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 4167 by gezelter, Tue Jun 3 20:31:58 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4170 by gezelter, Wed Jun 4 18:48:27 2014 UTC

# Line 34 | Line 34 | preprint,
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{mathptm}
39   \usepackage[version=3]{mhchem}  % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions
40   \usepackage{url}
41   \usepackage[english]{babel}
# Line 90 | Line 92 | the particle-mesh Ewald (PME), particle-particle parti
92   scaling, making it prohibitive for large systems. By utilizing
93   particle meshes and three dimensional fast Fourier transforms (FFT),
94   the particle-mesh Ewald (PME), particle-particle particle-mesh Ewald
95 < ($P^3ME$), and smooth particle mesh Ewald (SPME) methods can decrease
95 > (P\textsuperscript{3}ME), and smooth particle mesh Ewald (SPME) methods can decrease
96   the computational cost from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(N \log
97   N)$.\cite{Takada93,Gunsteren94,Gunsteren95,Darden:1993pd,Essmann:1995pb}.
98  
# Line 108 | Line 110 | Recently, Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} propo
110    Perram79,Rhee:1989kl,Spohr:1997sf,Yeh:1999oq}
111  
112   \subsection{Real-space methods}
113 < Recently, Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space
114 < $O(N)$ method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
113 > Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space $O(N)$
114 > method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
115   charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in
116   condensed systems is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95}.  For
117   an ordered lattice (e.g. when computing the Madelung constant of an
# Line 135 | Line 137 | system.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
137    \label{fig:NaCl}
138   \end{figure}
139  
138
140   The direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates
141   truncation defects. Wolf \textit{et al.} further argued that
142   truncation errors are due to net charge remaining inside the cutoff
# Line 150 | Line 151 | exhibit this problem.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
151   dynamics (MD) simulations.\cite{Zahn:2002hc} Zahn \textit{et al.} and
152   Fennel and Gezelter later proposed shifted force variants of the Wolf
153   method with commensurate force and energy expressions that do not
154 < exhibit this problem.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
154 > exhibit this problem.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}   Related real-space
155 > methods were also proposed by Chen \textit{et
156 >  al.}\cite{Chen:2004du,Chen:2006ii,Denesyuk:2008ez,Rodgers:2006nw}
157 > and by Wu and Brooks.\cite{Wu:044107}
158  
159   Considering the interaction of one central ion in an ionic crystal
160   with a portion of the crystal at some distance, the effective Columbic
# Line 184 | Line 188 | octupolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:NaCl}), caus
188   unstable.
189  
190   In ionic crystals, real-space truncation can break the effective
191 < octupolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:NaCl}), causing significant
191 > multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:NaCl}), causing significant
192   swings in the electrostatic energy as the cutoff radius is increased
193   (or as individual ions move back and forth across the boundary).  This
194   is why the image charges were necessary for the Wolf sum to exhibit
195   rapid convergence.  Similarly, the real-space truncation of point
196 < multipole interactions breaks dipole-octupole arrangements, and image
197 < multipoles are required for real-space treatments of electrostatic
198 < energies.
196 > multipole interactions breaks higher order multipole arrangements, and
197 > image multipoles are required for real-space treatments of
198 > electrostatic energies.
199  
200   % Because of this reason, although the nature of electrostatic
201   % interaction short ranged, the hard cutoff sphere creates very large
# Line 207 | Line 211 | sphere which both smoothly go to zero as an atom aproa
211   factors driving dynamics in molecular simulations. Fennell and
212   Gezelter proposed the damped shifted force (DSF) energy kernel to
213   obtain consistent energies and forces on the atoms within the cutoff
214 < sphere which both smoothly go to zero as an atom aproaches the cutoff
215 < radius. Also, the comparisons of the accuracy of the potential energy
216 < and force between the DSF method and SPME was surprisingly
217 < good.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} The DSF method has seen wide use in to
218 < calculated electrostatic interactions in molecular systems with
219 < relatively uniform charge densities.\cite{Shi:2013ij,Kannam:2012rr,Acevedo13,Space12,English08,Lawrence13,Vergne13}
214 > sphere. Both the energy and the force go smoothly to zero as an atom
215 > aproaches the cutoff radius. The comparisons of the accuracy these
216 > quantities between the DSF kernel and SPME was surprisingly
217 > good.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} The DSF method has seen increasing use for
218 > calculating electrostatic interactions in molecular systems with
219 > relatively uniform charge
220 > densities.\cite{Shi:2013ij,Kannam:2012rr,Acevedo13,Space12,English08,Lawrence13,Vergne13}
221  
222 < \subsection{Damping function}
222 > \subsection{The damping function}
223   The damping function used in our research has been discussed in detail
224   in the first paper of this series.\cite{PaperI} The radial kernel
225 < $1/r$ for the interactions between point charges is replaced by the
226 < complementary error function $\erfc(\alpha r)/r$ to accelerate the
227 < rate of convergence, where $\alpha$ is damping parameter with units of
228 < inverse distance.  Altering the value of $\alpha$ is equivalent to
229 < changing the width of the small Gaussian charge distributions that are
230 < replacing each point charge -- Gaussian overlap integrals yield
231 < complementary error functions when truncated at a finite distance.
225 > $1/r$ for the interactions between point charges can be replaced by
226 > the complementary error function $\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ to
227 > accelerate the rate of convergence, where $\alpha$ is a damping
228 > parameter with units of inverse distance.  Altering the value of
229 > $\alpha$ is equivalent to changing the width of Gaussian charge
230 > distributions that replace each point charge -- Gaussian overlap
231 > integrals yield complementary error functions when truncated at a
232 > finite distance.
233  
234 < e can perform necessary mathematical manipulation
235 < by varying $\alpha$ in the damping function for the calculation of the
236 < electrostatic energy, force and torque\cite{Wolf:1999dn}. By using
237 < suitable value of damping alpha ($\alpha = 0.2$) for a cutoff radius
232 < ($r_{­c}=9 A$), \textit{Fennel and Gezelter}\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
233 < produced very good agreement of the interaction energies, forces and
234 < torques for charge-charge interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
234 > By using suitable value of damping alpha ($\alpha \sim 0.2$) for a
235 > cutoff radius ($r_{­c}=9 A$), Fennel and Gezelter produced very good
236 > agreement with SPME for the interaction energies, forces and torques
237 > for charge-charge interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
238  
239 < \subsection{Point multipoles for CG modeling}
240 < 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{Ponder:2010vl, 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{Fennell:2006lq}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).
239 > \subsection{Point multipoles in molecular modeling}
240 > Coarse-graining approaches which treat entire molecular subsystems as
241 > a single rigid body are now widely used. A common feature of many
242 > coarse-graining approaches is simplification of the electrostatic
243 > interactions between bodies so that fewer site-site interactions are
244 > required to compute configurational energies.  Many coarse-grained
245 > molecular structures would normally consist of equal positive and
246 > negative charges, and rather than use multiple site-site interactions,
247 > the interaction between higher order multipoles can also be used to
248 > evaluate a single molecule-molecule
249 > interaction.\cite{Ren06,Essex10,Essex11}
250  
251 + Because electrons in a molecule are not localized at specific points,
252 + the assignment of partial charges to atomic centers is a relatively
253 + rough approximation.  Atomic sites can also be assigned point
254 + multipoles and polarizabilities to increase the accuracy of the
255 + molecular model.  Recently, water has been modeled with point
256 + multipoles up to octupolar
257 + order.\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} Atom-centered point
258 + multipoles up to quadrupolar order have also been coupled with point
259 + polarizabilities in the high-quality AMOEBA and iAMOEBA water
260 + models.\cite{Ren:2003uq,Ren:2004kx,Ponder:2010vl,Wang:2013fk}.  But
261 + using point multipole with the real space truncation without
262 + accounting for multipolar neutrality will create energy conservation
263 + issues in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations.
264  
265 + In this paper we test a set of real-space methods that were developed
266 + for point multipolar interactions.  These methods extend the damped
267 + shifted force (DSF) and Wolf methods originally developed for
268 + charge-charge interactions and generalize them for higher order
269 + multipoles. The detailed mathematical development of these methods has
270 + been presented in the first paper in this series, while this work
271 + covers the testing the energies, forces, torques, and energy
272 + conservation properties of the methods in realistic simulation
273 + environments.  In all cases, the methods are compared with the
274 + reference method, a full multipolar Ewald treatment.
