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 4170 by gezelter, Wed Jun 4 18:48:27 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4175 by gezelter, Fri Jun 6 16:01:36 2014 UTC

# Line 36 | Line 36 | preprint,
36   \usepackage{amsmath}
37   \usepackage{times}
38   \usepackage{mathptm}
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. Comparison of Simulation Methodologies} % Force line breaks with \\
50 > \title{Real space alternatives to the Ewald
51 > Sum. II. Comparison of Methods} % Force line breaks with \\
52  
53   \author{Madan Lamichhane}
54   \affiliation{Department of Physics, University
# Line 65 | Line 67 | We have tested our recently developed shifted potentia
67               %  but any date may be explicitly specified
68  
69   \begin{abstract}
70 < 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.
70 >  We have tested the real-space shifted potential (SP),
71 >  gradient-shifted force (GSF), and Taylor-shifted force (TSF) methods
72 >  for multipoles that were developed in the first paper in this series
73 >  against a reference method. The tests were carried out in a variety
74 >  of condensed-phase environments which were designed to test all
75 >  levels of the multipole-multipole interactions.  Comparisons of the
76 >  energy differences between configurations, molecular forces, and
77 >  torques were used to analyze how well the real-space models perform
78 >  relative to the more computationally expensive Ewald sum.  We have
79 >  also investigated the energy conservation properties of the new
80 >  methods in molecular dynamics simulations using all of these
81 >  methods. The SP method shows excellent agreement with
82 >  configurational energy differences, forces, and torques, and would
83 >  be suitable for use in Monte Carlo calculations.  Of the two new
84 >  shifted-force methods, the GSF approach shows the best agreement
85 >  with Ewald-derived energies, forces, and torques and exhibits energy
86 >  conservation properties that make it an excellent choice for
87 >  efficiently computing electrostatic interactions in molecular
88 >  dynamics simulations.
89   \end{abstract}
90  
91 < \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
91 > %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
92                               % Classification Scheme.
93   \keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
94  
# Line 315 | Line 335 | f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-R_c)^
335   number of terms in the truncated Taylor expansion, e.g.,
336   %
337   \begin{equation}
338 < f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-R_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{R_c}  .
338 > f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{r_c}  .
339   \end{equation}
340   %
341   The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$.
342   Thus, for $f(r)=1/r$, we find
343   %
344   \begin{equation}
345 < 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} .
345 > 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} .
346   \end{equation}
347   This function is an approximate electrostatic potential that has
348   vanishing second derivatives at the cutoff radius, making it suitable
# Line 349 | Line 369 | $(r-R_c)^3/R_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives
369  
370   Note that increasing the value of $n$ will add additional terms to the
371   electrostatic potential, e.g., $f_2(r)$ includes orders up to
372 < $(r-R_c)^3/R_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
372 > $(r-r_c)^3/r_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
373   functions are denoted $g_2(r) = f^\prime_2(r)$, $h_2(r) =
374   f^{\prime\prime}_2(r)$, etc.  These higher derivatives are required
375   for computing multipole energies, forces, and torques, and smooth
# Line 377 | Line 397 | presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
397   Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
398   derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
399   presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
400 < \citep{PaperI}).
400 > \onlinecite{PaperI}).
401  
402   \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
403  
# Line 388 | Line 408 | U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij})  = U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij}) - U_{
408   which have been projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere
409   without changing their relative orientation,
410   \begin{displaymath}
411 < U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij})  = U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij}) - U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(R_c)
412 <   - (r_{ij}-R_c) \hat{r}_{ij} \cdot
413 <  \vec{\nabla} V_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r) \Big \lvert _{R_c}
411 > U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij})  = U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij}) - U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_c)
412 >   - (r_{ij}-r_c) \hat{r}_{ij} \cdot
413 >  \vec{\nabla} V_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r) \Big \lvert _{r_c}
414   \end{displaymath}
415   Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{i}$
416   and $\mathbf{D}_{j}$, are retained at the cutoff distance (although
# Line 419 | Line 439 | approach zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$.  Both the GSF an
439   function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
440   small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
441   equation \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
442 < approach zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
442 > approach zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
443   can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
444   higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
445   to the charge-dipole interaction but generate different expressions in
446   the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
447   interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
448   GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
449 < (Reference \citep{PaperI})
449 > (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI})
450  
451  
452   \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
# Line 446 | Line 466 | is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $R_
466   each orientational contribution to the energy (e.g. the direct dipole
467   product contribution is shifted {\it separately} from the
468   dipole-distance terms in dipole-dipole interactions).  Note that this
469 < is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $R_c$. Each radial
469 > is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $r_c$. Each radial
470   contribution is shifted separately.  One consequence of this is that
471   multipoles that reorient after leaving the cutoff sphere can re-enter
472   the cutoff sphere without perturbing the total energy.
473  
474   The potential energy between a central multipole and other multipolar
475 < sites then goes smoothly to zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$. However, the
475 > sites then goes smoothly to zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$. However, the
476   force and torque obtained from the shifted potential (SP) are
477 < discontinuous at $R_c$. Therefore, MD simulations will still
477 > discontinuous at $r_c$. Therefore, MD simulations will still
478   experience energy drift while operating under the SP potential, but it
479   may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the configurational
480   energy differences are the primary quantity of interest.
# Line 465 | Line 485 | this series (Reference \citep{PaperI})  
485   the cutoff sphere.  This self interaction is nearly identical with the
486   self-terms that arise in the Ewald sum for multipoles.  Complete
487   expressions for the self terms are presented in the first paper in
488 < this series (Reference \citep{PaperI})  
488 > this series (Reference \onlinecite{PaperI}).
489  
490  
491   \section{\label{sec:methodology}Methodology}
# Line 477 | Line 497 | arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} Thi
497   real-space cutoffs.  In the first paper of this series, we compared
498   the dipolar and quadrupolar energy expressions against analytic
499   expressions for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar
500 < arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} This work uses the
501 < multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing energies,
502 < forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic disordered and
503 < ordered condensed-phase systems.  These test-cases include:
500 > arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} In this work, we
501 > used the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing
502 > energies, forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic
503 > disordered and ordered condensed-phase systems.  The parameters used
504 > in the test-cases are given in table~\ref{tab:pars}.
505  
506 < \begin{itemize}
507 < \item Soft Dipolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
508 < \item Soft Dipolar solids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
509 < \item Soft Quadrupolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
510 < \item Soft Quadrupolar solids  ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
511 < \item A mixed multipole model for water
512 < \item A mixed multipole models for water with dissolved ions
513 < \end{itemize}
514 < This last test case exercises all levels of the multipole-multipole
515 < interactions we have derived so far and represents the most complete
516 < test of the new methods.
506 > \begin{table}
507 > \label{tab:pars}
508 > \caption{The parameters used in the systems used to evaluate the new
509 >  real-space methods.  The most comprehensive test was a liquid
510 >  composed of 2000 SSDQ molecules with 48 dissolved ions (24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
511 >  ions).  This test excercises all orders of the multipolar
512 >  interactions developed in the first paper.}
513 > \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{r|cc|YYccc|Yccc} \hline
514 >             & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LJ parameters} &
515 >             \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Electrostatic moments} & & & & \\
516 > Test system & $\sigma$& $\epsilon$ & $C$ & $D$  &
517 > $Q_{xx}$ & $Q_{yy}$ & $Q_{zz}$ & mass  & $I_{xx}$ & $I_{yy}$ &
518 > $I_{zz}$ \\ \cline{6-8}\cline{10-12}
519 > & (\AA) & (kcal/mol) & (e) & (debye) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{(debye \AA)} & (amu) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(amu
520 > \AA\textsuperscript{2})} \\ \hline
521 >    Soft Dipolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & & & & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145& 1.155 \\
522 >    Soft Dipolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  & 2.35 & & & & 10,000  & 17.6 &17.6 & 0 \\
523 > Soft Quadrupolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155  \\
524 > Soft Quadrupolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & 10,000  & 17.6&17.6&0 \\
525 >      SSDQ water  & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & -1.35&0&-0.68 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155 \\
526 >              \ce{Na+} & 2.579 & 0.118 & +1& & & & & 22.99 & & &\\
527 >              \ce{Cl-} & 4.445 & 0.1   & -1& & & & & 35.4527& & & \\ \hline
528 > \end{tabularx}
529 > \end{table}
530 > The systems consist of pure multipolar solids (both dipole and
531 > quadrupole), pure multipolar liquids (both dipole and quadrupole), a
532 > fluid composed of sites containing both dipoles and quadrupoles
533 > simultaneously, and a final test case that includes ions with point
534 > charges in addition to the multipolar fluid.  The solid-phase
535 > parameters were chosen so that the systems can explore some
536 > orientational freedom for the multipolar sites, while maintaining
537 > relatively strict translational order.  The SSDQ model used here is
538 > not a particularly accurate water model, but it does test
539 > dipole-dipole, dipole-quadrupole, and quadrupole-quadrupole
540 > interactions at roughly the same magnitudes. The last test case, SSDQ
541 > water with dissolved ions, exercises \textit{all} levels of the
542 > multipole-multipole interactions we have derived so far and represents
543 > the most complete test of the new methods.
