the effective fragment molecular orbital method
TRANSCRIPT
The Effective Fragment Molecular OrbitalMethod
Casper Steinmann1 Dmitri G. Fedorov2 Jan H. Jensen1
1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2AIST, Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
September 14th, 2011
Outline
1 Motivation
2 The Fragment Molecular Orbital Method
3 The Effective Fragment Potential Method
4 The Effective Fragment Molecular Orbital Method
5 Results
2 / 45
Motivation
Treatment of Very Large Systems• We want quantum mechanics (QM) to do chemistry.
• We want the speed of force-fields (MM) to treat large systems.
Usually done via hybrid QM/MM methods
We propose a fragment based, on-the-fly parameterless polarizableforce-field.
• A merger between FMO and EFP.
• FMO: Faster FMO by the use of classical approximations
• EFP: Flexible EFP’s.
3 / 45
FMO
4 / 45
FMO2 Method
The two-body FMO2 method on a system of N fragments
EFMO =
N∑
I
EI +
N∑
I>J
(EIJ − EI − EJ ),
with fragment energies obtained as
EX = 〈ΨX |HX |ΨX〉
where
HX =∑
i∈X
−1
2∇2
i +
all∑
C
−ZC
|ri −RC |+∑
j>i
1
|ri − rj |+
all∑
K 6∈X
∫
ρK(r′)
|ri − r′|dr′
+ ENRX
5 / 45
FMO2 MethodUsing a single Slater determinant to represent |ΨX〉, we obtain
fXφXk = ǫXk φX
k .
Here,fX = hX + V X + gX = hX + gX ,
where
V X =
all∑
C∈X
−ZC
|r1 −RC |+
all∑
K 6∈X
∫
ρK(r′)
|r1 − r′|dr′
6 / 45
FMO2 Methodexpanding our molecular orbitals φ in a basis set
φXk =
∑
µ
CXµkχµ
we obtain, the Fock matrix elements of V X
V Xµν = 〈µ|V X |ν〉 =
all∑
K 6∈X
uKµν +
all∑
K 6∈X
υKµν
which are given as
uKµν = 〈µ|
∑
C∈K
−ZC
|r1 −RC ||ν〉,
andυKµν =
∑
λσ∈K
DKλσ(µν|λσ).
7 / 45
FMO approximationsFMO2 formally scales as O(N2), wants to be O(N). We needdistance-based approximations:
RI,J = mini∈I,j∈J
|ri − rj |
rvdwi + rvdwj
• 1) Approximate ESP (Resppc):
uKµν =
∑
λσ∈K
DKλσ(µν|λσ) →
∑
C∈K
〈µ|QC
|r1 −RC ||ν〉
• 2) Approximate dimer interaction (Resdim):
EIJ ≈ EI+EJ+Tr(
DIuJ)
+Tr(
DJuI)
+∑∑
DIµνD
Jλσ(µν|λσ)
Usually, Resdim and Resppc are equal (2.0)
8 / 45
A couple of pictures to help
9 / 45
A couple of pictures to help
10 / 45
Covalent Bonds in FMOIn FMO, bonds are detatched instead of capped.
BDA|-BAA
11 / 45
HOP vs. AFOTwo methods in FMO: hybrid orbital projection (HOP) and adaptivefrozen orbitals (AFO)
Both modifies the Fock-operator
fX = hX + gX +∑
k
Bk|φ〉〈φ|
• HOP: External model system generated and used
• AFO: Generated on the fly automatically:
12 / 45
AFO
13 / 45
AFO
14 / 45
AFO
We shall return to AFO later ...
15 / 45
EFP
16 / 45
EFPEFP is an approximation to the RHF interaction energy, Eint
Eint = ERHF −∑
I
E0I ≈ EEFP
The EFP energy
EEFP =∑
I>J
∆EEFPIJ + Eind
total
∆EEFPIJ = Ees
IJ + (ExrIJ + Ect
IJ )
EesIJ using distributed multipoles.
Eindtotal using induced dipoles based on distributed polarizabilities.
17 / 45
EFPEFP is an approximation to the RHF interaction energy, Eint
Eint = ERHF −∑
I
E0I ≈ EEFP
The EFP energy
EEFP =∑
I>J
∆EEFPIJ + Eind
total
∆EEFPIJ = Ees
IJ + (ExrIJ + Ect
IJ )
EesIJ using distributed multipoles.
Eindtotal using induced dipoles based on distributed polarizabilities.
• The internal geometry is fixed.
17 / 45
EFPEFP is an approximation to the RHF interaction energy, Eint
Eint = ERHF −∑
I
E0I ≈ EEFP
The EFP energy
EEFP =∑
I>J
∆EEFPIJ + Eind
total
∆EEFPIJ = Ees
IJ + (ExrIJ + Ect
IJ )
EesIJ using distributed multipoles.
Eindtotal using induced dipoles based on distributed polarizabilities.
• The internal geometry is fixed.
• You need to construct the EFP’s before you can use them
17 / 45
EFMO
18 / 45
What is the EFMO method?
You start with FMO ...• Remove the ESP
Now you have N gas phase calculations.
Then you mix in some EFP• Use EFP to describe many-body interactions
19 / 45
EFMO RHF Energy
The two-body FMO2 method on a system of N fragments
EEFMO =∑
I
E0I −→ do MAKEFP
+
Resdim≥RI,J∑
IJ
(
E0IJ − E0
I − E0J − Eind
IJ
)
+
Resdim<RI,J∑
IJ
EesIJ
+ Eindtot ,
• QM: Gas phase RHF (and MP2) calculations
• MM: Interaction energies by Effective Fragment Potentials
* obtain E0I , q, µ and Ω and α from RHF via a fake MAKEFP run.
20 / 45
A couple of pictures to help
21 / 45
A couple of pictures to help
22 / 45
Correlation in EFMOCorrelation as in FMO
E = EEFMO + ECOR.
Here ECOR is
ECOR =
N∑
I
ECORI +
RI,J<Rcor∑
IJ
(
ECORIJ − ECOR
I − ECORJ
)
.
23 / 45
EFMO vs. EFP vs. FMO
EFMO vs. EFP• EFMO energy includes internal energy, i.e. total energy can be
obtained.
• Short range interactions are computed using QM.
we assume Eex and Ect are negligible when RI,J > Resdim.
EFMO vs. FMO• No ESP, i.e. one SCC iteration.
• Many-body interactions are entirely classical.
General EFMO considerations• Calculation of classical parameters on-the-fly.
• Every EFMO calculation requires re-evaluation of EFPparameters.
24 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water Clusters• Water trimer: Estimate lower bound to energy error
• Water pentamer: Estimate upper bound to energy error
25 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water TrimerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆3Eint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.9 kcal/mol -1.45 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆3Eind +∆3Exr +∆3Ect +∆3EMIX
26 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water TrimerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆3Eint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.9 kcal/mol -1.45 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆3Eind +∆3Exr +∆3Ect +∆3EMIX
∆3Eind 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-0.9 kcal/mol -1.67 kcal/mol
EFMO error 1.0 kcal/mol -0.22 kcal/mol
26 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water TrimerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆3Eint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.9 kcal/mol -1.45 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆3Eind +∆3Exr +∆3Ect +∆3EMIX
∆3Eind 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-0.9 kcal/mol -1.67 kcal/mol
EFMO error 1.0 kcal/mol -0.22 kcal/mol
26 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water TrimerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆3Eint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.9 kcal/mol -1.45 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆3Eind +∆3Exr +∆3Ect +∆3EMIX
∆3Eind 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-0.9 kcal/mol -1.67 kcal/mol
EFMO error 1.0 kcal/mol -0.22 kcal/mol
6-31G(d):• Lower bound to the error in energy is ≈ 0.33 kcal/mol/HB
6-31++G(d):• Lower bound to the error in energy is ≈ -0.07 kcal/mol/HB
26 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water PentamerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆nEint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-6.10 kcal/mol -5.14 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆nEind +∆nEEX +∆nECT +∆nEMIX
27 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water PentamerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆nEint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-6.10 kcal/mol -5.14 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆nEind +∆nEEX +∆nECT +∆nEMIX
∆nEind 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.97 kcal/mol -3.68 kcal/mol
EFMO error -4.13 kcal/mol -1.46 kcal/mol
27 / 45
Rigorous Analysis of Small Water PentamerKitaura-Morokuma energy analysis
∆nEint 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-6.10 kcal/mol -5.14 kcal/mol
Many-body terms ∆nEind +∆nEEX +∆nECT +∆nEMIX
∆nEind 6-31G(d) 6-31++G(d)-1.97 kcal/mol -3.68 kcal/mol
EFMO error -4.13 kcal/mol -1.46 kcal/mol
6-31G(d):• Upper bound to the error in energy is ≈ 1.03 kcal/mol/HB
6-31++G(d):• Upper bound to the error in energy is ≈ 0.37 kcal/mol/HB
27 / 45
Rigorous analysis of Small Water Clusters6-31G(d):
• Lower bound to the error in energy is ≈ 0.33 kcal/mol/HB• Upper bound to the error in energy is ≈ 1.03 kcal/mol/HB
6-31++G(d):• Lower bound to the error in energy is ≈ -0.07 kcal/mol/HB• Upper bound to the error in energy is ≈ 0.37 kcal/mol/HB
28 / 45
20 water molecule clusters
6-31G(d) ∆E [kcal/mol/HB] [kcal/mol] Resdim = 2.0EFMO 0.53 15.8FMO2 -0.39 -11.6
6-31++G(d)EFMO -0.08 -2.5FMO2 -0.76 -21.8
29 / 45
EFMO Gradient
∂EEFMO
∂xI
=∑
I
∂
∂xI
E0I
+
RI,J≤Rcut∑
I>J
(
∂
∂xI
∆E0IJ −
∂
∂xI
EindIJ
)
+
RI,J>Rcut∑
I>J
∂
∂xI
EesIJ +
∂
∂xI
Eindtotal + TM
xI
TMI is the contribution to the gradient on atom I due to torques
arising from nearby atoms.
30 / 45
EFMO Gradient• For water clusters, ∇XI
EEFMOa − EEFMO
n ≈ 10−4 Hartree / Bohr
31 / 45
EFMO Gradient• For water clusters, ∇XI
EEFMOa − EEFMO
n ≈ 10−4 Hartree / Bohr
"Those are not good gradients."
31 / 45
Wait until you see the covalently bonded systems then.
32 / 45
EFMO for Covalent Systems
Covalent systems pose a problem in EFMO because ...• ... Inherent close (and even overlapping) electrostatics.
• ... Inherent close position of polarizable points and nearbyelectrostatics.
33 / 45
Back to the drawing board
C1 C
H
H
H
H
C5
H
H
C C
H
HHH
HH
+
a) b) c)
34 / 45
Back to the drawing board• 1) The frozen orbital (during the SCF) is allowed to mix during
Foster-Boys localization.
35 / 45
Back to the drawing board• 1) The frozen orbital (during the SCF) is allowed to mix during
Foster-Boys localization.• 1) Crap. Errors ≈ 50 kcal/mol. FMO2: ≈ 5 kcal/mol
35 / 45
Back to the drawing board• 1) The frozen orbital (during the SCF) is allowed to mix during
Foster-Boys localization.• 1) Crap. Errors ≈ 50 kcal/mol. FMO2: ≈ 5 kcal/mol
• 2) The localized orbital is kept frozen, i.e. as it is during the SCF.
35 / 45
Back to the drawing board• 1) The frozen orbital (during the SCF) is allowed to mix during
Foster-Boys localization.• 1) Crap. Errors ≈ 50 kcal/mol. FMO2: ≈ 5 kcal/mol
• 2) The localized orbital is kept frozen, i.e. as it is during the SCF.• 2) Works, Errors grows with system size and are on-par with
FMO2. Requires much more screening.
35 / 45
Energies for Conformers of Polypeptides
k(R, α, β) = 1− exp(
−√
αβ|R|2)(
1 +√
αβ|R|2)
AM,X =1
N
N∑
I
∣
∣EMI − EX
I
∣
∣ .
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2
4
6
8
10
12
AEFMO,X
[kca
l/mol
]
Peptide MAD for EFMO/2 vs. Screening Parameter
P1(RHF)P1(MP2)P2(RHF)P2(MP2)P3(RHF)P3(MP2)
36 / 45
Energies for Conformers of Polypeptides
k(R, α, β) = 1− exp(
−√
αβ|R|2)(
1 +√
αβ|R|2)
AM,X =1
N
N∑
I
∣
∣EMI − EX
I
∣
∣ .
P1 P2 P30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AM,X
[kca
l/mol
]
Peptide MAD for 2 Residues per Fragment
FMO2-RHF/HOPFMO2-MP2/HOPFMO2-RHF/AFOFMO2-MP2/AFOEFMO-RHFEFMO-MP2
37 / 45
Energies for Proteins
Table: Energy Error of EFMO and FMO2/AFO compared to ab initiocalculations on proteins using two residues per fragment.
Nres EFMO FMO2/AFO
Rcut = 2.0 Rcut = 2.0
RHF MP2 RHF MP2
1L2Y 20 3.2 -4.3 1.7 6.41UAO 10 1.8 1.5 0.4 1.4
• Timings: 5 times faster than FMO2.
• Requires lots of screening.
38 / 45
Back to the drawing board• The backbone is the main problem.
• Errors around 10−3(10−4) Hartree / Bohr
• Timings: 1.5 times faster than FMO2-MP2
39 / 45
Timings
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Total CPU count
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gain
-Fac
tor i
n CP
U w
allti
me
Gain-Factor in CPU walltime for increasing CPU count
EFMO, FMO2 40 / 45
Summary• Successful merger of the FMO and EFP method
• For molecular clusters, it performer pretty good.
• For systems with covalent bonds, work is needed.
• Faster than FMO2, roughly same accuracy.
41 / 45
Outlook• EFMO-PCM (meeting with Hui Li tomorrow)
• EFMO QM/MM (Based on FMO/FD)
• More EFP, less QM (Spencer Pruitt)
42 / 45
AcknowledgementsJan H. JensenDmitri G. Fedorov
Bad Boys of Quantum Chemistry:Anders ChristensenMikael W. Ibsen (FragIt)Luca De Vico (FragIt)Kasper Thofte
$$ - Insilico Rational Engineering of Novel Enzymes (IRENE)
43 / 45
Thank you for your attention
proteinsandwavefunctions.blogspot.com
44 / 45
Gradient Contribution
JK
I
dvdu
dw
IuvII
II
r
r1
2
dwmA = −dum
A − dvmA
dumA = wA (τmA · vA)+uA×wA (τmA ·wA)
dvmA = −wA (τmA · uA)+vA×wA (τmA ·wA)
45 / 45