ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Accurate Lattice Free Energies of Packing Polymorphs from Probabilistic Generative Models.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. 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.
- BEST-CSP Benchmark Study of Polymorphs I and II of Sulfamerazine and the Perils of Polytype Polymorphs.Crystal growth & design · 2026Article
- Assessing Polymorph Stability and Phase Transitions at Finite Temperature: Integrating Crystal Structure Prediction, Lattice Dynamics, and Molecular Dynamics.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finite-temperature lattice free energy differences between polymorphs of molecular crystals are fundamental to understanding and predicting the relative stability relationships underpinning polymorphism, yet are computationally expensive to obtain. Here, we implement and critically assess machine-learning-enabled targeted free energy calculations derived from flow-based generative models to compute the free energy difference between two ice crystal polymorphs (Ice XI and Ic), modeled with a fully flexible empirical classical force field. We demonstrate that even when remapping from an analytical reference distribution, such methods enable a cost-effective and accurate calculation of free energy differences between disconnected metastable ensembles when trained on locally ergodic data sampled exclusively from the ensembles of interest. Unlike classical free energy perturbation methods, such as the Einstein crystal method, the targeted approach analyzed in this work requires no additional sampling of intermediate perturbed Hamiltonians, offering significant computational savings. To systematically assess the accuracy of the method, we monitored the convergence of free energy estimates during training by implementing an overfitting-aware weighted averaging strategy. By comparing our results with ground-truth free energy differences computed with the Einstein crystal method, we assess the accuracy and efficiency of two different model architectures, employing two different representations of the supercell degrees of freedom (Cartesian vs quaternion-based). We conduct our assessment by comparing free energy differences between crystal supercells of different sizes and temperatures and assessing the accuracy in extrapolating lattice free energies to the thermodynamic limit. While at low temperatures and in small system sizes, the models perform with similar accuracy. We note that for larger systems and high temperatures, the choice of representation is key to obtaining generalizable results of quality comparable to that obtained from the Einstein crystal method. We believe this work to be a stepping stone toward efficient free energy calculations in larger, more complex molecular crystals.
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.