4.4 Article

On the Accurate Estimation of Free Energies Using the Jarzynski Equality

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 688-696

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.25754

关键词

free energy; Jarzynski; steered molecular dynamics; maximum-likelihood

资金

  1. CONICET
  2. University of Buenos Aires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Jarzynski equality is one of the most widely celebrated and scrutinized nonequilibrium work theorems, relating free energy to the external work performed in nonequilibrium transitions. In practice, the required ensemble average of the Boltzmann weights of infinite nonequilibrium transitions is estimated as a finite sample average, resulting in the so-called Jarzynski estimator, Delta(F) over cap (J). Alternatively, the second-order approximation of the Jarzynski equality, though seldom invoked, is exact for Gaussian distributions and gives rise to the Fluctuation-Dissipation estimator Delta(F) over cap (FD). Here we derive the parametric maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) of the free energy. Delta(F) over cap (ML) considering unidirectional work distributions belonging to Gaussian or Gamma families, and compare this estimator to Delta(F) over cap (J). We further consider bidirectional work distributions belonging to the same families, and compare the corresponding bidirectional Delta(F) over cap (ML*) to the Bennett acceptance ratio (Delta(F) over cap (BAR)) estimator. We show that, for Gaussian unidirectional work distributions, Delta(F) over cap (FD) is in fact the parametric MLE of the free energy, and as such, the most efficient estimator for this statistical family. We observe that Delta(F) over cap (ML) and Delta(F) over cap (ML*) perform better than Delta(F) over cap (J) and Delta(F) over cap (BAR), for unidirectional and bidirectional distributions, respectively. These results illustrate that the characterization of the underlying work distribution permits an optimal use of the Jarzynski equality. (C) 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据