Page Comparison

All partner data is in!

• Roche has submitted their results! We now have all partner results in.

OPLS results

• LD: for Janssen, the terms with Schrodinger are pretty restricted, and may be different for Roche

  • terms could be that they can share results with others, but cannot post publicly, etc.

  • DD: will ask directly for clarification before any public posting

  • LD: Roche only shared default param results

  • DH: Schrodinger may complain if he only benchmarks with default, since that’s not what they recommend using.

  • LD: I’ll ask XL about both topics (whether he has permission to share, and whether we could also

  • JW: we should recognize that we are not going to be able to competently navigate the legal landscape of 10 different agreements

    • DD: verification via email of 1) can you share these results with us? and 2) can these results be made public?

    • in-writing response should protect our org and theirs

Manuscript needs from Gary, Sage and OPLS

• LD: we will have two datasets:

  • (1) aggregated results from all partners

  • (2) public dataset from QCArchive

  • gaff, smirnoff, all parsley versions

  • also think sage should be included for the manuscript

  • GT would like to have OPLS results from as many pharma partners are possible. We don’t think we’ll get 10/10 doing OPLS4 with both default and custom, but

    • a subset of the first dataset will have OPLS results

  • LD – Also considering which FFs to compare. In SI we can do all vs. all, but in the main text we’ll do SMIRNOFF, GAFF, Parsley 1.3, and Sage (full release if possible)

  • For reduced dataset, we’ll do OPLS4 with custom and default parameters.

  • Then for the overlapping dataset, we’d do Sage, GAFF, and OPLS.

  • DD: what are some action items we must address to support Gary’s work?

  • LD: public dataset, assessing its current state, exporting data

    • QM data export

    • MM data export

      • QM&MM (backup, likely not used for manuscript)

      • QMthenMM

    • Adding Sage to the MM compute specs

      • DD: we’ll add Sage RC.2 to public dataset; Sage itself is imminent though, so should we include?

      • SB: working on param renaming, but yes is imminent, and would be preferrable for me

      • JW: even though Sage has renaming, the results should be the same in terms of optimizations; the physics should be the same

      • DD: can put Sage as a compute spec on each of these sets at any time later for completeness, even if RC.2 is physically the same

      • JW: don’t want anything blocked by full release of Sage; think we should proceed with RC.2 for the benchmark, not worry about Sage release itself here

      • DD: will proceed with openff-forcefields 2.0.0-rc.2 deployment for prod QCA compute

    • Also, need to coordinate pharma partners on Sage, OPLS (where possible)

      • DD: can Lorenzo, David H., and Gary coordinate the partners for gathering these results, since we are now beyond the scope of Season 1?

        • happy to assist, but will be in a supporting role

      • LD: yes, can do

  • JW: we have clarity on what was executed with strict versioning, so technical details should all be covered well; even if e.g. psi4 package disappears, we have single-file installers for all releases of openff-benchmark

  • DD: The lifetime of those on GH should be good – They’re attached to releases, which should be static and long-lived.

    • DD: can ask Lori to avoid deletion of the package we used for benchmarking

  • DD: will communicate above to Gary

Updates from team

• JH

  • Just the thing from last week – Useful for refactor, that qcsubmit outputs can go straight to qcengine now

  • DD – I had found that having QCF as a dependency balloons the complexity of the environment, so I’m looking forward to being able to run without that. Very few partners chose to use the server approach (only Swope used it IIRC).

• SB

  • Nothing to report

• LD

  • Update on TFox analysis. I’m refining the violation plots to be better normalized/scaled. Using normalization, t133 comes to the top (7%, 1 violation out of 14 uses). Redid analysis to control for number of violations and results are looking clearer. Next steps will be to run more torsiondrives of “high violation” torsions to gather more info. Still brainstorming exactly how to do that.

• JW:

  • made a new toolkit release; may see differences in partial charge assignment

  • entering the month for doing benchmarking refactor work

    • aiming to collect ideas on key directions in coming weeks

• DD

  • Not much more to report than above. I’m very happy with the way that this is wrapping up.

  • would be valuable to get feedback/run a survey on how season 1 went

    • JW – I’d wait until everyone’s done submitting everything, otherwise we’ll hav eto do a lot of work defining what “season 1” was and asking them to separate their thoughts about that from the remaining work they may be doing

    • DD – Ok, I’ll start drafting these questions but won’t send them out yet.