ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/multipole/multipole_2/multipole2.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/multipole/multipole_2/multipole2.tex (file contents):
Revision 4162 by mlamichh, Thu May 29 19:01:59 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4214 by gezelter, Wed Sep 10 21:06:56 2014 UTC

# Line 20 | Line 20
20   % Use this file as a source of example code for your aip document.
21   % Use the file aiptemplate.tex as a template for your document.
22   \documentclass[%
23 < aip,
24 < jmp,
23 > aip,jcp,
24   amsmath,amssymb,
25 < %preprint,%
26 < reprint,%
25 > preprint,
26 > %reprint,%
27   %author-year,%
28   %author-numerical,%
29   ]{revtex4-1}
30  
31   \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
32   \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
33 < \usepackage{bm}% bold math
33 > %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
34   %\usepackage[mathlines]{lineno}% Enable numbering of text and display math
35   %\linenumbers\relax % Commence numbering lines
36   \usepackage{amsmath}
37 + \usepackage{times}
38 + \usepackage{mathptmx}
39 + \usepackage{tabularx}
40 + \usepackage[version=3]{mhchem}  % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions
41 + \usepackage{url}
42 + \usepackage[english]{babel}
43  
44 + \newcolumntype{Y}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}
45 +
46   \begin{document}
47  
48 < \preprint{AIP/123-QED}
48 > %\preprint{AIP/123-QED}
49  
50 < \title[Efficient electrostatics for condensed-phase multipoles]{Real space alternatives to the Ewald
51 < Sum. II. performance in condensed phase simulations}% Force line breaks with \\
50 > \title{Real space electrostatics for multipoles. II. Comparisons with
51 >  the Ewald Sum}
52  
53   \author{Madan Lamichhane}
54 < \affiliation{Department of Physics, University
48 < of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}%Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\
54 > \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
55  
56   \author{Kathie E. Newman}
57 < \affiliation{Department of Physics, University
52 < of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
57 > \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
58  
59   \author{J. Daniel Gezelter}%
60   \email{gezelter@nd.edu.}
61 < \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556%\\This line break forced with \textbackslash\textbackslash
62 < }%
61 > \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
62 > }
63  
64 < \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
60 <             %  but any date may be explicitly specified
64 > \date{\today}
65  
66   \begin{abstract}
67 < We have tested our recently developed shifted potential, gradient-shifted force, and Taylor-shifted force methods for the higher-order multipoles against Ewald’s method in different types of liquid and crystalline system. In this paper, we have also investigated the conservation of total energy in the molecular dynamic simulation using all of these methods. The shifted potential method shows better agreement with the Ewald in the energy differences between different configurations as compared to the direct truncation. Both the gradient shifted force and Taylor-shifted force methods reproduce very good energy conservation. But the absolute energy, force and torque evaluated from the gradient shifted force method shows better result as compared to taylor-shifted force method. Hence the gradient-shifted force method suitably mimics the electrostatic interaction in the molecular dynamic simulation.
67 >  We report on tests of the shifted potential (SP), gradient shifted
68 >  force (GSF), and Taylor shifted force (TSF) real-space methods for
69 >  multipole interactions developed in the first paper in this series,
70 >  using the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method. The tests were
71 >  carried out in a variety of condensed-phase environments designed to
72 >  test up to quadrupole-quadrupole interactions.  Comparisons of the
73 >  energy differences between configurations, molecular forces, and
74 >  torques were used to analyze how well the real-space models perform
75 >  relative to the more computationally expensive Ewald treatment.  We
76 >  have also investigated the energy conservation, structural, and
77 >  dynamical properties of the new methods in molecular dynamics
78 >  simulations. The SP method shows excellent agreement with
79 >  configurational energy differences, forces, and torques, and would
80 >  be suitable for use in Monte Carlo calculations.  Of the two new
81 >  shifted-force methods, the GSF approach shows the best agreement
82 >  with Ewald-derived energies, forces, and torques and also exhibits
83 >  energy conservation properties that make it an excellent choice for
84 >  efficient computation of electrostatic interactions in molecular
85 >  dynamics simulations.  Both SP and GSF are able to reproduce
86 >  structural and dynamical properties in the liquid models with
87 >  excellent fidelity.
88   \end{abstract}
89  
90 < \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
90 > %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
91                               % Classification Scheme.
92 < \keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
93 <                              %display desired
92 > %\keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
93 >
94   \maketitle
95  
96 + \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
97 + Computing the interactions between electrostatic sites is one of the
98 + most expensive aspects of molecular simulations. There have been
99 + significant efforts to develop practical, efficient and convergent
100 + methods for handling these interactions. Ewald's method is perhaps the
101 + best known and most accurate method for evaluating energies, forces,
102 + and torques in explicitly-periodic simulation cells. In this approach,
103 + the conditionally convergent electrostatic energy is converted into
104 + two absolutely convergent contributions, one which is carried out in
105 + real space with a cutoff radius, and one in reciprocal
106 + space.\cite{Ewald21,deLeeuw80,Smith81,Allen87}
107  
108 < \section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction}
109 < The interaction between charges has always been the most expensive part in molecular simulations.  There have been many efforts to develop practical and efficient method for handling electrostatic interactions. The Ewald’s method has always been accepted as the most precise method for evaluating electrostatic energies, forces and torques. In this method, the conditionally convergent electrostatic energy is converted into the sum of the rapidly converging real and reciprocal space contribution of artificially made periodic system.\cite{Woodcock86, Woodcock75} Because of this artificially created periodicity, Ewald’s sum is not a suitable method to calculate electrostatic interaction in the interfacial molecular systems such as bicrystals, free surfaces, and liquid-vapor interfaces.\cite{Wolf99}To simulate such interfacial systems, the Parry’s extension of the 3D Ewald sum appropriate for the slab geometry is used,\cite{Parry75} which is computationally very expensive.  Also, the reciprocal part of the Ewald’s sum is computationally expensive which makes it inappropriate to use for the larger system. By using Fast Fourier Transform(FFT) in the  particle-mesh Ewald (PME) and particle-particle particle-mesh  Ewald ($P^3ME$) in the reciprocal space term, the computational cost has been decreased from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(Nlog N)$.\cite{Takada93, Gunsteren94, Gunsteren95, Pedersen93, Pedersen95}. Although the computational time has been reduced, the inherent periodicity in the Ewald’s method can be problematic for the interfacial molecular system.\cite{Gezelter06}  Furthermore, the modified Ewald’s methods developed to handle two-dimensional (2D) electrostatic interactions\cite{Parry75, Parry76, Clarke77, Perram79,Rahman89} in the interfacial systems are also computationally expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Berkowitz99}
108 > When carried out as originally formulated, the reciprocal-space
109 > portion of the Ewald sum exhibits relatively poor computational
110 > scaling, making it prohibitive for large systems. By utilizing a
111 > particle mesh and three dimensional fast Fourier transforms (FFT), the
112 > particle-mesh Ewald (PME), particle-particle particle-mesh Ewald
113 > (P\textsuperscript{3}ME), and smooth particle mesh Ewald (SPME)
114 > methods can decrease the computational cost from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(N
115 > \log
116 > N)$.\cite{Takada93,Gunsteren94,Gunsteren95,Darden:1993pd,Essmann:1995pb}
117  
118 < Recently, \textit{Wolf et al.}\cite{Wolf99} proposed a real space $O(N)$ method for calculating electrostatic interaction between charges. They showed that the effective Coulomb interaction in the condensed system is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92, Wolf95}. Furthermore, the Madelung energy of an ion considering lattice summation over neutral dipolar molecules decreases as $r^{-5}$.\cite{Wolf92, Wolf95}. Thus, the careful application of the real-space method for a calculation of the electrostatic energy should be able to obtain correct Madelung energy for a significant size of the cutoff sphere. But the direct truncation of the cutoff sphere for the evaluation of the electrostatic energy always create truncation defect. This cutoff defect in the electrostatic energy is due to the existence of the net charge within the cutoff sphere.\cite{Wolf99} To neutralize net charge within the cutoff sphere, \textit{Wolf et al.}\cite{Wolf99} proposed a method of placing an image charge, for every charge within a cutoff sphere, on the surface to evaluate the electrostatic energy and force. Both the electrostatic energy and force for the central charge are evaluated separately from the interaction of the configuration of real charges within the cutoff sphere and image charges on the surface of the sphere. But the energy of an individual charge due to another charge within the cutoff sphere and its image on the surface is not an integral of their force, as a result the total energy does not conserve in molecular dynamic (MD) simulations.\cite{Zahn02}
118 > Because of the artificial periodicity required for the Ewald sum,
119 > interfacial molecular systems such as membranes and liquid-vapor
120 > interfaces require modifications to the method.  Parry's extension of
121 > the three dimensional Ewald sum is appropriate for slab
122 > geometries.\cite{Parry:1975if} Modified Ewald methods that were
123 > developed to handle two-dimensional (2-D) electrostatic
124 > interactions.\cite{Parry:1975if,Parry:1976fq,Clarke77,Perram79,Rhee:1989kl}
125 > These methods were originally quite computationally
126 > expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99} There have been several successful
127 > efforts that reduced the computational cost of 2-D lattice summations,
128 > bringing them more in line with the scaling for the full 3-D
129 > treatments.\cite{Yeh99,Kawata01,Arnold02,deJoannis02,Brodka04} The
130 > inherent periodicity required by the Ewald method can also be
131 > problematic in a number of protein/solvent and ionic solution
132 > environments.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00,Fennell:2006lq}
133  
134 < The force and torque acting on molecules are the fundamental factors to drive the dynamics of the molecular simulation. \textit{Fennell and Gezelter} proposed the damped shifted force (DSF) potential energy to obtain consistent configurational force on the central charge by the charges within the cutoff sphere and their image charge on the surface. Since the force is consistent with the energy, MD simulations conserve the total energy. Also, the comparison of accuracy of the potential energy and force from DSF method with the Ewald shows surprisingly good results.\cite{Gezelter06}Now a days, the DSF method is being used in several molecular systems with uniform charge density to calculate electrostatic interaction.\cite{Luebke13, Daivis13, Acevedo13, Space12,English08, Lawrence13, Vergne13}
135 < Since a molecule consists of equal positive and negative charges, instead taking of the most common case of atomic site-site interaction, the interaction between higher order multipoles can also be used to evaluate molecule-molecule interactions. The short-ranged interaction between the molecules is dominated by Lennard-Jones repulsion. Also, electrons in a molecule is not localized at a specific point, thus a molecule can be coarse-grained to approximate as point multipole.\cite{Ren06, Essex10, Essex11}Recently, water has been modeled with point multipoles up to octupolar order.\cite{Ichiye10_1, Ichiye10_2, Ichiye10_3}. The point multipoles method has also been used in the AMOEBA water model.\cite{Gordon10, Gordon07,Smith80}. But using point multipole in the real space cutoff method without account of multipolar neutrality creates problem in the total energy conservation in MD simulations. In this paper we extended the original idea of the charge neutrality by Wolf’s into point dipoles and quadrupoles. Also, we used the previously developed idea of the damped shifted potential (DSF) for the charge-charge interaction\cite{Gezelter06}and generalized it into higher order multipoles to conserve the total energy in the molecular dynamic simulation (The detail mathematical development of the purposed methods have been discussed in paper I).
134 > \subsection{Real-space methods}
135 > Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space $O(N)$
136 > method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
137 > charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in most
138 > condensed phase systems is effectively short
139 > ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95} For an ordered lattice (e.g., when
140 > computing the Madelung constant of an ionic solid), the material can
141 > be considered as a set of ions interacting with neutral dipolar or
142 > quadrupolar ``molecules'' giving an effective distance dependence for
143 > the electrostatic interactions of $r^{-5}$ (see figure
144 > \ref{fig:schematic}). If one views the \ce{NaCl} crystal as a simple
145 > cubic (SC) structure with an octupolar \ce{(NaCl)4} basis, the
146 > electrostatic energy per ion converges more rapidly to the Madelung
147 > energy than the dipolar approximation.\cite{Wolf92} To find the
148 > correct Madelung constant, Lacman suggested that the NaCl structure
149 > could be constructed in a way that the finite crystal terminates with
150 > complete \ce{(NaCl)4} molecules.\cite{Lacman65} The central ion sees
151 > what is effectively a set of octupoles at large distances. These facts
152 > suggest that the Madelung constants are relatively short ranged for
153 > perfect ionic crystals.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} For this reason, careful
154 > application of Wolf's method can provide accurate estimates of
155 > Madelung constants using relatively short cutoff radii.
156  
157 < \section{\label{sec:level2}Background}
157 > Direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates numerical
158 > errors.  Wolf \textit{et al.} suggest that truncation errors are due
159 > to net charge remaining inside the cutoff sphere.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} To
160 > neutralize this charge they proposed placing an image charge on the
161 > surface of the cutoff sphere for every real charge inside the cutoff.
162 > These charges are present for the evaluation of both the pair
163 > interaction energy and the force, although the force expression
164 > maintains a discontinuity at the cutoff sphere.  In the original Wolf
165 > formulation, the total energy for the charge and image were not equal
166 > to the integral of the force expression, and as a result, the total
167 > energy would not be conserved in molecular dynamics (MD)
168 > simulations.\cite{Zahn:2002hc} Zahn \textit{et al.}, and Fennell and
169 > Gezelter later proposed shifted force variants of the Wolf method with
170 > commensurate force and energy expressions that do not exhibit this
171 > problem.\cite{Zahn:2002hc,Fennell:2006lq} Related real-space methods
172 > were also proposed by Chen \textit{et
173 >  al.}\cite{Chen:2004du,Chen:2006ii,Denesyuk:2008ez,Rodgers:2006nw}
174 > and by Wu and Brooks.\cite{Wu:044107} Recently, Fukuda has successfully
175 > used additional neutralization of higher order moments for systems of
176 > point charges.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
177  
83 \subsection{Short range nature of electrostatic interaction}
84 Considering the interaction of an ion with dipolar molecular shell, the effective Columbic potential for a perfect ionic crystal is found to be decreasing as $r^{-5}$.\cite{Wolf99} Furthermore, viewing the NaCl crystal as simple cubic (SC) structure with octupolar $(NaCl)_{4}$ basis, the electrostatic energy per ion converges more rapidly to Madelong than the dipolar approximation.\cite{Wolf92} Also, to find the correct Madelung constant, Lacman.\cite{Lacman65}suggested that the NaCl structure should be constructed in a such way that the finite crystal terminates with only complete $(NaCl)_4$ molecules.  These facts suggest that the Madelung energy is short ranged for a perfect ionic crystal.  
85 \begin{figure}[h!]
86        \centering
87        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{chargesystem.pdf}
88        \caption{NaCl crystal showing (a) breaking of the charge ordering in the direct spherical truncation, and (b) complete $(NaCl)_{4}$ molecule interacting with the central ion. }
89        \label{fig:NaCl}
90    \end{figure}
91
92 Any charge in a NaCl crystal is surrounded by opposite charges. Similarly for each pair of charges, there is an opposite pair of charge to its adjacent as shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:NaCl}.  Furthermore for each group of four charges, there should be an oppositely aligned group of four charges as shown in Fig 1b.  If we consider any group of charges, suppose $(NaCl)_4$, far from the central charge, they have little electrostatic interaction with  the central charge (acts like point octopole when it is far from the center ). But if the cutoff sphere passes through the $(NaCl)_4$ molecule leaving behind net positive or negative charge, the electrostatic contribution due to these broken charges going to be very large (for point charge  radial function $1/r_c$ and for point octupole $1/r_c$). Because of this reason, although the nature of electrostatic interaction short ranged, the hard cutoff sphere creates very large fluctuation in the electrostatic energy for the perfect crystal. In addition, the charge neutralized potential proposed by Wolf et al. converged to correct Madelung constant but still holds oscillation in the energy about correct Madelung energy.\cite{Wolf99}.  This oscillation in the energy around its fully converged value should be due to the non-neutralized value of the dipole and higher order moments within the cutoff sphere.  Recently, \textit{Ikuo Fukuda} used neutralization of the higher order moments for the calculation of the electrostatic interaction of the point charges system.\cite{Fukuda13}
93
94 \subsection{Disordered system}
95 The $r ^{-5}$ convergence behaviors is not only limited to the perfect crystals but also applied in the highly disordered crystal.\cite{Wolf99} At high temperature there should be local ordering of the charge and higher multipole moments in the liquids (To form the structure which is electrostaticaly neutral) but this ordering disappears at the long range. As in ionic crystal, even for liquid positive ion tends to be surrounded by the negative ion and vice versa, so the spherical truncation breaks the short range charge ordering present in the liquid system which results in oscillation (smaller amplitude in electrostatic energy of liquid as compared to crystal).\cite{Wolf99} This idea can also be generalized in molecule with multipole moments assuming local ordering is even true for multipoles, which is supported by the presence of the oscillation of the electrostatic energy as it plotted against the cutoff radius for dipolar liquid in Figure ~\ref{fig:rcutConvergence}. For quadrupolar liquid oscillation damped pretty quickly as seen in Figure ~\ref{fig:rcutConvergence_hardQuadrupole} because of short range nature of the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction.
178   \begin{figure}
179 <        \centering
180 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{rcutConvergence_hard_dipolar.pdf}
181 <    \end{figure}
182 < \begin{figure}
183 <        \centering
184 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{rcutConvergence_hard_quadrupole.pdf}
179 >  \centering
180 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{schematic.eps}
181 >  \caption{Top: Ionic systems exhibit local clustering of dissimilar
182 >    charges (in the smaller grey circle), so interactions are
183 >    effectively charge-multipole at longer distances.  With hard
184 >    cutoffs, motion of individual charges in and out of the cutoff
185 >    sphere can break the effective multipolar ordering.  Bottom:
186 >    dipolar crystals and fluids have a similar effective
187 >    \textit{quadrupolar} ordering (in the smaller grey circles), and
188 >    orientational averaging helps to reduce the effective range of the
189 >    interactions in the fluid.  Placement of reversed image multipoles
190 >    on the surface of the cutoff sphere recovers the effective
191 >    higher-order multipole behavior. \label{fig:schematic}}
192 > \end{figure}
193  
194 <        \caption{Total energy per molecule against cutoff radius, $r_­c$ for (a) dipolar liquid (b) dipolar crystal, (c) quadrupolar liquid and (b) quadrupolar crystal to compare the oscillation in the electrostatic energy. The crystalline system shows larger oscillation as compared to liquid. Also the fluctuation in the dipolar system is very large as compared to quadupolar system. }
195 <       \label{fig:rcutConvergence}
196 <    \end{figure}
197 < \subsection{Oscillation in the electrostatic energy}
198 < The oscillation of the electrostatic potential energy per molecule for a direct truncation method is associated with the charge neutrality.\cite{Wolf99} The electrostatic energy of a central molecule due to all other molecules within cutoff sphere is plotted against the cutoff radius for (i)dipolar liquid (i) perfect dipolar crystal, (iii) quadrupolar liquid, and (iv)quadrupolar cyrstal in Figure 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d. The larger amplitude in the oscillation of electrostatic energy for the perfect crystal is because of the long range of multipolar ordering.\cite{Wolf99} Moreover, the oscillation damped much faster for the system of higher order multipoles (Compare range of oscillation between the dipolar and quadrupolar system in figure 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d). As in the case of the charge system, this oscillating nature of the electrostatic energy of the central molecule should be due to the net charge-multipole within the cut off sphere. If the amplitude of the oscillation is very large such as in ionic\cite{Wolf99} and dipolar crystal (Figure 3) then it will introduce huge error in the calculation of the absolute energy. On the other hand, if the oscillation is small, it can contribute error in the evaluation of the energy differences between configurations.
199 < \subsection{Conservation of total energy }
200 < To conserve the total energy in MD simulations, the energy, force, and torque on a central molecule due to another molecule should smoothly tends to zero as second molecule approaches to cutoff radius. In addition, the force should be derivable from the energy and vice versa. If only the first condition holds but not the second, the total energy does not conserve.\cite{Gezelter06}. The hard cutoff method does not ensure the smooth transition of the energy, force, and torque at the cutoff radius.\cite{Wolf99} By placing image charge on the surface of the cutoff sphere, the smooth transition of the energy can be ensured but the force and torque remains discontinuous. Therefore the purposed methods should have smooth transition of the energy, force and torque to ensure the total energy conservation and the expression should be close to idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the cutoff sphere.
201 < \subsection{Damping function}
202 < The damping function used in our research have already been discussed in detail in the paper I.\cite{PaperI} The radial function $1/r$ of the interactions between the charges can be replaced by the complementary error function $erfc(\alpha r)/r$  to accelerate the rate of convergence, where $\alpha$ is damping parameter. We can perform necessary mathematical manipulation by varying $\alpha$ in the damping function for the calculation of the electrostatic energy, force and torque\cite{Wolf99}. By using suitable value of damping alpha ($\alpha = 0.2$) for a cutoff radius ($r_{­c}=9 A$), \textit{Fennel and Gezelter}\cite{Gezelter06} produced very good agreement of the interaction energies, forces and torques for charge-charge interactions.\cite{Gezelter06}
203 < \section{METHOD REVIEW}
204 < Any force field associated with MD simulation should address two major issues in the electrostatic interaction. First, it should deal with the breaking of the charge or multipole ordering due to direct spherical truncation. Second, the electrostatic energy, force and the torque between central molecule and any other molecule should smoothly approaches to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$. The first issue is associated with the oscillation of the total electrostatic potential energy of the central molecule due to all other molecules within cutoff sphere and second issue is related with the continuous nature of the electrostatic interaction at the cutoff radius, which eventually related with the conservation of total energy in the MD simulation. The mathematical detail for the SP, GSF and TSF has already been discussed in detail in previous paper I.\cite{PaperI}
194 > One can make a similar effective range argument for crystals of point
195 > \textit{multipoles}. The Luttinger and Tisza treatment of energy
196 > constants for dipolar lattices utilizes 24 basis vectors that contain
197 > dipoles at the eight corners of a unit cube.\cite{LT} Only three of
198 > these basis vectors, $X_1, Y_1, \mathrm{~and~} Z_1,$ retain net dipole
199 > moments, while the rest have zero net dipole and retain contributions
200 > only from higher order multipoles.  The lowest-energy crystalline
201 > structures are built out of basis vectors that have only residual
202 > quadrupolar moments (e.g. the $Z_5$ array). In these low energy
203 > structures, the effective interaction between a dipole at the center
204 > of a crystal and a group of eight dipoles farther away is
205 > significantly shorter ranged than the $r^{-3}$ that one would expect
206 > for raw dipole-dipole interactions.  Only in crystals which retain a
207 > bulk dipole moment (e.g. ferroelectrics) does the analogy with the
208 > ionic crystal break down -- ferroelectric dipolar crystals can exist,
209 > while ionic crystals with net charge in each unit cell would be
210 > unstable.
211  
212 < \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
213 < As it shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:rcutConvergence}, a discontinuous truncation of the electrostatic potential at the cutoff sphere introduces severe artifact(Oscillation in the electrostatic energy) even for molecules with the higher-order multipoles. This artifact is due to the existence of higher order moments within the cutoff spheres.The net multipole moment within cutoff sphere is contributed by the breaking of the multipole ordering in direct truncation of the cutoff sphere. The multipole moments of the cutoff sphere can be neutralized by placing image multipole on the surface, for every each multipole within it. The electrostatic potential between multipoles for the SP method is given by,
214 < \begin{equation}
215 < U_{SP}(\vec r)=U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
216 < \label{eq:SP}
217 < \end{equation}          
218 < The SP method compensates the artifact created by truncation of the multipole ordering by placing image on the cutoff surface.  Also, the potential energy between central multipole and other multipole within sphere approaches smoothly to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$. But the force and torque obtained from the shifted potential are discontinuous at $r_c$. Therefore, the MD simulation will still have the total energy drift for a longer simulation.  If we derive the force and torque from the direct shifting about $r_c$ like in shifted potential then inconsistency between the force, torque, and potential fails the energy conservation in the dynamic simulation.
