Skip to content
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

Output labels -- consistent nomenclature #129

Open
jan-janssen opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Output labels -- consistent nomenclature #129

jan-janssen opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@jan-janssen
Copy link
Member

In #123 the LAMMPS output for calc_static() defines the output energy as energy. This equals the potential energy calculated by calc_md(). We should address this inconsistency and make sure it is still consistent with the other simulation code interfaces.

@liamhuber
Copy link
Member

I was thinking a bit about this today, especially in the light of the discussion by @pmrv around the VASP parser from the morning (well, my morning, your yesterday). Even energy_pot and energy_tot are not really going to be truly cross-code, because classical codes have only ionic energy while for DFT codes there is electronic energy. I can see that energy_pot is equivalent between the two, but it's not immediately clear to me whether energy_tot for DFT codes should include finite-T electronic energy...

For the sake of this issue I would be happy if just lammps consistently applied terminology -- especially since then we could leverage inheritance to get class LammpsMDOutput(LammpsStaticOutput) inheritance going. But it might be convenient to discuss the broader implications here as well.

@samwaseda
Copy link
Member

So far it looks to me like the quantity we call energy is the one that is integral of the forces (i.e. derivative of energy should be the forces). If we stick to this definition, it makes sense to use energy_pot for LAMMPS, and the free energy including the electronic part for DFT.

@liamhuber liamhuber changed the title [LAMMPS] energy vs. energy_pot Output labels -- consistent nomenclature Dec 18, 2023
@liamhuber
Copy link
Member

Per the meeting discussion, I was supposed to open an issue on getting consistent nomenclature for the output. Since we already started the discussion here I'm just hijacking this one instead.

Now that the output data is centralized in the shared dataclasses, we should think about the following questions:

  • What is the appropriate cross-code nomenclature for different physical properties
    • E.g. "energy"
      • energy and energy_pot/energy_tot between static and MD are extremely closely related
      • Our nomenclature needs to consider at least: ionic potential energy, ionic kinetic energy, electronic 0K energy, electronic smeared energy
    • E.g. "stress" vs "pressure" for static and MD -- do we need two different terms at all?
    • Are there guiding principles we can consider, e.g. "First, use what they use in ASE"
  • How to handle plurals
    • To what extent should our names reflect data shape? E.g. static calculations typically return a float, while MD and minimization return a vector; should we distinguish this in our language?
  • How to reflect this in the code?
    • Is it possible to embed structure at the code level, e.g. with inheritance like OutputMolecularDynamics(OutputStatic)
    • How can we centralize things/minimize duplication

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants