Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Aromatic Molecule Solvation in Liquid Water with Coupled Cluster Accuracy: The Balance of Pi-Interactions and Hydrophobicity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A machine-learned potential trained only on finite clusters reproduces CCSD(T) accuracy for toluene in bulk water and shows standard force fields and hybrid DFT get the hydrophilic–hydrophobic balance wrong.

desk verdict First CCSD(T)-quality MLIP for an aromatic solute in water, with useful benchmark findings, but the bulk validation and missing error bars need to survive review. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13261 v1 pith:4WUJU2XY submitted 2026-07-14 physics.chem-ph

Nore Stolte , Harald Forbert , Yury Lysogorskiy , Ralf Drautz , Dominik Marx This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords toluenehydrationCCSD(T)benchmarkmachinelearninginteratomicpotentialgraphatomicclusterexpansionupfittingpi-hydrogenbondinghydrophobicsolvationforcefieldvalidation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that condensed-phase simulations of aromatic molecules in water can reach coupled-cluster (CCSD(T)) accuracy by training a graph-based machine-learned potential on finite molecular clusters alone, using a two-step upfitting scheme: first fit to MP2 energies and forces, then refine to CCSD(T) energies. Applied to toluene in liquid water, the resulting potential reproduces coupled-cluster energies and forces in the bulk and serves as a benchmark. Against this benchmark, three widely used biomolecular force-field families and a dispersion-corrected hybrid DFT functional all fail in distinct ways: the hydrophobic shell near the methyl group is understructured, interfacial water is misoriented, the number of water–π hydrogen bonds is over- or underestimated, and the free-energy barrier to breaking a water–π bond is roughly doubled. A sympathetic reader would care because these interactions are thought to govern protein folding, ligand binding, and DNA solvation, and the paper offers a practical route to accurate reference data for them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MLIP built on the graph atomic cluster expansion (GRACE), a many-body interatomic potential parameterized on local atomic environments. The training strategy is upfitting: a GRACE potential is first fit to MP2 energies and forces on finite clusters, then a smaller set of clusters is labeled with CCSD(T) energies and the potential is refined using energies only, without any DFT training data. To make finite clusters cover the bulk configurational space, clusters are sampled from periodic molecular dynamics and interatomic distances are scaled for subsets of homo- and hetero-clusters. This combination is what transfers CCSD(T) accuracy from small cluster calculations

What would settle it

Take independent snapshots from the CCSD(T)-MLIP bulk simulation, compute explicit DLPNO-CCSD(T) single-point energies and forces on solute-plus-nearby-water clusters, and check that the MLIP errors stay at coupled-cluster tolerance across both π-hydrogen-bonded and hydrophobic-contact configurations; a large error spike near the ring or methyl group would refute the transferability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that only interaction potentials that recover the CCSD(T) balance between π-interactions and hydrophobic interactions can be considered predictive for biomolecular simulations. Concretely, the paper reports that its CCSD(T)-quality MLIP yields a free-energy barrier of about 0.57 kJ/mol for breaking a water–π hydrogen bond, with essentially no barrier along the oxygen coordinate, and that configurations with one accepted π-hydrogen bond are the most probable, about half of all configurations. None of the compared force fields or the hybrid DFT functional reproduces this pattern: force fields either overbind water to the ring or understructure the hydrophobic shell, while

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CCSD(T) energies computed on finite clusters sampled from lower-level periodic molecular dynamics, with scaled distances for subsets of clusters, cover the same configurational space that the MLIP visits in bulk; if the cluster set omits the π-hydrogen-bond and hydrophobic-contact geometries that dominate the bulk ensemble, the fitted potential can look accurate on training-like clusters yet fail in bulk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CCSD(T)-quality condensed-phase simulations of aqueous aromatic solutes become feasible without periodic coupled-cluster calculations, using only finite cluster data.
  • The specific benchmark numbers—the ~0.57 kJ/mol barrier, the dominance of one-π-H-bond configurations, and the straddling orientation of hydrophobic water—become reference targets for force fields and DFT.
  • OPLS/AA, GAFF2, and CGenFF cannot simultaneously describe hydrophobic and π-interactions; improving one appears to degrade the other.
  • revPBE0-D3 and MP2 overestimate water–π hydrogen-bond breaking barriers by about a factor of two, implying too slow hydrophilic water exchange near aromatic rings.
  • The training workflow is general and transferable to larger solutes such as drug-like molecules, amino-acid residues, and nucleic acid fragments, provided explicit electrostatics are added where long-range charge transfer matters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The finite-cluster transferability premise deserves independent scrutiny: an MLIP that matches cluster energies may still miss collective bulk effects, such as long-range electrostatics or cooperative hydrogen-bond networks that small clusters cannot represent.
  • A direct test of the 'toluene as archetype' claim would be to apply the same recipe to benzene alone, isolating ring-specific π-effects from the methyl group's hydrophobic perturbation.
  • The reported insensitivity of solvation structure to nuclear quantum effects predicts that classical simulations suffice for structure but does not rule out isotope effects on dynamic quantities such as π-H-bond lifetimes; that is a testable extension.
  • If the hydrophilic–hydrophobic trade-off is intrinsic to isotropic pairwise force fields, then anisotropic or polarizable models—or MLIPs fitted to correlated wavefunction data—are required for reliable biomolecular simulations, rather than further reparameterization of existing fixed-charge forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-step procedure to train a GRACE machine-learned interatomic potential (MLIP) for aqueous toluene at CCSD(T) accuracy: first a lower-level MP2 model is trained on energies and forces of finite clusters sampled from periodic MD (with distance scaling for subsets), then a small CCSD(T) energy-only training set is used to upfit the potential. The authors claim that this CCSD(T)-upfitted GRACE potential reproduces coupled cluster energies and forces in bulk liquid water, and use it to benchmark three force fields (OPLS/AA, GAFF2, CGenFF) and two electronic-structure-based GRACE potentials (revPBE0-D3, MP2). The comparisons focus on radial and spatial distribution functions, interfacial water orientations, π-hydrogen-bond populations, and free-energy profiles along Ph–O/H and Cm–O/H distances. The central conclusion is that all tested force fields and the hybrid DFT functional fail to capture the balance between hydrophobic solvation and hydrophilic π-interactions relative to the CCSD(T) reference.

Significance. If the transferability claim holds, the manuscript offers a practical, data-efficient route to CCSD(T)-accuracy condensed-phase MLIPs from finite cluster data and provides a much-needed benchmark for force-field and DFT descriptions of aromatic solvation. The explicit two-step training architecture, the use of only finite clusters, and the inclusion of nuclear quantum effects via path integral simulation are sensible and extend prior water-focused CCSD(T)-accuracy MLIP work. The paper also usefully identifies specific qualitative failures (e.g., overestimated π-H-bond populations in OPLS/AA and GAFF2, understructured hydrophobic shells) that are informative for developers. However, the strength of the central claim depends on validation that is largely relegated to the Supporting Information, and the quantitative comparisons in the main text lack statistical uncertainties, so the significance as it stands is conditional on that supporting evidence being complete and decisive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7(a), Methods 'Machine learning interatomic potential training', SI S4–S5] The central transferability premise is not directly demonstrated in the main text. The CCSD(T)-upfitted potential is trained on finite clusters sampled from periodic MD driven by MP2 or PBE, with distance scaling for subsets. If the lower-level ensembles underweight the π-H-bond configurations that dominate the CCSD(T) bulk ensemble (and the paper's own Fig. 5(f) shows MP2 and revPBE0-D3 differ substantially from CCSD(T) in p(N)), then CCSD(T) labels on those clusters cannot repair the missing regions, and the MLIP must extrapolate in bulk. The claim that the potential 'reproduces CCSD(T) energies and forces in bulk' is supported only by cluster-based end-to-end validation in SI S4–S5, not by any CCSD(T)-labeled configurations drawn from the final bulk trajectory. Please add a self-consistency test in which CCSD(T) energies (and, if feasible, forces) are computed for configurations extra
  2. [Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6; Results 'Solvation free energy barriers due to π-water interactions'] No statistical uncertainties are reported for any simulation observable. RDF peak heights, p(N) values, straddling-angle distributions, and free-energy profiles are plotted without error bars or block-averaging estimates. This is load-bearing because several headline claims rest on small differences: the CCSD(T) barrier in Ph–Hw is ≈0.57 kJ/mol versus ≈1.12 kJ/mol for MP2 (Fig. 6(a,c)), and p(N) RMSDs of 2–6% are quoted in the text. With 3 ns of production data for one solute in 256 waters, these differences may be within sampling uncertainty. Please add block-averaged error bars or otherwise quantify the statistical precision of the key quantities, and temper claims that are not statistically resolvable.
  3. [Methods 'Reference calculations', SI Section S5] The DLPNO-CCSD(T) reference is used with def2-TZVPP (with a def2-QZVPP HF energy), and the validation of this choice is described only in SI Section S5. Since the entire benchmark chain rests on this reference, the main text should at least summarize the convergence tests with respect to DLPNO cutoffs, basis set, and cluster size/buffer. Without this information, the reader cannot judge whether the reference energies are converged to the claimed 'CCSD(T) accuracy' for the bulk local configurations. This is a missing-support issue that must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.
  4. [Results 'Toluene solvation structure' and 'Discussion and Conclusions'] The manuscript repeatedly asserts that the upfitted GRACE potential 'reproduces CCSD(T) energies and forces in bulk' and that 'only interaction potentials that recover the CCSD(T) balance ... can be considered predictive.' These claims are stronger than what the main text demonstrates: the upfitting uses only energies, and the force accuracy is claimed to follow from the mock-training and end-to-end tests in SI S4–S5, which are not reproduced or summarized numerically in the paper. Please state explicitly what the SI validation shows (e.g., force RMSE on held-out clusters, RDF agreement with periodic reference) and, if possible, include a figure or table of energy/force errors in the main text. This would make the reasoning auditable without requiring the reader to access the SI.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, 'nucethe'] Typo: 'nucethe' should be 'nucleate' or similar; also 'in nucethe role' is garbled.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The figure caption states 'The RDFs use a binwidth of 0.04 Å' but the inset panels are not labeled; please add explicit axis labels and legend entries for the zoomed panels.
  3. [Results, 'Solvation free energy barriers'] The term 'barrier to breaking of the H-bond' is used for both Ph–Ow and Ph–Hw coordinates, but the physical meaning differs (radial escape vs. rotational opening). Please define the coordination criteria more explicitly in the text.
  4. [Data Availability] The statement 'All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supporting Information' conflicts with the fact that the SI is not included with the manuscript. Please either include the SI as supplementary material or specify where it can be obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CCSD(T) MLIP is fitted to finite-cluster energies, while bulk RDFs, H-bond populations, free-energy barriers, and force-field/DFT comparisons are emergent or external benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and non-circular: (i) finite clusters are sampled from periodic MD, (ii) an MP2 GRACE potential is trained on MP2 energies and forces of those clusters, (iii) a CCSD(T) GRACE potential is obtained by upfitting to CCSD(T) energies only, and (iv) bulk simulations with that potential are compared with simulations using revPBE0-D3, MP2, CGenFF, GAFF2, and OPLS/AA. No predicted quantity is defined in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the CCSD(T) energies are training labels, whereas the reported bulk quantities (RDFs, SDFs, straddling-angle distributions, p(N_H-bond), and free-energy barriers) emerge from molecular dynamics and are not direct fit targets. The force fields and revPBE0-D3/MP2 potentials were not fitted to the CCSD(T) data, so their deviations from the CCSD(T) benchmark are not forced by construction. Citations to the authors' earlier CCSD(T) water MLIP work (refs. 33–38) and to GRACE/upfitting methodology (refs. 48–49) provide methodological context rather than load-bearing uniqueness arguments; the paper's own mock-training and end-to-end validation in Sections S1, S4, and S5 carry the accuracy claims. The main scientific risk, that finite clusters sampled from lower-level periodic MD may not span the bulk CCSD(T) ensemble, is a transferability/correctness concern, not a circularity, and the manuscript does not use that ensemble itself as a fit target. Therefore no circular step meeting the quotation-and-reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; its contribution is a fitted MLIP plus benchmark data. The central claim rests on standard statistical-mechanics relations, on the assumption that DLPNO-CCSD(T) equals CCSD(T), and on the transferability of finite-cluster training data to bulk. The MLIP itself has thousands of fitted regression weights and hand-chosen hyperparameters; these should be counted when judging how much is derived versus fitted.

free parameters (4)
  • GRACE model hyperparameters (2-layer 'large', 5 Å cutoff, 1500 epochs) = chosen by hand
    Model architecture and training length are hand-selected; central claim depends on the model capacity to represent the CCSD(T) potential energy surface.
  • Distance-scaling augmentation parameters for training clusters = not specified in main text
    Subsets of homo- and hetero-clusters have interatomic distances scaled to broaden training coverage; scaling ranges are a design choice that shapes the training distribution.
  • GRACE regression weights = thousands of values, not provided
    The MLIP potential is a regression fitted to MP2 and CCSD(T) reference energies and forces; these weights are the fitted parameters of the model.
  • GITIM analysis parameters (1.58 Å VdW radius, 1.8 Å probe sphere) = 1.58 Å, 1.8 Å
    Used to identify interfacial water molecules in the straddling-orientation analysis; choices affect the reported distributions, though they follow established protocol.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DLPNO-CCSD(T)/def2-TZVPP is a sufficient proxy for canonical CCSD(T) for toluene-water noncovalent interactions.
    All CCSD(T) benchmark energies and the training labels come from DLPNO-CCSD(T); if the local approximation or basis set is insufficient, the reference itself is shifted. Validation is delegated to SI Sections S3/S5.
  • domain assumption Finite clusters sampled from lower-level periodic MD, plus distance scaling, cover the relevant bulk configurations.
    Training structures are extracted from periodic simulations of neat water and aqueous toluene and then scaled; the transferability of this finite-cluster set to the bulk CCSD(T) ensemble is the central premise of the workflow.
  • standard math The potential of mean force is computed from the RDF via ΔF(r) = -kT ln g(r).
    Used to derive the free-energy barriers in Fig. 6; the relation is standard, but no convergence or error propagation is shown.
  • domain assumption GRACE with a 5 Å cutoff can represent the relevant anisotropic π-interactions and hydrophobic interactions.
    The model expressiveness and local cutoff are assumed sufficient for water–π and hydrophobic contacts; authors note in the discussion that longer-range charge transfer would require explicit electrostatics.
  • domain assumption Classical-nuclei MD at 298.15 K adequately samples the equilibrium distribution for the structural conclusions.
    Most reported results use classical nuclei; a 500 ps path-integral simulation suggests nuclear quantum effects are negligible for structure, supporting this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aromatic Molecule Solvation in Liquid Water with Coupled Cluster Accuracy: The Balance of Pi-Interactions and Hydrophobicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WUJU2XY

@misc{pith2026260713261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aromatic Molecule Solvation in Liquid Water with Coupled Cluster Accuracy: The Balance of Pi-Interactions and Hydrophobicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WUJU2XY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13261}
}
abstract

Aromatic organic solutes in water exhibit a delicate balance between hydrophobic solvation and directional O-H$\cdots \pi$ hydrogen bonds, yet widely used force fields and state-of-the-art density functional approaches struggle to provide a consistent picture of these pivotal interactions. We introduce a data-efficient upfitting strategy to train a machine learning interatomic potential (MLIP) based on the graph atomic cluster expansion for aqueous aromatic molecules with CCSD(T) accuracy for condensed phase simulations, using only finite molecular clusters. We apply our method to aqueous toluene (C$_6$H$_5$CH$_3$). The resulting CCSD(T)-quality MLIP reproduces coupled cluster energies and forces in bulk and reveals that commonly employed methods do not capture the crucial balance between hydrophilic and hydrophobic solvation, distorting the interactions of aromatic molecules with their environment. Representative biomolecular force fields substantially understructure the hydrophobic solvation shell and misorient interfacial water, while overestimating $\pi$-contacts, yielding an inconsistent solvation balance. Even hybrid DFT and MP2 overestimate barriers to breaking of water-$\pi$ hydrogen bonds. Our workflow provides a practical, general route to CCSD(T)-quality condensed-phase simulations of aqueous solutions, and thus constructed interaction potentials now open the door to consistent, highly accurate benchmark studies of $\pi$-contacts and hydrophobic effects in biomolecular contexts such as solvation of proteins and DNA in aqueous environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme illustrating the training procedure of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Radial structure of aqueous toluene from simulations with classical nuclei using the CCSD(T), MP2, and revPBE0-D3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Solvation structure of aqueous toluene. (a) Spatial distribution function (SDF) of O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability distributions of cosine of straddling an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Hydrogen bonding between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Free energy profiles along the (a) Ph–O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Scheme illustrating the training procedure of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Steiner and G

    T. Steiner and G. Koellner, Hydrogen bonds withπ- acceptors in proteins: Frequencies and role in stabilizing local 3D structures, J. Mol. Biol.305, 535 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    E. A. Meyer, R. K. Castellano, and F. Diederich, Inter- actions with aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.42, 1210 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    L. M. Salonen, M. Ellermann, and F. Diederich, Aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition: Energetics and structures, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.50, 4808 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    K. E. Riley and P. Hobza, On the importance and origin of aromatic interactions in chemistry and biodisciplines, Acc. Chem. Res.46, 927 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    I. C. Ossai, A. Ahmed, A. Hassan, and F. S. Hamid, Re- mediation of soil and water contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon: A review, Environ. Technol. Innov.17, 100526 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Dutta, S

    S. Dutta, S. Adhikary, S. Bhattacharya, D. Roy, S. Chatterjee, A. Chakraborty, D. Banerjee, A. Ganguly, S. Nanda, and P. Rajak, Contamination of textile dyes in aquatic environment: Adverse impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem and human health, and its management using biore- mediation, J. Environ. Manage.353, 120103 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    H. Tang, Y. Liu, X. Wu, R. Yang, X. Liu, Z. Yang, A. Zhang, Z. Liu, and Z. Li, Research progress on micro- bial metabolism of aromatic compounds in biochemical treatment system of coal chemical wastewater: Metabolic characteristics, stress resistance mechanisms, and system regulation, Chem. Eng. J.530, 173608 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Suzuki, P

    S. Suzuki, P. G. Green, R. E. Bumgarner, S. Dasgupta, W. A. Goddard, III, and G. A. Blake, Benzene forms hydrogen bonds with water, Science257, 942 (1992)

    1992

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Tsuzuki, K

    S. Tsuzuki, K. Honda, T. Uchimaru, M. Mikami, and K. Tanabe, Origin of the attraction and directionality of the NH/πinteraction: Comparison with OH/πand CH/πinteractions, J. Am. Chem. Soc.122, 11450 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Arunan, G

    E. Arunan, G. R. Desiraju, R. A. Klein, J. Sadlej, S. Scheiner, I. Alkorta, D. C. Clary, R. H. Crabtree, J. J. Dannenberg, P. Hobza, H. G. Kjaergaard, A. C. Legon, B. Mennucci, and D. J. Nesbitt, Defining the hydrogen bond: An account (IUPAC technical report), Pure Appl. Chem....

    2011

  3. [11]

    Arunan, G

    E. Arunan, G. R. Desiraju, R. A. Klein, J. Sadlej, S. Scheiner, I. Alkorta, D. C. Clary, R. H. Crabtree, J. J. Dannenber, P. Hobza, H. G. Kjaergaard, A. C. Legon, B. Mennucci, and D. J. Nesbitt, Definition of the hydro- gen bond (IUPAC recommendations 2011), Pure Appl. Chem.83...

    2011

  4. [12]

    K. P. Gierszal, J. G. Davis, M. D. Hands, D. S. Wilcox, L. V. Slipchenko, and D. Ben-Amotz, Π-hydrogen bond- ing in liquid water, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2, 2930 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Choudhary and A

    A. Choudhary and A. Chandra, Anab initiomolecular dynamics study of benzene in water at supercritical con- ditions: Structure, dynamics, and polarity of hydration shell water and the solute, J. Chem. Phys.151, 044508 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    M. S. Chen, Y. Mao, A. Snider, P. Gupta, A. Montoya- Castillo, T. J. Zuehlsdorff, C. M. Isborn, and T. E. Markland, Elucidating the role of hydrogen bonding in the optical spectroscopy of the solvated green fluorescent protein chromophore: Using machine learning to estab- lish...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Schravendijk and N

    P. Schravendijk and N. F. A. van der Vegt, From hy- drophobic to hydrophilic solvation: An application to hydration of benzene, J. Chem. Theory Comput.1, 643 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Chessari, C

    G. Chessari, C. A. Hunter, C. M. R. Low, M. J. Packer, J. G. Vinter, and C. Zonta, An evaluation of force-field treatments of aromatic interactions, Chem. Eur. J.8, 2860 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Allesch, F

    M. Allesch, F. C. Lightstone, E. Schwegler, and G. Galli, First principles and classical molecular dynamics simu- lations of solvated benzene, J. Chem. Phys.128, 014501 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    C. D. Sherrill, B. G. Sumpter, M. O. Sinnokrot, M. S. Marshall, E. G. Hohenstein, R. C. Walker, and I. R. Gould, Assessment of standard force field models against high-qualityab initiopotential curves for prototypes of π–π, CH/π, and SH/πinteractions, J. Comput. Chem. 30, 2187 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    R. S. Paton and J. M. Goodman, Hydrogen bonding and π-stacking: How reliable are force fields? A critical eval- uation of force field descriptions of nonbonded interac- tions, J. Chem. Inf. Model.49, 944 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Fu and S

    C.-F. Fu and S. X. Tian, A comparative study for molec- ular dynamics simulations of liquid benzene, J. Chem. Theory Comput.7, 2240 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    N. M. Garrido, M. Jorge, A. J. Queimada, J. R. B. Gomes, I. G. Economou, and E. A. Macedo, Predicting hydration Gibbs energies of alkyl-aromatics using molec- ular simulation: A comparison of current force fields and the development of a new parameter set for accurate sol- vat...

    2011

  14. [22]

    Marx and J

    D. Marx and J. Hutter,Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics: Basic Theory and Advanced Methods(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Prampolini, P

    G. Prampolini, P. R. Livotto, and I. Cacelli, Accuracy of quantum mechanically derived force-fields parameterized from dispersion-corrected DFT data: The benzene dimer as a prototype for aromatic interactions, J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 5182 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    A. O. Ajala, V. Voora, N. Mardirossian, F. Furche, and F. Paesani, Assessment of density functional theory in predicting interaction energies between water and poly- cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: From water on benzene to water on graphene, J. Chem. Theory Comput.15, 2359 (2019). 12