219 < \subsection{Taylor-shifted force(TSF)}
124 < The detail mathematical expression for the multipole-multipole interaction by the TSF method has been described in paper I.\cite{PaperI}. The electrostatic potential energy between groups of charges or multipoles is expressed as the product of operator and potential due to point charge as shown in \textit{equation 4 in Paper I}.\cite{PaperI}  In the Taylor Shifted Force (TSF) method, we shifted kernel $1/r$ (the potential due to a point charge) by $1/r_c$ and performed Taylor Series expansion of the shifted part about the cutoff radius before operating with the operators. To ensure smooth convergence of the energy, force, and torque  to zero at the cut off radius, the required number of terms from Taylor Series expansion are performed for different multipole-multipole interactions. Also, the mathematical consistency between the energy, force and the torque has been established. The potential energy for the multipole-multipole interaction is given by,
212 > In ionic crystals, real-space truncation can break the effective
213 > multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}), causing
214 > significant swings in the electrostatic energy as individual ions move
215 > back and forth across the boundary.  This is why the image charges are
216 > necessary for the Wolf sum to exhibit rapid convergence.  Similarly,
217 > the real-space truncation of point multipole interactions breaks
218 > higher order multipole arrangements, and image multipoles are required
219 > for real-space treatments of electrostatic energies.
220  
221 < \begin{equation}
222 < \begin{split}
223 < U_{TSF}(\vec r)=\sum_{i=1}^3(C_a - D_{a \alpha }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{a \alpha}}+Q_{a \alpha \beta }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{a \alpha}\partial r_{a \beta}})\\
224 < (C_b - D_{b \alpha }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{b \alpha}}+Q_{b \alpha \beta }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{b \alpha}\partial r_{b \beta}})\\
225 < [(\frac{1}{r}-[\frac{1}{r_c}-(r-r_c)\frac{1}{r_c^2}+(r-r_c)^2\frac{1}{r_c^3}+...)]
226 < \end{split}
227 < \label{eq:TSF}
228 < \end{equation}
134 <  
135 < where $C$ , $D_{\alpha,\beta}$, and $Q_{\alpha,\beta}$ stands for charge, component of the dipole and quadrupole moment respectively (detail in paperI\cite{PaperI}). The electrostatic force and torque acting on the central molecule due to a molecule within cutoff sphere are derived from the equation ~\ref{eq:TSF} with the account of appropriate number of terms.  This method is developed on the basis of using kernel potential due to the point charge ($1/r$) and their image charge potential ($1/r_c$) with its Taylor series expansion and considering that the expression for multipole-multipole interaction can be obtained operating the modified kernel by their corresponding operators.
136 < \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
137 < As we mentioned earlier, in the MD simulation the electrostatic energy, force and torque should approach to zero as r tends to $r_c$. Also, the energy, force and torque should be consistent with each other for the total energy conservation. The GSF method is developed to address both the issues of consistency and convergence of the energy, force and the torque. Furthermore, the compensating of charge or multipole ordering breakage in the SP method due to direct spherical truncation will remain intact for large $r_c$. The electrostatic potential energy between central molecule and any molecule inside cutoff radius is given by,
138 <        \begin{equation}
139 < U_{SF}(\vec r)=U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)-(\vec r-\vec r_c)\cdot\vec \nabla U(\vec r)|_{r=r_c}
140 < \label{eq:GSF}
141 < \end{equation}    
142 < where the third term converges more rapidly as compared to first two terms hence the contribution of the third term is very small for large $r_c$ value. Hence the GSF method similar to SP method for large $r_c$. Moreover, the force and torque derived from equation 3 are consistent with the energy and approaches to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$.
143 < Both GSF and TSF methods are the generalization of the original DSF method to higher order multipole-multipole interactions. These two methods are same up to charge-dipole interaction level but generate different expressions in the energy, force and torque for the higher order multipole-multipole interactions.
144 < \section{Test}
145 < \subsection{Test with Ewald}
146 < We have compared the electrostatic force and torque of each molecule from SP, TSF and GSF method with the multipolar-Ewald method. Furthermore, total electrostatic energies of a molecular system from the different methods have also been compared with total energy from the Ewald. In Mote Carlo (MC) simulation, the energy difference between different configurations of the molecular system is important, even though absolute energies are not accurate.  The Metropolis Monte Carlo algorithm states that the new configuration of the molecular system is accepted if the energy difference between the new and previous configuration $(\triangle E) < 0$ or if  any random number  $R< exp(-\triangle E/kT)$, where R is between 0 to 1, for the case $\triangle E >0$. We have compared the change in electrostatic potential energy $\triangle E$ of 250 different configurations of the various multipolar molecular systems (Section IV B) calculated from the Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with the well-known Ewald method. In MD simulations, the force and torque acting on the molecules drives the whole dynamics of the molecules in a system. The magnitudes of the electrostatic force, torque and their direction for each molecule of the all 250 configurations have also been compared against the Ewald’s method.
147 < We have used least square regression analyses for six different molecular systems to compare $\triangle E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF with the reference method. Molecular systems were run longer enough to explore various configurations and 250 independent configurations were recorded for comparison.   The total numbers of 31,125 energy differences from the proposed methods have been compared with the Ewald.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have also been compared by using least square regression analyses. In the forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250 different configurations for each system thus there are 512,000 force and torque comparisons.  The correlation coefficient and correlation slope varies from 0 to 1, where 1 is the best agreement between the two methods.
221 > The shorter effective range of electrostatic interactions is not
222 > limited to perfect crystals, but can also apply in disordered fluids.
223 > Even at elevated temperatures, there is local charge balance in an
224 > ionic liquid, where each positive ion has surroundings dominated by
225 > negative ions and vice versa.  The reversed-charge images on the
226 > cutoff sphere that are integral to the Wolf and damped shifted force
227 > (DSF) approaches retain the effective multipolar interactions as the
228 > charges traverse the cutoff boundary.
229  
230 < R.A. Fisher has developed a probablity density function to analyse directional data sets is expressed as below,
231 < \begin{equation}
232 < p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta \exp(\kappa \cos\theta)
233 < \label{eq:pdf}
234 < \end{equation}
235 < where $\kappa$ measures directional dispersion of the data about mean direction can be estimated as a reciprocal of the circular variance for large number of directional data sets.\cite{vector_statistics} In our calculation, the unit vector from the Ewald method was considered as mean direction and the angle between the vectors from Ewald and the purposed method were evaluated.The total displacement of the unit vectors from the purposed method was calculated as,
236 < \begin{equation}
156 < R = \sqrt{(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2 + (\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2}
157 < \label{eq:displacement}
158 < \end{equation}
159 < where N is number of directional data sets and $theta_i$ are the angles between unit vectors evaluated from the Ewald and the purposed methods. The circular variance is defined as $ Var(\theta) = 1 -R/N$. The value of circular variance varies from 0 to 1. The lower the value of $Var{\theta}$ is higher the value of $\kappa$, which expresses tighter clustering of the direction sets around Ewald direction.
230 > In multipolar fluids (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}) there is
231 > significant orientational averaging that additionally reduces the
232 > effect of long-range multipolar interactions.  The image multipoles
233 > that are introduced in the Taylor shifted force (TSF), gradient
234 > shifted force (GSF), and shifted potential (SP) methods mimic this effect
235 > and reduce the effective range of the multipolar interactions as
236 > interacting molecules traverse each other's cutoff boundaries.
237  
238 < \subsection{Modeled systems}
239 < We studied the comparison of the energy differences, forces and torques for six different systems; i) dipolar liquid, ii) quadrupolar liquid, iii)  dipolar crystal, iv) quadrupolar crystal v) dipolar-quadrupolar liquid(SSDQ), and vi) ions in dipolar-qudrupolar liquid(SSDQC).  To simulate different configurations of the crystals, the body centered cubic (BCC) minimum energy crystal with 3,456 molecules was taken and translationally locked in their respective crystal sites. The thermal energy was supplied to the rotational motion so that dipoles or quadrupoles can freely explore all possible orientation. The crystals were simulated for 10,000 fs in NVE ensemble at 50 K and 250 different configurations was taken in equal time interval for the comparative study.  The crystals were not simulated at high temperature and for a long run time to avoid possible translational deformation of the crystal sites.
240 < For dipolar, quadrupolar, and dipolar-quadrupolar liquids simulation, each molecular system with 2,048 molecules simulated for 1ns in NVE ensemble at 300 K temperature after equilibration.  We collected 250 different configurations in equal interval of time. For the ions mixed liquid system, we converted 48 different molecules into 24 $Na^+$ and $24 Cl^-$ ions and equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was run at the same environment for 1ns and 250 configurations were collected. While comparing energies, forces, and torques with Ewald method, Lennad Jone’s potentials were turned off and purely electrostatic interaction had been compared.
241 < \subsection{Summation methods}
242 < The Ewald summation for charge, dipole, and quadurpole was performed by using multipolar Ewald’s code in OpendMD/2.1. For different types of multipolar systems, damping alpha (α) for Ewald’s method was derived by plotting total electrostatic energy versus cutoff radius for the different values of $\alpha$ and compared the converged potential energy with the converged electrostatic energy from the pure cutoff method for very large cutoff radius (20 $A^o$). We found 0.3  $(A^o)^{-1}$  damping alpha for 12 $A^o$ cutoff radius is suitable for all kind of multipolar systems.
243 < The energies, forces and torques for all methods i) Hard, ii) SP, iii) GSF, and iv) TSF   are evaluated for different cutoff radii i) 9, ii) 12, and iii) 15 $A^o$ with damping parameter ($\alpha$) 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 then compared with Ewald’s method. All the simulations for the various systems were conducted in the OpenMD/2.1.
244 < \subsection{Energy conservation and efficiency}
245 < To test conservation of the energy, the mixed molecular system of 2000 dipolar-quadrupolar molecules with 24 $Na^+$,  and 24 $Cl^-$  was run for 1ns in the microcanonical ensemble at 300 K temperature for different cutoff methods (Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF). The molecular system was run in 12 parallel computers and started with same initial positions and velocities for all cutoff methods. The slope and Standard Deviation of the energy about the slope (SD) were evaluated in the total energy versus time plot, where the slope evaluates the total energy drift and SD calculates the energy fluctuation in MD simulations. Also, the time duration for the simulation was recorded to compare efficiency of the purposed methods with the Ewald.
238 > Forces and torques acting on atomic sites are fundamental in driving
239 > dynamics in molecular simulations, and the DSF energy kernel provides
240 > consistent energies and forces on charged atoms within the cutoff
241 > sphere. Both the energy and the force go smoothly to zero as an atom
242 > approaches the cutoff radius. The comparisons of the accuracy these
243 > quantities between the DSF kernel and SPME was surprisingly
244 > good.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} As a result, the DSF method has seen
245 > increasing use in molecular systems with relatively uniform charge
246 > densities.\cite{English08,Kannam:2012rr,Space12,Lawrence13,Acevedo13,Shi:2013ij,Vergne13}
247  
248 < \section{RESULTS}
249 < \subsection{Electrostatic energy and configurational energy differences}
250 < The magnitude of the fluctuation in the total electrostatic energy per molecule for a dipolar crystal is very high as shown in (Fig … paper I).\cite{PaperI}As soon as, the net dipole moment within a cutoff radius is neutralized in the SP method, the magnitude of the fluctuation in the total electrostatic energy per molecule reduced significantly and rapidly converged to the correct energy constant (Refer figure … Paper I).\cite{PaperI} The GSF potential energy also converged to the correct energy constant for the cutoff radius rc = 6a for the undamped case. The potential energy from the TSF method converges towards the correct value for a very large cutoff radius. The speed of convergence for the all the cutoff methods can be increased by using damping function as shown in figure … Paper I\cite{PaperI}. For the quadrupolar crystals, the fluctuation in the total electrostatic energy for the hard cutoff method is small and short ranged as compared to the dipolar crystals (figure … in the paper I).\cite{PaperI}  Similar to the dipolar crystals, the net quadrupolar neutralization of the cutoff sphere in the SP method reduces oscillation rapidly and converge electrostatic energy to the correct energy constant.
251 < The oscillation in the the electrostatic energy for the hard cutoff method is even true for the dipolar liquids as shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:rcutConvergence_dipolarLiquid}. As we placed image on the surface of the cutoff sphere in SP method, the oscillation in the energy is reduced. The fluctuation in the energy in liquid is much smaller as compared to the crystal (This result is similar to the results observed by \textit{Wolf et al.} in the case of ionic crystal and Mgo melt). The large magnitude in the fluctuation of the electrostatic energy in the crystal is because of large range of multipole ordering in the crystal. When the energy is evaluated by the direct truncation, it breaks up large number of multipolar ordering leaving behind net multipole moment. But in the case of liquid, there is only local ordering of the multipoles and their ordering disappears in the long range. Therefore, the direct truncation results a small oscillation in the electrostatic energy (which is smaller than deviation SP energy from the Ewald Figure ~\ref{fig:rcutConvergence_dipolarLiquid}) in the case of liquid. Although, the oscillation in the energy is very small for the case of liquid, this affects the change in potential energy ($\triangle E$), which is observed when $\triangle E$ evaluated from the SP method compared with Ewald as shown in figure 4a and 4b.
252 < \begin{figure}[h!]
253 <        \centering
254 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{rcutConvergence_dipolarLiquid-crop.pdf}
255 <        \caption{The energy per molecule plotted against cutoff radius, rc for i) Hard ii) SP iii) GSF, and iv) TSF method. The hard cutoff method shows fluctuation in the electorstatic energy and it disappers in all other methods.  }
256 <        \label{fig:rcutConvergence_dipolarLiquid}
257 <    \end{figure}
258 < In MC simulations, the electrostatic differences between the molecules are important parameter for sampling. We have compared $\triangle E$ from the different methods (Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF) with the Ewald using linear regression analysis. The correlation coefficient ($R^2$) of the regression line measures the deviation of the evaluated quantities from the mean slope. We know that Ewald method evaluates accurate value of the electrostatic energy. Hence, if the proposed methods can quantify the electrostatic energy as good as Ewald then the correlation coefficient is 1.The correlation coefficient is 0 for the completely random result for any physical quantity measured by the proposed method. The slope is a measure of the accuracy of the average of a physical quantity obtained from the proposed methods. If the slope is 1 then we can conclude that the average of the physical quantity measured by the method is as good as Ewald. The deviation of the slope from 1 state that the method used in quantifying physical quantities is statistically biased as compared to Ewald.
181 < \begin{figure}
182 <        \centering
183 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{slopeComparision_undamped.pdf}
184 <        \label{fig:barGraph1}
185 <        \end{figure}
186 <        \begin{figure}
187 <        \centering
188 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{slopeComparision_undamped.pdf}
189 <        \caption{}
190 <      
191 <        \label{fig:barGraph2}
192 <    \end{figure}
193 < The correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope of the linear regression plots for the energy differences for all six different molecular systems is shown in figure 4a and 4b.The plot shows that the correlation coefficient improves for the SP cutoff method as compared to the undamped hard cutoff method in the case of SSDQC, SSDQ, dipolar crystal, and dipolar liquid. For the quadrupolar crystal and liquid, the correlation coefficient is almost unchanged and close to 1.  The correlation coefficient is smallest (0.696276 for $r_c$ = 9 $A^o$) for the SSDQC liquid because of the presence of charge-charge and charge-multipole interactions. Since the charge-charge and charge-multipole interaction is long ranged, there is huge deviation of correlation coefficient from 1. Similarly, the quarupole–quadrupole interaction is short ranged ($\sim 1/r^6$) with compared to interactions in the other multipolar systems, thus the correlation coefficient very close to 1 even for hard cutoff method. The idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the cutoff sphere improves the correlation coefficient and makes it close to 1 for all types of multipolar systems. Similarly the slope is hugely deviated from the correct value for the lower order multipole-multipole interaction and slightly deviated for higher order multipole – multipole interaction. The SP method improves both correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope significantly in SSDQC and dipolar systems.  The Slope is found to be deviated more in dipolar crystal as compared to liquid which is associated with the large fluctuation in the electrostatic energy in crystal. The GSF also produced better values of correlation coefficient and slope with the proper selection of the damping alpha (Interested reader can consult accompanying supporting material). The TSF method gives good value of correlation coefficient for the dipolar crystal, dipolar liquid, SSDQ, and SSDQC (not for the quadrupolar crystal and liquid) but the regression slopes are significantly deviated.
194 < \begin{figure}
195 <        \centering
196 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
197 <        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of configurational energy differences for a given method with compared with the reference Ewald method. The value of result equal to 1(dashed line) indicates energy difference is indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle)}
198 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
199 <    \end{figure}
200 < The combined correlation coefficient and slope for all six systems is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_energy}. The correlation coefficient for the undamped hard cutoff method is does not have good agreement with the Ewald because of the fluctuation of the electrostatic energy in the direct truncation method. This deviation in correlation coefficient is improved by using SP, GSF, and TSF method. But the TSF method worsens the regression slope stating that this method produces statistically more biased result as compared to Ewald. Also the GSF method slightly deviate slope but it can be alleviated by using proper value of damping alpha and cutoff radius. The SP method shows good agreement with Ewald method for all values of damping alpha and radii.
201 < \subsection{Magnitude of the force and torque vectors}
202 < The comparison of the magnitude of the combined forces and torques for the data accumulated from all system types are shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_force}. The correlation and slope for the forces agree with the Ewald even for the hard cutoff method. For the system of molecules with higher order multipoles, the interaction is short ranged. Moreover, the force decays more rapidly than the electrostatic energy hence the hard cutoff method also produces good results. Although the pure cutoff gives the good match of the electrostatic force, the discontinuity in the force at the cutoff radius causes problem in the total energy conservation in MD simulations, which will be discussed in detail in section D. The correlation coefficient for GSF method also perfectly matches with Ewald but the slope is slightly deviated (due to extra term obtained from the angular differentiation). This deviation in the slope can be alleviated with proper selection of the damping alpha and radii ($\alpha = 0.2$ and $r_c = 12 A^o$ are good choice). The TSF method shows good agreement in the correlation coefficient but the slope is not good as compared to the Ewald.
203 < \begin{figure}
204 <        \centering
205 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
206 <        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of the magnitude of the force for a given method with compared to the reference Ewald method. The value of result equal to 1(dashed line) indicates, the magnitude of the force from a method is indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle). }
207 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
208 <    \end{figure}
209 < The torques appears to be very influenced because of extra term generated when the potential energy is modified to get consistent force and torque.  The result shows that the torque from the hard cutoff method has good agreement with Ewald. As the potential is modified to make it consistent with the force and torque, the correlation and slope is deviated as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque} for SP, GSF and TSF cutoff methods.  But the proper value of the damping alpha and radius can improve the agreement of the GSF with the Ewald method. The TSF method shows worst agreement in the slope as compared to Ewald even for larger cutoff radii.
210 < \begin{figure}
211 <        \centering
212 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
213 <        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of the magnitude of the force for a given method with compared to the reference Ewald method. The value of result equal to 1(dashed line) indicates, the magnitude of the force from a method is indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle).}
214 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
215 <    \end{figure}
216 < \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
217 < The accurate evaluation of the direction of the force and torques are also important for the dynamic simulation.In our research, the direction data sets were computed from the purposed method and compared with Ewald using Fisher statistics and results are expressed in terms of circular variance ($Var(\theta$).The force and torque vectors from the purposed method followed Fisher probability distribution function expressed in equation~\ref{eq:pdf}. The circular variance for the force and torque vectors of each molecule in the 250 configurations for all system types is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}. The direction of the force and torque vectors from hard and SP cutoff methods showed best directional agreement with the Ewald. The force and torque vectors from GSF method also showed good agreement with the Ewald method, which can also be improved by varying damping alpha and cutoff radius.For $\alpha = 0.2$ and $r_c = 12 A^o$, $ Var(\theta) $ for direction of the force was found to be 0.002061 and corresponding value of $\kappa $ was 485.20. Integration of equation \ref{eq:pdf} for that corresponding value of $\kappa$ showed that 95\% of force vectors are with in $6.37^o$. The TSF method is the poorest in evaluating accurate direction with compared to Hard, SP, and GSF methods. The circular variance for the direction of the torques is larger as compared to force. For same $\alpha = 0.2, r_c = 12 A^o$ and GSF method, the circular variance was 0.01415, which showed 95\% of torque vectors are within $16.75^o$.The direction of the force and torque vectors can be improved by varying $\alpha$ and $r_c$.
248 > \subsection{The damping function}
249 > The damping function has been discussed in detail in the first paper
250 > of this series.\cite{PaperI} The $1/r$ Coulombic kernel for the
251 > interactions between point charges can be replaced by the
252 > complementary error function $\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ to accelerate
253 > convergence, where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter with units of
254 > inverse distance.  Altering the value of $\alpha$ is equivalent to
255 > changing the width of Gaussian charge distributions that replace each
256 > point charge, as Coulomb integrals with Gaussian charge distributions
257 > produce complementary error functions when truncated at a finite
258 > distance.
259  
260 < \begin{figure}
261 <        \centering
262 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
263 <        \caption{The circular variance of the data sets of the direction of the  force and torque vectors obtained from a given method about reference Ewald method. The result equal to 0 (dashed line) indicates direction of the vectors are indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle)}
264 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
265 <    \end{figure}
266 < \subsection{Total energy conservation and efficiency }
267 < We have tested the conservation of energy in the SSDQC liquid system by running system for 1ns in the Hard, SP, GSF and TSF method. The Hard cutoff method shows very high energy drifts 433.53 KCal/Mol/ns/particle and energy fluctuation 32574.53 Kcal/Mol (measured by the SD from the slope) for the undamped case, which makes it completely unusable in MD simulations. The SP method also shows large value of energy drift 1.289 Kcal/Mol/ns/particle and energy fluctuation 0.01953 Kcal/Mol. The energy fluctuation in the SP method is due to the non-vanishing nature of the torque and force at the cutoff radius. We can improve the energy conservation in some extent by the proper selection of the damping alpha but the improvement is not good enough, which can be observed in Figure 9a and 9b .The GSF and TSF shows very low value of energy drift 0.09016, 0.07371 KCal/Mol/ns/particle and fluctuation 3.016E-6, 1.217E-6 Kcal/Mol respectively for the undamped case. Since the absolute value of the evaluated electrostatic energy, force and torque from TSF method are deviated from the Ewald, it does not mimic MD simulations appropriately. The electrostatic energy, force and torque from the GSF method have very good agreement with the Ewald. In addition, the energy drift and energy fluctuation from the GSF method is much better than Ewald’s method for reciprocal space vector value ($k_f$) equal to 7 as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:energyDrift} and ~\ref{fig:fluctuation}. We can improve the total energy fluctuation and drift for the Ewald’s method by increasing size of the reciprocal space, which extremely increseses the simulation time. In our current simulation, the simulation time for the Hard, SP, and GSF methods are about 5.5 times faster than the Ewald method.
268 < \begin{figure}
269 <        \centering
270 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{log(energyDrift).pdf}
271 < \label{fig:energyDrift}        
272 <        \end{figure}
273 < \begin{figure}
274 <        \centering
275 <        \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{logSD.pdf}      
276 <        \caption{The plot showing (a) standard deviation, and (b) total energy drift in the total energy conservation plot for different values of the damping alpha for different cut off methods. }
277 <        \label{fig:fluctuation}
278 <    \end{figure}
260 > With moderate damping coefficients, $\alpha \sim 0.2$ \AA$^{-1}$, the DSF method
261 > produced very good agreement with SPME for interaction energies,
262 > forces and torques for charge-charge
263 > interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
264 >
265 > \subsection{Point multipoles in molecular modeling}
266 > Coarse-graining approaches which treat entire molecular subsystems as
267 > a single rigid body are now widely used. A common feature of many
268 > coarse-graining approaches is simplification of the electrostatic
269 > interactions between bodies so that fewer site-site interactions are
270 > required to compute configurational
271 > energies.\cite{Ren06,Essex10,Essex11}
272 >
273 > Additionally, because electrons in a molecule are not localized at
274 > specific points, the assignment of partial charges to atomic centers
275 > is always an approximation.  For increased accuracy, atomic sites can
276 > also be assigned point multipoles and polarizabilities.  Recently,
277 > water has been modeled with point multipoles up to octupolar order
278 > using the soft sticky dipole-quadrupole-octupole (SSDQO)
279 > model.\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} Atom-centered point
280 > multipoles up to quadrupolar order have also been coupled with point
281 > polarizabilities in the high-quality AMOEBA and iAMOEBA water
282 > models.\cite{Ren:2003uq,Ren:2004kx,Ponder:2010vl,Wang:2013fk} However,
283 > truncating point multipoles without smoothing the forces and torques
284 > can create energy conservation issues in molecular dynamics
285 > simulations.
286 >
287 > In this paper we test a set of real-space methods that were developed
288 > for point multipolar interactions.  These methods extend the damped
289 > shifted force (DSF) and Wolf methods originally developed for
290 > charge-charge interactions and generalize them for higher order
291 > multipoles.  The detailed mathematical development of these methods
292 > has been presented in the first paper in this series, while this work
293 > covers the testing of energies, forces, torques, and energy
294 > conservation properties of the methods in realistic simulation
295 > environments.  In all cases, the methods are compared with the
296 > reference method, a full multipolar Ewald treatment.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
297 >
298 >
299 > \section{\label{sec:method}Review of Methods}
300 > Any real-space electrostatic method that is suitable for MD
301 > simulations should have the electrostatic energy, forces and torques
302 > between two sites go smoothly to zero as the distance between the
303 > sites, $r_{ab}$ approaches the cutoff radius, $r_c$.  Requiring
304 > this continuity at the cutoff is essential for energy conservation in
305 > MD simulations.  The mathematical details of the shifted potential
306 > (SP), gradient-shifted-force (GSF) and Taylor shifted-force (TSF)
307 > methods have been discussed in detail in the previous paper in this
308 > series.\cite{PaperI} Here we briefly review the new methods and
309 > describe their essential features.
310 >
311 > \subsection{Taylor-shifted force (TSF)}
312 >
313 > The electrostatic potential energy between point multipoles can be
314 > expressed as the product of two multipole operators and a Coulombic
315 > kernel,
316 > \begin{equation}
317 > U_{ab}(r)= M_{a} M_{b} \frac{1}{r}  \label{kernel}.
318 > \end{equation}
319 > where the multipole operator for site $a$, $M_{a}$, is
320 > expressed in terms of the point charge, $C_{a}$, dipole, ${\bf D}_{a}$, and quadrupole, $\mathsf{Q}_{a}$, for object
321 > $a$, etc.
322 >
323 > The TSF potential for any multipole-multipole interaction can be
324 > written
325 > \begin{equation}
326 > U^{\text{TSF}}= (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r)
327 > \label{generic}
328 > \end{equation}
329 > where $f_n(r)$ is a shifted kernel that is appropriate for the order
330 > of the interaction (see Ref. \onlinecite{PaperI}), with $n=0$ for
331 > charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for charge-quadrupole
332 > and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and $n=4$ for
333 > quadrupole-quadrupole.  To ensure smooth convergence of the energy,
334 > force, and torques, a Taylor expansion with $n$ terms must be
335 > performed at cutoff radius ($r_c$) to obtain $f_n(r)$.
336 >
337 > For multipole-multipole interactions, following this procedure results
338 > in separate radial functions for each of the distinct orientational
339 > contributions to the potential, and ensures that the forces and
340 > torques from each of these contributions will vanish at the cutoff
341 > radius.  For example, the direct dipole dot product
342 > ($\mathbf{D}_{a}
343 > \cdot \mathbf{D}_{b}$) is treated differently than the dipole-distance
344 > dot products:
345 > \begin{equation}
346 > U_{\mathbf{D}_{a}\mathbf{D}_{b}}(r)= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left[ \left(
347 >  \mathbf{D}_{a} \cdot
348 > \mathbf{D}_{b} \right) v_{21}(r) +
349 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{a} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \right)
350 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{b} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \right) v_{22}(r) \right]
351 > \end{equation}
352 >
353 > For the Taylor shifted (TSF) method with the undamped kernel,
354 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{8}{r_c^3} +
355 > \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$ and $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4}
356 > - \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$.  In these functions, one can easily see the
357 > connection to unmodified electrostatics as well as the smooth
358 > transition to zero in both these functions as $r\rightarrow r_c$.  The
359 > electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole due
360 > to another site within the cutoff sphere are derived from
361 > Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
362 > derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
363 > presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
364 > \onlinecite{PaperI}).
365 >
366 > \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
367 >
368 > A second (and conceptually simpler) method involves shifting the
369 > gradient of the raw Coulomb potential for each particular multipole
370 > order.  For example, the raw dipole-dipole potential energy may be
371 > shifted smoothly by finding the gradient for two interacting dipoles
372 > which have been projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere
373 > without changing their relative orientation,
374 > \begin{equation}
375 > U_{\mathbf{D}_{a}\mathbf{D}_{b}}(r)  = U_{\mathbf{D}_{a}\mathbf{D}_{b}}(r) -
376 > U_{\mathbf{D}_{a}\mathbf{D}_{b}}(r_c)
377 >   - (r_{ab}-r_c) ~~~\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ab} \cdot
378 >  \nabla U_{\mathbf{D}_{a}\mathbf{D}_{b}}(r_c).
379 > \end{equation}
380 > Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{a}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{b}$, are retained at the cutoff distance
381 > (although the signs are reversed for the dipole that has been
382 > projected onto the cutoff sphere).  In many ways, this simpler
383 > approach is closer in spirit to the original shifted force method, in
384 > that it projects a neutralizing multipole (and the resulting forces
385 > from this multipole) onto a cutoff sphere. The resulting functional
386 > forms for the potentials, forces, and torques turn out to be quite
387 > similar in form to the Taylor-shifted approach, although the radial
388 > contributions are significantly less perturbed by the gradient-shifted
389 > approach than they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
390 >
391 > For the gradient shifted (GSF) method with the undamped kernel,
392 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} - \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \frac{4}{r_c^3}$ and
393 > $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{9 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{12}{r_c^3}$.
394 > Again, these functions go smoothly to zero as $r\rightarrow r_c$, and
395 > because the Taylor expansion retains only one term, they are
396 > significantly less perturbed than the TSF functions.
397 >
398 > In general, the gradient shifted potential between a central multipole
399 > and any multipolar site inside the cutoff radius is given by,
400 > \begin{equation}
401 > U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}) -
402 > U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}) - (r-r_c)
403 > \hat{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \nabla U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}) \right]
404 > \label{generic2}
405 > \end{equation}
406 > where the sum describes a separate force-shifting that is applied to
407 > each orientational contribution to the energy.  In this expression,
408 > $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ is the unit vector connecting the two multipoles
409 > ($a$ and $b$) in space, and $\mathsf{A}$ and $\mathsf{B}$
410 > represent the orientations the multipoles.
411 >
412 > The third term converges more rapidly than the first two terms as a
413 > function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
414 > small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
415 > Eq. \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
416 > approach zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
417 > can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
418 > higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
419 > to the charge-dipole interaction but generate different expressions in
420 > the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
421 > interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
422 > GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
423 > (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI}).
424 >
425 >
426 > \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
427 > A discontinuous truncation of the electrostatic potential at the
428 > cutoff sphere introduces a severe artifact (oscillation in the
429 > electrostatic energy) even for molecules with the higher-order
430 > multipoles.\cite{PaperI} We have also formulated an extension of the
431 > Wolf approach for point multipoles by simply projecting the image
432 > multipole onto the surface of the cutoff sphere, and including the
433 > interactions with the central multipole and the image. This
434 > effectively shifts the total potential to zero at the cutoff radius,
435 > \begin{equation}
436 > U^{\text{SP}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}) -
437 > U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}) \right]
438 > \label{eq:SP}
439 > \end{equation}          
440 > where the sum describes separate potential shifting that is done for
441 > each orientational contribution to the energy (e.g. the direct dipole
442 > product contribution is shifted {\it separately} from the
443 > dipole-distance terms in dipole-dipole interactions).  Note that this
444 > is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $r_c$. Each radial
445 > contribution is shifted separately.  One consequence of this is that
446 > multipoles that reorient after leaving the cutoff sphere can re-enter
447 > the cutoff sphere without perturbing the total energy.
448 >
449 > For the shifted potential (SP) method with the undamped kernel,
450 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{1}{r_c^3}$ and $v_{22}(r) =
451 > \frac{3}{r^3} - \frac{3}{r_c^3}$.  The potential energy between a
452 > central multipole and other multipolar sites goes smoothly to zero as
453 > $r \rightarrow r_c$.  However, the force and torque obtained from the
454 > shifted potential (SP) are discontinuous at $r_c$.  MD simulations
455 > will still experience energy drift while operating under the SP
456 > potential, but it may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the
457 > configurational energy differences are the primary quantity of
458 > interest.
459 >
460 > \subsection{The Self Term}
461 > In the TSF, GSF, and SP methods, a self-interaction is retained for
462 > the central multipole interacting with its own image on the surface of
463 > the cutoff sphere.  This self interaction is nearly identical with the
464 > self-terms that arise in the Ewald sum for multipoles.  Complete
465 > expressions for the self terms are presented in the first paper in
466 > this series (Reference \onlinecite{PaperI}).
467 >
468 >
469 > \section{\label{sec:methodology}Methodology}
470 >
471 > To understand how the real-space multipole methods behave in computer
472 > simulations, it is vital to test against established methods for
473 > computing electrostatic interactions in periodic systems, and to
474 > evaluate the size and sources of any errors that arise from the
475 > real-space cutoffs.  In the first paper of this series, we compared
476 > the dipolar and quadrupolar energy expressions against analytic
477 > expressions for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar
478 > arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} In this work, we
479 > used the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing
480 > energies, forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic
481 > disordered and ordered condensed-phase systems.  The parameters used
482 > in the test cases are given in table~\ref{tab:pars}.
483 >
484 > \begin{table}
485 >  \caption{The parameters used in the systems used to evaluate the new
486 >    real-space methods.  The most comprehensive test was a liquid
487 >    composed of 2000 soft DQ liquid molecules with 48 dissolved ions (24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
488 >    ions).  This test exercises all orders of the multipolar
489 >    interactions developed in the first paper.\label{tab:pars}}
490 > \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{r|cc|YYccc|Yccc} \hline
491 >             & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LJ parameters} &
492 >             \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Electrostatic moments} & & & & \\
493 > Test system & $\sigma$& $\epsilon$ & $C$ & $D$  &
494 > $Q_{xx}$ & $Q_{yy}$ & $Q_{zz}$ & mass  & $I_{xx}$ & $I_{yy}$ &
495 > $I_{zz}$ \\ \cline{6-8}\cline{10-12}
496 > & (\AA) & (kcal/mol) & (e) & (debye) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{(debye \AA)} & (amu) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(amu
497 > \AA\textsuperscript{2})} \\ \hline
498 >    Soft Dipolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & & & & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145& 1.155 \\
499 >    Soft Dipolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  & 2.35 & & & & $10^4$  & 17.6 &17.6 & 0 \\
500 > Soft Quadrupolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155  \\
501 > Soft Quadrupolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & $10^4$  & 17.6&17.6&0 \\
502 >      Soft DQ liquid  & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & -1.35&0&-0.68 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155 \\
503 >              \ce{Na+} & 2.579 & 0.118 & +1& & & & & 22.99 & & &\\
504 >              \ce{Cl-} & 4.445 & 0.1   & -1& & & & & 35.4527& & & \\ \hline
505 > \end{tabularx}
506 > \end{table}
507 > The systems consist of pure multipolar solids (both dipole and
508 > quadrupole), pure multipolar liquids (both dipole and quadrupole), a
509 > fluid composed of sites containing both dipoles and quadrupoles
510 > simultaneously, and a final test case that includes ions with point
511 > charges in addition to the multipolar fluid.  The solid-phase
512 > parameters were chosen so that the systems can explore some
513 > orientational freedom for the multipolar sites, while maintaining
514 > relatively strict translational order.  The soft DQ liquid model used
515 > here based loosely on the SSDQO water
516 > model,\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} but is not itself a
517 > particularly accurate water model.  However, the soft DQ model does
518 > test dipole-dipole, dipole-quadrupole, and quadrupole-quadrupole
519 > interactions at roughly the same magnitudes. The last test case, a
520 > soft DQ liquid with dissolved ions, exercises \textit{all} levels of
521 > the multipole-multipole interactions we have derived so far and
522 > represents the most complete test of the new methods.
