Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 71 references

A probabilistic approach to system-environment coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For pairwise-interacting systems, the mean and variance of the system–environment interaction energy are given exactly by integrals over density and up to four-body correlation functions.

desk verdict Solid formal derivation with a validation section that does not isolate the exact formulas from the closure approximations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00192 v1 pith:NRHOKTKT submitted 2025-04-30 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Mohammad Rahbar , Christopher J. Stein This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords system-environmentcouplinginteractionenergydistributionreference-particledecompositioncorrelationfunctionsfreeshiftLennard-JonesfluidMonteCarlovalidationGaussianapproximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that for any equilibrium system–environment pair interacting through pairwise forces, the mean and variance of the interaction energy $V_{SE}$ can be written exactly as integrals over the single-particle density and up to four-body correlation functions. The authors derive these closed-form expressions through a reference-particle decomposition that reduces an intractable many-body average to a sum of localized conditional averages. When the distribution of $V_{SE}$ is near-Gaussian, these two moments determine the free-energy shift between a strongly coupled system and its weakly coupled counterpart, avoiding explicit evaluation of the partition function. The formulas are validated against explicit Monte Carlo simulations of particles interacting through a standard pairwise potential across system sizes, with agreement in both weak- and strong-coupling regimes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reference-particle decomposition: tag one particle in the system at a fixed position, split $V_{SE}$ into a sum of single-particle contributions $A'_{SE}$, and replace sums over system particles by integrals weighted with delta functions over the system volume. This converts the full many-body average into an integral over the single-particle density times a conditional average over all other degrees of freedom, with the tagged particle held fixed. Iterating the same contraction on the squared interaction energy isolates two-, three-, and four-body correlation functions, producing the moment formulas and, under the Gaussian assumption, the free-energy shift.

What would settle it

Run the same Monte Carlo system, measure the three- and four-body correlation functions directly from the simulated configurations, insert them into Eqs. (48) and (65), and compare the predicted $V_{SE}$ distribution to the explicit histogram; if the agreement vanishes when the closure approximations are replaced by measured correlations, the validation claim is not established. Reporting the density and temperature of the simulation would make this test reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that system–environment coupling is characterized, at the level of its first two moments, by structural correlation functions. For pairwise interactions $u$, the mean interaction energy is $\langle V_{SE}\rangle = \int_{V_S} d\mathbf{q}_\odot \, \rho(\mathbf{q}_\odot) \int_{V_E} d\mathbf{q} \, \rho(\mathbf{q}) g^{(2)}(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q}_\odot) u(\|\mathbf{q}-\mathbf{q}_\odot\|_2)$, and the second moment decomposes as $\langle V_{SE}^2 \rangle = M + R + C + S$, where $M$ involves two-body correlations, $R$ and $C$ involve three-body correlations, and $S$ involves four-body correlations, each as an explicit integral over the system volume $V_S$ and environment volume $V_E$. When $V_{SE}$ is approximately Gaussian, the free-energy shift relative to the weakly coupled state follows from the mean and variance in either the uncoupled ensemble, $\Delta F_S = \mu_0 - \beta \sigma_0^2/2$, or the coupled ensemble, $\Delta F_S = \mu + \beta \sigma^2/2$. The paper argues these results are exact under the sole assumption of pairwise interactions, with no restriction on coupling strength.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical validation assumes the simulated fluid is dilute enough that standard low-density approximations for the pair, triple, and quadruple correlation functions are accurate, but the paper reports no density or temperature and does not extract those correlation functions from the simulations to test the derived moment formulas independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any pairwise-interacting fluid, the mean interaction energy is computable from the single-particle density and the pair correlation function alone, without sampling the coupled system.
  • When $V_{SE}$ is near-Gaussian, the free-energy shift $\Delta F_S$ requires only these two moments, giving a closed-form route from structural data to free energies.
  • The normalized interaction-energy distribution narrows with system size, so the framework reproduces the thermodynamic-limit delta-function behavior and the broad fluctuation-dominated regime of small strongly coupled systems.
  • In the uniform-density hard-sphere-perturbation limit, the derived moments reduce to the standard free-energy perturbation expressions, connecting the formalism to established theory.
  • Because the inputs are one-particle density plus correlation functions, the formulas can be evaluated in either the uncoupled or coupled ensemble, mirroring the dual reference/target view of free-energy perturbation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exact moment formulas could be tested directly by extracting three- and four-body correlation functions from simulations and comparing the predicted $V_{SE}$ distribution to the explicit histogram, independent of any closure approximation; that test is not reported in the paper.
  • If the low-density closures lose accuracy at higher densities, the exact moment expressions remain valid but would require direct estimates of three- and four-body correlations, suggesting density-functional or integral-equation inputs as natural extensions.
  • The same reference-particle decomposition should extend to higher moments of $V_{SE}$, such as skewness and kurtosis, which would provide corrections when the Gaussian assumption breaks down.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a statistical mechanical formalism for the interaction energy V_SE between a system S and an environment E. Using a reference-particle decomposition and treating particles as identical, the authors derive exact expressions for the first moment (Eq. 48) and the second moment (Eq. 65) of V_SE in terms of one- through four-body correlation functions. They then argue that when V_SE is approximately Gaussian, these two moments determine the free-energy shift Delta_F_S (Eqs. 72-73). Validation is attempted with NVT Monte Carlo simulations of Lennard-Jones particles in a box, comparing predicted distributions of V_SE/<N_S> with explicit simulations for several system sizes.

Significance. If the derivation and validation hold, the paper offers a useful and formally clean route to connect system-environment coupling to measurable structural correlations, and the moment decomposition could be practically valuable in free-energy perturbation and quasichemical contexts. The derivations are transparent and largely self-contained; no fitted parameters appear in the moment formulas, and the combinatorial counting in Appendices C-D is internally consistent as far as I checked. The main limitation is that the numerical validation does not independently test the exact moment formulas, because it relies on low-density closures and never extracts the higher-order correlation functions from the simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VII and Eqs. (48), (65)] The numerical validation does not establish the exact moment formulas of Eqs. (48) and (65). The integrals are evaluated using the Boltzmann approximation for g^(2), the Kirkwood superposition approximation for g^(3), and the Fisher-Kopeliovich closure for g^(4), and no state point (reduced density, reduced temperature, total particle number, box size, or Lennard-Jones parameters) is reported. The paper never extracts g^(3) and g^(4) from the simulations, so the agreement shown in Figure 6 could be dominated by the adequacy of these closures at an unstated low density rather than by the exact formulas. I request a full specification of the simulation parameters and a direct test: compute g^(2), g^(3), and g^(4) from the Monte Carlo trajectories, evaluate Eqs. (48) and (65) with those correlation functions, and compare the resulting moments and distributions with the closure-based predictions and with the explicit V_SE distribution.
  2. [Section VI and Figure 6] The proposed route to Delta_F_S via Eqs. (72)-(73) relies on V_SE being approximately Gaussian, but the validation never checks Gaussianity. The 'Model' curves in Figure 6 are constructed from a Gaussian N(alpha, gamma) whose parameters come from the closure-evaluated moments, so the demonstrated agreement conflates three separate hypotheses: the exact moment formulas, the low-density closures, and the Gaussian shape of the V_SE distribution. To support the abstract's validation claim, the authors should report the empirical skewness and kurtosis (or another normality diagnostic) for the simulated V_SE distributions, and ideally compute Delta_F_S by direct free-energy perturbation for at least one state point for comparison with Eqs. (72)-(73).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (56)] The second integral in Eq. (56) contains a typo: the integration variable is written as dq_k but should be dq_odot, consistent with the first integral and the surrounding text.
  2. [Section VII and Figures 6-7] The simulation and analysis details are incomplete: the paper does not report the number of Monte Carlo steps, equilibration protocol, block-averaging procedure, or the statistical uncertainty of the explicit histograms, which makes the claimed 'excellent agreement' difficult to assess quantitatively.
  3. [Figures 6-7] The caption of Figure 6 does not define the reduced units or the values of R_S, and the inset of Figure 7 lacks axis labels; adding these details would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section II] The notation P(x_S|V_SE) in Eqs. (21)-(22) could be confused with the probability density of the interaction energy P(V_SE); using a distinct symbol or explicit conditioning notation would improve clarity.
  5. [Section VI] The introduction states that thermodynamic potentials are not directly computed, but Section VI derives closed-form expressions for Delta_F_S; the text should be rephrased to clarify that numerical evaluation of free energies is deferred to future work, not precluded.
  6. [References] Reference [36] is a joint submission with no arXiv identifier or journal information; the complete citation should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eqs. (48) and (65) are derived from the equilibrium pair-decomposition algebra, and the Gaussian free-energy relation is an external cumulant result; companion citation is contextual only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the pairwise form of VSE (Eq. 41), the reference-particle substitution (Eqs. 27-33) converts the ensemble average into integrals over the system volume of the single-particle density times a conditional expectation. Appendix C shows that the conditional expectation reduces, by the reduced-density identities of Appendix A, exactly to Eq. 48, with no fitted constant or imported result. Likewise, Eq. 65 is obtained by expanding (sum u)^2, classifying the index coincidences into diagonal and off-diagonal sectors (Eqs. 53-55), and evaluating each conditional average with the same reduced-density identities (Appendix D); the surviving terms are precisely M, R, C, and S. The Gaussian relation Delta_FS = mu0 - (1/2) beta sigma0^2 (Eqs. 72-73) is the standard cumulant/FEP result, and the exponential average in Eq. 71 is the textbook Zwanzig identity, not an input that already contains the moments. The citation to the companion article [36] is used only to motivate why P(VSE) matters and to point to future use; it does not enter the derivation of Eqs. (48), (65), or (72)-(73). The numerical validation does invoke standard low-density closures (Boltzmann g2, Kirkwood superposition, Fisher-Kopeliovich closure) without reporting the state point, so the agreement shown in Fig. 6 strictly tests the closure-augmented moment evaluation rather than the exact formulas alone; that is a validation/completeness concern, not a circular one, because the closures are not fitted to the target distribution and the exact moment formulas are derived independently of them. No self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forces the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the model. The simulation parameters (density, temperature, system size) are not reported but they are input conditions, not fitted constants. The closure approximations (Boltzmann g2, Kirkwood g3, Fisher-Kopeliovich g4) introduce no adjustable parameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the detector functions and reference-particle decomposition are mathematical bookkeeping constructs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The interaction between all particles is pairwise additive (V_SE written as a sum of pair potentials u(r) in Eq. 41).
    Stated in Section III and used in Eqs. 41, 48, and 65. Excludes three-body forces and internal molecular degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption The composite system S+E is in equilibrium and microcanonical and canonical ensembles are equivalent in the thermodynamic limit.
    Invoked in Section II to justify using the microcanonical constraint delta for averages that are later compared to NVT simulations. For small systems in the strong-coupling regime, finite-size ensemble corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The interaction energy V_SE is approximately Gaussian distributed when computing free-energy shifts.
    Used in Section VI to reduce the free-energy difference to mu and sigma^2 (Eqs. 72-73) and in Section VII to model P(V_SE/⟨NS⟩) as a normal distribution. The paper does not derive Gaussianity; it is an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The three- and four-body correlation functions are approximated by Kirkwood superposition and the Fisher-Kopeliovich closure, respectively, in the numerical validation.
    Introduced in Section VII as 'established approximations for low-density systems'. These are not derived in the paper and are not verified against the simulation's own triple and quadruple correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A probabilistic approach to system-environment coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRHOKTKT

@misc{pith2026250500192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A probabilistic approach to system-environment coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRHOKTKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00192}
}
abstract

We introduce a unified statistical framework for quantifying system-environment coupling by treating the interaction energy $V_\mathcal{SE}$ as a stochastic variable. Using a reference-particle decomposition, we derive exact, closed-form expressions for the mean and variance of $V_\mathcal{SE}$ in terms of the single-particle density and up to four-body correlation functions. When $V_\mathcal{SE}$ is approximately Gaussian, these two moments suffice to compute the free energy shift of the strongly coupled system. To validate our framework, we ran explicit Monte Carlo simulations of the full system-environment configurations across a range of system sizes, generating reference distributions of the interaction energy $V_\mathcal{SE}$. We then applied our derived analytical formulas to predict these distributions and found excellent agreement in both the weak- and strong-coupling regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Solvation of a dilute molecular solution as an example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decomposition of the total interaction potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Graphical representation of the decomposition of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of the diagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Free-energy difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Mean ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The probability distribution of the normalized inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (75) A key point is that all inputs appearing in the equations above —ρ(•),g(2)(•,•),g(3)(•,•,•), and g(4)(•,•,•,•)— must be computed under the assumption that the sys- tem and environment are decoupled. These quantities must therefore be obtained by sampling configurations in which the full composite supersystem remains in thermal equilibrium with the ex...

    work page

  2. [2]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Statistical mechanics of fluid mixtures, J. Chem. Phys. 3, 300 (1935)

    work page 1935

  3. [3]

    Widom, Some topics in the theory of fluids, J

    B. Widom, Some topics in the theory of fluids, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 2808 (1963)

    1963

  4. [4]

    G. M. Torrie and J. P. Valleau, Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Um- brella sampling, J. Comput. Phys. 23, 187 (1977)

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    C. H. Bennett, Efficient estimation of free energy differ- ences from Monte Carlo data, J. Comput. Phys. 22, 245 (1976)

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    K¨ astner, Umbrella sampling, Wiley Interdiscip

    J. K¨ astner, Umbrella sampling, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 1, 932 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    H´ enin, T

    J. H´ enin, T. Leli` evre, M. R. Shirts, O. Valsson, and L. Delemotte, Enhanced sampling methods for molecular dynamics simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04164 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Chipot and A

    C. Chipot and A. Pohorille, Free energy calculations , Vol. 86 (Springer, 2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Pohorille and M

    A. Pohorille and M. A. Wilson, Excess chemical poten- tial of small solutes across water–membrane and water– 20 hexane interfaces, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 3760 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    T. L. Beck, M. E. Paulaitis, and L. R. Pratt,The potential distribution theorem and models of molecular solutions (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Widom, Potential-distribution theory and the statis- tical mechanics of fluids, J

    B. Widom, Potential-distribution theory and the statis- tical mechanics of fluids, J. Phys. Chem. 86, 869 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    Bansal, W

    A. Bansal, W. G. Chapman, and D. Asthagiri, Quasi- chemical theory and the description of associating fluids relative to a reference: Multiple bonding of a single site solute, J. Chem. Phys. 147 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Paliwal, D

    A. Paliwal, D. Asthagiri, L. Pratt, H. Ashbaugh, and M. Paulaitis, An analysis of molecular packing and chem- ical association in liquid water using quasichemical the- ory, J. Chem. Phys. 124 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    M. J. Mitchell and J. A. McCammon, Free energy dif- ference calculations by thermodynamic integration: dif- ficulties in obtaining a precise value, J. Chem. Phys. 12, 271 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    H. S. Ashbaugh and L. R. Pratt, Colloquium: Scaled particle theory and the length scales of hydrophobicity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 159 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Jarzynski, Stochastic and macroscopic thermodynam- ics of strongly coupled systems, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Stochastic and macroscopic thermodynam- ics of strongly coupled systems, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011008 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    J. M. G. Vilar and J. M. Rubi, Failure of the work- Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 020601 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calcula- tions

    J. Horowitz and C. Jarzynski, Comment on “Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calcula- tions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 098901 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations

    L. Peliti, Comment on “Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 098903 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Rep

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Van den Broeck and M

    C. Van den Broeck and M. Esposito, Ensemble and tra- jectory thermodynamics: A brief introduction, Physica A 418, 6 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New J. Phys. 12, 013013 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Seifert, First and second law of thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys

    U. Seifert, First and second law of thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020601 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H¨ anggi, Open system trajectories spec- ify fluctuating work but not heat, Phys. Rev. E 94, 022143 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    H. J. D. Miller and J. Anders, Entropy production and time asymmetry in the presence of strong interactions, Phys. Rev. E 95, 062123 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Goldstein, D

    S. Goldstein, D. A. Huse, J. L. Lebowitz, and P. Sar- tori, On the nonequilibrium entropy of large and small systems, in Stochastic Dynamics Out of Equilibrium (Springer, 2019) pp. 581–596

    2019

  19. [27]

    Campa, T

    A. Campa, T. Dauxois, and S. Ruffo, Statistical mechan- ics and dynamics of solvable models with long-range in- teractions, Phys. Rep. 480, 57 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Thermodynamics in the quantum regime, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 195 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H¨ anggi, Colloquium: Statistical me- chanics and thermodynamics at strong coupling: Quan- tum and classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 041002 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Thirring, H

    W. Thirring, H. Narnhofer, and H. A. Posch, Negative specific heat, the thermodynamic limit, and ergodicity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130601 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    H¨ anggi, P

    P. H¨ anggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reaction-rate theory: Fifty years after Kramers, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 251 (1990)

    1990

  24. [32]

    M. A. Ochoa, A. Bruch, and A. Nitzan, Energy distri- bution and local fluctuations in strongly coupled open quantum systems: The extended resonant level model, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035420 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Xing and M

    X. Xing and M. Ding, Thermodynamics and stochastic thermodynamics of strongly coupled systems, Phys. Rev. E 109, 034105 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    M. Ding, Z. Tu, and X. Xing, Strong coupling thermody- namics and stochastic thermodynamics from the unifying perspective of time-scale separation, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013015 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    L. Wang, B. Berne, and R. A. Friesner, On achieving high accuracy and reliability in the calculation of relative protein–ligand binding affinities, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 1937 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. Talkner, and P. H¨ anggi, Fluctuation the- orem for arbitrary open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Rahbar and C

    M. Rahbar and C. J. Stein, Thermodynamic potentials from a probabilistic view on the system-environment in- teraction energy, (2025), joint submission with this arti- cle

    2025

  30. [38]

    Asthagiri, L

    D. Asthagiri, L. R. Pratt, and H. Ashbaugh, Absolute hydration free energies of ions, ion–water clusters, and quasichemical theory, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 2702 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    A. S. Mey, B. K. Allen, H. E. B. Macdonald, J. D. Chodera, D. F. Hahn, M. Kuhn, J. Michel, D. L. Mobley, L. N. Naden, S. Prasad, et al., Best practices for alchem- ical free energy calculations [article v1. 0], LiveCoMS 2, 18378 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    D. M. York, Modern alchemical free energy methods for drug discovery explained, ACS Phys. Chem. Au 3, 478 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Y. Miao, W. Sinko, L. Pierce, D. Bucher, R. C. Walker, and J. A. McCammon, Improved reweighting of accel- erated molecular dynamics simulations for free energy calculation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10, 2677 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    M. Wang, Y. Mei, and U. Ryde, Convergence criteria for single-step free-energy calculations: the relation between the π bias measure and the sample variance, Chem. Sci. 15, 8786 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. Wang, P. R. Arantes, A. Bhattarai, R. V. Hsu, S. Pawnikar, Y.-m. M. Huang, G. Palermo, and Y. Miao, Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics: Principles and applications, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 11, e1521 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Y. Miao, V. A. Feher, and J. A. McCammon, Gaus- sian accelerated molecular dynamics: unconstrained en- hanced sampling and free energy calculation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 3584 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Jackson and L

    J. Jackson and L. Klein, Potential distribution method in equilibrium statistical mechanics, Phys. Fluids 7, 228 (1964)

    1964

  38. [46]

    L. R. Pratt, R. A. LaViolette, M. A. Gomez, and M. E. Gentile, Quasi-chemical theory for the statistical thermo- dynamics of the hard-sphere fluid, J. Phys. Chem. B105, 11662 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    Lawrence and P

    R. Lawrence and P. R. A. Laviolette, Quasi-chemical the- ories of associated liquids, Mol. Phys. 94, 909 (1998). 21

    1998

  40. [48]

    L. R. Pratt and S. B. Rempe, Quasi-chemical theory and implicit solvent models for simulations, in AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 492 (American Institute of Physics, 1999) pp. 172–201

    1999

  41. [49]

    M. E. Paulaitis and L. Rpratt, Hydration theory for molecular biophysics, Adv. Protein Chem. 62, 283 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Azimi and E

    S. Azimi and E. Gallicchio, Potential distribution theory of alchemical transfer, J. Chem. Phys. 162 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    R. W. Zwanzig, High-temperature equation of state by a perturbation method. I. Nonpolar gases, J. Chem. Phys. 22, 1420 (1954)

    1954

  44. [52]

    Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, J

    R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  45. [53]

    D. T. Gomez, L. R. Pratt, D. N. Asthagiri, and S. B. Rempe, Hydrated anions: from clusters to bulk solution with quasi-chemical theory, Acc. Chem. Res. 55, 2201 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    S. B. Rempe, D. Asthagiri, and L. R. Pratt, Inner shell definition and absolute hydration free energy of K +(aq) on the basis of quasi-chemical theory and ab initio molec- ular dynamics, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 6, 1966 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon Jr, The theory of a gen- eral quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 281, 547 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Roux and T

    B. Roux and T. Simonson, Implicit solvent models, Bio- phys. Chem. 78, 1 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    H. J. D. Miller and J. Anders, Energy-temperature uncer- tainty relation in quantum thermodynamics, Nat. Com- mun. 9, 2203 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Anto-Sztrikacs, A

    N. Anto-Sztrikacs, A. Nazir, and D. Segal, Effective- Hamiltonian theory of open quantum systems at strong coupling, PRX Quantum 4, 020307 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Kardar, Statistical physics of particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    M. Kardar, Statistical physics of particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    Hansen and I

    J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liq- uids: With Applications to Soft Matter (AP, 2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    P. C. Burke, G. Nakerst, and M. Haque, Structure of the Hamiltonian of mean force, Phys. Rev. E 110, 014111 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    I. Z. Fisher and B. L. Kopeliovich, Refinement of super- position approximation in the theory of liquids, in Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR , Vol. 133 (Russian Academy of Sci- ences, 1960) pp. 81–83

    1960

  55. [63]

    Meeron, Series expansion of distribution functions in multicomponent fluid systems, J

    E. Meeron, Series expansion of distribution functions in multicomponent fluid systems, J. Chem. Phys. 27, 1238 (1957)

    1957

  56. [64]

    E. E. Salpeter, On Mayer’s theory of cluster expansions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 5, 183 (1958)

    1958

  57. [65]

    Grouba, A

    V. Grouba, A. Zorin, and L. Sevastianov, The superposi- tion approximation: a critical review, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 18, 1 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    Csizi and M

    K.-S. Csizi and M. Reiher, Universal QM/MM ap- proaches for general nanoscale applications, Wiley Inter- discip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 13, e1656 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    C. E. Tzeliou, M. A. Mermigki, and D. Tzeli, Review on the QM/MM methodologies and their application to metalloproteins, Mol. 27, 2660 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    D. M. Rogers and T. L. Beck, Modeling molecular and ionic absolute solvation free energies with quasichemical theory bounds, J. Chem. Phys. 129 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    D. N. Asthagiri, A. V. Parambathu, and T. L. Beck, Con- sequences of the failure of equipartition for the p–v be- havior of liquid water and the hydration free energy com- ponents of a small protein, Chem. Sci. 16, 7503 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Burgot, The notion of activity in chemistry , Vol

    J.-L. Burgot, The notion of activity in chemistry , Vol. 5 (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Ox- ford university press, 2001)

    R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Ox- ford university press, 2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.