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. J. Stone and S. L. Price, Some new ideas in the theory of intermolecular forces: Anisotropic atom–atom poten- tials, J. Phys. Chem.92, 3325 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    J. A. Lemkul, J. Huang, B. Roux, and A. D. Mackerell, Jr., An empirical polarizable force field based on the clas- sical Drude oscillator model: Development history and recent applications, Chem. Rev.116, 4983 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Zhang, C

    C. Zhang, C. Lu, Z. Jing, C. Wu, J.-P. Piquemal, J. W. Ponder, and P. Ren, AMOEBA polarizable atomic mul- tipole force field for nucleic acids, J. Chem. Theory Com- put.14, 2084 (2018)

  20. [28]

    T. D. Janicki, M. J. van Vleet, and J. R. Schmidt, De- velopment and implementation of atomically anisotropic first-principles force fields: A benzene case study, J. Phys. Chem. A127, 1736 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    K. S. Kim, P. Tarakeshwar, and J. Y. Lee, Molecular clusters ofπ-systems: Theoretical studies of structures, spectra, and origin of interaction energies, Chem. Rev. 100, 4145 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Imoto, H

    S. Imoto, H. Forbert, and D. Marx, Aqueous TMAO solutions as seen by theoretical THz spectroscopy: Hy- drophilicversushydrophobic water, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.20, 6146 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Conti Nibali, S

    V. Conti Nibali, S. Pezzotti, F. Sebastiani, D. R. Gal- imberti, G. Schwaab, M. Heyden, M.-P. Gaigeot, and M. Havenith, Wrapping up hydrophobic hydration: Lo- cality matters, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11, 4809 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Das Mahanta, D

    D. Das Mahanta, D. Robinson Brown, S. Pezzotti, S. Han, G. Schwaab, M. S. Shell, and M. Havenith, Local solvation structures govern the mixing thermodynamics of glycerol-water solutions, Chem. Sci.14, 7381 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. Daru, H. Forbert, J. Behler, and D. Marx, Coupled cluster molecular dynamics of condensed phase systems enabled by machine learning potentials: Liquid water benchmark, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 226001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    M. S. Chen, J. Lee, H.-Z. Ye, T. C. Berkelbach, D. R. Reichman, and T. E. Markland, Data-efficient machine learning potentials from transfer learning of periodic cor- related electronic structure methods: Liquid water at AFQMC, CCSD, and CCSD(T) accuracy, J. Chem. The- ory Com...

    2023

  27. [35]

    O’Neill, B

    N. O’Neill, B. X. Shi, W. J. Baldwin, W. C. Witt, G. Cs´ anyi, J. D. Gale, A. Michaelides, and C. Schran, Towards routine condensed phase simulations with delta- learned coupled cluster accuracy: Application to liquid water, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 11710 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Stolte, J

    N. Stolte, J. Daru, H. Forbert, J. Behler, and D. Marx, Nuclear quantum effects in liquid water are marginal for its average structure but significant for dynamics, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.15, 12144 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Paschek, J

    D. Paschek, J. Busch, A. M. Chiramel Tony, R. Ludwig, A. Strate, N. Stolte, H. Forbert, and D. Marx, When the- ory meets experiment: What does it take to accurately predict 1H NMR dipolar relaxation rates in neat liquid water from theory?, J. Chem. Phys.162, 054501 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Stolte, H

    N. Stolte, H. Forbert, and D. Marx, Scrutinizing oxygen isotope effects in liquid water with coupled cluster accu- racy, J. Chem. Phys.163, 134503 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Bian and E

    X. Bian and E. A. Carter, Transfer learning meets embed- ded correlated wavefunction theory for chemically accu- rate molecular simulations: Application to calcium car- bonate ion pairing, J. Chem. Theory Comput.22, 5174 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    gold standard

    Q. Yu, C. Qu, P. L. Houston, A. Nandi, P. Pandey, R. Conte, and J. M. Bowman, A status report on “gold standard” machine-learned potentials for water, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, 8077 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Palos, E

    E. Palos, E. F. Bull-Vulpe, X. Zhu, H. Agnew, S. Gupta, S. Saha, and F. Paesani, Current status of the MB-pol data-driven many-body potential for predictive simula- tions of water across different phases, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 9269 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhou and F

    R. Zhou and F. Paesani, Toward chemical accuracy in biomolecular simulations through data-driven many- body potentials: II. polyalanine in water, J. Chem. The- ory Comput.21, 10574 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    E. D. Boittier, S. K¨ aser, and M. Meuwly, Roadmap to CCSD(T)-quality machine-learned potentials for con- densed phase simulations, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 8683 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    J. C. Wang, M. Upadhyay, E. D. Boittier, K. L. Cha- ton, V. Andreichev, M. Devereux, R. M. Barrios, S. Pa- tel, S. Aydin, K. T¨ opfer, and M. Meuwly, Cluster mod- els for next-generation, machine-learning-based energy functions for molecular simulations, Small Struct.7, e20250...

