Exchange-Hole Dipole Dispersion Model for Accurate Energy Ranking in Molecular Crystal Structure Prediction II: Nonplanar Molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structure prediction (CSP) of a given compound from its molecular diagram is a fundamental challenge in computational chemistry with implications in relevant technological fields. A key component of CSP is the method to calculate the lattice energy of a crystal, which allows the ranking of candidate structures. This work is the second part of our investigation to assess the potential of the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) dispersion model for crystal structure prediction. In this article, we study the relatively large, nonplanar, mostly flexible molecules in the first five blind tests held by the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. Four of the seven experimental structures are predicted as the energy minimum, and thermal effects are demonstrated to have a large impact on the ranking of at least another compound. As in the first part of this series, delocalization error affects the results for a single crystal (compound X), in this case by detrimentally overstabilizing the π-conjugated conformation of the monomer. Overall, B86bPBE-XDM correctly predicts 16 of the 21 compounds in the five blind tests, a result similar to the one obtained using the best CSP method available to date (dispersion-corrected PW91 by Neumann et al.). Perhaps more importantly, the systems for which B86bPBE-XDM fails to predict the experimental structure as the energy minimum are mostly the same as with Neumann's method, which suggests that similar difficulties (absence of vibrational free energy corrections, delocalization error,...) are not limited to B86bPBE-XDM but affect GGA-based DFT-methods in general. Our work confirms B86bPBE-XDM as an excellent option for crystal energy ranking in CSP and offers a guide to identify crystals (organic salts, conjugated flexible systems) where difficulties may appear.
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".