Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Finite-Resolution Identifiability and Measurement Design for Molecular Conformer Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that conformer assignment be gated by measurement-model identifiability: under its declared covariance model, IR separates all non-mirror conformer pairs in three test molecules, and only exactly degenerate mirror pairs s

desk verdict A careful, reproducible framework that upgrades conformer-spectroscopy distinguishability from classifier accuracy to model-conditional certificates; the main caveat is that the Ramanspecific covariance is declared, not validated, and the n-pentane window claims sit near threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02637 v1 pith:M6Q4FGIS submitted 2026-07-31 physics.chem-ph physics.data-an

Megan Simons , Jonathan Washburn This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.data-an
keywords conformerspectroscopyidentifiabilityBayeserrorambiguitygraphFisherinformationinfraredRamanexperimentaldesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that 'can we tell these conformers apart?' is the question that must precede conformer assignment, and that this question can be answered rigorously by comparing the probability laws each conformer induces under a spectroscopic measurement—not by comparing ideal spectra. It develops exact observational equivalence as a quotient that refines when modalities are added, and finite-resolution ambiguity as a non-transitive Bayes-error graph. Under the declared shared-covariance Gaussian working model, the calculated IR spectra separate all non-mirror conformer pairs in 1,2-difluoroethane, ethylene glycol, and n-pentane; only mirror-related pairs, exactly degenerate under achiral observables, remain ambiguous. The paper also gives rank and constrained-Fisher criteria for whether conformer populations can be recovered from additive spectra, and demonstrates that mirror-collapsed class populations are identifiable and well conditioned while separate mirror-partner populations are exactly unidentifiable. The value is a model-conditional certificate of distinguishability and a principled way to choose the next measurement, rather than a benchmark accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the observation-law map Ra(ci): the probability distribution of the measurement from modality a given conformer ci, with experimental and theoretical uncertainty folded in through a covariance. It separates exact observational equivalence (equality of these laws, a transitive relation forming a quotient that refines when modalities are added) from finite-resolution ambiguity (Bayes error Pe,a(i,j)=Φ(−½ d(i,j)) under a declared shared-covariance Gaussian model, which defines a non-transitive ambiguity graph). The second main mechanism is the constrained Fisher information I(Δ)=UT M^T Σ^{-1} M U on the simplex tangent, whose smallest eigenvalue diagnoses whether a po

What would settle it

A direct experimental test: record repeated IR (and Raman) spectra of isolated or matrix-isolated conformers of n-pentane and ethylene glycol at the declared 8 cm−1 FWHM and SNR≈50, estimate the actual error covariance including reproducibility across instruments and theoretical methods such as PBE0 resimulation, and recompute the pairwise Bayes errors. If any non-mirror pair has Pe > 0.05 under this empirically estimated covariance, the paper's central separation result ('IR separates all non-mirror pairs') is falsified; if the stressed n-pentane ambiguity persists after adding Raman, the win

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that identifiability, not classification accuracy, should be the object of study in conformer spectroscopy. Each modality defines an observation-law map Ra(ci) — the distribution of the measured signal conditioned on the conformer — and equality of these laws partitions conformers into exact equivalence classes that refine monotonically as modalities are added (Theorem 3). At finite resolution, distinguishability is a Bayes-error graph: a pair is ambiguous when the optimal equal-prior decision error exceeds a tolerance α, and this ambiguity relation is not transitive (Proposition 4), so it cannot be summarized as a partition. For additive unnormalized spectra, popula

Load-bearing premise

The declared shared-covariance Gaussian model, with the fixed covariance parameters of Table S1, accurately represents the true experimental noise and theoretical model discrepancy; if it does not, the Bayes-error separation and design conclusions are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is right, reported conformer assignments should come with a model-conditional Bayes-error certificate; a pair with Pe > α is not assigned but flagged ambiguous.
  • Adding a modality can only remove ambiguity edges and refine the exact quotient, never create ambiguity, so measurement design reduces to ranking candidate modalities or spectral windows by edge reduction or Fisher information improvement.
  • Mirror-collapsed class populations are the only identifiable targets from achiral additive spectra; separate mirror-partner populations should not be reported from such data.
  • Under the combined stress-test covariance, the n-pentane non-mirror ambiguity is removed by three individual Raman windows but no IR window, localizing the discriminating information in Raman activity redistribution rather than IR-detectable dipole changes.
  • The six-case cross-method diagnostic implies that fixed calibration is unsafe across electronic-structure methods; per-candidate scale-and-shift profiling with a conservative covariance recovers the correct achiral class in all six cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same graph machinery could rank parity-sensitive observables (VCD, ROA, microwave three-wave mixing) against residual mirror edges, a comparison the paper explicitly leaves uncomputed.
  • The window-level result suggests a targeted experiment: measure the 500–1000 cm−1 Raman region of n-pentane at the stressed resolution/noise to test whether the predicted Pe≈0.046 near-threshold separation actually resolves the g∓g∓–g∓T contrast, or whether the true covariance moves it above α.
  • The non-transitivity result implies that any clustering or grouping of conformers by spectral similarity is threshold-dependent and should be reported as a graph, not as equivalence classes; this could be extended to benchmark design, where model-conditional certificates could filter which pairs a classifier is even expected to separate.
  • The population identifiability criteria transfer directly to any additive spectral modality (e.g., XAS or VCD), provided the linear intensity model holds; the paper mentions these as natural extensions but does not compute them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a measurement-model-conditional identifiability framework for conformer spectroscopy. Observables are represented as probability laws with explicit noise and theoretical uncertainty; exact observational equivalence defines a quotient that refines when modalities are added (Theorem 3), while finite-resolution distinguishability is represented by a non-transitive Bayes-error graph (Proposition 4, Eq. (17)). For additive mixtures, the authors give rank and constrained-Fisher criteria for population identifiability and conditioning (Theorem 6, Eqs. (33)-(40)), and they formulate measurement-design objectives for choosing the next modality or spectral window. The framework is applied to audited B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVP ensembles of 1,2-difluoroethane, ethylene glycol, and n-pentane. Under the declared working covariance, IR separates all non-mirror pairs, residual edges are exactly the symmetrized mirror pairs, and mirror-collapsed class populations are identifiable and well conditioned. Under a combined stress-test covariance, n-pentane develops a non-mirror ambiguity that is removed by the full Raman band and by three individual Raman windows but by no tested IR window. All numerical claims are explicitly conditioned on the declared covariance and are accompanied by one-factor/combined stress tests, a six-case PBE0-to-B3LYP diagnostic, and an openly archived reproducibility package.

Significance. The framework is a useful and clearly presented integration of standard decision-theoretic and Fisher-information tools into conformer spectroscopy. Its strengths are the clean separation between exact observational equivalence and non-transitive finite-noise ambiguity, the analytically correct rank/Fisher criteria for population recovery, and the unusually transparent treatment of model uncertainty: the covariance model, the mirror-pair symmetrization, and the within-method nature of the results are all explicitly stated, and the code/data archive appears designed for end-to-end reproduction. If the covariance-dependence caveats are addressed, the paper provides a valuable blueprint for declaring when a conformer assignment is meaningful and for choosing a measurement that resolves a specific ambiguity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§XD, §XIe, Table III] The Raman design conclusion is the paper's most concrete measurement recommendation, but it rests on a covariance for the Raman channel that is either the declared working covariance or the IR-only PBE0 cross-method estimate. Section XIe states that the PBE0 subset contains no Raman and that the cross-method covariance is applied to Raman 'by assumption.' Because the window-level Raman margins are close to the decision threshold (Pe = 0.034-0.046 against α = 0.05), the finding that three Raman windows rescue the stressed n-pentane edge while no IR window does is not robust to a Raman-specific inflation of the model-error covariance. I request either (a) a Raman-containing cross-method or experimental calibration check, or (b) a visible softening of the abstract/conclusion so that the Raman superiority claim is presented strictly as a declared-covariance illustration rather than a robust
  2. [§XIb vs §XIc] There is a direct inconsistency in how the PBE0-B3LYP discrepancies are used. Section XIb says the two-conformer PBE0 discrepancy table and the cross-method diagnostic 'are not substituted into Σ_S,' while Section XIc says the conservative cross-method covariance is built with spectral variance terms 'raised componentwise to the larger of the working value and the two-conformer PBE0-B3LYP estimates.' As written, this is contradictory unless Σ_S means only the working covariance and the cross-method covariance is a different, ad hoc object. Please clarify exactly which covariance is used where, and state whether the cross-method covariance is a fitted covariance or a fixed pessimistic construction.
  3. [§XC, §XD, Table III] The combined stress-test covariance is defined as the simultaneous pessimistic corner of the one-factor sweeps (FWHM 16 cm^-1, SNR 20, σν = 12 cm^-1, ρm = 0.30), not as an independently calibrated instrument model. The window-level analysis is conducted only under this stressed covariance, and the paper notes that under the working covariance the edge is absent. The 'no IR window resolves it' conclusion is therefore conditional on a specific uncalibrated corner of the parameter grid. This is disclosed, but the abstract presents the Raman-window rescue as a headline result. Please add an explicit statement in the abstract or conclusions that the window-level rescue has not been validated against any experimental Raman spectrum or a Raman-calibrated covariance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'ethylene glycol, andn-pentane' should read 'ethylene glycol, and n-pentane.'
  2. [Table III caption] The phrase 'non-pentane fundamentals' should presumably be 'no n-pentane fundamentals' or 'no pentane fundamentals'; as written it is ambiguous and could be read as 'non-pentane' modes belonging to something else.
  3. [Table IV] The column header 'mods n cl' is cryptic. Please spell out 'modalities, nodes, classes' or use a clearer notation.
  4. [§IXD, Eq. (47)] The covariance construction is clear in concept, but the sentence 'Setting ℓm = 0 recovers a diagonal Σ' uses ℓm before it is formally defined; define ℓm explicitly at first use.
  5. [§XIc] The statement 'worst case dmin ≈ 19 σ' would be easier to interpret if the definition of 'σ' in that sentence were tied to the covariance used; currently it appears to be a generic standard-deviation unit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central criteria are derived independently; numerical claims are explicitly within-model and conditional on declared covariance.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing derivation chain is self-contained. The identifiability formalism (Definitions 1–2, Theorem 3, Proposition 4, Theorem 6, and the Fisher-information criteria of Eqs. (33)–(40)) is obtained by direct application of probability theory, linear algebra, and standard decision theory; it does not presuppose the molecular results. The three-molecule numerical conclusions are explicitly stated to be conditional on the declared working covariance: 'The statement that the calculated IR means separated all non-mirror pairs is therefore a within-method separation of the illustrative ensembles, not evidence that IR is generally sufficient...' The mirror-pair degeneracy is acknowledged to be a construction: 'their count ... is fixed by the symmetry construction rather than discovered numerically: mirror partners satisfy d = 0 and P_e = 1/2 because the energies and achiral observable columns were symmetrized to be identical.' The cross-method covariance is admittedly IR-only and applied to Raman by assumption ('the PBE0 cross-method subset contains no Raman, so the cross-method discrepancy estimate, and hence the conservative cross-method covariance, is calibrated on IR residuals alone and is applied to the Raman channel by assumption'), which is a stated limitation rather than a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the only self-reference is the data-availability archive. Therefore the central claims do not reduce by construction to their inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything hinges on the declared Gaussian working model and its covariance; the symmetry floor is built in by symmetrization. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • working covariance parameters (SNR=50, rho_m=0.05, sigma_nu=3 cm-1, FWHM=8 cm-1, correlation length 20 cm-1) = not fitted; declared
    The covariance in Eq. (47) uses these values to define measurement noise and model error. All ambiguity graphs use them, and results depend on them. They are chosen by the authors, not calibrated to experiment on the full system.
  • harmonic frequency scale factor s_harm = 0.975
    Declared working harmonic-frequency factor from Merrick et al. used in the measurement operator; not specifically parameterized for the B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVP level used here.
  • quasi-RRHO parameters (nu_cut=100 cm-1, p=4, T=298.15 K, free-energy cutoff 5 kcal/mol)
    Used for conformer retention and relative populations; sensitivity to these values is reported.
  • stress-test covariance (FWHM=16 cm-1, SNR=20, sigma_nu=12 cm-1, rho_m=0.30) = not fitted; pessimistic grid corner
    Combined stress test defined by taking the pessimistic end of each one-factor sweep; not an independently calibrated instrument model.
  • decision threshold alpha = 0.05
    Defines ambiguity edges in the graph; sweeps at 0.01 and 0.10 are reported but the headline uses 0.05.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The processed observation is conditionally Gaussian with a shared covariance across conformers (Eq. 6, level 3 working model).
    All closed-form Bayes errors and Fisher informations rely on this. The paper flags it as a working approximation and notes heavy-tailed noise would require Chernoff information.
  • domain assumption Measurement channels are conditionally independent given the conformer when stacked (Eq. 12), and the numerical stack is block diagonal across modalities.
    Used for additive Mahalanobis separation and additive Fisher information. Shared DFT bias across modalities would violate it; the paper flags this and does not estimate cross-channel bias.
  • domain assumption The additive mixture model (Eq. 27) applies to unnormalized IR and Raman intensities with a known global scale.
    Needed for the population identifiability and Fisher analysis. The paper excludes nonadditive features like rotational constants and the dipole feature from mixture columns.
  • domain assumption The B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVP harmonic spectra and rigid-rotor observables faithfully represent the molecules' measurement-relevant physics.
    All means in the working model come from this electronic-structure level; cross-method PBE0 checks a small subset but the full graph is within-method.
  • ad hoc to paper Declared mirror pairs are symmetrized so their observable columns and energies are identical.
    This construction forces d=0 and Pe=1/2 for mirror pairs; the paper acknowledges the residual edge count is fixed by symmetry rather than discovered. It is a reasonable physical statement (achiral observables cannot distinguish mirror images) but it is imposed, not inferred from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-Resolution Identifiability and Measurement Design for Molecular Conformer Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6Q4FGIS

@misc{pith2026260802637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-Resolution Identifiability and Measurement Design for Molecular Conformer Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6Q4FGIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02637}
}
read the original abstract

Conformer assignment is meaningful only when the measurement can distinguish the candidate structures. We formulate conformer spectroscopy as a measurement-model-dependent identifiability problem in which each modality defines an observation law with explicit experimental and theoretical uncertainty. Equality of observation laws defines exact classes that refine as modalities are added, whereas finite-resolution ambiguity is non-transitive and is represented by a Bayes-error graph. We also give rank and constrained-Fisher criteria for population recovery from unnormalized additive spectra. The framework is applied to audited B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVP ensembles of 1,2-difluoroethane, ethylene glycol, and n-pentane. Under the declared shared-covariance working model, IR separates all non-mirror pairs, leaving only mirror pairs that are exactly degenerate under the achiral observation maps. This within-method result does not imply general IR sufficiency: in a six-case PBE0-to-B3LYP diagnostic, fixed calibration recovers one intended representative, whereas scale-and-shift profiling with a conservative cross-method covariance recovers five representatives and all six achiral classes. Under a combined stress-test covariance, n-pentane develops one non-mirror quotient ambiguity. Three individual Raman windows remove it, while no tested IR window does. Mirror-collapsed class populations remain identifiable and well conditioned under the calibrated-scale working model, whereas separate mirror-partner populations are exactly unidentifiable from achiral additive spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Framework schematic. Conformers pass through physically explicit observable maps to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Computational workflow. Conformers are generated with CREST on the GFN2-xTB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. From computed lines to a decision, for 1,2-difluoroethane at the production B3LYP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ambiguity-graph summary for the audited, imaginary-mode-validated production ensembles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pair-resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kl boe, ``Conformational studies by vibrational spectroscopy: a review of various methods,'' Vib

    P. Kl boe, ``Conformational studies by vibrational spectroscopy: a review of various methods,'' Vib. Spectrosc. 9(1) (1995) 3--17. doi:10.1016/0924-2031(94)00058-O https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-2031(94)00058-O

    doi:10.1016/0924-2031(94)00058-o 1995

  2. [2]

    J. R. Durig, J. Liu, T. S. Little, and V. F. Kalasinsky, ``Conformational analysis, barriers to internal rotation, vibrational assignment, and ab initio calculations of 1,2-difluoroethane,'' J. Phys. Chem. 96(21) (1992) 8224--8233. doi:10.1021/j100200a006 https://doi.org/10.1021/j100200a006

    doi:10.1021/j100200a006 1992

  3. [3]

    Gordy and R

    W. Gordy and R. L. Cook, Microwave Molecular Spectra, 3rd ed., Techniques of Chemistry, Vol. XVIII, Wiley, New York, 1984

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    W. H. Lawton and E. A. Sylvestre, ``Self modeling curve resolution,'' Technometrics 13(3) (1971) 617--633. doi:10.1080/00401706.1971.10488823 https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1971.10488823

    work page arXiv 1971

  5. [5]

    B\"oselt, R

    L. B\"oselt, R. Aerts, W. Herrebout, and S. Riniker, ``Improving the IR spectra alignment algorithm with spectra deconvolution and combination with Raman or VCD spectroscopy,'' Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25 (2023) 2063--2074. doi:10.1039/D2CP04907D https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CP04907D

    doi:10.1039/d2cp04907d 2023

  6. [6]

    Lu, D.-Y

    X.-Y. Lu, D.-Y. Lin, T. Zhu, B. Ren, H. Ma, and G.-K. Liu, ``Vib2Conf: AI-driven discrimination of molecular conformations from vibrational spectra,'' arXiv:2604.24310 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24310 [physics.chem-ph] (2026), preprint

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Christen and H

    D. Christen and H. S. P. M\"uller, ``The millimeter wave spectrum of aGg' ethylene glycol: The quest for higher precision,'' Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 5(17) (2003) 3600--3605. doi:10.1039/B304566H https://doi.org/10.1039/B304566H

    doi:10.1039/b304566h 2003

  8. [8]

    H. S. P. M\"uller and D. Christen, ``Millimeter and submillimeter wave spectroscopic investigations into the rotation-tunneling spectrum of gGg' ethylene glycol, HOCH _2 CH _2 OH,'' J. Mol. Spectrosc. 228(2) (2004) 298--307. doi:10.1016/j.jms.2004.04.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jms.2004.04.009

    doi:10.1016/j.jms.2004.04.009 2004

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1990

    K. Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1990

    1990

  2. [10]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I: Estimation Theory, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993

    1993

  3. [11]

    Kailath, ``The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection,'' IEEE Trans

    T. Kailath, ``The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection,'' IEEE Trans. Commun. Technol. 15(1) (1967) 52--60. doi:10.1109/TCOM.1967.1089532 https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOM.1967.1089532

    1967

  4. [12]

    V. V. Fedorov, Theory of Optimal Experiments, translated and edited by W. J. Studden and E. M. Klimko, Academic Press, New York, 1972

    1972

  5. [13]

    Pukelsheim, Optimal Design of Experiments, SIAM Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol

    F. Pukelsheim, Optimal Design of Experiments, SIAM Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 50, Philadelphia, 2006. doi:10.1137/1.9780898719109 https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719109

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Chaloner and I

    K. Chaloner and I. Verdinelli, ``Bayesian experimental design: A review,'' Statist. Sci. 10(3) (1995) 273--304. doi:10.1214/ss/1177009939 https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177009939

    1995

  7. [15]

    Grimme, ``Exploration of chemical compound, conformer, and reaction space with meta-dynamics simulations based on tight-binding quantum chemical calculations,'' J

    S. Grimme, ``Exploration of chemical compound, conformer, and reaction space with meta-dynamics simulations based on tight-binding quantum chemical calculations,'' J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15(5) (2019) 2847--2862. doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00143 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00143

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Pracht, F

    P. Pracht, F. Bohle, and S. Grimme, ``Automated exploration of the low-energy chemical space with fast quantum chemical methods,'' Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22(14) (2020) 7169--7192. doi:10.1039/C9CP06869D https://doi.org/10.1039/C9CP06869D

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Bannwarth, S

    C. Bannwarth, S. Ehlert, and S. Grimme, ``GFN2-xTB---An accurate and broadly parametrized self-consistent tight-binding quantum chemical method with multipole electrostatics and density-dependent dispersion contributions,'' J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15(3) (2019) 1652--1671. doi:...

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Apr\`a et al., ``NWChem: Past, present, and future,'' J

    E. Apr\`a et al., ``NWChem: Past, present, and future,'' J. Chem. Phys. 152(18) (2020) 184102. doi:10.1063/5.0004997 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004997

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Cordero, V

    B. Cordero, V. G\'omez, A. E. Platero-Prats, M. Rev\'es, J. Echeverr\'ia, E. Cremades, F. Barrag\'an, and S. Alvarez, ``Covalent radii revisited,'' Dalton Trans. (2008) 2832--2838. doi:10.1039/B801115J https://doi.org/10.1039/B801115J

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Kabsch, ``A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors,'' Acta Crystallogr

    W. Kabsch, ``A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors,'' Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 32(5) (1976) 922--923. doi:10.1107/S0567739476001873 https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567739476001873

    1976 doi

  13. [21]

    J. P. Merrick, D. Moran, and L. Radom, ``An evaluation of harmonic vibrational frequency scale factors,'' J. Phys. Chem. A 111(45) (2007) 11683--11700. doi:10.1021/jp073974n https://doi.org/10.1021/jp073974n

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    D. A. Long, The Raman Effect: A Unified Treatment of the Theory of Raman Scattering by Molecules, Wiley, Chichester, 2002. doi:10.1002/0470845767 https://doi.org/10.1002/0470845767

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    Grimme, ``Supramolecular binding thermodynamics by dispersion-corrected density functional theory,'' Chem

    S. Grimme, ``Supramolecular binding thermodynamics by dispersion-corrected density functional theory,'' Chem. Eur. J. 18(32) (2012) 9955--9964. doi:10.1002/chem.201200497 https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201200497

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    A. D. Becke, ``Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange,'' J. Chem. Phys. 98(7) (1993) 5648--5652. doi:10.1063/1.464913 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464913

    1993 doi

  17. [25]

    C. Lee, W. Yang, and R. G. Parr, ``Development of the Colle--Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density,'' Phys. Rev. B 37(2) (1988) 785--789. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    P. J. Stephens, F. J. Devlin, C. F. Chabalowski, and M. J. Frisch, ``Ab initio calculation of vibrational absorption and circular dichroism spectra using density functional force fields,'' J. Phys. Chem. 98(45) (1994) 11623--11627. doi:10.1021/j100096a001 https://doi.org/10.10...

    1994 doi

  19. [27]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, ``A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H--Pu,'' J. Chem. Phys. 132(15) (2010) 154104. doi:10.1063/1.3382344 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3382344

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich, and L. Goerigk, ``Effect of the damping function in dispersion corrected density functional theory,'' J. Comput. Chem. 32(7) (2011) 1456--1465. doi:10.1002/jcc.21759 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21759

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    Weigend and R

    F. Weigend and R. Ahlrichs, ``Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy,'' Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7 (2005) 3297--3305. doi:10.1039/B508541A https://doi.org/10.1039/B508541A

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Adamo and V

    C. Adamo and V. Barone, ``Toward reliable density functional methods without adjustable parameters: The PBE0 model,'' J. Chem. Phys. 110(13) (1999) 6158--6170. doi:10.1063/1.478522 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.478522

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    W. C. Harris, J. R. Holtzclaw, and V. F. Kalasinsky, ``Vibrational spectra and structure of 1,2-difluoroethane: gauche--trans conformers,'' J. Chem. Phys. 67(7) (1977) 3330--3338. doi:10.1063/1.435253 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.435253

    1977 doi

  24. [32]

    L. A. Nafie, Vibrational Optical Activity: Principles and Applications, Wiley, Chichester, 2011. doi:10.1002/9781119976516 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119976516

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Patterson, M

    D. Patterson, M. Schnell, and J. M. Doyle, ``Enantiomer-specific detection of chiral molecules via microwave spectroscopy,'' Nature 497 (2013) 475--477. doi:10.1038/nature12150 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12150

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    N. C. Craig, A. Chen, K. H. Suh, S. Klee, G. C. Mellau, B. P. Winnewisser, and M. Winnewisser, ``Contribution to the study of the gauche effect. The complete structure of the anti rotamer of 1,2-difluoroethane,'' J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119(20) (1997) 4789--4790. doi:10.1021/ja96381...

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    Takeo, C

    H. Takeo, C. Matsumura, and Y. Morino, ``Microwave spectrum and molecular structure of gauche-1,2-difluoroethane,'' J. Chem. Phys. 84(8) (1986) 4205--4210. doi:10.1063/1.450042 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.450042

    1986 doi

  28. [36]

    R. D. Johnson III (Ed.), NIST Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 101, release 22, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. doi:10.18434/T47C7Z https://doi.org/10.18434/T47C7Z (retrieved 19...

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    S. S. Butcher, R. A. Cohen, and T. C. Rounds, ``Microwave spectrum of 1,2-difluoroethane,'' J. Chem. Phys. 54(9) (1971) 4123--4124. doi:10.1063/1.1675477 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1675477

    1971 doi

  30. [38]

    Christen, L

    D. Christen, L. H. Coudert, J. A. Larsson, and D. Cremer, ``The rotational-- torsional spectrum of the g'Gg conformer of ethylene glycol: Elucidation of an unusual tunneling path,'' J. Mol. Spectrosc. 205(2) (2001) 185--196. doi:10.1006/jmsp.2000.8263 https://doi.org/10.1006/j...

    2001

  31. [39]

    uller, F. Schl\

    H. S. P. M\"uller, F. Schl\"oder, J. Stutzki, and G. Winnewisser, ``The Cologne Database for Molecular Spectroscopy, CDMS: A useful tool for astronomers and spectroscopists,'' J. Mol. Struct. 742 (2005) 215--227. doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2005.01.027 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mol...

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Cologne Database for Molecular Spectroscopy, https://cdms.astro.uni-koeln.de https://cdms.astro.uni-koeln.de (retrieved 19 July 2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Axelrod and R

    S. Axelrod and R. G\'omez-Bombarelli, ``GEOM, energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation,'' Sci. Data 9 (2022) 185. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01288-4 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01288-4

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Su\'arez-Dou, M

    S. Su\'arez-Dou, M. Gallegos, K. Han, F. N. Br\"unig, J. T. Berryman, and A. Tkatchenko, ``Quantum-accurate conformational stabilities and vibrational dynamics in molecules and proteins with machine-learned force fields'' (QVib dataset: 293 molecules, 1365 conformers), arXiv:2...

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Simons and J

    M. Simons and J. Washburn, ``Complete reproducibility archive for `Finite-Resolution Identifiability and Measurement Design for Molecular Conformer Spectroscopy','' Zenodo, version 1 (2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21712522 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21712522

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.