The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods VI: more modifications to the NDDO approximations and re-optimization of parameters
Open accessAbstract
Modern semiempirical methods are of sufficient accuracy when used in the modeling of molecules of the same type as used as reference data in the parameterization. Outside that subset, however, there is an abundance of evidence that these methods are of very limited utility. In an attempt to expand the range of applicability, a new method called PM7 has been developed. PM7 was parameterized using experimental and high-level ab initio reference data, augmented by a new type of reference data intended to better define the structure of parameter space. The resulting method was tested by modeling crystal structures and heats of formation of solids. Two changes were made to the set of approximations: a modification was made to improve the description of noncovalent interactions, and two minor errors in the NDDO formalism were rectified. Average unsigned errors (AUEs) in geometry and ΔHf for PM7 were reduced relative to PM6; for simple gas-phase organic systems, the AUE in bond lengths decreased by about 5% and the AUE in ΔHf decreased by about 10%; for organic solids, the AUE in ΔHf dropped by 60% and the reduction was 33.3% for geometries. A two-step process (PM7-TS) for calculating the heights of activation barriers has been developed. Using PM7-TS, the AUE in the barrier heights for simple organic reactions was decreased from values of 12.6 kcal/mol(-1) in PM6 and 10.8 kcal/mol(-1) in PM7 to 3.8 kcal/mol(-1). The origins of the errors in NDDO methods have been examined, and were found to be attributable to inadequate and inaccurate reference data. This conclusion provides insight into how these methods can be improved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
(2014) · doi:10.1201/b17118 · Cited by 57,706
Cited by
Dispersion-Corrected Mean-Field Electronic Structure Methods
Grimme, S., Hansen, A., Brandenburg, J. G., & Bannwarth, C. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00533 · Cited by 1,621
Big Data Meets Quantum Chemistry Approximations: The Δ-Machine Learning Approach
Ramakrishnan, R., Dral, P. O., Rupp, M., & von Lilienfeld, O. A. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00099 · Cited by 911
Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems
Keith, J. A., Vassilev-Galindo, V., Cheng, B., Chmiela, S., Gastegger, M., Müller, K.-R., & Tkatchenko, A. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00107 · Cited by 849
Machine learning unifies the modeling of materials and molecules
Bartók, A. P., De, S., Poelking, C., Bernstein, N., Kermode, J. R., Csányi, G., & Ceriotti, M. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701816 · Cited by 764
Physics-Inspired Structural Representations for Molecules and Materials
Musil, F., Grisafi, A., Bartók, A. P., Ortner, C., Csányi, G., & Ceriotti, M. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00021 · Cited by 523
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, J. J. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Molecular Modeling
- Published
- 2012-11-28
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 0948-5023 (ISSN-L)
- 1610-2940
- OpenAlex
- W2032084435
- Cited by
- 2,015
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 31.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods VI: more modifications to the NDDO approximations and re-optimization of parameters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00894-012-1667-x
- The paper
- Stewart, J. J. P. (2013). Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods VI: more modifications to the NDDO approximations and re-optimization of parameters. Journal of Molecular Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-012-1667-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.