Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955976›Full record

ArticleThe European physical journal. E, Soft matter2018

On the effect of the thermostat in non-equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations.

José Ruiz-Franco, Lorenzo Rovigatti, Emanuela Zaccarelli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European physical journal. E, Soft matter, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Topical Issue on Dielectric Spectroscopy Applied to Soft Matter.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2020
    Article
  6. A modified Lowe-Andersen thermostat for a hard sphere fluid.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2019
    Article
  7. Topical Issue on Advances in Computational Methods for Soft Matter Systems.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

José Ruiz-FrancoDipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185, Roma, Italy. jose.manuel.ruiz.franco@roma1.infn.it.
Lorenzo RovigattiDipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185, Roma, Italy.
Emanuela ZaccarelliDipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185, Roma, Italy.

Funding

European Research Council 681597
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The numerical investigation of the statics and dynamics of systems in non-equilibrium in general, and under shear flow in particular, has become more and more common. However, not all the numerical methods developed to simulate equilibrium systems can be successfully adapted to out-of-equilibrium cases. This is especially true for thermostats. Indeed, even though thermostats developed to work under equilibrium conditions sometimes display good agreement with rheology experiments, their performance rapidly degrades beyond weak dissipation and small shear rates. Here we focus on gauging the relative performances of three thermostats, Langevin, dissipative particle dynamics, and Bussi-Donadio-Parrinello under varying parameters and external conditions. We compare their effectiveness by looking at different observables and clearly demonstrate that choosing the right thermostat (and its parameters) requires a careful evaluation of, at least, temperature, density and velocity profiles. We also show that small modifications of the Langevin and DPD thermostats greatly enhance their performance in a wide range of parameters.

Indexed as

Topical issue: Advances in Computational Methods for Soft Matter Systems

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.