Quadrupole moment loss#382
Merged
chrisiacovella merged 12 commits intochoderalab:mainfrom Sep 17, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…ation as that codes seems to not be checked directly).
MarshallYan
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Summary
This PR will add in the quadrupole moment calculation (from the per atom charges) and have this be an option for uses in the training loss.
Questions
Right now the way this was set up initially, dipole moment will only be calculated as part of the losses. quadrupole moment is implemented the same way. That means, in inference mode, these properties are no output by the model. Right now, users can take the partial charges predicted by the model, and then compute these properties on their own. While this is slightly annoying when doing testing, these properties aren't necessarily something used directly in simulations and such, so it makes sense for them not to be returned. I'm not sure it would be worth it to modify this such that these properties are also registered during inference (from the production side of things, if we won't use a quantity, there is no sense wasting computational time computing it), and if they can just be toggled on/off (toggled on when needed for testing).
Key changes
Notable points that this PR has either accomplished or will accomplish.
Associated Issue(s)
Pull Request Checklist