Closed gokulalgates closed 6 years ago
As soon as you start counting transitions, concatenating trajectories introduces artifacts. It only makes sense for e.g. histograms, where you do not take any transitions into account.
Imagine you have two discrete trajectories [1,2,1,2,1,2,1] and [0, 0, 0, 0, 0]. If you concatenate those, you will introduce a transition from / to state 0 from the other states (depending on the order of concatenation). But this transition was never observed in your data. If you build a Markov model from that, it will naturally come out wrong and estimate transition probabilities between states that are not connected and give you artificial implied timescales.
Does that answer your question?
We need to clarify this in the notebook.
Thank you! I understood I have another question. I know its silly to ask this question, Do we need to Fit trajectory even if we select backbone angle?
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you exactly mean by fit trajectory? (Maybe post the code that you think might not be needed?)
Sorry, For not being clear, I mean to ask you do we need to RMSD-align the structure of trajectory for backbone angle as a feature? I hope we don't have to align as the distance is rotationally invariant while calculating covariance. Am I right about it?
Yes, if you use backbone angles or other features that are invariant under translation and rotation, you don't need to align the structure beforehand.
While working on its calculation.. we are using cluster.dtrajs. why are we not using dtrajs concatenated as they represent the complete list of trajectories using following code?
its = pyemma.msm.its(dtrajs_concatenated, lags=20000, nits=4)#, errors='bayes') pyemma.plots.plot_implied_timescales(its, units='ns', dt=0.02);