The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of efficiency and bias of free energies computed by exponential averaging, the Bennett acceptance ratio, and thermodynamic integration
Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated the Bennett acceptance ratio method is the best asymptotically unbiased method for determining the equilibrium free energy between two end states given work distributions collected from either equilibrium and nonequilibrium data. However, it is still not clear what the practical advantage of this acceptance ratio method is over other common methods in atomistic simulations. In this study, we first review theoretical estimates of the bias and variance of exponential averaging (EXP), thermodynamic integration (TI), and the Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR). In the process, we present a new simple scheme for computing the variance and bias of many estimators, and demonstrate the connections between BAR and the weighted histogram analysis method. Next, a series of analytically solvable toy problems is examined to shed more light on the relative performance in terms of the bias and efficiency of these three methods. Interestingly, it is impossible to conclusively identify a “best” method for calculating the free energy, as each of the three methods performs more efficiently than the others in at least one situation examined in these toy problems. Finally, sample problems of the insertion/deletion of both a Lennard-Jones particle and a much larger molecule in TIP3P water are examined by these three methods. In all tests of atomistic systems, free energies obtained with BAR have significantly lower bias and smaller variance than when using EXP or TI, especially when the overlap in phase space between end states is small. For example, BAR can extract as much information from multiple fast, far-from-equilibrium simulations as from fewer simulations near equilibrium, which EXP cannot. Although TI and sometimes even EXP can be somewhat more efficient in idealized toy problems, in the realistic atomistic situations tested in this paper, BAR is significantly more efficient than all other methods.
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
Cited by
Predicting Absolute Ligand Binding Free Energies to a Simple Model Site
Mobley, D. L., Graves, A. P., Chodera, J. D., McReynolds, A. C., Shoichet, B. K., & Dill, K. A. (2007) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.06.002 · Cited by 310
Jämbeck, J. P. M., & Lyubartsev, A. P. (2014) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp4111234 · Cited by 73
Kosugi, T., & Hayashi, S. (2012) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja212117m · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Shirts, M. R., & Pande, V. S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2005-04-08
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 144107-144107
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W1997125900
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Comparison of efficiency and bias of free energies computed by exponential averaging, the Bennett acceptance ratio, and thermodynamic integration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.1873592
- The paper
- Shirts, M. R., & Pande, V. S. (2005). Comparison of efficiency and bias of free energies computed by exponential averaging, the Bennett acceptance ratio, and thermodynamic integration. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1873592
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.