A theoretical investigation on excited-state single or double proton transfer process for aloesaponarin I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The excited-state proton transfer (ESPT) dynamical behavior of aloesaponarin I (ASI) was studied using density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent DFT (TDDFT) methods. Our calculated vertical excitation energies based on TDDFT reproduced the experimental absorption and fluorescence spectra well [Nagaoka et al. J. Phys. Chem. B, 117, 4347 (2013)]. Two intramolecular hydrogen bonds were confirmed to be strengthened in the S 1 state, which makes ESPT possible. Herein, the ESPT process is more likely to happen, along with one hydrogen bond (O 1 –H 2 ⋯O 3 ). Qualitative analyses about charge distribution further demonstrate that the ESPT process could occur because of the intramolecular charge transfer. Our constructed potential energy surfaces of both S 0 and S 1 states show that a single proton transfer reactive is more reasonable along with the intramolecular hydrogen bond (O 1 –H 2 ⋯O 3 ) rather than O 4 –H 5 ⋯O 6 in the S 1 stated potential energy surface. Then, ASI-SPT* decays to the ground state with a 640 nm fluorescence; subsequently, the ASI-SPT form shows that reverse ground state single-proton transfer back to the ASI structure occurs. Particularly, dependent on relatively accurate potential energy barriers among these excited-state stable structures, we confirmed the excited-state single proton transfer process rather than using the controversial nodal plane model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".