The permanent and induced potentials at the center of mass of the randomly chosen configurations are plotted in Figures and From Figure , we see that the (converged) induced potentials obtained using models A, : Electrostatic potentials from permanent multipoles (solid lines) and induced dipoles (dashed lines) at the center of mass of the quantum subsystem using models A-D (defined in Fig. ) with varying cutoff distances for models A and B. Upper axes provide the percentage of included atoms. Vertical grey lines indicate the distance from the quantum subsystem to the edge of the simulation box. induced potentials level out after around 16 Å, i.e., after reaching the edge of the simulation box, where about 50 % of the atoms are included within the cutoff. In the case of PNP1 and PNP2, the induced potentials gradually increase towards the converged values as the cutoff distance increases, whereas there are fluctuations around the converged value in the PNP3 case. Overall, models A and B exhibit comparable performance in terms of the induced potentials, though model B may have a slight advantage in the case of PNP1 and partly PNP3. This indicates that model B does not yield substantially improved induced dipoles compared to model A. Nevertheless, there are large differences between the two models for the permanent potential. In particular, when using model A, there is a large increase when the sodium ion is included, as expected. However, it does not appear to affect the induced potentials visibly. Figure : Electrostatic potentials from permanent multipoles (solid lines) and induced dipoles (dashed lines) at the center of mass of the quantum subsystem using models A-D (defined in Fig. ) with varying cutoff distances for models A and B. Upper axes provide the percentage of included atoms. Vertical grey lines indicate the distance from the quantum subsystem to the edge of the simulation box.