Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 57 references

A combined on-the-fly/interpolation procedure for evaluating energy values needed in molecular simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simple mesh interpolation can replace almost all exact energy evaluations in molecular simulations.

desk verdict Solid, honest algorithmic contribution with real speedups in low-dimensional simulations; the reported results stand, but the error gate is a heuristic in D>1 and the accuracy guarantee is empirical, not formal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06960 v3 pith:H57OP5Z3 submitted 2019-08-19 physics.comp-ph

Konstantin Karandashev , Jiri Vanicek This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords simplicialmeshinterpolationon-the-flypotentialenergysurfacepathintegralMonteCarloisotopeeffectDelaunaytriangulationanisotropicharmonicallyexactinterpolantreliabilityestimate
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

This paper proposes a way to avoid computing the full potential energy surface at every step of a Monte Carlo or path integral Monte Carlo simulation. It builds a simplicial mesh on the fly, stores energy and gradient values at the vertices, and interpolates the energy at new points using a formula that is exact for quadratic (harmonic) potentials. A heuristic estimate of the local interpolation error decides when new exact evaluations are needed. In tests on a two-dimensional anharmonic oscillator and on path integral calculations of the HCN/DCN isotope effect, the method reproduced reference values with interpolation root mean square errors far below the preset threshold while reducing the number of exact potential evaluations by orders of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interpolant of Eq. (5), a symmetric combination of partial interpolants (Eq. (2)) that are exact for quadratic potentials and are defined via barycentric coordinates on a simplex. Each partial interpolant uses the energy and gradient at one vertex plus the average gradient over all vertices, so the maximum pairwise deviation among them, δV (Eq. (6)), serves as the local reliability estimate that controls mesh refinement. For anharmonic systems, the paper introduces an anisotropic triangulation whose cost function (Eq. (12)) estimates the interpolation error in a simplex from energy and gradient data alone, producing elongated simplices along directions where the potential is nearly harmonic.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation in two or three dimensions on a potential with a known closed form, compare δV with the true interpolation error |V~ - V| at every accepted point, and check whether any accepted point has a true error that substantially exceeds the preset δVmax. A concrete construction would be a potential whose third derivatives are concentrated inside a simplex while vanishing at all of its vertices and edge midpoints, which would make all partial interpolants agree but the true error large.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the interpolation procedure of Eq. (5), built from partial interpolants that are exact for quadratic potentials, combined with the reliability estimate δV of Eq. (6) and an on-the-fly mesh update (using either Delaunay or a new anisotropic triangulation), can replace exact potential energy evaluations in Monte Carlo and path integral Monte Carlo simulations. The mesh is refined only where δV exceeds a threshold δVmax, and energy and gradient data at the vertices guarantee an exact result for harmonic potentials. For the HCN/DCN equilibrium isotope effect in three internal coordinates, the interpolation reproduces benchmark path integral values to within about 1% while using around $10^{4}$ times fewer exact potential evaluations, and the interpolation RMSE comes out consistently below δVmax.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mesh-refinement decision rests on the assumption that the maximum pairwise deviation among partial interpolants, δV, tracks the true interpolation error in more than one dimension, even though it is proven to be a bound only in one dimension; if this proportionality fails for some potential, the algorithm would either over-refine or, worse, silently accept inaccurate energies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Path integral Monte Carlo calculations of isotope effects and other equilibrium properties can be run with a few thousand ab initio points instead of hundreds of millions of direct evaluations, a speedup of about four orders of magnitude.
  • Because the interpolation cost scales logarithmically with the number of mesh points, the method remains cheap as the mesh grows, unlike Shepard interpolation or Gaussian process regression.
  • The mesh built during a low-temperature path integral simulation can be reused at higher temperatures with only a small number of added points, allowing multi-temperature studies at little extra cost.
  • For anharmonic systems, the anisotropic triangulation reaches the same interpolation accuracy as Delaunay with fewer than half the mesh points, so it should be considered whenever the potential is strongly anisotropic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The δV criterion is validated only empirically beyond one dimension; a rigorous bound could be obtained by estimating the third-derivative tensor inside each simplex, which would turn the heuristic into a provable guarantee.
  • The same anisotropic cost function could be attached to other local interpolants, such as modified Shepard or moving least squares, to build problem-adapted meshes for those methods.
  • Because the mesh stores energy and gradient data, it is a reusable surrogate for the potential energy surface; one could test whether a mesh trained on one isotopologue transfers to another with minimal additional exact evaluations.
  • A potential failure mode is silent under-refinement: if δV underestimates the true error in some region of configuration space, the algorithm would accept inaccurate energies without warning. A targeted test with a crafted potential having large third derivatives inside a simplex but nearly zero at its vertices would reveal whether this can happen.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an on-the-fly interpolation method for potential energies in Monte Carlo and path integral Monte Carlo simulations. The algorithm maintains a simplicial mesh of points at which the potential and its gradient have been computed exactly; for a query point, it locates the containing simplex, evaluates the interpolant of Eq. (5) (a barycentric-weighted combination of vertex-based partial interpolants, exact for quadratic potentials), and accepts the value when the reliability indicator δV of Eq. (6) is below a user-set threshold δVmax. If the point lies outside the convex hull or δV is too large, a new mesh point is added and the triangulation is updated by Lawson flips, using either the Delaunay cost (Eq. 11) or a proposed anisotropic cost (Eq. 12). The method is tested on two-dimensional quartic oscillators and on the path integral Monte Carlo evaluation of the HCN/DCN equilibrium isotope effect, reporting interpolation RMSEs well below δVmax and a reduction of exact potential evaluations by roughly four orders of magnitude in the HCN/DCN test.

