Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Learning to Converge: Warm-Starting DFTB Self-Consistent Charges with Machine Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Machine-learned initial atomic charges cut DFTB self-consistent charge iterations by up to 84 percent across molecules, oxides, and solid electrolytes.

desk verdict Solid multi-chemistry engineering paper: ML warm-starts cut DFTB SCC cycles 22–84% and recover many failed NixOy cases; novelty is moderate, evidence is clean. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09304 v1 pith:UAU3KZGK submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Maximilian L. Ach , Karsten Reuter , Chiara Panosetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords DFTBself-consistentchargemachinelearningSOAPkernelridgeregressioninitializationSCCconvergencesemiempiricalmethods
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

DFTB is a fast quantum method used for large molecules and materials, but its self-consistent charge loop can take dozens to thousands of iterations when started from neutral atoms, especially when charge transfer is large. This paper shows that element-specific machine learning models can predict near-converged atomic charges from local geometry alone and use those charges as the starting guess. Across organic molecules, biomolecules, water clusters, nickel oxides, and a lithium solid electrolyte, the predicted starts need fewer iterations than the zero-charge default in essentially every held-out structure, with mean reductions from roughly 22 percent to 84 percent, and they also rescue many calculations that previously failed to converge. Because each iteration costs the same, the gains translate directly into wall-time savings for high-throughput screening and automated workflows, while still finishing with a fully converged DFTB result rather than an approximation.

What carries the argument

Element-specific SOAP descriptors fed to kernel ridge regression that map local atomic environments to Mulliken charges; the predicted charges are injected as the starting guess for the full SCC-DFTB loop rather than replacing it.

What would settle it

On a held-out set of nickel-oxide structures with partially filled d-shells, measure whether shell-resolved charge models reduce the residual 0.3 percent of cases that currently take more SCC cycles than the zero-charge default; if they do not, the atom-only premise is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Element-specific SOAP–kernel ridge regression models trained on converged DFTB Mulliken charges produce initial atomic charges that place the self-consistent charge procedure close enough to its solution that mean iteration counts drop by 22–84 percent relative to neutral-atom starts, fewer cycles are required for 99–100 percent of test structures across six chemically diverse datasets, and a large fraction of previously unconverged nickel-oxide structures become convergent within practical cycle limits.

Load-bearing premise

That an atom-total predicted charge, when DFTB automatically splits it into angular-momentum shells by sequential filling, is still a good enough starting point even for transition metals with partially filled d-shells.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces element-specific SOAP–kernel ridge regression models that predict atomic Mulliken charges from local structure and uses those predictions as initial guesses for SCC-DFTB (and, by extension, related tight-binding SCC schemes). Unlike prior work that bypassed SCC entirely, the models warm-start the full self-consistent procedure so that final results remain fully converged DFTB. Across six chemically diverse held-out test sets (QM9, water clusters, solvated amino acids, dipeptides, LLZO, and NixOy), ML initialization reduces mean SCC cycle counts relative to the DFTB+ zero-charge default by roughly 22–84%, with fewer cycles in 99–100% of structures (Table I, Fig. 2). It also recovers a large fraction of previously unconverged NixOy cases (Table II). Baselines include Gasteiger charges and models trained on DFT/MBIS charges; cross-parameterization and DFTB3 checks are reported in the SM. Limitations (atom- vs shell-resolved charges; residual DFT–DFTB charge mismatch) are discussed.

