Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 67 references

Comparative Analysis of GFN Methods in Geometry Optimization of Small Organic Semiconductor Molecules: A DFT Benchmarking Study

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB reproduce DFT-level optimized geometries of small organic semiconductors, while GFN-FF offers the best accuracy-per-cost for larger extended π-systems, making the GFN family practical for…

desk verdict A standard but useful GFN-vs-DFT benchmark; core rankings likely hold, but the 'larger systems' claim is confounded by the change of reference level and the tables need a reconciliation pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09606 v2 pith:R7QTLQNB submitted 2025-05-14 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-ph

Steve Cabrel Teguia Kouam , Jean-Pierre Tchapet Njafa , Raoult Dabou Teukam , Patrick Mvoto Kongo , Jean-Pierre Nguenang , Serge Guy Nana Engo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords GFN-xTBGFN-FFsemiempiricalmethodsgeometryoptimizationHOMO-LUMOgaporganicsemiconductorsdensityfunctionaltheorybenchmarking
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 benchmarks four semiempirical GFN methods—GFN1-xTB, GFN2-xTB, GFN0-xTB, and GFN-FF—against DFT reference geometries for small organic semiconductor molecules, using a curated subset of 64 small π-systems from QM9 and 76 extended π-systems from CEP. It claims that the self-consistent-charge methods GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB give the highest structural fidelity, with heavy-atom RMSD modes around 0.49 Å on QM9 and 0.76–0.83 Å on CEP, while the force-field method GFN-FF offers the best balance of accuracy and speed, especially for larger systems. If these results hold, computational pipelines for organic solar-cell materials can trust GFN geometries for high-throughput screening and reserve DFT for final refinement. The paper also reports systematic underestimation of HOMO-LUMO gaps by GFN methods, so the electronic-property benchmarking is a consistency check against DFT rather than a prediction of experimental gaps.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the GFN family as implemented in the xTB code: two self-consistent-charge (SCC) tight-binding methods (GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB), one non-iterative tight-binding method (GFN0-xTB), and one force-field method (GFN-FF). The comparison is carried by a standard geometry-optimization pipeline—SMILES-derived initial structures, force-field preoptimization, CREST conformational search, and final optimization under the ALPB implicit toluene solvation model—followed by structural and electronic metrics: heavy-atom RMSD, radius of gyration, rotational constants, bond and angle mean absolute deviations, HOMO-LUMO gaps, and CPU-time scaling. The SCC treatment of charge interactions is what gives GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB their structural edge, while GFN-FF's electronegativity-equilibration electrostatics and $O(N^2)$ scaling give it the speed edge.

What would settle it

Re-optimize the 64 QM9 and 76 CEP molecules with all four GFN methods in the gas phase, matching the DFT reference environment, and compare the heavy-atom RMSD modes and bond-length MADs; if the errors change by more than the reported margins or the method ordering shifts, the solvated-GFN rankings are not transferable to gas-phase DFT.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a performance hierarchy: for small, rigid molecules the iterative SCC methods GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB are closest to the B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) reference, with bond-length mean absolute deviations of 0.009–0.012 Å and angle errors around 1.6–2.0°; for extended conjugated systems they remain the most accurate on most metrics, with HOMO-LUMO gap errors near 0.09–0.14 eV. GFN-FF is consistently the fastest, showing $O(N^2)$ scaling and average CPU times of about 15 s on QM9 and 56 s on CEP, compared with about 1,600 s for GFN1-xTB and about 9,900 s for the BP86/def2-SVP reference on CEP. The paper's conclusion is that no single GFN level dominates everywhere; the choice should be guided by system size and accuracy requirements, with GFN-FF as the practical default for large-scale screening and the SCC methods for the most demanding structural work.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark numbers hold only if the chosen DFT references are trustworthy for these molecules; the GFN runs used toluene implicit solvation while the DFT references are gas phase, and the paper's assertion that this mismatch leaves the relative rankings unchanged is not shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For small organic semiconductors, practitioners can use GFN1-xTB or GFN2-xTB to obtain geometries whose heavy-atom positions and bond lengths are within a few hundredths of an Ångström of DFT, at a fraction of the CPU time.
  • For extended conjugated systems, GFN-FF can serve as the first geometry pass: it is about 170 times faster than the BP86/def2-SVP reference while keeping heavy-atom RMSD near 0.79 Å and bond MADs near 0.019 Å.
  • HOMO-LUMO gaps from GFN methods should be interpreted as DFT-consistent values rather than experimental gaps, since all four methods underestimate them relative to DFT by 0.09 eV to 2.03 eV depending on dataset and method.
  • The results support hierarchical screening pipelines: GFN-FF for broad exploration of large libraries and GFN1-xTB or GFN2-xTB for refinement of the most promising candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural but untested extension is to feed GFN-FF geometries into machine-learned potential or QSPR training sets; the reported error profile suggests such models would inherit mostly the angular errors (up to about 2.8°), not the heavy-atom placement errors.
  • Because the two datasets change both molecular size and DFT reference level simultaneously, a cleaner test of the size trend would be to benchmark all four GFN methods against a single DFT functional and basis set across a continuous range of molecular sizes.
  • The gas-phase/toluene mismatch yields a concrete prediction: re-optimizing the same molecules with gas-phase GFN would shift absolute errors by roughly the solvation contribution, and if the relative ranking of methods changes for polar or charged species, the reported order would not generalize to those subsets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript benchmarks four GFN-family semiempirical methods (GFN1-xTB, GFN2-xTB, GFN0-xTB, and GFN-FF) against DFT reference data for geometry optimization and HOMO-LUMO gap prediction of small organic semiconductor molecules. The authors use a QM9-derived subset of 64 small pi-systems (64 molecules after filtering) with B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) references and a CEP-derived subset of 76 extended pi-systems with BP86/def2-SVP references computed in PySCF. Structural fidelity is measured by heavy-atom RMSD, radius of gyration, rotational constants, bond lengths, and bond angles; computational cost is assessed via CPU time and scaling fits. The central findings are that GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB give the best structural agreement with DFT, GFN-FF is the fastest and competitive on the larger CEP set, and all GFN methods show substantial HOMO-LUMO gap deviations on the small QM9 molecules (MAD 1.26 to 2.03 eV) but smaller deviations on CEP. Based on these results, the authors recommend GFN methods, especially GFN-FF, for high-throughput screening of organic semiconductors.

Significance. If the results are valid, this study provides a practically useful, quantitative accuracy-cost map for a widely used family of semiempirical methods on organic-electronics-relevant molecules. The sampling methodology (k-means with Neyman allocation for QM9, stratified sampling for CEP) is thoughtful and goes beyond simple random selection, and the workflow is described in enough detail to be reproduced. The explicit reporting of the ALPB solvation mismatch and the honest discussion of the relative nature of the DFT gap benchmark are commendable. The main limitation is that the headline size-dependent conclusion is not cleanly identified: the QM9-to-CEP comparison changes the DFT reference level and the initial force field simultaneously with molecule size, so the 'particularly for larger systems' claim rests on a confounded comparison. The within-dataset ranking of the SCC methods (GFN1-xTB/GFN2-xTB) versus GFN0-xTB and GFN-FF is well supported by the hRMSD and bond-length data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, §4, Conclusions] The claim that GFN-FF offers an optimal accuracy/speed balance 'particularly for larger systems' is not isolated by the data. The QM9 and CEP benchmarks differ simultaneously in molecular size, DFT reference level (B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) gas-phase vs BP86/def2-SVP gas-phase, §2.3.2), initial force field (MMFF94s vs UFF, §2.3.1), and molecular selection. The paper itself notes better GFN agreement with BP86/def2-SVP than with B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p), so the better apparent performance on CEP may reflect the reference level rather than molecule size. To substantiate the size interpretation, the authors should either add a controlled comparison (e.g., evaluate the same small-molecule set against a BP86/def2-SVP reference, or evaluate a subset of CEP at B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p)) or explicitly restrict the claims to the datasets as defined.
  2. [§4, §2.3.1] The statement that 'preliminary tests did not show significant alterations in the relative performance ranking due to this solvation model' is load-bearing because all GFN optimizations use ALPB(toluene) while both DFT references are gas-phase. No such tests are shown in the main text or the supplementary information, so the solvation mismatch remains an uncontrolled variable. The authors should provide the supporting data or remove the claim and temper the conclusions accordingly.
  3. [§3.2.2 vs Table 1] The CEP HOMO-LUMO gap MADs reported in the text are inconsistent with Table 1. The text reports GFN0-xTB MAD = 0.2775 eV, GFN2-xTB MAD = 0.1432 eV, and GFN-FF MAD = 0.1294 eV, while Table 1 lists 0.1749 eV, 0.1243 eV, and 0.1238 eV for the same entries. Since the electronic-property ranking is one of the headline comparisons, these numbers must be reconciled.
  4. [§2.3.1, Table 1] The HOMO-LUMO gaps attributed to GFN-FF are not computed with GFN-FF but are GFN2-xTB single-point energies evaluated on GFN-FF optimized geometries. The paper does state this in §2.3.1, but Table 1 and several results passages label the values simply as 'GFN-FF', which can mislead readers into attributing electronic-structure accuracy to the force field itself. Please use an explicit label such as 'GFN2-xTB//GFN-FF' for these entries, or add a prominent caveat in the table caption and results text.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The column header in the table continuation reads 'GFN2-xTB GFN-FF GFN1-xTB GFN0-xTB', which is inconsistent with the initial header 'GFN1-xTB GFN2-xTB GFN0-xTB GFN-FF'. The data rows appear to follow the initial order, so the continuation header is a formatting error that must be corrected for the table to be readable.
  2. [§3.2.1, Figure 9] The text states that hRMSD is 'typically below 1.0 Å' while also mentioning 'peaks around 1.75 Å' for the QM9 distribution. These statements are contradictory; please check the values against Figure 9 and correct the wording.
  3. [Table 1] The uncertainties reported as ± values (e.g., 0.0985 ± 0.001124 Å) are very small and appear to be standard errors of the mean rather than standard deviations, but they are not labeled. Please specify the uncertainty type in the table caption.
  4. [§3.2.2, Figure 12] Figure 12 reports HOMO-LUMO gaps in kcal mol⁻¹ while all text values are given in eV. Please add a clear unit conversion note or, preferably, plot both axes consistently in eV to avoid reader confusion.
  5. [§3.2.3, Figures S9/S10] The complexity fits are overlaid with many competing scaling laws, and some fits have low R² (e.g., GFN1-xTB QM9 R² = 0.4983, as acknowledged). It would be helpful to report the Akaike or Bayesian information criterion or at least explicitly state which functional forms are excluded on statistical grounds, rather than presenting all fits as equally viable.
  6. [§2.4, §3.2.1] The metric is called 'center of mass (CMA) deviations' in §3.2.1, but §3.2.2 describes it as 'CMA deviations' and the supplementary figure is labeled 'CMA deviations'. The standard abbreviation is COM (center of mass); please make the naming consistent.
  7. [§3.2.1, exclusions] The VF2-based exclusion from bond-length/angle analyses removes 9 and 2 QM9 molecules for GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB, respectively, while GFN-FF has 0 such failures. Since these exclusions preferentially remove the most topologically distorted SCC-method results, the reported bond/angle MADs for the SCC methods may be favorably biased; please add a sentence quantifying this potential bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports measured deviations against external DFT references, with no fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional identity forcing the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are benchmark outcomes: GFN geometries and HOMO-LUMO gaps are compared against external DFT references (Ramakrishnan et al.'s B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) data for QM9 and PySCF-computed BP86/def2-SVP for CEP), and CPU times are measured directly. No benchmark result, RMSD value, or gap error is used to set a parameter, filter, or constant in the pipeline; sampling uses chemical descriptors and variance-based Neyman allocation, not GFN-vs-DFT deviations, so the rankings are read from the data rather than built into it. The GFN-FF electronic gaps are obtained by post-optimization SCC calculations with GFN2-xTB, but this is explicitly disclosed in Section 2.3.1 as a protocol choice and does not feed back into the structural fidelity conclusions. Citations of Grimme et al. for the GFN Hamiltonians are method definitions from independent prior publications, not self-citations by the present authors, and they do not substitute for the benchmark evidence. The paper itself flags the ALPB-toluene versus gas-phase DFT environment mismatch in Sections 2.3.1 and 4, and Section 4 asserts that 'preliminary tests did not show significant alterations in the relative performance ranking due to this solvation model' without showing those tests; this is a reproducibility and confound-control concern, not a circularity, because even if the solvation model shifted rankings, that would be a benchmarking validity issue rather than an input-output identity. Likewise, the QM9-versus-CEP comparison confounds system size with reference level (B3LYP vs BP86) and initial force field (MMFF94s vs UFF), but this affects the strength of the size-dependent interpretation without making any derivation circular. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, and no load-bearing premise rests on an unverified self-citation. The honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no fitted parameters in the derivation sense: it is an external benchmark whose reference values come from Ramakrishnan et al. and from PySCF DFT recomputations. The free-parameter entries are methodological calibration choices (dataset filters, cluster count, similarity thresholds) and descriptive fits (scaling exponents) that shape the samples or the scaling narrative but are not fitted to force the central accuracy rankings. The load-bearing domain assumptions are the choice of the two DFT references as truth, the unshown claim that ALPB-toluene solvation does not alter relative rankings, the use of Kohn-Sham gaps as the electronic descriptor, and the confounding of dataset (size) with reference functional.

free parameters (4)
  • QM9 HOMO-LUMO gap filter = < 3 eV
    Section 2.1: molecules with gaps below 3 eV were kept, a threshold cited to ref [29]; it shapes the QM9 subset but is not fitted to the benchmark outcomes.
  • Number of k-means clusters = 25
    Section 3.1 and Figure S1: k=25 chosen as the minimum where Silhouette scores stabilize (0.278); a hand choice that determines which QM9 molecules are sampled.
  • Tanimoto similarity thresholds = r <= 0.2, R >= 0.65
    Section 2.2 and Figure 2: hand-chosen ranges for alternating similar versus diverse molecules within each subgroup; affects sample composition, not the reference calculations.
  • Scaling-law exponents for CPU time versus atom count = O(N^2) to O(N^3) depending on method and dataset
    Figures S9-S10: complexity exponents are regression fits to measured CPU times; some fits have low R2 (e.g., GFN1-xTB QM9 R2=0.4983), so the cubic-versus-quadratic distinction used in the scaling conclusions is weakly constrained.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DFT references (B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) gas phase for QM9; BP86/def2-SVP gas phase for CEP) are valid reference truths for geometry and HOMO-LUMO gaps.
    Invoked in Sections 2.3.2 and 3.2; all GFN deviations are measured against these levels, so the benchmark measures consistency with these DFT approximations, not with experiment, and BP86 is a GGA with known gap underestimation.
  • domain assumption The ALPB implicit solvation model with toluene used for all GFN optimizations does not systematically change relative performance rankings versus gas-phase references.
    Stated in Sections 2.3.1 and 4; the paper claims preliminary tests support this but shows no data, so the ranking conclusions rest partly on this unshown assumption.
  • domain assumption Kohn-Sham HOMO-LUMO gaps are an adequate electronic descriptor for the benchmark.
    Section 3.2.2 acknowledges DFT eigenvalue gaps are approximate (refs [60-62]) and that the comparison is relative; the gap error numbers are therefore not errors against measured optical gaps.
  • standard math The k-means clustering plus variance-based Neyman allocation plus Tanimoto-balanced selection yields representative samples.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1; standard survey-sampling methodology, with representativeness partially validated by Tanimoto similarity distributions.
  • domain assumption Differences in GFN performance between QM9 and CEP reflect system size and conjugation rather than the change of DFT reference (functional and basis set differ between the two datasets).
    Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 interpret QM9-versus-CEP differences as size and conjugation effects, but QM9 uses B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p) while CEP uses BP86/def2-SVP, so the two factors are confounded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative Analysis of GFN Methods in Geometry Optimization of Small Organic Semiconductor Molecules: A DFT Benchmarking Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7QTLQNB

@misc{pith2026250509606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative Analysis of GFN Methods in Geometry Optimization of Small Organic Semiconductor Molecules: A DFT Benchmarking Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7QTLQNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09606}
}
abstract

This study benchmarks the GFN family of semiempirical methods (GFN1-xTB, GFN2-xTB, GFN0-xTB, and GFN-FF) against density functional theory (DFT) for the evaluation of optimized molecular geometries and electronic properties of small organic semiconductor molecules. This work offers a systematic assessment of these computationally efficient quantum chemical methods and their accuracy-cost profiles when applied to a challenging class of systems, characterized, for instance, by extended $\pi$-conjugation, conformational flexibility, and sensitivity of properties to subtle structural changes. Two datasets are evaluated: a QM9-derived subset of small organic molecules and the Harvard Clean Energy Project (CEP) database of extended $\pi$-systems relevant to organic photovoltaics. Structural agreement is quantified using heavy-atom RMSD, equilibrium rotational constants, bond lengths, and angles, while electronic property prediction is assessed via HOMO-LUMO energy gaps. Computational efficiency is assessed via CPU time and scaling behavior. GFN1-xTB and GFN2-xTB demonstrate the highest structural fidelity, while GFN-FF offers an optimal balance between accuracy and speed, particularly for larger systems. The results indicate that GFN-based methods are suitable for high-throughput molecular screening of small organic semiconductors, with the choice of method depending on accuracy-cost trade-offs. The findings support the deployment of GFN approaches in computational pipelines for the discovery of organic electronics and materials, providing information on their strengths and limitations relative to established DFT methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall workflow illustration. 1 The entire molecular chemical space is explored using molecular clustering and stratified sampling, resulting in a smaller representative subset. 2 Semiempirical quantum chemistry calculations are performed to optimize the atomic Cartesian coordinates using GFN methods (GFN1-xTB , GFN2-xTB , GFN0-xTB , and GFN-FF ). 3 The optimized geometries against DFT-based structures, as well as … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Random sampling illustration. 1 The first candidate selected is either the molecular centroid for a QM9 cluster or a random molecule for a CEP stratum. 2 If more than one molecule is required for the sample set to be representative, additional molecules are added by alternating between molecules more and less similar to the initial candidate. r ≤ 0.2 and R ≥ 0.65 represent the Tanimoto similarity ranges for the larg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Semiempirical Quantum Chemistry Workflow. 1 The initial molecular geometry is derived from the molecular SMILES string using the OpenBabel program. 2 The initial atomic Cartesian coordinates are preoptimized using a GFN level of theory (1, 2, 0, or FF). 3 The conformer-rotamer ensemble of the preoptimized structure is obtained through conformational sampling using the CREST program. 4 The best molecular conformation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow for DFT-based geometry optimization and electronic structure calculations. 1 The initial molecular geometry is derived from the molecular SMILES string using the OpenBabel program. 2 Geometry optimization is performed using the PySCF software package. 3 Optimi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of Tanimoto similarity scores in the similarity matrix calculated for the sample sets of small and extended π-systems used in this study. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The amount of variance (indicated by the gray bars) and the number of molecules selected for each cluster (a) and stratum (b), based on the standard Neyman allocation (teal bars) and the variance-based Neyman allocation (purple bars). 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Molecules from the QM9 and CEP set samples excluded from the statistical process. 3.2.1 Optimized molecular structures We first assessed the quality of the optimized geometries by examining several structural metrics, including measures of global shape and local geomet…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The normal distribution plots for the absolute errors in radii of gyration calculated using the GFN methods. Graph (a) refers to the small π-systems of the QM9 sample set, while graph (b) refers to the extended π-systems of the CEP sample set. Heavy-atom root-mean-squa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The normal distribution plots for the heavy-atoms root-mean-square deviations obtained using the GFN methods. Graph (a) refers to the small π-systems of the QM9 sample set, while graph (b) refers to the extended π-systems of the CEP sample set. (a) QM9 (b) CEP [PITH_F…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The normal distribution plots for the absolute deviations in equilibrium rotational constants Be computed using the GFN methods. Graph (a) refers to the small π-systems of the QM9 sample set, while graph (b) refers to the extended π-systems of the CEP sample set. 12 …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The correlation plots for bond lengths and angles, measured in Å and degree, respectively, calculated between the GFN optimized structures and (a) B3LYP/6-31G(2df, p) level for the optimized structures of small π-systems from the QM9 sample set and (b) BP86/def2-SVP l…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HOMO-LUMO gap energies in kcal mol−1 of GFN optimized structures and (a) the B3LYP/6-31G(2df, p) level for optimized structures of small π-systems from the QM9 sample set and (b) the BP86/def2-SVP level for optimized structures of extended π-systems from the CEP sampl…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The CPU times measured in seconds for the geometry optimizations of the QM9 samples (a) and the CEP samples (b). The number of atoms for each sample is indicated at the top of the abscissa. Graph (b) also shows the CPU times required for the geometry optimizations of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Extended tight-binding quantum chemistry methods

    Christoph Bannwarth et al. “Extended tight-binding quantum chemistry methods”. en. In: WIREs Comput Mol Sci 11.2 (Mar. 2021), e1493. ISSN : 1759-0876, 1759-0884. DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1493 . URL: https://wires. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1493. 19

    doi:10.1002/wcms.1493 2021

  2. [2]

    Approximate Self-Consistent Molecular Orbital Theory. I. Invariant Procedures

    J. A. Pople, D. P. Santry, and G. A. Segal. “Approximate Self-Consistent Molecular Orbital Theory. I. Invariant Procedures”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 43.10 (Nov. 1965), S129–S135. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    Construction of tight-binding-like potentials on the basis of density-functional theory: Application to carbon

    D. Porezag et al. “Construction of tight-binding-like potentials on the basis of density-functional theory: Application to carbon”. In: Phys. Rev. B 51.19 (May 1995). Publisher: American Physical Society, pp. 12947–12957. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.12947. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.51.12947

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.51.12947 1995

  4. [4]

    Performance of the DFTB method in comparison to DFT and semiempirical methods for geometries and energies of C20–C86 fullerene isomers

    Guishan Zheng, Stephan Irle, and Keiji Morokuma. “Performance of the DFTB method in comparison to DFT and semiempirical methods for geometries and energies of C20–C86 fullerene isomers”. en. In: Chemical Physics Letters 412.1-3 (Aug. 2005), pp. 210–216. ISSN : 00092614. DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2005.06.105 . URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2005.06.105 2005

  5. [5]

    Sebastian Schenker et al. “Assessment of Popular DFT and Semiempirical Molecular Orbital Techniques for Calculating Relative Transition State Energies and Kinetic Product Distributions in Enantioselective Organocatalytic Reactions”. en. In: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7.11 (Nov. 2011), pp. 3586–3595. ISSN : 1549-9618, 1549-9626. DOI: 10.1021/ct2002013. URL: h...

    work page doi:10.1021/ct2002013 2011

  6. [6]

    Comparison of Molecular Mechanics, Semi-Empirical Quantum Mechanical, and Density Functional Theory Methods for Scoring Protein–Ligand Interactions

    Nusret Duygu Yilmazer and Martin Korth. “Comparison of Molecular Mechanics, Semi-Empirical Quantum Mechanical, and Density Functional Theory Methods for Scoring Protein–Ligand Interactions”. en. In: J. Phys. Chem. B 117.27 (July 2013), pp. 8075–8084. ISSN : 1520-6106, 1520-5207. DOI: 10.1021/jp402719k . URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp402719k

    work page doi:10.1021/jp402719k 2013

  7. [7]

    Sara Tortorella et al. “Benchmarking DFT and semi-empirical methods for a reliable and cost-efficient computational screening of benzofulvene derivatives as donor materials for small-molecule organic solar cells”. In: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28.7 (Feb. 2016), p. 074005. ISSN : 0953-8984, 1361-648X. DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/28/7/ 074005. URL: https://iopsc...

    doi:10.1088/0953-8984/28/7/ 2016

  8. [8]

    Self-consistent-charge density-functional tight-binding method for simulations of complex materials properties

    M. Elstner et al. “Self-consistent-charge density-functional tight-binding method for simulations of complex materials properties”. In: Phys. Rev. B 58.11 (Sept. 1998). Publisher: American Physical Society, pp. 7260–7268. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.58.7260 1998

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    DFTB3: Extension of the Self-Consistent-Charge Density-Functional Tight-Binding Method (SCC-DFTB)

    Michael Gaus, Qiang Cui, and Marcus Elstner. “DFTB3: Extension of the Self-Consistent-Charge Density-Functional Tight-Binding Method (SCC-DFTB)”. en. In: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7.4 (Apr. 2011), pp. 931–948. ISSN : 1549- 9618, 1549-9626. DOI: 10.1021/ct100684s. URL: https://pu...

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods for Noncovalent Interactions for Chemical and Biochemical Applications

    Anders S. Christensen et al. “Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods for Noncovalent Interactions for Chemical and Biochemical Applications”. en. In: Chem. Rev. 116.9 (May 2016), pp. 5301–5337. ISSN : 0009-2665, 1520-6890. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00584 . URL: https://pubs...

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Stefan Grimme, Christoph Bannwarth, and Philip Shushkov. “A Robust and Accurate Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Method for Structures, Vibrational Frequencies, and Noncovalent Interactions of Large Molecular Systems Parametrized for All spd-Block Elements ( Z = 1–86)”. en. In: ...

    2017

  4. [12]

    GFN2-xTB—An Accurate and Broadly Parametrized Self-Consistent Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Method with Multipole Electrostatics and Density-Dependent Dispersion Contributions

    Christoph Bannwarth, Sebastian Ehlert, and Stefan Grimme. “GFN2-xTB—An Accurate and Broadly Parametrized Self-Consistent Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Method with Multipole Electrostatics and Density-Dependent Dispersion Contributions”. en. In: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15.3 (M...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    A Robust Non-Self-Consistent Tight-Binding Quantum Chemistry Method for large Molecules

    Philipp Pracht et al. A Robust Non-Self-Consistent Tight-Binding Quantum Chemistry Method for large Molecules. en. June 2019. DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv.8326202.v1 . URL: https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/ article-details/60c742abbdbb890c7ba3851a

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Robust Atomistic Modeling of Materials, Organometallic, and Biochemical Systems

    Sebastian Spicher and Stefan Grimme. “Robust Atomistic Modeling of Materials, Organometallic, and Biochemical Systems”. en. In: Angew Chem Int Ed 59.36 (Sept. 2020), pp. 15665–15673. ISSN : 1433-7851, 1521-3773. DOI: 10.1002/anie.202004239. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Structure Optimisation of Large Transition-Metal Complexes with Extended Tight-Binding Methods

    Markus Bursch, Hagen Neugebauer, and Stefan Grimme. “Structure Optimisation of Large Transition-Metal Complexes with Extended Tight-Binding Methods”. en. In: Angew Chem Int Ed 58.32 (Aug. 2019), pp. 11078– 11087. ISSN : 1433-7851, 1521-3773. DOI: 10.1002/anie.201904021. URL: h...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Quantum Chemical Calculation of Molecular and Periodic Peptide and Protein Structures

    Sarah Schmitz et al. “Quantum Chemical Calculation of Molecular and Periodic Peptide and Protein Structures”. en. In: J. Phys. Chem. B 124.18 (May 2020), pp. 3636–3646. ISSN : 1520-6106, 1520-5207. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb. 0c00549. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c00549

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Quickstart guide to model structures and interactions of artificial molecular muscles with efficient computational methods

    Julia Kohn et al. “Quickstart guide to model structures and interactions of artificial molecular muscles with efficient computational methods”. en. In: Chem. Commun. 58.2 (2022), pp. 258–261. ISSN : 1359-7345, 1364-548X. DOI: 10.1039/D1CC05759F. URL: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum Chemistry Insight into the Multifaceted Structural Properties of Two-Dimensional Covalent Organic Frameworks

    Julia T. Kohn et al. “Quantum Chemistry Insight into the Multifaceted Structural Properties of Two-Dimensional Covalent Organic Frameworks”. en. In:Chem. Mater.35.7 (Apr. 2023), pp. 2820–2826.ISSN : 0897-4756, 1520-5002. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c03555 . URL: https://pubs.a...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Efficient calculation of electronic coupling integrals with the dimer projection method via a density matrix tight-binding potential

    J. T. Kohn et al. “Efficient calculation of electronic coupling integrals with the dimer projection method via a density matrix tight-binding potential”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 159.14 (Oct. 2023), p. 144106. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-7690. DOI: 10.1063/5.0167484 ...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A semi-automated quantum-mechanical workflow for the generation of molecular monolayers and aggregates

    J. T. Kohn, S. Grimme, and A. Hansen. “A semi-automated quantum-mechanical workflow for the generation of molecular monolayers and aggregates”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 161.12 (Sept. 2024), p. 124707. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-7690. DOI: 10.1063/5.0230341. URL: htt...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    In Silico Optimization of Charge Separating Dyes for Solar Energy Conversion

    Jan Paul Menzel et al. “In Silico Optimization of Charge Separating Dyes for Solar Energy Conversion”. en. In: ChemSusChem 15.15 (Aug. 2022), e202200594. ISSN : 1864-5631, 1864-564X. DOI: 10.1002/cssc.202200594. URL: https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Reorganization energies of flexible organic molecules as a challenging target for machine learning enhanced virtual screening

    Ke Chen et al. “Reorganization energies of flexible organic molecules as a challenging target for machine learning enhanced virtual screening”. en. In: Digital Discovery 1.2 (2022), pp. 147–157. ISSN : 2635-098X. DOI: 10.1039/ D1DD00038A. URL: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D1DD00038A

    2022

  15. [23]

    Physics-inspired machine learning of localized intensive properties

    Ke Chen et al. “Physics-inspired machine learning of localized intensive properties”. en. In:Chem. Sci. 14.18 (2023), pp. 4913–4922. ISSN : 2041-6520, 2041-6539. DOI: 10.1039/D3SC00841J . URL: https://xlink.rsc.org/ ?DOI=D3SC00841J

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Machine learning photodynamics reveals the role of solvent and pressure on the [2+2]- cycloadditions toward cubanes

    Jingbai Li and Steven Lopez. Machine learning photodynamics reveals the role of solvent and pressure on the [2+2]- cycloadditions toward cubanes . Sept. 2023. DOI: 10 . 26434 / chemrxiv - 2023 - xswwp. URL: https : //chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6504ee8599918fe...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Tartarus: A Benchmarking Platform for Realistic And Practical Inverse Molecular Design

    AkshatKumar Nigam et al. Tartarus: A Benchmarking Platform for Realistic And Practical Inverse Molecular Design. arXiv:2209.12487 [cs]. July 2023. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.12487

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    AIMNet2: A Neural Network Potential to Meet your Neutral, Charged, Organic, and Elemental-Organic Needs

    Dylan Anstine, Roman Zubatyuk, and Olexandr Isayev. AIMNet2: A Neural Network Potential to Meet your Neutral, Charged, Organic, and Elemental-Organic Needs. Dec. 2024. DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-296ch-v3 . URL: https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6763b51281d2...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules

    Raghunathan Ramakrishnan et al. “Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules”. en. In: Sci Data 1.1 (Aug. 2014), p. 140022. ISSN : 2052-4463. DOI: 10 . 1038 / sdata . 2014 . 22. URL: https : //www.nature.com/articles/sdata201422

    2014

  20. [28]

    The Harvard Clean Energy Project: Large-Scale Computational Screening and Design of Organic Photovoltaics on the World Community Grid

    Johannes Hachmann et al. “The Harvard Clean Energy Project: Large-Scale Computational Screening and Design of Organic Photovoltaics on the World Community Grid”. en. In:J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2.17 (Sept. 2011), pp. 2241–2251. ISSN : 1948-7185, 1948-7185. DOI: 10.1021/jz200866s ....

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    Optical band gaps of organic semiconductor materials

    José C.S. Costa et al. “Optical band gaps of organic semiconductor materials”. en. In: Optical Materials 58 (Aug. 2016), pp. 51–60. ISSN : 09253467. DOI: 10.1016/j.optmat.2016.03.041 . URL: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925346716301483

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules

    David Weininger. “SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules”. en. In: J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 28.1 (Feb. 1988), pp. 31–36. ISSN : 0095-2338, 1520-5142. DOI: 10.1021/ci00057a005. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...

    1988 doi

  23. [31]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations

    J. MacQueen. “Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations”. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics. V ol. 5.1. University of Cal- ifornia Press, Jan. 1967, pp. 281–298.URL: ...

    1967

  24. [32]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python

    Fabian Pedregosa et al. “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python”. In: Journal of machine learning research 12.Oct (2011), pp. 2825–2830

    2011

  25. [34]

    What is principal component analysis?

    Markus Ringnér. “What is principal component analysis?” en. In: Nat Biotechnol 26.3 (Mar. 2008), pp. 303–304. ISSN : 1087-0156, 1546-1696. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0308- 303 . URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/ nbt0308-303

    2008 doi

  26. [35]

    Principal component analysis

    Michael Greenacre et al. “Principal component analysis”. en. In: Nat Rev Methods Primers 2.1 (Dec. 2022). Publisher: Nature Publishing Group, pp. 1–21. ISSN : 2662-8449. DOI: 10.1038/s43586-022-00184-w . URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43586-022-00184-w

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis

    Peter J. Rousseeuw. “Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis”. en. In: Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 20 (Nov. 1987), pp. 53–65. ISSN : 03770427. DOI: 10.1016/ 0377-0427(87)90125-7. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevie...

    1987

  28. [37]

    Understanding of Internal Clustering Validation Measures

    Yanchi Liu et al. “Understanding of Internal Clustering Validation Measures”. In:2010 IEEE International Con- ference on Data Mining . Sydney, Australia: IEEE, Dec. 2010, pp. 911–916. ISBN : 978-1-4244-9131-5. DOI: 10.1109/ICDM.2010.35. URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document...

    2010

  29. [38]

    Deep clustering of small molecules at large-scale via variational autoencoder embedding and K-means

    Hamid Hadipour et al. “Deep clustering of small molecules at large-scale via variational autoencoder embedding and K-means”. en. In: BMC Bioinformatics 23.S4 (Apr. 2022), p. 132. ISSN : 1471-2105. DOI: 10.1186/s12859- 022- 04667- 1. URL: https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral...

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    Stratified Sampling

    Ravindra Singh and Naurang Singh Mangat. “Stratified Sampling”. In: Elements of Survey Sampling . V ol. 15. Series Title: Kluwer Texts in the Mathematical Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1996, pp. 102–144. ISBN : 978-90-481-4703-8 978-94-017-1404-4. DOI: 10.1007/978...

    1996 doi

  31. [40]

    A Computer Program for Classifying Plants

    David J. Rogers and Taffee T. Tanimoto. “A Computer Program for Classifying Plants”. In: Science 132.3434 (1960). Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 1115–1118. ISSN : 0036-8075. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1706749

    1960

  32. [41]

    Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?

    Dávid Bajusz, Anita Rácz, and Károly Héberger. “Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?” en. In: J Cheminform 7.1 (Dec. 2015), p. 20. ISSN : 1758-2946. DOI: 10.1186/s13321- 015-0069-3. URL: https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/a...

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    Similarity Measure for Molecular Structure: A Brief Review

    S A Bero et al. “Similarity Measure for Molecular Structure: A Brief Review”. In: J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.892 (Sept. 2017), p. 012015. ISSN : 1742-6588, 1742-6596. DOI: 10 . 1088 / 1742 - 6596 / 892 / 1 / 012015. URL: https : //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/892/1/012015

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints

    David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. “Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints”. en. In: J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50.5 (May 2010), pp. 742–754. ISSN : 1549-9596, 1549-960X. DOI: 10.1021/ci100050t. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/ doi/10.1021/ci100050t

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    Similarity maps - a visualization strategy for molecular fingerprints and machine-learning methods

    Sereina Riniker and Gregory A Landrum. “Similarity maps - a visualization strategy for molecular fingerprints and machine-learning methods”. en. In: J Cheminform 5.1 (Dec. 2013), p. 43. ISSN : 1758-2946. DOI: 10.1186/1758- 2946-5-43. URL: https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/art...

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox

    Noel M O’Boyle et al. “Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox”. en. In: J Cheminform 3.1 (Dec. 2011), p. 33. ISSN : 1758-2946. DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-3-33 . URL: https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10. 1186/1758-2946-3-33 . 22

    2011 doi

  37. [46]

    Fast, efficient fragment-based coordinate generation for Open Babel

    Naruki Yoshikawa and Geoffrey R. Hutchison. “Fast, efficient fragment-based coordinate generation for Open Babel”. en. In: J Cheminform 11.1 (Dec. 2019), p. 49. ISSN : 1758-2946. DOI: 10.1186/s13321-019-0372-5 . URL: https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-0...

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    MMFF VI. MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies

    Thomas A. Halgren. “MMFF VI. MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies”. en. In: J. Comput. Chem. 20.7 (May 1999), pp. 720–729. ISSN : 0192-8651, 1096-987X. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199905)20: 7<720::AID-JCC7>3.0.CO;2-X . URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...

    1999 doi

  39. [48]

    UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations

    A. K. Rappe et al. “UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations”. en. In: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114.25 (Dec. 1992), pp. 10024–10035. ISSN : 0002-7863, 1520-5126. DOI: 10.1021/ja00051a040. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.10...

    1992 doi

  40. [49]

    CREST—A program for the exploration of low-energy molecular chemical space

    Philipp Pracht et al. “CREST—A program for the exploration of low-energy molecular chemical space”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 160.11 (11 2024), p. 114110. ISSN : 0021-9606. DOI: 10.1063/5.0197592 . URL: https : / / pubs . aip . org / jcp / article / 160 / 11 / 114110...

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Robust and Efficient Implicit Solvation Model for Fast Semiempirical Methods

    Sebastian Ehlert et al. “Robust and Efficient Implicit Solvation Model for Fast Semiempirical Methods”. en. In: J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17.7 (July 2021), pp. 4250–4261. ISSN : 1549-9618, 1549-9626. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc. 1c00471. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00471

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework

    Qiming Sun et al. “PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework”. en. In: WIREs Comput Mol Sci 8.1 (Jan. 2018), e1340. ISSN : 1759-0876, 1759-0884. DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1340 . URL: https://wires. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1340

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple

    John P. Perdew, Kieron Burke, and Matthias Ernzerhof. “Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple”. In: Physical Review Letters 77.18 (Oct. 1996), pp. 3865–3868. ISSN : 1079-7114. DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.77. 3865

    1996 doi

  44. [53]

    Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy

    Florian Weigend and Reinhart Ahlrichs. “Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy”. In: Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 7.18 (16 2005), pp. 3297–3305. ISSN : 1463-9076. DOI: 1...

    2005 doi

  45. [54]

    Basis Set Exchange: A Community Database for Computational Sciences

    Karen L. Schuchardt et al. “Basis Set Exchange: A Community Database for Computational Sciences”. In:Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 47.3 (3 2007), pp. 1045–1052. ISSN : 1549-9596. DOI: 10.1021/ci600510j

    2007 doi

  46. [55]

    The Harvard organic photovoltaic dataset

    Steven A. Lopez et al. “The Harvard organic photovoltaic dataset”. en. In: Sci Data 3.1 (Sept. 2016), p. 160086. ISSN : 2052-4463. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.86. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201686

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    Geometry optimization made simple with translation and rotation coordinates

    Lee-Ping Wang and Chenchen Song. “Geometry optimization made simple with translation and rotation coordinates”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 144.21 (June 2016), p. 214108. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-7690. DOI: 10.1063/1.4952956 . URL: https://pubs.aip.org/jcp/article/14...

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    Connections between the accuracy of rotational constants and equilibrium molecular structures

    Cristina Puzzarini and John F. Stanton. “Connections between the accuracy of rotational constants and equilibrium molecular structures”. en. In: Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25.3 (2023), pp. 1421–1429. ISSN : 1463-9076, 1463-9084. DOI: 10.1039/D2CP04706C. URL: https://xlink.rsc.org...

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    A (sub)graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs

    L.P. Cordella et al. “A (sub)graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs”. en. In:IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 26.10 (Oct. 2004), pp. 1367–1372. ISSN : 0162-8828. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.75. URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1323804/

    2004

  50. [59]

    A Molecular Orbital Theory of Reactivity in Aromatic Hydrocarbons

    Kenichi Fukui, Teijiro Yonezawa, and Haruo Shingu. “A Molecular Orbital Theory of Reactivity in Aromatic Hydrocarbons”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 20.4 (Apr. 1952), pp. 722–725. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-

    1952

  51. [60]

    Comparison of DFT Methods for Molecular Orbital Eigenvalue Cal- culations

    Gang Zhang and Charles B. Musgrave. “Comparison of DFT Methods for Molecular Orbital Eigenvalue Cal- culations”. en. In: J. Phys. Chem. A 111.8 (Mar. 2007), pp. 1554–1561. ISSN : 1089-5639, 1520-5215. DOI: 10.1021/jp061633o. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp061633o

    2007 doi

  52. [61]

    Ionization Potential, Electron Affinity, Electronegativity, Hardness, and Electron Excitation Energy: Molecular Properties from Density Functional Theory Orbital Energies

    Chang-Guo Zhan, Jeffrey A. Nichols, and David A. Dixon. “Ionization Potential, Electron Affinity, Electronegativity, Hardness, and Electron Excitation Energy: Molecular Properties from Density Functional Theory Orbital Energies”. en. In: J. Phys. Chem. A 107.20 (May 2003), pp....

    2003 doi

  53. [62]

    1063 / 1

    DOI: 10 . 1063 / 1 . 1700523. URL: https : / / pubs . aip . org / jcp / article / 20 / 4 / 722 / 73673 / A - Molecular-Orbital-Theory-of-Reactivity-in

  54. [63]

    Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham. “Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects”. en. In: Phys. Rev. 140.4A (Nov. 1965), A1133–A1138. ISSN : 0031-899X. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133. URL: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133

    1965 doi

  55. [64]

    A Method for Estimating Electronic Repulsion Integrals Over LCAO MO’S in Complex Unsaturated Molecules

    Robert G. Parr. “A Method for Estimating Electronic Repulsion Integrals Over LCAO MO’S in Complex Unsaturated Molecules”. en. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics20.9 (Sept. 1952), pp. 1499–1499. ISSN : 0021-9606, 1089-7690. DOI: 10.1063/1.1700802 . URL: https://pubs.aip.org/jc...

    1952 doi

  56. [65]

    Eigenvalues, integer discontinuities and NMR shielding constants in Kohn—Sham theory

    Mark J. Allen and David J. Tozer. “Eigenvalues, integer discontinuities and NMR shielding constants in Kohn—Sham theory”. en. In: Molecular Physics 100.4 (Feb. 2002), pp. 433–439. ISSN : 0026-8976, 1362-3028. DOI: 10.1080/ 00268970110078335. URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...

    2002 doi

  57. [68]

    (6) A frozen-core approximation is applied to consider only the fluctuations of the valence orbitals

    of DFT by approximating the total energy E[ρ] using a Taylor expansion around a reference electron density ρ0: E[ρ] = E(0)[ρ0] + E(1)[ρ0, δρ] + E(2)[ρ0, (δρ)2] + E(3)[ρ0, (δρ)3] +··· . (6) A frozen-core approximation is applied to consider only the fluctuations of the valence ...

  58. [2009]

    DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00118

    ISSN : 1549-9618, 1549-9626. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00118. URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00118

    doi

  59. [7690]

    1063 / 1

    DOI: 10 . 1063 / 1 . 1701475. URL: https : / / pubs . aip . org / jcp / article / 43 / 10 / S129 / 83581 / Approximate-Self-Consistent-Molecular-Orbital

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.