The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Good Practices in Free-Energy Calculations
Open accessAbstract
As access to computational resources continues to increase, free-energy calculations have emerged as a powerful tool that can play a predictive role in a wide range of research areas. Yet, the reliability of these calculations can often be improved significantly if a number of precepts, or good practices, are followed. Although the theory upon which these good practices rely has largely been known for many years, it is often overlooked or simply ignored. In other cases, the theoretical developments are too recent for their potential to be fully grasped and merged into popular platforms for the computation of free-energy differences. In this contribution, the current best practices for carrying out free-energy calculations using free energy perturbation and nonequilibrium work methods are discussed, demonstrating that at little to no additional cost, free-energy estimates could be markedly improved and bounded by meaningful error estimates. Monitoring the probability distributions that underlie the transformation between the states of interest, performing the calculation bidirectionally, stratifying the reaction pathway, and choosing the most appropriate paradigms and algorithms for transforming between states offer significant gains in both accuracy and precision.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Electrospray Ionization for Mass Spectrometry of Large Biomolecules
Fenn, J. B., Mann, M., Meng, C. K., Wong, S. F., & Whitehouse, C. M. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2675315 · Cited by 7,634
Current Status of the AMOEBA Polarizable Force Field
Ponder, J. W., Wu, C., Ren, P., Pande, V. S., Chodera, J. D., Schnieders, M. J., Haque, I., Mobley, D. L., Lambrecht, D. S., DiStasio, R. A., et al. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp910674d · Cited by 1,440
Cited by
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., & Tildesley, D. J. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198803195.001.0001 · Cited by 20,945
Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines
Seifert, U. (2012) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001 · Cited by 3,300
Guidelines for the analysis of free energy calculations
Klimovich, P. V., Shirts, M. R., & Mobley, D. L. (2015) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-015-9840-9 · Cited by 490
Standard Binding Free Energies from Computer Simulations: What Is the Best Strategy?
Gumbart, J. C., Roux, B., & Chipot, C. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct3008099 · Cited by 343
Self-citationMolecular Dynamics with Chemical Accuracy─Alkane Adsorption in Acidic Zeolites
Berger, F., Rybicki, M., & Sauer, J. (2023) · ACS Catalysis · doi:10.1021/acscatal.2c05493 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Pohorille, A., Jarzynski, C., & Chipot, C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-07-22
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 32
- Pages
- 10235-10253
- ISSN
- 1520-5207 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6106
- OpenAlex
- W1989195611
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Good Practices in Free-Energy Calculations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jp102971x
- The paper
- Pohorille, A., Jarzynski, C., & Chipot, C. (2010). Good Practices in Free-Energy Calculations. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp102971x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.