This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Water belongs to a small family of liquids whose density maximum lies above the melting point, a signature of their preference for open, tetrahedral networks. Reproducing this anomalous density–temperature curve, together with ambient thermodynamics, remains a demanding test for water force fields: fixed-charge models trade 298 K accuracy for large errors in ρ(T), while point-multipole polarizable models must exclude the 1–2 and 1–3 intramolecular contributions that govern molecular anisotropy and, through nonadditive coupling, shape the long-range field. We present pGM5P-26, a five-point polarizable Gaussian Multipole (pGM) water model whose Gaussian-distributed charges and dipoles remain finite at all distances, giving a unified treatment of short- and long-range electrostatics that retains these intramolecular contributions in a fully self-consistent induction. Its 14 independent parameters were optimized exclusively at 298 K against the liquid density, oxygen–oxygen radial distribution function, and uncorrected finite-box self-diffusion coefficient using SMAC Bayesian optimization with Hyperband scheduling. Despite this single-temperature training, pGM5P-26 gives the lowest absolute density RMSE and the second-lowest 298 K-anchored density-shape RMSE among the ten simulated models over the out-of-training temperatures from 245 to 380 K. Its thermal-expansion curve ranks second by both metrics, and its approximate finite-size-corrected self-diffusion curve ranks third, placing all three temperature dependences among the closest to experiment in the benchmark set. Its temperature of maximum density is 280.3 K (experiment: 277.1 K), the second closest after TIP4P/2005. The second virial coefficient reaches near-quantitative agreement with experiment above 773 K. These results show that Gaussian multipole polarization combined with automated optimization captures water’s density anomaly without explicit temperature-dependent training.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: