Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2020 Jan 20;34(5):543–560. doi: 10.1007/s10822-019-00267-z

Table 2.

RMSE, AUE and ME when all data in each λ window (0–5 ns) was used and when the first nanosecond was discarded as equilibration (1–5 ns)

Parameter Oct All (0–5 ns) Equilibrated (1–5 ns) Entrya
RMSE AUE ME RMSE AUE ME
OPLS-AA Dry 2.83(5) 2.68(5) 2.68(5) 2.79(5) 2.61(5) 2.61(5) cp8kv
OPLS-AA Wet 2.62(5) 2.50(4) 2.50(4) 2.72(5) 2.61(5) 2.61(5) 623c0
LigParGen Dry 1.90(6) 1.79(6) 1.66(6) 1.71(6) 1.57(6) 1.57(6) eufcy
LigParGen Wet 1.80(6) 1.68(6) 1.68(6) 1.62(6) 1.51(6) 1.51(6) mwuua
GAFF Dry 2.36(8) 2.13(7) 2.13(7) 1.52(7) 1.28(7) 1.28(7) sqosi
GAFF Wet 2.26(7) 2.07(7) 2.07(7) 1.71(8) 1.48(7) 1.48(7) 6nmtt
CGenFF Dry 1.08(6) 0.90(6) 0.24(6) 1.17(5) 0.91(6) −0.32(6) 3oqhx
CGenFF Wet 1.48(5) 1.21(5) 0.16(5) 1.42(5) 1.05(5) −0.10(5) b
a

The corresponding submission entry codes for the raw data used to calculate the results. Entries in this table were processed with alchemlyb-MBAR and are not the results that were submitted to SAMPL6; instead see Tables S4S7 in the Supplementary Information for the submitted results, which were processed with mdpow-TI (Simpson’s rule).

b

Results with CGenFF in wet octanol had not been submitted to SAMPL6 but were computed for this work to enable a complete comparison.