Significance. If the reported cycle reductions hold under independent reimplementation, the work is a practical, immediately usable contribution to semiempirical electronic-structure workflows. SCC iteration cost is often the bottleneck in high-throughput screening, parameter fitting, and large heterogeneous systems; automating a better initial guess removes a common source of manual trial-and-error and failed jobs. Strengths include multi-dataset coverage spanning organics, biomolecules, water, transition-metal oxides and a solid electrolyte; clear baselines (zero charge, Gasteiger, DFT-trained models); recovery statistics for previously failing structures; and honest treatment of shell-occupation and cross-parameterization limits. The approach is complementary to ML interatomic potentials: it keeps full electronic structure rather than replacing it. The result is incremental rather than conceptual, but the empirical support is broad enough to matter for practitioners.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.B, Table I] Section III.B and Table I equate SCC cycle reduction with computational acceleration, which is valid for the iterative part of the calculation but does not include SOAP evaluation and KRR inference. For large or periodic systems the overhead is almost certainly negligible; for the smallest QM9 molecules it may not be. A short wall-clock comparison (descriptor + prediction vs. one or more SCC cycles) on representative system sizes would fully substantiate the practical “accelerates DFTB” claim and help readers decide when to deploy the models.
  2. [Section III.B, Table I] Section III.B notes that atom-resolved charges are redistributed into angular-momentum shells by DFTB+’s sequential filling, which can be non-physical for partially filled d-shells and accounts for the 0.3% of NixOy test structures with more cycles than default. Because NixOy is both the strongest success case and the only set with any regressions, a brief characterization of those edge-case structures (e.g., Ni oxidation state / coordination) would let readers judge when the current atom-resolved warm-start may be counterproductive and would better motivate the proposed shell-resolved extension.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] Several section headings in the source show broken words (e.g., “THEOR Y & METHODS”, “Density-F unctional”). These appear to be PDF/line-break artifacts; please correct in the final typesetting.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 reports RMSE in units of 10^{-3}e; a short note in the caption on typical charge magnitudes per element (or a companion MAE panel, already in SM) would help non-specialists gauge absolute accuracy.
  3. [Data and Code Availability] Data and code are stated to be made available upon publication. For a methods paper whose value is largely empirical, depositing models, training splits, and a minimal inference script at acceptance (or with a DOI) would substantially improve reproducibility and adoption.
  4. [Section III.B] The main text cites Table S5 (cross-parameterization) and Table S4 (DFTB3) for important supporting claims. A one-sentence quantitative summary of those SM results in the main text would make the transferability and DFTB3 conclusions self-contained for readers who do not open the supplement.
  5. [Section III.B] QEq is dismissed as producing charges outside a physically acceptable range. A brief quantitative statement (e.g., fraction of structures that failed to start, or typical charge magnitudes) would make that baseline comparison more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical ML warm-start evaluated on independent SCC cycle counts

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical, not definitional. Converged DFTB (or DFT) Mulliken charges are computed independently as training targets; element-specific SOAP–KRR models are fit to map local environments to those charges; the models are then applied only as initial guesses on held-out structures, after which full SCC-DFTB is run to a fixed threshold and the iteration count is measured against zero-charge (and Gasteiger) baselines (Tables I–II, Fig. 2). The evaluation metric (SCC cycles to convergence) is not a function of the fitted charges by construction, nor is any fitted parameter re-labeled as a prediction of the same quantity. Cross-parameterization and DFT-charge transfer experiments further test rather than assume the mapping. Self-citations supply background methods or datasets and do not underwrite a uniqueness claim or force the result. The sole acknowledged limitation (atom-resolved vs. shell-resolved occupation for partially filled d-shells) is quantified as a rare edge case and does not close a definitional loop. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The central claim is empirical: better initial charges reduce SCC iterations. It rests on standard DFTB/SCC theory, standard SOAP and KRR, and the modeling choice of element-specific local models with hyperparameters selected by CV. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the usual ML/descriptor hyperparameters and training-set caps; they affect accuracy but the claim is evaluated by direct SCC cycle measurement, not by fitting the cycle counts themselves.

free parameters (4)
  • SOAP hyperparameters (n_max, l_max, cutoff, Gaussian width)
    Chosen/tuned for descriptor resolution of local environments; values live in SM hyperparameter selection. Affect charge RMSE and thus warm-start quality.
  • KRR RBF length-scale σ and regularization λ (per element model)
    Selected by five-fold cross-validation; control smoothness and overfitting of charge predictions.
  • Training-set cap of 60,000 atomic environments per element
    Hand-chosen limit on kernel size; can constrain accuracy for abundant elements and affect reported gains.
  • SCC convergence threshold (default 1e-5 e; also 1e-6 e in SM)
    Protocol choice that defines when cycles stop; relative improvement slightly depends on threshold tightness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SCC-DFTB energy and charge-dependent Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1–3) correctly describe the iterative charge problem being accelerated.
    Standard second-order DFTB formalism assumed throughout §II.A; the method does not re-derive DFTB.
  • domain assumption Local atomic environments encoded by SOAP are sufficient to predict Mulliken charges for warm-starting SCC.
    Core modeling assumption of §II.B–C; long-range charge effects are only captured insofar as they correlate with local structure in the training distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper Element-specific models improve accuracy and transferability versus a single multi-element model.
    Design principle stated in §II.C; motivated but not exhaustively ablated against multi-element alternatives in the main text.
  • domain assumption DFTB+ default shell filling of atom-resolved initial charges is an acceptable mapping into orbital occupations.
    Implicit in using atom-resolved ML charges with DFTB+; paper later flags failure modes for partially filled d-shells (§III.B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Converge: Warm-Starting DFTB Self-Consistent Charges with Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAU3KZGK

@misc{pith2026260709304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Converge: Warm-Starting DFTB Self-Consistent Charges with Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAU3KZGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09304}
}
read the original abstract

Semiempirical electronic structure methods such as Density-Functional Tight-Binding (DFTB) offer a computationally efficient approach to molecular and materials simulations, bridging the gap between first-principles accuracy and classical force field speed while retaining full access to electronic properties. However, DFTB calculations based on self-consistent charge (SCC) schemes can still suffer from slow convergence, particularly for complex molecular and materials systems, making the iterative procedure a significant bottleneck in large-scale simulations and high-throughput workflows. We present a machine learning approach that accelerates DFTB simulations by predicting optimal initial atomic charges. Using element-specific models based on the Smooth Overlap of Atomic Positions descriptor and kernel ridge regression, we train charge models on reference calculations and demonstrate that ML-predicted initial charges consistently and significantly improve SCC convergence across diverse chemical systems including organic molecules, biomolecules, water clusters, transition metal oxides and solid electrolytes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DFTB charge prediction RMSE (in units of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SCC iteration count distributions for Ni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Initialize atomic charges (typically neutral)

  2. [2]

    Construct the Hamiltonian matrix using current charges

  3. [3]

    Solve Kohn–Sham–like secular equations for eigen- values and orbitals

  4. [4]

    Calculate new Mulliken charges from the density matrix

  5. [5]

    Check convergence. If not converged, mix old and new charges and repeat from step 2 Convergence is achieved when the change in charges between iterations falls below a threshold (for example 10−6 electrons). However, poor initial guesses can lead to charge oscillations or divergence, requiring hundreds or thousands of iterations or causing complete failur...

  6. [6]

    Thiel, WIREs Comput

    W. Thiel, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.4, 145 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    P. O. Dral, B. Hourahine, and S. Grimme, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 040401 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Porezag, T

    D. Porezag, T. Frauenheim, T. K¨ ohler, G. Seifert, and R. Kaschner, Phys. Rev. B51, 12947 (1995)

    1995

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Seifert, D

    G. Seifert, D. Porezag, and T. Frauenheim, Int. J. Quan- tum Chem.58, 185 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    Elstner, D

    M. Elstner, D. Porezag, G. Jungnickel, J. Elsner, M. Haugk, T. Frauenheim, S. Suhai, and G. Seifert, Phys. Rev. B58, 7260 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    A. F. Oliveira, G. Seifert, T. Heine, and H. A. Duarte, J. Braz. Chem. Soc.20, 1193 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Grimme, C

    S. Grimme, C. Bannwarth, and P. Shushkov, J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 1989 (2017)

    1989

  5. [13]

    Bannwarth, S

    C. Bannwarth, S. Ehlert, and S. Grimme, J. Chem. The- ory Comput.15, 1652 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Elstner, Theor

    M. Elstner, Theor. Chem. Acc.116, 316 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    A. S. Christensen, T. Kubar, Q. Cui, and M. Elstner, Chem. Rev.116, 5301 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Morao, D

    I. Morao, D. G. Fedorov, R. Robinson, M. Southey, A. Townsend-Nicholson, M. J. Bodkin, and A. Heifetz, J. Comput. Chem.38, 1987 (2017)

    1987

  9. [17]

    Schmitz, J

    S. Schmitz, J. Seibert, K. Ostermeir, A. Hansen, A. H. G¨ oller, and S. Grimme, J. Phys. Chem. B124, 3636 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Kumar, P

    A. Kumar, P. R. Arantes, A. Saha, G. Palermo, and B. M. Wong, Molecules28, 1277 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Panosetti, S

    C. Panosetti, S. B. Anni´ es, C. Grosu, S. Seidlmayer, and C. Scheurer, J. Phys. Chem. A125, 691 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Ricchebuono, E

    A. Ricchebuono, E. Vottero, A. Piovano, E. Groppo, P. Raybaud, and C. Chizallet, J. Phys. Chem. C127, 18454 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Vuong, K

    V.-Q. Vuong, K. H. Lee, A. A. Savara, V. Fung, and S. Irle, J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 6471 (2023). 9

    2023

  14. [22]

    V. K. Gupta, B. Aradi, K. Kweon, N. Keilbart, N. Gold- man, T. Frauenheim, and J. Kullgren, J. Chem. Theory Comput.17, 5239 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    N. S. Chellam, S. Chaudhuri, A. Ghosal, S. K. Giri, and G. C. Schatz, J. Phys. Chem. C129, 13839 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Quaino, J

    P. Quaino, J. L. Nu˜ nez, B. Aradi, T. van Der Heide, E. Santos, and W. Schmickler, ChemElectroChem10, e202300230 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Santos, B

    E. Santos, B. Aradi, T. van der Heide, and W. Schmick- ler, J. Electroanal. Chem.954, 118044 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Nishizawa, Y

    H. Nishizawa, Y. Nishimura, M. Kobayashi, S. Irle, and H. Nakai, J. Comput. Chem.37, 1983 (2016)

    1983

  19. [27]

    S. I. Allec, Y. Sun, J. Sun, C.-e. A. Chang, and B. M. Wong, J. Chem. Theory Comput.15, 2807 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    K. P. Gregory, G. R. Elliott, E. J. Wanless, G. B. Webber, and A. J. Page, Sci. Data9, 430 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    K. Yagi, K. Gunst, T. Shiozaki, and Y. Sugita, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 4016 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Spies, L

    K. Spies, L. Pfeffer, T. Kubaˇ r, and N. Gillet, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.27, 15544 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    O. T. Unke, S. Chmiela, H. E. Sauceda, M. Gastegger, I. Poltavsky, K. T. Schutt, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. M¨ uller, Chem. Rev.121, 10142 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Jacobs, D

    R. Jacobs, D. Morgan, S. Attarian, J. Meng, C. Shen, Z. Wu, C. Y. Xie, J. H. Yang, N. Artrith, B. Blaiszik, et al., Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci.35, 101214 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    K. T. Butler, D. W. Davies, H. Cartwright, O. Isayev, and A. Walsh, Nature559, 547 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Batatia, P

    I. Batatia, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, A. M. Elena, D. P. Kov´ acs, J. Riebesell, X. R. Advincula, M. Asta, M. Avay- lon, W. J. Baldwin,et al., J. Chem. Phys.163, 184110 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Riccius, N

    F. Riccius, N. Bergmann, H. H. Heenen, and K. Reuter, Adv. Sci.12, e13878 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    T. W. Ko, J. A. Finkler, S. Goedecker, and J. Behler, Nat. Commun.12, 398 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    C. G. Staacke, H. H. Heenen, C. Scheurer, G. Cs´ anyi, K. Reuter, and J. T. Margraf, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4, 12562 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Loche, K

    P. Loche, K. K. Huguenin-Dumittan, M. Honarmand, Q. Xu, E. Rumiantsev, W. B. How, M. F. Langer, and M. Ceriotti, J. Chem. Phys.162, 142501 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Vondr´ ak, K

    M. Vondr´ ak, K. Reuter, and J. T. Margraf, npj Comput. Mater.11, 288 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    G. Fan, A. McSloy, B. Aradi, C.-Y. Yam, and T. Frauen- heim, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.13, 10132 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    W. Sun, G. Fan, T. van der Heide, A. McSloy, T. Frauen- heim, and B. Aradi, J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 3877 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    McSloy, G

    A. McSloy, G. Fan, W. Sun, C. H¨ olzer, M. Friede, S. Ehlert, N.-E. Sch¨ utte, S. Grimme, T. Frauenheim, and B. Aradi, J. Chem. Phys.158, 034801 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    G. Fan, Y. Jing, and T. Frauenheim, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.27, 3796 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Y. Xia, A. Thie, J. Soon, and G. M. Barca, Nat. Com- mun. (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    H. Li, C. Collins, M. Tanha, G. J. Gordon, and D. J. Yaron, J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 5764 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Choudhary, J

    K. Choudhary, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.16, 11109 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    J. J. Kranz, M. Kubillus, R. Ramakrishnan, O. A. von Lilienfeld, and M. Elstner, J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 2341 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Panosetti, A

    C. Panosetti, A. Engelmann, L. Nemec, K. Reuter, and J. T. Margraf, J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 2181 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    St¨ ohr, L

    M. St¨ ohr, L. Medrano Sandonas, and A. Tkatchenko, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11, 6835 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Goldman, L

    N. Goldman, L. E. Fried, R. K. Lindsey, C. H. Pham, and R. Dettori, J. Chem. Phys.158, 144112 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Elstner, J

    M. Elstner, J. Phys. Chem. A111, 5614 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    G. d. M. Seabra, R. C. Walker, M. Elstner, D. A. Case, and A. E. Roitberg, J. Phys. Chem. A111, 5655 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    M. Gaus, Q. Cui, and M. Elstner, J. Chem. Theory Com- put.7, 931 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Bannwarth, E

    C. Bannwarth, E. Caldeweyher, S. Ehlert, A. Hansen, P. Pracht, J. Seibert, S. Spicher, and S. Grimme, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.11, e1493 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Hourahine, B

    B. Hourahine, B. Aradi, V. Blum, F. Bonafe, A. Buc- cheri, C. Camacho, C. Cevallos, M. Deshaye, T. Du- mitric˘ a, A. Dominguez,et al., J. Chem. Phys.152, 124101 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Guibourg, L

    P. Guibourg, L. Dontot, P.-M. Anglade, and B. Gervais, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 4007 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Mahmoudi Gahrouei, N

    M. Mahmoudi Gahrouei, N. Vlastos, R. D’Souza, E. C. Odogwu, and L. de Sousa Oliveira, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 3976 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Pokora, J

    M. Pokora, J. Goclon, J. Margraf, C. Panosetti, A. Samt- sevych, and P. Paneth, ChemPhysChem26, e202500081 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Koskinen and V

    P. Koskinen and V. M¨ akinen, Comput. Mater. Sci.47, 237 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    A. P. Bart´ ok, R. Kondor, and G. Cs´ anyi, Phys. Rev. B 87, 184115 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Hourahine, M

    B. Hourahine, M. Berdakin, J. Bich, F. Bonaf´ e, C. Ca- macho, Q. Cui, M. Deshaye, G. D´ ıaz Mir´ on, S. Ehlert, M. Elstner,et al., J. Phys. Chem. A129, 5373 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Ramakrishnan, P

    R. Ramakrishnan, P. O. Dral, M. Rupp, and O. A. Von Lilienfeld, Sci. Data1, 1 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    M. Gaus, A. Goez, and M. Elstner, J. Chem. Theory Comput.9, 338 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Kubillus, T

    M. Kubillus, T. Kubar, M. Gaus, J. Rezac, and M. Elst- ner, J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 332 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys.98, 5648 (1993)

    1993

  58. [66]

    C. Lee, W. Yang, and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B37, 785 (1988)

    1988

  59. [67]

    Ditchfield, W

    R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys.54, 724 (1971)

    1971

  60. [68]

    M. J. Frisch, J. A. Pople, and J. S. Binkley, J. Chem. Phys.80, 3265 (1984)

    1984

  61. [69]

    W. J. Hehre, R. Ditchfield, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys.56, 2257 (1972)

    1972

  62. [70]

    Krishnan, J

    R. Krishnan, J. S. Binkley, R. Seeger, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys.72, 650 (1980)

    1980

  63. [71]

    Y. Song, A. Samtsevych, A. Beiersdorfer, T. Melson, C. Scheurer, K. Reuter, and C. Panosetti, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19977 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Zheng, H

    G. Zheng, H. A. Witek, P. Bobadova-Parvanova, S. Irle, D. G. Musaev, R. Prabhakar, K. Morokuma, M. Lund- berg, M. Elstner, C. K¨ ohler,et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput.3, 1349 (2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  66. [74]

    V. Blum, R. Gehrke, F. Hanke, P. Havu, V. Havu, X. Ren, K. Reuter, and M. Scheffler, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 2175 (2009). 10

    2009

  67. [75]

    Holland, T

    J. Holland, T. Demeyere, A. Bhandari, F. Hanke, V. Mil- man, and C.-K. Skylaris, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, 10257 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Skylaris, P

    C.-K. Skylaris, P. D. Haynes, A. A. Mostofi, and M. C. Payne, J. Chem. Phys.122, 084119 (2005)

    2005

  69. [77]

    J. C. Prentice, J. Aarons, J. C. Womack, A. E. Allen, L. Andrinopoulos, L. Anton, R. A. Bell, A. Bhandari, G. A. Bramley, R. J. Charlton,et al., J. Chem. Phys. 152, 174111 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Skylaris, A

    C.-K. Skylaris, A. A. Mostofi, P. D. Haynes, C. J. Pickard, and M. C. Payne, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 315 (2001)

    2001

  71. [79]

    Skylaris, A

    C.-K. Skylaris, A. A. Mostofi, P. D. Haynes, O. Di´ eguez, and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. B66, 035119 (2002)

    2002

  72. [80]

    M. Cui, K. Reuter, and J. T. Margraf, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 5276 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Eastman, P

    P. Eastman, P. K. Behara, D. L. Dotson, R. Galvelis, J. E. Herr, J. T. Horton, Y. Mao, J. D. Chodera, B. P. Pritchard, Y. Wang,et al., Sci. Data10, 11 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Eastman, B

    P. Eastman, B. P. Pritchard, J. D. Chodera, and T. E. Markland, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 8583 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    M. Gaus, X. Lu, M. Elstner, and Q. Cui, J. Chem. Theory Comput.10, 1518 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Verstraelen, S

    T. Verstraelen, S. Vandenbrande, F. Heidar-Zadeh, L. Vanduyfhuys, V. Van Speybroeck, M. Waroquier, and P. W. Ayers, J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 3894 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Najibi and L

    A. Najibi and L. Goerigk, J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 5725 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Mardirossian and M

    N. Mardirossian and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 214110 (2016)

    2016

  79. [87]

    Weigend and R

    F. Weigend and R. Ahlrichs, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 3297 (2005)

    2005

  80. [88]

    Rappoport and F

    D. Rappoport and F. Furche, J. Chem. Phys.133, 134105 (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    Himanen, M

    L. Himanen, M. O. J¨ ager, E. V. Morooka, F. F. Canova, Y. S. Ranawat, D. Z. Gao, P. Rinke, and A. S. Foster, Comput. Phys. Commun.247, 106949 (2020)

    2020

  82. [90]

    Laakso, L

    J. Laakso, L. Himanen, H. Homm, E. V. Morooka, M. O. J¨ ager, M. Todorovi´ c, and P. Rinke, J. Chem. Phys.158, 234802 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Gasteiger and M

    J. Gasteiger and M. Marsili, Tetrahedron36, 3219 (1980)

    1980

  84. [92]

    A. K. Rappe and W. A. Goddard III, J. Phys. Chem.95, 3358 (1991)

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.