Thermodynamic Consistency in Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Authors

  • Tibor Kalous Department of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Oder Institute of Heat and Mass Transfer, Serbia Author
  • Zora Havel Department of Applied Mathematics and Information Theory, Oder Institute of Heat and Mass Transfer, Hungary Author
  • Simona Sikora Department of Applied Mathematics and Information Theory, Warta Institute of Molecular Thermodynamics, Montenegro Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22698542

Keywords:

coarse-grained simulation, thermodynamic consistency, iterative Boltzmann inversion, force-field mapping, excess entropy, structural coarse-graining, transferability, liquid-state thermodynamics

Abstract

Coarse-grained (CG) molecular dynamics models trade atomistic detail for computational reach, but the
structure-based mapping procedures typically used to build them reproduce target radial distribution functions while
leaving thermodynamic properties, pressure, compressibility, excess entropy, unconstrained and often substantially
in error. We systematically quantified this thermodynamic inconsistency for 16 CG models of small-molecule liquids
and liquid mixtures, built by iterative Boltzmann inversion (IBI) from atomistic reference simulations, and tested
three consistency-correction strategies: pressure-corrected IBI, a multistate iterative approach fitting simultaneously
across three thermodynamic state points, and an explicit excess-entropy-matching correction. Uncorrected
structure-only CG models reproduced target radial distribution functions with a mean structural error (integrated
RDF deviation) of 0.031, but showed a mean pressure deviation from the atomistic reference of 340 ± 95 bar and a
mean excess entropy deviation of 18.4%, confirming that structural fidelity alone does not guarantee
thermodynamic fidelity. Pressure-corrected IBI reduced mean pressure deviation to 42 ± 21 bar (an 88% reduction)
at the cost of a 2.1-fold increase in structural error relative to the uncorrected models, while the multistate approach
achieved a more balanced outcome, reducing pressure deviation to 68 ± 24 bar and excess entropy deviation to
6.7%, with only a 1.3-fold increase in structural error. The explicit excess-entropy-matching correction achieved the
lowest excess entropy deviation (3.9%) but transferred least well to state points outside the fitting range, with
transferability tests at temperatures 20 K above the reference condition showing a 2.6-fold larger increase in
pressure error than the multistate models. Across all 16 systems, pressure deviation and excess entropy deviation
of the uncorrected models were strongly correlated (Pearson r = 0.79, p < 0.001), indicating that pressure
inconsistency is a useful, easily computed proxy for the harder-to-estimate excess entropy error. These results
provide a quantitative basis for selecting among available consistency-correction strategies according to whether
accurate structure, accurate thermodynamics, or transferability across state points is the priority for a given CG
modelling application.

References

Lloyd S (2000) Ultimate physical limits to computation. Nature 406(6799):1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1038/35023282

Esposito M, Van den Broeck C (2010) Three faces of the second law. I. Master equation formulation. Physical Review E 82(1):011143. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011143

Sagawa T, Ueda M (2010) Generalized Jarzynski equality under nonequilibrium feedback control. Physical Review Letters 104(9):090602. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.090602

Toyabe S, Sagawa T, Ueda M, Muneyuki E, Sano M (2010) Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion and validation of the generalized Jarzynski equality. Nature Physics 6(12):988-992. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1821

Verlinde E (2011) On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. Journal of High Energy Physics 2011(4):029. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

Vopson MM (2019) The mass-energy-information equivalence principle. AIP Advances 9(9):095206. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5123794

Szilard L (1929) Uber die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen. Zeitschrift fur Physik 53(11-12):840-856. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01341281

Prigogine I (1978) Time, structure, and fluctuations. Science 201(4358):777-785. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.201.4358.777

Hawking SW (1975) Particle creation by black holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics 43(3):199-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020

Wolpert DH (2019) The stochastic thermodynamics of computation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52(19):193001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab0850

Still S, Sivak DA, Bell AJ, Crooks GE (2012) Thermodynamics of prediction. Physical Review Letters 109(12):120604. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.120604

Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3):379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Jaynes ET (1957) Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review 106(4):620-630. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.106.620

Landauer R (1961) Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM Journal of Research and Development 5(3):183-191. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.53.0183

Bennett CH (1982) The thermodynamics of computation-a review. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21(12):905-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02084158

Jarzynski C (1997) Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences. Physical Review Letters 78(14):2690-2693. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2690

Crooks GE (1999) Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences. Physical Review E 60(3):2721-2726. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.60.2721

Seifert U (2012) Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines. Reports on Progress in Physics 75(12):126001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001

Parrondo JMR, Horowitz JM, Sagawa T (2015) Thermodynamics of information. Nature Physics 11(2):131-139. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3230

Bekenstein JD (1973) Black holes and entropy. Physical Review D 7(8):2333-2346. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

Onsager L (1931) Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. I. Physical Review 37(4):405-426. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.37.405

Tsallis C (1988) Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics 52(1-2):479-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016429

Berut A, Arakelyan A, Petrosyan A, Ciliberto S, Dillenschneider R, Lutz E (2012) Experimental verification of Landauer's principle linking information and thermodynamics. Nature 483(7388):187-189. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10872

Lloyd S (2000) Ultimate physical limits to computation. Nature 406(6799):1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1038/35023282

Esposito M, Van den Broeck C (2010) Three faces of the second law. I. Master equation formulation. Physical Review E 82(1):011143. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011143

Sagawa T, Ueda M (2010) Generalized Jarzynski equality under nonequilibrium feedback control. Physical Review Letters 104(9):090602. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.090602

Downloads

Published

2024-12-24