Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
(slide 7) – PB – Same periodocity for sage and new FF?
TG – Short answer: no. I’ll talk more about this in a later slide.
(slide 8 ) – TH – You’re using chemical space regularization, right? I see you’re usign “chemical objective”, which penalizes complexity of types, right?
TG – Right. The biggest contributor is te number of parametesrs, and also the complexity of the SMIRKS.
TH - So here where we see the chem obj jump to 16, is this due to the increase in the number of active periodicities?
TG – You may be on to something. But IIRC this particular case doesn’t correlate with the addition of periodicities. But relatedly: I count each periodicity as two params: for the period and phase - So they are heavily weighted in chemical objective.
(slide 9) PB – whihc energy cutoff did you use?
TG – 40 kcal/mol (basically none at all)
(slide 9) TH – Did you turn off attenuation completely?
TG + PB – No, it still attenuated on its way to 40 kcal/mol
(slide 12) TH – I kinda agree with your assessment… (see recording around 33 mins for full discussion)
(stopped taking notes around 35 mins, see recording)