ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2024
Assessing the Accuracy and Efficiency of Free Energy Differences Obtained from
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scalable Boltzmann generators for equilibrium sampling of large-scale materials.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Latent thermodynamic flows: unified representation learning and generative modeling of temperature-dependent behaviors from limited data.Chemical science · 2026Article
- Enhanced Sampling in the Age of Machine Learning: Algorithms and Applications.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in drug discovery from advanced molecular representation to pipeline applications.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Physics-based modeling in the new era of enzyme engineering.Nature computational science · 2025Review
- Accurate Lattice Free Energies of Packing Polymorphs from Probabilistic Generative Models.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Machine learning in molecular biophysics: Protein allostery, multi-level free energy simulations, and lipid phase transitions.Biophysics reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computing free energy differences between metastable states characterized by nonoverlapping Boltzmann distributions is often a computationally intensive endeavor, usually requiring chains of intermediate states to connect them. Targeted free energy perturbation (TFEP) can significantly lower the computational cost of FEP calculations by choosing a set of invertible maps used to directly connect the distributions of interest, achieving the necessary statistically significant overlaps without sampling any intermediate states. Probabilistic generative models (PGMs) based on normalizing flow architectures can make it much easier via machine learning to train invertible maps needed for TFEP. However, the accuracy and applicability of approaches based on empirically learned maps depend crucially on the choice of reweighting method adopted to estimate the free energy differences. In this work, we assess the accuracy, rate of convergence, and data efficiency of different free energy estimators, including exponential averaging, Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR), and multistate Bennett acceptance ratio (MBAR), in reweighting PGMs trained by maximum likelihood on limited amounts of molecular dynamics data sampled only from end-states of interest. We carry out the comparisons on a set of simple but representative case studies, including conformational ensembles of alanine dipeptide and ibuprofen. Our results indicate that BAR and MBAR are both data efficient and robust, even in the presence of significant model overfitting in the generation of invertible maps. This analysis can serve as a stepping stone for the deployment of efficient and quantitatively accurate ML-based free energy calculation methods in complex systems.
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.