Conjugated Polymers: Evaluating DFT Methods for More Accurate Orbital Energy Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations are useful to model orbital energies of conjugated polymers, yet discrepancy between theory and experiment exist. Here we evaluate a series of relatively straightforward calculation methods using the standard Gaussian 09 software package. Five calculations were performed on 22 different conjugated polymer model compounds at the B3LYP and CAM-B3LYP levels of theory and results compared with experiment. Chain length saturation occurs at approximately 6 and 4 repeat units for homo- and donor–acceptor type conjugated polymers, respectively. The frontier orbital energies are better approximated using B3LYP than CAM-B3LYP, and the HOMO energy can be reasonably correlated with experiment [mean signed error (MSE) = 0.22 eV]. The LUMO energies, however are poorly correlated (MSE = 0.59 eV), and we show that the molecular orbital energy of the triplet state gives a much better estimate of the experimentally determined LUMO level (MSE = −0.13 eV).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".