-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 162
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Symmetric neighbours with solvents #1462
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
c0a9f86
to
f38259f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, looks like a good fix
@awvwgk Do you have any suggestions for checking numerical correctness? About all I can think is to test the GFN models against the xTB implementation, or to try and match literature results from other solvent implementations for DFTB2. |
We can compute the same solvation models with xtb to check for the values of the surface integration |
Use the symmetric neighbour list for the solvent models (as that part of the code internally assumes symmetric neighbours, not the default single triangle, leading to the energy being atomic order dependent). Note, results now seem invariant to permutation of atom order, but are untested whether the results are physically correct.
d519dd1
to
c561bee
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Symmetric neighbor-list cutoff change is correct, as far as I can see.
Use the symmetric neighbour list for the solvent models (as that part of the code internally is inconsistent with the default single triangle of the neighbours, leading to the energy being atom order dependent).
Note, results now seem invariant to permutation of atom order, but are untested whether the results are physically correct.
Closes #1069