523 >
524 > In the following section, we present results for the total
525 > electrostatic energy, as well as the electrostatic contributions to
526 > the force and torque on each molecule.  These quantities have been
527 > computed using the SP, TSF, and GSF methods, as well as a hard cutoff,
528 > and have been compared with the values obtained from the multipolar
529 > Ewald sum.  In Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy differences
530 > between two configurations is the primary quantity that governs how
531 > the simulation proceeds. These differences are the most important
532 > indicators of the reliability of a method even if the absolute
533 > energies are not exact.  For each of the multipolar systems listed
534 > above, we have compared the change in electrostatic potential energy
535 > ($\Delta E$) between 250 statistically-independent configurations.  In
536 > molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the forces and torques govern the
537 > behavior of the simulation, so we also compute the electrostatic
538 > contributions to the forces and torques.
539 >
540 > \subsection{Implementation}
541 > The real-space methods developed in the first paper in this series
542 > have been implemented in our group's open source molecular simulation
543 > program, OpenMD,\cite{Meineke05,openmd} which was used for all calculations in
544 > this work.  The complementary error function can be a relatively slow
545 > function on some processors, so all of the radial functions are
546 > precomputed on a fine grid and are spline-interpolated to provide
547 > values when required.  
548 >
549 > Using the same simulation code, we compare to a multipolar Ewald sum
550 > with a reciprocal space cutoff, $k_\mathrm{max} = 7$.  Our version of
551 > the Ewald sum is a re-implementation of the algorithm originally
552 > proposed by Smith that does not use the particle mesh or smoothing
553 > approximations.\cite{Smith82,Smith98} This implementation was tested
554 > extensively against the analytic energy constants for the multipolar
555 > lattices that are discussed in reference \onlinecite{PaperI}.  In all
556 > cases discussed below, the quantities being compared are the
557 > electrostatic contributions to energies, force, and torques.  All
558 > other contributions to these quantities (i.e. from Lennard-Jones
559 > interactions) are removed prior to the comparisons.
560 >
561 > The convergence parameter ($\alpha$) also plays a role in the balance
562 > of the real-space and reciprocal-space portions of the Ewald
563 > calculation.  Typical molecular mechanics packages set this to a value
564 > that depends on the cutoff radius and a tolerance (typically less than
565 > $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller tolerances are typically
566 > associated with increasing accuracy at the expense of computational
567 > time spent on the reciprocal-space portion of the
568 > summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann:1995pb} A default tolerance of $1 \times
569 > 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all Ewald calculations, resulting in
570 > Ewald coefficient 0.3119 \AA$^{-1}$ for a cutoff radius of 12 \AA.
571 >
572 > The real-space models have self-interactions that provide
573 > contributions to the energies only.  Although the self interaction is
574 > a rapid calculation, we note that in systems with fluctuating charges
575 > or point polarizabilities, the self-term is not static and must be
576 > recomputed at each time step.
577 >
578 > \subsection{Model systems}
579 > To sample independent configurations of the multipolar crystals, body
580 > centered cubic (bcc) crystals, which exhibit the minimum energy
581 > structures for point dipoles, were generated using 3,456 molecules.
582 > The multipoles were translationally locked in their respective crystal
583 > sites for equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K) so that
584 > dipoles or quadrupoles could freely explore all accessible
585 > orientations.  The translational constraints were then removed, the
586 > systems were re-equilibrated, and the crystals were simulated for an
587 > additional 10 ps in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble with an average
588 > temperature of 50 K.  The balance between moments of inertia and
589 > particle mass were chosen to allow orientational sampling without
590 > significant translational motion.  Configurations were sampled at
591 > equal time intervals in order to compare configurational energy
592 > differences.  The crystals were simulated far from the melting point
593 > in order to avoid translational deformation away of the ideal lattice
594 > geometry.
595 >
596 > For dipolar, quadrupolar, and mixed-multipole \textit{liquid}
597 > simulations, each system was created with 2,048 randomly-oriented
598 > molecules.  These were equilibrated at a temperature of 300K for 1 ns.
599 > Each system was then simulated for 1 ns in the microcanonical (NVE)
600 > ensemble with the Dullweber, Leimkuhler, and McLachlan (DLM)
601 > symplectic splitting integrator using 1 fs
602 > timesteps.\cite{Dullweber1997} We collected 250 different
603 > configurations at equal time intervals. For the liquid system that
604 > included ionic species, we converted 48 randomly-distributed molecules
605 > into 24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-} ions and re-equilibrated. After
606 > equilibration, the system was run under the same conditions for 1
607 > ns. A total of 250 configurations were collected. In the following
608 > comparisons of energies, forces, and torques, the Lennard-Jones
609 > potentials were turned off and only the purely electrostatic
610 > quantities were compared with the same values obtained via the Ewald
611 > sum.
612 >
613 > \subsection{Accuracy of Energy Differences, Forces and Torques}
614 > The pairwise summation techniques (outlined above) were evaluated for
615 > use in MC simulations by studying the energy differences between
616 > different configurations.  We took the Ewald-computed energy
617 > difference between two conformations to be the correct behavior. An
618 > ideal performance by one of the new methods would reproduce these
619 > energy differences exactly. The configurational energies being used
620 > here contain only contributions from electrostatic interactions.
621 > Lennard-Jones interactions were omitted from the comparison as they
622 > should be identical for all methods.
623 >
624 > Since none of the real-space methods provide exact energy differences,
625 > we used least square regressions analysis for the six different
626 > molecular systems to compare $\Delta E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF
627 > with the multipolar Ewald reference method.  A result of unity for
628 > both the correlation (slope) and coefficient of determination ($R^2$)
629 > for these regressions would indicate perfect agreement between the
630 > real-space method and the multipolar Ewald sum.
631 >
632 > Molecular systems were run long enough to explore independent
633 > configurations and 250 configurations were recorded for comparison.
634 > Each system provided 31,125 energy differences for a total of 186,750
635 > data points.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have
636 > also been compared using least squares regression analysis. In the
637 > forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in
638 > each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our
639 > dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250
640 > different configurations for each system resulting in 3,072,000 data
641 > points for comparison of forces and torques.
642 >
643 > \subsection{Analysis of vector quantities}
644 > Getting the magnitudes of the force and torque vectors correct is only
645 > part of the issue for carrying out accurate molecular dynamics
646 > simulations.  Because the real space methods reweight the different
647 > orientational contributions to the energies, it is also important to
648 > understand how the methods impact the \textit{directionality} of the
649 > force and torque vectors. Fisher developed a probability density
650 > function to analyse directional data sets,
651 > \begin{equation}
652 > p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta e^{\kappa \cos\theta}
653 > \label{eq:pdf}
654 > \end{equation}
655 > where $\kappa$ measures directional dispersion of the data around the
656 > mean direction.\cite{fisher53} This quantity $(\kappa)$ can be
657 > estimated as a reciprocal of the circular variance.\cite{Allen91} To
658 > quantify the directional error, forces obtained from the Ewald sum
659 > were taken as the mean (or correct) direction and the angle between
660 > the forces obtained via the Ewald sum and the real-space methods were
661 > evaluated,
662 > \begin{equation}
663 >  \cos\theta_i =  \frac{\mathbf{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald} \cdot
664 >    \mathbf{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}}{\left|\mathbf{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald}\right| \left|\mathbf{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}\right|}
665 > \end{equation}
666 > The total angular displacement of the vectors was calculated as,
667 > \begin{equation}
668 > R = \sqrt{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \cos\theta_i\right)^2 + \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i\right)^2}
669 > \label{eq:displacement}
670 > \end{equation}
671 > where $N$ is number of force vectors.  The circular variance is
672 > defined as
673 > \begin{equation}
674 > \mathrm{Var}(\theta) \approx 1/\kappa = 1 - R/N
675 > \end{equation}
676 > The circular variance takes on values between from 0 to 1, with 0
677 > indicating a perfect directional match between the Ewald force vectors
678 > and the real-space forces. Lower values of $\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$
679 > correspond to higher values of $\kappa$, which indicates tighter
680 > clustering of the real-space force vectors around the Ewald forces.
681 >
682 > A similar analysis was carried out for the electrostatic contribution
683 > to the molecular torques as well as forces.  
684 >
685 > \subsection{Energy conservation}
686 > To test conservation the energy for the methods, the mixed molecular
687 > system of 2000 soft DQ liquid molecules with 24 \ce{Na+} and 24
688 > \ce{Cl-} ions was run for 1 ns in the microcanonical ensemble at an
689 > average temperature of 300K.  Each of the different electrostatic
690 > methods (Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF) was tested for a range of
691 > different damping values. The molecular system was started with same
692 > initial positions and velocities for all cutoff methods. The energy
693 > drift ($\delta E_1$) and standard deviation of the energy about the
694 > slope ($\delta E_0$) were evaluated from the total energy of the
695 > system as a function of time.  Although both measures are valuable at
696 > investigating new methods for molecular dynamics, a useful interaction
697 > model must allow for long simulation times with minimal energy drift.
698 >
699 > \section{\label{sec:result}RESULTS}
700 > \subsection{Configurational energy differences}
701 >
702 > \begin{figure}
703 >  \centering
704 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
705 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of configurational
706 >    energy differences for the real-space electrostatic methods
707 >    compared with the reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal
708 >    to 1 (dashed line) indicate $\Delta E$ values indistinguishable
709 >    from those obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different
710 >    values of the cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols
711 >    (9~\AA\ = circles, 12~\AA\ = squares, and 15~\AA\ = inverted
712 >    triangles).\label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}}
713 > \end{figure}
714 >
715 > The combined coefficient of determination and slope for all six
716 > systems is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_energy}.  Most of the
717 > methods reproduce the Ewald configurational energy differences with
718 > remarkable fidelity.  Undamped hard cutoffs introduce a significant
719 > amount of random scatter in the energy differences which is apparent
720 > in the reduced value of $R^2$ for this method.  This can be easily
721 > understood as configurations which exhibit small traversals of a few
722 > dipoles or quadrupoles out of the cutoff sphere will see large energy
723 > jumps when hard cutoffs are used.  The orientations of the multipoles
724 > (particularly in the ordered crystals) mean that these energy jumps
725 > can go in either direction, producing a significant amount of random
726 > scatter, but no systematic error.
727 >
728 > The TSF method produces energy differences that are highly correlated
729 > with the Ewald results, but it also introduces a significant
730 > systematic bias in the values of the energies, particularly for
731 > smaller cutoff values. The TSF method alters the distance dependence
732 > of different orientational contributions to the energy in a
733 > non-uniform way, so the size of the cutoff sphere can have a large
734 > effect, particularly for the crystalline systems.
735 >
736 > Both the SP and GSF methods appear to reproduce the Ewald results with
737 > excellent fidelity, particularly for moderate damping ($\alpha \approx
738 > 0.2$~\AA$^{-1}$) and with a commonly-used cutoff value ($r_c =
739 > 12$~\AA).  With the exception of the undamped hard cutoff, and the TSF
740 > method with short cutoffs, all of the methods would be appropriate for
741 > use in Monte Carlo simulations.
