Numerical integration techniques for curved-element discretizations of molecule-solvent interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface formulations of biophysical modeling problems offer attractive theoretical and computational properties. Numerical simulations based on these formulations usually begin with discretization of the surface under consideration; often, the surface is curved, possessing complicated structure and possibly singularities. Numerical simulations commonly are based on approximate, rather than exact, discretizations of these surfaces. To assess the strength of the dependence of simulation accuracy on the fidelity of surface representation, here methods were developed to model several important surface formulations using exact surface discretizations. Following and refining Zauhar's work [J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 9, 149 (1995)], two classes of curved elements were defined that can exactly discretize the van der Waals, solvent-accessible, and solvent-excluded (molecular) surfaces. Numerical integration techniques are presented that can accurately evaluate nonsingular and singular integrals over these curved surfaces. After validating the exactness of the surface discretizations and demonstrating the correctness of the presented integration methods, a set of calculations are presented that compare the accuracy of approximate, planar-triangle-based discretizations and exact, curved-element-based simulations of surface-generalized-Born (sGB), surface-continuum van der Waals (scvdW), and boundary-element method (BEM) electrostatics problems. Results demonstrate that continuum electrostatic calculations with BEM using curved elements, piecewise-constant basis functions, and centroid collocation are nearly ten times more accurate than planar-triangle BEM for basis sets of comparable size. The sGB and scvdW calculations give exceptional accuracy even for the coarsest obtainable discretized surfaces. The extra accuracy is attributed to the exact representation of the solute-solvent interface; in contrast, commonly used planar-triangle discretizations can only offer improved approximations with increasing discretization and associated increases in computational resources. The results clearly demonstrate that the methods for approximate integration on an exact geometry are far more accurate than exact integration on an approximate geometry. A MATLAB implementation of the presented integration methods and sample data files containing curved-element discretizations of several small molecules are available online as supplemental material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".