Page Comparison

Progress Updates

• JW: update on ingestion components

  • this is the first thing user input hits, so we want to make sure we’re careful about what we accept

  • details on this PR:

    Github link macro
    link https://github.com/openforcefield/openff-benchmark/pull/16

  • this PR Is ready for review; following this, will be working on conformer generation/filling in early next week, since that’s needed to line up for compute input testing

    • Also committed to the coverage report, but that’s a side-spur of the workflow

  • DD: I will review, and push to merge!

  • JW: perhaps have a testing party next week

• DD: Update on compute component

  • Separating workflow into “Seasons”, where we may want to change the methods that we’re benchmarking

  • Using CLI

  • Openeye loading warning is annoying

    • JH – logging.disable(logging.WARNING)

  • Showed demo of submitting molecule

  • Working on pulling the data out

  • JW: What all openff versions will we be using? How should we handle different coverage reports?

    • DD – JW will work on this, so use your intuition

• JH: keeping up with what everyone is doing, synthesizing this into the deployment procedure doc

  • DD: thank you for this; we need this high level perspective to ensure our overall approach is ultimately usable for our users

• DH: Kicked off discussion on Slack for if we want QM-then-MM vs. QM-and-MM ; not a clear answer yet on what’s preferred

  • Would need intermediates to be stored if we do the then approach

  • DD: the QM final molecules exported could be understood by downstream tools to be the starting points for the MM optimizations

  • JW: Gary’s preference?

  • GT: Would prefer precedence, consistency with what is already published.

    • that said, if we want to show that MM can reproduce the same result, that has value

    • probably start with what has been done, though

  • DD: can design to the QM-then-MM approach protocol; the approaches can still support the and approach at a later time

  • GT: think it’s important to at least do apples-to-apples with the paper; the other protocol is still interesting, but better for now to approach with the same protocol

  • DH: the and protocol would also present problems for the analysis approach, since it depends on the then comparison

  • JW: how much care is put in to ensure we don’t get duplicates?

    • what cutoff should I use for conformers?

    • DH: DM recommended that you start with a high threshold and then drop it iteratively.

      • It won’t break downstream analysis to have less than 10 conformers

  • DH: a bit stuck at the moment; need inputs to work with

  • JW: DD and I can sprint to get the components needed for downstream today

• Coverage report: focus on needed data being present first; pretty or human-readable can come after; could be a JSON blob

Common infrastructure

• JW: utils.py? cli.py?

• JW: Common dataset loader?

• JW: Common OpenEye unloader?

• JW: Automated testing?