742 >
743 > \subsection{Magnitude of the force and torque vectors}
744 >
745 > The comparisons of the magnitudes of the forces and torques for the
746 > data accumulated from all six systems are shown in Figures
747 > ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_force} and \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}. The
748 > correlation and slope for the forces agree well with the Ewald sum
749 > even for the hard cutoffs.
750 >
751 > For systems of molecules with only multipolar interactions, the pair
752 > energy contributions are quite short ranged.  Moreover, the force
753 > decays more rapidly than the electrostatic energy, hence the hard
754 > cutoff method can also produce reasonable agreement for this quantity.
755 > Although the pure cutoff gives reasonably good electrostatic forces
756 > for pairs of molecules included within each other's cutoff spheres,
757 > the discontinuity in the force at the cutoff radius can potentially
758 > cause energy conservation problems as molecules enter and leave the
759 > cutoff spheres.  This is discussed in detail in section
760 > \ref{sec:conservation}.
761 >
762 > The two shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) exhibit a small amount of
763 > systematic variation and scatter compared with the Ewald forces.  The
764 > shifted-force models intentionally perturb the forces between pairs of
765 > molecules inside each other's cutoff spheres in order to correct the
766 > energy conservation issues, and this perturbation is evident in the
767 > statistics accumulated for the molecular forces.  The GSF
768 > perturbations are minimal, particularly for moderate damping and
769 > commonly-used cutoff values ($r_c = 12$~\AA).  The TSF method shows
770 > reasonable agreement in $R^2$, but again the systematic error in the
771 > forces is concerning if replication of Ewald forces is desired.
772 >
773 > It is important to note that the forces and torques from the SP and
774 > the Hard cutoffs are not identical. The SP method shifts each
775 > orientational contribution separately (e.g. the dipole-dipole dot
776 > product is shifted by a different function than the dipole-distance
777 > products), while the hard cutoff contains no orientation-dependent
778 > shifting.  The forces and torques for these methods therefore diverge
779 > for multipoles even though the forces for point charges are identical.
780 >
781 > \begin{figure}
782 >  \centering
783 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
784 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the force vector
785 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
786 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
787 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
788 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
789 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9~\AA\ =
790 >    circles, 12~\AA\ = squares, and 15~\AA\ = inverted
791 >    triangles).\label{fig:slopeCorr_force}}
792 > \end{figure}
793 >
794 >
795 > \begin{figure}
796 >  \centering
797 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
798 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the torque vector
799 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
800 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
801 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
802 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
803 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9~\AA\ =
804 >    circles, 12~\AA\ = squares, and 15~\AA\ = inverted
805 >    triangles).\label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}}
806 > \end{figure}
807 >
808 > The torques (Fig. \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}) appear to be
809 > significantly influenced by the choice of real-space method.  The
810 > torque expressions have the same distance dependence as the energies,
811 > which are naturally longer-ranged expressions than the inter-site
812 > forces.  Torques are also quite sensitive to orientations of
813 > neighboring molecules, even those that are near the cutoff distance.
814 >
815 > The results shows that the torque from the hard cutoff method
816 > reproduces the torques in quite good agreement with the Ewald sum.
817 > The other real-space methods can cause some deviations, but excellent
818 > agreement with the Ewald sum torques is recovered at moderate values
819 > of the damping coefficient ($\alpha \approx 0.2$~\AA$^{-1}$) and cutoff
820 > radius ($r_c \ge 12$~\AA).  The TSF method exhibits only fair agreement
821 > in the slope when compared with the Ewald torques even for larger
822 > cutoff radii.  It appears that the severity of the perturbations in
823 > the TSF method are most in evidence for the torques.
824 >
825 > \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
826 >
827 > The accurate evaluation of force and torque directions is just as
828 > important for molecular dynamics simulations as the magnitudes of
829 > these quantities. Force and torque vectors for all six systems were
830 > analyzed using Fisher statistics, and the quality of the vector
831 > directionality is shown in terms of circular variance
832 > ($\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$) in
833 > Fig. \ref{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}. The force and torque
834 > vectors from the new real-space methods exhibit nearly-ideal Fisher
835 > probability distributions (Eq.~\ref{eq:pdf}). Both the hard and SP
836 > cutoff methods exhibit the best vectorial agreement with the Ewald
837 > sum. The force and torque vectors from GSF method also show good
838 > agreement with the Ewald method, which can also be systematically
839 > improved by using moderate damping and a reasonable cutoff radius. For
840 > $\alpha = 0.2$~\AA$^{-1}$ and $r_c = 12$~\AA, we observe
841 > $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = 0.00206$, which corresponds to a distribution
842 > with 95\% of force vectors within $6.37^\circ$ of the corresponding
843 > Ewald forces. The TSF method produces the poorest agreement with the
844 > Ewald force directions.
845 >
846 > Torques are again more perturbed than the forces by the new real-space
847 > methods, but even here the variance is reasonably small.  For the same
848 > method (GSF) with the same parameters ($\alpha = 0.2$~\AA$^{-1}$, $r_c
849 > = 12$~\AA), the circular variance was 0.01415, corresponds to a
850 > distribution which has 95\% of torque vectors are within $16.75^\circ$
851 > of the Ewald results. Again, the direction of the force and torque
852 > vectors can be systematically improved by varying $\alpha$ and $r_c$.
853 >
854 > \begin{figure}
855 >  \centering
856 >  \includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified.eps}
857 >  \caption{The circular variance of the direction of the force and
858 >    torque vectors obtained from the real-space methods around the
859 >    reference Ewald vectors. A variance equal to 0 (dashed line)
860 >    indicates direction of the force or torque vectors are
861 >    indistinguishable from those obtained from the Ewald sum. Here
862 >    different symbols represent different values of the cutoff radius
863 >    (9~\AA\ = circle, 12~\AA\ = square, 15~\AA\ = inverted triangle)\label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}}
864 > \end{figure}
865 >
866 > \subsection{Energy conservation\label{sec:conservation}}
867 >
868 > We have tested the conservation of energy one can expect to see with
869 > the new real-space methods using the soft DQ liquid model with a small
870 > fraction of solvated ions. This is a test system which exercises all
871 > orders of multipole-multipole interactions derived in the first paper
872 > in this series and provides the most comprehensive test of the new
873 > methods.  A liquid-phase system was created with 2000 liquid-phase
874 > molecules and 48 dissolved ions at a density of 0.98 g cm$^{-3}$ and a
875 > temperature of 300K.  After equilibration in the canonical (NVT)
876 > ensemble using a Nos\'e-Hoover thermostat, this liquid-phase system
877 > was run for 1 ns in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble under the Ewald,
878 > Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with a cutoff radius of 12~\AA.  The
879 > value of the damping coefficient was also varied from the undamped
880 > case ($\alpha = 0$) to a heavily damped case ($\alpha =
881 > 0.3$~\AA$^{-1}$) for all of the real space methods.  A sample was also
882 > run using the multipolar Ewald sum with the same real-space cutoff.
883 >
884 > In figure~\ref{fig:energyDrift} we show the both the linear drift in
885 > energy over time, $\delta E_1$, and the standard deviation of energy
886 > fluctuations around this drift $\delta E_0$.  Both of the
887 > shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) provide excellent energy
888 > conservation (drift less than $10^{-5}$ kcal / mol / ns / particle),
889 > while the hard cutoff is essentially unusable for molecular dynamics.
890 > SP provides some benefit over the hard cutoff because the energetic
891 > jumps that happen as particles leave and enter the cutoff sphere are
892 > somewhat reduced, but like the Wolf method for charges, the SP method
893 > would not be as useful for molecular dynamics as either of the
894 > shifted-force methods.
895 >
896 > We note that for all tested values of the cutoff radius, the new
897 > real-space methods can provide better energy conservation behavior
898 > than the multipolar Ewald sum, even when relatively large $k$-space
899 > cutoff values are utilized.
900 >
901 > \begin{figure}
902 >  \centering
903 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newDrift_12.eps}
904 >  \caption{Energy conservation of the real-space methods for the soft
905 >    DQ liauid / ion system. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift
906 >    in energy over time (in kcal/mol/particle/ns) and $\delta
907 >    \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation of energy fluctuations
908 >    around this drift (in kcal/mol/particle).  Points that appear in
909 >    the green region at the bottom exhibit better energy conservation
910 >    than would be obtained using common parameters for Ewald-based
911 >    electrostatics.\label{fig:energyDrift}}
912 > \end{figure}
913 >
914 > \subsection{Reproduction of Structural \& Dynamical Features\label{sec:structure}}
915 > The most important test of the modified interaction potentials is the
916 > fidelity with which they can reproduce structural features and
917 > dynamical properties in a liquid.  One commonly-utilized measure of
918 > structural ordering is the pair distribution function, $g(r)$, which
919 > measures local density deviations in relation to the bulk density.  In
920 > the electrostatic approaches studied here, the short-range repulsion
921 > from the Lennard-Jones potential is identical for the various
922 > electrostatic methods, and since short range repulsion determines much
923 > of the local liquid ordering, one would not expect to see many
924 > differences in $g(r)$.  Indeed, the pair distributions are essentially
925 > identical for all of the electrostatic methods studied (for each of
926 > the different systems under investigation).
927 >
928 > % An example of this agreement for the soft DQ liquid/ion system is
929 > % shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gofr}.
930 >
931 > % \begin{figure}
932 > %   \centering
933 > %   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gofr_ssdqc.eps}
934 > % \caption{The pair distribution functions, $g(r)$, for the SSDQ
935 > %   water/ion system obtained using the different real-space methods are
936 > %   essentially identical with the result from the Ewald
937 > %   treatment.\label{fig:gofr}}
938 > % \end{figure}
939 >
940 > There is a minor over-structuring of the first solvation shell when
941 > using TSF or when overdamping with any of the real-space methods.
942 > With moderate damping, GSF and SP produce pair distributions that are
943 > identical (within numerical noise) to their Ewald counterparts.  The
944 > degree of over-structuring can be measured most easily using the
945 > coordination number,
946 > \begin{equation}
947 > n_C = 4\pi\rho \int_{0}^{a}r^2\text{g}(r)dr,
948 > \end{equation}
949 > where $\rho$ is the number density of the site-site pair interactions,
950 > and $a$ is the radial location of the minima following the first peak
951 > in $g(r)$ ($a = 4.2$~\AA\  for the soft DQ liquid / ion system).  The
952 > coordination number is shown as a function of the damping coefficient
953 > for all of the real space methods in Fig. \ref{fig:Props}.
954 >
955 > A more demanding test of modified electrostatics is the average value
956 > of the electrostatic energy $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$
957 > which is obtained by sampling the liquid-state configurations
958 > experienced by a liquid evolving entirely under the influence of each
959 > of the methods.  In Fig. \ref{fig:Props} we demonstrate how $\langle
960 > U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ varies with the damping parameter,
961 > $\alpha$, for each of the methods.
962 >
963 > As in the crystals studied in the first paper, damping is important
964 > for converging the mean electrostatic energy values, particularly for
965 > the two shifted force methods (GSF and TSF).  A value of $\alpha
966 > \approx 0.2$~\AA$^{-1}$ is sufficient to converge the SP and GSF
967 > energies with a cutoff of 12 \AA, while shorter cutoffs require more
968 > dramatic damping ($\alpha \approx 0.28$~\AA$^{-1}$ for $r_c = 9$~\AA).
969 > Overdamping the real-space electrostatic methods occurs with $\alpha >
970 > 0.3$~\AA$^{-1}$, causing the estimate of the electrostatic energy to
971 > drop below the Ewald results.
972 >
973 > These ``optimal'' values of the damping coefficient for structural
974 > features are similar to those observed for DSF electrostatics for
975 > purely point-charge systems, and the range $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow
976 > 0.225$~\AA$^{-1}$ for $r_c = 12$~\AA\ appears to be an excellent
977 > compromise for mixed charge/multipolar systems.
978 >
979 > To test the fidelity of the electrostatic methods at reproducing
980 > \textit{dynamics} in a multipolar liquid, it is also useful to look at
981 > transport properties, particularly the diffusion constant,
982 > \begin{equation}
983 > D = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{6 t} \langle \left|
984 >  \mathbf{r}(t) -\mathbf{r}(0) \right|^2 \rangle
985 > \label{eq:diff}
986 > \end{equation}
987 > which measures long-time behavior and is sensitive to the forces on
988 > the multipoles. The self-diffusion constants (D) were calculated from
989 > linear fits to the long-time portion of the mean square displacement,
990 > $\langle r^{2}(t) \rangle$.\cite{Allen87} In Fig. \ref{fig:Props} we
991 > demonstrate how the diffusion constant depends on the choice of
992 > real-space methods and the damping coefficient.  Both the SP and GSF
993 > methods can obtain excellent agreement with Ewald again using moderate
994 > damping.
995 >
996 > In addition to translational diffusion, orientational relaxation times
997 > were calculated for comparisons with the Ewald simulations and with
998 > experiments. These values were determined by calculating the
999 > orientational time correlation function,
1000 > \begin{equation}
1001 > C_l^\gamma(t) = \left\langle P_l\left[\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma(t)
1002 >                \cdot\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma(0)\right]\right\rangle,
1003 > \label{eq:OrientCorr}
1004 > \end{equation}
1005 > from the same 350 ps microcanonical trajectories that were used for
1006 > translational diffusion.  Here, $P_l$ is the Legendre polynomial of
1007 > order $l$ and $\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma$ is the unit vector for body
1008 > axis $\gamma$.  The reference frame used for our sample dipolar
1009 > systems has the $z$-axis running along the dipoles, and for the soft
1010 > DQ liquid model, the $y$-axis connects the two implied hydrogen-like
1011 > positions.  From the orientation autocorrelation functions, we can
1012 > obtain time constants for rotational relaxation either by fitting to a
1013 > multi-exponential model for the orientational relaxation, or by
1014 > integrating the correlation functions.
1015 >
1016 > In a good model for water, the orientational decay times would be
1017 > comparable to water orientational relaxation times from nuclear
1018 > magnetic resonance (NMR). The relaxation constant obtained from
1019 > $C_2^y(t)$ is normally of experimental interest because it describes
1020 > the relaxation of the principle axis connecting the hydrogen
1021 > atoms. Thus, $C_2^y(t)$ can be compared to the intermolecular portion
1022 > of the dipole-dipole relaxation from a proton NMR signal and can
1023 > provide an estimate of the NMR relaxation time constant.\cite{Impey82}
1024 > In Fig. \ref{fig:Props} we compare the $\tau_2^y$ and $\tau_2^z$
1025 > values for the various real-space methods over a range of different
1026 > damping coefficients.  The rotational relaxation for the $z$ axis
1027 > primarily probes the torques on the dipoles, while the relaxation for
1028 > the $y$ axis is sensitive primarily to the quadrupolar torques.
1029 >
1030 > \begin{figure}
1031 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{properties.eps}
1032 >  \caption{Comparison of the structural and dynamic properties for the
1033 >    combined multipolar liquid (soft DQ liquid + ions) for all of the
1034 >    real-space methods with $r_c = 12$~\AA. Electrostatic energies,
1035 >    $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ (in kcal / mol),
1036 >    coordination numbers, $n_C$, diffusion constants (in $10^{-5}
1037 >    \mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^{-1}$), and rotational correlation times
1038 >    (in ps) all show excellent agreement with Ewald results for
1039 >    damping coefficients in the range $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow
1040 >    0.225$~\AA$^{-1}$. \label{fig:Props}}
1041 > \end{figure}
1042 >
1043 > In Fig. \ref{fig:Props} it appears that values for $D$, $\tau_2^y$,
1044 > and $\tau_2^z$ using the Ewald sum are reproduced with excellent
1045 > fidelity by the GSF and SP methods.  All of the real space methods can
1046 > be \textit{overdamped}, which reduces the effective range of multipole
1047 > interactions, causing structural and dynamical changes from the
1048 > correct behavior.  Because overdamping weakens orientational
1049 > preferences between adjacent molecules, it manifests as too-rapid
1050 > orientational decay coupled with faster diffusion and
1051 > over-coordination of the liquid.  Underdamping is less problematic for
1052 > the SP and GSF methods, as their structural and dynamical properties
1053 > still reproduce the Ewald results even in the completely undamped
1054 > ($\alpha = 0$) case.  An optimal range for the electrostatic damping
1055 > parameter appears to be $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow 0.225$~\AA$^{-1}$
1056 > for $r_c = 12$~\AA, which similar to the optimal range found for the
1057 > damped shifted force potential for point charges.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
1058 >
1059   \section{CONCLUSION}
1060 < We have generalized the charged neutralized potential energy originally developed by the Wolf et al.\cite{Wolf99} for the charge-charge interaction to the charge-multipole and multipole-multipole interaction in the SP method for higher order multipoles. Also, we have developed GSF and TSF methods by implementing the modification purposed by Fennel and Gezelter\cite{Gezelter06} for the charge-charge interaction to the higher order multipoles to ensure consistency and smooth truncation of the electrostatic energy, force, and torque for the spherical truncation. The SP methods for multipoles proved its suitability in MC simulations. On the other hand, the results from the GSF method produced good agreement with the Ewald's energy, force, and torque. Also, it shows very good energy conservation in MD simulations.
1061 < The direct truncation of any molecular system without multipole neutralization creates the fluctuation in the electrostatic energy. This fluctuation in the energy is very large for the case of crystal because of long range of multipole ordering (Refer paper I).\cite{PaperI} This is also significant in the case of the liquid because of the local multipole ordering in the molecules. If the net multipole within cutoff radius neutralized within cutoff sphere by placing image multiples on the surface of the sphere, this fluctuation in the energy reduced significantly. Also, the multipole neutralization in the generalized SP method showed very good agreement with the Ewald as compared to direct truncation for the evaluation of the $\triangle E$ between the configurations.
1062 < In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very important. The conservation of the total energy can be ensured by  i) enforcing the smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius and ii) making the energy, force and torque consistent with each other. The GSF and TSF methods ensure the consistency and smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a result show very good total energy conservation. But the TSF method does not show good agreement in the absolute value of the electrostatic energy, force and torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method has mimicked Ewald’s force, energy and torque accurately and also conserved energy. Therefore, the GSF method is the suitable method for evaluating required force field in MD simulations. In addition, the energy drift and fluctuation from the GSF method is much better than Ewald’s method for finite-sized reciprocal space.
1063 < \bibliographystyle{rev4-1}
1060 > In the first paper in this series, we generalized the
1061 > charge-neutralized electrostatic energy originally developed by Wolf
1062 > \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} to multipole-multipole interactions
1063 > up to quadrupolar order.  The SP method is essentially a
1064 > multipole-capable version of the Wolf model.  The SP method for
1065 > multipoles provides excellent agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
1066 > forces and torques, and is suitable for Monte Carlo simulations,
1067 > although the forces and torques retain discontinuities at the cutoff
1068 > distance that prevents its use in molecular dynamics.
1069 >
1070 > We also developed two natural extensions of the damped shifted-force
1071 > (DSF) model originally proposed by Zahn {\it et al.} and extended by
1072 > Fennell and Gezelter.\cite{Zahn:2002hc,Fennell:2006lq} The GSF and TSF
1073 > approaches provide smooth truncation of energies, forces, and torques
1074 > at the real-space cutoff, and both converge to DSF electrostatics for
1075 > point-charge interactions.  The TSF model is based on a high-order
1076 > truncated Taylor expansion which can be relatively perturbative inside
1077 > the cutoff sphere.  The GSF model takes the gradient from an images of
1078 > the interacting multipole that has been projected onto the cutoff
1079 > sphere to derive shifted force and torque expressions, and is a
1080 > significantly more gentle approach.
1081 >
1082 > The GSF method produces quantitative agreement with Ewald energies,
1083 > forces, and torques.  It also performs well in conserving energy in MD
1084 > simulations.  The Taylor-shifted (TSF) model provides smooth dynamics,
1085 > but these take place on a potential energy surface that is
1086 > significantly perturbed from Ewald-based electrostatics.  Because it
1087 > performs relatively poorly compared with GSF, it may seem odd that
1088 > that the TSF model was included in this work.  However, the functional
1089 > forms derived for the SP and GSF methods depend on the separation of
1090 > orientational contributions that were made visible by the Taylor
1091 > series of the electrostatic kernel at the cutoff radius. The TSF
1092 > method also has the unique property that a large number of derivatives
1093 > can be made to vanish at the cutoff radius.  This property has proven
1094 > useful in past treatments of the corrections to the Clausius-Mossotti
1095 > fluctuation formula for dielectric constants.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo}
1096 >
1097 > Reproduction of both structural and dynamical features in the liquid
1098 > systems is remarkably good for both the SP and GSF models.  Pair
1099 > distribution functions are essentially equivalent to the same
1100 > functions produced using Ewald-based electrostatics, and with moderate
1101 > damping, a structural feature that directly probes the electrostatic
1102 > interaction (e.g. the mean electrostatic potential energy) can also be
1103 > made quantitative.  Dynamical features are sensitive probes of the
1104 > forces and torques produced by these methods, and even though the
1105 > smooth behavior of forces is produced by perturbing the overall
1106 > potential, the diffusion constants and orientational correlation times
1107 > are quite close to the Ewald-based results.
1108 >
1109 > The only cases we have found where the new GSF and SP real-space
1110 > methods can be problematic are those which retain a bulk dipole moment
1111 > at large distances (e.g. the $Z_1$ dipolar lattice).  In ferroelectric
1112 > materials, uniform weighting of the orientational contributions can be
1113 > important for converging the total energy.  In these cases, the
1114 > damping function which causes the non-uniform weighting can be
1115 > replaced by the bare electrostatic kernel, and the energies return to
1116 > the expected converged values.
1117 >
1118 > Based on the results of this work, we can conclude that the GSF method
1119 > is a suitable and efficient replacement for the Ewald sum for
1120 > evaluating electrostatic interactions in modern MD simulations, and
1121 > the SP method would be an excellent choice for Monte Carlo
1122 > simulations where smooth forces and energy conservation are not
1123 > important.  Both the SP and GSF methods retain excellent fidelity to
1124 > the Ewald energies, forces and torques.  Additionally, the energy
1125 > drift and fluctuations from the GSF electrostatics are significantly
1126 > better than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces,
1127 > and physical properties are reproduced accurately.
1128 >
1129 > As in all purely pairwise cutoff methods, the SP, GSF and TSF methods
1130 > are expected to scale approximately {\it linearly} with system size,
1131 > and are easily parallelizable.  This should result in substantial
1132 > reductions in the computational cost of performing large simulations.
1133 > With the proper use of pre-computation and spline interpolation of the
1134 > radial functions, the real-space methods are essentially the same cost
1135 > as a simple real-space cutoff.  They require no Fourier transforms or
1136 > $k$-space sums, and guarantee the smooth handling of energies, forces,
1137 > and torques as multipoles cross the real-space cutoff boundary.
1138 >
1139 > We are not suggesting that there is any flaw with the Ewald sum; in
1140 > fact, it is the standard by which the SP, GSF, and TSF methods have
1141 > been judged in this work.  However, these results provide evidence
1142 > that in the typical simulations performed today, the Ewald summation
1143 > may no longer be required to obtain the level of accuracy most
1144 > researchers have come to expect.
1145 >
1146 > \begin{acknowledgments}
1147 >  JDG acknowledges helpful discussions with Christopher
1148 >  Fennell. Support for this project was provided by the National
1149 >  Science Foundation under grant CHE-1362211. Computational time was
1150 >  provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
1151 >  University of Notre Dame.
1152 > \end{acknowledgments}
1153 >
1154 > %\bibliographystyle{aip}
1155 > \newpage
1156   \bibliography{references}
1157   \end{document}
1158  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines