English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Abstract  Semiempirical molecular orbital (SEMO) models based on the neglect of diatomic differential overlap (NDDO) approximation efficiently solve the self‐consistent field equations by rather drastic approximations. The computational efficiency comes at the cost of an error in the electron‐electron repulsion integrals. The error may be compensated by the introduction of parametric expressions to evaluate the electron‐electron repulsion integrals, the one‐electron integrals, and the core‐core repulsion. We review the resulting formalisms of popular NDDO‐SEMO models (such as the MNDO(/d), AM1, PM x , and OM x  models) in a concise and self‐contained manner. We discuss the approaches to implicitly and explicitly describe electron correlation effects within NDDO‐SEMO models and we dissect strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches in a detailed analysis. For this purpose, we consider the results of recent benchmark studies. Furthermore, we apply bootstrapping to perform a sensitivity analysis for a selection of parameters in the MNDO model. We also identify systematic limitations of NDDO‐SEMO models by drawing on an analogy to Kohn‐Sham density functional theory.

Semiempirical molecular orbital models based on the neglect of diatomic differential overlap approximation