275 +
276 +
277   %\subsection{Conservation of total energy }
278   %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{Fennell:2006lq}. The hard cutoff method does not ensure the smooth transition of the energy, force, and torque at the cutoff radius.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} 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.
279  
280 < \section{\label{sec:method}REVIEW OF METHODS}
281 < Any force field associated with MD simulation should have the electrostatic energy, force and the torque between central molecule and any other molecule within cutoff radius should smoothly approach to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$. This issue of continuous nature of the electrostatic interaction at the cutoff radius is associated 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}
280 > \section{\label{sec:method}Review of Methods}
281 > Any real-space electrostatic method that is suitable for MD
282 > simulations should have the electrostatic energy, forces and torques
283 > between two sites go smoothly to zero as the distance between the
284 > sites, $r_{\bf ab}$ approaches the cutoff radius, $r_c$.  Requiring
285 > this continuity at the cutoff is essential for energy conservation in
286 > MD simulations.  The mathematical details of the shifted potential
287 > (SP), gradient-shifted-force (GSF) and Taylor shifted-force (TSF)
288 > methods have been discussed in detail in the previous paper in this
289 > series.\cite{PaperI} Here we briefly review the new methods and
290 > describe their essential features.
291  
292 < \subsection{Taylor-shifted force(TSF)}
247 < 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,
292 > \subsection{Taylor-shifted force (TSF)}
293  
294 + The electrostatic potential energy between point multipoles can be
295 + expressed as the product of two multipole operators and a Coulombic
296 + kernel,
297   \begin{equation}
298 < \begin{split}
251 < U_{TSF}(\vec r)=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\sum_{\beta=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}})\\
252 < (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}})\\
253 < [(\frac{1}{r}-[\frac{1}{r_c}-(r-r_c)\frac{1}{r_c^2}+(r-r_c)^2\frac{1}{r_c^3}+...)]
254 < \end{split}
255 < \label{eq:TSF}
298 > U_{\bf{ab}}(r)=\hat{M}_{\bf a} \hat{M}_{\bf b} \frac{1}{r}  \label{kernel}.
299   \end{equation}
300 <  
258 < where $C_a = \sum_{k\;in\; a}q_k$ , $D_{a\alpha}=\sum_{k \;in\;a}q_k r_k\alpha$, and $Q_{a\alpha,\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\;in\;a}q_k r_{k\alpha}r_{k\beta}$ stand for charge, 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.
259 <
260 < \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
261 < 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.\cite{Paper I} This artifact is due to the existence of multipole moments within the cutoff spheres contributed by the breaking of the multipole ordering at the the surface of the cutoff sphere. The multipole moments of the cutoff sphere can be neutralized by placing image multipole for every multipole within the cutoff sphere. The electrostatic potential between multipoles for the SP method is given by,
300 > where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$,
301   \begin{equation}
302 < U_{SP}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
303 < \label{eq:SP}
304 < \end{equation}          
305 < 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.
302 > \hat{M}_{\bf a} = C_{\bf a} - D_{{\bf a}\alpha} \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{\alpha}}
303 > +  Q_{{\bf a}\alpha\beta}
304 > \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r_{\alpha} \partial r_{\beta}} + \dots
305 > \end{equation}
306 > is expressed in terms of the point charge, $C_{\bf a}$, dipole,
307 > $D_{{\bf a}\alpha}$, and quadrupole, $Q_{{\bf a}\alpha\beta}$, for
308 > object $\bf a$.  Note that in this work, we use the primitive
309 > quadrupole tensor, $Q_{a\alpha,\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\;in\;a}q_k
310 > r_{k\alpha}r_{k\beta}$ to represent point quadrupoles on a site.
311  
312 < \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
313 < 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,
314 <        \begin{equation}
315 < U_{SF}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)-(\vec r-\vec r_c)\cdot\vec \nabla U(\vec r)|_{r=r_c}
316 < \label{eq:GSF}
317 < \end{equation}    
318 < 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 $r_c$.
319 < 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.
320 < \subsection{Self term}
312 > Interactions between multipoles can be expressed as higher derivatives
313 > of the bare Coulomb potential, so one way of ensuring that the forces
314 > and torques vanish at the cutoff distance is to include a larger
315 > number of terms in the truncated Taylor expansion, e.g.,
316 > %
317 > \begin{equation}
318 > f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-R_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{R_c}  .
319 > \end{equation}
320 > %
321 > The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$.
322 > Thus, for $f(r)=1/r$, we find
323 > %
324 > \begin{equation}
325 > f_1(r)=\frac{1}{r}- \frac{1}{R_c} + (r - R_c) \frac{1}{R_c^2} - \frac{(r-R_c)^2}{R_c^3} .
326 > \end{equation}
327 > This function is an approximate electrostatic potential that has
328 > vanishing second derivatives at the cutoff radius, making it suitable
329 > for shifting the forces and torques of charge-dipole interactions.
330  
331 < \section{\label{sec:test}Test systems}
332 < 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. 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.
331 > In general, the TSF potential for any multipole-multipole interaction
332 > can be written
333 > \begin{equation}
334 > U^{\text{TSF}}= (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r)
335 > \label{generic}
336 > \end{equation}
337 > with $n=0$ for charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for
338 > charge-quadrupole and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and
339 > $n=4$ for quadrupole-quadrupole.  To ensure smooth convergence of the
340 > energy, force, and torques, the required number of terms from Taylor
341 > series expansion in $f_n(r)$ must be performed for different
342 > multipole-multipole interactions.
343  
344 < \subsection{Modeled systems}
345 < 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.
346 < 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.
344 > To carry out the same procedure for a damped electrostatic kernel, we
345 > replace $1/r$ in the Coulomb potential with $\text{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$.
346 > Many of the derivatives of the damped kernel are well known from
347 > Smith's early work on multipoles for the Ewald
348 > summation.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
349  
350 < \subsection{Statistical analysis}
351 < 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.
350 > Note that increasing the value of $n$ will add additional terms to the
351 > electrostatic potential, e.g., $f_2(r)$ includes orders up to
352 > $(r-R_c)^3/R_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
353 > functions are denoted $g_2(r) = f^\prime_2(r)$, $h_2(r) =
354 > f^{\prime\prime}_2(r)$, etc.  These higher derivatives are required
355 > for computing multipole energies, forces, and torques, and smooth
356 > cutoffs of these quantities can be guaranteed as long as the number of
357 > terms in the Taylor series exceeds the derivative order required.
358  
359 < \subsection{Analysis of vector quantities}
360 < R.A. Fisher has developed a probablity density function to analyse directional data sets is expressed as below,\cite{fisher53}
359 > For multipole-multipole interactions, following this procedure results
360 > in separate radial functions for each distinct orientational
361 > contribution to the potential, and ensures that the forces and torques
362 > from {\it each} of these contributions will vanish at the cutoff
363 > radius.  For example, the direct dipole dot product ($\mathbf{D}_{i}
364 > \cdot \mathbf{D}_{j}$) is treated differently than the dipole-distance
365 > dot products:
366   \begin{equation}
367 < p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta \exp(\kappa \cos\theta)
368 < \label{eq:pdf}
367 > U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r)= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( \mathbf{D}_{i} \cdot
368 > \mathbf{D}_{j} \right) \frac{g_2(r)}{r}
369 > -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}
370 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{i} \cdot \hat{r} \right)
371 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{j} \cdot \hat{r} \right) \left(h_2(r) -
372 >  \frac{g_2(r)}{r} \right)
373   \end{equation}
374 < 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{Allen91} 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,
374 >
375 > The electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole
376 > site due to another site within cutoff sphere are derived from
377 > Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
378 > derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
379 > presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
380 > \citep{PaperI}).
381 >
382 > \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
383 >
384 > A second (and significantly simpler) method involves shifting the
385 > gradient of the raw coulomb potential for each particular multipole
386 > order.  For example, the raw dipole-dipole potential energy may be
387 > shifted smoothly by finding the gradient for two interacting dipoles
388 > which have been projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere
389 > without changing their relative orientation,
390 > \begin{displaymath}
391 > U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij})  = U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij}) - U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(R_c)
392 >   - (r_{ij}-R_c) \hat{r}_{ij} \cdot
393 >  \vec{\nabla} V_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r) \Big \lvert _{R_c}
394 > \end{displaymath}
395 > Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{i}$
396 > and $\mathbf{D}_{j}$, are retained at the cutoff distance (although
397 > the signs are reversed for the dipole that has been projected onto the
398 > cutoff sphere).  In many ways, this simpler approach is closer in
399 > spirit to the original shifted force method, in that it projects a
400 > neutralizing multipole (and the resulting forces from this multipole)
401 > onto a cutoff sphere. The resulting functional forms for the
402 > potentials, forces, and torques turn out to be quite similar in form
403 > to the Taylor-shifted approach, although the radial contributions are
404 > significantly less perturbed by the Gradient-shifted approach than
405 > they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
406 >
407 > In general, the gradient shifted potential between a central multipole
408 > and any multipolar site inside the cutoff radius is given by,
409   \begin{equation}
410 < R = \sqrt{(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2 + (\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2}
410 > U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
411 > U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{r}
412 > \cdot \nabla U(\mathbf{r},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \Big \lvert  _{r_c} \right]
413 > \label{generic2}
414 > \end{equation}
415 > where the sum describes a separate force-shifting that is applied to
416 > each orientational contribution to the energy.
417 >
418 > The third term converges more rapidly than the first two terms as a
419 > function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
420 > small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
421 > equation \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
422 > approach zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
423 > can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
424 > higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
425 > to the charge-dipole interaction but generate different expressions in
426 > the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
427 > interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
428 > GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
429 > (Reference \citep{PaperI})
430 >
431 >
432 > \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
433 > A discontinuous truncation of the electrostatic potential at the
434 > cutoff sphere introduces a severe artifact (oscillation in the
435 > electrostatic energy) even for molecules with the higher-order
436 > multipoles.\cite{PaperI} We have also formulated an extension of the
437 > Wolf approach for point multipoles by simply projecting the image
438 > multipole onto the surface of the cutoff sphere, and including the
439 > interactions with the central multipole and the image. This
440 > effectively shifts the total potential to zero at the cutoff radius,
441 > \begin{equation}
442 > U_{SP}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
443 > \label{eq:SP}
444 > \end{equation}          
445 > where the sum describes separate potential shifting that is done for
446 > each orientational contribution to the energy (e.g. the direct dipole
447 > product contribution is shifted {\it separately} from the
448 > dipole-distance terms in dipole-dipole interactions).  Note that this
449 > is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $R_c$. Each radial
450 > contribution is shifted separately.  One consequence of this is that
451 > multipoles that reorient after leaving the cutoff sphere can re-enter
452 > the cutoff sphere without perturbing the total energy.
453 >
454 > The potential energy between a central multipole and other multipolar
455 > sites then goes smoothly to zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$. However, the
456 > force and torque obtained from the shifted potential (SP) are
457 > discontinuous at $R_c$. Therefore, MD simulations will still
458 > experience energy drift while operating under the SP potential, but it
459 > may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the configurational
460 > energy differences are the primary quantity of interest.
461 >
462 > \subsection{The Self term}
463 > In the TSF, GSF, and SP methods, a self-interaction is retained for
464 > the central multipole interacting with its own image on the surface of
465 > the cutoff sphere.  This self interaction is nearly identical with the
466 > self-terms that arise in the Ewald sum for multipoles.  Complete
467 > expressions for the self terms are presented in the first paper in
468 > this series (Reference \citep{PaperI})  
469 >
470 >
471 > \section{\label{sec:methodology}Methodology}
472 >
473 > To understand how the real-space multipole methods behave in computer
474 > simulations, it is vital to test against established methods for
475 > computing electrostatic interactions in periodic systems, and to
476 > evaluate the size and sources of any errors that arise from the
477 > real-space cutoffs.  In the first paper of this series, we compared
478 > the dipolar and quadrupolar energy expressions against analytic
479 > expressions for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar
480 > arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} This work uses the
481 > multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing energies,
482 > forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic disordered and
483 > ordered condensed-phase systems.  These test-cases include:
484 >
485 > \begin{itemize}
486 > \item Soft Dipolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
487 > \item Soft Dipolar solids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
488 > \item Soft Quadrupolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
489 > \item Soft Quadrupolar solids  ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
490 > \item A mixed multipole model for water
491 > \item A mixed multipole models for water with dissolved ions
492 > \end{itemize}
493 > This last test case exercises all levels of the multipole-multipole
494 > interactions we have derived so far and represents the most complete
495 > test of the new methods.
496 >
497 > In the following section, we present results for the total
498 > electrostatic energy, as well as the electrostatic contributions to
499 > the force and torque on each molecule.  These quantities have been
500 > computed using the SP, TSF, and GSF methods, as well as a hard cutoff,
501 > and have been compared with the values obtaine from the multipolar
502 > Ewald sum.  In Mote Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy differences
503 > between two configurations is the primary quantity that governs how
504 > the simulation proceeds. These differences are the most imporant
505 > indicators of the reliability of a method even if the absolute
506 > energies are not exact.  For each of the multipolar systems listed
507 > above, we have compared the change in electrostatic potential energy
508 > ($\Delta E$) between 250 statistically-independent configurations.  In
509 > molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the forces and torques govern the
510 > behavior of the simulation, so we also compute the electrostatic
511 > contributions to the forces and torques.
512 >
513 > \subsection{Model systems}
514 > To sample independent configurations of multipolar crystals, a body
515 > centered cubic (BCC) crystal which is a minimum energy structure for
516 > point dipoles was generated using 3,456 molecules.  The multipoles
517 > were translationally locked in their respective crystal sites for
518 > equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K), so that dipoles
519 > or quadrupoles could freely explore all accessible orientations.  The
520 > translational constraints were removed, and the crystals were
521 > simulated for 10 ps in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble with an
522 > average temperature of 50 K.  Configurations were sampled at equal
523 > time intervals for the comparison of the configurational energy
524 > differences.  The crystals were not simulated close to the melting
525 > points in order to avoid translational deformation away of the ideal
526 > lattice geometry.
527 >
528 > For dipolar, quadrupolar, and mixed-multipole liquid simulations, each
529 > system was created with 2048 molecules oriented randomly.  These were
530 >
531 > system with 2,048 molecules simulated for 1ns in NVE ensemble at 300 K
532 > temperature after equilibration.  We collected 250 different
533 > configurations in equal interval of time. For the ions mixed liquid
534 > system, we converted 48 different molecules into 24 \ce{Na+} and 24
535 > \ce{Cl-} ions and equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was run
536 > at the same environment for 1ns and 250 configurations were
537 > collected. While comparing energies, forces, and torques with Ewald
538 > method, Lennard-Jones potentials were turned off and purely
539 > electrostatic interaction had been compared.
540 >
541 > \subsection{Accuracy of Energy Differences, Forces and Torques}
542 > The pairwise summation techniques (outlined above) were evaluated for
543 > use in MC simulations by studying the energy differences between
544 > different configurations.  We took the Ewald-computed energy
545 > difference between two conformations to be the correct behavior. An
546 > ideal performance by one of the new methods would reproduce these
547 > energy differences exactly. The configurational energies being used
548 > here contain only contributions from electrostatic interactions.
549 > Lennard-Jones interactions were omitted from the comparison as they
550 > should be identical for all methods.
551 >
552 > Since none of the real-space methods provide exact energy differences,
553 > we used least square regressions analysiss for the six different
554 > molecular systems to compare $\Delta E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF
555 > with the multipolar Ewald reference method.  Unitary results for both
556 > the correlation (slope) and correlation coefficient for these
557 > regressions indicate perfect agreement between the real-space method
558 > and the multipolar Ewald sum.
559 >
560 > Molecular systems were run long enough to explore independent
561 > configurations and 250 configurations were recorded for comparison.
562 > Each system provided 31,125 energy differences for a total of 186,750
563 > data points.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have
564 > also been compared by using least squares regression analyses. In the
565 > forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in
566 > each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our
567 > dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250
568 > different configurations for each system resulting in 3,072,000 data
569 > points for comparison of forces and torques.
570 >
571 > \subsection{Analysis of vector quantities}
572 > Getting the magnitudes of the force and torque vectors correct is only
573 > part of the issue for carrying out accurate molecular dynamics
574 > simulations.  Because the real space methods reweight the different
575 > orientational contributions to the energies, it is also important to
576 > understand how the methods impact the \textit{directionality} of the
577 > force and torque vectors. Fisher developed a probablity density
578 > function to analyse directional data sets,
579 > \begin{equation}
580 > p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta e^{\kappa \cos\theta}
581 > \label{eq:pdf}
582 > \end{equation}
583 > where $\kappa$ measures directional dispersion of the data around the
584 > mean direction.\cite{fisher53} This quantity $(\kappa)$ can be
585 > estimated as a reciprocal of the circular variance.\cite{Allen91} To
586 > quantify the directional error, forces obtained from the Ewald sum
587 > were taken as the mean (or correct) direction and the angle between
588 > the forces obtained via the Ewald sum and the real-space methods were
589 > evaluated,
590 > \begin{equation}
591 > \cos\theta_i =  \frac{\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald} \cdot
592 >  \vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}}{\left|\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald}\right| \left|\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}\right|}
593 > \end{equation}
594 > The total angular displacement of the vectors was calculated as,
595 > \begin{equation}
596 > R = \sqrt{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \cos\theta_i\right)^2 + \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i\right)^2}
597   \label{eq:displacement}
598   \end{equation}
599 < 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.
599 > where $N$ is number of force vectors.  The circular variance is
600 > defined as
601 > \begin{equation}
602 > \mathrm{Var}(\theta) \approx 1/\kappa = 1 - R/N
603 > \end{equation}
604 > The circular variance takes on values between from 0 to 1, with 0
605 > indicating a perfect directional match between the Ewald force vectors
606 > and the real-space forces. Lower values of $\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$
607 > correspond to higher values of $\kappa$, which indicates tighter
608 > clustering of the real-space force vectors around the Ewald forces.
609  
610 + A similar analysis was carried out for the electrostatic contribution
611 + to the molecular torques as well as forces.  
612 +
613   \subsection{Energy conservation}
614 < 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.
614 > To test conservation the energy for the methods, the mixed molecular
615 > system of 2000 SSDQ water molecules with 24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
616 > ions was run for 1 ns in the microcanonical ensemble at an average
617 > temperature of 300K.  Each of the different electrostatic methods
618 > (Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF) was tested for a range of different
619 > damping values. The molecular system was started with same initial
620 > positions and velocities for all cutoff methods. The energy drift
621 > ($\delta E_1$) and standard deviation of the energy about the slope
622 > ($\delta E_0$) were evaluated from the total energy of the system as a
623 > function of time.  Although both measures are valuable at
624 > investigating new methods for molecular dynamics, a useful interaction
625 > model must allow for long simulation times with minimal energy drift.
626  
627   \section{\label{sec:result}RESULTS}
628   \subsection{Configurational energy differences}
# Line 372 | Line 695 | In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very imp
695   \section{CONCLUSION}
696   We have generalized the charged neutralized potential energy originally developed by the Wolf et al.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} 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{Fennell:2006lq} 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.
697   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.
698 < 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.
698 > In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very important. The
699 > conservation of the total energy can be ensured by  i) enforcing the
700 > smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius
701 > and ii) making the energy, force and torque consistent with each
702 > other. The GSF and TSF methods ensure the consistency and smooth
703 > truncation of the energy, force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a
704 > result show very good total energy conservation. But the TSF method
705 > does not show good agreement in the absolute value of the
706 > electrostatic energy, force and torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method
707 > has mimicked Ewald’s force, energy and torque accurately and also
708 > conserved energy. Therefore, the GSF method is the suitable method for
709 > evaluating required force field in MD simulations. In addition, the
710 > energy drift and fluctuation from the GSF method is much better than
711 > Ewald’s method for finite-sized reciprocal space.
712 >
713 > Note that the TSF, GSF, and SP models are $\mathcal{O}(N)$ methods
714 > that can be made extremely efficient using spline interpolations of
715 > the radial functions.  They require no Fourier transforms or $k$-space
716 > sums, and guarantee the smooth handling of energies, forces, and
717 > torques as multipoles cross the real-space cutoff boundary.  
718 >
719   %\bibliographystyle{aip}
720 + \newpage
721   \bibliography{references}
722   \end{document}
723  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines