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 4166 by mlamichh, Tue Jun 3 18:49:15 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4191 by gezelter, Tue Jun 17 16:08:03 2014 UTC

# Line 20 | Line 20
20   % Use this file as a source of example code for your aip document.
21   % Use the file aiptemplate.tex as a template for your document.
22   \documentclass[%
23 < aip,
24 < jmp,
23 > aip,jcp,
24   amsmath,amssymb,
25 < %preprint,%
26 < reprint,%
25 > preprint,
26 > %reprint,%
27   %author-year,%
28   %author-numerical,%
29   ]{revtex4-1}
30  
31   \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
32   \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
33 < \usepackage{bm}% bold math
33 > %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
34   %\usepackage[mathlines]{lineno}% Enable numbering of text and display math
35   %\linenumbers\relax % Commence numbering lines
36   \usepackage{amsmath}
37 + \usepackage{times}
38 + \usepackage{mathptmx}
39 + \usepackage{tabularx}
40 + \usepackage[version=3]{mhchem}  % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions
41 + \usepackage{url}
42 + \usepackage[english]{babel}
43  
44 + \newcolumntype{Y}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}
45 +
46   \begin{document}
47  
48 < \preprint{AIP/123-QED}
48 > %\preprint{AIP/123-QED}
49  
50 < \title[Efficient electrostatics for condensed-phase multipoles]{Real space alternatives to the Ewald
44 < Sum. II. performance in condensed phase simulations}% Force line breaks with \\
50 > \title{Real space alternatives to the Ewald Sum. II. Comparison of Methods}
51  
52   \author{Madan Lamichhane}
53 < \affiliation{Department of Physics, University
48 < of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}%Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\
53 > \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
54  
55   \author{Kathie E. Newman}
56 < \affiliation{Department of Physics, University
52 < of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
56 > \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
57  
58   \author{J. Daniel Gezelter}%
59   \email{gezelter@nd.edu.}
60 < \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556%\\This line break forced with \textbackslash\textbackslash
61 < }%
60 > \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
61 > }
62  
63 < \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
60 <             %  but any date may be explicitly specified
63 > \date{\today}
64  
65   \begin{abstract}
66 < 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.
66 >  We report on tests of the shifted potential (SP), gradient shifted
67 >  force (GSF), and Taylor shifted force (TSF) real-space methods for
68 >  multipole interactions developed in the first paper in this series,
69 >  using the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method. The tests were
70 >  carried out in a variety of condensed-phase environments designed to
71 >  test up to quadrupole-quadrupole interactions.  Comparisons of the
72 >  energy differences between configurations, molecular forces, and
73 >  torques were used to analyze how well the real-space models perform
74 >  relative to the more computationally expensive Ewald treatment.  We
75 >  have also investigated the energy conservation properties of the new
76 >  methods in molecular dynamics simulations. The SP method shows
77 >  excellent agreement with configurational energy differences, forces,
78 >  and torques, and would be suitable for use in Monte Carlo
79 >  calculations.  Of the two new shifted-force methods, the GSF
80 >  approach shows the best agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
81 >  forces, and torques and also exhibits energy conservation properties
82 >  that make it an excellent choice for efficient computation of
83 >  electrostatic interactions in molecular dynamics simulations.
84   \end{abstract}
85  
86 < \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
86 > %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
87                               % Classification Scheme.
88 < \keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
89 <                              %display desired
88 > %\keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
89 >
90   \maketitle
91  
72
92   \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
93 < The interaction between charges has always been the most expensive part in molecular simulations.  There have been many efforts to develop practical and efficient method for handling electrostatic interactions. The Ewald’s method has always been accepted as the most precise method for evaluating electrostatic energies, forces and torques. In this method, the conditionally convergent electrostatic energy is converted into the sum of the rapidly converging real and reciprocal space contribution of artificially made periodic system.\cite{Woodcock86, Woodcock75} Because of this artificially created periodicity, Ewald’s sum is not a suitable method to calculate electrostatic interaction in the interfacial molecular systems such as bicrystals, free surfaces, and liquid-vapor interfaces.\cite{Wolf99}To simulate such interfacial systems, the Parry’s extension of the 3D Ewald sum appropriate for the slab geometry is used,\cite{Parry75} which is computationally very expensive.  Also, the reciprocal part of the Ewald’s sum is computationally expensive which makes it inappropriate to use for the larger molecular system. By using Fast Fourier Transform(FFT) in the  particle-mesh Ewald (PME) and particle-particle particle-mesh  Ewald ($P^3ME$) in the reciprocal space term, the computational cost has been decreased from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(Nlog N)$.\cite{Takada93, Gunsteren94, Gunsteren95, Pedersen93, Pedersen95}. Although the computational time has been reduced, the inherent periodicity in the Ewald’s method can be problematic for the interfacial molecular system.\cite{Gezelter06}  Furthermore, the modified Ewald’s methods developed to handle two-dimensional (2D) electrostatic interactions\cite{Parry75, Parry76, Clarke77, Perram79,Rahman89} in the interfacial systems are also computationally expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Berkowitz99}
93 > Computing the interactions between electrostatic sites is one of the
94 > most expensive aspects of molecular simulations. There have been
95 > significant efforts to develop practical, efficient and convergent
96 > methods for handling these interactions. Ewald's method is perhaps the
97 > best known and most accurate method for evaluating energies, forces,
98 > and torques in explicitly-periodic simulation cells. In this approach,
99 > the conditionally convergent electrostatic energy is converted into
100 > two absolutely convergent contributions, one which is carried out in
101 > real space with a cutoff radius, and one in reciprocal
102 > space.\cite{Ewald21,deLeeuw80,Smith81,Allen87}
103  
104 + When carried out as originally formulated, the reciprocal-space
105 + portion of the Ewald sum exhibits relatively poor computational
106 + scaling, making it prohibitive for large systems. By utilizing a
107 + particle mesh and three dimensional fast Fourier transforms (FFT), the
108 + particle-mesh Ewald (PME), particle-particle particle-mesh Ewald
109 + (P\textsuperscript{3}ME), and smooth particle mesh Ewald (SPME)
110 + methods can decrease the computational cost from $O(N^2)$ down to $O(N
111 + \log
112 + N)$.\cite{Takada93,Gunsteren94,Gunsteren95,Darden:1993pd,Essmann:1995pb}
113 +
114 + Because of the artificial periodicity required for the Ewald sum,
115 + interfacial molecular systems such as membranes and liquid-vapor
116 + interfaces require modifications to the method.  Parry's extension of
117 + the three dimensional Ewald sum is appropriate for slab
118 + geometries.\cite{Parry:1975if} Modified Ewald methods that were
119 + developed to handle two-dimensional (2-D) electrostatic
120 + interactions.\cite{Parry:1975if,Parry:1976fq,Clarke77,Perram79,Rhee:1989kl}
121 + These methods were originally quite computationally
122 + expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99} There have been several successful
123 + efforts that reduced the computational cost of 2-D lattice summations,
124 + bringing them more in line with the scaling for the full 3-D
125 + treatments.\cite{Yeh99,Kawata01,Arnold02,deJoannis02,Brodka04} The
126 + inherent periodicity required by the Ewald method can also be
127 + problematic in a number of protein/solvent and ionic solution
128 + environments.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00,Fennell:2006lq}
129 +
130   \subsection{Real-space methods}
131 < Recently, \textit{Wolf et al.}\cite{Wolf99} proposed a real space $O(N)$ method for calculating electrostatic interaction between charges. They showed that the effective Coulomb interaction in the condensed system is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92, Wolf95}. Furthermore, the Madelung energy of an ion considering lattice summation over neutral dipolar molecules decreases as $r^{-5}$.\cite{Wolf92, Wolf95}. Thus, the careful application of the real-space method for a calculation of the electrostatic energy should be able to obtain correct Madelung energy for a significant size of the cutoff sphere. But the direct truncation of the cutoff sphere for the evaluation of the electrostatic energy always create truncation defect. This cutoff defect in the electrostatic energy is due to the existence of the net charge within the cutoff sphere.\cite{Wolf99} To neutralize net charge within the cutoff sphere, \textit{Wolf et al.}\cite{Wolf99} proposed a method of placing an image charge, for every charge within a cutoff sphere, on the surface to evaluate the electrostatic energy and force. Both the electrostatic energy and force for the central charge are evaluated separately from the interaction of the configuration of real charges within the cutoff sphere and image charges on the surface of the sphere. But the energy of an individual charge due to another charge within the cutoff sphere and its image on the surface is not an integral of their force, as a result the total energy does not conserve in molecular dynamic (MD) simulations.\cite{Zahn02}
131 > Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space $O(N)$
132 > method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
133 > charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in most
134 > condensed phase systems is effectively short
135 > ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95} For an ordered lattice (e.g., when
136 > computing the Madelung constant of an ionic solid), the material can
137 > be considered as a set of ions interacting with neutral dipolar or
138 > quadrupolar ``molecules'' giving an effective distance dependence for
139 > the electrostatic interactions of $r^{-5}$ (see figure
140 > \ref{fig:schematic}). If one views the \ce{NaCl} crystal as a simple
141 > cubic (SC) structure with an octupolar \ce{(NaCl)4} basis, the
142 > electrostatic energy per ion converges more rapidly to the Madelung
143 > energy than the dipolar approximation.\cite{Wolf92} To find the
144 > correct Madelung constant, Lacman suggested that the NaCl structure
145 > could be constructed in a way that the finite crystal terminates with
146 > complete \ce{(NaCl)4} molecules.\cite{Lacman65} The central ion sees
147 > what is effectively a set of octupoles at large distances. These facts
148 > suggest that the Madelung constants are relatively short ranged for
149 > perfect ionic crystals.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} For this reason, careful
150 > application of Wolf's method can provide accurate estimates of
151 > Madelung constants using relatively short cutoff radii.
152  
153 < Considering the interaction of an ion with dipolar molecular shell, the effective Columbic potential for a perfect ionic crystal is found to be decreasing as $r^{-5}$.\cite{Wolf99} Furthermore, viewing the NaCl crystal as simple cubic (SC) structure with octupolar $(NaCl)_{4}$ basis, the electrostatic energy per ion converges more rapidly to Madelong than the dipolar approximation.\cite{Wolf92} Also, to find the correct Madelung constant, Lacman.\cite{Lacman65}suggested that the NaCl structure should be constructed in a such way that the finite crystal terminates with only complete $(NaCl)_4$ molecules.  These facts suggest that the Madelung energy is short ranged for a perfect ionic crystal.  
154 < \begin{figure}[h!]
155 <        \centering
156 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{chargesystem.pdf}
157 <        \caption{NaCl crystal showing (a) breaking of the charge ordering in the direct spherical truncation, and (b) complete $(NaCl)_{4}$ molecule interacting with the central ion. }
158 <        \label{fig:NaCl}
159 <    \end{figure}
160 <
161 < Any charge in a NaCl crystal is surrounded by opposite charges. Similarly for each pair of charges, there is an opposite pair of charge to its adjacent as shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:NaCl}.  Furthermore for each group of four charges, there should be an oppositely aligned group of four charges as shown in Fig 1b.  If we consider any group of charges, suppose $(NaCl)_4$, far from the central charge, they have little electrostatic interaction with  the central charge (acts like point octopole when it is far from the center ). But if the cutoff sphere passes through the $(NaCl)_4$ molecule leaving behind net positive or negative charge, the electrostatic contribution due to these broken charges going to be very large (for point charge  radial function $1/r_c$ and for point octupole $1/r_c$). Because of this reason, although the nature of electrostatic interaction short ranged, the hard cutoff sphere creates very large fluctuation in the electrostatic energy for the perfect crystal. In addition, the charge neutralized potential proposed by Wolf et al. converged to correct Madelung constant but still holds oscillation in the energy about correct Madelung energy.\cite{Wolf99}.  This oscillation in the energy around its fully converged value can be due to the non-neutralized value of the higher order moments within the cutoff sphere.  Recently, \textit{Ikuo Fukuda} used neutralization of the higher order moments for the calculation of the electrostatic interaction of the point charges system.\cite{Fukuda13}
153 > Direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates numerical
154 > errors.  Wolf \textit{et al.} suggest that truncation errors are due
155 > to net charge remaining inside the cutoff sphere.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} To
156 > neutralize this charge they proposed placing an image charge on the
157 > surface of the cutoff sphere for every real charge inside the cutoff.
158 > These charges are present for the evaluation of both the pair
159 > interaction energy and the force, although the force expression
160 > maintains a discontinuity at the cutoff sphere.  In the original Wolf
161 > formulation, the total energy for the charge and image were not equal
162 > to the integral of the force expression, and as a result, the total
163 > energy would not be conserved in molecular dynamics (MD)
164 > simulations.\cite{Zahn:2002hc} Zahn \textit{et al.}, and Fennel and
165 > Gezelter later proposed shifted force variants of the Wolf method with
166 > commensurate force and energy expressions that do not exhibit this
167 > problem.\cite{Zahn:2002hc,Fennell:2006lq} Related real-space methods
168 > were also proposed by Chen \textit{et
169 >  al.}\cite{Chen:2004du,Chen:2006ii,Denesyuk:2008ez,Rodgers:2006nw}
170 > and by Wu and Brooks.\cite{Wu:044107} Recently, Fukuda has successfuly
171 > used additional neutralization of higher order moments for systems of
172 > point charges.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
173  
174 < The force and torque acting on molecules are the fundamental factors to drive the dynamics of the molecular simulation. \textit{Fennell and Gezelter} proposed the damped shifted force (DSF) potential energy to obtain consistent configurational force on the central charge by the charges within the cutoff sphere and their image charge on the surface. Since the force is consistent with the energy, MD simulations conserve the total energy. Also, the comparison of accuracy of the potential energy and force from DSF method with the Ewald shows surprisingly good results.\cite{Gezelter06}Now a days, the DSF method is being used in several molecular systems with uniform charge density to calculate electrostatic interaction.\cite{Luebke13, Daivis13, Acevedo13, Space12,English08, Lawrence13, Vergne13}
174 > \begin{figure}
175 >  \centering
176 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{schematic.eps}
177 >  \caption{Top: Ionic systems exhibit local clustering of dissimilar
178 >    charges (in the smaller grey circle), so interactions are
179 >    effectively charge-multipole at longer distances.  With hard
180 >    cutoffs, motion of individual charges in and out of the cutoff
181 >    sphere can break the effective multipolar ordering.  Bottom:
182 >    dipolar crystals and fluids have a similar effective
183 >    \textit{quadrupolar} ordering (in the smaller grey circles), and
184 >    orientational averaging helps to reduce the effective range of the
185 >    interactions in the fluid.  Placement of reversed image multipoles
186 >    on the surface of the cutoff sphere recovers the effective
187 >    higher-order multipole behavior.}
188 >  \label{fig:schematic}
189 > \end{figure}
190  
191 < \subsection{Damping function}
192 < The damping function used in our research has been discussed in detail in the paper I.\cite{PaperI} The radial function $1/r$ of the interactions between the charges can be replaced by the complementary error function $erfc(\alpha r)/r$  to accelerate the rate of convergence, where $\alpha$ is damping parameter. We can perform necessary mathematical manipulation by varying $\alpha$ in the damping function for the calculation of the electrostatic energy, force and torque\cite{Wolf99}. By using suitable value of damping alpha ($\alpha = 0.2$) for a cutoff radius ($r_{­c}=9 A$), \textit{Fennel and Gezelter}\cite{Gezelter06} produced very good agreement of the interaction energies, forces and torques for charge-charge interactions.\cite{Gezelter06}
191 > One can make a similar effective range argument for crystals of point
192 > \textit{multipoles}. The Luttinger and Tisza treatment of energy
193 > constants for dipolar lattices utilizes 24 basis vectors that contain
194 > dipoles at the eight corners of a unit cube.\cite{LT} Only three of
195 > these basis vectors, $X_1, Y_1, \mathrm{~and~} Z_1,$ retain net dipole
196 > moments, while the rest have zero net dipole and retain contributions
197 > only from higher order multipoles.  The lowest-energy crystalline
198 > structures are built out of basis vectors that have only residual
199 > quadrupolar moments (e.g. the $Z_5$ array). In these low energy
200 > structures, the effective interaction between a dipole at the center
201 > of a crystal and a group of eight dipoles farther away is
202 > significantly shorter ranged than the $r^{-3}$ that one would expect
203 > for raw dipole-dipole interactions.  Only in crystals which retain a
204 > bulk dipole moment (e.g. ferroelectrics) does the analogy with the
205 > ionic crystal break down -- ferroelectric dipolar crystals can exist,
206 > while ionic crystals with net charge in each unit cell would be
207 > unstable.
208  
209 < \subsection{Point multipoles for CG modeling}
210 < Since a molecule consists of equal positive and negative charges, instead taking of the most common case of atomic site-site interaction, the interaction between higher order multipoles can also be used to evaluate molecule-molecule interactions. The short-ranged interaction between the molecules is dominated by Lennard-Jones repulsion. Also, electrons in a molecule is not localized at a specific point, thus a molecule can be coarse-grained to approximate as point multipole.\cite{Ren06, Essex10, Essex11}Recently, water has been modeled with point multipoles up to octupolar order.\cite{Ichiye10_1, Ichiye10_2, Ichiye10_3}. The point multipoles method has also been used in the AMOEBA water model.\cite{Gordon10, Gordon07,Smith80}. But using point multipole in the real space cutoff method without account of multipolar neutrality creates problem in the total energy conservation in MD simulations. In this paper we extended the original idea of the charge neutrality by Wolf’s into point dipoles and quadrupoles. Also, we used the previously developed idea of the damped shifted potential (DSF) for the charge-charge interaction\cite{Gezelter06}and generalized it into higher order multipoles to conserve the total energy in the molecular dynamic simulation (The detail mathematical development of the purposed methods have been discussed in paper I).
209 > In ionic crystals, real-space truncation can break the effective
210 > multipolar arrangements (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}), causing
211 > significant swings in the electrostatic energy as individual ions move
212 > back and forth across the boundary.  This is why the image charges are
213 > necessary for the Wolf sum to exhibit rapid convergence.  Similarly,
214 > the real-space truncation of point multipole interactions breaks
215 > higher order multipole arrangements, and image multipoles are required
216 > for real-space treatments of electrostatic energies.
217  
218 + The shorter effective range of electrostatic interactions is not
219 + limited to perfect crystals, but can also apply in disordered fluids.
220 + Even at elevated temperatures, there is local charge balance in an
221 + ionic liquid, where each positive ion has surroundings dominated by
222 + negaitve ions and vice versa.  The reversed-charge images on the
223 + cutoff sphere that are integral to the Wolf and DSF approaches retain
224 + the effective multipolar interactions as the charges traverse the
225 + cutoff boundary.
226  
227 < %\subsection{Conservation of total energy }
228 < %To conserve the total energy in MD simulations, the energy, force, and torque on a central molecule due to another molecule should smoothly tends to zero as second molecule approaches to cutoff radius. In addition, the force should be derivable from the energy and vice versa. If only the first condition holds but not the second, the total energy does not conserve.\cite{Gezelter06}. The hard cutoff method does not ensure the smooth transition of the energy, force, and torque at the cutoff radius.\cite{Wolf99} By placing image charge on the surface of the cutoff sphere, the smooth transition of the energy can be ensured but the force and torque remains discontinuous. Therefore the purposed methods should have smooth transition of the energy, force and torque to ensure the total energy conservation and the expression should be close to idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the cutoff sphere.
227 > In multipolar fluids (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}) there is
228 > significant orientational averaging that additionally reduces the
229 > effect of long-range multipolar interactions.  The image multipoles
230 > that are introduced in the TSF, GSF, and SP methods mimic this effect
231 > and reduce the effective range of the multipolar interactions as
232 > interacting molecules traverse each other's cutoff boundaries.
233  
234 < \section{\label{sec:method}REVIEW OF METHODS}
235 < Any force field associated with MD simulation should have the electrostatic energy, force and the torque between central molecule and any other molecule within cutoff radius should smoothly approach to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$. This issue of continuous nature of the electrostatic interaction at the cutoff radius is associated with the conservation of total energy in the MD simulation. The mathematical detail for the SP, GSF and TSF has already been discussed in detail in previous paper I.\cite{PaperI}
234 > % Because of this reason, although the nature of electrostatic
235 > % interaction short ranged, the hard cutoff sphere creates very large
236 > % fluctuation in the electrostatic energy for the perfect crystal. In
237 > % addition, the charge neutralized potential proposed by Wolf et
238 > % al. converged to correct Madelung constant but still holds oscillation
239 > % in the energy about correct Madelung energy.\cite{Wolf:1999dn}.  This
240 > % oscillation in the energy around its fully converged value can be due
241 > % to the non-neutralized value of the higher order moments within the
242 > % cutoff sphere.
243  
244 < \subsection{Taylor-shifted force(TSF)}
245 < The detail mathematical expression for the multipole-multipole interaction by the TSF method has been described in paper I.\cite{PaperI}. The electrostatic potential energy between groups of charges or multipoles is expressed as the product of operator and potential due to point charge as shown in \textit{equation 4 in Paper I}.\cite{PaperI}  In the Taylor Shifted Force (TSF) method, we shifted kernel $1/r$ (the potential due to a point charge) by $1/r_c$ and performed Taylor Series expansion of the shifted part about the cutoff radius before operating with the operators. To ensure smooth convergence of the energy, force, and torque  to zero at the cut off radius, the required number of terms from Taylor Series expansion are performed for different multipole-multipole interactions. Also, the mathematical consistency between the energy, force and the torque has been established. The potential energy for the multipole-multipole interaction is given by,
244 > Forces and torques acting on atomic sites are fundamental in driving
245 > dynamics in molecular simulations, and the damped shifted force (DSF)
246 > energy kernel provides consistent energies and forces on charged atoms
247 > within the cutoff sphere. Both the energy and the force go smoothly to
248 > zero as an atom aproaches the cutoff radius. The comparisons of the
249 > accuracy these quantities between the DSF kernel and SPME was
250 > surprisingly good.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} As a result, the DSF method
251 > has seen increasing use in molecular systems with relatively uniform
252 > charge
253 > densities.\cite{English08,Kannam:2012rr,Space12,Lawrence13,Acevedo13,Shi:2013ij,Vergne13}
254  
255 < \begin{equation}
256 < \begin{split}
257 < U_{TSF}(\vec r)=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\sum_{\beta=1}^3(C_a - D_{a \alpha }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{a \alpha}}+Q_{a \alpha \beta }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{a \alpha}\partial r_{a \beta}})\\
258 < (C_b - D_{b \alpha }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{b \alpha}}+Q_{b \alpha \beta }\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{b \alpha}\partial r_{b \beta}})\\
259 < [(\frac{1}{r}-[\frac{1}{r_c}-(r-r_c)\frac{1}{r_c^2}+(r-r_c)^2\frac{1}{r_c^3}+...)]
260 < \end{split}
261 < \label{eq:TSF}
255 > \subsection{The damping function}
256 > The damping function has been discussed in detail in the first paper
257 > of this series.\cite{PaperI} The $1/r$ Coulombic kernel for the
258 > interactions between point charges can be replaced by the
259 > complementary error function $\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ to accelerate
260 > convergence, where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter with units of
261 > inverse distance.  Altering the value of $\alpha$ is equivalent to
262 > changing the width of Gaussian charge distributions that replace each
263 > point charge, as Coulomb integrals with Gaussian charge distributions
264 > produce complementary error functions when truncated at a finite
265 > distance.
266 >
267 > With moderate damping coefficients, $\alpha \sim 0.2$, the DSF method
268 > produced very good agreement with SPME for interaction energies,
269 > forces and torques for charge-charge
270 > interactions.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
271 >
272 > \subsection{Point multipoles in molecular modeling}
273 > Coarse-graining approaches which treat entire molecular subsystems as
274 > a single rigid body are now widely used. A common feature of many
275 > coarse-graining approaches is simplification of the electrostatic
276 > interactions between bodies so that fewer site-site interactions are
277 > required to compute configurational
278 > energies.\cite{Ren06,Essex10,Essex11}
279 >
280 > Additionally, because electrons in a molecule are not localized at
281 > specific points, the assignment of partial charges to atomic centers
282 > is always an approximation.  For increased accuracy, atomic sites can
283 > also be assigned point multipoles and polarizabilities.  Recently,
284 > water has been modeled with point multipoles up to octupolar order
285 > using the soft sticky dipole-quadrupole-octupole (SSDQO)
286 > model.\cite{Ichiye10_1,Ichiye10_2,Ichiye10_3} Atom-centered point
287 > multipoles up to quadrupolar order have also been coupled with point
288 > polarizabilities in the high-quality AMOEBA and iAMOEBA water
289 > models.\cite{Ren:2003uq,Ren:2004kx,Ponder:2010vl,Wang:2013fk} However,
290 > truncating point multipoles without smoothing the forces and torques
291 > can create energy conservation issues in molecular dynamics
292 > simulations.
293 >
294 > In this paper we test a set of real-space methods that were developed
295 > for point multipolar interactions.  These methods extend the damped
296 > shifted force (DSF) and Wolf methods originally developed for
297 > charge-charge interactions and generalize them for higher order
298 > multipoles.  The detailed mathematical development of these methods
299 > has been presented in the first paper in this series, while this work
300 > covers the testing of energies, forces, torques, and energy
301 > conservation properties of the methods in realistic simulation
302 > environments.  In all cases, the methods are compared with the
303 > reference method, a full multipolar Ewald treatment.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
304 >
305 >
306 > %\subsection{Conservation of total energy }
307 > %To conserve the total energy in MD simulations, the energy, force, and torque on a central molecule due to another molecule should smoothly tends to zero as second molecule approaches to cutoff radius. In addition, the force should be derivable from the energy and vice versa. If only the first condition holds but not the second, the total energy does not conserve.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}. The hard cutoff method does not ensure the smooth transition of the energy, force, and torque at the cutoff radius.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} By placing image charge on the surface of the cutoff sphere, the smooth transition of the energy can be ensured but the force and torque remains discontinuous. Therefore the purposed methods should have smooth transition of the energy, force and torque to ensure the total energy conservation and the expression should be close to idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the cutoff sphere.
308 >
309 > \section{\label{sec:method}Review of Methods}
310 > Any real-space electrostatic method that is suitable for MD
311 > simulations should have the electrostatic energy, forces and torques
312 > between two sites go smoothly to zero as the distance between the
313 > sites, $r_{\bf ab}$ approaches the cutoff radius, $r_c$.  Requiring
314 > this continuity at the cutoff is essential for energy conservation in
315 > MD simulations.  The mathematical details of the shifted potential
316 > (SP), gradient-shifted-force (GSF) and Taylor shifted-force (TSF)
317 > methods have been discussed in detail in the previous paper in this
318 > series.\cite{PaperI} Here we briefly review the new methods and
319 > describe their essential features.
320 >
321 > \subsection{Taylor-shifted force (TSF)}
322 >
323 > The electrostatic potential energy between point multipoles can be
324 > expressed as the product of two multipole operators and a Coulombic
325 > kernel,
326 > \begin{equation}
327 > U_{\bf{ab}}(r)=\hat{M}_{\bf a} \hat{M}_{\bf b} \frac{1}{r}  \label{kernel}.
328   \end{equation}
329 <  
330 < where $C_a = \sum_{k\;in\; a}q_k$ , $D_{a\alpha}=\sum_{k \;in\;a}q_k r_k\alpha$, and $Q_{a\alpha,\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\;in\;a}q_k r_{k\alpha}r_{k\beta}$ stand for charge, dipole and quadrupole moment respectively (detail in paperI\cite{PaperI}). The electrostatic force and torque acting on the central molecule due to a molecule within cutoff sphere are derived from the equation ~\ref{eq:TSF} with the account of appropriate number of terms.  This method is developed on the basis of using kernel potential due to the point charge ($1/r$) and their image charge potential ($1/r_c$) with its Taylor series expansion and considering that the expression for multipole-multipole interaction can be obtained operating the modified kernel by their corresponding operators.
329 > where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$, $\hat{M}_{\bf a}$, is
330 > expressed in terms of the point charge, $C_{\bf a}$, dipole, ${\bf D}_{\bf
331 >    a}$, and quadrupole, $\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a}$, for object
332 > $\bf a$, etc.
333  
334 + % Interactions between multipoles can be expressed as higher derivatives
335 + % of the bare Coulomb potential, so one way of ensuring that the forces
336 + % and torques vanish at the cutoff distance is to include a larger
337 + % number of terms in the truncated Taylor expansion, e.g.,
338 + % %
339 + % \begin{equation}
340 + % f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert  _{r_c}  .
341 + % \end{equation}
342 + % %
343 + % The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$.
344 + % Thus, for $f(r)=1/r$, we find
345 + % %
346 + % \begin{equation}
347 + % 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} .
348 + % \end{equation}
349 + % This function is an approximate electrostatic potential that has
350 + % vanishing second derivatives at the cutoff radius, making it suitable
351 + % for shifting the forces and torques of charge-dipole interactions.
352 +
353 + The TSF potential for any multipole-multipole interaction can be
354 + written
355 + \begin{equation}
356 + U^{\text{TSF}}= (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r)
357 + \label{generic}
358 + \end{equation}
359 + where $f_n(r)$ is a shifted kernel that is appropriate for the order
360 + of the interaction (see Ref. \onlinecite{PaperI}), with $n=0$ for
361 + charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for charge-quadrupole
362 + and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and $n=4$ for
363 + quadrupole-quadrupole.  To ensure smooth convergence of the energy,
364 + force, and torques, a Taylor expansion with $n$ terms must be
365 + performed at cutoff radius ($r_c$) to obtain $f_n(r)$.
366 +
367 + % To carry out the same procedure for a damped electrostatic kernel, we
368 + % replace $1/r$ in the Coulomb potential with $\text{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$.
369 + % Many of the derivatives of the damped kernel are well known from
370 + % Smith's early work on multipoles for the Ewald
371 + % summation.\cite{Smith82,Smith98}
372 +
373 + % Note that increasing the value of $n$ will add additional terms to the
374 + % electrostatic potential, e.g., $f_2(r)$ includes orders up to
375 + % $(r-r_c)^3/r_c^4$, and so on.  Successive derivatives of the $f_n(r)$
376 + % functions are denoted $g_2(r) = f^\prime_2(r)$, $h_2(r) =
377 + % f^{\prime\prime}_2(r)$, etc.  These higher derivatives are required
378 + % for computing multipole energies, forces, and torques, and smooth
379 + % cutoffs of these quantities can be guaranteed as long as the number of
380 + % terms in the Taylor series exceeds the derivative order required.
381 +
382 + For multipole-multipole interactions, following this procedure results
383 + in separate radial functions for each of the distinct orientational
384 + contributions to the potential, and ensures that the forces and
385 + torques from each of these contributions will vanish at the cutoff
386 + radius.  For example, the direct dipole dot product
387 + ($\mathbf{D}_{\bf a}
388 + \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\bf b}$) is treated differently than the dipole-distance
389 + dot products:
390 + \begin{equation}
391 + U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)= -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left[ \left(
392 +  \mathbf{D}_{\bf a} \cdot
393 + \mathbf{D}_{\bf b} \right) v_{21}(r) +
394 + \left( \mathbf{D}_{\bf a} \cdot \hat{r} \right)
395 + \left( \mathbf{D}_{\bf b} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{22}(r) \right]
396 + \end{equation}
397 +
398 + For the Taylor shifted (TSF) method with the undamped kernel,
399 + $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{8}{r_c^3} +
400 + \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$ and $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4}
401 + - \frac{6}{r r_c^2}$.  In these functions, one can easily see the
402 + connection to unmodified electrostatics as well as the smooth
403 + transition to zero in both these functions as $r\rightarrow r_c$.  The
404 + electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole due
405 + to another site within the cutoff sphere are derived from
406 + Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
407 + derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
408 + presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
409 + \onlinecite{PaperI}).
410 +
411 + \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
412 +
413 + A second (and conceptually simpler) method involves shifting the
414 + gradient of the raw Coulomb potential for each particular multipole
415 + order.  For example, the raw dipole-dipole potential energy may be
416 + shifted smoothly by finding the gradient for two interacting dipoles
417 + which have been projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere
418 + without changing their relative orientation,
419 + \begin{equation}
420 + U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)  = U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r) -
421 + U_{D_{\bf a} D_{\bf b}}(r_c)
422 +   - (r_{ab}-r_c) ~~~\hat{r}_{ab} \cdot
423 +  \nabla U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r_c).
424 + \end{equation}
425 + Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{\bf
426 +  a}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{\bf b}$, are retained at the cutoff distance
427 + (although the signs are reversed for the dipole that has been
428 + projected onto the cutoff sphere).  In many ways, this simpler
429 + approach is closer in spirit to the original shifted force method, in
430 + that it projects a neutralizing multipole (and the resulting forces
431 + from this multipole) onto a cutoff sphere. The resulting functional
432 + forms for the potentials, forces, and torques turn out to be quite
433 + similar in form to the Taylor-shifted approach, although the radial
434 + contributions are significantly less perturbed by the gradient-shifted
435 + approach than they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
436 +
437 + For the gradient shifted (GSF) method with the undamped kernel,
438 + $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \frac{4}{r_c^3}$ and
439 + $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{9 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{12}{r_c^3}$.
440 + Again, these functions go smoothly to zero as $r\rightarrow r_c$, and
441 + because the Taylor expansion retains only one term, they are
442 + significantly less perturbed than the TSF functions.
443 +
444 + In general, the gradient shifted potential between a central multipole
445 + and any multipolar site inside the cutoff radius is given by,
446 + \begin{equation}
447 +  U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
448 +    U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{\mathbf{r}}
449 +    \cdot \nabla U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
450 + \label{generic2}
451 + \end{equation}
452 + where the sum describes a separate force-shifting that is applied to
453 + each orientational contribution to the energy.  In this expression,
454 + $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ is the unit vector connecting the two multipoles
455 + ($a$ and $b$) in space, and $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$
456 + represent the orientations the multipoles.
457 +
458 + The third term converges more rapidly than the first two terms as a
459 + function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
460 + small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
461 + Eq. \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
462 + approach zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
463 + can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
464 + higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
465 + to the charge-dipole interaction but generate different expressions in
466 + the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
467 + interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
468 + GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
469 + (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI}).
470 +
471 +
472   \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
473 < A discontinuous truncation of the electrostatic potential at the cutoff sphere introduces severe artifact(Oscillation in the electrostatic energy) even for molecules with the higher-order multipoles.\cite{Paper I} This artifact is due to the existence of multipole moments within the cutoff spheres contributed by the breaking of the multipole ordering at the the surface of the cutoff sphere. The multipole moments of the cutoff sphere can be neutralized by placing image multipole for every multipole within the cutoff sphere. The electrostatic potential between multipoles for the SP method is given by,
473 > A discontinuous truncation of the electrostatic potential at the
474 > cutoff sphere introduces a severe artifact (oscillation in the
475 > electrostatic energy) even for molecules with the higher-order
476 > multipoles.\cite{PaperI} We have also formulated an extension of the
477 > Wolf approach for point multipoles by simply projecting the image
478 > multipole onto the surface of the cutoff sphere, and including the
479 > interactions with the central multipole and the image. This
480 > effectively shifts the total potential to zero at the cutoff radius,
481   \begin{equation}
482 < U_{SP}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)
482 > U^{\text{SP}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
483 > U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
484   \label{eq:SP}
485   \end{equation}          
486 < The SP method compensates the artifact created by truncation of the multipole ordering by placing image on the cutoff surface.  Also, the potential energy between central multipole and other multipole within sphere approaches smoothly to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$. But the force and torque obtained from the shifted potential are discontinuous at $r_c$. Therefore, the MD simulation will still have the total energy drift for a longer simulation.  If we derive the force and torque from the direct shifting about $r_c$ like in shifted potential then inconsistency between the force, torque, and potential fails the energy conservation in the dynamic simulation.
486 > where the sum describes separate potential shifting that is done for
487 > each orientational contribution to the energy (e.g. the direct dipole
488 > product contribution is shifted {\it separately} from the
489 > dipole-distance terms in dipole-dipole interactions).  Note that this
490 > is not a simple shifting of the total potential at $r_c$. Each radial
491 > contribution is shifted separately.  One consequence of this is that
492 > multipoles that reorient after leaving the cutoff sphere can re-enter
493 > the cutoff sphere without perturbing the total energy.
494  
495 < \subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF)}
496 < As we mentioned earlier, in the MD simulation the electrostatic energy, force and torque should approach to zero as r tends to $r_c$. Also, the energy, force and torque should be consistent with each other for the total energy conservation. The GSF method is developed to address both the issues of consistency and convergence of the energy, force and the torque. Furthermore, the compensating of charge or multipole ordering breakage in the SP method due to direct spherical truncation will remain intact for large $r_c$. The electrostatic potential energy between central molecule and any molecule inside cutoff radius is given by,
497 <        \begin{equation}
498 < U_{SF}(\vec r)=\sum U(\vec r) - U(\vec r_c)-(\vec r-\vec r_c)\cdot\vec \nabla U(\vec r)|_{r=r_c}
499 < \label{eq:GSF}
500 < \end{equation}    
501 < where the third term converges more rapidly as compared to first two terms hence the contribution of the third term is very small for large $r_c$ value. Hence the GSF method similar to SP method for large $r_c$. Moreover, the force and torque derived from equation 3 are consistent with the energy and approaches to zero as $r$ tends to $r_c$.
502 < Both GSF and TSF methods are the generalization of the original DSF method to higher order multipole-multipole interactions. These two methods are same up to charge-dipole interaction level but generate different expressions in the energy, force and torque for the higher order multipole-multipole interactions.
503 < \subsection{Self term}
495 > For the shifted potential (SP) method with the undamped kernel,
496 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{1}{r_c^3}$ and $v_{22}(r) =
497 > \frac{3}{r^3} - \frac{3}{r_c^3}$.  The potential energy between a
498 > central multipole and other multipolar sites goes smoothly to zero as
499 > $r \rightarrow r_c$.  However, the force and torque obtained from the
500 > shifted potential (SP) are discontinuous at $r_c$.  MD simulations
501 > will still experience energy drift while operating under the SP
502 > potential, but it may be suitable for Monte Carlo approaches where the
503 > configurational energy differences are the primary quantity of
504 > interest.
505  
506 < \section{\label{sec:test}Test systems}
507 < We have compared the electrostatic force and torque of each molecule from SP, TSF and GSF method with the multipolar-Ewald method. Furthermore, total electrostatic energies of a molecular system from the different methods have also been compared with total energy from the Ewald. In Mote Carlo (MC) simulation, the energy difference between different configurations of the molecular system is important, even though absolute energies are not accurate. We have compared the change in electrostatic potential energy ($\triangle E$) of 250 different configurations of the various multipolar molecular systems (Section IV B) calculated from the Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with the well-known Ewald method. In MD simulations, the force and torque acting on the molecules drives the whole dynamics of the molecules in a system. The magnitudes of the electrostatic force, torque and their direction for each molecule of the all 250 configurations have also been compared against the Ewald’s method.
506 > \subsection{The Self Term}
507 > In the TSF, GSF, and SP methods, a self-interaction is retained for
508 > the central multipole interacting with its own image on the surface of
509 > the cutoff sphere.  This self interaction is nearly identical with the
510 > self-terms that arise in the Ewald sum for multipoles.  Complete
511 > expressions for the self terms are presented in the first paper in
512 > this series (Reference \onlinecite{PaperI}).
513  
139 \subsection{Modeled systems}
140 We studied the comparison of the energy differences, forces and torques for six different systems; i) dipolar liquid, ii) quadrupolar liquid, iii)  dipolar crystal, iv) quadrupolar crystal v) dipolar-quadrupolar liquid(SSDQ), and vi) ions in dipolar-qudrupolar liquid(SSDQC). To simulate different configurations of the crystals, the body centered cubic (BCC) minimum energy crystal with 3,456 molecules was taken and translationally locked in their respective crystal sites. The thermal energy was supplied to the rotational motion so that dipoles or quadrupoles can freely explore all possible orientation. The crystals were simulated for 10,000 fs in NVE ensemble at 50 K and 250 different configurations was taken in equal time interval for the comparative study.  The crystals were not simulated at high temperature and for a long run time to avoid possible translational deformation of the crystal sites.
141 For dipolar, quadrupolar, and dipolar-quadrupolar liquids simulation, each molecular system with 2,048 molecules simulated for 1ns in NVE ensemble at 300 K temperature after equilibration.  We collected 250 different configurations in equal interval of time. For the ions mixed liquid system, we converted 48 different molecules into 24 $Na^+$ and $24 Cl^-$ ions and equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was run at the same environment for 1ns and 250 configurations were collected. While comparing energies, forces, and torques with Ewald method, Lennad Jone’s potentials were turned off and purely electrostatic interaction had been compared.
514  
515 < \subsection{Statistical analysis}
144 < We have used least square regression analyses for six different molecular systems to compare $\triangle E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF with the reference method. Molecular systems were run longer enough to explore various configurations and 250 independent configurations were recorded for comparison.  The total numbers of 31,125 energy differences from the proposed methods have been compared with the Ewald.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have also been compared by using least square regression analyses. In the forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250 different configurations for each system thus there are 512,000 force and torque comparisons.  The correlation coefficient and correlation slope varies from 0 to 1, where 1 is the best agreement between the two methods.
515 > \section{\label{sec:methodology}Methodology}
516  
517 < \subsection{Analysis of vector quantities}
518 < R.A. Fisher has developed a probablity density function to analyse directional data sets is expressed as below,\cite{fisher53}
519 < \begin{equation}
520 < p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta \exp(\kappa \cos\theta)
521 < \label{eq:pdf}
522 < \end{equation}
523 < where $\kappa$ measures directional dispersion of the data about mean direction can be estimated as a reciprocal of the circular variance for large number of directional data sets.\cite{Allen91} In our calculation, the unit vector from the Ewald method was considered as mean direction and the angle between the vectors from Ewald and the purposed method were evaluated.The total displacement of the unit vectors from the purposed method was calculated as,
517 > To understand how the real-space multipole methods behave in computer
518 > simulations, it is vital to test against established methods for
519 > computing electrostatic interactions in periodic systems, and to
520 > evaluate the size and sources of any errors that arise from the
521 > real-space cutoffs.  In the first paper of this series, we compared
522 > the dipolar and quadrupolar energy expressions against analytic
523 > expressions for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar
524 > arrays.\cite{Sauer,LT,Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} In this work, we
525 > used the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method for comparing
526 > energies, forces, and torques for molecular models that mimic
527 > disordered and ordered condensed-phase systems.  The parameters used
528 > in the test cases are given in table~\ref{tab:pars}.
529 >
530 > \begin{table}
531 > \label{tab:pars}
532 > \caption{The parameters used in the systems used to evaluate the new
533 >  real-space methods.  The most comprehensive test was a liquid
534 >  composed of 2000 SSDQ molecules with 48 dissolved ions (24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
535 >  ions).  This test excercises all orders of the multipolar
536 >  interactions developed in the first paper.}
537 > \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{r|cc|YYccc|Yccc} \hline
538 >             & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LJ parameters} &
539 >             \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Electrostatic moments} & & & & \\
540 > Test system & $\sigma$& $\epsilon$ & $C$ & $D$  &
541 > $Q_{xx}$ & $Q_{yy}$ & $Q_{zz}$ & mass  & $I_{xx}$ & $I_{yy}$ &
542 > $I_{zz}$ \\ \cline{6-8}\cline{10-12}
543 > & (\AA) & (kcal/mol) & (e) & (debye) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{(debye \AA)} & (amu) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(amu
544 > \AA\textsuperscript{2})} \\ \hline
545 >    Soft Dipolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & & & & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145& 1.155 \\
546 >    Soft Dipolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  & 2.35 & & & & $10^4$  & 17.6 &17.6 & 0 \\
547 > Soft Quadrupolar fluid & 3.051 & 0.152 &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155  \\
548 > Soft Quadrupolar solid & 2.837 & 1.0   &  &  & -1&-1&-2.5 & $10^4$  & 17.6&17.6&0 \\
549 >      SSDQ water  & 3.051 & 0.152 &  & 2.35 & -1.35&0&-0.68 & 18.0153 & 1.77&0.6145&1.155 \\
550 >              \ce{Na+} & 2.579 & 0.118 & +1& & & & & 22.99 & & &\\
551 >              \ce{Cl-} & 4.445 & 0.1   & -1& & & & & 35.4527& & & \\ \hline
552 > \end{tabularx}
553 > \end{table}
554 > The systems consist of pure multipolar solids (both dipole and
555 > quadrupole), pure multipolar liquids (both dipole and quadrupole), a
556 > fluid composed of sites containing both dipoles and quadrupoles
557 > simultaneously, and a final test case that includes ions with point
558 > charges in addition to the multipolar fluid.  The solid-phase
559 > parameters were chosen so that the systems can explore some
560 > orientational freedom for the multipolar sites, while maintaining
561 > relatively strict translational order.  The SSDQ model used here is
562 > not a particularly accurate water model, but it does test
563 > dipole-dipole, dipole-quadrupole, and quadrupole-quadrupole
564 > interactions at roughly the same magnitudes. The last test case, SSDQ
565 > water with dissolved ions, exercises \textit{all} levels of the
566 > multipole-multipole interactions we have derived so far and represents
567 > the most complete test of the new methods.
568 >
569 > In the following section, we present results for the total
570 > electrostatic energy, as well as the electrostatic contributions to
571 > the force and torque on each molecule.  These quantities have been
572 > computed using the SP, TSF, and GSF methods, as well as a hard cutoff,
573 > and have been compared with the values obtained from the multipolar
574 > Ewald sum.  In Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, the energy differences
575 > between two configurations is the primary quantity that governs how
576 > the simulation proceeds. These differences are the most important
577 > indicators of the reliability of a method even if the absolute
578 > energies are not exact.  For each of the multipolar systems listed
579 > above, we have compared the change in electrostatic potential energy
580 > ($\Delta E$) between 250 statistically-independent configurations.  In
581 > molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the forces and torques govern the
582 > behavior of the simulation, so we also compute the electrostatic
583 > contributions to the forces and torques.
584 >
585 > \subsection{Implementation}
586 > The real-space methods developed in the first paper in this series
587 > have been implemented in our group's open source molecular simulation
588 > program, OpenMD,\cite{Meineke05,openmd} which was used for all calculations in
589 > this work.  The complementary error function can be a relatively slow
590 > function on some processors, so all of the radial functions are
591 > precomputed on a fine grid and are spline-interpolated to provide
592 > values when required.  
593 >
594 > Using the same simulation code, we compare to a multipolar Ewald sum
595 > with a reciprocal space cutoff, $k_\mathrm{max} = 7$.  Our version of
596 > the Ewald sum is a re-implementation of the algorithm originally
597 > proposed by Smith that does not use the particle mesh or smoothing
598 > approximations.\cite{Smith82,Smith98} In all cases, the quantities
599 > being compared are the electrostatic contributions to energies, force,
600 > and torques.  All other contributions to these quantities (i.e. from
601 > Lennard-Jones interactions) are removed prior to the comparisons.
602 >
603 > The convergence parameter ($\alpha$) also plays a role in the balance
604 > of the real-space and reciprocal-space portions of the Ewald
605 > calculation.  Typical molecular mechanics packages set this to a value
606 > that depends on the cutoff radius and a tolerance (typically less than
607 > $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller tolerances are typically
608 > associated with increasing accuracy at the expense of computational
609 > time spent on the reciprocal-space portion of the
610 > summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann:1995pb} A default tolerance of $1 \times
611 > 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all Ewald calculations, resulting in
612 > Ewald coefficient 0.3119 \AA$^{-1}$ for a cutoff radius of 12 \AA.
613 >
614 > The real-space models have self-interactions that provide
615 > contributions to the energies only.  Although the self interaction is
616 > a rapid calculation, we note that in systems with fluctuating charges
617 > or point polarizabilities, the self-term is not static and must be
618 > recomputed at each time step.
619 >
620 > \subsection{Model systems}
621 > To sample independent configurations of the multipolar crystals, body
622 > centered cubic (bcc) crystals, which exhibit the minimum energy
623 > structures for point dipoles, were generated using 3,456 molecules.
624 > The multipoles were translationally locked in their respective crystal
625 > sites for equilibration at a relatively low temperature (50K) so that
626 > dipoles or quadrupoles could freely explore all accessible
627 > orientations.  The translational constraints were then removed, the
628 > systems were re-equilibrated, and the crystals were simulated for an
629 > additional 10 ps in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble with an average
630 > temperature of 50 K.  The balance between moments of inertia and
631 > particle mass were chosen to allow orientational sampling without
632 > significant translational motion.  Configurations were sampled at
633 > equal time intervals in order to compare configurational energy
634 > differences.  The crystals were simulated far from the melting point
635 > in order to avoid translational deformation away of the ideal lattice
636 > geometry.
637 >
638 > For dipolar, quadrupolar, and mixed-multipole \textit{liquid}
639 > simulations, each system was created with 2,048 randomly-oriented
640 > molecules.  These were equilibrated at a temperature of 300K for 1 ns.
641 > Each system was then simulated for 1 ns in the microcanonical (NVE)
642 > ensemble.  We collected 250 different configurations at equal time
643 > intervals. For the liquid system that included ionic species, we
644 > converted 48 randomly-distributed molecules into 24 \ce{Na+} and 24
645 > \ce{Cl-} ions and re-equilibrated. After equilibration, the system was
646 > run under the same conditions for 1 ns. A total of 250 configurations
647 > were collected. In the following comparisons of energies, forces, and
648 > torques, the Lennard-Jones potentials were turned off and only the
649 > purely electrostatic quantities were compared with the same values
650 > obtained via the Ewald sum.
651 >
652 > \subsection{Accuracy of Energy Differences, Forces and Torques}
653 > The pairwise summation techniques (outlined above) were evaluated for
654 > use in MC simulations by studying the energy differences between
655 > different configurations.  We took the Ewald-computed energy
656 > difference between two conformations to be the correct behavior. An
657 > ideal performance by one of the new methods would reproduce these
658 > energy differences exactly. The configurational energies being used
659 > here contain only contributions from electrostatic interactions.
660 > Lennard-Jones interactions were omitted from the comparison as they
661 > should be identical for all methods.
662 >
663 > Since none of the real-space methods provide exact energy differences,
664 > we used least square regressions analysis for the six different
665 > molecular systems to compare $\Delta E$ from Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF
666 > with the multipolar Ewald reference method.  Unitary results for both
667 > the correlation (slope) and correlation coefficient for these
668 > regressions indicate perfect agreement between the real-space method
669 > and the multipolar Ewald sum.
670 >
671 > Molecular systems were run long enough to explore independent
672 > configurations and 250 configurations were recorded for comparison.
673 > Each system provided 31,125 energy differences for a total of 186,750
674 > data points.  Similarly, the magnitudes of the forces and torques have
675 > also been compared using least squares regression analysis. In the
676 > forces and torques comparison, the magnitudes of the forces acting in
677 > each molecule for each configuration were evaluated. For example, our
678 > dipolar liquid simulation contains 2048 molecules and there are 250
679 > different configurations for each system resulting in 3,072,000 data
680 > points for comparison of forces and torques.
681 >
682 > \subsection{Analysis of vector quantities}
683 > Getting the magnitudes of the force and torque vectors correct is only
684 > part of the issue for carrying out accurate molecular dynamics
685 > simulations.  Because the real space methods reweight the different
686 > orientational contributions to the energies, it is also important to
687 > understand how the methods impact the \textit{directionality} of the
688 > force and torque vectors. Fisher developed a probablity density
689 > function to analyse directional data sets,
690   \begin{equation}
691 < R = \sqrt{(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2 + (\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i)^2}
691 > p_f(\theta) = \frac{\kappa}{2 \sinh\kappa}\sin\theta e^{\kappa \cos\theta}
692 > \label{eq:pdf}
693 > \end{equation}
694 > where $\kappa$ measures directional dispersion of the data around the
695 > mean direction.\cite{fisher53} This quantity $(\kappa)$ can be
696 > estimated as a reciprocal of the circular variance.\cite{Allen91} To
697 > quantify the directional error, forces obtained from the Ewald sum
698 > were taken as the mean (or correct) direction and the angle between
699 > the forces obtained via the Ewald sum and the real-space methods were
700 > evaluated,
701 > \begin{equation}
702 > \cos\theta_i =  \frac{\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald} \cdot
703 >  \vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}}{\left|\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~Ewald}\right| \left|\vec{f}_i^\mathrm{~GSF}\right|}
704 > \end{equation}
705 > The total angular displacement of the vectors was calculated as,
706 > \begin{equation}
707 > R = \sqrt{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \cos\theta_i\right)^2 + \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \sin\theta_i\right)^2}
708   \label{eq:displacement}
709   \end{equation}
710 < where N is number of directional data sets and $theta_i$ are the angles between unit vectors evaluated from the Ewald and the purposed methods. The circular variance is defined as $ Var(\theta) = 1 -R/N$. The value of circular variance varies from 0 to 1. The lower the value of $Var{\theta}$ is higher the value of $\kappa$, which expresses tighter clustering of the direction sets around Ewald direction.
710 > where $N$ is number of force vectors.  The circular variance is
711 > defined as
712 > \begin{equation}
713 > \mathrm{Var}(\theta) \approx 1/\kappa = 1 - R/N
714 > \end{equation}
715 > The circular variance takes on values between from 0 to 1, with 0
716 > indicating a perfect directional match between the Ewald force vectors
717 > and the real-space forces. Lower values of $\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$
718 > correspond to higher values of $\kappa$, which indicates tighter
719 > clustering of the real-space force vectors around the Ewald forces.
720  
721 + A similar analysis was carried out for the electrostatic contribution
722 + to the molecular torques as well as forces.  
723 +
724   \subsection{Energy conservation}
725 < To test conservation of the energy, the mixed molecular system of 2000 dipolar-quadrupolar molecules with 24 $Na^+$,  and 24 $Cl^-$  was run for 1ns in the microcanonical ensemble at 300 K temperature for different cutoff methods (Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF). The molecular system was run in 12 parallel computers and started with same initial positions and velocities for all cutoff methods. The slope and Standard Deviation of the energy about the slope (SD) were evaluated in the total energy versus time plot, where the slope evaluates the total energy drift and SD calculates the energy fluctuation in MD simulations. Also, the time duration for the simulation was recorded to compare efficiency of the purposed methods with the Ewald.
725 > To test conservation the energy for the methods, the mixed molecular
726 > system of 2000 SSDQ water molecules with 24 \ce{Na+} and 24 \ce{Cl-}
727 > ions was run for 1 ns in the microcanonical ensemble at an average
728 > temperature of 300K.  Each of the different electrostatic methods
729 > (Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF) was tested for a range of different
730 > damping values. The molecular system was started with same initial
731 > positions and velocities for all cutoff methods. The energy drift
732 > ($\delta E_1$) and standard deviation of the energy about the slope
733 > ($\delta E_0$) were evaluated from the total energy of the system as a
734 > function of time.  Although both measures are valuable at
735 > investigating new methods for molecular dynamics, a useful interaction
736 > model must allow for long simulation times with minimal energy drift.
737  
738   \section{\label{sec:result}RESULTS}
739   \subsection{Configurational energy differences}
# Line 180 | Line 756 | To test conservation of the energy, the mixed molecula
756   %       \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{slopeComparision_undamped.pdf}
757   %        \caption{}
758        
759 <        \label{fig:barGraph2}
760 <    \end{figure}
761 < %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.
759 > %        \label{fig:barGraph2}
760 > %      \end{figure}
761 > %The correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope of the linear
762 > %regression plots for the energy differences for all six different
763 > %molecular systems is shown in figure 4a and 4b.The plot shows that
764 > %the correlation coefficient improves for the SP cutoff method as
765 > %compared to the undamped hard cutoff method in the case of SSDQC,
766 > %SSDQ, dipolar crystal, and dipolar liquid. For the quadrupolar
767 > %crystal and liquid, the correlation coefficient is almost unchanged
768 > %and close to 1.  The correlation coefficient is smallest (0.696276
769 > %for $r_c$ = 9 $A^\circ$) for the SSDQC liquid because of the presence of
770 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interactions. Since the
771 > %charge-charge and charge-multipole interaction is long ranged, there
772 > %is huge deviation of correlation coefficient from 1. Similarly, the
773 > %quarupole–quadrupole interaction is short ranged ($\sim 1/r^6$) with
774 > %compared to interactions in the other multipolar systems, thus the
775 > %correlation coefficient very close to 1 even for hard cutoff
776 > %method. The idea of placing image multipole on the surface of the
777 > %cutoff sphere improves the correlation coefficient and makes it close
778 > %to 1 for all types of multipolar systems. Similarly the slope is
779 > %hugely deviated from the correct value for the lower order
780 > %multipole-multipole interaction and slightly deviated for higher
781 > %order multipole – multipole interaction. The SP method improves both
782 > %correlation coefficient ($R^2$) and slope significantly in SSDQC and
783 > %dipolar systems.  The Slope is found to be deviated more in dipolar
784 > %crystal as compared to liquid which is associated with the large
785 > %fluctuation in the electrostatic energy in crystal. The GSF also
786 > %produced better values of correlation coefficient and slope with the
787 > %proper selection of the damping alpha (Interested reader can consult
788 > %accompanying supporting material). The TSF method gives good value of
789 > %correlation coefficient for the dipolar crystal, dipolar liquid,
790 > %SSDQ, and SSDQC (not for the quadrupolar crystal and liquid) but the
791 > %regression slopes are significantly deviated.
792 >
793   \begin{figure}
794 <        \centering
795 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
796 <        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of configurational energy differences for a given method with compared with the reference Ewald method. The value of result equal to 1(dashed line) indicates energy difference is indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle)}
797 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
798 <    \end{figure}
799 < 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.
800 < \subsection{Magnitude of the force and torque vectors}
801 < 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.
802 < \begin{figure}
803 <        \centering
804 <        \includegraphics[width=0.50 \textwidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
805 <        \caption{The correlation coefficient and regression slope of the magnitude of the force for a given method with compared to the reference Ewald method. The value of result equal to 1(dashed line) indicates, the magnitude of the force from a method is indistinguishable from the Ewald method. Here different symbols represent different value of the cutoff radius (9 $A^o$ = circle, 12 $A^o$ = square 15 $A^o$ = inverted triangle). }
199 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
200 <    \end{figure}
201 < 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.
202 < \begin{figure}
203 <        \centering
204 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined-crop.pdf}
205 <        \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).}
206 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
207 <    \end{figure}
208 < \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
209 < 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 $r_c$.
794 >  \centering
795 >  \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{energyPlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
796 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of configurational
797 >    energy differences for the real-space electrostatic methods
798 >    compared with the reference Ewald sum.  Results with a value equal
799 >    to 1 (dashed line) indicate $\Delta E$ values indistinguishable
800 >    from those obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different
801 >    values of the cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols
802 >    (9\AA\ = circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted
803 >    triangles).}
804 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_energy}
805 > \end{figure}
806  
807 < \begin{figure}
808 <        \centering
809 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified-crop.pdf}
810 <        \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)}
811 <        \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
812 <    \end{figure}
813 < \subsection{Total energy conservation}
814 < 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.
815 < \begin{figure}
816 <        \centering
817 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{log(energyDrift)-crop.pdf}
818 < \label{fig:energyDrift}        
819 <        \end{figure}
820 < \begin{figure}
821 <        \centering
822 <        \includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{logSD-crop.pdf}      
823 <        \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. }
824 <        \label{fig:fluctuation}
825 <    \end{figure}
807 > The combined correlation coefficient and slope for all six systems is
808 > shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_energy}.  Most of the methods
809 > reproduce the Ewald configurational energy differences with remarkable
810 > fidelity.  Undamped hard cutoffs introduce a significant amount of
811 > random scatter in the energy differences which is apparent in the
812 > reduced value of the correlation coefficient for this method.  This
813 > can be easily understood as configurations which exhibit small
814 > traversals of a few dipoles or quadrupoles out of the cutoff sphere
815 > will see large energy jumps when hard cutoffs are used.  The
816 > orientations of the multipoles (particularly in the ordered crystals)
817 > mean that these energy jumps can go in either direction, producing a
818 > significant amount of random scatter, but no systematic error.
819 >
820 > The TSF method produces energy differences that are highly correlated
821 > with the Ewald results, but it also introduces a significant
822 > systematic bias in the values of the energies, particularly for
823 > smaller cutoff values. The TSF method alters the distance dependence
824 > of different orientational contributions to the energy in a
825 > non-uniform way, so the size of the cutoff sphere can have a large
826 > effect, particularly for the crystalline systems.
827 >
828 > Both the SP and GSF methods appear to reproduce the Ewald results with
829 > excellent fidelity, particularly for moderate damping ($\alpha =
830 > 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and with a commonly-used cutoff value ($r_c =
831 > 12$\AA).  With the exception of the undamped hard cutoff, and the TSF
832 > method with short cutoffs, all of the methods would be appropriate for
833 > use in Monte Carlo simulations.
834 >
835 > \subsection{Magnitude of the force and torque vectors}
836 >
837 > The comparisons of the magnitudes of the forces and torques for the
838 > data accumulated from all six systems are shown in Figures
839 > ~\ref{fig:slopeCorr_force} and \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}. The
840 > correlation and slope for the forces agree well with the Ewald sum
841 > even for the hard cutoffs.
842 >
843 > For systems of molecules with only multipolar interactions, the pair
844 > energy contributions are quite short ranged.  Moreover, the force
845 > decays more rapidly than the electrostatic energy, hence the hard
846 > cutoff method can also produce reasonable agreement for this quantity.
847 > Although the pure cutoff gives reasonably good electrostatic forces
848 > for pairs of molecules included within each other's cutoff spheres,
849 > the discontinuity in the force at the cutoff radius can potentially
850 > cause energy conservation problems as molecules enter and leave the
851 > cutoff spheres.  This is discussed in detail in section
852 > \ref{sec:conservation}.
853 >
854 > The two shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) exhibit a small amount of
855 > systematic variation and scatter compared with the Ewald forces.  The
856 > shifted-force models intentionally perturb the forces between pairs of
857 > molecules inside each other's cutoff spheres in order to correct the
858 > energy conservation issues, and this perturbation is evident in the
859 > statistics accumulated for the molecular forces.  The GSF
860 > perturbations are minimal, particularly for moderate damping and
861 > commonly-used cutoff values ($r_c = 12$\AA).  The TSF method shows
862 > reasonable agreement in the correlation coefficient but again the
863 > systematic error in the forces is concerning if replication of Ewald
864 > forces is desired.
865 >
866 > \begin{figure}
867 >  \centering
868 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{forcePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
869 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the force vector
870 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
871 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
872 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
873 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
874 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
875 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles). }
876 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_force}
877 > \end{figure}
878 >
879 >
880 > \begin{figure}
881 >  \centering
882 >  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{torquePlot_slopeCorrelation_combined.eps}
883 >  \caption{Statistical analysis of the quality of the torque vector
884 >    magnitudes for the real-space electrostatic methods compared with
885 >    the reference Ewald sum. Results with a value equal to 1 (dashed
886 >    line) indicate force magnitude values indistinguishable from those
887 >    obtained using the multipolar Ewald sum.  Different values of the
888 >    cutoff radius are indicated with different symbols (9\AA\ =
889 >    circles, 12\AA\ = squares, and 15\AA\ = inverted triangles).}
890 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_torque}
891 > \end{figure}
892 >
893 > The torques (Fig. \ref{fig:slopeCorr_torque}) appear to be
894 > significantly influenced by the choice of real-space method.  The
895 > torque expressions have the same distance dependence as the energies,
896 > which are naturally longer-ranged expressions than the inter-site
897 > forces.  Torques are also quite sensitive to orientations of
898 > neighboring molecules, even those that are near the cutoff distance.
899 >
900 > The results shows that the torque from the hard cutoff method
901 > reproduces the torques in quite good agreement with the Ewald sum.
902 > The other real-space methods can cause some deviations, but excellent
903 > agreement with the Ewald sum torques is recovered at moderate values
904 > of the damping coefficient ($\alpha = 0.1-0.2$\AA$^{-1}$) and cutoff
905 > radius ($r_c \ge 12$\AA).  The TSF method exhibits only fair agreement
906 > in the slope when compared with the Ewald torques even for larger
907 > cutoff radii.  It appears that the severity of the perturbations in
908 > the TSF method are most in evidence for the torques.
909 >
910 > \subsection{Directionality of the force and torque vectors}  
911 >
912 > The accurate evaluation of force and torque directions is just as
913 > important for molecular dynamics simulations as the magnitudes of
914 > these quantities. Force and torque vectors for all six systems were
915 > analyzed using Fisher statistics, and the quality of the vector
916 > directionality is shown in terms of circular variance
917 > ($\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$) in figure
918 > \ref{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}. The force and torque vectors
919 > from the new real-space methods exhibit nearly-ideal Fisher probability
920 > distributions (Eq.~\ref{eq:pdf}). Both the hard and SP cutoff methods
921 > exhibit the best vectorial agreement with the Ewald sum. The force and
922 > torque vectors from GSF method also show good agreement with the Ewald
923 > method, which can also be systematically improved by using moderate
924 > damping and a reasonable cutoff radius. For $\alpha = 0.2$ and $r_c =
925 > 12$\AA, we observe $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = 0.00206$, which corresponds
926 > to a distribution with 95\% of force vectors within $6.37^\circ$ of
927 > the corresponding Ewald forces. The TSF method produces the poorest
928 > agreement with the Ewald force directions.
929 >
930 > Torques are again more perturbed than the forces by the new real-space
931 > methods, but even here the variance is reasonably small.  For the same
932 > method (GSF) with the same parameters ($\alpha = 0.2, r_c = 12$\AA),
933 > the circular variance was 0.01415, corresponds to a distribution which
934 > has 95\% of torque vectors are within $16.75^\circ$ of the Ewald
935 > results. Again, the direction of the force and torque vectors can be
936 > systematically improved by varying $\alpha$ and $r_c$.
937 >
938 > \begin{figure}
939 >  \centering
940 >  \includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Variance_forceNtorque_modified.eps}
941 >  \caption{The circular variance of the direction of the force and
942 >    torque vectors obtained from the real-space methods around the
943 >    reference Ewald vectors. A variance equal to 0 (dashed line)
944 >    indicates direction of the force or torque vectors are
945 >    indistinguishable from those obtained from the Ewald sum. Here
946 >    different symbols represent different values of the cutoff radius
947 >    (9 \AA\ = circle, 12 \AA\ = square, 15 \AA\ = inverted triangle)}
948 >  \label{fig:slopeCorr_circularVariance}
949 > \end{figure}
950 >
951 > \subsection{Energy conservation\label{sec:conservation}}
952 >
953 > We have tested the conservation of energy one can expect to see with
954 > the new real-space methods using the SSDQ water model with a small
955 > fraction of solvated ions. This is a test system which exercises all
956 > orders of multipole-multipole interactions derived in the first paper
957 > in this series and provides the most comprehensive test of the new
958 > methods.  A liquid-phase system was created with 2000 water molecules
959 > and 48 dissolved ions at a density of 0.98 g cm$^{-3}$ and a
960 > temperature of 300K.  After equilibration, this liquid-phase system
961 > was run for 1 ns under the Ewald, Hard, SP, GSF, and TSF methods with
962 > a cutoff radius of 12\AA.  The value of the damping coefficient was
963 > also varied from the undamped case ($\alpha = 0$) to a heavily damped
964 > case ($\alpha = 0.3$ \AA$^{-1}$) for all of the real space methods.  A
965 > sample was also run using the multipolar Ewald sum with the same
966 > real-space cutoff.
967 >
968 > In figure~\ref{fig:energyDrift} we show the both the linear drift in
969 > energy over time, $\delta E_1$, and the standard deviation of energy
970 > fluctuations around this drift $\delta E_0$.  Both of the
971 > shifted-force methods (GSF and TSF) provide excellent energy
972 > conservation (drift less than $10^{-5}$ kcal / mol / ns / particle),
973 > while the hard cutoff is essentially unusable for molecular dynamics.
974 > SP provides some benefit over the hard cutoff because the energetic
975 > jumps that happen as particles leave and enter the cutoff sphere are
976 > somewhat reduced, but like the Wolf method for charges, the SP method
977 > would not be as useful for molecular dynamics as either of the
978 > shifted-force methods.
979 >
980 > We note that for all tested values of the cutoff radius, the new
981 > real-space methods can provide better energy conservation behavior
982 > than the multipolar Ewald sum, even when utilizing a relatively large
983 > $k$-space cutoff values.
984 >
985 > \begin{figure}
986 >  \centering
987 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newDrift_12.eps}
988 > \label{fig:energyDrift}        
989 > \caption{Analysis of the energy conservation of the real-space
990 >  electrostatic methods. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in
991 >  energy over time (in kcal / mol / particle / ns) and $\delta
992 >  \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation of energy fluctuations
993 >  around this drift (in kcal / mol / particle).  All simulations were
994 >  of a 2000-molecule simulation of SSDQ water with 48 ionic charges at
995 >  300 K starting from the same initial configuration. All runs
996 >  utilized the same real-space cutoff, $r_c = 12$\AA.}
997 > \end{figure}
998 >
999 >
1000   \section{CONCLUSION}
1001 < We have generalized the charged neutralized potential energy originally developed by the Wolf et al.\cite{Wolf99} for the charge-charge interaction to the charge-multipole and multipole-multipole interaction in the SP method for higher order multipoles. Also, we have developed GSF and TSF methods by implementing the modification purposed by Fennel and Gezelter\cite{Gezelter06} for the charge-charge interaction to the higher order multipoles to ensure consistency and smooth truncation of the electrostatic energy, force, and torque for the spherical truncation. The SP methods for multipoles proved its suitability in MC simulations. On the other hand, the results from the GSF method produced good agreement with the Ewald's energy, force, and torque. Also, it shows very good energy conservation in MD simulations.
1002 < 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.
1003 < In MD simulations, the energy conservation is very important. The conservation of the total energy can be ensured by  i) enforcing the smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius and ii) making the energy, force and torque consistent with each other. The GSF and TSF methods ensure the consistency and smooth truncation of the energy, force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a result show very good total energy conservation. But the TSF method does not show good agreement in the absolute value of the electrostatic energy, force and torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method has mimicked Ewald’s force, energy and torque accurately and also conserved energy. Therefore, the GSF method is the suitable method for evaluating required force field in MD simulations. In addition, the energy drift and fluctuation from the GSF method is much better than Ewald’s method for finite-sized reciprocal space.
1004 < \bibliographystyle{rev4-1}
1001 > In the first paper in this series, we generalized the
1002 > charge-neutralized electrostatic energy originally developed by Wolf
1003 > \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} to multipole-multipole interactions
1004 > up to quadrupolar order.  The SP method is essentially a
1005 > multipole-capable version of the Wolf model.  The SP method for
1006 > multipoles provides excellent agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
1007 > forces and torques, and is suitable for Monte Carlo simulations,
1008 > although the forces and torques retain discontinuities at the cutoff
1009 > distance that prevents its use in molecular dynamics.
1010 >
1011 > We also developed two natural extensions of the damped shifted-force
1012 > (DSF) model originally proposed by Fennel and
1013 > Gezelter.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} The GSF and TSF approaches provide
1014 > smooth truncation of energies, forces, and torques at the real-space
1015 > cutoff, and both converge to DSF electrostatics for point-charge
1016 > interactions.  The TSF model is based on a high-order truncated Taylor
1017 > expansion which can be relatively perturbative inside the cutoff
1018 > sphere.  The GSF model takes the gradient from an images of the
1019 > interacting multipole that has been projected onto the cutoff sphere
1020 > to derive shifted force and torque expressions, and is a significantly
1021 > more gentle approach.
1022 >
1023 > Of the two newly-developed shifted force models, the GSF method
1024 > produced quantitative agreement with Ewald energy, force, and torques.
1025 > It also performs well in conserving energy in MD simulations.  The
1026 > Taylor-shifted (TSF) model provides smooth dynamics, but these take
1027 > place on a potential energy surface that is significantly perturbed
1028 > from Ewald-based electrostatics.  
1029 >
1030 > % The direct truncation of any electrostatic potential energy without
1031 > % multipole neutralization creates large fluctuations in molecular
1032 > % simulations.  This fluctuation in the energy is very large for the case
1033 > % of crystal because of long range of multipole ordering (Refer paper
1034 > % I).\cite{PaperI} This is also significant in the case of the liquid
1035 > % because of the local multipole ordering in the molecules. If the net
1036 > % multipole within cutoff radius neutralized within cutoff sphere by
1037 > % placing image multiples on the surface of the sphere, this fluctuation
1038 > % in the energy reduced significantly. Also, the multipole
1039 > % neutralization in the generalized SP method showed very good agreement
1040 > % with the Ewald as compared to direct truncation for the evaluation of
1041 > % the $\triangle E$ between the configurations.  In MD simulations, the
1042 > % energy conservation is very important. The conservation of the total
1043 > % energy can be ensured by i) enforcing the smooth truncation of the
1044 > % energy, force and torque in the cutoff radius and ii) making the
1045 > % energy, force and torque consistent with each other. The GSF and TSF
1046 > % methods ensure the consistency and smooth truncation of the energy,
1047 > % force and torque at the cutoff radius, as a result show very good
1048 > % total energy conservation. But the TSF method does not show good
1049 > % agreement in the absolute value of the electrostatic energy, force and
1050 > % torque with the Ewald.  The GSF method has mimicked Ewald’s force,
1051 > % energy and torque accurately and also conserved energy.
1052 >
1053 > The only cases we have found where the new GSF and SP real-space
1054 > methods can be problematic are those which retain a bulk dipole moment
1055 > at large distances (e.g. the $Z_1$ dipolar lattice).  In ferroelectric
1056 > materials, uniform weighting of the orientational contributions can be
1057 > important for converging the total energy.  In these cases, the
1058 > damping function which causes the non-uniform weighting can be
1059 > replaced by the bare electrostatic kernel, and the energies return to
1060 > the expected converged values.
1061 >
1062 > Based on the results of this work, the GSF method is a suitable and
1063 > efficient replacement for the Ewald sum for evaluating electrostatic
1064 > interactions in MD simulations.  Both methods retain excellent
1065 > fidelity to the Ewald energies, forces and torques.  Additionally, the
1066 > energy drift and fluctuations from the GSF electrostatics are better
1067 > than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces.
1068 > Because they use real-space cutoffs with moderate cutoff radii, the
1069 > GSF and SP models approach $\mathcal{O}(N)$ scaling as the system size
1070 > increases.  Additionally, they can be made extremely efficient using
1071 > spline interpolations of the radial functions.  They require no
1072 > Fourier transforms or $k$-space sums, and guarantee the smooth
1073 > handling of energies, forces, and torques as multipoles cross the
1074 > real-space cutoff boundary.
1075 >
1076 > \begin{acknowledgments}
1077 >  JDG acknowledges helpful discussions with Christopher
1078 >  Fennell. Support for this project was provided by the National
1079 >  Science Foundation under grant CHE-1362211. Computational time was
1080 >  provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
1081 >  University of Notre Dame.
1082 > \end{acknowledgments}
1083 >
1084 > %\bibliographystyle{aip}
1085 > \newpage
1086   \bibliography{references}
1087   \end{document}
1088  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines