Statistical analysis of the 3 sets of ranked absolute binding free energy predictions for the TrimerTrip dataset are summarized in Table and Figure . All methods used explicit solvent. These submissions used nominally very similar free energy techniques (though with differences in protocol) but force fields were substantially different. Fixed-charge approaches used the GAFF and GAFF2 force fields, along with the TIP3P or OPC water models (the method called MD/DOCKING/GAFF/xtb-GNF/ used GAFF with TIP3P, while FSDAM/GAFF2/OPC3 used GAFF2 with OPC). The third submission in this category, AMOEBA/DDM/BAR, used the AMOEBA force field, which explicitly treats polarizability and includes multipoles; this AMOEBA-based approach was consistently the top performing method with values of 2.76 kcal/mol, 0.50, 1.25, and 0.47 in terms of RMSE, R 2 , slope (m), and respectively (Figure ). The mean error (ME) for this AMOEBA submission was modestly larger in magnitude than one of the other ranked submissions, but in all other respects its performance was superior. Full statistics are in Table . AMOEBA-based approaches also perform well in the GDCC category, as we will see below.