-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OpenMM parsers #8
Comments
I'm not sure that framing this as OpenMM in general is really the right way, as OpenMM doesn't have free energy calculations built into it as I understand it. These have been implemented in a couple of different efforts that I'm aware of -- particularly, Sire and Yank. Relevant people might be @jchodera , @Lnaden, @jmichel80, and probably someone else in Julien Michel's group -- @Steboss or @ppxasjsm maybe? @andrizzi on the Yank end may also have interest. |
To add to that, we use a number of tools in the group to do free energy estimation. There is an MBAR/TI variant written by @ppxasjsm that reads in an ascii file (custom format) that contains reduced potentials and gradients. https://github.com/michellab/Sire/blob/devel/wrapper/python/scripts/analyse_freenrg_mbar.py These are computed by OpenMM at the moment. The code is essentially an interface to pymbar. |
@jmichel80 - perhaps your process of merging the two tools could produce parsers to be included here? Basically, The goal is that, potentially, the community could maintain just a single library for doing this analysis rather than everyone having their own independent tools which are supposed to (but may or may not) be doing the same thing. |
@davidlmobley yes it would be good if we could load our energies easily into another tool to make sure the same decisions are applied to the raw data. Will keep this in mind, but I'm not convinced we have yet a sufficiently stable file format, and a sufficiently broad user community, for a parser in a third party tools to be useful yet. |
@jmichel80 - just to be completely clear, though, this really could just be as simple as maintaining a copy of whatever parsers you do already have on here, with minor tweaks so that they output things in the way |
Ah yes ok said that way that sounds easy.
…Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Feb 2017, at 16:59, David L. Mobley ***@***.***> wrote:
@jmichel80 - just to be completely clear, though, this really could just be as simple as maintaining a copy of whatever parsers you do already have on here, with minor tweaks so that they output things in the way alchemlyb requires.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
@jmichel80 See my comment on the CHARMM parsers, since the situation might be a bit similar. For us right now I think something is better than nothing, since that gives us something to iterate forward on. |
@jmichel80 and @davidlmobley I suppose the 'parser' we currently have with the somewhat suboptimal fileformat can be incorporated here. I'll try and see what the easiest way to do so would be with minimal effort. |
In line with the overall API proposal, we want to have parsers for each of the major MD engines, and eventually have coverage for all of those in use. Since there are essentially two types of estimators (TI and FEP), each packages needs a parser for:
u_nk
from output files (for FEP).DHdl
from output files (for TI).This issue is the nexus for discussion for such parsers for the OpenMM package. If you have existing parsing code for this package, comment below and we can begin adapting it into the parsers outlined above in a PR.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: