Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

1. Tracing the origin of the amide issue

...

One easy fix of the problem is using simple targets, whose torsion profiles have parabolic shape near the minimum (planar geometry at the minimum). + Expecting that this experiment to be one proof of the need for using simple-as-possible torsiondrive targets in general torsion parameter fitting.

2. Filtering non-planar structure at minimum geometry

...

v1.2.0

fb-fit2

fb-fit3

fb-fit4

full

test cal 1

144.59

91.81

82.39

88.84 

test cal 2

25.37

15.62

14.75

14.15

23.21

test cal 2-1 simple

7.10

6.21

7.49

8.29

11.04

test cal 2-2 complex

18.26

9.40

7.26

6.87

12.17

final X2 (fitting)

1.31e+02 → 2.22e+01 

1.30e+02 → 1.73e+01

2.09e+02 → 3.01e+01

5.28e+02 → 6.90e+01

(1) N-methylacetamide

...

(2) Test set 1

...

ID, SMIRKS

 Initial guess

fb-fit2

fb-fit3

fb-fit4

t69a [*:1]-[#7X3:2]-[#6X3$(*=[#8,#16,#7]):3]~[*:4]

k1 = 2.5

k1= 1.6793e+0

k1 = 1.3647e+0

k1 = 1.7786e+0

t70 [#1:1]-[#7X3:2]-[#6X3:3]=[#8,#16,#7:4]

k1 = 3.4592e+0

k2 = 1.3570e+0

(from 1.2.0)

k1 = 3.5662e-1

k2 =1.3542e+0

k1 = 2.4868e-1

K2 = 9.4280e-1

k1 = -1.3577e+0

k2 = 1.2663e+0

t70b [*:1]-[#7X3:2]-!@[#6X3:3](=[#8,#16,#7:4])-[#6,#1]

k1 = 2.5

k1 = 4.1692e+0

k1 = 4.4151e+0

k1 = 4.1071e+0

t70c [#1:1]-[#7X3:2]-!@[#6X3:3](=[#8,#16,#7:4])-[#6,#1]

k1 = 2.5

k2 = 2.0

k1 = 1.2406e+0

k2 = 9.0656e-1

k1 = 1.5283e+0

k2 = 7.3406e-1

k1 = 1.1159e+0

k2 = 7.6465e-1

t70d [*:1]-[#7X3:2]-!@[#6X3:3](=[#8,#16,#7:4])-[#7X3]

k1 = 2.5

k1= 1.3031e+0

k1 = 1.6149e+0

k1 = 1.1680e+0

...

Although the k1 value for t70a seems unphysical, the result below shows the plots got improved after the optimization. checked improvement for all of the four fitting targets.

...

4. Conclusions

Blah Blah

* Fitting torsion parameters to simpler torsion targets (with less strong electrostatic interaction) might be needed for the next round fitting.