ArticleMacromolecules2024
Quantitative Equivalence and Performance Comparison of Particle and Field-Theoretic Simulations.
Article in Macromolecules, 2024. 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.
- Density-Potential Functional Theoretic (DPFT) Schemes of Modeling Reactive Solid-Liquid Interfaces.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2025Article
- Coacervation drives morphological diversity of mRNA encapsulating nanoparticles.The Journal of chemical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Particle and field-theoretic simulations are both commonly used methods to study the equilibrium properties of polymeric materials. Yet despite the formal equivalence of the two methods, no comprehensive comparisons of particle and field-theoretic simulations exist in the literature. In this work, we seek to fill this gap by performing a systematic and quantitative comparison of particle and field-theoretic simulations. In our comparison, we consider four representative polymeric systems: a homopolymer melt/solution, a diblock copolymer melt, a polyampholyte solution, and a polyelectrolyte gel. For each of these systems, we first demonstrate that particle and field-theoretic simulations are equivalent and yield exactly the same results for the pressure and the chemical potential. We next quantify the performance of each method across a range of different conditions including variations in chain length, system density, interaction strength, system size, and polymer volume fraction. The outcome of these calculations is a comprehensive look into the performance of each method and the systems and conditions when either particle or field-theoretic simulations are preferred. We find that field-theoretic simulations are equal to or faster than particle simulations for nearly all of the systems and conditions examined. In many situations, field-theoretic simulations are several orders of magnitude faster than particle simulations, especially if the polymer chains are long, the system density is high, and long-range Coulombic interactions are present. We also demonstrate that field-theoretic simulations are considerably faster at calculating the chemical potential and bypass the challenges associated with particle-based Widom insertion techniques. Taken together, our results provide quantitative evidence that field-theoretic simulations can reach and sample equilibrium considerably faster than particle simulations while simultaneously producing equivalent results.
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.