ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023
Does a Machine-Learned Potential Perform Better Than an Optimally Tuned Traditional Force Field? A Case Study on Fluorohydrins.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable and accurate atomistic simulations of flexible molecules using conformationally generalisable machine learned potentials.Chemical science · 2024Article
- The Area Law of Molecular Entropy: Moving beyond Harmonic Approximation.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a comparative study that evaluates the performance of a machine learning potential (ANI-2x), a conventional force field (GAFF), and an optimally tuned GAFF-like force field in the modeling of a set of 10 γ-fluorohydrins that exhibit a complex interplay between intra- and intermolecular interactions in determining conformer stability. To benchmark the performance of each molecular model, we evaluated their energetic, geometric, and sampling accuracies relative to quantum-mechanical data. This benchmark involved conformational analysis both in the gas phase and chloroform solution. We also assessed the performance of the aforementioned molecular models in estimating nuclear spin-spin coupling constants by comparing their predictions to experimental data available in chloroform. The results and discussion presented in this study demonstrate that ANI-2x tends to predict stronger-than-expected hydrogen bonding and overstabilize global minima and shows problems related to inadequate description of dispersion interactions. Furthermore, while ANI-2x is a viable model for modeling in the gas phase, conventional force fields still play an important role, especially for condensed-phase simulations. Overall, this study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each model, providing guidelines for the use and future development of force fields and machine learning potentials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.