Performance of density‐functional tight‐binding models in describing hydrogen‐bonded anionic‐water clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density-functional tight-binding (DFTB) models are computationally efficient approximations to density-functional theory that have been shown to predict reliable structural and energetic properties for various systems. In this work, the reliability and accuracy of the self-consistent-charge DFTB model and its recent extension(s) in predicting the structures, binding energies, charge distributions, and vibrational frequencies of small water clusters containing polyatomic anions of the Hofmeister series (carbonate, sulfate, hydrogen phosphate, acetate, nitrate, perchlorate, and thiocyanate) have been carefully and systematically evaluated on the basis of high-level ab initio quantum-chemistry [MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ and CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVQZ] reference data. Comparison with available experimental data has also been made for further validation. The self-consistent-charge DFTB model, and even more so its recent extensions, are shown to properly account for the structural properties, energetics, intermolecular polarization, and spectral signature of hydrogen-bonding in anionic water clusters at a fraction of the computational cost of ab initio quantum-chemistry methods. This makes DFTB models candidates of choice for investigating much larger systems such as seeded water droplets, their structural properties, formation thermodynamics, and infrared spectra.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".