-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 574
Bug fix lennard jones example #1395
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
/blossom-ci |
Greptile OverviewGreptile SummaryThis PR updates the Lennard-Jones molecular dynamics example to fix an input-size bug in The change is localized to the example code under Important Files Changed
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1 file reviewed, no comments
|
/blossom-ci |
coreyjadams
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
|
/blossom-ci |
|
/blossom-ci |
1 similar comment
|
/blossom-ci |
ktangsali
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks for running e2e test.
|
/blossom-ci |
PhysicsNeMo Pull Request
Description
Addresses this bug: molecular_dynamics/lennard_jones example fails with ValueError: Expected tensor of shape (N_nodes, 1) but got tensor of shape (258, 128).
The fix includes passing the dummy node features through a 1-layer encoder, and not allowing meshgraphnet to take None as the number of layers anymore, which was causing unexpected behavior.
Was able to reproduce the results:
Checklist
Dependencies
Review Process
All PRs are reviewed by the PhysicsNeMo team before merging.
Depending on which files are changed, GitHub may automatically assign a maintainer for review.
We are also testing AI-based code review tools (e.g., Greptile), which may add automated comments with a confidence score.
This score reflects the AI’s assessment of merge readiness and is not a qualitative judgment of your work, nor is
it an indication that the PR will be accepted / rejected.
AI-generated feedback should be reviewed critically for usefulness.
You are not required to respond to every AI comment, but they are intended to help both authors and reviewers.
Please react to Greptile comments with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback on their accuracy.