Clarification on 1D reweighting from a 2D metadynamics simulation

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Mariana Yoshinaga

unread,
Sep 29, 2025, 4:36:55 PM (5 days ago) Sep 29
to PLUMED users
Dear,
I performed a well-tempered metadynamics calculation with two CVs, whose plumed.dat content is described below. 
__________________________________________________

WHOLEMOLECULES ENTITY0=1-16000 ENTITY1=38054-38062
lig_1: COM NOPBC ATOMS=38054-38062
d1: ZANGLES ATOMS1=38054,38059 MEAN
cos_theta: MATHEVAL ARG=d1.mean FUNC=cos(x) PERIODIC=NO
mem: COM NOPBC ATOMS=11-15886:125
CV1:  DISTANCE ATOMS=lig_1,mem SCALED_COMPONENTS

m: METAD ...
  ARG=CV1.c,cos_theta
  SIGMA=0.05,0.1         
  HEIGHT=0.28
  BIASFACTOR=10
  PACE=500
  TEMP=310
  GRID_MIN=-0.5,-1.0
  GRID_MAX=+0.5,+1.0
  GRID_BIN=200,200
  CALC_RCT
  RCT_USTRIDE=125
... m:

PRINT ARG=CV1.c,cos_theta,d1.mean,m.bias,m.rbias STRIDE=500 FILE=COLVAR
__________________________________________________
I carried out a reweighting considering only CV1 and obtained a 1D FES plot. The content of reweight.dat is shown below:
__________________________________________________

CV1: READ FILE=COLVAR IGNORE_TIME VALUES=CV1.c IGNORE_FORCES

m: READ FILE=COLVAR IGNORE_TIME VALUES=m.rbias IGNORE_FORCES

weights: REWEIGHT_METAD TEMP=310 ARG=m.rbias

hhcv1: HISTOGRAM ARG=CV1.c STRIDE=50 GRID_MIN=-0.5 GRID_MAX=+0.5 GRID_BIN=200 BANDWIDTH=0.005 LOGWEIGHTS=weights
ffcv: CONVERT_TO_FES GRID=hhcv1
DUMPGRID GRID=ffcv FILE=ffcv1.dat
PRINT ARG=CV1.c,weights STRIDE=1 FILE=COLVAR_reweight
__________________________________________________
Does this procedure of reweighting with respect to only one CV make sense, even though the metadynamics was run using two CVs?  

Best regards,
Mariana Yoshinaga

Michele Invernizzi

unread,
Sep 30, 2025, 3:08:20 AM (5 days ago) Sep 30
to plumed...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mariana,

Yes this is correct and makes sense.
However, notice that if you bias is still moving a lot and hasn't reached the adiabatic limit, reweighting will fail and produce wrong results. They could be slightly wrong, as shown here https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00152, or completely wrong if you are very out of equilibrium.

Best,
Michele 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PLUMED users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plumed-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/plumed-users/c6be2613-a92f-491b-8805-2e65cb654588n%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages