Was there ever any resolution to Ulf's question? Apologies if I have missed
something.
...thx...dac
----- Forwarded message from Ulf Ryde <ulf.ryde.teokem.lu.se> -----
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:25:00 +0000
From: Ulf Ryde <ulf.ryde.teokem.lu.se>
To: "amber.ambermd.org" <amber.ambermd.org>
Subject: [AMBER] MBAR with Amber 18
Are the MBAR energies with Amber 18 really correct?
With Amber 16, the MBAR energy for the clambda value coincided with EPtot.
For example, with clambda=1.00:
MBAR Energy analysis:
Energy at 0.0000 = -10260.7249
...
Energy at 1.0000 = -10304.4021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TI region 1
NSTEP = 500 TIME(PS) = 521.000 TEMP(K) = 306.35 PRESS = 13.8
Etot = -8817.4742 EKtot = 1486.9279 EPtot = -10304.4021
With Amber 18, this is no longer the case:
MBAR Energy analysis:
Energy at 0.0000 = -9446.2036
...
Energy at 1.0000 = -10361.9441
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TI region 1
NSTEP = 500 TIME(PS) = 521.000 TEMP(K) = 299.03 PRESS = -111.7
Etot = -8831.7112 EKtot = 1451.4229 EPtot = -10283.1341
Moreover, when used with pyMBAR or other software, the results are strange
and do not coincide with the TI results (which are instead based on dV/dL
from the Amber output file), as they do for well-behaving cases with Amber
16.
In fact, if the MBAR Energy for clambda is subtracted from that of the
other lambda values, different snapshots often give exactly the same
results for long time intervals, although dV/dL varies.
Best Regards,
Ulf
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Aug 15 2020 - 05:00:02 PDT
