and α L region was defined to be 0 • ≤ φ ≤ 120 • , -50 • ≤ ψ ≤ 100 • . Initial structures for the three GaMD-WE runs were from one of the three GaMD runs with an upper bound of dihedral boost potential that yielded the largest number of initial structures. WE and brute force simulations used the same initial structure as the GaMD runs. In addition, since GaMD covered a wider free energy landscape within 50 ns, another set of GaMD-WE simulations was run with equal weights. Although reweighting would give more accurate weights for each region, we wanted to investigate whether there will be any improvements in obtaining kinetics solely from covering more of the free energy landscape with GaMD vs. WE. Figure shows the evolution of rate constants over aggregate simulation time, and Table summarizes the final rate constants for brute force, WE, and GaMD-WE simulations after 12 µs of simulation time. Reference brute force simulation values were obtained from averaging all first passage times from three independent 4 µs runs and performing Bayesian bootstrapping for 95 % confidence intervals. The first 200 ns of simulation time was cut off in the rate constant calculation to eliminate initial structure bias for brute force, WE, and GaMD-WE simulations. Figures and show that the convergence is comparable between WE and GaMD-WE for the rate constants between the two central metastable states α R and P II since both methods covered both regions well. However, GaMD-WE underestimated both rate constants (see Table ), which WE obtained more accurately. This might be due to GaMD-WE having lower weights than actual for the initial α R and P II structures, which would slow down the rate of convergence for GaMD-WE. The GaMD-WE simulations with equal weights, on the other hand, had larger error bars than regular GaMD-WE and performed similarly to GaMD-WE.