Paween, I can make some general comments here:
- Remember that you won't get a true PMF from WE simulation unless you are using 'equilibrium' setting (no recycling at a target state) AND your WE has run long enough to relax to equilibrium ... which is highly unlikely for a complex system.
- What you get from WE/WESTPA in general is the time evolving probability distribution which is relaxing toward either equilibrium or a non-equilibrium steady state (if recycling). This is definitely worth examining for interesting features and a rough
picture of convergence.
- If you want to examine a coordinate besides what you used for bins, that is straightforward because you can just make a histogram for your coordinate(s) of interest using the weights
(e.g., for a range of iterations). If you take the negative log of this histogram, it will be free-energy-like ... though it is unlikely to be the equilibrium free energy as noted above.
- Pruned trajectories are automatically accounted for in the weights, which is a nice thing about WE. At any time, WE gives an unbiased estimate of the probability distribution as it evolves from the initial condition. This is because WE resampling
guarantees pruned weights are re-allocated in an unbiased way.
- A separate subtlety is the issue of PMF vs free energy, in case you're not aware of it. This has to do with Jacobians. For example, if you have an equilibrium distribution that is uniform over a circle, but you plot a histogram in r and then take
a log, you might think there is a (mean) force present, but there is not. So ... be careful.
Bottom line: not only does WE have limitations in terms of sampling power (like any method) but we have to be a little more careful when analyzing WE data. Well, I guess everyone needs to be more careful, but we shouldn't assume that a 'fancy' method always
gives reliable or easy-to-interpret results. On the other hand, examining alternative coordinates in WE is easy ... you just have to realize the meaning of the WE framework. Take a look at the WE review article that Lillian Chong and I wrote a few years
back.
--Dan Zuckerman