544  
545   In the following section, we present results for the total
546   electrostatic energy, as well as the electrostatic contributions to
# Line 509 | Line 557 | contributions to the forces and torques.
557   molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the forces and torques govern the
558   behavior of the simulation, so we also compute the electrostatic
559   contributions to the forces and torques.
560 +
561 + \subsection{Implementation}
562 + The real-space methods developed in the first paper in this series
563 + have been implemented in our group's open source molecular simulation
564 + program, OpenMD,\cite{openmd} which was used for all calculations in
565 + this work.  The complementary error function can be a relatively slow
566 + function on some processors, so all of the radial functions are
567 + precomputed on a fine grid and are spline-interpolated to provide
568 + values when required.  
569 +
570 + Using the same simulation code, we compare to a multipolar Ewald sum
571 + with a reciprocal space cutoff, $k_\mathrm{max} = 7$.  Our version of
572 + the Ewald sum is a re-implementation of the algorithm originally
573 + proposed by Smith that does not use the particle mesh or smoothing
574 + approximations.\cite{Smith82,Smith98} In all cases, the quantities
575 + being compared are the electrostatic contributions to energies, force,
576 + and torques.  All other contributions to these quantities (i.e. from
577 + Lennard-Jones interactions) are removed prior to the comparisons.
578 +
579 + The convergence parameter ($\alpha$) also plays a role in the balance
580 + of the real-space and reciprocal-space portions of the Ewald
581 + calculation.  Typical molecular mechanics packages set this to a value
582 + that depends on the cutoff radius and a tolerance (typically less than
583 + $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller tolerances are typically
584 + associated with increasing accuracy at the expense of computational
585 + time spent on the reciprocal-space portion of the
586 + summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann:1995pb} A default tolerance of $1 \times
587 + 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all Ewald calculations, resulting in
588 + Ewald coefficient 0.3119 \AA$^{-1}$ for a cutoff radius of 12 \AA.
589  
590 + The real-space models have self-interactions that provide
591 + contributions to the energies only.  Although the self interaction is
592 + a rapid calculation, we note that in systems with fluctuating charges
593 + or point polarizabilities, the self-term is not static and must be
594 + recomputed at each time step.
595 +
596   \subsection{Model systems}
597   To sample independent configurations of multipolar crystals, a body
598 < centered cubic (BCC) crystal which is a minimum energy structure for
598 > centered cubic (bcc) crystal which is a minimum energy structure for
599   point dipoles was generated using 3,456 molecules.  The multipoles
600   were translationally locked in their respective crystal sites for
601   equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K), so that dipoles
# Line 647 | Line 730 | model must allow for long simulation times with minima
730        
731   %        \label{fig:barGraph2}
732   %      \end{figure}
733 < %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.
733 > %The correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope of the linear
734 > %regression plots for the energy differences for all six different
735 > %molecular systems is shown in figure 4a and 4b.The plot shows that
736 > %the correlation coefficient improves for the SP cutoff method as
737 > %compared to the undamped hard cutoff method in the case of SSDQC,
738 > %SSDQ, dipolar crystal, and dipolar liquid. For the quadrupolar
739 > %crystal and liquid, the correlation coefficient is almost unchanged
740 > %and close to 1.  The correlation coefficient is smallest (0.696276
741 > %for $r_c$ = 9 $A^\circ$) for the SSDQC liquid because of the presence of
742 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interactions. Since the
743 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interaction is long ranged, there
744 > %is huge deviation of correlation coefficient from 1. Similarly, the
745 > %quarupole–quadrupole interaction is short ranged ($\sim 1/r^6$) with
746 > %compared to interactions in the other multipolar systems, thus the
747 > %correlation coefficient very close to 1 even for hard cutoff
748 > %method. The idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the
749 > %cutoff sphere improves the correlation coefficient and makes it close
750 > %to 1 for all types of multipolar systems. Similarly the slope is
751 > %hugely deviated from the correct value for the lower order
752 > %multipole-multipole interaction and slightly deviated for higher
753 > %order multipole – multipole interaction. The SP method improves both
754 > %correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope significantly in SSDQC and
755 > %dipolar systems.  The Slope is found to be deviated more in dipolar
756 > %crystal as compared to liquid which is associated with the large
757 > %fluctuation in the electrostatic energy in crystal. The GSF also
758 > %produced better values of correlation coefficient and slope with the
759 > %proper selection of the damping alpha (Interested reader can consult
760 > %accompanying supporting material). The TSF method gives good value of
761 > %correlation coefficient for the dipolar crystal, dipolar liquid,
762 > %SSDQ, and SSDQC (not for the quadrupolar crystal and liquid) but the
763 > %regression slopes are significantly deviated.
764 >
765   \begin{figure}
766 <        \centering
767 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
768 <        \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 \AA\  = circle, 12 \AA\  = square 15 \AA\  = inverted triangle)}
769 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
770 <    \end{figure}
771 < 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.
766 >  \centering
767 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
768 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of configurational
769 >    energy differences for the real-space electrostatic methods
770 >    compared with the reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal
771 >    to 1 (dashed line) indicate $\Delta E$ values indistinguishable
772 >    from those obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different
773 >    values of the cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols
774 >    (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted
775 >    triangles).}
776 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
777 > \end{figure}
778 >
779 > The combined correlation coefficient and slope for all six systems is
780 > shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_energy}.  Most of the methods
781 > reproduce the Ewald configurational energy differences with remarkable
782 > fidelity.  Undamped hard cutoffs introduce a significant amount of
783 > random scatter in the energy differences which is apparent in the
784 > reduced value of the correlation coefficient for this method.  This
785 > can be easily understood as configurations which exhibit small
786 > traversals of a few dipoles or quadrupoles out of the cutoff sphere
787 > will see large energy jumps when hard cutoffs are used.  The
788 > orientations of the multipoles (particularly in the ordered crystals)
789 > mean that these energy jumps can go in either direction, producing a
790 > significant amount of random scatter, but no systematic error.
791 >
792 > The TSF method produces energy differences that are highly correlated
793 > with the Ewald results, but it also introduces a significant
794 > systematic bias in the values of the energies, particularly for
795 > smaller cutoff values. The TSF method alters the distance dependence
796 > of different orientational contributions to the energy in a
797 > non-uniform way, so the size of the cutoff sphere can have a large
798 > effect, particularly for the crystalline systems.
799 >
800 > Both the SP and GSF methods appear to reproduce the Ewald results with
801 > excellent fidelity, particularly for moderate damping ($\alpha =
802 > 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and with a commonly-used cutoff value ($r_c =
803 > 12$\AA).  With the exception of the undamped hard cutoff, and the TSF
804 > method with short cutoffs, all of the methods would be appropriate for
805 > use in Monte Carlo simulations.
806 >
807   \subsection{Magnitude of the force and torque vectors}
659 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 subsection 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.
660 \begin{figure}
661        \centering
662        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
663        \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 \AA\  = circle, 12 \AA\  = square 15 \AA\  = inverted triangle). }
664        \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
665    \end{figure}
666 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.
667 \begin{figure}
668        \centering
669        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
670        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of the magnitude of the torque 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).}
671        \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
672    \end{figure}
673 \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
674 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 $r_c$.
808  
809 < \begin{figure}
810 <        \centering
811 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
812 <        \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)}
813 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
814 <    \end{figure}
815 < \subsection{Total energy conservation}
816 < 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.
817 < \begin{figure}
818 <        \centering
819 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{log(energyDrift)-crop.pdf}
820 < \label{fig:energyDrift}        
821 <        \end{figure}
809 > The comparisons of the magnitudes of the forces and torques for the
810 > data accumulated from all six systems are shown in Figures
811 > ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_force} and \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}. The
812 > correlation and slope for the forces agree well with the Ewald sum
813 > even for the hard cutoffs.
814 >
815 > For systems of molecules with only multipolar interactions, the pair
816 > energy contributions are quite short ranged.  Moreover, the force
817 > decays more rapidly than the electrostatic energy, hence the hard
818 > cutoff method can also produce reasonable agreement for this quantity.
819 > Although the pure cutoff gives reasonably good electrostatic forces
820 > for pairs of molecules included within each other's cutoff spheres,
821 > the discontinuity in the force at the cutoff radius can potentially
822 > cause energy conservation problems as molecules enter and leave the
823 > cutoff spheres.  This is discussed in detail in section
824 > \ref{sec:conservation}.
825 >
826 > The two shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) exhibit a small amount of
827 > systematic variation and scatter compared with the Ewald forces.  The
828 > shifted-force models intentionally perturb the forces between pairs of
829 > molecules inside each other's cutoff spheres in order to correct the
830 > energy conservation issues, and this perturbation is evident in the
831 > statistics accumulated for the molecular forces.  The GSF
832 > perturbations are minimal, particularly for moderate damping and and
833 > commonly-used cutoff values ($r_c = 12$\AA).  The TSF method shows
834 > reasonable agreement in the correlation coefficient but again the
835 > systematic error in the forces is concerning if replication of Ewald
836 > forces is desired.
837 >
838   \begin{figure}
839 <        \centering
840 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{logSD-crop.pdf}      
841 <        \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. }
842 <        \label{fig:fluctuation}
843 <    \end{figure}
839 >  \centering
840 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
841 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the force vector
842 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
843 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
844 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
845 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
846 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
847 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles). }
848 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
849 > \end{figure}
850 >
851 >
852 > \begin{figure}
853 >  \centering
854 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
855 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the torque vector
856 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
857 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
858 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
859 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
860 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
861 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles).}
862 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
863 > \end{figure}
864 >
865 > The torques (Fig. \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}) appear to be
866 > significantly influenced by the choice of real-space method.  The
867 > torque expressions have the same distance dependence as the energies,
868 > which are naturally longer-ranged expressions than the inter-site
869 > forces.  Torques are also quite sensitive to orientations of
870 > neighboring molecules, even those that are near the cutoff distance.
871 >
872 > The results shows that the torque from the hard cutoff method
873 > reproduces the torques in quite good agreement with the Ewald sum.
874 > The other real-space methods can cause some deviations, but excellent
875 > agreement with the Ewald sum torques is recovered at moderate values
876 > of the damping coefficient ($\alpha = 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and cutoff
877 > radius ($r_c \ge 12$\AA).  The TSF method exhibits only fair agreement
878 > in the slope when compared with the Ewald torques even for larger
879 > cutoff radii.  It appears that the severity of the perturbations in
880 > the TSF method are most in evidence for the torques.
881 >
882 > \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
883 >
884 > The accurate evaluation of force and torque directions is just as
885 > important for molecular dynamics simulations as the magnitudes of
886 > these quantities. Force and torque vectors for all six systems were
887 > analyzed using Fisher statistics, and the quality of the vector
888 > directionality is shown in terms of circular variance
889 > ($\mathrm{Var}(\theta$) in figure
890 > \ref{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}. The force and torque vectors
891 > from the new real-space methods exhibit nearly-ideal Fisher probability
892 > distributions (Eq.~\ref{eq:pdf}). Both the hard and SP cutoff methods
893 > exhibit the best vectorial agreement with the Ewald sum. The force and
894 > torque vectors from GSF method also show good agreement with the Ewald
895 > method, which can also be systematically improved by using moderate
896 > damping and a reasonable cutoff radius. For $\alpha = 0.2$ and $r_c =
897 > 12$\AA, we observe $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = 0.00206$, which corresponds
898 > to a distribution with 95\% of force vectors within $6.37^\circ$ of
899 > the corresponding Ewald forces. The TSF method produces the poorest
900 > agreement with the Ewald force directions.
901 >
902 > Torques are again more perturbed than the forces by the new real-space
903 > methods, but even here the variance is reasonably small.  For the same
904 > method (GSF) with the same parameters ($\alpha = 0.2, r_c = 12$\AA),
905 > the circular variance was 0.01415, corresponds to a distribution which
906 > has 95\% of torque vectors are within $16.75^\circ$ of the Ewald
907 > results. Again, the direction of the force and torque vectors can be
908 > systematically improved by varying $\alpha$ and $r_c$.
909 >
910 > \begin{figure}
911 >  \centering
912 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6 \linewidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
913 >  \caption{The circular variance of the direction of the force and
914 >    torque vectors obtained from the real-space methods around the
915 >    reference Ewald vectors. A variance equal to 0 (dashed line)
916 >    indicates direction of the force or torque vectors are
917 >    indistinguishable from those obtained from the Ewald sum. Here
918 >    different symbols represent different values of the cutoff radius
919 >    (9 \AA\ = circle, 12 \AA\ = square, 15 \AA\ = inverted triangle)}
920 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
921 > \end{figure}
922 >
923 > \subsection{Energy conservation\label{sec:conservation}}
924 >
925 > We have tested the conservation of energy one can expect to see with
926 > the new real-space methods using the SSDQ water model with a small
927 > fraction of solvated ions. This is a test system which exercises all
928 > orders of multipole-multipole interactions derived in the first paper
929 > in this series and provides the most comprehensive test of the new
930 > methods.  A liquid-phase system was created with 2000 water molecules
931 > and 48 dissolved ions at a density of 0.98 g cm$^{-3}$ and a
932 > temperature of 300K.  After equilibration, this liquid-phase system
933 > was run for 1 ns under the Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with
934 > a cutoff radius of 12\AA.  The value of the damping coefficient was
935 > also varied from the undamped case ($\alpha = 0$) to a heavily damped
936 > case ($\alpha = 0.3$ \AA$^{-1}$) for all of the real space methods.  A
937 > sample was also run using the multipolar Ewald sum with the same
938 > real-space cutoff.
939 >
940 > In figure~\ref{fig:energyDrift} we show the both the linear drift in
941 > energy over time, $\delta E_1$, and the standard deviation of energy
942 > fluctuations around this drift $\delta E_0$.  Both of the
943 > shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) provide excellent energy
944 > conservation (drift less than $10^{-6}$ kcal / mol / ns / particle),
945 > while the hard cutoff is essentially unusable for molecular dynamics.
946 > SP provides some benefit over the hard cutoff because the energetic
947 > jumps that happen as particles leave and enter the cutoff sphere are
948 > somewhat reduced, but like the Wolf method for charges, the SP method
949 > would not be as useful for molecular dynamics as either of the
950 > shifted-force methods.
951 >
952 > We note that for all tested values of the cutoff radius, the new
953 > real-space methods can provide better energy conservation behavior
954 > than the multipolar Ewald sum, even when utilizing a relatively large
955 > $k$-space cutoff values.
956 >
957 > \begin{figure}
958 >  \centering
959 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newDrift.pdf}
960 > \label{fig:energyDrift}        
961 > \caption{Analysis of the energy conservation of the real-space
962 >  electrostatic methods. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in
963 >  energy over time and $\delta \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation
964 >  of energy fluctuations around this drift.  All simulations were of a
965 >  2000-molecule simulation of SSDQ water with 48 ionic charges at 300
966 >  K starting from the same initial configuration. All runs utilized
967 >  the same real-space cutoff, $r_c = 12$\AA.}
968 > \end{figure}
969 >
970 >
971   \section{CONCLUSION}
972 < 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.
973 < 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.
974 < In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very important. The
975 < conservation of the total energy can be ensured by  i) enforcing the
976 < smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius
977 < and ii) making the energy, force and torque consistent with each
978 < other. The GSF and TSF methods ensure the consistency and smooth
979 < truncation of the energy, force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a
980 < 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.
972 > In the first paper in this series, we generalized the
973 > charge-neutralized electrostatic energy originally developed by Wolf
974 > \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} to multipole-multipole interactions
975 > up to quadrupolar order.  The SP method is essentially a
976 > multipole-capable version of the Wolf model.  The SP method for
977 > multipoles provides excellent agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
978 > forces and torques, and is suitable for Monte Carlo simulations,
979 > although the forces and torques retain discontinuities at the cutoff
980 > distance that prevents its use in molecular dynamics.