Significance. If the reliability of the interpolation can be established, this is a useful and practical contribution. The interpolant is simple, exact for harmonic potentials, and the mesh-based search scales logarithmically with the number of stored points; the numerical tests are carefully executed, using block-averaged error bars and benchmark comparisons, and the reported isotope effects agree with the exact PIMC benchmarks to better than 1%. The reduction in the number of exact potential evaluations (from about 10^8–10^9 to about 10^4 in the HCN/DCN test) is impressive. The principal weakness is that the error-control mechanism, Eq. (6), is only a rigorous bound in one dimension; in higher dimensions it is a heuristic whose failure modes are not analyzed. This limits the generality of the central claim but does not invalidate the empirical demonstration.

major comments (2)
  1. [II A, Eq. (6)] For D>1, the indicator δV(r) defined in Eq. (6) is not a bound on the true interpolation error and can be exactly zero while the error is nonzero. For a fixed simplex and query point, the quantities V~j(r) are linear functionals of the cubic part of V; in D=2, the four independent cubic coefficients are constrained by only two independent conditions when all three pairwise differences V~j−V~k vanish (the third is redundant). Hence there exist nonzero cubic potentials for which δV(r)=0 but V~(r)≠V(r). Since the interpolant is exact for quadratics, the error is dominated by such cubic terms, and scaling the cubic component makes the accepted error arbitrarily large while the gate remains closed. The authors acknowledge in Sec. II A that the estimate only 'seems to perform qualitatively correctly' in higher dimensions, but this assertion is load-bearing: δVmax controls mesh density and the decision to accept interpolation. The random exact evaluations used for calibration estimate only an average RMSE and cannot detect rare, spatially localized high-error points; evidence of such rare events is visible in Table III, where the 500 K anisotropic-triangulation RMSE has a block-averaged error of 0.8×10^-6 (relative to a mean of 5.7×10^-6). I recommend adding either a rigorous error bound under explicit assumptions on the third derivatives and simplex geometry, a conservative fallback that exact-evaluates when the simplex is large or δV is ambiguous, or a systematic numerical study with potentials designed to hit the kernel of the gate.
  2. [III B, Table III] The paper claims that the method 'can replace exact potential energy evaluations' while maintaining a preset accuracy, but the evidence for this is empirical and limited to two systems. The HCN potential is nearly harmonic, where the interpolant is almost exact by construction, and the quartic oscillator is two-dimensional. The large block-averaged uncertainties in some RMSE entries (e.g., 500 K anisotropic row in Table III) indicate that rare large interpolation errors do occur and are not captured by the small number of random exact checks (about 100 per simulation). To support the central claim, the authors should either provide a rigorous accuracy guarantee for D>1 or explicitly reframe the method as a heuristic with empirical calibration, and add a test case specifically designed to challenge the reliability gate (e.g., a potential with a strong cubic component in a direction that makes δV small).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There is a missing space in 'HCN/DCNequilibrium isotope effect' in the abstract; the same ligature-related spacing issue appears in the conclusion ('anisotropictriangulationachievessimilarinterpolationerrors').
  2. [II A] The phrase 'yields an exact estimate' for the one-dimensional case would be clearer as 'yields an exact upper bound', since Eq. (6) with D=1 provides |V~−V|≤δV rather than an equality.
  3. [II B, Eq. (12)] The sentence describing g_anisotr as 'a qualitative estimate of the upper bound for interpolation error' is misleading, because no upper bound is proven; suggest rewording to 'a qualitative indicator of the interpolation error within a simplex'.
  4. [II C] The search procedure uses 'k-trees', which is usually written 'kd-trees'; the claim that the cost of selecting the initial simplex is 'approximately constant' is not demonstrated and may depend on the triangulation quality.
  5. [III B 1] The number of replicas P is assigned by linear interpolation in 1/T, but the paper does not specify how P is rounded or whether the values at intermediate temperatures are integer; this should be clarified for reproducibility.
