You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the Uni-Mol paper, the average number of seconds per ligand is 0.2.
Efficiency benchmark We compare Uni-Mol binding pose prediction with popular docking tools in efficiency. The baseline results are taken from EquiBind [99] paper. And Uni-Mol binding pose prediction is run on a single V100 GPU. For each molecule, Uni-Mol is run with 10 different initial conformations, and the total time cost is reported. As shown in Table 20, Uni-Mol is significantly faster than traditional docking tools, about 250x faster.
I tried running the docking pose prediction on the provided test.lmdb and the run time took much longer than expected on a single RTX 3090. The average time was about 3 seconds per ligand. Were anything done to improve the run time of this?
This step was relatively fast ~36 seconds:
data_path="./protein_ligand_binding_pose_prediction" # replace to your data path
results_path="./infer_pose" # replace to your results path
weight_path="./save_pose/checkpoint.pt"
batch_size=8
dist_threshold=8.0
recycling=3
python ./unimol/infer.py --user-dir ./unimol $data_path --valid-subset test \
--results-path $results_path \
--num-workers 8 --ddp-backend=c10d --batch-size $batch_size \
--task docking_pose --loss docking_pose --arch docking_pose \
--path $weight_path \
--fp16 --fp16-init-scale 4 --fp16-scale-window 256 \
--dist-threshold $dist_threshold --recycling $recycling \
--log-interval 50 --log-format simple
But this step took around 15 mins for 285 ligand/pocket pairs.
`nthreads=20` # Num of threads
predict_file="./infer_pose/save_pose_test.out.pkl" # Your inference file dir
reference_file="./protein_ligand_binding_pose_prediction/test.lmdb" # Your reference file dir
output_path="./protein_ligand_binding_pose_prediction" # Docking results path
python ./unimol/utils/docking.py --nthreads $nthreads --predict-file $predict_file --reference-file $reference_file --output-path $output_path
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Does the binding pose prediction task include the time for docking.py? I believe calling docking.py is required to compute the coordinates for the atoms based on the predicted intermolecular distance.
In the Uni-Mol paper, the average number of seconds per ligand is 0.2.
I tried running the docking pose prediction on the provided
test.lmdb
and the run time took much longer than expected on a single RTX 3090. The average time was about 3 seconds per ligand. Were anything done to improve the run time of this?This step was relatively fast ~36 seconds:
But this step took around 15 mins for 285 ligand/pocket pairs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: