[gmx-developers] wrong dhdl with lj-pme
Paul bauer
paul.bauer.q at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 09:15:36 CEST 2020
Hello,
can you please open an issue for this on
https://gitlab.com/gromacs/gromacs/-/issues.
This looks like something that needs immediate attention for the 2020.2
patch release.
Thanks!
Paul
On 06/04/2020 08:59, Igor Leontyev wrote:
>
> Dear gmx developers,
>
> In solvation free energy simulations with gmx 2020.1 I came across the
> following issue. vdW component of dG and DHDL values are ~2X
> overestimated at the lambda region in which vdw-lambdas are changing.
> Additional testing has shown that this issue is related to "vdw-type =
> PME."
>
>
> I have compared (for lambda-state=4) <dVvdw/dl> results of gmx2020
> with vdw-type: PME and CutOff, with the result of old gmx5.1 with
> vdw-type = PME. All was run on CPU for 5 nanosecs with PME
> electrostatics. It turned out that gmx2020 with vdw-type=CutOff
> reproduces (within the accuracy) the <dVvdw/dl> result of gmx5.1 with
> vdw-type = PME, which is expected. In the uniform environment both
> vdw-types should give accurate solvation FE. The result of gmx2020
> with vdw-type=PME, however, is around 2X exaggerated, which seems to
> be a bug.
>
>
> Here are the numbers:
>
> gmx-ver/vdw-type <dVcoul/dl> <dVvdw/dl>
>
> 2020/PME -6.39450e-01 9.72647e+01
>
> 2020/CutOff -3.99985e-01 4.39876e+01
>
> 5.1/PME -3.08675e-01 4.36738e+01
>
>
> Note, the problem is related to DHDL only, all potential energy
> components (including vdW) in all runs are consistent. Let me know if
> you need input files to reproduce the issue. Though I believe, it can
> be observed for any simple solute in water solution.
>
>
>
--
Paul Bauer, PhD
GROMACS Development Manager
KTH Stockholm, SciLifeLab
0046737308594
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-developers/attachments/20200406/1cabd6b4/attachment.html>
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers
mailing list