Accuracy of computational solvation free energies for neutral and ionic compounds: Dependence on level of theory and solvent model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gas to aqueous phase standard state (1 atm to 1 mol/L; 298.15 K) free energies of solvation ([DELTA]G^o^~solv~) were calculated for a range of neutral and ionic inorganic and organic compounds using various levels and combinations of Hartree-Fock and density functional theory (DFT) and composite methods (CBS-Q//B3, G4MP2, and G4) with the IEFPCM-UFF, CPCM, and SMD solvation models in Gaussian 09 (G09). For a subset of highly polar and generally polyfunctional neutral organic compounds previously identified as problematic for prior solvation models, we find significantly reduced [DELTA]G^o^~solv~ errors using the revised solvent models in G09. The use of composite methods for these compounds also substantially reduces their apparent [DELTA]G^o^~solv~ errors. In contrast, no general level of theory effects between the B3LYP/6-31+G** and G4 methods were observed on a suite of simpler neutral, anionic, and cationic molecules commonly used to benchmark solvation models. Further investigations on mono- and polyhalogenated short chain alkanes and alkenes and other possibly difficult functional groups also revealed significant [DELTA]G^o^~solv~ error reductions by increasing the level of theory from DFT to G4. Future solvent model benchmarking efforts should include high level composite method calculations to allow better discrimination of potential error sources between the levels of theory and the solvation models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it