Exchange-Hole Dipole Dispersion Model for Accurate Energy Ranking in Molecular Crystal Structure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate energy ranking is a key facet to the problem of first-principles crystal-structure prediction (CSP) of molecular crystals. This work presents a systematic assessment of B86bPBE-XDM, a semilocal density functional combined with the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) dispersion model, for energy ranking using 14 compounds from the first five CSP blind tests. Specifically, the set of crystals studied comprises 11 rigid, planar compounds and 3 co-crystals. The experimental structure was correctly identified as the lowest in lattice energy for 12 of the 14 total crystals. One of the exceptions is 4-hydroxythiophene-2-carbonitrile, for which the experimental structure was correctly identified once a quasi-harmonic estimate of the vibrational free-energy contribution was included, evidencing the occasional importance of thermal corrections for accurate energy ranking. The other exception is an organic salt, where charge-transfer error (also called delocalization error) is expected to cause the base density functional to be unreliable. Provided the choice of base density functional is appropriate and an estimate of temperature effects is used, XDM-corrected density-functional theory is highly reliable for the energetic ranking of competing crystal structures.
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".