Add correct cutoffs to SMIRNOFF example #324
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
OpenFF mainline force fields use a 9 Angstrom cutoff and a switch width of 1 Angstrom (equivalently, a switching distance that starts at 8 Angstroms). This information is not included in the example and therefore users are likely to use the defaults (10 Angstroms and no switching) which are not how the force fields are trained or intended to be used, which at least produces user confusion and at worst impacts the quality of the physics.
This PR adds these cutoffs into the SMIRNOFF example without exhaustively going through all of the details. I hope this can nudge users towards using the correct non-bonded settings without overwhelming them in detail.