Implementation of the SM12 Solvation Model into ADF and Comparison with COSMO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, an implementation of the newest iteration of the Minnesota solvation model, SM12, into the Amsterdam density functional (ADF) computational package is presented. ADF makes exclusive use of Slater-type orbitals (STO), which correctly represent the true atomic orbitals for atoms, whereas SM12 and the underlying charge model 5 (CM5) have previously only been tested on Gaussian-type orbitals (GTO). This new implementation is used to prove the basis set independence of both CM5 and SM12. A detailed comparison of the SM12 and COSMO solvation models, as implemented in ADF, is also presented. We show that this new implementation of SM12 has a mean unsigned error (MUE) of 0.68 kcal/mol for 272 molecules in water solvent, 4.10 kcal/mol MUE for 112 charged ions in water, and 0.92 kcal/mol MUE for 197 solvent calculations of various molecules. SM12 outperforms COSMO for all neutral molecules and performs as well as COSMO for cationic molecules, only falling short when anionic molecules are taken into consideration, likely due to CM5's use of Hirshfeld charges and their poor description of anionic molecules, though CM5 seems to improve upon this discrepancy.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".