981  
982 < Note that the TSF, GSF, and SP models are $\mathcal{O}(N)$ methods
983 < that can be made extremely efficient using spline interpolations of
984 < the radial functions.  They require no Fourier transforms or $k$-space
985 < sums, and guarantee the smooth handling of energies, forces, and
986 < torques as multipoles cross the real-space cutoff boundary.  
982 > We also developed two natural extensions of the damped shifted-force
983 > (DSF) model originally proposed by Fennel and
984 > Gezelter.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} The GSF and TSF approaches provide
985 > smooth truncation of energies, forces, and torques at the real-space
986 > cutoff, and both converge to DSF electrostatics for point-charge
987 > interactions.  The TSF model is based on a high-order truncated Taylor
988 > expansion which can be relatively perturbative inside the cutoff
989 > sphere.  The GSF model takes the gradient from an images of the
990 > interacting multipole that has been projected onto the cutoff sphere
991 > to derive shifted force and torque expressions, and is a significantly
992 > more gentle approach.
993  
994 + Of the two newly-developed shifted force models, the GSF method
995 + produced quantitative agreement with Ewald energy, force, and torques.
996 + It also performs well in conserving energy in MD simulations.  The
997 + Taylor-shifted (TSF) model provides smooth dynamics, but these take
998 + place on a potential energy surface that is significantly perturbed
999 + from Ewald-based electrostatics.  
1000 +
1001 + % The direct truncation of any electrostatic potential energy without
1002 + % multipole neutralization creates large fluctuations in molecular
1003 + % simulations.  This fluctuation in the energy is very large for the case
1004 + % of crystal because of long range of multipole ordering (Refer paper
1005 + % I).\cite{PaperI} This is also significant in the case of the liquid
1006 + % because of the local multipole ordering in the molecules. If the net
1007 + % multipole within cutoff radius neutralized within cutoff sphere by
1008 + % placing image multiples on the surface of the sphere, this fluctuation
1009 + % in the energy reduced significantly. Also, the multipole
1010 + % neutralization in the generalized SP method showed very good agreement
1011 + % with the Ewald as compared to direct truncation for the evaluation of
1012 + % the $\triangle E$ between the configurations.  In MD simulations, the
1013 + % energy conservation is very important. The conservation of the total
1014 + % energy can be ensured by i) enforcing the smooth truncation of the
1015 + % energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius and ii) making the
1016 + % energy, force and torque consistent with each other. The GSF and TSF
1017 + % methods ensure the consistency and smooth truncation of the energy,
1018 + % force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a result show very good
1019 + % total energy conservation. But the TSF method does not show good
1020 + % agreement in the absolute value of the electrostatic energy, force and
1021 + % torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method has mimicked Ewald’s force,
1022 + % energy and torque accurately and also conserved energy.
1023 +
1024 + The only cases we have found where the new GSF and SP real-space
1025 + methods can be problematic are those which retain a bulk dipole moment
1026 + at large distances (e.g. the $Z_1$ dipolar lattice).  In ferroelectric
1027 + materials, uniform weighting of the orientational contributions can be
1028 + important for converging the total energy.  In these cases, the
1029 + damping function which causes the non-uniform weighting can be
1030 + replaced by the bare electrostatic kernel, and the energies return to
1031 + the expected converged values.
1032 +
1033 + Based on the results of this work, the GSF method is a suitable and
1034 + efficient replacement for the Ewald sum for evaluating electrostatic
1035 + interactions in MD simulations.  Both methods retain excellent
1036 + fidelity to the Ewald energies, forces and torques.  Additionally, the
1037 + energy drift and fluctuations from the GSF electrostatics are better
1038 + than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces.
1039 + Because they use real-space cutoffs with moderate cutoff radii, the
1040 + GSF and SP models approach $\mathcal{O}(N)$ scaling as the system size
1041 + increases.  Additionally, they can be made extremely efficient using
1042 + spline interpolations of the radial functions.  They require no
1043 + Fourier transforms or $k$-space sums, and guarantee the smooth
1044 + handling of energies, forces, and torques as multipoles cross the
1045 + real-space cutoff boundary.
1046 +
1047   %\bibliographystyle{aip}
1048   \newpage
1049   \bibliography{references}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines