Hierarchical Uncoupling-Coupling of Metastable Conformations

  • Alexander Fischer
  • Christof Schütte
  • Peter Deuflhard
  • Frank Cordes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 24)


Uncoupling-coupling Monte Carlo (UCMC) combines uncoupling techniques for finite Markov chains with Markov chain Monte Carlo methodology. UCMC aims at avoiding the typical metastable or trapping behavior of Monte Carlo techniques. From the viewpoint of Monte Carlo, a slowly converging long-time Markov chain is replaced by a limited number of rapidly mixing short-time ones. Therefore, the state space of the chain has to be hierarchically decomposed into its metastable conformations. This is done by means of combining the technique of conformation analysis as recently introduced by the authors, and appropriate annealing strategies. We present a detailed examination of the uncoupling-coupling procedure which uncovers its theoretical background, and illustrates the hierarchical algorithmic approach. Furthermore, application of the UCMC algorithm to the n-pentane molecule allows us to discuss the effect of its crucial steps in a typical molecular scenario.


Almost invariant sets bridge sampling met as t ability hierarchical annealing hybrid Monte Carlo n-pentane molecule ratio of normalizing constants reweighting uncoupling-coupling 

Mathematical Subject Classification

60J22 65C05 65C40 82B80 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. J. Berne and J. E. Straub. Novel methods of sampling phase space in the simulation of biological systems. Curr. Opinion in Struct. Biol., 7:181–189, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Brass, B. J. Pendleton, Y. Chen, and B. Robson. Hybrid Monte Carlo simulations theory and initial comparison with molecular dynamics. Biopolymers, 33:1307–1315, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. W. Church, A. Ulitsky, and D. Shalloway. Macrostate dissection of thermodynamic Monte Carlo integrals. In D.M. Ferguson, J.I. Siepmann and D.G. Truhlar, editors, Monte Carlo Methods in Chemical Physics, volume 105 of Advances in Chemical Physics. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Dellnitz and O. Junge. On the approximation of complicated dynamical behavior. SIAM J. Num. Anal, 36(2):491–515, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Deuflhard, W. Huisinga, A. Fischer, and C. Schütte. Identification of almost invariant aggregates in reversible nearly uncoupled Markov chains. Lin. Alg. Appl, 315:39–59, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth. Hybrid Monte Carlo. Phys. Lett. B, 195(2):216–222, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. M. Ferguson, J. I. Siepmann, and D. G. Truhlar, editors. Monte Carlo Methods in Chemical Physics, volume 105 of Advances in Chemical Physics. Wiley, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen. Optimized Monte Carlo data analysis. Phys. Rev. Lett, 63(12):1195–1197, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Fischer. An uncoupling-coupling technique for Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Available as ZIB-Report 00–04 via, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Fischer, F. Cordes, and C. Schütte. Hybrid Monte Carlo with adaptive temperature in mixed-canonical ensemble: Efficient conformational analysis of RNA. J. Comput. Chem., 19(15):1689–1697, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Frauenfelder, S. G. Sligar, and P. G. Wolynes. The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science, 254:1598–1603, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Galliat, P. Deuflhard, R. Roitzsch, and F. Cordes. Automatic identification of metastable conformations via self-organized neural networks. Available as ZIB-Report 00–51 via, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Gelman. Inference and monitoring convergence. In W. R. Gilks, S. Richardson, and D. J. Spiegelhalter, editors, Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, pages 131-143. Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Gelman and X.-L. Meng. Simulating normalizing constants: From importance sampling to bridge sampling to path sampling. Statist. Sei., 13(2):163–185, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Statist. Sei., 7(4):457–511, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. J. Geyer. Estimating normalizing constants and reweighting mixtures in Markov chain Monte Carlo. Technical Report 568, School of Statistics, Univ. Minnesota, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. A. Halgren. Merck molecular force field I-V. J. Comp. Chem., 17(5,6):490–641, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. H. E. Hansmann, Y. Okamoto, and F. Eisenmenger. Molecular dynamics, Langevin and hybrid Monte Carlo simulations in a multicanonical ensemble. Chem. Phys. Lett, 259:321–330, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Iba. Extended ensemble Monte Carlo. ISM Research Memo. No.777, available via, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. J. M. v. Laarhoven and E. H. L. Aarts. Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Marinari and G. Parisi. Simulated tempering: a new Monte Carlo scheme. Europhys. Lett., 19(6):451–458, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    X.-L. Meng and W. H. Wong. Simulating ratios of normalizing constants via a simple identity: A theoretical exploration. Statist. Sinica, 6:831–860, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CD. Meyer. Stochastic complementation, uncoupling Markov chains, and the theory of nearly reducible systems. SIAM Rev., 31:240–272, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability. Springer, Berlin, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.-P. Ryckaert and A. Bellemans. Molecular dynamics of liquid alkanes. Faraday Discuss., 66:95–106, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Schütte. Conformational Dynamics: Modelling, Theory, Algorithm, and Application to Biomolecules. Habilitation Thesis, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Freie Universität Berlin, 1998. Available as ZIB-Report SC–99–18 via Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Schütte, A. Fischer, W. Huisinga, and P. Deuflhard. A direct approach to conformational dynamics based on hybrid Monte Carlo. J. Comput. Phys., 151:146–168, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Schütte, W. Huisinga, and P. Deuflhard. Transfer operator approach to conformational dynamics in biomolecular systems. In B. Fiedler, editor, Ergodic Theory, Analysis, and Efficient Simulation of Dynamical Systems. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. I. Siepmann and D. Frenkel. Configurational-bias Monte Carlo — a new sampling scheme for flexible chains. Mol. Phys., 75:59–70, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. A. Simon and A. Ando. Aggregation of variables in dynamic systems. Econo-metrica, 29(2):111–138, 1961.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. Tierney. Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions (with discussion). Ann. Statist, 22:1701–1762, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Vendruscolo. Modified configurational bias Monte Carlo method for simulation of polymer systems. J. Chem. Phys., 106(7):2970–2976, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    F. Yaşar, T. Çelik, B. A. Berg, and H. Meirovitch. Multicanonical procedure for continuum peptide models. J. Comput. Chem., 21(14): 1251–1261, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Fischer
    • 1
  • Christof Schütte
    • 1
  • Peter Deuflhard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frank Cordes
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Mathematik IIFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Konrad-Zuse-ZentrumBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations