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 4185 by gezelter, Sun Jun 15 00:18:18 2014 UTC

# Line 35 | Line 35 | preprint,
35   %\linenumbers\relax % Commence numbering lines
36   \usepackage{amsmath}
37   \usepackage{times}
38 < \usepackage{mathptm}
38 > \usepackage{mathptmx}
39 > \usepackage{tabularx}
40   \usepackage[version=3]{mhchem}  % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions
41   \usepackage{url}
42   \usepackage[english]{babel}
43  
44 + \newcolumntype{Y}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}
45  
46   \begin{document}
47  
48 < \preprint{AIP/123-QED}
48 > %\preprint{AIP/123-QED}
49  
50 < \title[Efficient electrostatics for condensed-phase multipoles]{Real space alternatives to the Ewald
51 < Sum. II. 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 multipole interactions that were developed in the first paper in
73 >  this series, using the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference
74 >  method. The tests were carried out in a variety of condensed-phase
75 >  environments which were designed to test all levels of the
76 >  multipole-multipole interactions.  Comparisons of the energy
77 >  differences between configurations, molecular forces, and torques
78 >  were used to analyze how well the real-space models perform relative
79 >  to the more computationally expensive Ewald treatment.  We have also
80 >  investigated the energy conservation properties of the new methods
81 >  in molecular dynamics simulations. The SP method shows excellent
82 >  agreement with configurational energy differences, forces, and
83 >  torques, and would be suitable for use in Monte Carlo calculations.
84 >  Of the two new shifted-force methods, the GSF approach shows the
85 >  best agreement with Ewald-derived energies, forces, and torques and
86 >  exhibits energy conservation properties that make it an excellent
87 >  choice for efficient computation of electrostatic interactions in
88 >  molecular 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}
93 > %\keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
94  
95   \maketitle
96  
97  
98   \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
99   Computing the interactions between electrostatic sites is one of the
100 < most expensive aspects of molecular simulations, which is why there
101 < have been significant efforts to develop practical, efficient and
102 < convergent methods for handling these interactions. Ewald's method is
103 < perhaps the best known and most accurate method for evaluating
104 < energies, forces, and torques in explicitly-periodic simulation
105 < cells. In this approach, the conditionally convergent electrostatic
106 < energy is converted into two absolutely convergent contributions, one
107 < which is carried out in real space with a cutoff radius, and one in
108 < reciprocal space.\cite{Clarke:1986eu,Woodcock75}
100 > most expensive aspects of molecular simulations. There have been
101 > significant efforts to develop practical, efficient and convergent
102 > methods for handling these interactions. Ewald's method is perhaps the
103 > best known and most accurate method for evaluating energies, forces,
104 > and torques in explicitly-periodic simulation cells. In this approach,
105 > the conditionally convergent electrostatic energy is converted into
106 > two absolutely convergent contributions, one which is carried out in
107 > real space with a cutoff radius, and one in reciprocal
108 > space. BETTER CITATIONS\cite{Clarke:1986eu,Woodcock75}
109  
110   When carried out as originally formulated, the reciprocal-space
111   portion of the Ewald sum exhibits relatively poor computational
# Line 96 | Line 116 | Because of the artificial periodicity required for the
116   the computational cost from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(N \log
117   N)$.\cite{Takada93,Gunsteren94,Gunsteren95,Darden:1993pd,Essmann:1995pb}.
118  
119 < Because of the artificial periodicity required for the Ewald sum, the
100 < method may require modification to compute interactions for
119 > Because of the artificial periodicity required for the Ewald sum,
120   interfacial molecular systems such as membranes and liquid-vapor
121 < interfaces.\cite{Parry:1975if,Parry:1976fq,Clarke77,Perram79,Rhee:1989kl}
122 < To simulate interfacial systems, Parry’s extension of the 3D Ewald sum
123 < is appropriate for slab geometries.\cite{Parry:1975if} The inherent
124 < periodicity in the Ewald’s method can also be problematic for
125 < interfacial molecular systems.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} Modified Ewald
126 < methods that were developed to handle two-dimensional (2D)
127 < electrostatic interactions in interfacial systems have not had similar
128 < particle-mesh treatments.\cite{Parry:1975if, Parry:1976fq, Clarke77,
129 <  Perram79,Rhee:1989kl,Spohr:1997sf,Yeh:1999oq}
121 > interfaces require modifications to the
122 > method.\cite{Parry:1975if,Parry:1976fq,Clarke77,Perram79,Rhee:1989kl}
123 > Parry's extension of the three dimensional Ewald sum is appropriate
124 > for slab geometries.\cite{Parry:1975if} Modified Ewald methods that
125 > were developed to handle two-dimensional (2D) electrostatic
126 > interactions in interfacial systems have not seen similar
127 > particle-mesh treatments,\cite{Parry:1975if, Parry:1976fq, Clarke77,
128 >  Perram79,Rhee:1989kl,Spohr:1997sf,Yeh:1999oq} and still scale poorly
129 > with system size. The inherent periodicity in the Ewald’s method can
130 > also be problematic for interfacial molecular
131 > systems.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
132  
133   \subsection{Real-space methods}
134   Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space $O(N)$
135   method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
136 < charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in
137 < condensed systems is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95}.  For
138 < an ordered lattice (e.g. when computing the Madelung constant of an
139 < ionic solid), the material can be considered as a set of ions
140 < interacting with neutral dipolar or quadrupolar ``molecules'' giving
141 < an effective distance dependence for the electrostatic interactions of
142 < $r^{-5}$ (see figure \ref{fig:NaCl}.  For this reason, careful
143 < applications of Wolf's method are able to obtain accurate estimates of
144 < Madelung constants using relatively short cutoff radii.  Recently,
145 < Fukuda used neutralization of the higher order moments for the
146 < calculation of the electrostatic interaction of the point charges
147 < system.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
136 > charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in most
137 > condensed phase systems is effectively short
138 > ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95} For an ordered lattice (e.g., when
139 > computing the Madelung constant of an ionic solid), the material can
140 > be considered as a set of ions interacting with neutral dipolar or
141 > quadrupolar ``molecules'' giving an effective distance dependence for
142 > the electrostatic interactions of $r^{-5}$ (see figure
143 > \ref{fig:schematic}). If one views the \ce{NaCl} crystal as a simple
144 > cubic (SC) structure with an octupolar \ce{(NaCl)4} basis, the
145 > electrostatic energy per ion converges more rapidly to the Madelung
146 > energy than the dipolar approximation.\cite{Wolf92} To find the
147 > correct Madelung constant, Lacman suggested that the NaCl structure
148 > could be constructed in a way that the finite crystal terminates with
149 > complete \ce{(NaCl)4} molecules.\cite{Lacman65} The central ion sees
150 > what is effectively a set of octupoles at large distances. These facts
151 > suggest that the Madelung constants are relatively short ranged for
152 > perfect ionic crystals.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} For this reason, careful
153 > application of Wolf's method are able to obtain accurate estimates of
154 > Madelung constants using relatively short cutoff radii.
155  
156 < \begin{figure}[h!]
156 > Direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates numerical
157 > errors.  Wolf \textit{et al.}  argued that truncation errors are due
158 > to net charge remaining inside the cutoff sphere.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} To
159 > neutralize this charge they proposed placing an image charge on the
160 > surface of the cutoff sphere for every real charge inside the cutoff.
161 > These charges are present for the evaluation of both the pair
162 > interaction energy and the force, although the force expression
163 > maintained a discontinuity at the cutoff sphere.  In the original Wolf
164 > formulation, the total energy for the charge and image were not equal
165 > to the integral of their force expression, and as a result, the total
166 > energy would not be conserved in molecular dynamics (MD)
167 > simulations.\cite{Zahn:2002hc} Zahn \textit{et al.}, and Fennel and
168 > Gezelter later proposed shifted force variants of the Wolf method with
169 > commensurate force and energy expressions that do not exhibit this
170 > problem.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} Related real-space methods were also
171 > proposed by Chen \textit{et
172 >  al.}\cite{Chen:2004du,Chen:2006ii,Denesyuk:2008ez,Rodgers:2006nw}
173 > and by Wu and Brooks.\cite{Wu:044107} Recently, Fukuda has used
174 > neutralization of the higher order moments for the calculation of the
175 > electrostatic interaction of the point charge
176 > systems.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
177 >
178 > \begin{figure}
179    \centering
180 <  \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{chargesystem.pdf}
181 <  \caption{Top: NaCl crystal showing how spherical truncation can
182 <    breaking effective charge ordering, and how complete \ce{(NaCl)4}
183 <    molecules interact with the central ion.  Bottom: A dipolar
184 <    crystal exhibiting similar behavior and illustrating how the
185 <    effective dipole-octupole interactions can be disrupted by
186 <    spherical truncation.}
187 <  \label{fig:NaCl}
180 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{schematic.pdf}
181 >  \caption{Top: Ionic systems exhibit local clustering of dissimilar
182 >    charges (in the smaller grey circle), so interactions are
183 >    effectively charge-multipole at longer distances.  With hard
184 >    cutoffs, motion of individual charges in and out of the cutoff
185 >    sphere can break the effective multipolar ordering.  Bottom:
186 >    dipolar crystals and fluids have a similar effective
187 >    \textit{quadrupolar} ordering (in the smaller grey circles), and
188 >    orientational averaging helps to reduce the effective range of the
189 >    interactions in the fluid.  Placement of reversed image multipoles
190 >    on the surface of the cutoff sphere recovers the effective
191 >    higher-order multipole behavior.}
192 >  \label{fig:schematic}
193   \end{figure}
194  
195 < The direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates
196 < truncation defects. Wolf \textit{et al.} further argued that
197 < truncation errors are due to net charge remaining inside the cutoff
198 < sphere.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} To neutralize this charge they proposed
199 < placing an image charge on the surface of the cutoff sphere for every
200 < real charge inside the cutoff.  These charges are present for the
201 < evaluation of both the pair interaction energy and the force, although
202 < the force expression maintained a discontinuity at the cutoff sphere.
203 < In the original Wolf formulation, the total energy for the charge and
204 < image were not equal to the integral of their force expression, and as
150 < a result, the total energy would not be conserved in molecular
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}   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
161 < potential is found to be decreasing as $r^{-5}$. If one views the
162 < \ce{NaCl} crystal as simple cubic (SC) structure with an octupolar
163 < \ce{(NaCl)4} basis, the electrostatic energy per ion converges more
164 < rapidly to the Madelung energy than the dipolar
165 < approximation.\cite{Wolf92} To find the correct Madelung constant,
166 < Lacman suggested that the NaCl structure could be constructed in a way
167 < that the finite crystal terminates with complete \ce{(NaCl)4}
168 < molecules.\cite{Lacman65} Any charge in a NaCl crystal is surrounded
169 < by opposite charges. Similarly for each pair of charges, there is an
170 < opposite pair of charge adjacent to it.  The central ion sees what is
171 < effectively a set of octupoles at large distances. These facts suggest
172 < that the Madelung constants are relatively short ranged for perfect
173 < ionic crystals.\cite{Wolf:1999dn}
174 <
175 < One can make a similar argument for crystals of point multipoles. The
176 < Luttinger and Tisza treatment of energy constants for dipolar lattices
177 < utilizes 24 basis vectors that contain dipoles at the eight corners of
178 < a unit cube.  Only three of these basis vectors, $X_1, Y_1,
179 < \mathrm{~and~} Z_1,$ retain net dipole moments, while the rest have
180 < zero net dipole and retain contributions only from higher order
181 < multipoles.  The effective interaction between a dipole at the center
195 > One can make a similar effective range argument for crystals of point
196 > \textit{multipoles}. The Luttinger and Tisza treatment of energy
197 > constants for dipolar lattices utilizes 24 basis vectors that contain
198 > dipoles at the eight corners of a unit cube.  Only three of these
199 > basis vectors, $X_1, Y_1, \mathrm{~and~} Z_1,$ retain net dipole
200 > moments, while the rest have zero net dipole and retain contributions
201 > only from higher order multipoles.  The lowest energy crystalline
202 > structures are built out of basis vectors that have only residual
203 > quadrupolar moments (e.g. the $Z_5$ array). In these low energy
204 > structures, the effective interaction between a dipole at the center
205   of a crystal and a group of eight dipoles farther away is
206   significantly shorter ranged than the $r^{-3}$ that one would expect
207   for raw dipole-dipole interactions.  Only in crystals which retain a
# Line 188 | Line 211 | multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:NaCl}), cau
211   unstable.
212  
213   In ionic crystals, real-space truncation can break the effective
214 < multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:NaCl}), causing significant
215 < swings in the electrostatic energy as the cutoff radius is increased
216 < (or as individual ions move back and forth across the boundary).  This
217 < is why the image charges were necessary for the Wolf sum to exhibit
218 < rapid convergence.  Similarly, the real-space truncation of point
219 < multipole interactions breaks higher order multipole arrangements, and
220 < image multipoles are required for real-space treatments of
198 < electrostatic energies.
214 > multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}), causing
215 > significant swings in the electrostatic energy as individual ions move
216 > back and forth across the boundary.  This is why the image charges are
217 > necessary for the Wolf sum to exhibit rapid convergence.  Similarly,
218 > the real-space truncation of point multipole interactions breaks
219 > higher order multipole arrangements, and image multipoles are required
220 > for real-space treatments of electrostatic energies.
221  
222 + The shorter effective range of electrostatic interactions is not
223 + limited to perfect crystals, but can also apply in disordered fluids.
224 + Even at elevated temperatures, there is, on average, local charge
225 + balance in an ionic liquid, where each positive ion has surroundings
226 + dominated by negaitve ions and vice versa.  The reversed-charge images
227 + on the cutoff sphere that are integral to the Wolf and DSF approaches
228 + retain the effective multipolar interactions as the charges traverse
229 + the cutoff boundary.
230 +
231 + In multipolar fluids (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}) there is
232 + significant orientational averaging that additionally reduces the
233 + effect of long-range multipolar interactions.  The image multipoles
234 + that are introduced in the TSF, GSF, and SP methods mimic this effect
235 + and reduce the effective range of the multipolar interactions as
236 + interacting molecules traverse each other's cutoff boundaries.
237 +
238   % Because of this reason, although the nature of electrostatic
239   % interaction short ranged, the hard cutoff sphere creates very large
240   % fluctuation in the electrostatic energy for the perfect crystal. In
# Line 220 | Line 258 | The damping function used in our research has been dis
258   densities.\cite{Shi:2013ij,Kannam:2012rr,Acevedo13,Space12,English08,Lawrence13,Vergne13}
259  
260   \subsection{The damping function}
261 < The damping function used in our research has been discussed in detail
262 < in the first paper of this series.\cite{PaperI} The radial kernel
263 < $1/r$ for the interactions between point charges can be replaced by
264 < the complementary error function $\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ to
265 < accelerate the rate of convergence, where $\alpha$ is a damping
266 < parameter with units of inverse distance.  Altering the value of
267 < $\alpha$ is equivalent to changing the width of Gaussian charge
268 < distributions that replace each point charge -- Gaussian overlap
269 < integrals yield complementary error functions when truncated at a
270 < finite distance.
261 > The damping function has been discussed in detail in the first paper
262 > of this series.\cite{PaperI} The $1/r$ Coulombic kernel for the
263 > interactions between point charges can be replaced by the
264 > complementary error function $\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ to accelerate
265 > convergence, where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter with units of
266 > inverse distance.  Altering the value of $\alpha$ is equivalent to
267 > changing the width of Gaussian charge distributions that replace each
268 > point charge, as Coulomb integrals with Gaussian charge distributions
269 > produce complementary error functions when truncated at a finite
270 > distance.
271  
272 < By using suitable value of damping alpha ($\alpha \sim 0.2$) for a
273 < cutoff radius ($r_{­c}=9 A$), Fennel and Gezelter produced very good
274 < agreement with SPME for the interaction energies, forces and torques
275 < for charge-charge interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
272 > With moderate damping coefficients, $\alpha \sim 0.2$, the DSF method
273 > produced very good agreement with SPME for interaction energies,
274 > forces and torques for charge-charge
275 > interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
276  
277   \subsection{Point multipoles in molecular modeling}
278   Coarse-graining approaches which treat entire molecular subsystems as
279   a single rigid body are now widely used. A common feature of many
280   coarse-graining approaches is simplification of the electrostatic
281   interactions between bodies so that fewer site-site interactions are
282 < required to compute configurational energies.  Many coarse-grained
283 < 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}
282 > required to compute configurational
283 > energies.\cite{Ren06,Essex10,Essex11}
284  
285   Because electrons in a molecule are not localized at specific points,
286 < the assignment of partial charges to atomic centers is a relatively
287 < rough approximation.  Atomic sites can also be assigned point
288 < multipoles and polarizabilities to increase the accuracy of the
289 < molecular model.  Recently, water has been modeled with point
290 < multipoles up to octupolar
291 < order.\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} Atom-centered point
286 > the assignment of partial charges to atomic centers is always an
287 > approximation.  Atomic sites can also be assigned point multipoles and
288 > polarizabilities to increase the accuracy of the molecular model.
289 > Recently, water has been modeled with point multipoles up to octupolar
290 > order using the soft sticky dipole-quadrupole-octupole (SSDQO)
291 > model.\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} Atom-centered point
292   multipoles up to quadrupolar order have also been coupled with point
293   polarizabilities in the high-quality AMOEBA and iAMOEBA water
294 < models.\cite{Ren:2003uq,Ren:2004kx,Ponder:2010vl,Wang:2013fk}.  But
295 < using point multipole with the real space truncation without
296 < accounting for multipolar neutrality will create energy conservation
263 < issues in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations.
294 > models.\cite{Ren:2003uq,Ren:2004kx,Ponder:2010vl,Wang:2013fk} However,
295 > truncating point multipoles without smoothing the forces and torques
296 > will create energy conservation issues in molecular dynamics simulations.
297  
298   In this paper we test a set of real-space methods that were developed
299   for point multipolar interactions.  These methods extend the damped
# Line 297 | Line 330 | where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$,
330   \begin{equation}
331   U_{\bf{ab}}(r)=\hat{M}_{\bf a} \hat{M}_{\bf b} \frac{1}{r}  \label{kernel}.
332   \end{equation}
333 < where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$,
334 < \begin{equation}
335 < \hat{M}_{\bf a} = C_{\bf a} - D_{{\bf a}\alpha} \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{\alpha}}
336 < +  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.
333 > where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$, $\hat{M}_{\bf a}$, is
334 > expressed in terms of the point charge, $C_{\bf a}$, dipole, ${\bf D}_{\bf
335 >    a}$, and quadrupole, $\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a}$, for object
336 > $\bf a$, etc.
337  
338 < Interactions between multipoles can be expressed as higher derivatives
339 < of the bare Coulomb potential, so one way of ensuring that the forces
340 < and torques vanish at the cutoff distance is to include a larger
341 < number of terms in the truncated Taylor expansion, e.g.,
342 < %
343 < \begin{equation}
344 < f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-R_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{R_c}  .
345 < \end{equation}
346 < %
347 < The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$.
348 < Thus, for $f(r)=1/r$, we find
349 < %
350 < \begin{equation}
351 < 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} .
352 < \end{equation}
353 < This function is an approximate electrostatic potential that has
354 < vanishing second derivatives at the cutoff radius, making it suitable
355 < for shifting the forces and torques of charge-dipole interactions.
338 > % Interactions between multipoles can be expressed as higher derivatives
339 > % of the bare Coulomb potential, so one way of ensuring that the forces
340 > % and torques vanish at the cutoff distance is to include a larger
341 > % number of terms in the truncated Taylor expansion, e.g.,
342 > % %
343 > % \begin{equation}
344 > % f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{r_c}  .
345 > % \end{equation}
346 > % %
347 > % The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$.
348 > % Thus, for $f(r)=1/r$, we find
349 > % %
350 > % \begin{equation}
351 > % 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} .
352 > % \end{equation}
353 > % This function is an approximate electrostatic potential that has
354 > % vanishing second derivatives at the cutoff radius, making it suitable
355 > % for shifting the forces and torques of charge-dipole interactions.
356  
357 < In general, the TSF potential for any multipole-multipole interaction
358 < can be written
357 > The TSF potential for any multipole-multipole interaction can be
358 > written
359   \begin{equation}
360   U^{\text{TSF}}= (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r)
361   \label{generic}
362   \end{equation}
363 < with $n=0$ for charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for
364 < charge-quadrupole and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and
365 < $n=4$ for quadrupole-quadrupole.  To ensure smooth convergence of the
366 < energy, force, and torques, the required number of terms from Taylor
367 < series expansion in $f_n(r)$ must be performed for different
368 < multipole-multipole interactions.
363 > where $f_n(r)$ is a shifted kernel that is appropriate for the order
364 > of the interaction (see Ref. \onlinecite{PaperI}), with $n=0$ for
365 > charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for charge-quadrupole
366 > and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and $n=4$ for
367 > quadrupole-quadrupole.  To ensure smooth convergence of the energy,
368 > force, and torques, a Taylor expansion with $n$ terms must be
369 > performed at cutoff radius ($r_c$) to obtain $f_n(r)$.
370  
371 < To carry out the same procedure for a damped electrostatic kernel, we
372 < replace $1/r$ in the Coulomb potential with $\text{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$.
373 < Many of the derivatives of the damped kernel are well known from
374 < Smith's early work on multipoles for the Ewald
375 < summation.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
371 > % To carry out the same procedure for a damped electrostatic kernel, we
372 > % replace $1/r$ in the Coulomb potential with $\text{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$.
373 > % Many of the derivatives of the damped kernel are well known from
374 > % Smith's early work on multipoles for the Ewald
375 > % summation.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
376  
377 < Note that increasing the value of $n$ will add additional terms to the
378 < electrostatic potential, e.g., $f_2(r)$ includes orders up to
379 < $(r-R_c)^3/R_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
380 < functions are denoted $g_2(r) = f^\prime_2(r)$, $h_2(r) =
381 < f^{\prime\prime}_2(r)$, etc.  These higher derivatives are required
382 < for computing multipole energies, forces, and torques, and smooth
383 < cutoffs of these quantities can be guaranteed as long as the number of
384 < terms in the Taylor series exceeds the derivative order required.
377 > % Note that increasing the value of $n$ will add additional terms to the
378 > % electrostatic potential, e.g., $f_2(r)$ includes orders up to
379 > % $(r-r_c)^3/r_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
380 > % functions are denoted $g_2(r) = f^\prime_2(r)$, $h_2(r) =
381 > % f^{\prime\prime}_2(r)$, etc.  These higher derivatives are required
382 > % for computing multipole energies, forces, and torques, and smooth
383 > % cutoffs of these quantities can be guaranteed as long as the number of
384 > % terms in the Taylor series exceeds the derivative order required.
385  
386   For multipole-multipole interactions, following this procedure results
387 < in separate radial functions for each distinct orientational
388 < contribution to the potential, and ensures that the forces and torques
389 < from {\it each} of these contributions will vanish at the cutoff
390 < radius.  For example, the direct dipole dot product ($\mathbf{D}_{i}
391 < \cdot \mathbf{D}_{j}$) is treated differently than the dipole-distance
387 > in separate radial functions for each of the distinct orientational
388 > contributions to the potential, and ensures that the forces and
389 > torques from each of these contributions will vanish at the cutoff
390 > radius.  For example, the direct dipole dot product
391 > ($\mathbf{D}_{\bf a}
392 > \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\bf b}$) is treated differently than the dipole-distance
393   dot products:
394   \begin{equation}
395 < U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r)= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( \mathbf{D}_{i} \cdot
396 < \mathbf{D}_{j} \right) \frac{g_2(r)}{r}
397 < -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}
398 < \left( \mathbf{D}_{i} \cdot \hat{r} \right)
399 < \left( \mathbf{D}_{j} \cdot \hat{r} \right) \left(h_2(r) -
372 <  \frac{g_2(r)}{r} \right)
395 > U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left[ \left(
396 >  \mathbf{D}_{\bf a} \cdot
397 > \mathbf{D}_{\bf b} \right) v_{21}(r) +
398 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{\bf a} \cdot \hat{r} \right)
399 > \left( \mathbf{D}_{\bf b} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{22}(r) \right]
400   \end{equation}
401  
402 < The electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole
403 < site due to another site within cutoff sphere are derived from
402 > For the Taylor shifted (TSF) method with the undamped kernel,
403 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{8}{r_c^3} +
404 > \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$ and $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4}
405 > - \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$.  In these functions, one can easily see the
406 > connection to unmodified electrostatics as well as the smooth
407 > transition to zero in both these functions as $r\rightarrow r_c$.  The
408 > electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole due
409 > to another site within the cutoff sphere are derived from
410   Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
411   derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
412   presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
413 < \citep{PaperI}).
413 > \onlinecite{PaperI}).
414  
415   \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
416  
417 < A second (and significantly simpler) method involves shifting the
418 < gradient of the raw coulomb potential for each particular multipole
417 > A second (and conceptually simpler) method involves shifting the
418 > gradient of the raw Coulomb potential for each particular multipole
419   order.  For example, the raw dipole-dipole potential energy may be
420   shifted smoothly by finding the gradient for two interacting dipoles
421   which have been projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere
422   without changing their relative orientation,
423 < \begin{displaymath}
424 < U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij})  = U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r_{ij}) - U_{D_{i}D_{j}}(R_c)
425 <   - (r_{ij}-R_c) \hat{r}_{ij} \cdot
426 <  \vec{\nabla} V_{D_{i}D_{j}}(r) \Big \lvert _{R_c}
427 < \end{displaymath}
428 < Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{i}$
429 < and $\mathbf{D}_{j}$, are retained at the cutoff distance (although
430 < the signs are reversed for the dipole that has been projected onto the
431 < cutoff sphere).  In many ways, this simpler approach is closer in
432 < spirit to the original shifted force method, in that it projects a
433 < neutralizing multipole (and the resulting forces from this multipole)
434 < onto a cutoff sphere. The resulting functional forms for the
435 < potentials, forces, and torques turn out to be quite similar in form
436 < to the Taylor-shifted approach, although the radial contributions are
437 < significantly less perturbed by the Gradient-shifted approach than
438 < they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
423 > \begin{equation}
424 > U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)  = U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r) -
425 > U_{D_{\bf a} D_{\bf b}}(r_c)
426 >   - (r_{ab}-r_c) ~~~\hat{r}_{ab} \cdot
427 >  \nabla U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r_c).
428 > \end{equation}
429 > Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{\bf
430 >  a}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{\bf b}$, are retained at the cutoff distance
431 > (although the signs are reversed for the dipole that has been
432 > projected onto the cutoff sphere).  In many ways, this simpler
433 > approach is closer in spirit to the original shifted force method, in
434 > that it projects a neutralizing multipole (and the resulting forces
435 > from this multipole) onto a cutoff sphere. The resulting functional
436 > forms for the potentials, forces, and torques turn out to be quite
437 > similar in form to the Taylor-shifted approach, although the radial
438 > contributions are significantly less perturbed by the gradient-shifted
439 > approach than they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
440  
441 + For the gradient shifted (GSF) method with the undamped kernel,
442 + $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \frac{4}{r_c^3}$ and
443 + $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{9 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{12}{r_c^3}$.
444 + Again, these functions go smoothly to zero as $r\rightarrow r_c$, and
445 + because the Taylor expansion retains only one term, they are
446 + significantly less perturbed than the TSF functions.
447 +
448   In general, the gradient shifted potential between a central multipole
449   and any multipolar site inside the cutoff radius is given by,
450   \begin{equation}
451 < U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
452 < U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{r}
453 < \cdot \nabla U(\mathbf{r},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \Big \lvert  _{r_c} \right]
451 >  U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
452 >    U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{\mathbf{r}}
453 >    \cdot \nabla U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
454   \label{generic2}
455   \end{equation}
456   where the sum describes a separate force-shifting that is applied to
457 < each orientational contribution to the energy.
457 > each orientational contribution to the energy.  In this expression,
458 > $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ is the unit vector connecting the two multipoles
459 > ($a$ and $b$) in space, and $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$
460 > represent the orientations the multipoles.
461  
462   The third term converges more rapidly than the first two terms as a
463   function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
464   small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
465 < equation \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
466 < approach zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
465 > Eq. \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
466 > approach zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
467   can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
468   higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
469   to the charge-dipole interaction but generate different expressions in
470   the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
471   interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
472   GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
473 < (Reference \citep{PaperI})
473 > (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI}).
474  
475  
476   \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
# Line 439 | Line 483 | U_{SP}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
483   interactions with the central multipole and the image. This
484   effectively shifts the total potential to zero at the cutoff radius,
485   \begin{equation}
486 < U_{SP}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
486 > U^{\text{SP}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
487 > U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
488   \label{eq:SP}
489   \end{equation}          
490   where the sum describes separate potential shifting that is done for
491   each orientational contribution to the energy (e.g. the direct dipole
492   product contribution is shifted {\it separately} from the
493   dipole-distance terms in dipole-dipole interactions).  Note that this
494 < is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $R_c$. Each radial
494 > is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $r_c$. Each radial
495   contribution is shifted separately.  One consequence of this is that
496   multipoles that reorient after leaving the cutoff sphere can re-enter
497   the cutoff sphere without perturbing the total energy.
498  
499 < The potential energy between a central multipole and other multipolar
500 < sites then goes smoothly to zero as $r \rightarrow R_c$. However, the
501 < force and torque obtained from the shifted potential (SP) are
502 < discontinuous at $R_c$. Therefore, MD simulations will still
503 < experience energy drift while operating under the SP potential, but it
504 < may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the configurational
505 < energy differences are the primary quantity of interest.
499 > For the shifted potential (SP) method with the undamped kernel,
500 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{1}{r_c^3}$ and $v_{22}(r) =
501 > \frac{3}{r^3} - \frac{3}{r_c^3}$.  The potential energy between a
502 > central multipole and other multipolar sites goes smoothly to zero as
503 > $r \rightarrow r_c$.  However, the force and torque obtained from the
504 > shifted potential (SP) are discontinuous at $r_c$.  MD simulations
505 > will still experience energy drift while operating under the SP
506 > potential, but it may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the
507 > configurational energy differences are the primary quantity of
508 > interest.
509  
510 < \subsection{The Self term}
510 > \subsection{The Self Term}
511   In the TSF, GSF, and SP methods, a self-interaction is retained for
512   the central multipole interacting with its own image on the surface of
513   the cutoff sphere.  This self interaction is nearly identical with the
514   self-terms that arise in the Ewald sum for multipoles.  Complete
515   expressions for the self terms are presented in the first paper in
516 < this series (Reference \citep{PaperI})  
516 > this series (Reference \onlinecite{PaperI}).
517  
518  
519   \section{\label{sec:methodology}Methodology}
# Line 477 | Line 525 | arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} Thi
525   real-space cutoffs.  In the first paper of this series, we compared
526   the dipolar and quadrupolar energy expressions against analytic
527   expressions for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar
528 < arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} This work uses the
529 < multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing energies,
530 < forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic disordered and
531 < ordered condensed-phase systems.  These test-cases include:
528 > arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} In this work, we
529 > used the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing
530 > energies, forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic
531 > disordered and ordered condensed-phase systems.  The parameters used
532 > in the test cases are given in table~\ref{tab:pars}.
533  
534 < \begin{itemize}
535 < \item Soft Dipolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
536 < \item Soft Dipolar solids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , |D| = $)
537 < \item Soft Quadrupolar fluids ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
538 < \item Soft Quadrupolar solids  ($\sigma = , \epsilon = , Q_{xx} = ...$)
539 < \item A mixed multipole model for water
540 < \item A mixed multipole models for water with dissolved ions
541 < \end{itemize}
542 < This last test case exercises all levels of the multipole-multipole
543 < interactions we have derived so far and represents the most complete
544 < test of the new methods.
534 > \begin{table}
535 > \label{tab:pars}
536 > \caption{The parameters used in the systems used to evaluate the new
537 >  real-space methods.  The most comprehensive test was a liquid
538 >  composed of 2000 SSDQ molecules with 48 dissolved ions (24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
539 >  ions).  This test excercises all orders of the multipolar
540 >  interactions developed in the first paper.}
541 > \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{r|cc|YYccc|Yccc} \hline
542 >             & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LJ parameters} &
543 >             \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Electrostatic moments} & & & & \\
544 > Test system & $\sigma$& $\epsilon$ & $C$ & $D$  &
545 > $Q_{xx}$ & $Q_{yy}$ & $Q_{zz}$ & mass  & $I_{xx}$ & $I_{yy}$ &
546 > $I_{zz}$ \\ \cline{6-8}\cline{10-12}
547 > & (\AA) & (kcal/mol) & (e) & (debye) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{(debye \AA)} & (amu) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(amu
548 > \AA\textsuperscript{2})} \\ \hline
549 >    Soft Dipolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & & & & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145& 1.155 \\
550 >    Soft Dipolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  & 2.35 & & & & $10^4$  & 17.6 &17.6 & 0 \\
551 > Soft Quadrupolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155  \\
552 > Soft Quadrupolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & $10^4$  & 17.6&17.6&0 \\
553 >      SSDQ water  & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & -1.35&0&-0.68 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155 \\
554 >              \ce{Na+} & 2.579 & 0.118 & +1& & & & & 22.99 & & &\\
555 >              \ce{Cl-} & 4.445 & 0.1   & -1& & & & & 35.4527& & & \\ \hline
556 > \end{tabularx}
557 > \end{table}
558 > The systems consist of pure multipolar solids (both dipole and
559 > quadrupole), pure multipolar liquids (both dipole and quadrupole), a
560 > fluid composed of sites containing both dipoles and quadrupoles
561 > simultaneously, and a final test case that includes ions with point
562 > charges in addition to the multipolar fluid.  The solid-phase
563 > parameters were chosen so that the systems can explore some
564 > orientational freedom for the multipolar sites, while maintaining
565 > relatively strict translational order.  The SSDQ model used here is
566 > not a particularly accurate water model, but it does test
567 > dipole-dipole, dipole-quadrupole, and quadrupole-quadrupole
568 > interactions at roughly the same magnitudes. The last test case, SSDQ
569 > water with dissolved ions, exercises \textit{all} levels of the
570 > multipole-multipole interactions we have derived so far and represents
571 > the most complete test of the new methods.
572  
573   In the following section, we present results for the total
574   electrostatic energy, as well as the electrostatic contributions to
575   the force and torque on each molecule.  These quantities have been
576   computed using the SP, TSF, and GSF methods, as well as a hard cutoff,
577 < and have been compared with the values obtaine from the multipolar
578 < Ewald sum.  In Mote Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy differences
577 > and have been compared with the values obtained from the multipolar
578 > Ewald sum.  In Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy differences
579   between two configurations is the primary quantity that governs how
580   the simulation proceeds. These differences are the most imporant
581   indicators of the reliability of a method even if the absolute
# Line 510 | Line 586 | contributions to the forces and torques.
586   behavior of the simulation, so we also compute the electrostatic
587   contributions to the forces and torques.
588  
589 < \subsection{Model systems}
590 < To sample independent configurations of multipolar crystals, a body
591 < centered cubic (BCC) crystal which is a minimum energy structure for
592 < point dipoles was generated using 3,456 molecules.  The multipoles
593 < were translationally locked in their respective crystal sites for
594 < equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K), so that dipoles
595 < or quadrupoles could freely explore all accessible orientations.  The
596 < 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.
589 > \subsection{Implementation}
590 > The real-space methods developed in the first paper in this series
591 > have been implemented in our group's open source molecular simulation
592 > program, OpenMD,\cite{openmd} which was used for all calculations in
593 > this work.  The complementary error function can be a relatively slow
594 > function on some processors, so all of the radial functions are
595 > precomputed on a fine grid and are spline-interpolated to provide
596 > values when required.  
597  
598 < For dipolar, quadrupolar, and mixed-multipole liquid simulations, each
599 < system was created with 2048 molecules oriented randomly.  These were
598 > Using the same simulation code, we compare to a multipolar Ewald sum
599 > with a reciprocal space cutoff, $k_\mathrm{max} = 7$.  Our version of
600 > the Ewald sum is a re-implementation of the algorithm originally
601 > proposed by Smith that does not use the particle mesh or smoothing
602 > approximations.\cite{Smith82,Smith98} In all cases, the quantities
603 > being compared are the electrostatic contributions to energies, force,
604 > and torques.  All other contributions to these quantities (i.e. from
605 > Lennard-Jones interactions) are removed prior to the comparisons.
606  
607 < system with 2,048 molecules simulated for 1ns in NVE ensemble at 300 K
608 < temperature after equilibration.  We collected 250 different
609 < configurations in equal interval of time. For the ions mixed liquid
610 < system, we converted 48 different molecules into 24 \ce{Na+} and 24
611 < \ce{Cl-} ions and equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was run
612 < at the same environment for 1ns and 250 configurations were
613 < collected. While comparing energies, forces, and torques with Ewald
614 < method, Lennard-Jones potentials were turned off and purely
615 < electrostatic interaction had been compared.
607 > The convergence parameter ($\alpha$) also plays a role in the balance
608 > of the real-space and reciprocal-space portions of the Ewald
609 > calculation.  Typical molecular mechanics packages set this to a value
610 > that depends on the cutoff radius and a tolerance (typically less than
611 > $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller tolerances are typically
612 > associated with increasing accuracy at the expense of computational
613 > time spent on the reciprocal-space portion of the
614 > summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann:1995pb} A default tolerance of $1 \times
615 > 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all Ewald calculations, resulting in
616 > Ewald coefficient 0.3119 \AA$^{-1}$ for a cutoff radius of 12 \AA.
617  
618 + The real-space models have self-interactions that provide
619 + contributions to the energies only.  Although the self interaction is
620 + a rapid calculation, we note that in systems with fluctuating charges
621 + or point polarizabilities, the self-term is not static and must be
622 + recomputed at each time step.
623 +
624 + \subsection{Model systems}
625 + To sample independent configurations of the multipolar crystals, body
626 + centered cubic (bcc) crystals, which exhibit the minimum energy
627 + structures for point dipoles, were generated using 3,456 molecules.
628 + The multipoles were translationally locked in their respective crystal
629 + sites for equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K) so that
630 + dipoles or quadrupoles could freely explore all accessible
631 + orientations.  The translational constraints were then removed, the
632 + systems were re-equilibrated, and the crystals were simulated for an
633 + additional 10 ps in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble with an average
634 + temperature of 50 K.  The balance between moments of inertia and
635 + particle mass were chosen to allow orientational sampling without
636 + significant translational motion.  Configurations were sampled at
637 + equal time intervals in order to compare configurational energy
638 + differences.  The crystals were simulated far from the melting point
639 + in order to avoid translational deformation away of the ideal lattice
640 + geometry.
641 +
642 + For dipolar, quadrupolar, and mixed-multipole \textit{liquid}
643 + simulations, each system was created with 2,048 randomly-oriented
644 + molecules.  These were equilibrated at a temperature of 300K for 1 ns.
645 + Each system was then simulated for 1 ns in the microcanonical (NVE)
646 + ensemble.  We collected 250 different configurations at equal time
647 + intervals. For the liquid system that included ionic species, we
648 + converted 48 randomly-distributed molecules into 24 \ce{Na+} and 24
649 + \ce{Cl-} ions and re-equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was
650 + run under the same conditions for 1 ns. A total of 250 configurations
651 + were collected. In the following comparisons of energies, forces, and
652 + torques, the Lennard-Jones potentials were turned off and only the
653 + purely electrostatic quantities were compared with the same values
654 + obtained via the Ewald sum.
655 +
656   \subsection{Accuracy of Energy Differences, Forces and Torques}
657   The pairwise summation techniques (outlined above) were evaluated for
658   use in MC simulations by studying the energy differences between
# Line 550 | Line 665 | we used least square regressions analysiss for the six
665   should be identical for all methods.
666  
667   Since none of the real-space methods provide exact energy differences,
668 < we used least square regressions analysiss for the six different
668 > we used least square regressions analysis for the six different
669   molecular systems to compare $\Delta E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF
670   with the multipolar Ewald reference method.  Unitary results for both
671   the correlation (slope) and correlation coefficient for these
# Line 561 | Line 676 | also been compared by using least squares regression a
676   configurations and 250 configurations were recorded for comparison.
677   Each system provided 31,125 energy differences for a total of 186,750
678   data points.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have
679 < also been compared by using least squares regression analyses. In the
679 > also been compared using least squares regression analysis. In the
680   forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in
681   each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our
682   dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250
# Line 647 | Line 762 | model must allow for long simulation times with minima
762        
763   %        \label{fig:barGraph2}
764   %      \end{figure}
765 < %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.
765 > %The correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope of the linear
766 > %regression plots for the energy differences for all six different
767 > %molecular systems is shown in figure 4a and 4b.The plot shows that
768 > %the correlation coefficient improves for the SP cutoff method as
769 > %compared to the undamped hard cutoff method in the case of SSDQC,
770 > %SSDQ, dipolar crystal, and dipolar liquid. For the quadrupolar
771 > %crystal and liquid, the correlation coefficient is almost unchanged
772 > %and close to 1.  The correlation coefficient is smallest (0.696276
773 > %for $r_c$ = 9 $A^\circ$) for the SSDQC liquid because of the presence of
774 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interactions. Since the
775 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interaction is long ranged, there
776 > %is huge deviation of correlation coefficient from 1. Similarly, the
777 > %quarupole–quadrupole interaction is short ranged ($\sim 1/r^6$) with
778 > %compared to interactions in the other multipolar systems, thus the
779 > %correlation coefficient very close to 1 even for hard cutoff
780 > %method. The idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the
781 > %cutoff sphere improves the correlation coefficient and makes it close
782 > %to 1 for all types of multipolar systems. Similarly the slope is
783 > %hugely deviated from the correct value for the lower order
784 > %multipole-multipole interaction and slightly deviated for higher
785 > %order multipole – multipole interaction. The SP method improves both
786 > %correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope significantly in SSDQC and
787 > %dipolar systems.  The Slope is found to be deviated more in dipolar
788 > %crystal as compared to liquid which is associated with the large
789 > %fluctuation in the electrostatic energy in crystal. The GSF also
790 > %produced better values of correlation coefficient and slope with the
791 > %proper selection of the damping alpha (Interested reader can consult
792 > %accompanying supporting material). The TSF method gives good value of
793 > %correlation coefficient for the dipolar crystal, dipolar liquid,
794 > %SSDQ, and SSDQC (not for the quadrupolar crystal and liquid) but the
795 > %regression slopes are significantly deviated.
796 >
797   \begin{figure}
798 <        \centering
799 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
800 <        \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)}
801 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
802 <    \end{figure}
803 < 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.
798 >  \centering
799 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
800 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of configurational
801 >    energy differences for the real-space electrostatic methods
802 >    compared with the reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal
803 >    to 1 (dashed line) indicate $\Delta E$ values indistinguishable
804 >    from those obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different
805 >    values of the cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols
806 >    (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted
807 >    triangles).}
808 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
809 > \end{figure}
810 >
811 > The combined correlation coefficient and slope for all six systems is
812 > shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_energy}.  Most of the methods
813 > reproduce the Ewald configurational energy differences with remarkable
814 > fidelity.  Undamped hard cutoffs introduce a significant amount of
815 > random scatter in the energy differences which is apparent in the
816 > reduced value of the correlation coefficient for this method.  This
817 > can be easily understood as configurations which exhibit small
818 > traversals of a few dipoles or quadrupoles out of the cutoff sphere
819 > will see large energy jumps when hard cutoffs are used.  The
820 > orientations of the multipoles (particularly in the ordered crystals)
821 > mean that these energy jumps can go in either direction, producing a
822 > significant amount of random scatter, but no systematic error.
823 >
824 > The TSF method produces energy differences that are highly correlated
825 > with the Ewald results, but it also introduces a significant
826 > systematic bias in the values of the energies, particularly for
827 > smaller cutoff values. The TSF method alters the distance dependence
828 > of different orientational contributions to the energy in a
829 > non-uniform way, so the size of the cutoff sphere can have a large
830 > effect, particularly for the crystalline systems.
831 >
832 > Both the SP and GSF methods appear to reproduce the Ewald results with
833 > excellent fidelity, particularly for moderate damping ($\alpha =
834 > 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and with a commonly-used cutoff value ($r_c =
835 > 12$\AA).  With the exception of the undamped hard cutoff, and the TSF
836 > method with short cutoffs, all of the methods would be appropriate for
837 > use in Monte Carlo simulations.
838 >
839   \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 $r_c$.
840  
841 < \begin{figure}
842 <        \centering
843 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
844 <        \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)}
845 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
846 <    \end{figure}
847 < \subsection{Total energy conservation}
848 < 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.
849 < \begin{figure}
850 <        \centering
851 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{log(energyDrift)-crop.pdf}
852 < \label{fig:energyDrift}        
853 <        \end{figure}
854 < \begin{figure}
855 <        \centering
856 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{logSD-crop.pdf}      
857 <        \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. }
858 <        \label{fig:fluctuation}
859 <    \end{figure}
841 > The comparisons of the magnitudes of the forces and torques for the
842 > data accumulated from all six systems are shown in Figures
843 > ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_force} and \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}. The
844 > correlation and slope for the forces agree well with the Ewald sum
845 > even for the hard cutoffs.
846 >
847 > For systems of molecules with only multipolar interactions, the pair
848 > energy contributions are quite short ranged.  Moreover, the force
849 > decays more rapidly than the electrostatic energy, hence the hard
850 > cutoff method can also produce reasonable agreement for this quantity.
851 > Although the pure cutoff gives reasonably good electrostatic forces
852 > for pairs of molecules included within each other's cutoff spheres,
853 > the discontinuity in the force at the cutoff radius can potentially
854 > cause energy conservation problems as molecules enter and leave the
855 > cutoff spheres.  This is discussed in detail in section
856 > \ref{sec:conservation}.
857 >
858 > The two shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) exhibit a small amount of
859 > systematic variation and scatter compared with the Ewald forces.  The
860 > shifted-force models intentionally perturb the forces between pairs of
861 > molecules inside each other's cutoff spheres in order to correct the
862 > energy conservation issues, and this perturbation is evident in the
863 > statistics accumulated for the molecular forces.  The GSF
864 > perturbations are minimal, particularly for moderate damping and
865 > commonly-used cutoff values ($r_c = 12$\AA).  The TSF method shows
866 > reasonable agreement in the correlation coefficient but again the
867 > systematic error in the forces is concerning if replication of Ewald
868 > forces is desired.
869 >
870 > \begin{figure}
871 >  \centering
872 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
873 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the force vector
874 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
875 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
876 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
877 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
878 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
879 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles). }
880 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
881 > \end{figure}
882 >
883 >
884 > \begin{figure}
885 >  \centering
886 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
887 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the torque vector
888 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
889 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
890 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
891 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
892 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
893 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles).}
894 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
895 > \end{figure}
896 >
897 > The torques (Fig. \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}) appear to be
898 > significantly influenced by the choice of real-space method.  The
899 > torque expressions have the same distance dependence as the energies,
900 > which are naturally longer-ranged expressions than the inter-site
901 > forces.  Torques are also quite sensitive to orientations of
902 > neighboring molecules, even those that are near the cutoff distance.
903 >
904 > The results shows that the torque from the hard cutoff method
905 > reproduces the torques in quite good agreement with the Ewald sum.
906 > The other real-space methods can cause some deviations, but excellent
907 > agreement with the Ewald sum torques is recovered at moderate values
908 > of the damping coefficient ($\alpha = 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and cutoff
909 > radius ($r_c \ge 12$\AA).  The TSF method exhibits only fair agreement
910 > in the slope when compared with the Ewald torques even for larger
911 > cutoff radii.  It appears that the severity of the perturbations in
912 > the TSF method are most in evidence for the torques.
913 >
914 > \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
915 >
916 > The accurate evaluation of force and torque directions is just as
917 > important for molecular dynamics simulations as the magnitudes of
918 > these quantities. Force and torque vectors for all six systems were
919 > analyzed using Fisher statistics, and the quality of the vector
920 > directionality is shown in terms of circular variance
921 > ($\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$) in figure
922 > \ref{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}. The force and torque vectors
923 > from the new real-space methods exhibit nearly-ideal Fisher probability
924 > distributions (Eq.~\ref{eq:pdf}). Both the hard and SP cutoff methods
925 > exhibit the best vectorial agreement with the Ewald sum. The force and
926 > torque vectors from GSF method also show good agreement with the Ewald
927 > method, which can also be systematically improved by using moderate
928 > damping and a reasonable cutoff radius. For $\alpha = 0.2$ and $r_c =
929 > 12$\AA, we observe $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = 0.00206$, which corresponds
930 > to a distribution with 95\% of force vectors within $6.37^\circ$ of
931 > the corresponding Ewald forces. The TSF method produces the poorest
932 > agreement with the Ewald force directions.
933 >
934 > Torques are again more perturbed than the forces by the new real-space
935 > methods, but even here the variance is reasonably small.  For the same
936 > method (GSF) with the same parameters ($\alpha = 0.2, r_c = 12$\AA),
937 > the circular variance was 0.01415, corresponds to a distribution which
938 > has 95\% of torque vectors are within $16.75^\circ$ of the Ewald
939 > results. Again, the direction of the force and torque vectors can be
940 > systematically improved by varying $\alpha$ and $r_c$.
941 >
942 > \begin{figure}
943 >  \centering
944 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6 \linewidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
945 >  \caption{The circular variance of the direction of the force and
946 >    torque vectors obtained from the real-space methods around the
947 >    reference Ewald vectors. A variance equal to 0 (dashed line)
948 >    indicates direction of the force or torque vectors are
949 >    indistinguishable from those obtained from the Ewald sum. Here
950 >    different symbols represent different values of the cutoff radius
951 >    (9 \AA\ = circle, 12 \AA\ = square, 15 \AA\ = inverted triangle)}
952 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
953 > \end{figure}
954 >
955 > \subsection{Energy conservation\label{sec:conservation}}
956 >
957 > We have tested the conservation of energy one can expect to see with
958 > the new real-space methods using the SSDQ water model with a small
959 > fraction of solvated ions. This is a test system which exercises all
960 > orders of multipole-multipole interactions derived in the first paper
961 > in this series and provides the most comprehensive test of the new
962 > methods.  A liquid-phase system was created with 2000 water molecules
963 > and 48 dissolved ions at a density of 0.98 g cm$^{-3}$ and a
964 > temperature of 300K.  After equilibration, this liquid-phase system
965 > was run for 1 ns under the Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with
966 > a cutoff radius of 12\AA.  The value of the damping coefficient was
967 > also varied from the undamped case ($\alpha = 0$) to a heavily damped
968 > case ($\alpha = 0.3$ \AA$^{-1}$) for all of the real space methods.  A
969 > sample was also run using the multipolar Ewald sum with the same
970 > real-space cutoff.
971 >
972 > In figure~\ref{fig:energyDrift} we show the both the linear drift in
973 > energy over time, $\delta E_1$, and the standard deviation of energy
974 > fluctuations around this drift $\delta E_0$.  Both of the
975 > shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) provide excellent energy
976 > conservation (drift less than $10^{-5}$ kcal / mol / ns / particle),
977 > while the hard cutoff is essentially unusable for molecular dynamics.
978 > SP provides some benefit over the hard cutoff because the energetic
979 > jumps that happen as particles leave and enter the cutoff sphere are
980 > somewhat reduced, but like the Wolf method for charges, the SP method
981 > would not be as useful for molecular dynamics as either of the
982 > shifted-force methods.
983 >
984 > We note that for all tested values of the cutoff radius, the new
985 > real-space methods can provide better energy conservation behavior
986 > than the multipolar Ewald sum, even when utilizing a relatively large
987 > $k$-space cutoff values.
988 >
989 > \begin{figure}
990 >  \centering
991 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newDrift_12.pdf}
992 > \label{fig:energyDrift}        
993 > \caption{Analysis of the energy conservation of the real-space
994 >  electrostatic methods. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in
995 >  energy over time (in kcal / mol / particle / ns) and $\delta
996 >  \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation of energy fluctuations
997 >  around this drift (in kcal / mol / particle).  All simulations were
998 >  of a 2000-molecule simulation of SSDQ water with 48 ionic charges at
999 >  300 K starting from the same initial configuration. All runs
1000 >  utilized the same real-space cutoff, $r_c = 12$\AA.}
1001 > \end{figure}
1002 >
1003 >
1004   \section{CONCLUSION}
1005 < 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.
1006 < 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.
1007 < In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very important. The
1008 < conservation of the total energy can be ensured by  i) enforcing the
1009 < smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius
1010 < and ii) making the energy, force and torque consistent with each
1011 < other. The GSF and TSF methods ensure the consistency and smooth
1012 < truncation of the energy, force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a
1013 < 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.
1005 > In the first paper in this series, we generalized the
1006 > charge-neutralized electrostatic energy originally developed by Wolf
1007 > \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} to multipole-multipole interactions
1008 > up to quadrupolar order.  The SP method is essentially a
1009 > multipole-capable version of the Wolf model.  The SP method for
1010 > multipoles provides excellent agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
1011 > forces and torques, and is suitable for Monte Carlo simulations,
1012 > although the forces and torques retain discontinuities at the cutoff
1013 > distance that prevents its use in molecular dynamics.
1014  
1015 < Note that the TSF, GSF, and SP models are $\mathcal{O}(N)$ methods
1016 < that can be made extremely efficient using spline interpolations of
1017 < the radial functions.  They require no Fourier transforms or $k$-space
1018 < sums, and guarantee the smooth handling of energies, forces, and
1019 < torques as multipoles cross the real-space cutoff boundary.  
1015 > We also developed two natural extensions of the damped shifted-force
1016 > (DSF) model originally proposed by Fennel and
1017 > Gezelter.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} The GSF and TSF approaches provide
1018 > smooth truncation of energies, forces, and torques at the real-space
1019 > cutoff, and both converge to DSF electrostatics for point-charge
1020 > interactions.  The TSF model is based on a high-order truncated Taylor
1021 > expansion which can be relatively perturbative inside the cutoff
1022 > sphere.  The GSF model takes the gradient from an images of the
1023 > interacting multipole that has been projected onto the cutoff sphere
1024 > to derive shifted force and torque expressions, and is a significantly
1025 > more gentle approach.
1026  
1027 + Of the two newly-developed shifted force models, the GSF method
1028 + produced quantitative agreement with Ewald energy, force, and torques.
1029 + It also performs well in conserving energy in MD simulations.  The
1030 + Taylor-shifted (TSF) model provides smooth dynamics, but these take
1031 + place on a potential energy surface that is significantly perturbed
1032 + from Ewald-based electrostatics.  
1033 +
1034 + % The direct truncation of any electrostatic potential energy without
1035 + % multipole neutralization creates large fluctuations in molecular
1036 + % simulations.  This fluctuation in the energy is very large for the case
1037 + % of crystal because of long range of multipole ordering (Refer paper
1038 + % I).\cite{PaperI} This is also significant in the case of the liquid
1039 + % because of the local multipole ordering in the molecules. If the net
1040 + % multipole within cutoff radius neutralized within cutoff sphere by
1041 + % placing image multiples on the surface of the sphere, this fluctuation
1042 + % in the energy reduced significantly. Also, the multipole
1043 + % neutralization in the generalized SP method showed very good agreement
1044 + % with the Ewald as compared to direct truncation for the evaluation of
1045 + % the $\triangle E$ between the configurations.  In MD simulations, the
1046 + % energy conservation is very important. The conservation of the total
1047 + % energy can be ensured by i) enforcing the smooth truncation of the
1048 + % energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius and ii) making the
1049 + % energy, force and torque consistent with each other. The GSF and TSF
1050 + % methods ensure the consistency and smooth truncation of the energy,
1051 + % force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a result show very good
1052 + % total energy conservation. But the TSF method does not show good
1053 + % agreement in the absolute value of the electrostatic energy, force and
1054 + % torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method has mimicked Ewald’s force,
1055 + % energy and torque accurately and also conserved energy.
1056 +
1057 + The only cases we have found where the new GSF and SP real-space
1058 + methods can be problematic are those which retain a bulk dipole moment
1059 + at large distances (e.g. the $Z_1$ dipolar lattice).  In ferroelectric
1060 + materials, uniform weighting of the orientational contributions can be
1061 + important for converging the total energy.  In these cases, the
1062 + damping function which causes the non-uniform weighting can be
1063 + replaced by the bare electrostatic kernel, and the energies return to
1064 + the expected converged values.
1065 +
1066 + Based on the results of this work, the GSF method is a suitable and
1067 + efficient replacement for the Ewald sum for evaluating electrostatic
1068 + interactions in MD simulations.  Both methods retain excellent
1069 + fidelity to the Ewald energies, forces and torques.  Additionally, the
1070 + energy drift and fluctuations from the GSF electrostatics are better
1071 + than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces.
1072 + Because they use real-space cutoffs with moderate cutoff radii, the
1073 + GSF and SP models approach $\mathcal{O}(N)$ scaling as the system size
1074 + increases.  Additionally, they can be made extremely efficient using
1075 + spline interpolations of the radial functions.  They require no
1076 + Fourier transforms or $k$-space sums, and guarantee the smooth
1077 + handling of energies, forces, and torques as multipoles cross the
1078 + real-space cutoff boundary.
1079 +
1080 + \begin{acknowledgments}
1081 +  JDG acknowledges helpful discussions with Christopher
1082 +  Fennell. Support for this project was provided by the National
1083 +  Science Foundation under grant CHE-1362211. Computational time was
1084 +  provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
1085 +  University of Notre Dame.
1086 + \end{acknowledgments}
1087 +
1088   %\bibliographystyle{aip}
1089   \newpage
1090   \bibliography{references}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines