MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409272114 · doi:10.1063/5.0249333

Coarse-grained simulation of water: A comparative study and overview

2025· article· en· W4409272114 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Ali Noroozi, Armand Soldera

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicBlock Copolymer Self-Assembly
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForce field (fiction)Water modelMolecular dynamicsContext (archaeology)Statistical physicsPhysicsChemistryComputational chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spite of the tremendous increase in computational power over the last few decades, the problem of simulating atomistic systems containing large amounts of water molecules over longer lengths and time scales still remains. In this respect, the coarse-grained (CG) force field reduces the computational cost and, therefore, allows simulations of larger systems for longer times. However, the specific scope of the different CG water models is more limited compared to their atomistic counterparts. In this context, we conducted a comparative study on the molecular physical structure, thermodynamic, and dynamic properties of bulk water systems using six distinct CG water models and all-atom (AA) simulations. The six CG simulation procedures involved modeling with three variants of the water model coming from the MARTINI force field, one from the SPICA force field, and the two Iterative Boltzmann Inversion (IBI) derived potentials from the AA simulations. The AA simulations have been performed using the SPC/E and TIP4P force fields. The IBI models, namely SPC/E-IBI and TIP4P-IBI, depict the structural features in close agreement with the atomistic samples. The explicit number of water molecules in the first coordination shell for the three MARTINI models and the SPICA force field is in excellent agreement with the SPC/E and TIP4P values. The ensuing simulated densities for the various water models align significantly with the literature data, indicating the reliability of our approach. The SPC/E and SPICA models stand out in predicting the enthalpy of vaporization among the all-atom and CG force fields, respectively. The two all-atom models and their IBI equivalents are better at representing the isobaric specific heat capacity compared to the other models. The isothermal compressibility is reproduced comprehensively by the SPC/E force field followed by TIP4P, while SPICA is the better choice within the CG models. With respect to the dynamics of the system, the diffusion coefficient of the SPICA force field is in perfect agreement with the experimental data, even better than the atomistic samples. The overall scores of the different models, indicative of their relative performances compared to the other models, have also been computed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicBlock Copolymer Self-AssemblyFrench-language works237,207