    2026

  37. [45]

    Riplinger and F

    C. Riplinger and F. Neese, An efficient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method, J. Chem. Phys.138, 034106 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    D. G. Liakos and F. Neese, Is it possible to obtain coupled cluster quality energies at near density functional theory cost? Domain-based local pair natural orbital coupled cluster vs modern density functional theory, J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 4054 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Neese, M

    F. Neese, M. Atanasov, G. Bistoni, D. Maganas, and S. Ye, Chemistry and quantum mechanics in 2019: Give us insight and numbers, J. Am. Chem. Soc.141, 2814 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Bochkarev, Y

    A. Bochkarev, Y. Lysogorskiy, and R. Drautz, Graph atomic cluster expansion for semilocal interactions be- yond equivariant message passing, Phys. Rev. X14, 021036 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Lysogorskiy, A

    Y. Lysogorskiy, A. Bochkarev, and R. Drautz, Graph atomic cluster expansion for foundational machine learn- ing interatomic potentials, npj Comput. Mater.12, 114 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Ziegler-Sylakakis, J

    K. Ziegler-Sylakakis, J. Fabri, U. Graeser, and T. A. Simo, Toluene, inUllmann ’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2019) 7th ed

    2019

  43. [51]

    Allesch, E

    M. Allesch, E. Schwegler, and G. Galli, Structure of hy- drophobic hydration of benzene and hexafluorobenzene from first principles, J. Phys. Chem. B111, 1081 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Choudhary and A

    A. Choudhary and A. Chandra, Spatial and orientational structure of the hydration shell of benzene in sub- and supercritical water, J. Phys. Chem. B119, 8600 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    F. H. Stillinger, Structure in aqueous solutions of nonpo- lar solutes from the standpoint of scaled-particle theory, J. Solution Chem.2, 141 (1973)

    1973

  46. [54]

    Geiger, A

    A. Geiger, A. Rahman, and F. H. Stillinger, Molecular dynamics study of the hydration of Lennard-Jones so- lutes, J. Chem. Phys.70, 263 (1979)

    1979

  47. [55]

    F. H. Stillinger, Water revisited, Science209, 451 (1980)

    1980

  48. [56]

    M. Sega, S. S. Kantorovich, P. Jedlovszky, and M. Jorge, The generalized identification of truly interfa- cial molecules (ITIM) algorithm for nonplanar interfaces, J. Chem. Phys.138, 044110 (2013). 13

    2013

  49. [57]

    M. Sega, G. Hantal, B. F´ abi´ an, and P. Jedlovszky, Pytim: A python package for the interfacial analysis of molecular simulations, J. Comput. Chem.39, 2118 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    T. W. Ko, J. A. Finkler, S. Goedecker, and J. Behler, A fourth-generation high-dimensional neural network po- tential with accurate electrostatics including non-local charge transfer, Nat. Commun.12, 398 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Rinaldi, A

    M. Rinaldi, A. Bochkarev, Y. Lysogorskiy, and R. Drautz, Charge-constrained atomic cluster expansion, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 033802 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Generalized gra- dient approximation made simple

    Y. Zhang and W. Yang, Comment on “Generalized gra- dient approximation made simple”, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 890 (1998)

    1998

  53. [61]

    Adamo and V

    C. Adamo and V. Barone, Toward reliable density func- tional methods without adjustable parameters: The PBE0 model, J. Chem. Phys.110, 6158 (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    Goerigk and S

    L. Goerigk and S. Grimme, A thorough benchmark of density functional methods for general main group thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent interactions, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.13, 6670 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, A con- sistent and accurateab initioparametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 ele- ments H-Pu, J. Chem. Phys.132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). [65]https://gracemaker.readthedocs.io

    1996

  57. [66]

    Neese, The ORCA program system, WIREs Comput

    F. Neese, The ORCA program system, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.2, 73 (2012)

    2012

  58. [67]

    Neese, Software update: The ORCA program system—version 6.0, WIREs Comput

    F. Neese, Software update: The ORCA program system—version 6.0, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.15, e70019 (2025)

    2025

  59. [68]

    Hutter, M

    J. Hutter, M. Iannuzzi, F. Schiffmann, and J. VandeVon- dele, CP2K: Atomistic simulations of condensed matter systems, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.4, 15 (2014)

    2014

  60. [69]

    T. D. K¨ uhne, M. Iannuzzi, M. Del Ben, V. V. Ry- bkin, P. Seewald, F. Stein, T. Laino, R. Z. Khal- iullin, O. Sch¨ utt, F. Schiffmann, D. Golze, J. Wil- helm, S. Chulkov, M. H. Bani-Hashemian, V. Weber, U. Borˇ stnik, M. Taillefumier, A. S. Jakobovits, A. Laz- zaro, H. Pabst,...

    2020

  61. [70]

    Iannuzzi, J

    M. Iannuzzi, J. Wilhelm, F. Stein, A. Bussy, H. El- gabarty, D. Golze, A.-S. Hehn, M. Graml, S. Marek, B. Sertcan G¨ okmen, C. Schran, H. Forbert, R. Z. Khaliullin, A. Kozhevnikov, M. Taillefumier, R. Meli, V. V. Rybkin, M. Brehm, R. Schade, O. Sch¨ utt, J. V. Pototschnig, H. ...

    2026

  62. [71]

    cp2k.org/

    CP2K Open Source Molecular Dynamics,https://www. cp2k.org/

  63. [72]

    Riplinger, P

    C. Riplinger, P. Pinski, U. Becker, E. F. Valeev, and F. Neese, Sparse maps—A systematic infrastructure for reduced-scaling electronic structure methods. II. Linear scaling domain based pair natural orbital coupled cluster theory, J. Chem. Phys.144, 024109 (2016)

    2016

  64. [73]

    Pinski, C

    P. Pinski, C. Riplinger, E. F. Valeev, and F. Neese, Sparse maps—A systematic infrastructure for reduced-scaling electronic structure methods. I. An efficient and simple linear scaling local MP2 method that uses an intermedi- ate basis of pair natural orbitals, J. Chem. Phys.1...

    2015

  65. [74]

    Pinski and F

    P. Pinski and F. Neese, Analytical gradient for the domain-based local pair natural orbital second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory method (DLPNO- MP2), J. Chem. Phys.150, 164102 (2019)

    2019

  66. [75]

    Sawamura, K

    S. Sawamura, K. Nagaoka, and T. Machikawa, Effects of pressure and temperature on the solubility of alkyl- benzenes in water: Volumetric property of hydrophobic hydration, J. Phys. Chem. B105, 2429 (2001)

    2001

  67. [76]

    J. Wang, R. M. Wolf, J. W. Caldwell, P. A. Kollman, and D. A. Case, Development and testing of a general amber force field, J. Comput. Chem.25, 1157 (2004)

    2004

  68. [77]

    W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrashekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein, Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water, J. Chem. Phys.79, 926 (1983)

    1983

  69. [78]

    Vanommeslaeghe, E

    K. Vanommeslaeghe, E. Hatcher, C. Acharya, S. Kundu, S. Zhong, J. Shim, E. Darian, O. Guvench, P. Lopes, I. Vorobyov, and A. D. Mackerell, Jr., CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug-like molecules compati- ble with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fie...

    2010

  70. [79]

    A. D. MacKerell, Jr., D. Bashford, M. Bellott, R. L. Dunbrack, Jr., J. D. Evanseck, M. J. Field, S. Fis- cher, J. Gao, H. Guo, S. Ha, D. Joseph-McCarthy, L. Kuchnir, K. Kuczera, F. T. K. Lau, C. Mattos, S. Michnick, T. Ngo, D. T. Nguyen, B. Prodhom, W. E. Reiher, B. Roux, M. S...

    1998

  71. [80]

    W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell, and J. Tirado-Rives, Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids, J. Am. Chem. Soc.118, 11225 (1996)

    1996

  72. [81]

    W. L. Jorgensen and J. Tirado-Rives, Potential energy functions for atomic-level simulations of water and or- ganic and biomolecular systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.102, 6665 (2005)

    2005

  73. [82]

    W. L. Jorgensen and J. D. Madura, Temperature and size dependence for Monte Carlo simulations of TIP4P water, Mol. Phys.56, 1381 (1985)

    1985

  74. [83]

    Ceriotti, M

    M. Ceriotti, M. Parrinello, T. E. Markland, and D. E. Manolopoulos, Efficient stochastic thermostatting of path integral molecular dynamics, J. Chem. Phys.133, 124104 (2010)

    2010

  75. [84]

    M. J. Abraham, T. Murtola, R. Schulz, S. P´ all, J. C. Smith, B. Hess, and E. Lindahl, GROMACS: High per- formance molecular simulations through multi-level par- allelism from laptops to supercomputers, SoftwareX1-2, 19 (2015)

    2015

  76. [85]

    Brieuc, C

    F. Brieuc, C. Schran, F. Uhl, H. Forbert, and D. Marx, Converged quantum simulations of reactive solutes in superfluid helium: The Bochum perspective, J. Chem. Phys.152, 210901 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.