A Simple Method for Incorporating Polarization Effects in Solvation Free Energy Calculations Using Fixed-Charge Force Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incorporation of polarizability in classical force-field molecular simulations is an ongoing area of research. We focus here on its application to hydration free energy simulations of organic molecules. In contrast to computationally complex approaches involving the development of explicitly polarizable force fields, we present herein a simple methodology for incorporating polarization into such simulations using standard fixed--charge force-fields, which we call the Alchemically Polarized Charges (APolQ) method. APolQ employs a standard classical alchemical free energy change simulation to calculate the free energy difference between a fully polarized solute particle in a condensed phase and its unpolarized state in a vacuum. One electronic structure (ES) calculation to of the electron densities is required for each state: for the former, we use a Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM), and for the latter we use vacuum-phase electronic structure calculations.We applied APolQ to hydration free energy data for a test set of 45 neutral solute molecules in the FreeSolv database, and compared results obtained using three different water models (SPC/E, TIP3P, OPC3) and using MBIS and RESP partial charge methodologies. ES calculations were carried out at the MP2 level of theory and with cc-pVTZ and aug-cc-pVTZ basis sets. In comparison with AM1-BCC, we found that APolQ outperforms it for the test set. Despite our method using default GAFF parameters, the MBIS partial charges yield Absolute Average Deviations (AAD) 1.5 to 1.9 kJ·mol −1 lower than AM1-BCC.We conjecture that this method can be further improved by fitting the Lennard-Jones and torsional parameters to partial charges derived using MBIS or RESP methodologies. We note that APolQ can in principle be applied to any pure or mixed solvent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".