 2.072 \\
1699 < \midrule
1700 < GSSP  & 0.0 & 6.197 & 2.929 & 2.290 & 44.441 & 19.442 & 12.873 \\
1701 <      & 0.1 & 4.688 & 1.064 & 0.260 & 31.208 & 6.967 & 2.303 \\
1702 <      & 0.2 & 1.021 & 0.218 & 0.213 & 14.425 & 3.629 & 3.649 \\
1703 <      & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.540 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
1704 < GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 & 1.613 \\
1705 <      & 0.1 & 2.448 & 0.429 & 0.106 & 16.390 & 2.827 & 1.159 \\
1706 <      & 0.2 & 0.899 & 0.214 & 0.213 & 13.542 & 3.583 & 3.645 \\
1707 <      & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
1708 < \bottomrule
1709 < \end{tabular}
1710 < \label{tab:solnStrAng}
1711 < \end{table}
1712 <
1713 < The {\sc rf} method struggles with the jump in ionic strength. The
1714 < configuration energy differences degrade to unusable levels while the
1715 < forces and torques show a more modest reduction in the agreement with
1716 < {\sc spme}. The {\sc rf} method was designed for homogeneous systems,
1717 < and this attribute is apparent in these results.
1718 <
1719 < The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods require larger cutoffs to maintain
1720 < their agreement with {\sc spme}. With these results, we still
1721 < recommend undamped to moderate damping for the {\sc sf} method and
1722 < moderate damping for the {\sc sp} method, both with cutoffs greater
1723 < than 12\AA.
1724 <
1725 < \subsection{6\AA\ Argon Sphere in SPC/E Water Results}
1726 <
1727 < The final model system studied was a 6\AA\ sphere of Argon solvated
1728 < by SPC/E water. This serves as a test case of a specifically sized
1729 < electrostatic defect in a disordered molecular system. The results for
1730 < the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude
1731 < comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:argon}.  The force and torque
1732 < vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
1733 < \ref{tab:argonAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
1734 < switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
1735 < investigated.
1736 <
1737 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1738 < \centering
1739 < \caption{REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE 6\AA\ ARGON SPHERE IN LIQUID
1740 < WATER SYSTEM FOR $\Delta E$ VALUES ({\it upper}), FORCE VECTOR
1741 < MAGNITUDES ({\it middle}) AND TORQUE VECTOR MAGNITUDES ({\it lower})}
1742 <
1743 < \footnotesize
1744 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1745 < \\
1746 < \toprule
1747 < \toprule
1748 < & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{12\AA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{15\AA}\\
1749 < \cmidrule(lr){3-4}
1750 < \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
1751 < \cmidrule(l){7-8}
1752 < Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
1753 < \midrule
1754 < PC  &     & 2.320 & 0.008 & -0.650 & 0.001 & 3.848 & 0.029 \\
1755 < SP  & 0.0 & 1.053 & 0.711 & 0.977 & 0.820 & 0.974 & 0.882 \\
1756 <    & 0.1 & 1.032 & 0.846 & 0.989 & 0.965 & 0.992 & 0.994 \\
1757 <    & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.995 & 0.982 & 0.998 & 0.986 & 0.998 \\
1758 <    & 0.3 & 0.968 & 0.995 & 0.954 & 0.992 & 0.961 & 0.994 \\
1759 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.982 & 0.996 & 0.992 & 0.999 & 0.993 & 1.000 \\
1760 <    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.996 & 0.996 & 0.999 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
1761 <    & 0.2 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.984 & 0.998 & 0.989 & 0.998 \\
1762 <    & 0.3 & 0.971 & 0.995 & 0.957 & 0.992 & 0.965 & 0.994 \\
1763 < GSC &     & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.992 & 0.973 & 0.996 & 0.971 \\
1764 < RF  &     & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
1765 < \midrule
1766 < PC  &     & -36.559 & 0.002 & -44.917 & 0.004 & -52.945 & 0.006 \\
1767 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.890 & 0.786 & 0.927 & 0.867 & 0.949 & 0.909 \\
1768 <    & 0.1 & 0.942 & 0.895 & 0.984 & 0.974 & 0.997 & 0.995 \\
1769 <    & 0.2 & 0.999 & 0.997 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1770 <    & 0.3 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 1.001 & 1.000 \\
1771 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1772 <    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1773 <    & 0.2 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1774 <    & 0.3 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 1.001 & 1.000 \\
1775 < GSC &     & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1776 < RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
1777 < \midrule
1778 < PC  &     & 1.984 & 0.000 & 0.012 & 0.000 & 1.357 & 0.000 \\
1779 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.850 & 0.552 & 0.907 & 0.703 & 0.938 & 0.793 \\
1780 <    & 0.1 & 0.924 & 0.755 & 0.980 & 0.936 & 0.995 & 0.988 \\
1781 <    & 0.2 & 0.985 & 0.983 & 0.986 & 0.988 & 0.987 & 0.988 \\
1782 <    & 0.3 & 0.961 & 0.966 & 0.959 & 0.964 & 0.960 & 0.966 \\
1783 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.977 & 0.989 & 0.987 & 0.995 & 0.992 & 0.998 \\
1784 <    & 0.1 & 0.982 & 0.989 & 0.992 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.998 \\
1785 <    & 0.2 & 0.984 & 0.987 & 0.986 & 0.987 & 0.987 & 0.988 \\
1786 <    & 0.3 & 0.961 & 0.966 & 0.959 & 0.964 & 0.960 & 0.966 \\
1787 < GSC &     & 0.995 & 0.981 & 0.999 & 0.990 & 1.000 & 0.993 \\
1788 < RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
1789 < \bottomrule
1790 < \end{tabular}
1791 < \label{tab:argon}
1792 < \end{table}
1793 <
1794 < \begin{table}[htbp]
1795 < \centering
1796 < \caption{VARIANCE RESULTS FROM GAUSSIAN FITS TO ANGULAR
1797 < DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE FORCE AND TORQUE VECTORS IN THE 6\AA\ SPHERE OF
1798 < ARGON IN LIQUID WATER SYSTEM}  
1799 <
1800 < \footnotesize
1801 < \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
1802 < \\
1803 < \toprule
1804 < \toprule
1805 < & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Force $\sigma^2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Torque $\sigma^2$} \\
1806 < \cmidrule(lr){3-5}
1807 < \cmidrule(l){6-8}
1808 < Method & $\alpha$ & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA & 9\AA & 12\AA & 15\AA \\
1809 < \midrule
1810 < PC  &     & 568.025 & 265.993 & 195.099 & 246.626 & 138.600 & 91.654 \\
1811 < SP  & 0.0 & 504.578 & 251.694 & 179.932 & 231.568 & 131.444 & 85.119 \\
1812 <    & 0.1 & 224.886 & 49.746 & 9.346 & 104.482 & 23.683 & 4.480 \\
1813 <    & 0.2 & 4.889 & 0.197 & 0.155 & 6.029 & 2.507 & 2.269 \\
1814 <    & 0.3 & 0.817 & 0.833 & 0.812 & 8.286 & 8.436 & 8.135 \\
1815 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.924 & 0.675 & 0.304 & 3.658 & 1.448 & 0.600 \\
1816 <    & 0.1 & 1.937 & 0.515 & 0.143 & 3.565 & 1.308 & 0.546 \\
1817 <    & 0.2 & 0.407 & 0.166 & 0.156 & 3.086 & 2.501 & 2.274 \\
1818 <    & 0.3 & 0.815 & 0.833 & 0.812 & 8.330 & 8.437 & 8.135 \\
1819 < GSC &     & 2.098 & 0.584 & 0.284 & 5.391 & 2.414 & 1.501 \\
1820 < RF  &     & 1.822 & 0.408 & 0.142 & 3.799 & 1.362 & 0.550 \\
1821 < \midrule
1822 < GSSP  & 0.0 & 2.098 & 0.584 & 0.284 & 5.391 & 2.414 & 1.501 \\
1823 <      & 0.1 & 1.652 & 0.309 & 0.087 & 4.197 & 1.401 & 0.590 \\
1824 <      & 0.2 & 0.465 & 0.165 & 0.153 & 3.323 & 2.529 & 2.273 \\
1825 <      & 0.3 & 0.813 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.316 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
1826 < GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 & 0.583 \\
1827 <      & 0.1 & 1.166 & 0.240 & 0.076 & 3.381 & 1.281 & 0.575 \\
1828 <      & 0.2 & 0.459 & 0.165 & 0.153 & 3.430 & 2.542 & 2.273 \\
1829 <      & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
1830 < \bottomrule
1831 < \end{tabular}
1832 < \label{tab:argonAng}
1833 < \end{table}
1834 <
1835 < This system does not appear to show any significant deviations from
1836 < the previously observed results. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods
1837 < have agreements similar to those observed in section
1838 < \ref{sec:WaterResults}. The only significant difference is the
1839 < improvement in the configuration energy differences for the {\sc rf}
1840 < method. This is surprising in that we are introducing an inhomogeneity
1841 < to the system; however, this inhomogeneity is charge-neutral and does
1842 < not result in charged cutoff spheres. The charge-neutrality of the
1843 < cutoff spheres, which the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods explicitly
1844 < enforce, seems to play a greater role in the stability of the {\sc rf}
1845 < method than the required homogeneity of the environment.
1846 <
1847 <
1848 < \section{Short-Time Dynamics: Velocity Autocorrelation Functions of NaCl Crystals}\label{sec:ShortTimeDynamics}
1849 <
1850 < Zahn {\it et al.} investigated the structure and dynamics of water
1851 < using eqs. (\ref{eq:ZahnPot}) and
1852 < (\ref{eq:WolfForces}).\cite{Zahn02,Kast03} Their results indicated
1853 < that a method similar (but not identical with) the damped {\sc sf}
1854 < method resulted in properties very similar to those obtained when
1855 < using the Ewald summation.  The properties they studied (pair
1856 < distribution functions, diffusion constants, and velocity and
1857 < orientational correlation functions) may not be particularly sensitive
1858 < to the long-range and collective behavior that governs the
1859 < low-frequency behavior in crystalline systems.  Additionally, the
1860 < ionic crystals are the worst case scenario for the pairwise methods
1861 < because they lack the reciprocal space contribution contained in the
1862 < Ewald summation.  
1863 <
1864 < We are using two separate measures to probe the effects of these
1865 < alternative electrostatic methods on the dynamics in crystalline
1866 < materials.  For short- and intermediate-time dynamics, we are
1867 < computing the velocity autocorrelation function, and for long-time
1868 < and large length-scale collective motions, we are looking at the
1869 < low-frequency portion of the power spectrum.
1870 <
1871 < \begin{figure}
1872 < \centering
1873 < \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./figures/vCorrPlot.pdf}
1874 < \caption{Velocity autocorrelation functions of NaCl crystals at
1875 < 1000K using {\sc spme}, {\sc sf} ($\alpha$ = 0.0, 0.1, \&
1876 < 0.2\AA$^{-1}$), and {\sc sp} ($\alpha$ = 0.2\AA$^{-1}$). The inset is
1877 < a magnification of the area around the first minimum.  The times to
1878 < first collision are nearly identical, but differences can be seen in
1879 < the peaks and troughs, where the undamped and weakly damped methods
1880 < are stiffer than the moderately damped and {\sc spme} methods.}
1881 < \label{fig:vCorrPlot}
1882 < \end{figure}
1883 <
1884 < The short-time decay of the velocity autocorrelation function through
1885 < the first collision are nearly identical in figure
1886 < \ref{fig:vCorrPlot}, but the peaks and troughs of the functions show
1887 < how the methods differ.  The undamped {\sc sf} method has deeper
1888 < troughs (see inset in Fig. \ref{fig:vCorrPlot}) and higher peaks than
1889 < any of the other methods.  As the damping parameter ($\alpha$) is
1890 < increased, these peaks are smoothed out, and the {\sc sf} method
1891 < approaches the {\sc spme} results.  With $\alpha$ values of 0.2\AA$^{-1}$,
1892 < the {\sc sf} and {\sc sp} functions are nearly identical and track the
1893 < {\sc spme} features quite well.  This is not surprising because the {\sc sf}
1894 < and {\sc sp} potentials become nearly identical with increased
1895 < damping.  However, this appears to indicate that once damping is
1896 < utilized, the details of the form of the potential (and forces)
1897 < constructed out of the damped electrostatic interaction are less
1898 < important.
1899 <
1900 < \section{Collective Motion: Power Spectra of NaCl Crystals}\label{sec:LongTimeDynamics}
1901 <
1902 < To evaluate how the differences between the methods affect the
1903 < collective long-time motion, we computed power spectra from long-time
1904 < traces of the velocity autocorrelation function. The power spectra for
1905 < the best-performing alternative methods are shown in
1906 < fig. \ref{fig:methodPS}.  Apodization of the correlation functions via
1907 < a cubic switching function between 40 and 50 ps was used to reduce the
1908 < ringing resulting from data truncation.  This procedure had no
1909 < noticeable effect on peak location or magnitude.
1910 <
1911 < \begin{figure}
1912 < \centering
1913 < \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./figures/spectraSquare.pdf}
1914 < \caption{Power spectra obtained from the velocity auto-correlation
1915 < functions of NaCl crystals at 1000K while using {\sc spme}, {\sc sf}
1916 < ($\alpha$ = 0, 0.1, \& 0.2\AA$^{-1}$), and {\sc sp} ($\alpha$ =
1917 < 0.2\AA$^{-1}$).  The inset shows the frequency region below 100
1918 < cm$^{-1}$ to highlight where the spectra differ.}
1919 < \label{fig:methodPS}
1920 < \end{figure}
1921 <
1922 < While the high frequency regions of the power spectra for the
1923 < alternative methods are quantitatively identical with Ewald spectrum,
1924 < the low frequency region shows how the summation methods differ.
1925 < Considering the low-frequency inset (expanded in the upper frame of
1926 < figure \ref{fig:dampInc}), at frequencies below 100 cm$^{-1}$, the
1927 < correlated motions are blue-shifted when using undamped or weakly
1928 < damped {\sc sf}.  When using moderate damping ($\alpha = 0.2$
1929 < \AA$^{-1}$) both the {\sc sf} and {\sc sp} methods give nearly identical
1930 < correlated motion to the Ewald method (which has a convergence
1931 < parameter of 0.3119\AA$^{-1}$).  This weakening of the electrostatic
1932 < interaction with increased damping explains why the long-ranged
1933 < correlated motions are at lower frequencies for the moderately damped
1934 < methods than for undamped or weakly damped methods.
1935 <
1936 < To isolate the role of the damping constant, we have computed the
1937 < spectra for a single method ({\sc sf}) with a range of damping
1938 < constants and compared this with the {\sc spme} spectrum.
1939 < Fig. \ref{fig:dampInc} shows more clearly that increasing the
1940 < electrostatic damping red-shifts the lowest frequency phonon modes.
1941 < However, even without any electrostatic damping, the {\sc sf} method
1942 < has at most a 10 cm$^{-1}$ error in the lowest frequency phonon mode.
1943 < Without the {\sc sf} modifications, an undamped (pure cutoff) method
1944 < would predict the lowest frequency peak near 325 cm$^{-1}$.  {\it
1945 < Most} of the collective behavior in the crystal is accurately captured
1946 < using the {\sc sf} method.  Quantitative agreement with Ewald can be
1947 < obtained using moderate damping in addition to the shifting at the
1948 < cutoff distance.
1949 <
1950 < \begin{figure}
1951 < \centering
1952 < \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./figures/increasedDamping.pdf}
1953 < \caption{Effect of damping on the two lowest-frequency phonon modes in
1954 < the NaCl crystal at 1000K.  The undamped shifted force ({\sc sf})
1955 < method is off by less than 10 cm$^{-1}$, and increasing the
1956 < electrostatic damping to 0.25\AA$^{-1}$ gives quantitative agreement
1957 < with the power spectrum obtained using the Ewald sum.  Over-damping can
1958 < result in underestimates of frequencies of the long-wavelength
1959 < motions.}
1960 < \label{fig:dampInc}
1961 < \end{figure}
1962 <
1963 < \section{An Application: TIP5P-E Water}\label{sec:t5peApplied}
1964 <
1965 < The above sections focused on the energetics and dynamics of a variety
1966 < of systems when utilizing the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} pairwise
1967 < techniques.  A unitary correlation with results obtained using the
1968 < Ewald summation should result in a successful reproduction of both the
1969 < static and dynamic properties of any selected system.  To test this,
1970 < we decided to calculate a series of properties for the TIP5P-E water
1971 < model when using the {\sc sf} technique.
1972 <
1973 < The TIP5P-E water model is a variant of Mahoney and Jorgensen's
1974 < five-point transferable intermolecular potential (TIP5P) model for
1975 < water.\cite{Mahoney00} TIP5P was developed to reproduce the density
1976 < maximum anomaly present in liquid water near 4$^\circ$C. As with many
1977 < previous point charge water models (such as ST2, TIP3P, TIP4P, SPC,
1978 < and SPC/E), TIP5P was parametrized using a simple cutoff with no
1979 < long-range electrostatic
1980 < correction.\cite{Stillinger74,Jorgensen83,Berendsen81,Berendsen87}
1981 < Without this correction, the pressure term on the central particle
1982 < from the surroundings is missing. Because they expand to compensate
1983 < for this added pressure term when this correction is included, systems
1984 < composed of these particles tend to underpredict the density of water
1985 < under standard conditions. When using any form of long-range
1986 < electrostatic correction, it has become common practice to develop or
1987 < utilize a reparametrized water model that corrects for this
1988 < effect.\cite{vanderSpoel98,Fennell04,Horn04} The TIP5P-E model follows
1989 < this practice and was optimized specifically for use with the Ewald
1990 < summation.\cite{Rick04} In his publication, Rick preserved the
1991 < geometry and point charge magnitudes in TIP5P and focused on altering
1992 < the Lennard-Jones parameters to correct the density at
1993 < 298K.\cite{Rick04} With the density corrected, he compared common
1994 < water properties for TIP5P-E using the Ewald sum with TIP5P using a
1995 < 9\AA\ cutoff.
1996 <
1997 < In the following sections, we compared these same water properties
1998 < calculated from TIP5P-E using the Ewald sum with TIP5P-E using the
1999 < {\sc sf} technique.  In the above evaluation of the pairwise
2000 < techniques, we observed some flexibility in the choice of parameters.
2001 < Because of this, the following comparisons include the {\sc sf}
2002 < technique with a 12\AA\ cutoff and an $\alpha$ = 0.0, 0.1, and
2003 < 0.2\AA$^{-1}$, as well as a 9\AA\ cutoff with an $\alpha$ =
2004 < 0.2\AA$^{-1}$.
2005 <
2006 < \subsection{Density}\label{sec:t5peDensity}
2007 <
2008 < As stated previously, the property that prompted the development of
2009 < TIP5P-E was the density at 1 atm.  The density depends upon the
2010 < internal pressure of the system in the $NPT$ ensemble, and the
2011 < calculation of the pressure includes a components from both the
2012 < kinetic energy and the virial. More specifically, the instantaneous
2013 < molecular pressure ($P(t)$) is given by
2014 < \begin{equation}
2015 < P(t) =  \frac{1}{\textrm{d}V}\sum_\mu
2016 <        \left[\frac{\mathbf{P}_{\mu}^2}{M_{\mu}}
2017 <        + \mathbf{R}_{\mu}\cdot\sum_i\mathbf{F}_{\mu i}\right],
2018 < \label{eq:MolecularPressure}
2019 < \end{equation}
2020 < where $V$ is the volume, $\mathbf{P}_{\mu}$ is the momentum of
2021 < molecule $\mu$, $\mathbf{R}_\mu$ is the position of the center of mass
2022 < ($M_\mu$) of molecule $\mu$, and $\mathbf{F}_{\mu i}$ is the force on
2023 < atom $i$ of molecule $\mu$.\cite{Melchionna93} The virial term (the
2024 < right term in the brackets of eq. \ref{eq:MolecularPressure}) is
2025 < directly dependent on the interatomic forces.  Since the {\sc sp}
2026 < method does not modify the forces (see
2027 < sec. \ref{sec:PairwiseDerivation}), the pressure using {\sc sp} will
2028 < be identical to that obtained without an electrostatic correction.
2029 < The {\sc sf} method does alter the virial component and, by way of the
2030 < modified pressures, should provide densities more in line with those
2031 < obtained using the Ewald summation.
2032 <
2033 < To compare densities, $NPT$ simulations were performed with the same
2034 < temperatures as those selected by Rick in his Ewald summation
2035 < simulations.\cite{Rick04} In order to improve statistics around the
2036 < density maximum, 3ns trajectories were accumulated at 0, 12.5, and
2037 < 25$^\circ$C, while 2ns trajectories were obtained at all other
2038 < temperatures. The average densities were calculated from the later
2039 < three-fourths of each trajectory. Similar to Mahoney and Jorgensen's
2040 < method for accumulating statistics, these sequences were spliced into
2041 < 200 segments to calculate the average density and standard deviation
2042 < at each temperature.\cite{Mahoney00}
2043 <
2044 < \begin{figure}
2045 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/tip5peDensities.pdf}
2046 < \caption{Density versus temperature for the TIP5P-E water model when
2047 < using the Ewald summation (Ref. \cite{Rick04}) and the {\sc sf} method
2048 < with various parameters. The pressure term from the image-charge shell
2049 < is larger than that provided by the reciprocal-space portion of the
2050 < Ewald summation, leading to slightly lower densities. This effect is
2051 < more visible with the 9\AA\ cutoff, where the image charges exert a
2052 < greater force on the central particle. The error bars for the {\sc sf}
2053 < methods show plus or minus the standard deviation of the density
2054 < measurement at each temperature.}
2055 < \label{fig:t5peDensities}
2056 < \end{figure}
2057 <
2058 < Figure \ref{fig:t5peDensities} shows the densities calculated for
2059 < TIP5P-E using differing electrostatic corrections overlaid on the
2060 < experimental values.\cite{CRC80} The densities when using the {\sc sf}
2061 < technique are close to, though typically lower than, those calculated
2062 < while using the Ewald summation. These slightly reduced densities
2063 < indicate that the pressure component from the image charges at
2064 < R$_\textrm{c}$ is larger than that exerted by the reciprocal-space
2065 < portion of the Ewald summation. Bringing the image charges closer to
2066 < the central particle by choosing a 9\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$ (rather than
2067 < the preferred 12\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$) increases the strength of their
2068 < interactions, resulting in a further reduction of the densities.
2069 <
2070 < Because the strength of the image charge interactions has a noticable
2071 < effect on the density, we would expect the use of electrostatic
2072 < damping to also play a role in these calculations. Larger values of
2073 < $\alpha$ weaken the pair-interactions; and since electrostatic damping
2074 < is distance-dependent, force components from the image charges will be
2075 < reduced more than those from particles close the the central
2076 < charge. This effect is visible in figure \ref{fig:t5peDensities} with
2077 < the damped {\sc sf} sums showing slightly higher densities; however,
2078 < it is apparent that the choice of cutoff radius plays a much more
2079 < important role in the resulting densities.
2080 <
2081 < As a final note, all of the above density calculations were performed
2082 < with systems of 512 water molecules. Rick observed a system sized
2083 < dependence of the computed densities when using the Ewald summation,
2084 < most likely due to his tying of the convergence parameter to the box
2085 < dimensions.\cite{Rick04} For systems of 256 water molecules, the
2086 < calculated densities were on average 0.002 to 0.003 g/cm$^3$ lower. A
2087 < system size of 256 molecules would force the use of a shorter
2088 < R$_\textrm{c}$ when using the {\sc sf} technique, and this would also
2089 < lower the densities. Moving to larger systems, as long as the
2090 < R$_\textrm{c}$ remains at a fixed value, we would expect the densities
2091 < to remain constant.
2092 <
2093 < \subsection{Liquid Structure}\label{sec:t5peLiqStructure}
2094 <
2095 < A common function considered when developing and comparing water
2096 < models is the oxygen-oxygen radial distribution function
2097 < ($g_\textrm{OO}(r)$). The $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ is the probability of
2098 < finding a pair of oxygen atoms some distance ($r$) apart relative to a
2099 < random distribution at the same density.\cite{Allen87} It is
2100 < calculated via
2101 < \begin{equation}
2102 < g_\textrm{OO}(r) = \frac{V}{N^2}\left\langle\sum_i\sum_{j\ne i}
2103 <        \delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_{ij})\right\rangle,
2104 < \label{eq:GOOofR}
2105 < \end{equation}
2106 < where the double sum is over all $i$ and $j$ pairs of $N$ oxygen
2107 < atoms. The $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ can be directly compared to X-ray or
2108 < neutron scattering experiments through the oxygen-oxygen structure
2109 < factor ($S_\textrm{OO}(k)$) by the following relationship:
2110 < \begin{equation}
2111 < S_\textrm{OO}(k) = 1 + 4\pi\rho
2112 <        \int_0^\infty r^2\frac{\sin kr}{kr}g_\textrm{OO}(r)\textrm{d}r.
2113 < \label{eq:SOOofK}
2114 < \end{equation}
2115 < Thus, $S_\textrm{OO}(k)$ is related to the Fourier transform of
2116 < $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$.
2117 <
2118 < The expermentally determined $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ for liquid water has
2119 < been compared in great detail with the various common water models,
2120 < and TIP5P was found to be in better agreement than other rigid,
2121 < non-polarizable models.\cite{Sorenson00} This excellent agreement with
2122 < experiment was maintained when Rick developed TIP5P-E.\cite{Rick04} To
2123 < check whether the choice of using the Ewald summation or the {\sc sf}
2124 < technique alters the liquid structure, the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s at 298K
2125 < and 1atm were determined for the systems compared in the previous
2126 < section.
2127 <
2128 < \begin{figure}
2129 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/tip5peGofR.pdf}
2130 < \caption{The $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s calculated for TIP5P-E at 298K and
2131 < 1atm while using the Ewald summation (Ref. \cite{Rick04}) and the {\sc
2132 < sf} technique with varying parameters. Even with the reduced densities
2133 < using the {\sc sf} technique, the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s are essentially
2134 < identical.}
2135 < \label{fig:t5peGofRs}
2136 < \end{figure}
2137 <
2138 < The $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s calculated for TIP5P-E while using the {\sc
2139 < sf} technique with a various parameters are overlaid on the
2140 < $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ while using the Ewald summation. The differences in
2141 < density do not appear to have any effect on the liquid structure as
2142 < the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s are indistinquishable. These results indicate
2143 < that the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ is insensitive to the choice of
2144 < electrostatic correction.
2145 <
2146 < \subsection{Thermodynamic Properties}
2147 <
2148 < \subsection{Dynamic Properties}
2149 <
2150 < \section{Damping of Point Multipoles}
2151 <
2152 < \section{Damping and Dielectric Constants}
2153 <
2154 < \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:PairwiseConclusions}
2155 <
2156 < The above investigation of pairwise electrostatic summation techniques
2157 < shows that there are viable and computationally efficient alternatives
2158 < to the Ewald summation.  These methods are derived from the damped and
2159 < cutoff-neutralized Coulombic sum originally proposed by Wolf
2160 < \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99} In particular, the {\sc sf}
2161 < method, reformulated above as eqs. (\ref{eq:DSFPot}) and
2162 < (\ref{eq:DSFForces}), shows a remarkable ability to reproduce the
2163 < energetic and dynamic characteristics exhibited by simulations
2164 < employing lattice summation techniques.  The cumulative energy
2165 < difference results showed the undamped {\sc sf} and moderately damped
2166 < {\sc sp} methods produced results nearly identical to {\sc spme}.
2167 < Similarly for the dynamic features, the undamped or moderately damped
2168 < {\sc sf} and moderately damped {\sc sp} methods produce force and
2169 < torque vector magnitude and directions very similar to the expected
2170 < values.  These results translate into long-time dynamic behavior
2171 < equivalent to that produced in simulations using {\sc spme}.
2172 <
2173 < As in all purely-pairwise cutoff methods, these methods are expected
2174 < to scale approximately {\it linearly} with system size, and they are
2175 < easily parallelizable.  This should result in substantial reductions
2176 < in the computational cost of performing large simulations.
2177 <
2178 < Aside from the computational cost benefit, these techniques have
2179 < applicability in situations where the use of the Ewald sum can prove
2180 < problematic.  Of greatest interest is their potential use in
2181 < interfacial systems, where the unmodified lattice sum techniques
2182 < artificially accentuate the periodicity of the system in an
2183 < undesirable manner.  There have been alterations to the standard Ewald
2184 < techniques, via corrections and reformulations, to compensate for
2185 < these systems; but the pairwise techniques discussed here require no
2186 < modifications, making them natural tools to tackle these problems.
2187 < Additionally, this transferability gives them benefits over other
2188 < pairwise methods, like reaction field, because estimations of physical
2189 < properties (e.g. the dielectric constant) are unnecessary.
2190 <
2191 < If a researcher is using Monte Carlo simulations of large chemical
2192 < systems containing point charges, most structural features will be
2193 < accurately captured using the undamped {\sc sf} method or the {\sc sp}
2194 < method with an electrostatic damping of 0.2\AA$^{-1}$.  These methods
2195 < would also be appropriate for molecular dynamics simulations where the
2196 < data of interest is either structural or short-time dynamical
2197 < quantities.  For long-time dynamics and collective motions, the safest
2198 < pairwise method we have evaluated is the {\sc sf} method with an
2199 < electrostatic damping between 0.2 and 0.25\AA$^{-1}$.
2200 <
2201 < We are not suggesting that there is any flaw with the Ewald sum; in
2202 < fact, it is the standard by which these simple pairwise sums have been
2203 < judged.  However, these results do suggest that in the typical
2204 < simulations performed today, the Ewald summation may no longer be
2205 < required to obtain the level of accuracy most researchers have come to
2206 < expect.
4 > \usepackage[tbtags]{amsmath}
5 > \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
6 > \usepackage{amssymb}
7 > \usepackage{mathrsfs}
8 > \usepackage{tabularx}
9 > \usepackage{graphicx}
10 > \usepackage{booktabs}
11 > \usepackage{cite}
12 > \usepackage{enumitem}
13 >
14 > \begin{document}
15 >
16 > \frontmatter
17 >
18 > \title{APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MOLECULAR DYNAMICS TECHNIQUES FOR THE
19 > STUDY OF WATER}    
20 > \author{Christopher Joseph Fennell}
21 > \work{Dissertation}
22 > \degprior{B.Sc.}
23 > \degaward{Doctor of Philosophy}
24 > \advisor{J. Daniel Gezelter}
25 > \department{Chemistry and Biochemistry}
26 >
27 > \maketitle
28 >
29 > \begin{abstract}
30 > \end{abstract}
31 >
32 > \begin{dedication}
33 > \end{dedication}
34 >
35 > \tableofcontents
36 > \listoffigures
37 > \listoftables
38 >
39 > \begin{acknowledge}
40 > \end{acknowledge}
41 >
42 > \mainmatter
43 >
44 > \chapter{\label{chap:intro}INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND}
45 >
46 > \input{electrostaticsChapter}
47  
48   \chapter{\label{chap:water}SIMPLE MODELS FOR WATER}
49  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines