Symmetry breaking in the axial symmetrical configurations of enolic propanedial, propanedithial, and propanediselenal: pseudo Jahn–Teller effect versus the resonance-assisted hydrogen bond theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of the symmetry breaking in the axial symmetrical configurations of enolic propanedial (1), propanedithial (2), and propanediselenal (3) have been investigated by means of time-dependence density functional theory and natural bond orbital interpretations. The results obtained at the quantum chemistry composite (G2MP2, CBS-QB3), ab initio molecular orbital (MP2/6-311++G**), and hybrid density functional theory (B3LYP/6-311++G**) levels of theory showed that the hydrogen-centered synchronous axial symmetrical (C2v) configurations of compounds 1–3 possessing the maximum π-electron delocalization within the M1=C2–C3=C4–M5–H6 keto-enol groups are less stable than their corresponding plane symmetrical (Cs) forms. Importantly, the symmetry breaking in the C2v configurations of the enol forms of compounds 1–3 to their corresponding plane symmetrical Cs configurations is due to the pseudo Jahn–Teller effect (PJTE) by mixing the ground A1 and excited B2 electronic states resulting in a PJT (A1 + B2) ⊗ b2 problem. We may expect that by the decrease of the energy gaps between reference states in the C2v forms that are involved in the PJTE decrease from compound 1 to compound 3, the PJT stabilization energy (PJTSE) may increase but the results obtained showed that the corresponding PJTSEs decrease. This fact can be justified by the increase of the electron delocalizations from the nonbonding orbitals of the C=M moieties to the antibonding orbitals of the H–M bonds, which leads to an increase of the π-electron delocalization within the M1=C2–C3=C4–M5–H6 keto-enol groups. In confrontation between the impacts of the resonance-assisted hydrogen bond and PJTE in the structural and configurational properties of compounds 1–3, PJTE has an overwhelming contribution and causes the symmetry breaking of the C2v configurations to their corresponding Cs forms. The correlations between the structural parameters, synchronicity indices, natural charges, PJTSEs, electron delocalizations, and the hardness of compounds 1–3 have been investigated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".