  6. [Appendix A] The pseudo-code does not include the constraint-handling modifications described in the text (e.g., the checks for faces lying in constraining planes and the treatment of zero-volume simplices); making the pseudo-code self-contained would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: interpolation accuracy and isotope effects are benchmarked against exact evaluations, and no target quantity is used to set method parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that its on-the-fly simplicial-mesh interpolation, using the Eq. (5) interpolant with either Delaunay or anisotropic triangulation, can replace exact potential energy evaluations in Monte Carlo and path integral Monte Carlo simulations while keeping interpolation error below a preset threshold. Tracing the derivation chain shows no load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs. The interpolant is constructed to be exact for quadratic potentials, and this property is verified in a harmonic test, but that is a mathematical design property, not a prediction extracted from the test. The mesh-adaptation gate uses the error proxy δV of Eq. (6); the paper explicitly states that the exact bound holds in one dimension and that for higher dimensions the estimate only 'seems to perform qualitatively correctly.' This is a heuristic validity assumption, and therefore a correctness risk, but it is not circular: δV is computed from the same interpolants, not fitted to any target observable, and δVmax is a user-chosen accuracy tolerance. The paper independently calibrates the adequacy of δVmax by performing a small number of extra exact potential evaluations and computing the actual interpolation RMSE; this is a verification step, not parameter fitting to a desired result. The HCN/DCN isotope effect is compared with benchmark path integral calculations using the original force field, with agreement within about 1%; no constant in the interpolation algorithm was tuned to reproduce these isotope effects. The mesh parameters (δVmax, cpush, δGmin) are robustness settings, while the reported RMSEs and isotope-effect values are outputs, not fitting targets. Self-citations in the paper are limited to prior method developments, and none is invoked as a unique theorem to forbid alternatives. The strongest concern raised by the skeptical reading is that the δV gate may be blind to some errors in more than one dimension, but that is an empirical and mathematical robustness issue, not a circularity of the derivation. Consequently, the paper's central results are self-contained against external benchmarks, and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its novelty is algorithmic: an anisotropic cost function, an interpolant weighting, and an on-the-fly mesh management scheme. The free parameters and heuristic assumptions above are the load-bearing tuning knobs; all are acknowledged in the paper, and some (deltaVmax) are calibrated per application.

free parameters (4)
  • deltaVmax (interpolation reliability threshold) = 3.125e-2 for the oscillator; 1e-4 a.u. for HCN
    User-set threshold on deltaV (Eq. 6) that decides whether an interpolation is accepted; only heuristically related to true interpolation error. Calibrated during the run by occasional exact potential evaluations, as described in Sec. II A and Sec. III B 1.
  • deltaGmin (Lawson flip tolerance) = not specified numerically
    Small pre-defined parameter used to break ties in the Lawson flip criterion G(S)-G(S') > deltaGmin to avoid infinite loops, introduced in Sec. II B.
  • cpush (outward push distance) = not specified numerically
    Constant controlling how far outside the convex hull new points are placed; a hand-chosen parameter of the outward-push procedure described in Sec. II B.
  • probability of exact recalibration = 10^-5 per interpolation
    In the HCN tests, each interpolation has a 10^-5 chance of triggering an extra exact energy evaluation to estimate the RMSE; a monitoring hyperparameter described in Sec. III B 1.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Convex hull and triangulation update algorithms (Lawson flips, conflict zone) correctly maintain a triangulation of the mesh.
    Relies on Refs. 29, 37, and 38; treated as established computational geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper deltaV(r) from Eq. (6) is a qualitative proxy for interpolation error in D>1.
    Asserted in Sec. II A: the estimate seems to perform qualitatively correctly for a large number of higher-dimensional potentials; only an exact bound for D=1.
  • domain assumption Interpolation error and deltaV are both proportional to the magnitude of third derivatives in a small simplex, so halving deltaVmax approximately halves the RMSE.
    Stated as a rule of thumb in Sec. II A; no proof is given, and it motivates the calibration procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper Anisotropic Lawson flips with g_anisotr terminate at a useful triangulation.
    Termination is guaranteed, but uniqueness is not; the authors note in Sec. II B that the procedure will not guarantee a unique triangulation without restrictions on the potential V(r).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A combined on-the-fly/interpolation procedure for evaluating energy values needed in molecular simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H57OP5Z3

@misc{pith2026190806960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A combined on-the-fly/interpolation procedure for evaluating energy values needed in molecular simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H57OP5Z3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06960}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an algorithm for molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo simulations that uses an interpolation procedure to estimate potential energy values from energies and gradients evaluated previously at points of a simplicial mesh. We chose an interpolation procedure which is exact for harmonic systems and considered two possible mesh types: Delaunay triangulation and an alternative anisotropic triangulation designed to improve performance in anharmonic systems. The mesh is generated and updated on the fly during the simulation. The procedure is tested on two-dimensional quartic oscillators and on the path integral Monte Carlo evaluation of HCN/DCN equilibrium isotope effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mesh triangulations obtained in classical Monte Carlo simulations of a 2D harmonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mesh triangulations and distributions of the interpolation error obtained in classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Delaunay and anisotropic triangulations applied in classical Monte Carlo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Song \ and\ author T

    author author C. Song \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart\' i nez ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4948438 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 144 ,\ eid 174111 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4948438 2016

  2. [2]

    Jeanmairet , author S

    author author G. Jeanmairet , author S. Sharma , \ and\ author A. Alavi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974177 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 146 ,\ eid 044107 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4974177 2017

  3. [3]

    P\' e rez , author M

    author author A. P\' e rez , author M. E. \ Tuckerman , author H. P. \ Hjalmarson , \ and\ author O. A. \ von Lilienfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/ja102004b journal journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. \ volume 132 ,\ eid 11510 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/ja102004b

  4. [4]

    Gasparotto , author A

    author author P. Gasparotto , author A. A. \ Hassanali , \ and\ author M. Ceriotti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01138 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 12 ,\ eid 1953 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01138 1953

  5. [5]

    author author R. P. \ de Tudela \ and\ author D. Marx ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.223001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 119 ,\ eid 223001 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.223001 2017

  6. [6]

    author author G. A. \ Worth , author M. A. \ Robb , \ and\ author I. Burghardt ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/B314253A journal journal Faraday Discuss. \ volume 127 ,\ eid 307 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1039/b314253a 2004

  7. [7]

    Ianconescu , author J

    author author R. Ianconescu , author J. Tatchen , \ and\ author E. Pollak ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4825040 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 139 ,\ eid 154311 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4825040 2013

  8. [8]

    author author B. F. E. \ Curchod \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart\' i nez ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00423 journal journal Chem. Rev. \ volume 118 ,\ eid 3305 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00423 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    author author K. E. \ Spinlove , author G. W. \ Richings , author M. A. \ Robb , \ and\ author G. A. \ Worth ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FD00090E journal journal Faraday Discuss. \ volume 212 ,\ eid 191 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Patoz , author T

    author author A. Patoz , author T. Begu s i\' c , \ and\ author J. Van\' i c ek ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b00827 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ volume 9 ,\ eid 2367 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Micciarelli , author F

    author author M. Micciarelli , author F. Gabas , author R. Conte , \ and\ author M. Ceotto ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5096968 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 150 ,\ eid 184113 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Laude , author D

    author author G. Laude , author D. Calderini , author D. P. \ Tew , \ and\ author J. O. \ Richardson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FD00085A journal journal Faraday Discuss. \ volume 212 ,\ eid 237 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Conte , author F

    author author R. Conte , author F. Gabas , author G. Botti , author Y. Zhuang , \ and\ author M. Ceotto ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5109086 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 150 ,\ eid 244118 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Ischtwan \ and\ author M

    author author J. Ischtwan \ and\ author M. A. \ Collins ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.466801 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 100 ,\ eid 8080 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    author author T. J. \ Frankcombe , author M. A. \ Collins , \ and\ author G. A. \ Worth ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2010.02.068 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 489 ,\ eid 242 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Evenhuis \ and\ author T

    author author C. Evenhuis \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \'i nez ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3660686 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 135 ,\ eid 224110 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    author author C. W. \ Kim \ and\ author Y. M. \ Rhee ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00647 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 12 ,\ eid 5235 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Huang , author B

    author author X. Huang , author B. J. \ Braams , \ and\ author J. M. \ Bowman ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1834500 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 122 ,\ eid 044308 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Guo , author A

    author author Y. Guo , author A. Kawano , author D. L. \ Thompson , author A. F. \ Wagner , \ and\ author M. Minkoff ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1777572 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 121 ,\ eid 5091 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Dawes , author X.-G

    author author R. Dawes , author X.-G. \ Wang , author A. W. \ Jasper , \ and\ author T. Carrington Jr. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3494542 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 133 ,\ eid 134304 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    author author J. P. \ Alborzpour , author D. P. \ Tew , \ and\ author S. Habershon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4964902 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 145 ,\ eid 174112 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    author author G. W. \ Richings \ and\ author S. Habershon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2017.01.063 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 683 ,\ eid 228 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    author author T. B. \ Blank , author S. D. \ Brown , author A. W. \ Calhoun , \ and\ author D. J. \ Doren ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.469597 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 103 ,\ eid 4129 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    Manzhos , author X

    author author S. Manzhos , author X. Wang , author R. Dawes , \ and\ author T. Carrington Jr. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jp055253z journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 110 ,\ eid 5295 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Malshe , author L

    author author M. Malshe , author L. M. \ Raff , author M. Hagan , author S. Bukkapatnam , \ and\ author R. Komanduri ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3431624 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 132 ,\ eid 204103 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Gastegger , author J

    author author M. Gastegger , author J. Behler , \ and\ author P. Marquetand ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SC02267K journal journal Chem. Sci. \ volume 8 ,\ eid 6924 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    author author M. R. \ Salazar \ and\ author R. L. \ Bell ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199810)19:13<1431::AID-JCC1>3.0.CO;2-R journal journal J. Comput. Chem. \ volume 19 ,\ eid 1431 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    author author M. R. \ Salazar ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(02)00744-3 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 359 ,\ eid 460 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Hornus \ and\ author J

    author author S. Hornus \ and\ author J. D. \ Boissonnat ,\ https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00343188 title An efficient implementation of Delaunay triangulations in medium dimensions , \ ( year 2008 ),\ note [Research Report] RR-6743, INRIA. Stop

    2008

  22. [30]

    author author R. W. \ Clough \ and\ author J. L. \ Tocher ,\ in\ http://contrails.iit.edu/items/show/8574 booktitle Proceedings of the Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics \ ( year 1966 )\ pp.\ pages 515--545 NoStop

    1966

  23. [31]

    Alfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8396(84)90029-3 journal journal Comput

    author author P. Alfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8396(84)90029-3 journal journal Comput. Aided Geom. Des. \ volume 1 ,\ eid 169 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984 doi

  24. [32]

    Alfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1137/0722006 journal journal SIAM J

    author author P. Alfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1137/0722006 journal journal SIAM J. Numer. Anal. \ volume 22 ,\ eid 95 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    1985 doi

  25. [33]

    Dell'Accio , author F

    author author F. Dell'Accio , author F. Di Tommaso , author O. Nouisser , \ and\ author B. Zerroudi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2017.12.006 journal journal Appl. Numer. Math. \ volume 126 ,\ eid 78 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Xuli ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jat.2003.08.001 journal journal J

    author author H. Xuli ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jat.2003.08.001 journal journal J. Approx. Theory \ volume 124 ,\ eid 242 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    Guessab , author O

    author author A. Guessab , author O. Nouisser , \ and\ author G. Schmeisser ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.08.015 journal journal J. Comput. Appl. Math. \ volume 196 ,\ eid 162 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    author author R. P. A. \ Bettens \ and\ author M. A. \ Collins ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.479368 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 111 ,\ eid 816 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    author author C. L. \ Lawson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8396(86)90001-4 journal journal Comput. Aided Geom. Des. \ volume 3 ,\ eid 231 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    1986 doi

  30. [38]

    Edelsbrunner ,\ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492900001331 journal journal Acta Numer

    author author H. Edelsbrunner ,\ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492900001331 journal journal Acta Numer. \ volume 9 ,\ eid 133 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  31. [39]

    author author J. M. \ Mirebeau ,\ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00365-010-9090-y journal journal Constr. Approx. \ volume 32 ,\ eid 339 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    Bossen \ and\ author P

    author author F. Bossen \ and\ author P. S. \ Heckbert ,\ in\ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Pliant-Method-for-Anisotropic-Mesh-Generation-Bossen-Heckbert/12318fc5882e328a330640bf38f79da5c523e1a6 booktitle 5th International Meshing Roundtable \ ( year 1996 )\ pp.\ pag...

    1996

  33. [41]

    Shimada , author A

    author author K. Shimada , author A. Yamada , \ and\ author T. Itoh ,\ https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218195900000243 journal journal Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl. \ volume 10 ,\ eid 417 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  34. [42]

    author author J. D. \ Boissonnat , author M. Rouxel-Labb \'e , \ and\ author M. Wintraecken ,\ in\ http://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2017.19 booktitle 33rd International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2017) ,\ series Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics...

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Devillers , author S

    author author O. Devillers , author S. Pion , \ and\ author M. Teillaud ,\ https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129054102001047 journal journal Int. J. Found. Comput. S. \ volume 13 ,\ eid 181 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002 doi

  36. [44]

    author author J. L. \ Bentley ,\ http://doi.org/10.1145/361002.361007 journal journal Commun. ACM \ volume 18 ,\ eid 509 ( year 1975 ) NoStop

    1975

  37. [45]

    Flyvbjerg \ and\ author H

    author author H. Flyvbjerg \ and\ author H. G. \ Petersen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.457480 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 91 ,\ eid 461 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989 doi

  38. [46]

    author author M. F. \ Herman , author E. J. \ Bruskin , \ and\ author B. J. \ Berne ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.442815 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 76 ,\ eid 5150 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982 doi

  39. [47]

    author author M. E. \ Tuckerman , author B. J. \ Berne , author G. J. \ Martyna , \ and\ author M. L. \ Klein ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.465188 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 99 ,\ eid 2796 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  40. [48]

    author author R. P. \ Feynman \ and\ author A. R. \ Hibbs ,\ @noop title Quantum mechanics and path integrals \ ( publisher McGraw-Hill ,\ year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965

  41. [49]

    P\' e rez \ and\ author O

    author author A. P\' e rez \ and\ author O. A. \ von Lilienfeld ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/ct2000556 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 7 ,\ eid 2358 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Cheng \ and\ author M

    author author B. Cheng \ and\ author M. Ceriotti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4904293 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 141 ,\ eid 244112 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    author author V. Y. \ Makhnev , author A. A. \ Kyuberis , author O. L. \ Polyansky , author I. I. \ Mizus , author J. Tennyson , \ and\ author N. F. \ Zobov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jms.2018.09.002 journal journal J. Mol. Spectrosc. \ volume 353 ,\ eid 40 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Sprik , author M

    author author M. Sprik , author M. L. \ Klein , \ and\ author D. Chandler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.31.4234 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 31 ,\ eid 4234 ( year 1985 a ) NoStop

    1985 doi

  45. [53]

    Sprik , author M

    author author M. Sprik , author M. L. \ Klein , \ and\ author D. Chandler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.32.545 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 32 ,\ eid 545 ( year 1985 b ) NoStop

    1985 doi

  46. [54]

    author author H. C. \ Urey ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/JR9470000562 journal journal J. Chem. Soc. \ volume 1947 ,\ eid 562 ( year 1947 ) NoStop

    1947 doi

  47. [55]

    Wolfsberg , author W

    author author M. Wolfsberg , author W. A. V. \ Hook , author P. Paneth , \ and\ author L. P. N. \ Rebelo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2265-3 title Isotope Effects in the Chemical, Geological and Bio Sciences \ ( publisher McGraw-Hill ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  48. [56]

    author author M. A. \ Webb \ and\ author T. F. Miller III ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jp411134v journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 118 ,\ eid 467 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    note Table tab:HCN_IE_errs shows that the largest number of mesh points was generated during the lowest temperature simulation. Because the spacing of mesh points does not depend on temperature, this suggests that the mesh generated at the lowest temperature covered the larges...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.