Mastering Geometry Optimization Convergence: A Practical Guide for Computational Chemists and Drug Developers

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to geometry optimization convergence criteria in computational chemistry, tailored for researchers and drug development professionals. It covers the foundational principles of energy, gradient, and step convergence criteria, explores their implementation across major software packages and modern neural network potentials, and offers practical troubleshooting strategies for stubborn optimization failures. The guide also details validation protocols to ensure optimized structures represent true minima and includes comparative benchmarks of popular optimizers, empowering scientists to achieve reliable and efficient results in their molecular modeling workflows.

Understanding the Core Principles: What Are Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria?

In computational chemistry, geometry optimization is the process of iteratively adjusting a molecule's nuclear coordinates to locate a local minimum on the potential energy surface (PES). A converged optimization signifies that the structure has reached a stationary point characterized by balanced forces and minimal energy, providing a reliable geometry for subsequent analysis. This application note details the fundamental principles, quantitative convergence criteria, and practical protocols for achieving robust geometry convergence, with specific emphasis on applications in drug development and molecular research.

The Potential Energy Surface and Optimization Fundamentals

Understanding the Potential Energy Surface

The Potential Energy Surface (PES) describes the energy of a molecular system as a function of its nuclear coordinates [1]. Under the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, which separates electronic and nuclear motion, the PES allows for the exploration of molecular geometry and reaction pathways [2] [3].

• Energy Landscape: The PES can be visualized as a multidimensional landscape where energy corresponds to height and geometrical parameters (e.g., bond lengths, angles) define the terrain [1]. A molecule with N atoms has 3N-6 internal degrees of freedom (3N-5 for linear molecules), resulting in a complex, multidimensional surface [2].
• Stationary Points: Key features on the PES include local minima (stable molecular configurations) and saddle points (transition states between minima) [1] [2]. A local minimum, the target of geometry optimization, is characterized by positive curvature in all directions, while a first-order saddle point (transition state) has negative curvature in exactly one direction along the reaction coordinate [2] [3].

The Goal of Geometry Optimization

Geometry optimization is an iterative algorithm that "moves downhill" on the PES from an initial guessed structure toward the nearest local minimum [4]. The optimization is considered converged when the structure satisfies specific numerical criteria, confirming it has reached a stationary point [4] [5]. A converged result ensures that the geometry resides in a low-energy, stable configuration, which is critical for calculating accurate molecular properties, predicting spectroscopic data, and rational drug design [5].

Quantitative Convergence Criteria

Convergence in geometry optimization is typically determined by simultaneously satisfying multiple thresholds related to energy changes, forces (gradients), and structural steps [4]. The following tables summarize standard criteria.

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization

Criterion	Physical Meaning	Common Default Value	Unit
Energy Change	Change in total energy between optimization cycles	1 × 10⁻⁵ [4]	Hartree
Maximum Gradient	Largest force on any nucleus	1 × 10⁻³ [4]	Hartree/Bohr
RMS Gradient	Root-mean-square of all nuclear forces	6.67 × 10⁻⁴ [4]	Hartree/Bohr
Maximum Step	Largest displacement of any nucleus between cycles	0.01 [4]	Angstrom
RMS Step	Root-mean-square of all nuclear displacements	6.67 × 10⁻³ [4]	Angstrom

Table 2: Predefined Convergence Quality Settings in AMS [4]

Quality Setting	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001

Implementation Note: Most quantum chemistry packages like PySCF (using geomeTRIC or PyBerny optimizers) use similar, slightly different default values (e.g., convergence_gmax ≈ 4.5×10⁻⁴ Ha/Bohr) [6]. Tighter convergence is essential for frequency calculations, while looser criteria may suffice for preliminary conformational scans.

Experimental Protocol for Geometry Optimization

The following workflow outlines a standard protocol for performing a geometry optimization, from initial setup to verification of convergence.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Input Preparation

  • Initial Coordinates: Generate a reasonable 3D molecular structure using a builder tool or from a crystal structure database. Avoid severe steric clashes.
  • Computational Method: Select an appropriate electronic structure method (e.g., DFT with a specific functional, HF, MP2) and basis set suited to your system and accuracy requirements.
  • Software Input: Prepare the input file specifying the geometry, charge, multiplicity, method, basis set, and the geometry optimization task.

• Configuration of Optimization Parameters

  • Optimizer Selection: Choose an optimization algorithm (e.g., Quasi-Newton, L-BFGS, FIRE) [4]. Berny and geomeTRIC are common choices in packages like PySCF [6].
  • Convergence Thresholds: Set the convergence criteria based on the required precision (see Table 2). For final published structures, 'Good' or 'VeryGood' settings are recommended.
  • Additional Settings: For periodic systems, enable OptimizeLattice to optimize unit cell parameters [4]. Use MaxIterations to set a limit on the number of steps (e.g., 100-200).

• Execution and Monitoring

  • Run the optimization job.
  • Monitor the output log to observe the energy, gradients, and step sizes decreasing over iterations. Most software provides real-time feedback on which criteria are satisfied.

• Post-Optimization Verification

  • Convergence Status: Confirm the job terminated normally and all convergence criteria were met. A non-converged result is non-optimal and should not be used for comparative analysis [5].
  • Frequency Calculation: Perform a vibrational frequency calculation on the optimized geometry. A true local minimum will have no imaginary frequencies (all vibrational frequencies are real and positive). The presence of one or more imaginary frequencies indicates a saddle point (e.g., a transition state) [4] [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Computational Reagents

Table 3: Key Software and Computational Methods for Geometry Optimization

Tool / Component	Function / Role	Example
Electronic Structure Method	Calculates the energy and forces for a given nuclear configuration.	Density Functional Theory (DFT), Hartree-Fock (HF)
Basis Set	A set of mathematical functions used to represent molecular orbitals.	Pople-style (e.g., 6-31G*), Dunning's correlation-consistent (e.g., cc-pVDZ)
Optimization Algorithm	The numerical method that decides how to update the geometry to minimize energy.	Berny, L-BFGS, geomeTRIC [6]
Convergence Criteria	User-defined thresholds that determine when the optimization is complete.	Predefined settings (e.g., 'Good') or custom values for energy, gradient, and step [4]
Hessian	The matrix of second derivatives of energy with respect to nuclear coordinates; informs the optimizer about the curvature of the PES.	Calculated exactly, updated numerically, or read from a file
Solifenacin Succinate	Solifenacin Succinate|High-Purity Reference Standard	Solifenacin succinate: a selective M3 muscarinic receptor antagonist. For research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary diagnostic/therapeutic use.
Sumatriptan Succinate	Sumatriptan Succinate | 5-HT1B/1D Agonist | For Research	High-purity Sumatriptan succinate for migraine and neuropharmacology research. A selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.

Advanced Considerations and Troubleshooting

Handling Non-Convergence and Saddle Points

Optimizations may fail to converge within the allowed number of steps or may converge to a saddle point. Several strategies can address this:

• Automatic Restarts: Some software, like AMS, can automatically restart an optimization if characterization (PESPointCharacter) reveals a saddle point. This requires disabled symmetry (UseSymmetry False) and is enabled by setting MaxRestarts > 0. The geometry is displaced along the imaginary mode before restarting [4].
• Hessian Updating: For difficult optimizations, providing a more accurate initial Hessian or requesting more frequent Hessian recalculations can improve convergence, especially for transition state searches [6].
• Trust Region Control: In transition state optimizations, parameters like trust and tmax in the geomeTRIC optimizer control the step size, which can be tuned to improve stability [6].

Excited State and Constrained Optimizations

• Excited States: Optimizations for excited states require specifying the electronic state in the gradient object (e.g., state=2 for the second excited state) to ensure the correct PES is being minimized [6]. Caution is advised due to potential state flipping during the optimization.
• Constraints: It is possible to optimize a structure while holding specific coordinates (e.g., a bond length or dihedral angle) fixed. The geomeTRIC library supports this via a constraints file [6].

Achieving a converged geometry is a cornerstone of reliable computational chemistry. It ensures that resulting structures and their derived properties correspond to stable, physically meaningful states on the potential energy surface. By understanding and correctly applying the quantitative convergence criteria and protocols outlined in this document, researchers can produce consistent, high-quality results. This rigor is paramount in fields like drug development, where comparing the energies and properties of different molecular conformers or complexes forms the basis for rational design and discovery.

Geometry optimization is a foundational process in computational chemistry, essential for locating local minima on the potential energy surface (PES) to determine stable molecular structures. The reliability of these optimized geometries critically depends on establishing appropriate convergence criteria for four key parameters: energy change, gradient magnitude, step size, and for periodic systems, stress. These parameters collectively determine whether an optimization has successfully reached a stationary point where the molecular structure corresponds to a local energy minimum. Setting these criteria requires balancing computational cost with desired precision—overly strict thresholds demand excessive resources, while overly loose thresholds yield geometries far from the true minimum. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols for configuring these essential convergence parameters within the context of computational chemistry research, particularly supporting drug development workflows where accurate molecular structures underpin property prediction and reactivity analysis.

Quantitative Convergence Criteria

Convergence criteria define the thresholds at which an optimization is considered complete. The most common criteria and their quantitative values, as implemented in the AMS software package, are summarized below [4].

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization

Criterion	Default Value	Unit	Description
Energy	1×10⁻⁵	Hartree	Change in energy per atom between successive optimization steps.
Gradients	0.001	Hartree/Angstrom	Maximum component of the Cartesian nuclear gradient.
Step	0.01	Angstrom	Maximum component of the Cartesian step in nuclear coordinates.
StressEnergyPerAtom	0.0005	Hartree	Maximum value of (stresstensor * cellvolume) / numberofatoms (for lattice optimization).

A geometry optimization is considered converged only when all the following conditions are simultaneously met [4]:

• The energy change between successive steps is smaller than Convergence%Energy × number of atoms.
• The maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient is smaller than Convergence%Gradients.
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian nuclear gradients is smaller than 2/3 × Convergence%Gradients.
• The maximum Cartesian step is smaller than Convergence%Step.
• The RMS of the Cartesian steps is smaller than 2/3 × Convergence%Step.

A notable exception is that if the maximum and RMS gradients are both 10 times smaller than the Convergence%Gradients criterion, the step-based criteria (4 and 5) are ignored [4].

Pre-Defined Quality Settings

To simplify the selection process, many computational packages offer pre-defined quality levels that simultaneously adjust all convergence thresholds. The table below outlines these settings for the AMS package [4].

Table 2: Convergence Thresholds by Quality Level

Quality Level	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	StressEnergyPerAtom (Ha)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

Experimental Protocols for Convergence Analysis

Protocol 1: Systematic Convergence Testing for a Molecule

Objective: To empirically determine the optimal convergence parameters for a specific molecular system by systematically varying criteria and assessing their impact on geometry and computational cost.

• Initial Setup:

  • Select a target molecule and generate an initial 3D structure.
  • Choose a computational method (e.g., DFT functional and basis set) appropriate for your system.
  • Begin with a Normal quality pre-defined setting to establish a baseline [4].

• Systematic Variation:

  • Perform a series of geometry optimizations on the same initial structure.
  • In each subsequent calculation, tighten one convergence parameter (e.g., Gradients) by an order of magnitude while keeping the others at the Normal level.
  • Repeat this process for each of the four key parameters.

• Result Analysis:

  • Computational Cost: Record the number of optimization cycles and total CPU time for each calculation.
  • Geometry Comparison: For each optimized structure, calculate the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of atomic coordinates relative to the structure obtained with the tightest (VeryGood) criteria.
  • Energy Comparison: Compare the final total energy with the VeryGood benchmark.

• Interpretation:

  • Plot the RMSD and computational cost against the stringency of each parameter.
  • The optimal parameter is one beyond which further tightening yields negligible improvement in geometry (< 0.01 Ã… RMSD) or energy (< 1 kJ/mol) but significantly increases computational cost.

Protocol 2: Lattice Parameter Optimization for a Periodic Solid

Objective: To obtain a converged crystal structure for a solid-state material, which requires optimizing both atomic positions and lattice vectors.

• Initialization:

  • Build the initial crystal structure with approximate lattice parameters.
  • In the input, enable the OptimizeLattice keyword in the geometry optimization block [4].

• Parameter Selection:

  • Use the StressEnergyPerAtom criterion in addition to energy, gradients, and step size [4].
  • For final production calculations, a Good or VeryGood quality level is often necessary to achieve sufficient precision in lattice parameters [4].

• Execution and Monitoring:

  • Run the optimization. The algorithm will now minimize the energy with respect to nuclear coordinates and lattice vectors.
  • Monitor the stress tensor components; they should approach zero as the optimization converges.

• Validation:

  • Upon convergence, calculate the elastic constants or phonon dispersion to confirm the structure is at a true minimum (no imaginary frequencies).
  • Compare the calculated lattice parameters with known experimental or high-level theoretical values to validate the chosen convergence criteria.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for a comprehensive geometry optimization study, integrating the protocols described above.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

This section details the key computational "reagents" — software, algorithms, and data — required for conducting robust geometry optimizations.

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization

Tool Category	Example	Function in Optimization
Quantum Chemistry Engines	ADF, BAND, VASP, Gaussian, ORCA	Provides the fundamental quantum mechanical method (e.g., DFT, HF) to calculate the system's energy and nuclear gradients for a given geometry.
Optimization Algorithms	L-BFGS, FIRE, Quasi-Newton	The core algorithm that uses energy and gradient information to iteratively update the atomic coordinates towards a minimum [4] [7].
Specialized Optimizers	Sella, geomeTRIC	Advanced optimizers that often use internal coordinates, which can be more efficient for complex molecular systems and help avoid false minima [7].
Benchmark Datasets	GMTKN55, Wiggle150	Curated sets of molecules with reference data for validating the accuracy and transferability of a chosen method and its convergence settings [7].
Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)	AIMNet2, OrbMol, EMFF-2025	Machine-learning models trained on DFT data that can provide energies and forces at a fraction of the cost, enabling faster optimizations for large systems [8] [7].
Uncertainty Quantification Tools	pyiron, DP-GEN	Automated workflows that help determine optimal numerical parameters (e.g., plane-wave cutoff, k-points) to control the error in the underlying single-point calculations [9].
(11Z)-Hexadecen-7-yn-1-yl acetate	(11Z)-Hexadecen-7-yn-1-yl acetate, CAS:53042-80-1, MF:C18H30O2, MW:278.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Palmitic acid N-hydroxysuccinimide	2,5-Dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl palmitate|NHS-Palmitate	2,5-Dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl palmitate is an NHS-activated fatty acid ester for research, like lipid conjugation. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

Best Practices and Troubleshooting

• Prioritize Gradient Convergence: For accurate final geometries, tightening the gradient criterion (Convergence%Gradients) is generally more reliable than tightening the step criterion. The estimated uncertainty in coordinates is tied to the Hessian, which may be inaccurate during optimization, making the step criterion a less precise measure [4].
• Increase Numerical Accuracy for Tight Criteria: When using very tight convergence thresholds (e.g., VeryGood), ensure the underlying quantum chemistry engine (e.g., ADF, BAND) is also configured for high numerical precision to provide noise-free gradients [4].
• Handle Saddle Points with Care: If an optimization converges to a saddle point (indicated by imaginary frequencies), enable PES point characterization and automatic restart. This feature, when combined with UseSymmetry False and MaxRestarts > 0, can displace the geometry along the imaginary mode and restart the optimization to find a true minimum [4].
• Optimizer Selection for Noisy Potentials: When using machine-learned interatomic potentials, which can have slightly noisy potential energy surfaces, first-order methods like FIRE or robust quasi-Newton methods like L-BFGS can be more effective and stable than some higher-order methods [7].

Geometry optimization is a fundamental computational procedure in theoretical chemistry that refines molecular structures to locate local minima on the potential energy surface (PES). This process iteratively adjusts nuclear coordinates until the system reaches a stationary point where the energy gradient approaches zero, indicating an equilibrium geometry. The accuracy and efficiency of these optimizations are governed by convergence criteria—numerical thresholds that determine when the iterative process can be terminated while ensuring reliable results. These criteria represent a critical balance between computational expense and chemical accuracy, making their appropriate selection essential for meaningful research outcomes.

Within computational chemistry frameworks, convergence parameters are often grouped into predefined quality levels that systematically control multiple threshold values simultaneously. These settings range from loose "VeryBasic" criteria intended for preliminary scanning to tight "VeryGood" thresholds for high-precision work. The strategic selection of appropriate convergence levels directly impacts both the reliability of optimized structures and the computational resources required, making this choice particularly relevant for researchers in drug development who must balance accuracy with practical constraints.

Theoretical Framework and Threshold Values

Core Convergence Criteria

Geometry optimization algorithms assess convergence through multiple complementary criteria that collectively ensure the molecular structure has reached a genuine local minimum. The primary metrics include:

• Energy Change: The difference in total energy between successive optimization cycles, indicating whether the system is still progressing toward lower energy regions of the PES.
• Gradient Norm: The magnitude of the first derivative of energy with respect to nuclear coordinates, which should approach zero at stationary points.
• Step Size: The change in nuclear coordinates between iterations, which diminishes as the optimizer approaches convergence.
• Stress Energy per Atom: Specifically for periodic systems, this measures the convergence of lattice parameters during optimization.

These criteria work synergistically to prevent premature convergence and ensure the optimized structure represents a true local minimum rather than a region with shallow gradient [4].

Standardized Quality Settings

The AMS computational package implements a tiered system of convergence thresholds through its "Quality" parameter, which simultaneously adjusts all individual criteria to predefined values. This systematic approach ensures internal consistency across convergence metrics and simplifies protocol selection for users. The specific threshold values associated with each quality level are detailed in Table 1 [4].

Table 1: Standard Convergence Thresholds for Geometry Optimization

Quality Setting	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	StressEnergyPerAtom (Ha)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

These predefined settings provide a progressive series of accuracy levels, with "Normal" representing a balanced default suitable for many applications. The "VeryGood" setting imposes thresholds approximately 100 times stricter than "Normal" for energy convergence and 100 times stricter for gradient convergence, resulting in significantly higher computational demands but potentially more reliable structures for sensitive applications [4].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Optimization Workflow

The geometry optimization process follows a systematic workflow that integrates the convergence criteria at each iterative cycle. The complete procedure, from initial coordinates to converged structure, can be visualized as a cyclic process of coordinate updating, property calculation, and convergence checking, as illustrated below:

Diagram 1: Geometry optimization workflow with convergence checking

This workflow implements the fundamental optimization cycle where each iteration updates the molecular structure based on the current energy landscape, calculates new electronic properties, and assesses whether convergence thresholds have been met. The process continues until all specified criteria are simultaneously satisfied or until a maximum iteration limit is reached [4] [10].

Practical Implementation Guidelines

Successful implementation of geometry optimization requires careful consideration of both the molecular system and research objectives. The following protocol outlines a systematic approach:

• Initial Structure Preparation

  • Generate reasonable starting coordinates from molecular building or previous calculations
  • For drug development applications, ensure stereochemistry and functional group orientations are chemically plausible

• Quality Level Selection

  • Choose "VeryBasic" for preliminary scanning of conformational space
  • Select "Normal" for most routine optimizations of drug-like molecules
  • Reserve "Good" or "VeryGood" for final production calculations where high precision is required
  • Consider that tighter criteria require more computational resources and may reveal convergence difficulties in certain electronic structure methods [4] [11]

• Methodology Considerations

  • Ensure the electronic structure method (DFT, HF, etc.) and basis set are appropriate for the molecular system
  • Verify that the chosen computational method can deliver gradients with sufficient numerical accuracy for the selected convergence thresholds
  • For large systems, consider fragmentation methods or multilayer approaches that can maintain accuracy with looser convergence criteria [12]

• Convergence Monitoring

  • Track all convergence criteria throughout the optimization process
  • For stubborn optimizations, consider restarting with improved initial coordinates or adjusted methodology
  • Implement characterization calculations (e.g., frequency analysis) to verify the nature of stationary points [4]

This protocol emphasizes that convergence threshold selection is not merely a technical detail but a strategic decision that should align with the overall research goals and computational constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Successful implementation of geometry optimization with appropriate convergence criteria requires specific computational tools and methodologies. Table 2 summarizes key components of the researcher's toolkit for managing convergence in computational chemistry:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Geometry Optimization

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in Convergence Management
Electronic Structure Methods	DFT (B3LYP, ωB97X-D), HF, MP2, CCSD(T)	Provide energy and gradient calculations with varying accuracy/cost tradeoffs [11] [13]
Basis Sets	def2-SVP, def2-TZVP, 6-31G*, cc-pVDZ	Balance computational cost with description of electron distribution [11]
Dispersion Corrections	D3, D4	Account for weak interactions crucial for molecular complexes [11]
Solvation Models	COSMO, PCM, SMD	Incorporate environmental effects on molecular structure [11]
Fragmentation Methods	EE-GMFCC, FMO	Enable calculations on large systems (e.g., protein-ligand complexes) [12]
Optimization Algorithms	L-BFGS, conjugate gradient, Newton-Raphson	Efficiently navigate potential energy surface [10]
11-Maleimidoundecanoic Acid Hydrazide	11-Maleimidoundecanoic Acid Hydrazide, CAS:359436-62-7, MF:C15H25N3O3, MW:295.38 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
De-O-methylacetovanillochromene	De-O-methylacetovanillochromene, MF:C13H14O3, MW:218.25 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

These tools form the foundation for managing the relationship between convergence criteria and research outcomes. For drug development applications, the combination of robust density functionals with adequate basis sets and solvation models is particularly important for achieving chemically meaningful results [11].

Decision Framework for Threshold Selection

Selecting appropriate convergence criteria requires consideration of multiple factors, including system size, computational methodology, and research objectives. The following decision pathway provides a systematic approach to threshold selection:

Diagram 2: Decision pathway for convergence threshold selection

This decision framework emphasizes that system size often dictates practical constraints, with larger systems typically requiring more relaxed convergence criteria due to computational limitations. Similarly, the choice of electronic structure method imposes inherent limitations on achievable precision, as some methods may not be able to reliably compute gradients below certain thresholds [4] [12].

Applications in Drug Development and Research

Structure-Based Drug Design

In drug development, accurate molecular geometries are crucial for predicting binding affinities and interaction patterns. Convergence criteria directly impact the reliability of these predictions:

• Ligand Structure Optimization: Tight convergence criteria ("Good" to "VeryGood") ensure accurate representation of ligand geometry before docking studies, particularly for flexible molecules with multiple rotatable bonds.
• Protein-Ligand Complexes: For full quantum treatment of binding interactions, balanced convergence criteria ("Normal" to "Good") provide sufficient accuracy while maintaining computational feasibility.
• Conformational Analysis: Looser criteria ("Basic" to "Normal") can efficiently scan conformational space, with selected minima subsequently refined with tighter thresholds [14].

Recent studies demonstrate that inadequate convergence can lead to significant errors in predicted binding energies, sometimes exceeding chemical significance thresholds (>1 kcal/mol). This emphasizes the importance of threshold selection in computational drug design workflows [12].

Machine Learning Integration

Emerging approaches combine traditional optimization with machine learning to enhance efficiency. For instance, machine-learned density matrices can achieve accuracy comparable to fully converged self-consistent field calculations while potentially reducing computational cost. These methods can predict one-electron reduced density matrices (1-RDMs) with deviations within standard SCF convergence thresholds, demonstrating how hybrid approaches can maintain accuracy while optimizing computational resources [15].

Similarly, Bayesian optimization methods provide statistical frameworks for assessing convergence, monitoring both expected improvement and local stability of variance to determine when further optimization is unlikely to yield significant gains. These approaches offer promising alternatives to fixed threshold-based convergence criteria, particularly for complex systems with rough potential energy surfaces [16].

Convergence criteria represent a fundamental aspect of computational chemistry that directly influences the reliability and efficiency of molecular geometry optimizations. The standardized quality settings from "VeryBasic" to "VeryGood" provide researchers with a systematic approach to controlling computational accuracy, with each level offering distinct tradeoffs between precision and resource requirements. For drug development researchers, appropriate threshold selection must consider both the specific research objectives and practical computational constraints, with the understanding that different stages of investigation may benefit from different convergence criteria. As computational methodologies continue to evolve, particularly through integration with machine learning approaches, the management of convergence thresholds will remain an essential consideration for generating chemically meaningful results in computational chemistry research.

In computational chemistry, geometry optimization is the process of iteratively adjusting a molecule's nuclear coordinates to locate a stationary point on the potential energy surface—typically a local minimum corresponding to a stable conformation. The success of this process hinges on accurately determining when this point has been reached, making the interpretation of convergence metrics critical for producing reliable, publishable results. Two complementary metrics form the cornerstone of this assessment: the maximum (Max) residual and the root-mean-square (RMS) residual.

The RMS residual provides a measure of the typical magnitude of the forces acting on atoms by calculating the square root of the average of the squared residuals across all degrees of freedom. In contrast, the Maximum residual identifies the single largest force component in the system. Within the context of drug development, where subtle conformational differences can dramatically impact binding affinity and selectivity, a rigorous understanding of these metrics ensures that optimized ligand and protein structures are physically meaningful and not artifacts of incomplete convergence.

Theoretical Foundation of RMS and Maximum Metrics

Mathematical Definitions and Formulations

The Root-Mean-Square (RMS) and Maximum (Max) metrics are derived from the gradients of the energy with respect to the nuclear coordinates—the forces acting on the atoms. For a system with N degrees of freedom, the force components (e.g., along x, y, z for each atom) can be denoted as F₁, F₂, ..., Fₙ.

• RMS (Root-Mean-Square): The RMS value is calculated as the square root of the mean of the squares of all individual force components. This provides a measure of the average force magnitude across the entire system. RMS = √[ (F₁² + F₂² + ... + Fₙ²) / N ] [17]
• Maximum (Max): The Max value is simply the largest absolute value among all the individual force components. Max = max(|F₁|, |F₂|, ..., |Fₙ|) [18]

The RMS metric is inherently a global measure, as it incorporates data from every degree of freedom in the system. Its value is influenced by the entire set of forces, making it a good indicator of the overall convergence of the molecular structure. Conversely, the Maximum metric is a local measure, sensitive only to the single largest force component. It is possible for the RMS value to appear satisfactory while the Max value remains high if most atoms have converged but one or a few atoms are still experiencing significant forces. [17] [18]

The Role of Metrics in Convergence Criteria

Most computational chemistry packages do not rely on a single metric but define convergence as a set of conditions that must be satisfied simultaneously. A common and robust approach involves four criteria, as exemplified by software like Gaussian: [18]

• The maximum force must be below a specified threshold.
• The RMS force must be below a specified threshold.
• The maximum displacement (change in atomic coordinates between iterations) must be below a threshold.
• The RMS displacement must be below a threshold.

Some packages include an alternative convergence condition: if the maximum and RMS forces are two orders of magnitude (100 times) tighter than the default thresholds, the displacement criteria may be ignored. This acknowledges that extremely low forces are a definitive sign of convergence, even if the coordinates are still shifting slightly. [18]

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization in Different Software Packages

Software Package	Convergence Quality	Maximum Force (Hartree/Bohr)	RMS Force (Hartree/Bohr)	Maximum Displacement (Bohr/Angstrom)	RMS Displacement (Bohr/Angstrom)
AMS	Normal	10⁻³	6.67×10⁻⁴	0.01 Å	0.0067 Å
	Good	10⁻⁴	6.67×10⁻⁵	0.001 Å	0.00067 Å
	Very Good	10⁻⁵	6.67×10⁻⁶	0.0001 Å	0.000067 Å
Gaussian	Default	0.000450	0.000300	0.001800	0.001200

Practical Application and Protocol Design

A Standard Protocol for Monitoring and Verifying Convergence

A robust workflow is essential to ensure that a geometry optimization has genuinely converged to a valid stationary point. The following protocol integrates best practices from multiple computational chemistry communities.

Step 1: Pre-Optimization Checks

• Initial Structure: Begin with a reasonable initial geometry, ideally from experimental data or a pre-optimization with a lower-level theory.
• Method and Basis Set: Select a method (e.g., DFT, MP2) and basis set appropriate for your system. Remember that tighter convergence requires more accurate gradients. [19]
• Software Settings: Choose an appropriate optimizer (e.g., GDIIS, L-BFGS) and set convergence criteria. Starting with the "Normal" or "Good" preset is advisable. [4] [20]

Step 2: Active Monitoring During Optimization

• Monitor History: Track the evolution of the energy, RMS, and Max forces (and displacements) across optimization cycles. Look for a monotonic decrease or stable oscillation around a low value. [19] [21]
• Correlation of Metrics: Do not rely on a single metric. Confirm that both RMS and Max values are trending toward zero. Be wary of cases where RMS is low but Max remains high, indicating a localized problem. [22]

Step 3: Post-Optimization Verification (Critical Step)

• Frequency Calculation: Always perform a frequency calculation on the optimized geometry. This is a non-negotiable step for validation. [18]
• Validate Stationary Point: The frequency job will also calculate the gradients. Check its output to ensure that the structure still satisfies the convergence criteria. A "Stationary point found" message and zero imaginary frequencies (for a minimum) confirm success. If the frequency job fails the convergence test, the structure is not a true stationary point and the optimization must be continued. [18]

Step 4: Troubleshooting and Restarting

• If Convergence is Slow/Oscillatory: Increase the numerical integration grid size (e.g., to Int=UltraFine in Gaussian), tighten the SCF convergence, or use a higher numerical quality setting. [18] [19]
• If Verification Fails: Restart the optimization from the last geometry, using the Hessian (force constants) from the frequency calculation (Opt=ReadFC) to guide the final steps to convergence. [18]

Interpreting Metric Behavior and Troubleshooting

Understanding the different behaviors of RMS and Max metrics is key to diagnosing problems during optimization.

• RMS is Low, Max is High: This indicates a localization problem. A single atom, or a small group of atoms, may be experiencing a strong force due to a steric clash, an incorrect bonding assignment, or the molecule being trapped in a very flat region of the potential energy surface near the minimum. Inspect the geometry visually and check for unrealistic bond lengths or angles. [22] [19]
• Both RMS and Max Oscillate: This often suggests numerical instability in the energy or gradient calculations. For DFT methods, switching to a finer integration grid (Int=UltraFine) is the most common fix. Tightening the SCF convergence criterion can also help. [18] [19]
• Energy is Flat but Forces are Not: In very flat regions of the PES, the energy change between steps may be negligible, but the forces might not have reached the convergence threshold. This requires patience, as the optimizer may need many steps to "roll downhill" on a very shallow slope. [18]

Table 2: Troubleshooting Common Convergence Problems Based on Metric Behavior

Observed Problem	Potential Cause	Recommended Solution
High Max Force, Good RMS Force	Localized strain; steric clash; incorrect connectivity.	Visually inspect geometry; check bonding; consider constraints.
Oscillating Energies & Metrics	Numerical noise; inadequate SCF convergence; poor integration grid.	Use finer integration grid; tighten SCF convergence; increase numerical quality.
Slow Convergence in Flat PES	Very shallow potential energy surface.	Use a tighter gradient convergence criterion; employ a more robust optimizer (e.g., GDM).
Failed Frequency Verification	Estimated Hessian in optimization is inaccurate.	Restart optimization with ReadFC to use analytical Hessian from frequency job.

Successful geometry optimization relies on a combination of software, hardware, and methodological "reagents." The following table details key components of a computational researcher's toolkit.

Table 3: Key "Research Reagent Solutions" for Geometry Optimization Studies

Item Name/Software	Type	Primary Function in Convergence
Gaussian	Software Package	Performs optimization and frequency analysis; implements well-established convergence criteria. [18]
AMS	Software Package	Features the ADF module for DFT, with configurable convergence thresholds via the Quality keyword. [4]
PSI4/optking	Software Package	Provides a modern, open-source optimization module supporting multiple algorithms (RFO, GDM) and convergence sets. [23]
Q-Chem	Software Package	Offers advanced SCF algorithms (DIIS, GDM) for robust wavefunction convergence, which underpirds accurate gradients. [20]
UltraFine Grid	Numerical Setting	A dense integration grid in DFT that reduces numerical noise in gradients, aiding stable convergence. [18]
Initial Hessian	Computational Object	The starting guess for second derivatives; can be calculated or empirical. A good guess accelerates convergence. [23]
ReadFC	Keyword/Restart Option	Instructs the optimizer to use the Hessian from a previous frequency calculation, improving final steps. [18]
Square Integrable Wavefunction	Mathematical Criterion	A fundamental requirement for the validity of the quantum chemical calculation, ensuring energies and properties are well-defined. [24]

The path to a reliably optimized molecular structure is navigated using both the RMS and Maximum convergence metrics as complementary guides. The RMS value assures the global quality of the structure, while the Maximum value guards against localized errors that could invalidate the result. By adhering to a rigorous protocol that includes post-optimization frequency verification and a structured troubleshooting approach, researchers can have high confidence in their computational structures. This disciplined methodology is indispensable in drug development, where the quantitative interpretation of molecular interactions—from docking poses to free-energy perturbations—depends entirely on the foundation of a correctly optimized geometry.

Geometry optimization in computational chemistry is an iterative process that adjusts a molecule's nuclear coordinates to locate a local minimum on the potential energy surface (PES). This minimum represents a stable molecular structure where the net forces on atoms approach zero. Convergence criteria are the thresholds that determine when this process successfully terminates, balancing computational efficiency against structural accuracy. Understanding the physical meaning behind these numerical thresholds is essential for researchers interpreting computational results and ensuring their molecular structures possess the precision required for subsequent property calculations and scientific publication.

The fundamental challenge lies in selecting criteria stringent enough to yield chemically meaningful structures without incurring excessive computational cost. Different research objectives—from high-throughput virtual screening to precise spectroscopic property prediction—demand different levels of structural precision. This application note explores the quantitative relationship between convergence thresholds and the resulting geometric precision of optimized molecular structures, providing protocols for selecting appropriate criteria within drug development workflows.

Theoretical Foundation: The Physical Interpretation of Convergence Parameters

Core Convergence Criteria and Their Structural Significance

Geometry optimization convergence is typically assessed through multiple, complementary criteria that monitor changes in energy, forces, and atomic displacements between iterations. Each criterion provides distinct insights into the quality of the optimized structure.

The energy change criterion (Convergence%Energy) monitors the difference in total electronic energy between successive optimization steps. When the energy change falls below a threshold normalized per atom (e.g., 10⁻⁵ Hartree for "Normal" quality), the structure is considered stable within the PES minimum. Tighter thresholds (10⁻⁶–10⁻⁷ Hartree) are necessary for predicting subtle energy-dependent properties like conformational energies or binding affinities [4].

The gradient criterion (Convergence%Gradients) directly measures the maximum Cartesian force on any atom. A threshold of 0.001 Hartree/Ã… ("Normal" quality) typically ensures bond lengths are precise to approximately 0.001 Ã… and angles to 0.1°. Importantly, when gradients become sufficiently small (10 times lower than the threshold), the step size criteria are often waived, as the structure is confirmed to be near the minimum [4].

The step size criterion (Convergence%Step) monitors the maximum displacement of any atom between iterations. While useful for detecting ongoing structural changes, it is considered less reliable than gradients for assessing final structural precision because it depends on the optimization algorithm's internal step control. For precise structural determinations, tightening the gradient criterion provides more reliable control than tightening step sizes alone [4].

Practical Implications for Molecular Structure

The selected convergence criteria directly influence key structural parameters critical to drug discovery:

• Bond lengths: Loose criteria (10⁻² Ha/Ã… gradients) may yield errors up to 0.01 Ã…, significant when analyzing metalloprotein active sites or covalent inhibitor complexes.
• Bond angles: "Normal" criteria (10⁻³ Ha/Ã…) typically preserve angles within 0.1–0.5°, while "Good" criteria (10⁻⁴ Ha/Ã…) improve precision to 0.05–0.1°, important for predicting protein-ligand interactions.
• Dihedral angles: Torsional degrees of freedom require tighter convergence (10⁻⁵ Ha/Ã…) for reliable conformational analysis, particularly for flexible linkers in drug-like molecules.
• Reaction coordinates: Transition state optimizations and reaction pathway calculations demand the strictest criteria to accurately characterize saddle points on the PES.

For periodic systems, additional criteria for stress tensor components (StressEnergyPerAtom) control lattice parameter precision during crystal structure optimizations [4].

Quantitative Data: Convergence Thresholds and Structural Precision

Standard Convergence Presets and Their Applications

Table 1: Standard Convergence Quality Settings in AMS and Their Structural Implications

Quality Setting	Energy (Ha/atom)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	Recommended Applications	Expected Bond Length Precision
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	Preliminary screening, crude scans	>0.01 Å
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	Initial optimization steps	~0.01 Å
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	Standard drug discovery workflows	0.001–0.005 Å
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	Spectroscopy, conformational analysis	0.0005–0.001 Å
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	High-precision reference data	<0.0005 Å

These quality presets provide predefined combinations of thresholds for different research needs. The "Normal" setting offers a practical balance for most drug discovery applications, while "Good" or "VeryGood" are recommended for calculating molecular properties that depend on fine structural details [4].

Optimizer Performance Across Convergence Criteria

Recent benchmarking studies reveal significant performance differences among common optimization algorithms when converging molecular structures with neural network potentials (NNPs). These differences impact both computational efficiency and the quality of final structures.

Table 2: Optimizer Performance with Neural Network Potentials (25 Drug-like Molecules)

Optimizer	Successful Optimizations (OrbMol/OMol25 eSEN)	Average Steps to Convergence	Minima Found (%)	Best Applications
ASE/L-BFGS	22/23	108.8/99.9	64%/64%	Balanced performance for diverse systems
ASE/FIRE	20/20	109.4/105.0	60%/56%	Noisy PES, initial relaxation
Sella (internal)	20/25	23.3/14.9	60%/96%	Efficient convergence to minima
geomeTRIC (tric)	1/20	11/114.1	4%/68%	Systems with internal coordinates

The data demonstrates that Sella with internal coordinates achieves the fastest convergence (fewest steps) while maintaining high success rates for locating true minima. In contrast, Cartesian coordinate methods like geomeTRIC (cart) require significantly more steps and may fail to locate minima despite achieving gradient convergence [7]. This highlights that meeting formal convergence criteria does not guarantee a structure is at a true minimum—vibrational frequency analysis remains essential for confirmation.

Experimental Protocols for Convergence Assessment

Protocol 1: Systematic Convergence Testing for Method Validation

Purpose: To establish appropriate convergence criteria for a specific research project, molecular system, and computational method.

Materials and Software:

• Molecular structure files (XYZ, PDB, or other format)
• Computational chemistry software (AMS, ORCA, Gaussian, etc.)
• Sufficient computational resources (CPU/GPU hours)

Procedure:

• Initial Preparation:
  • Select 3–5 representative molecular structures from your research domain
  • Choose a computational method appropriate for your system (DFT functional, basis set, NNP)
  • Define a range of convergence criteria to test (e.g., Basic to VeryGood)

• Optimization Series:

  • For each test structure, perform geometry optimizations with each convergence setting
  • Use identical initial structures and computational methods across all tests
  • Record the number of optimization steps, computational time, and final energy for each run

• Structural Analysis:

  • Calculate root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) between structures optimized with different criteria
  • Compare key structural parameters (bond lengths, angles, dihedrals) against experimental data or high-level reference calculations
  • Perform vibrational frequency analysis on optimized structures to confirm minima

• Convergence Assessment:

  • Identify the point of diminishing returns where tighter criteria yield negligible structural improvement
  • Select the most efficient criteria that provide sufficient precision for your research goals

Expected Outcomes: A project-specific convergence protocol that balances computational cost with required structural accuracy, documented with comparative structural metrics.

Protocol 2: Troubleshooting Problematic Optimizations

Purpose: To address common optimization failures including oscillation, slow convergence, or convergence to saddle points.

Materials and Software:

• Problematic molecular structure
• Computational chemistry software with advanced SCF and optimization controls

Procedure:

• Diagnosis:
  • Examine optimization history for oscillatory behavior or slow progress
  • Check for molecular symmetry that might maintain degeneracies
  • Identify potential mixing of electronic states in open-shell systems

• SCF Convergence Improvements:

  • Increase maximum SCF iterations (MaxIter 500 in ORCA) [25]
  • Implement damping or level shifting for oscillatory systems (SlowConv in ORCA) [25]
  • Use quadratic convergence methods (SCF=QC in Gaussian) for pathological cases [26]
  • Improve initial guess via smaller basis set calculation or closed-shell analog

• Optimization Algorithm Adjustments:

  • Switch optimizers (e.g., from L-BFGS to FIRE for noisy PES) [7]
  • Enable internal coordinates if supported (e.g., Sella internal or geomeTRIC TRIC) [7]
  • Implement trust-radius control or step size limitations

• Structural Modifications:

  • Slightly distort symmetric structures to break degeneracies
  • Manually adjust problematic torsion angles or bond lengths
  • For transition metals, consider different spin state initializations

• Validation:

  • Perform vibrational analysis to confirm minimum character
  • Use PES point characterization to detect saddle points [4]
  • Enable automatic restarts (MaxRestarts) if saddle points are detected [4]

Expected Outcomes: Successful optimization of challenging molecular systems with verified minimum structures suitable for further analysis.

Visualization of Optimization Workflows

Geometry Optimization Decision Pathway

Diagram 1: Geometry Optimization Decision Pathway. This workflow illustrates the iterative optimization process with critical decision points for convergence assessment and saddle point recovery.

Convergence Criteria Interrelationships

Diagram 2: Convergence Criteria Interrelationships. This diagram illustrates how different convergence criteria predominantly control specific aspects of molecular structure precision and property accuracy.

Research Reagent Solutions for Geometry Optimization

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization Studies

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context	Implementation Example
Convergence Quality Presets	Predefined threshold combinations	Rapid setup for standard applications	Convergence%Quality Good [4]
PES Point Characterization	Stationary point identification	Detecting minima vs. saddle points	PESPointCharacter True [4]
Automatic Restart	Saddle point recovery	Continuing from displaced geometry	MaxRestarts 5, RestartDisplacement 0.05 [4]
Lattice Optimization	Periodic cell parameter optimization	Crystal structure refinement	OptimizeLattice Yes [4]
SCF Convergence Accelerators	Overcoming wavefunction convergence issues	Difficult electronic structures	SlowConv, DIISMaxEq 15 [25]
Alternative Optimizers	Algorithm switching for problematic cases	Specific molecular challenges	Sella, geomeTRIC, FIRE, L-BFGS [7]

The numerical thresholds defining geometry optimization convergence criteria possess direct physical meaning for the precision of resulting molecular structures. Gradient thresholds around 10⁻³ Hartree/Å ("Normal" quality) typically ensure bond length precision of 0.001–0.005 Å, sufficient for most drug discovery applications, while stricter thresholds (10⁻⁵ Hartree/Å) may be necessary for spectroscopic property prediction. The relationship between criteria and structural precision is not merely algorithmic but fundamentally connected to the topography of the potential energy surface and the sensitivity of molecular properties to geometric parameters. By implementing the systematic assessment protocols and visualization workflows outlined in this application note, researchers can make informed decisions about convergence criteria selection, ensuring their computational methodologies yield structures with precision appropriate to their scientific objectives in pharmaceutical development.

Implementation in Practice: Software, Optimizers, and Workflows

A Comparative Look at Convergence Settings in AMS, PySCF, and CRYSTAL

Geometry optimization, the process of finding a stable atomic configuration corresponding to a local minimum on the potential energy surface (PES), is a cornerstone of computational chemistry and materials science [4]. The accuracy and efficiency of these optimizations are critically dependent on the convergence criteria, which determine when the iterative process can be terminated reliably. Modern computational packages offer sophisticated control over these settings, yet the specific parameters and their default values vary significantly between software implementations. This application note provides a detailed, comparative analysis of the convergence settings and optimization methodologies in three prominent computational chemistry packages: the Amsterdam Modeling Suite (AMS), PySCF, and CRYSTAL. Framed within a broader thesis on computational efficiency and reliability, this work aims to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with the knowledge to select and fine-tune settings for their specific applications, from molecular drug design to crystalline material discovery.

Comparative Analysis of Convergence Criteria

The convergence of a geometry optimization is typically judged by simultaneous satisfaction of multiple criteria, commonly including thresholds for energy change, nuclear gradients (forces), and the step size in coordinate space. The definitions and default values for these criteria, however, are not uniform across different software packages.

AMS (Amsterdam Modeling Suite)

In the AMS driver, a geometry optimization is considered converged only when a set of comprehensive conditions are met [4]. The key convergence criteria are configured in the GeometryOptimization%Convergence block and are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Default Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria in AMS

Criterion	Keyword	Default Value	Unit	Description
Energy Change	Convergence%Energy	1×10⁻⁵	Hartree	Change in energy between steps < (Value) × (Number of atoms)
Max Gradient	Convergence%Gradients	0.001	Hartree/Ã…	Maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient must be below this value.
RMS Gradient	(Automatic)	0.00067	Hartree/Ã…	RMS of Cartesian nuclear gradients must be below â…” of Gradients.
Max Step	Convergence%Step	0.01	Ã…	Maximum Cartesian step must be below this value.
RMS Step	(Automatic)	0.0067	Ã…	RMS of Cartesian steps must be below â…” of Step.
Lattice Stress	StressEnergyPerAtom	0.0005	Hartree	Threshold for lattice optimization (max stresstensor * cellvolume / numberofatoms).

A notable feature in AMS is the Convergence%Quality keyword, which provides a quick way to uniformly tighten or relax all thresholds. The "Normal" quality corresponds to the default values, while "Good" and "VeryGood" tighten them by one and two orders of magnitude, respectively [4]. Furthermore, AMS includes an advanced automatic restart mechanism. If a system with disabled symmetry converges to a transition state, the optimization can automatically restart from a geometry displaced along the imaginary mode, provided MaxRestarts is set above zero and the PES point characterization is enabled [4].

PySCF

PySCF, a Python-based quantum chemistry package, leverages external optimizers like geomeTRIC and PyBerny. Consequently, its convergence parameters are specific to these backends, as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Default Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria in PySCF

Criterion	geomeTRIC Default	PyBerny Default	Unit
Convergence Energy	1×10⁻⁶	-	Hartree
Max Gradient	4.5×10⁻⁴	0.45×10⁻³	Hartree/Bohr
RMS Gradient	3.0×10⁻⁴	0.15×10⁻³	Hartree/Bohr
Max Step	1.8×10⁻³	1.8×10⁻³	Å (geomeTRIC), Bohr (PyBerny)
RMS Step	1.2×10⁻³	1.2×10⁻³	Å (geomeTRIC), Bohr (PyBerny)

PySCF offers two primary ways to invoke optimization: by using the optimize function from pyscf.geomopt.geometric_solver or pyscf.geomopt.berny_solver, or by creating an optimizer directly from the Gradients class [6] [27]. The package also supports constrained optimizations and transition state searches via the geomeTRIC backend, which can be activated by passing 'transition': True in the parameters [6].

CRYSTAL

The search results do not provide specific, detailed convergence criteria for the CRYSTAL package. CRYSTAL is a well-established code for ab initio calculations of crystalline systems, and its geometry optimization algorithm is known to involve careful control of the root-mean-square (RMS) and absolute maximum of the gradient and nuclear displacements. However, for precise, comparative default values and keywords, users are advised to consult the official CRYSTAL manual.

Optimization Protocols and Methodologies

AMS Optimization Protocol

The AMS driver provides a robust and feature-rich environment for geometry optimization. The following protocol outlines a standard workflow for a molecular system, with notes for periodic calculations.

Diagram 1: Workflow for geometry optimization in the AMS driver, highlighting the automatic restart feature for saddle points.

• System and Engine Definition: In the System block, define the initial atomic coordinates and, for periodic systems, the lattice vectors. Select a quantum engine (e.g., ADF, BAND, DFTB) to calculate energies and forces [28].
• Task and Convergence Setup: Set Task GeometryOptimization. In the GeometryOptimization block, specify convergence criteria. For high-precision results, use Quality Good or define custom thresholds in the Convergence sub-block [4].
• Advanced Configuration (Recommended): To enable the robust automatic restart feature for finding true minima:
  • Set UseSymmetry False.
  • In the Properties block, set PESPointCharacter True.
  • In the GeometryOptimization block, set MaxRestarts to a small number (e.g., 3-5) [4].
• Lattice Optimization: For periodic systems, set OptimizeLattice Yes to optimize both nuclear coordinates and lattice vectors [4].
• Execution and Analysis: Run the job. Upon convergence, analyze the output geometry and verify the PES point character is a minimum.

PySCF Optimization Protocol

PySCF offers flexibility through its Python API and integration with external optimizers. This protocol is suitable for both molecular and periodic boundary condition (PBC) systems.

Diagram 2: Geometry optimization workflow in PySCF, showing the two primary pathways using the geomeTRIC or PyBerny backend solvers.

• System Definition:
  • Molecular: Use pyscf.gto.Mole to define the atom, basis set, and coordinates [6] [29].
  • PBC: Use pyscf.pbc.gto.Cell to define the atom, basis set, and lattice vectors [30].
• Mean-Field Calculation: Create a mean-field object, such as scf.RHF(mol) for molecules or scf.KRHF(cell) for periodic systems [6] [30].
• Optimizer Selection and Setup: Choose between the geomeTRIC or PyBerny backend.
  • Method A (Function Call):

  • Method B (Gradients Optimizer):

• Transition State Optimization: To search for a transition state with geomeTRIC, add 'transition': True to conv_params [6].
• Execution: The optimize function returns the optimized molecule or cell object.

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization

Tool / Package	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Optimization
AMS Driver [28] [4]	Software Suite	Manages PES traversal for multiple engines.	Provides a unified, powerful environment with advanced features like automatic restarts and lattice optimization.
PySCF [6] [31]	Python Package	Electronic structure calculations.	Offers API flexibility for custom workflows and integrates with Python's scientific ecosystem (e.g., JIT, auto-diff).
geomeTRIC [6]	Optimizer Library	Internal coordinate-based optimization.	PySCF backend; handles constraints and transition state searches efficiently.
PyBerny [6] [27]	Optimizer Library	Cartesian coordinate-based optimization.	Lightweight PySCF backend for standard optimizations.
GPU4PySCF [31]	PySCF Extension	GPU acceleration for quantum chemistry methods.	Drastically speeds up energy and force calculations, the bottleneck in optimization.
PySCFAD [31]	PySCF Extension	Automatic Differentiation.	Enables efficient computation of higher-order derivatives (Hessians) for transition state searches.

The choice of computational package and its convergence settings has a profound impact on the success and efficiency of geometry optimization tasks in research and development. AMS provides a comprehensive, "batteries-included" approach with sophisticated features like automatic PES point characterization and restarts, making it highly robust for complex molecular and material systems. In contrast, PySCF offers unparalleled flexibility and integration within a modern Python ecosystem, ideal for prototyping new methods and building complex, automated workflows. While CRYSTAL remains a powerful tool for solid-state systems, a direct comparison of its convergence parameters requires further consultation of its dedicated documentation. Ultimately, understanding these nuanced differences empowers scientists to make informed decisions, optimizing not only molecular structures but also their computational strategies for accelerated discovery in fields ranging from drug design to materials science.

In computational chemistry, geometry optimization is the process of iteratively adjusting a molecular structure's nuclear coordinates to locate a stationary point on the potential energy surface (PES), typically a local minimum corresponding to a stable conformation or a saddle point representing a transition state. The efficiency and reliability of this process are fundamentally governed by two factors: the choice of optimization algorithm and the stringency of the convergence criteria. Convergence criteria are the predefined thresholds that determine when an optimization is considered complete, ensuring that the structure has reached a point where energy changes, forces (gradients), and displacements are sufficiently small. Proper configuration of these criteria is essential for obtaining chemically meaningful results without expending excessive computational resources.

This article provides a detailed comparative analysis of four prominent optimization algorithms—L-BFGS, FIRE, Sella, and geomeTRIC—framed within the critical context of convergence criteria. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it presents quantitative performance data, detailed application protocols, and strategic recommendations to guide the selection and application of these tools in modern computational workflows, including those employing neural network potentials (NNPs).

Theoretical Framework: Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria

A geometry optimization is considered converged when the structure satisfies a set of conditions that indicate it is sufficiently close to a stationary point. The most common convergence criteria monitor changes in energy, the magnitude of forces (gradients), and the size of the optimization step. As defined by the AMS package, a optimization is typically converged when all the following conditions are met [4]:

• Energy Change: The difference in the bond energy between the current and previous geometry step is smaller than a defined threshold (e.g., Convergence%Energy) multiplied by the number of atoms in the system.
• Maximum Gradient: The maximum component of the Cartesian nuclear gradient is smaller than the Convergence%Gradients threshold.
• Root Mean Square (RMS) Gradient: The RMS of the Cartesian nuclear gradients is smaller than 2/3 of the Convergence%Gradients threshold.
• Maximum Step: The maximum Cartesian displacement in the nuclear coordinates is smaller than the Convergence%Step threshold.
• RMS Step: The RMS of the Cartesian steps is smaller than 2/3 of the Convergence%Step threshold.

It is important to note that if the maximum and RMS gradients are an order of magnitude stricter (10 times smaller) than the convergence criterion, the step-based criteria are often ignored [4]. For lattice vector optimization in periodic systems, an additional criterion based on the stress energy per atom is used [4].

The Convergence%Quality setting in AMS offers a convenient way to simultaneously tighten or loosen all thresholds [4]:

Quality Setting	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	StressEnergyPerAtom (Ha)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

Table 1: Standard convergence quality settings as defined in the AMS documentation [4].

The choice of criteria involves a trade-off between computational cost and structural accuracy. Overtightening can lead to an excessive number of steps with minimal chemical improvement, while overly loose criteria may yield structures that are far from the true minimum [4]. For optimizations using noisy potential energy surfaces, such as those from NNPs or quantum calculations, tighter numerical accuracy and stricter gradient thresholds are often required.

Optimizer Benchmarking and Performance Analysis

A recent benchmark study evaluated the performance of L-BFGS, FIRE, Sella, and geomeTRIC when combined with various neural network potentials for optimizing 25 drug-like molecules [7]. The convergence was determined solely by the maximum gradient component (fmax) being below 0.01 eV/Ã… (~0.231 kcal/mol/Ã…), with a maximum of 250 steps [7]. The following tables summarize the key quantitative results, which are critical for informed optimizer selection.

Optimization Success Rate and Efficiency

Optimizer \ Method	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	22	23	25	23	24
ASE/FIRE	20	20	25	20	15
Sella	15	24	25	15	25
Sella (internal)	20	25	25	22	25
geomeTRIC (cart)	8	12	25	7	9
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	20	14	1	25

Table 2: Number of successful optimizations (out of 25). AIMNet2 demonstrated robust performance across all optimizers, while performance for other NNPs was highly optimizer-dependent [7].

Optimizer \ Method	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	108.8	99.9	1.2	112.2	120.0
ASE/FIRE	109.4	105.0	1.5	112.6	159.3
Sella	73.1	106.5	12.9	87.1	108.0
Sella (internal)	23.3	14.88	1.2	16.0	13.8
geomeTRIC (cart)	182.1	158.7	13.6	175.9	195.6
geomeTRIC (tric)	11	114.1	49.7	13	103.5

Table 3: Average number of steps required for successful optimizations. Sella with internal coordinates and L-BFGS with AIMNet2 were among the most efficient [7].

Quality of the Optimized Structures

A critical metric for success is whether the optimizer locates a true local minimum (with no imaginary frequencies) rather than a saddle point.

Optimizer \ Method	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	16	16	21	18	20
ASE/FIRE	15	14	21	11	12
Sella	11	17	21	8	17
Sella (internal)	15	24	21	17	23
geomeTRIC (cart)	6	8	22	5	7
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	17	13	1	23

Table 4: Number of optimized structures that were true local minima (zero imaginary frequencies) [7].

Key Performance Insights

• L-BFGS demonstrates robust performance and high success rates across multiple NNPs, confirming its status as a reliable default choice. The QuantumATK documentation also recommends L-BFGS for its superior performance over FIRE for nearly every optimization problem [32].
• Sella shows a dramatic performance improvement when using internal coordinates, becoming one of the fastest and most reliable optimizers in this benchmark. This highlights the critical importance of coordinate system choice.
• FIRE, while noise-tolerant, often exhibited lower success rates and located fewer true minima compared to L-BFGS and Sella (internal), suggesting it may be less suitable for complex molecular systems [7].
• geomeTRIC performance was highly variable. While generally slower in Cartesian coordinates, its TRIC coordinate system can be very efficient for specific methods like GFN2-xTB, but success is highly potential-dependent [7].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Molecular Geometry Optimization with PySCF

This protocol outlines a standard workflow for optimizing a molecular structure using the PySCF environment, which provides interfaces to both geomeTRIC and PyBerny optimizers [6].

Convergence Control in PySCF/geomeTRIC: The convergence criteria for geomeTRIC in PySCF can be controlled via a dictionary for more precise results [6]:

Protocol 2: Transition State Optimization with geomeTRIC

Locating transition states requires specialized algorithms. This protocol describes how to perform a TS search using geomeTRIC through the PySCF interface [6].

Key Considerations:

• Initial Guess: The success of a TS optimization is highly dependent on the quality of the initial structure, which should be close to the saddle point.
• Hessian: Providing an initial Hessian can significantly improve convergence. In geomeTRIC, this can be enabled by setting 'hessian': True in the parameters if the underlying method provides analytical Hessians [6].
• Characterization: Always perform a frequency calculation on the optimized TS to confirm exactly one imaginary frequency.

Protocol 3: Optimization with Custom Convergence and Constraints

For advanced applications, custom constraints and convergence thresholds are often necessary.

Workflow and Decision Pathways

The following diagram illustrates a systematic workflow for selecting and applying a geometry optimizer, incorporating convergence diagnostics and restart procedures.

Figure 1: Geometry optimization workflow with convergence checking and automatic restart logic for saddle points [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

The following table lists key software tools and "reagents" essential for implementing the protocols discussed in this note.

Tool / Reagent	Function	Application Context
geomeTRIC	General-purpose optimization library using translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC).	Molecular and transition state optimizations; supports constraints [6].
Sella	Optimization package for both minima and transition states using internal coordinates.	Particularly efficient for finding local minima when using internal coordinates [7].
ASE (Atomic Simulation Environment)	Python package for atomistic simulations; includes L-BFGS and FIRE optimizers.	Provides a unified interface for various optimizers and calculators [7].
PySCF	Quantum chemistry package with optimizer interfaces.	Provides Python interfaces to geomeTRIC and PyBerny for ab initio optimizations [6].
AMS	Multiscale modeling platform with detailed convergence control.	Offers configurable convergence criteria and automatic restart features [4].
Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)	Surrogate models for rapid energy/force evaluation (e.g., OrbMol, AIMNet2).	Accelerate optimization by replacing expensive quantum calculations [7].
4-(3,4-Dihydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one	4-(3,4-Dihydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one|CAS 61152-62-3
1,3,5-Trimethylpyrazole	1,3,5-Trimethylpyrazole, CAS:1072-91-9, MF:C6H10N2, MW:110.16 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Table 5: Essential software tools for geometry optimization workflows.

Based on the benchmark data and practical experience, the following recommendations can guide the selection of optimizers:

• For General-Purpose Molecular Optimization: L-BFGS is a robust and reliable default choice, offering a good balance of success rate and efficiency across diverse chemical systems and in combination with various NNPs [7] [32].
• For Maximum Efficiency with NNPs: Sella with internal coordinates demonstrated superior speed in recent benchmarks. It is an excellent choice when optimization step count is a primary concern [7].
• For Transition State Searches: geomeTRIC or Sella are the recommended tools, as they implement specialized algorithms for locating first-order saddle points [6].
• For Noisy Potential Energy Surfaces or Complex Relaxation: FIRE can be a viable option due to its inherent noise tolerance, though its ability to locate true minima may be lower than that of Hessian-based methods [7].
• Always Verify Results: Regardless of the optimizer, always confirm that a minimum has no imaginary frequencies and that a transition state has exactly one. Utilize automatic restart features (e.g., MaxRestarts in AMS) if a saddle point is accidentally found during a minimum search [4].

The interplay between optimizer, convergence criteria, and the underlying PES is complex. The optimal configuration is often system-dependent. The protocols and data provided here offer a foundation for developing efficient and reliable geometry optimization strategies to support robust computational research and drug development.

Configuring Optimizations for Molecules, Periodic Systems, and Transition States

Geometry optimization, the process of finding a stable molecular configuration on the potential energy surface (PES), represents a cornerstone calculation in computational chemistry with profound implications for drug discovery and materials design [33]. The configuration of optimization convergence criteria directly determines the reliability, accuracy, and computational efficiency of these calculations, forming an essential component of any computational research workflow. For researchers and drug development professionals, selecting appropriate convergence parameters requires balancing numerical precision with practical computational constraints—a decision that varies significantly across different chemical systems including isolated molecules, periodic structures, and transition states [4] [33].

The fundamental challenge in geometry optimization lies in navigating the complex, high-dimensional PES to locate stationary points corresponding to stable molecular structures or reaction pathways [33]. Local optimization methods efficiently locate the nearest local minimum, making them invaluable for refining known structures, but their success hinges upon properly configured convergence criteria that ensure structural stability without excessive computational cost [4]. This technical note establishes comprehensive protocols for configuring these optimizations across diverse chemical contexts, providing researchers with practical guidance grounded in current computational methodologies.

Convergence Criteria Fundamentals

Core Convergence Parameters

Geometry optimization convergence is typically evaluated through multiple complementary criteria that monitor different aspects of the optimization process. According to the AMS documentation, a geometry optimization is considered converged only when all the following conditions are satisfied [4]:

• The energy change between consecutive optimization steps falls below a threshold defined as Convergence%Energy multiplied by the number of atoms in the system
• The maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient becomes smaller than Convergence%Gradient
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian nuclear gradients drops below two-thirds of Convergence%Gradient
• The maximum Cartesian step size is reduced below Convergence%Step
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian steps decreases below two-thirds of Convergence%Step

Notably, if the maximum and RMS gradients become ten times stricter than the convergence criterion, the step-based criteria (4 and 5) are disregarded, acknowledging that gradient convergence typically provides a more reliable indication of true convergence [4].

Predefined Convergence Qualities

Most computational packages offer predefined convergence profiles that simultaneously adjust multiple parameters. The AMS platform provides the following standardized settings, offering researchers a balanced starting point for various research applications [4]:

Table 1: Standardized Convergence Quality Settings in AMS

Quality	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	StressEnergyPerAtom (Ha)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

The "Normal" quality setting typically serves as a reasonable default for most applications, while "Good" and "VeryGood" profiles provide enhanced precision for systems requiring exceptional accuracy, such as spectroscopic property prediction or high-precision thermochemical calculations [4].

Optimization of Molecular Systems

Configuration Guidelines for Molecular Optimization

For molecular systems (0-dimensional, non-periodic structures), optimization focuses exclusively on nuclear coordinates without lattice degrees of freedom. The recommended protocol begins with selecting an appropriate optimization algorithm, with quasi-Newton methods (e.g., L-BFGS) generally providing robust performance for most molecular systems [4] [7]. Convergence criteria should be selected based on the intended application: "Normal" quality for preliminary screening, "Good" for publication-quality structures, and "VeryGood" for high-precision spectroscopic or energetic predictions [4].

Critical implementation considerations include setting MaxIterations to a value sufficient for complex relaxations (typically 100-500 steps depending on system size and flexibility) and enabling CalcPropertiesOnlyIfConverged to ensure subsequent property calculations only execute upon successful convergence [4]. For potential energy surfaces with numerous shallow minima, consider enabling KeepIntermediateResults to diagnose optimization pathways, though this significantly increases storage requirements [4].

Practical Considerations for Molecular Optimization

Molecules exhibit considerable variation in the stiffness around their energy minima, making universal convergence settings impractical [4]. Flexible molecules with many rotatable bonds may require looser convergence criteria to prevent excessive computational cost, while rigid conjugated systems benefit from tighter settings to ensure precise geometry determination. Additionally, the convergence threshold for coordinates (Convergence%Step) provides only an approximate indication of coordinate precision; for highly accurate structural parameters, tightening the gradient criterion (Convergence%Gradient) typically yields more reliable results [4].

A critical best practice involves verifying that tight convergence criteria align with the numerical precision of the computational engine being employed. Some quantum chemistry codes may require increased numerical accuracy settings (e.g., higher integration grids or tighter SCF convergence) to produce gradients with sufficient precision for strict geometry convergence [4].

Optimization of Periodic Systems

Lattice Optimization Protocol

For periodic systems (crystals, surfaces, polymers), geometry optimization extends to both nuclear coordinates and lattice parameters, introducing additional complexity. Enable lattice optimization by setting OptimizeLattice Yes in the geometry optimization block [4]. The stress tensor convergence is monitored through the StressEnergyPerAtom parameter, which represents the maximum value of stress_tensor * cell_volume / number_of_atoms (with appropriate dimensional adjustments for 2D and 1D systems) [4].

Table 2: Recommended Settings for Periodic System Optimizations

Parameter	Recommended Value	Notes
OptimizeLattice	Yes	Required for full cell relaxation
Convergence%Quality	Good	Balanced accuracy/efficiency for materials
Convergence%StressEnergyPerAtom	5×10⁻⁵ Ha	Default for "Good" quality
MaxIterations	200+	Cell relaxation often requires more steps
Optimizer	Quasi-Newton, FIRE, or L-BFGS	Must support lattice degrees of freedom

Lattice optimization significantly increases the number of degrees of freedom and may require additional optimization steps compared to molecular systems. Consequently, setting MaxIterations to higher values (typically 200-500) prevents premature termination of potentially slow-converging lattice parameters [4].

Constrained Lattice Optimizations

Many materials simulations require constrained optimizations where only certain lattice parameters or atomic positions relax while others remain fixed. Common scenarios include optimizing atomic coordinates with fixed lattice parameters (for single-point energy calculations at experimental geometries) or relaxing only certain lattice vectors while constraining others (particularly relevant for low-dimensional systems) [4]. Most computational packages provide constraint specification mechanisms through additional input blocks or keywords, though implementation details vary significantly between codes.

Transition State Optimization

Specialized Protocols for Saddle Point Location

Transition state (TS) optimization presents unique challenges, as it targets first-order saddle points on the PES rather than minima [33]. These points correspond to maximum energy along the reaction coordinate but minima in all other dimensions, characterized by a single imaginary vibrational frequency [33] [34]. Specialized optimizers like Sella implement rational function optimization specifically designed for TS location, often employing internal coordinates to improve performance [7] [34].

Successful TS optimization typically requires more stringent convergence criteria than minima optimization, particularly for gradient thresholds. Additionally, verification through frequency calculations is essential to confirm the presence of exactly one imaginary frequency corresponding to the reaction coordinate [33]. For systems with complex PES topography, consider enabling PES point characterization (PESPointCharacter True) to automatically identify the nature of stationary points found during optimization [4].

Automated Restart Mechanisms for Saddle Point Escape

A common challenge in TS optimization involves accidental convergence to higher-order saddle points with multiple imaginary frequencies. Modern computational packages can address this through automated restart mechanisms when PES point characterization is enabled [4]. The workflow involves:

• Enabling PES point characterization in the Properties block
• Setting MaxRestarts to a value >0 (typically 2-5)
• Disabling symmetry via UseSymmetry False to allow symmetry-breaking displacements
• Configuring RestartDisplacement (default 0.05 Ã…) to control the displacement magnitude along the imaginary mode

When this protocol activates, the optimizer automatically displaces the geometry along the lowest frequency mode and restarts the optimization, increasing the likelihood of locating a true first-order saddle point [4].

Advanced Optimization Workflows

Machine Learning-Assisted Optimization

Recent advances integrate machine learning (ML) to enhance optimization efficiency, particularly for challenging systems like transition states. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can generate high-quality initial guesses for transition state structures, significantly improving optimization success rates [34]. For hydrogen abstraction reactions involving hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroethers, one ML approach achieved remarkable TS optimization success rates of 81.8% and 80.9%, respectively, dramatically outperforming traditional methods [34].

Diagram 1: ML-Assisted TS Optimization

Global Optimization Strategies

For systems with complex PES featuring numerous minima, local optimization must be embedded within global optimization (GO) frameworks to locate the global minimum rather than merely local minima [33]. GO methods generally fall into two categories: stochastic approaches (e.g., genetic algorithms, simulated annealing) that incorporate randomness, and deterministic methods that follow defined mathematical trajectories [33].

Table 3: Global Optimization Method Classification

Category	Methods	Typical Applications
Stochastic	Genetic Algorithms, Simulated Annealing, Particle Swarm Optimization	Molecular conformers, cluster structures
Deterministic	Basin Hopping, Single-Ended Methods, Stochastic Surface Walking	Reaction pathway mapping, crystalline polymorphs
Hybrid	Machine Learning-Guided, Parallel Tempering	Complex biomolecules, drug-like compounds

These GO strategies typically combine global exploration with local refinement, either as separate phases or intertwined processes, to efficiently navigate high-dimensional PES [33]. The exponential scaling of local minima with system size (approximately ~e^ξN) makes method selection critical for computational feasibility [33].

Optimization Algorithms and Software

Diagram 2: Optimizer Selection Guide

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization

Tool/Category	Representative Examples	Primary Function
Local Optimizers	L-BFGS, FIRE, Quasi-Newton	Local minima location
TS Optimizers	Sella, geomeTRIC	Transition state search
Global Optimizers	Genetic Algorithms, Basin Hopping	Global minimum location
ML-Assisted Tools	ResNet50 CNN, Genetic Algorithms	Initial guess generation
Electronic Structure	DFT, HF, MP2, CCSD(T)	Energy/Gradient calculation
Analysis Tools	Frequency analysis, PES point characterization	Stationary point verification

Configuring geometry optimizations requires careful consideration of both the chemical system and research objectives. For molecular systems, standard optimizers with "Normal" or "Good" convergence criteria typically suffice, while periodic systems necessitate lattice optimization with appropriate stress tensor convergence. Transition state searches demand specialized algorithms and stricter verification through frequency analysis. The emerging integration of machine learning methods significantly enhances optimization success rates, particularly for challenging cases like bimolecular reaction transition states. By implementing these structured protocols, researchers can achieve optimal balance between computational efficiency and result accuracy across diverse chemical applications, from drug design to materials discovery.

Within the broader context of a thesis on geometry optimization convergence in computational chemistry, the optimization of lattice vectors represents a critical and complex subtopic. Unlike molecular geometry optimization, which deals only with nuclear coordinates, solid-state systems require the simultaneous optimization of both atomic positions and the lattice vectors that define the periodic unit cell. This process is essential for predicting accurate crystal structures, material properties, and energetics in computational materials science and pharmaceutical crystal structure prediction. The convergence criteria for such optimizations are multifaceted, requiring careful balancing of energy, forces, stress, and displacement thresholds to reliably locate local minima on the potential energy surface [4]. This application note details the protocols and considerations for successfully performing lattice vector optimizations, with a focus on achieving robust convergence.

Fundamental Concepts and Definitions

Unit Cell Choices in Solid-State Calculations

The choice of unit cell is a primary consideration in any periodic calculation. Two fundamental types are relevant:

• Primitive Cell: The smallest possible unit cell, containing the minimum number of atoms (a single lattice point). It is computationally most efficient and is mandatory for electronic band structure or phonon dispersion calculations [35].
• Conventional Cell: A larger cell that often exhibits the full symmetry of the crystal lattice more clearly (e.g., a cubic cell). It is typically used when creating surfaces from specific Miller indices [35].

For a face-centered cubic (fcc) metal like copper, the differences are summarized in Table 1. It is crucial to note that computational cost scales with the number of atoms; thus, using the primitive cell is generally preferred for efficiency, unless specific symmetry requirements dictate otherwise [35].

Table 1: Comparison of Primitive and Conventional Unit Cells for Copper

Feature	Primitive Cell	Conventional Cell
Number of Lattice Points	1	4
Number of Atoms	1	4
Angles between Lattice Vectors	Non-orthogonal	Orthogonal (90°)
Computational Cost	Lower	Higher

Lattice Degrees of Freedom and Convergence Criteria

A full lattice optimization involves varying the lattice parameters (the lengths a, b, c of the lattice vectors and the angles α, β, γ between them) to minimize the total energy. Convergence is monitored through several interdependent criteria [4] [35]:

• Energy Change: The change in total energy between subsequent optimization steps must fall below a threshold, often scaled by the number of atoms.
• Nuclear Gradients (Forces): The forces on each atom must be minimized. Both the maximum and the root-mean-square (RMS) Cartesian gradients are checked.
• Nuclear Displacement (Step): The changes in atomic coordinates between steps must become sufficiently small.
• Stress Tensor: The components of the stress tensor, which are the derivatives of energy with respect to the lattice vectors, must be minimized. This is often expressed as the maximum stress energy per atom [4].

A geometry optimization is considered converged only when all the specified criteria are satisfied simultaneously [4].

Computational Setup and Pre-Optimization Protocol

K-Space Sampling Considerations

For plane-wave or DFTB-based methods, the Brillouin zone must be sampled using a k-point grid. The required density of this grid is system-dependent and is a critical parameter for convergence [35] [36].

• Metals require significantly denser k-point grids than insulators or semiconductors.
• The quality of a k-point grid depends on the lattice parameters. Since these parameters change during a lattice optimization, it is imperative to use a k-space setting that is more converged than for a single-point calculation to avoid introducing noise in the gradients and stress [35].
• A common heuristic is to ensure the product of the number of k-points (ni) and the corresponding lattice vector length (ai) satisfies (ni * ai > 40) Ã… [36].
• A k-point convergence study should be performed prior to any lattice optimization to determine the appropriate settings for the desired property accuracy.

Workflow for Lattice Vector Optimization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision points for a typical lattice vector optimization. The process integrates the setup, execution, and verification stages to ensure a reliable outcome.

Optimization Protocols and Convergence Analysis

Configuring the Geometry Optimization

In most computational software, lattice optimization is activated by a specific keyword (e.g., OptimizeLattice Yes in AMS [4], relax_unit_cell full in FHI-aims [36], or setting ISIF tag appropriately in VASP [37]). The choice of optimizer algorithm is also crucial:

• Conjugate Gradient (CG): A robust and default choice in many codes (e.g., IBRION=2 in VASP). It is less sensitive to the step size parameter and is reliable for systems starting far from a minimum [37] [38].
• Quasi-Newton Methods (BFGS, LBFGS): These methods build an approximation to the Hessian matrix and often show faster convergence close to the minimum. The LBFGS variant is memory-efficient for large systems [38].
• RMM-DIIS: Efficient very close to a minimum but can fail with poor initial guesses. It requires highly accurate forces [37].

Standard Convergence Criteria

Convergence thresholds can be set individually or via predefined "quality" levels. The following table, synthesized from AMS documentation, provides a standard reference [4].

Table 2: Standard Convergence Quality Settings for Geometry Optimization

Quality	Energy (Ha/atom)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	Stress Energy per Atom (Ha)
VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

Application Note: The "Normal" setting is a reasonable starting point for many applications. However, if accurate lattice parameters are critical (e.g., for subsequent property calculations), "Good" or tighter settings are recommended. Note that the step criterion is often the least reliable measure of coordinate precision; tightening the gradient criterion is generally more effective for obtaining accurate geometries [4].

Handling Saddle Points and Automatic Restarts

An optimization may occasionally converge to a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum. To automatically handle this, one can enable PES Point Characterization and automatic restarts [4].

Protocol:

• Set PESPointCharacter True in the properties block.
• Disable symmetry (UseSymmetry False) to allow symmetry-breaking displacements.
• In the GeometryOptimization block, set MaxRestarts to a value >0 (e.g., 5).
• Optionally, adjust RestartDisplacement (default 0.05 Ã…) to control the size of the displacement along the imaginary mode.

If a saddle point is detected, the geometry is automatically distorted and the optimization is restarted, increasing the likelihood of locating a true minimum [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Computational Components

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Lattice Optimization

Item	Function in Lattice Optimization
Primitive Cell Structure	The most computationally efficient starting point for bulk crystal calculations; minimizes the number of atoms [35].
Converged k-point Grid	Ensures accurate numerical integration over the Brillouin zone; a prerequisite for noise-free forces and stress [35] [36].
Stress Tensor Calculator	Provides the derivatives of energy with respect to lattice vectors, enabling the optimization of cell shape and volume [36].
Quasi-Newton Optimizer (BFGS/LBFGS)	An efficient algorithm that uses force and step history to approximate the Hessian, enabling faster convergence [38].
Convergence Criteria Profile	A set of predefined thresholds (e.g., Normal, Good) for energy, forces, stress, and steps that determine optimization termination [4].
1-(2-Quinoxalinyl)-1,2,3,4-butanetetrol	1-(2-Quinoxalinyl)-1,2,3,4-butanetetrol, CAS:80840-09-1, MF:C12H14N2O4, MW:250.25 g/mol
(E)-3-Acetoxy-5-methoxystilbene	(E)-3-Acetoxy-5-methoxystilbene, MF:C17H16O3, MW:268.31 g/mol

Leveraging Modern Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) with Traditional Optimizers

The integration of Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) into computational chemistry represents a paradigm shift, enabling highly accurate molecular simulations at a fraction of the computational cost of traditional quantum mechanical methods. The performance of these NNPs critically depends on mathematical optimization techniques used during their training and deployment [39]. Within the specific context of geometry optimization—a foundational task in computational chemistry where the goal is to find nuclear coordinates corresponding to energy minima on the potential energy surface (PES)—the choice of optimizer directly influences the reliability, efficiency, and accuracy of the results [4] [6]. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols for effectively combining modern NNPs with traditional optimization algorithms, framed within the rigorous convergence criteria required for computational chemistry research, particularly in drug development.

Optimization in this field operates at multiple levels: (1) Model parameter optimization for training the NNP itself by adjusting its internal weights; (2) Hyperparameter optimization for tuning the learning process; and (3) Molecular optimization, where the NNP is used as the energy function for navigating chemical space or optimizing molecular geometry [39]. This creates a multi-scale optimization problem where the stability and convergence of the final geometry optimization are contingent upon the quality of the pre-trained NNP.

Foundational Optimization Algorithms: A Comparative Analysis

The successful training of an NNP requires an optimizer that can navigate a complex, high-dimensional, and often non-convex loss landscape. The following first-order gradient-based methods form the backbone of modern deep learning training pipelines in computational chemistry [40] [39].

Table 1: Core Optimization Algorithms for Training Neural Network Potentials

Optimizer	Key Mechanism	Advantages	Disadvantages	Typical Use Case in Chemistry
Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)	Updates parameters using gradient estimate from a single data point or mini-batch [40].	Computationally efficient for large datasets; noise can help escape shallow local minima [40].	Noisy convergence path; sensitive to learning rate; may get stuck in local minima [40].	Initial training on large datasets of molecular structures [39].
SGD with Momentum	Accumulates an exponentially decaying average of past gradients to accelerate updates [40].	Faster convergence in ravines; reduced oscillation; better escape from local minima [40].	Introduces an additional hyperparameter (γ); risk of overshooting [40].	Refining NNP training where the loss landscape has strong curvature.
Adam (Adaptive Moment Estimation)	Combines momentum with adaptive, parameter-specific learning rates based on first and second moment estimates [39].	Robust to noisy gradients; often requires less tuning for good performance [39].	Remains a local optimizer; can sometimes converge to sub-optimal regions [39].	Default choice for training various NNPs, including graph neural networks for property prediction [39].

The update rule for Adam is given by: θ_{t+1} = θ_t - η * (m_hat_t / (sqrt(v_hat_t) + ϵ)) where m_hat_t and v_hat_t are bias-corrected estimates of the first and second moments of the gradients, respectively, and η is the learning rate [39]. This adaptive behavior makes it particularly suitable for the sparse and heterogeneous data often encountered in chemical datasets.

Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria

Once an NNP is trained, it serves as a surrogate energy model for geometry optimization tasks. The convergence of these optimizations must be judged by well-defined criteria to ensure the resulting structure is at a genuine local minimum on the PES.

Table 2: Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization [4]

Convergence Quantity	Standard Threshold (Normal Quality)	Tightened Threshold (Good Quality)	Description
Energy Change	10⁻⁵ Ha per atom	10⁻⁶ Ha per atom	The change in total energy between successive optimization steps.
Maximum Gradient	0.001 Ha/Ã…	0.0001 Ha/Ã…	The largest component of the Cartesian nuclear gradient vector.
Root Mean Square (RMS) Gradient	0.00067 Ha/Ã…	0.000067 Ha/Ã…	The root mean square of all Cartesian nuclear gradients.
Maximum Step	0.01 Ã…	0.001 Ã…	The largest Cartesian displacement of any atom in a step.
RMS Step	0.0067 Ã…	0.00067 Ã…	The root mean square of all Cartesian atomic displacements.

A geometry optimization is typically considered converged only when all the specified criteria are simultaneously met [4]. For critical applications, such as the calculation of vibrational frequencies or the refinement of candidate drug molecules for crystal structure prediction, the "Good" or "VeryGood" quality settings should be used to ensure high numerical accuracy [4]. It is important to note that the convergence threshold for the coordinates is not always a reliable measure for the precision of the final coordinates; for accurate results, one should primarily tighten the criterion on the gradients [4].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Top-Down Training of an NNP using Experimental Data with DiffTRe

Application: Training a Graph Neural Network Potential (e.g., DimeNet++) for water or diamond using experimental observables (e.g., radial distribution function, stiffness tensor) when highly accurate ab initio data is unavailable [41].

Principle: The Differentiable Trajectory Reweighting (DiffTRe) method bypasses the need to differentiate through the entire Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulation, which is computationally prohibitive. It achieves this by combining automatic differentiation with a reweighting scheme based on thermodynamic perturbation theory [41].

Procedure:

• Initialization: Generate an initial trajectory {S_i} of N decorrelated molecular states using a reference potential U_{θ_hat} (e.g., a classical force field) via MD simulation [41].
• Observable Calculation: For a candidate NNP parameterized by θ, compute the ensemble average of a target observable 〈O_k〉 by reweighting the trajectory from the reference potential: 〈O_k(U_θ)〉 ≈ Σ_{i=1}^N w_i O_k(S_i, U_θ) where the weights w_i are: w_i = e^{-β(U_θ(S_i) - U_{θ_hat}(S_i))} / Σ_j e^{-β(U_θ(S_j) - U_{θ_hat}(S_j))} [41].
• Loss and Gradient Computation: Calculate the loss (e.g., Mean Squared Error) between the reweighted observables and experimental data. DiffTRe allows for efficient computation of the gradient of this loss with respect to the NNP parameters θ without backpropagation through the MD integrator [41].
• Parameter Update: Use the Adam optimizer to update the parameters θ based on the computed gradients.
• Iteration: Iterate steps 2-4 until the loss converges. Periodically, update the reference trajectory with the current best NNP to maintain a high effective sample size [41].

Protocol 2: NNP-Driven Geometry Optimization with PySCF

Application: Performing a local geometry optimization (energy minimization) for a molecule using a pre-trained NNP as the energy calculator within a standardized quantum chemistry environment.

Principle: Leverage the PySCF library's interfaces to external optimizers (e.g., geomeTRIC, PyBerny) to find the nuclear coordinates that minimize the potential energy as predicted by the NNP [6].

Procedure:

• Environment Setup: Install PySCF and the desired optimizer backend (e.g., geomeTRIC).
• System Definition: Define the molecular system within PySCF, specifying the initial geometry, charge, and spin.
• NNP Integration: Wrap the pre-trained NNP as a PySCF-compatible method. This involves creating a function that takes nuclear coordinates as input and returns the energy and forces (negative gradients).

• Optimization Execution: Call the optimizer, specifying convergence criteria. The following Python code snippet demonstrates this process.
• Validation: Confirm convergence by checking the output against the criteria in Table 2. For production calculations, verify the result by computing the Hessian (vibrational frequencies) to ensure it is a minimum (all frequencies real).

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: NNP geometry optimization loop.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Software

Table 3: Key Software and Computational Tools

Tool / "Reagent"	Type	Function in Workflow
PySCF	Python Library	Provides the primary framework for defining molecular systems, running calculations, and interfacing with optimizers and NNPs [6].
geomeTRIC / PyBerny	Optimization Library	Implements algorithms (e.g., Quasi-Newton) to drive the geometry optimization process by using energies and forces from the NNP [6].
DimeNet++	Graph Neural Network	A state-of-the-art NNP architecture that learns on molecular graphs, capable of predicting energies and forces with high accuracy [41].
Differentiable Trajectory Reweighting (DiffTRe)	Optimization Method	Enables the top-down training of NNPs directly against experimental data, bypassing the need for expensive ab initio datasets [41].
Convergence Criteria (Table 2)	Numerical Protocol	Defines the objective standards for determining when a geometry optimization has successfully located a local minimum on the PES [4].
1,2-Dipalmitoyl-3-oleoylglycerol	1,2-Dipalmitoyl-3-oleoylglycerol, CAS:1867-91-0, MF:C53H100O6, MW:833.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
7-Hydroxy-6-methoxy-3-prenylcoumarin	7-Hydroxy-6-methoxy-3-prenylcoumarin|High-Purity Coumarin	Explore 7-Hydroxy-6-methoxy-3-prenylcoumarin for its research potential in medicinal chemistry and biosynthesis. This product is For Research Use Only (RUO).

Diagnosing and Solving Common Convergence Failures

In computational chemistry, geometry optimization is a fundamental process for finding local minima on a potential energy surface (PES), corresponding to stable molecular structures. However, this process is often hampered by convergence issues including oscillating energies, stalled gradients, and step-size-related instability. These problems are particularly prevalent when optimizing complex molecular systems such as drug-like molecules using neural network potentials (NNPs). This Application Note details the identification, diagnosis, and resolution of these common optimization failures, providing structured protocols for researchers and development professionals.

Defining Convergence and Its Challenges

A geometry optimization is considered converged when the system's geometry has been altered to minimize the total energy, typically converging to the next local minimum on the PES given the initial system geometry [4]. In practice, convergence is monitored through several quantities, and a geometry optimization is considered converged only when all the following criteria are met [4]:

• The change in energy between the current and previous geometry is smaller than a threshold (e.g., (10^{-5}) Hartree) times the number of atoms.
• The maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient is smaller than a threshold (e.g., 0.001 Hartree/Ã…).
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian nuclear gradients is smaller than two-thirds of the maximum gradient threshold.
• The maximum Cartesian step is smaller than a threshold (e.g., 0.01 Ã…).
• The RMS of the Cartesian steps is smaller than two-thirds of the maximum step threshold.

The Interplay of Convergence and Accuracy

It is critical to distinguish between convergence and accuracy. A simulation can converge to a stable solution that is physically inaccurate. In non-linear problems, consistent and stable numerical procedures are necessary but not sufficient for accurate results; a case may converge with a larger time step to wrong results, whereas a smaller time step, while more accurate, might face convergence issues [42]. This is because larger steps can sometimes smooth over numerical instabilities or noisy gradients, allowing the optimizer to find a stable, albeit incorrect, minimum.

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria in Geometry Optimization

Convergence Quantity	Typical Default Threshold	Description
Energy Change	(1 \times 10^{-5}) Hartree	Change in bond energy between steps [4]
Maximum Gradient	0.001 Hartree/Ã…	Largest component of the force gradient [4]
RMS Gradient	0.00067 Hartree/Ã…	Root-mean-square of gradient components [4]
Maximum Step	0.01 Ã…	Largest change in nuclear coordinates [4]
RMS Step	0.0067 Ã…	Root-mean-square of step components [4]

Identifying Common Optimization Problems

Oscillating Energies

Oscillating energies occur when the optimizer repeatedly overshoots the minimum, causing the total energy to fluctuate between two or more values instead of settling to a stable minimum. This is often a symptom of an excessively large step size or a learning rate that is too high. In Bayesian optimization, analogous oscillatory behavior in the acquisition function can indicate that the routine is exploring a region but not yet convinced it has found a global minimum [16].

Stalled Gradients (Vanishing Gradients)

The stalled or vanishing gradient problem is characterized by gradients becoming extremely small during the optimization, causing earlier layers or atomic coordinates to learn or update very slowly or stop entirely [43] [44]. This leads to slow convergence or a complete stagnation in learning, where the parameters of the network (or nuclear coordinates in a molecule) are updated very slowly, and the optimization fails to reach the convergence criteria within a reasonable number of steps [44].

Causes:

• Saturating Activation Functions: The use of activation functions like sigmoid or tanh in neural networks, which have small derivatives that shrink gradients when multiplied across many layers via the chain rule [43] [44].
• Deep Networks: In deep neural networks or complex molecular systems, gradients can diminish as they propagate backwards through the layers due to the chain rule of derivatives [44].
• Inappropriate Weight Initialization: Weights that are initialized to values that are too small can cause gradients to shrink [43].

Step Size Issues

The choice of step size is critical. A step size that is too small leads to slow convergence and a higher risk of getting stuck in local minima, while a step size that is too large can cause oscillations or divergence [42]. In geometry optimization, the step size is controlled directly (e.g., Convergence%Step) or indirectly through the optimizer's internal logic and the trust radius.

A key paradox is that a larger time step can sometimes bring convergence where a smaller one fails [42]. This is because a larger step can help the optimizer escape shallow local minima or navigate regions with small, noisy gradients. However, the resulting converged structure may be physically inaccurate. Conversely, a smaller time step improves temporal accuracy but may face convergence issues in non-linear problems [42].

Experimental Protocols for Diagnosis and Mitigation

Protocol 1: Diagnosing Optimization Failure

This protocol provides a step-by-step method to identify the root cause of a failed optimization.

1. Visualize the Optimization History:

• Plot the total energy, maximum gradient, and maximum step size against the optimization step number.
• Oscillating Energies: Look for a clear, repeating pattern in the energy plot instead of a steady decrease.
• Stalled Gradients: Identify a plateau where the maximum and RMS gradients stop decreasing over many steps, remaining above the convergence threshold.
• Step Size Issues: Correlate large steps with energy increases (oscillations) or very small steps with a lack of progress.

2. Check for Convergence Criterion Dominance:

• Determine which convergence criterion is preventing completion. If the maximum gradient is large, the problem is likely in the forces. If the step size is the limiting factor, the optimizer is likely taking cautious steps due to an inaccurate Hessian.

3. Characterize the Stationary Point:

• Upon a claimed convergence, perform a frequency calculation on the optimized structure.
• The presence of imaginary frequencies indicates that a local minimum was not found, and a saddle point (transition state) was located instead [7]. This is a common failure mode.

4. Reproduce with a Simplified System:

• Test the optimization on a smaller, analogous molecule or a simplified model system. Successful convergence suggests the original system's PES is particularly complex or noisy.

Protocol 2: Mitigating Stalled Gradients in NNPs

This protocol addresses the vanishing gradient problem when using neural network potentials.

1. Optimizer Selection:

• Benchmark different optimizers. Recent studies show that Sella (with internal coordinates) and L-BFGS often achieve the highest success rates and lowest step counts for molecular optimization with NNPs [7].
• Table 2 shows how optimizer choice significantly impacts performance.

Table 2: Optimizer Performance for NNP-based Geometry Optimization (Successes per 25 Molecules) [7]

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	22	23	25	23	24
ASE/FIRE	20	20	25	20	15
Sella	15	24	25	15	25
Sella (internal)	20	25	25	22	25
geomeTRIC (cart)	8	12	25	7	9

2. Increase Numerical Precision:

• For NNP optimizations, using higher precision (e.g., float32-highest) can resolve stalling issues, as demonstrated by OrbMol achieving 100% success with L-BFGS when precision was increased [7].

3. Employ Gradient Clipping:

• While common in deep learning, gradient clipping can also be applied in molecular optimization to prevent unstable updates from rare, large force components, thereby stabilizing training [43].

4. Use Adaptive Learning Rates:

• Implement optimizers with adaptive learning rates, which adjust the effective step size based on recent gradient history, helping to overcome regions of vanishing gradients.

Protocol 3: Resolving Oscillations and Step Size Problems

1. Adjust the Optimizer's Trust Radius:

• For quasi-Newton methods, reducing the maximum trust radius (which limits the maximum step size) can prevent oscillations. Conversely, slightly increasing it may help escape stalling.

2. Implement a Step Size Scheduling Policy:

• Use a decaying step size schedule. Start with a larger step size for global exploration and gradually reduce it for fine-grained convergence.

3. Enable Automatic Restarts:

• If a frequency calculation reveals a saddle point, use automatic restarts. With PESPointCharacter enabled and symmetry disabled, the optimizer can be configured to restart with a displacement along the imaginary mode to find a true minimum [4]. Configure with MaxRestarts (e.g., 5) and RestartDisplacement (e.g., 0.05 Ã…) [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Software Tools for Robust Geometry Optimization

Tool / "Reagent"	Function	Application Context
Sella [7]	Open-source optimizer using internal coordinates & rational function optimization.	Excellent for minimizing complex molecules and finding transition states.
geomeTRIC [7]	Optimization library using translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC).	Robust optimization for molecular systems, often used with standard L-BFGS.
L-BFGS [7]	Quasi-Newton algorithm approximating the Hessian.	General-purpose, efficient optimizer; good balance of speed and reliability.
FIRE [7]	Fast Inertial Relaxation Engine, a MD-based method.	Fast structural relaxation; tolerant of noisy surfaces but less precise.
Batch Normalization [43]	Normalizes layer inputs in a neural network.	Stabilizes NNP training and can mitigate internal covariate shift, reducing gradient issues.
4-Hydroxyphenylacetaldehyde	4-Hydroxyphenylacetaldehyde, CAS:7339-87-9, MF:C8H8O2, MW:136.15 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
ethyl 3-amino-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate	Ethyl 5-amino-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate	Research-use only ethyl 5-amino-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, a key heterocyclic building block for medicinal chemistry. High purity. Not for human or veterinary diagnosis or therapy.

Workflow and Diagnostic Diagrams

The following diagnostic workflow provides a logical pathway for troubleshooting common geometry optimization problems.

Optimization Problem Diagnosis

Successfully navigating oscillating energies, stalled gradients, and step size issues requires a systematic approach to diagnosis and a well-equipped toolkit of optimizers and strategies. Key to this process is understanding that convergence does not guarantee accuracy, and that optimizer performance is highly dependent on the specific potential energy surface and molecular system. By applying the detailed protocols and diagnostic workflows outlined in this document, computational chemists can significantly improve the reliability and efficiency of their geometry optimizations, accelerating research in drug development and materials design.

The convergence of geometry optimization routines is fundamentally limited by the accuracy of the single-point energy and gradient calculations upon which they depend. Achieving a well-converged geometry requires that the numerical uncertainties in the computed energies and forces are significantly smaller than the optimization convergence thresholds. This application note examines three interconnected pillars of computational accuracy—numerical quality settings, self-consistent field (SCF) convergence, and the use of exact density—within the context of obtaining reliable and reproducible optimized molecular and material structures. Inadequate settings in any of these areas can lead to optimization failure, manifested as oscillatory behavior, premature termination, or convergence to spurious minima, ultimately compromising the integrity of computational research and drug development workflows.

Theoretical Foundations

The Self-Consistent Field (SCF) Procedure

The SCF procedure is an iterative algorithm that searches for a self-consistent electronic density. The key metric for monitoring convergence is the SCF error, which quantifies the difference between the input and output densities of a cycle. In the SCM software suite, this error is defined as the square root of the integral of the squared density differences:

err = √[ ∫ dx (ρ_out(x) - ρ_in(x))² ] [45]

Convergence is considered reached when this SCF error falls below a predefined criterion. The relationship between the chosen numerical quality and the default SCF convergence criterion is detailed in the following section.

The Interdependence of SCF and Geometry Optimization

Geometry optimization algorithms navigate the potential energy surface (PES) by using computed energies and nuclear gradients. The success of this process is entirely dependent on the accuracy of these underlying single-point calculations. If the SCF procedure is not fully converged, or if numerical integration grids and basis sets are of insufficient quality, the resulting "noisy" energy and gradient values can mislead the optimizer. This is particularly critical when studying complex systems such as transition metal catalysts or flexible drug molecules, where subtle energy differences dictate the correct geometry. As noted in the ADF documentation, tightening SCF convergence criteria is a primary recommendation for addressing geometry optimization convergence problems [19].

Core Concepts and Default Parameters

Numerical Quality and SCF Convergence Criteria

The NumericalQuality keyword provides a convenient way to control the precision of a calculation, which in turn sets the default SCF convergence criterion. The default SCF criterion is not a fixed value but scales with the system size, as shown in the following table for the BAND code [45].

Table 1: Default SCF Convergence Criteria vs. Numerical Quality

NumericalQuality	Convergence Criterion (Default)
Basic	1e-5 × √N_atoms
Normal	1e-6 × √N_atoms
Good	1e-7 × √N_atoms
VeryGood	1e-8 × √N_atoms

This system-size-dependent scaling ensures consistent accuracy across systems of different sizes. For example, a 50-atom system with NumericalQuality Good would have a convergence criterion of approximately 7.1e-7, while a 200-atom system would have a criterion of 1.4e-6.

Exact Density

The ExactDensity keyword instructs the code to use the exact electronic density, rather than an approximated one, when constructing the exchange-correlation (XC) potential. While this typically makes the calculation two to three times slower, it can be crucial for achieving accurate gradients, which are essential for a stable geometry optimization [19]. The use of exact density becomes particularly important when using tight geometry convergence criteria or when studying systems where high accuracy is paramount.

Protocols for Enhancing Calculation Accuracy

The following workflow diagram illustrates a systematic protocol for diagnosing and resolving geometry optimization convergence issues by focusing on SCF and numerical accuracy.

Protocol 1: Systematic Tightening of SCF and Numerical Parameters

This protocol is recommended when geometry optimization exhibits oscillatory behavior or fails to converge.

• Diagnose the Problem: Examine the optimization output. If the energy oscillates around a value and the gradients do not decrease systematically, the issue likely stems from inaccurate single-point calculations [19].
• Verify SCF Convergence: Check the SCF convergence in the latest geometry steps. If the SCF error is not significantly below the geometry convergence thresholds, tightening is required.
• Tighten SCF Convergence: In the input, explicitly set a tighter SCF convergence criterion. For example:
  This overrides the default and forces a more precise SCF solution [19].
• Increase Numerical Quality: Set a higher NumericalQuality, for instance, to Good or VeryGood. This simultaneously tightens the SCF criterion and improves other numerical parameters, such as integration grid density.

• Employ Exact Density: In stubborn cases, add the ExactDensity keyword to ensure the most accurate possible gradients are used in the optimization [19].

Example Input Snippet:

Note: The ExactDensity keyword is not included in this example, as it significantly increases computational cost and should be reserved for the most challenging cases [19].

Protocol 2: Advanced SCF Convergence Techniques

For systems with challenging electronic structures (e.g., small HOMO-LUMO gaps, open-shell transition metals), standard DIIS may fail. The PySCF and ORCA documentation suggest several advanced techniques [46] [47].

• Level Shifting: Artificially increases the energy gap between occupied and virtual orbitals, stabilizing the SCF procedure.
  • PySCF Example: mf.level_shift = 0.5
• Damping: Mixes a fraction of the previous iteration's Fock matrix with the new one to prevent large oscillations.
  • PySCF Example: mf.damp = 0.5
• Fractional Occupations / Smearing: Introduces partial occupation of orbitals around the Fermi level, which can help converge metallic systems or those with near-degeneracies.
• Second-Order SCF (SOSCF): Methods like Newton's method can provide quadratic convergence but at a higher cost per iteration.
  • PySCF Example: mf = scf.RHF(mol).newton()

Implementation in Quantum Chemistry Codes

Different computational packages implement control over accuracy and SCF convergence using similar concepts but different syntax.

Table 2: Accuracy and SCF Control in Different Computational Codes

Code	SCF Convergence Control	Accuracy / Numerical Quality Control
AMS/BAND [45]	SCF { Converge <value> }	NumericalQuality <Basic/Normal/Good/VeryGood>
ORCA [47]	! <Loose/Normal/Tight/VeryTight>SCF or %scf { TolE <value> ... end}	Compound keywords also control integral accuracy and grid settings.
PySCF [46]	mf.conv_tol = <value>	Controlled via individual settings for integration grids and basis sets.
NWChem [48]	DFT { convergence { energy <value> density <value> } }	`DFT { grid	coarse	medium	fine	xfine> }`
xtb [49]	Implicitly controlled via --opt <level>	The --opt <level> keyword automatically adjusts SCF and integral cutoffs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Computational Reagents

Table 3: Key Input Parameters and Their Functions

Parameter / Keyword	Primary Function	Typical Use Case
NumericalQuality [45]	A compound keyword that sets defaults for SCF convergence, integration grids, and basis set quality.	Standardized setting to quickly determine the balance between speed and precision for a whole project.
SCF Convergence Criterion [45]	Defines the tolerance for the self-consistent density error. Termination occurs when the error falls below this value.	Must be tightened when optimizing to tight geometry thresholds or when single-point energy precision is critical.
ExactDensity [19]	Uses the exact density to compute the XC potential, improving gradient accuracy at a significant computational cost.	Troubleshooting difficult geometry optimizations or performing final high-precision refinements.
Basis Set [19]	A set of basis functions used to represent molecular orbitals. Larger, more-complete sets offer higher accuracy.	A TZ2P (triple-zeta with two polarization functions) basis is often a good starting point for accurate optimization.
Geometry Convergence (Gradients) [4]	Threshold for the maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient. One of the primary criteria for geometry convergence.	Tighter thresholds (e.g., 1e-5 Ha/Ã…) are required for frequency calculations or precise structural comparisons.
GSK-5503A	GSK-5503A, MF:C23H17F2N3O2, MW:405.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Fedratinib-d9	Fedratinib-d9, MF:C27H36N6O3S, MW:533.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Robust and reliable geometry optimization in computational chemistry and drug development is predicated on a foundation of accurate single-point calculations. By understanding and systematically controlling the triumvirate of numerical quality, SCF convergence, and the selective use of exact density, researchers can overcome common convergence failures and ensure their results are both physically meaningful and reproducible. The protocols and reference tables provided herein serve as a practical guide for implementing these critical accuracy controls in everyday research.

In computational chemistry, the journey from a molecular structure to a stable, optimized geometry is guided by the potential energy surface (PES). This process, known as geometry optimization, aims to locate local minima by iteratively adjusting nuclear coordinates until the system's energy is minimized and convergence criteria are met [4]. However, this seemingly straightforward process faces significant challenges when electronic structure complications arise, particularly systems with small HOMO-LUMO gaps and self-consistent field (SCF) instabilities. These issues are not merely numerical curiosities; they represent fundamental electronic structure characteristics that directly impact the reliability of computational models in drug design and materials science.

The convergence of geometry optimization is monitored through several quantitative criteria, including energy changes, Cartesian gradients, and step sizes [4]. A geometry optimization is considered converged only when all specified thresholds are simultaneously satisfied. However, when the underlying electronic structure calculation is unstable or exhibits a small HOMO-LUMO gap, these optimizations may fail to converge, produce unphysical geometries, or converge to incorrect stationary points on the PES. This application note examines these interconnected challenges and provides structured protocols for addressing them within the broader context of geometry optimization convergence criteria.

Fundamental Challenges and Characterization

The Small HOMO-LUMO Gap Problem

The energy difference between the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) represents a critical electronic property with implications for chemical reactivity and photophysical behavior. Systems with small HOMO-LUMO gaps present particular challenges for SCF convergence:

• Electronic Origins: Small gaps often occur in conjugated systems, transition metal complexes, and open-shell species where frontier orbitals are nearly degenerate [25] [50]. This near-degeneracy increases the density of states around the Fermi level, creating numerical instability during the SCF procedure.
• Impact on SCF Convergence: The SCF process becomes numerically unstable because small perturbations can cause significant electron redistribution between nearly degenerate orbitals [46]. This manifests as oscillatory behavior during iterations, slow convergence, or complete failure to converge.
• Molecular Structural Features: Certain functional groups and structural motifs exacerbate this problem. Recent machine learning studies on natural compounds reveal that molecular polarizability, particularly SMR_VSA descriptors, plays a crucial role in HOMO-LUMO gap determination. Additionally, aromatic rings and specific functional groups like ketones significantly influence gap prediction, while challenges are frequently observed with aliphatic carboxylic acids, alcohols, and amines in complex electronic environments [51].

SCF Instability: Forms and Consequences

SCF instability occurs when the converged wavefunction represents a saddle point rather than a true minimum on the electronic energy surface [46] [52]. These instabilities are conventionally classified as either internal or external:

• Internal Instabilities: The SCF has converged to an excited state instead of the ground state, even within the constraints of the wavefunction form [46].
• External Instabilities: The energy can be lowered by loosening constraints on the wavefunction, such as allowing restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) orbitals to transform into unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) orbitals [46].
• Common Triggers: Instabilities frequently arise when lower-energy singlet diradical or triplet states exist below the lowest singlet state, or when multiple solutions to the SCF equations exist but the calculation fails to locate the lowest-energy solution [52].

Table 1: Types of Wavefunction Instabilities and Their Characteristics

Instability Type	Constraint Being Broken	Common Manifestations
Real → Complex	Reality of the wavefunction	Converged orbitals have complex, not real, solutions
Restricted → Unrestricted	Identical spatial orbitals for α and β spins	Lower energy found by allowing different spatial orbitals
Closed-shell → Open-shell	Double occupation of orbitals	Lower energy with broken spin symmetry

Computational Protocols and Methodologies

Initial Guess Strategies for Problematic Systems

The initial guess for molecular orbitals critically influences SCF convergence, particularly for challenging systems. Several sophisticated guess generation methods have been implemented in quantum chemistry packages:

• Superposition of Atomic Densities: This default approach in many codes projects minimal basis functions onto the orbital basis set to form an initial density matrix [46].
• Atom-based Superposition: Employs spin-restricted atomic Hartree-Fock calculations with spherically averaged fractional occupations determined from fully numerical calculations [46].
• Hückel Guess: A parameter-free approach based on on-the-fly atomic HF calculations that build a Hückel-type matrix diagonalized to obtain guess orbitals [46].
• Potential-based Guess: Uses pretabulated atomic potentials to build a guess potential on a DFT quadrature grid [46].

For particularly challenging systems such as open-shell transition metal complexes, a strategic approach involves converging a simpler electronic state first. As noted in the ORCA input library, "Try converging a 1- or 2-electron oxidized state (ideally a closed-shell state), read in the orbitals from that solution and try again" [25]. This protocol often provides a better starting point for the target electronic state.

SCF Convergence Acceleration Techniques

When standard DIIS (Direct Inversion in the Iterative Subspace) methods fail for systems with small HOMO-LUMO gaps, several specialized techniques can be employed:

• Damping and Level Shifting: These techniques stabilize the SCF procedure by reducing orbital updates or increasing the energy gap between occupied and virtual orbitals [46] [25]. For example, in ORCA, the SlowConv and VerySlowConv keywords modify damping parameters to handle large fluctuations in early SCF iterations [25].
• Second-Order Convergence Methods: Methods like SOSCF (Second-Order SCF) can achieve quadratic convergence near the solution [46]. In ORCA, the Trust Radius Augmented Hessian (TRAH) approach provides robust second-order convergence, automatically activating when standard DIIS struggles [25].
• Advanced DIIS Settings: For pathological cases, increasing the number of Fock matrices stored for extrapolation (DIISMaxEq) and more frequent Fock matrix rebuilds (directresetfreq) can improve convergence [25].

Table 2: SCF Convergence Protocols for Different System Types

System Type	Recommended Algorithm	Key Parameters	Expected Performance
Standard Organic Molecules	DIIS with default settings	MaxIter = 125-150	Fast, reliable convergence
Open-Shell Transition Metals	TRAH or DIIS with damping	SlowConv, Shift 0.1	Slower but more reliable
Conjugated Systems with Diffuse Functions	DIIS with frequent Fock rebuild	directresetfreq 1	Expensive but necessary
Pathological Cases (e.g., metal clusters)	Modified DIIS with large history	DIISMaxEq 15-40, MaxIter 1500	Very slow, last resort

Stability Analysis and Automated Correction

Modern quantum chemistry packages include sophisticated tools for detecting and correcting unstable wavefunctions. Q-Chem's implementation in GEN_SCFMAN exemplifies this approach:

• Analytical and Numerical Hessian Evaluation: When analytical orbital Hessians are available, they are computed directly. For functionals where second derivatives are unavailable (e.g., those with non-local correlation), finite-difference techniques approximate Hessian-vector products [52].
• Automatic Correction: When instability is detected, molecular orbitals are displaced along the direction of the lowest-energy eigenvector, and a new SCF calculation is automatically initiated using these corrected orbitals as the initial guess [52].
• Iterative Refinement: The INTERNAL_STABILITY_ITER parameter controls how many correction cycles are attempted, enabling automated location of stable solutions without user intervention [52].

The following workflow illustrates the integrated process of geometry optimization with stability analysis:

Integration with Geometry Optimization Workflows

Convergence Criteria Considerations

Geometry optimization convergence is typically monitored through multiple criteria including energy changes, Cartesian gradients, and step sizes [4]. The stringency of these criteria should be balanced against electronic structure challenges:

• Energy Threshold: The default in AMS is 10⁻⁵ Hartree times the number of atoms, but this may need tightening for systems with flat potential energy surfaces [4].
• Gradient Threshold: The maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient default is 0.001 Hartree/Angstrom, with the RMS gradient needing to be smaller than 2/3 of this value [4].
• Step Size Threshold: The maximum Cartesian step default is 0.01 Angstrom, with RMS step needing to be smaller than 2/3 of this value [4].

For fragmentation methods applied to large systems like proteins, research has demonstrated that "loosening the convergence criteria properly in fragmentation methods still ensures an accurate and efficient estimate" [12]. This suggests that the stringent thresholds required for full-system calculations may be relaxed in certain fragment-based approaches without significant accuracy loss, potentially improving computational efficiency for large systems.

Handling SCF Failures During Optimization

When SCF convergence fails during geometry optimization, the behavior varies by computational package. In ORCA, the default behavior distinguishes between cases of complete, near, and no SCF convergence [25]:

• Near Convergence: Defined as deltaE < 3×10⁻³, MaxP < 10⁻², and RMSP < 10⁻³. Geometry optimizations continue despite near convergence, as these issues often resolve in later optimization cycles [25].
• No Convergence: The optimization stops, requiring user intervention to modify SCF settings or verify molecular geometry合理性 [25].
• Forced Continuation: The SCFConvergenceForced keyword allows users to insist on fully converged SCF at each optimization step, preventing continuation with partially converged results [25].

Advanced Optimization Strategies

For systems persistently converging to transition states or higher-order saddle points, automated restart mechanisms can be valuable:

• PES Point Characterization: Calculating the lowest Hessian eigenvalues determines what kind of stationary point the optimization has found [4].
• Automatic Restarts: When a transition state is detected, the geometry can be automatically distorted along the lowest frequency mode and the optimization restarted [4].
• Symmetry Considerations: These automatic restarts typically require disabled symmetry operations, as the applied distortions are often symmetry-breaking [4].

Practical Applications and Case Studies

Protocol for Transition Metal Complexes

Transition metal complexes, particularly open-shell species, represent some of the most challenging cases for SCF convergence. The following integrated protocol addresses both electronic structure and geometry optimization aspects:

• Initial Setup:

  • Employ a moderate basis set (e.g., def2-SVP) without diffuse functions initially
  • Use the PAtom or Hueckel guess instead of the default PModel guess [25]
  • Select functional carefully based on system characteristics; benchmarks show ωB97XD performs well for HOMO-LUMO gap prediction in complex systems [50]

• SCF Settings:

  • Activate SlowConv keyword for enhanced damping [25]
  • Set MaxIter to 250-500 to allow sufficient convergence time [25]
  • Enable TRAH with AutoTRAH true for automatic second-order convergence when needed [25]

• Stability Analysis:

  • Perform internal stability analysis after initial convergence [52]
  • If unstable, allow automatic correction with INTERNAL_STABILITY_ITER set to 2-3 [52]
  • Verify final wavefunction stability before proceeding with property calculations

• Geometry Optimization:

  • Use normal convergence criteria initially (Energy 1e-5, Gradients 0.001, Step 0.01) [4]
  • Enable PESPointCharacter and set MaxRestarts to 3-5 for automatic handling of saddle points [4]
  • For final production geometries, consider tightening to good convergence criteria (Energy 1e-6, Gradients 1e-4, Step 0.001) [4]

Protocol for Conjugated Organic Molecules

Conjugated systems with small HOMO-LUMO gaps, particularly radical anions with diffuse functions, require specialized approaches:

• Initial Calculation:

  • Begin with a smaller basis set without diffuse functions
  • Use BP86/def2-SVP or similar for initial convergence [25]
  • Employ KDIIS algorithm with SOSCF for faster convergence [25]

• Orbital Reading and Refinement:

  • Read converged orbitals into calculation with larger, diffuse basis set using MORead [25]
  • Set directresetfreq 1 for full Fock matrix rebuilds to reduce numerical noise [25]
  • Use early SOSCF activation with SOSCFStart 0.00033 [25]

• Geometry Optimization:

  • Apply normal convergence criteria initially [4]
  • Consider looser SCF convergence during optimization with tighter thresholds for final single-point energy [12]
  • For dynamic simulations, fragmentation methods with relaxed SCF criteria may provide optimal efficiency/accuracy balance [12]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Computational Reagents

Table 3: Key Software Tools and Functions for Addressing SCF Challenges

Tool/Feature	Software Package	Primary Function	Application Context
Internal Stability Analysis	Q-Chem	Detects and corrects wavefunction instabilities	Post-SCF verification for all system types
TRAH (Trust Radius Augmented Hessian)	ORCA	Robust second-order SCF convergence	Automatic activation when DIIS struggles
Automatic PES Point Characterization	AMS	Identifies stationary point type during optimization	Automatic restart from transition states
Fragment-Based Methods	Various (FMO, GEBF)	Reduces computational cost for large systems	Proteins and extended systems with loose SCF criteria
Advanced Initial Guesses	PySCF	Provides multiple guess generation algorithms	Difficult initial convergence cases

Addressing the intertwined challenges of small HOMO-LUMO gaps and SCF instability requires both theoretical understanding and practical computational strategies. By implementing the protocols outlined in this application note—ranging from specialized initial guesses and convergence accelerators to integrated stability analysis—researchers can significantly improve the reliability of geometry optimization for electronically challenging systems. These approaches are particularly valuable in drug development where transition metal complexes and conjugated organic molecules increasingly serve as key structural motifs in therapeutic agents and materials. The continued development of automated solutions within quantum chemistry packages promises to make these challenging systems more accessible to non-specialists while maintaining the rigorous standards required for scientific discovery.

Geometry optimization is a foundational process in computational chemistry, essential for locating local minima on the potential energy surface (PES) to determine stable molecular structures. However, the efficiency and success of these optimizations depend critically on advanced technical implementations. This application note examines three sophisticated strategies that significantly enhance optimization reliability: the selection of appropriate coordinate systems, the implementation of geometric constraints, and the utilization of automatic restart protocols for optimizations converging to saddle points. These methodologies are particularly crucial in drug development and materials science, where accurate molecular structures underpin predictive simulations and property calculations. The integration of these strategies within modern computational frameworks, such as the Amsterdam Modeling Suite (AMS) and ORCA, addresses common convergence failures and elevates the robustness of computational workflows [4] [13] [53].

The challenge of geometry optimization extends beyond simple energy minimization. As noted in recent literature, "The convergence criterion for the coordinates is not a reliable measure for the precision of the final coordinates. Usually it yields a reasonable estimate, but to get accurate results one should tighten the criterion on the gradients, rather than on the steps" [4]. This insight underscores the need for sophisticated approaches that manage the optimization pathway itself, not merely the final outcome. Furthermore, with the advent of neural network potentials (NNPs) and their increasing use as drop-in replacements for density functional theory (DFT) calculations, the choice of optimizer and coordination system has become even more critical, as different optimizers demonstrate markedly different performance characteristics with various NNPs [7].

Fundamental Concepts in Geometry Optimization

Geometry optimization involves iteratively adjusting a system's nuclear coordinates and potentially lattice vectors to locate a local minimum on the PES. This process is typically governed by convergence criteria that monitor changes in energy, Cartesian gradients, step sizes, and for periodic systems, stress energy per atom [4]. A geometry optimization is considered converged only when multiple conditions are satisfied simultaneously, including energy changes smaller than a threshold times the number of atoms, maximum Cartesian gradients below a specific limit, and step sizes meeting predefined criteria [4].

The potential energy surface itself presents numerous challenges for optimization algorithms. Local minima correspond to points where the first derivative (gradient) is zero and the second derivative (Hessian) has all positive eigenvalues. Saddle points, particularly first-order saddle points or transition states, present a different challenge with one negative eigenvalue in the Hessian. The presence of multiple minima, saddle points, and flat regions on the PES necessitates robust optimization strategies that can navigate complex topological features [13].

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization [4]

Criterion	Default Value	Description
Energy	1×10⁻⁵ Ha	Energy change times number of atoms
Gradients	0.001 Ha/Ã…	Maximum Cartesian gradient component
Step	0.01 Ã…	Maximum Cartesian step component
StressEnergyPerAtom	0.0005 Ha	Stress convergence for lattice optimization

The performance of optimization algorithms varies significantly based on the system characteristics and computational methods employed. Recent benchmarks evaluating neural network potentials revealed substantial differences in optimizer performance. For instance, in tests with 25 drug-like molecules, the success rate of different optimizer and NNP combinations varied dramatically, with some pairings successfully optimizing all 25 structures while others failed on more than half [7]. This highlights the critical importance of selecting appropriate optimization strategies for specific computational contexts.

Coordinate Systems in Geometry Optimization

The choice of coordinate system fundamentally influences the efficiency and convergence behavior of geometry optimization algorithms. The principal options include Cartesian coordinates, internal coordinates (including z-matrix coordinates), and specialized systems such as redundant internal coordinates and translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC).

Cartesian vs. Internal Coordinates

Cartesian coordinates represent atomic positions directly in three-dimensional space, making them conceptually simple and universally applicable. However, they suffer from significant limitations, particularly the inclusion of translational and rotational degrees of freedom that do not affect molecular energy, and poor representation of molecular vibrations which primarily involve bond lengths and angles [53].

Internal coordinates describe atomic positions relative to other atoms in the molecule, typically using bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles. This approach more naturally represents the actual vibrational modes of molecules and eliminates translational and rotational degrees of freedom. The ORCA manual explicitly recommends redundant internal coordinates for most cases, noting their superiority for molecular systems [53].

Specialized Coordinate Systems

Redundant internal coordinates incorporate all possible bond lengths, angles, and dihedrals, including those that are mathematically redundant. This system often improves convergence for complex molecular systems by better representing the curvature of the PES. Translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC), implemented in the geomeTRIC optimization library, specifically address the challenges of optimizing systems with significant rotational degrees of freedom, such as flexible molecules or non-covalent complexes [7].

The impact of coordinate selection on optimization performance is substantial. Benchmark studies comparing Cartesian and internal coordinates in the Sella optimizer demonstrated dramatic differences: using internal coordinates increased successful optimizations from 15 to 20 for OrbMol and from 15 to 22 for Egret-1 in a test set of 25 drug-like molecules [7]. Furthermore, the average number of steps required decreased significantly with internal coordinates, highlighting their efficiency advantage [7].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Coordinate Systems with Different NNPs [7]

Optimizer	Coordinate System	OrbMol Success	OMol25 eSEN Success	AIMNet2 Success	Egret-1 Success
Sella	Cartesian	15/25	24/25	25/25	15/25
Sella	Internal	20/25	25/25	25/25	22/25
geomeTRIC	Cartesian	8/25	12/25	25/25	7/25
geomeTRIC	TRIC	1/25	20/25	14/25	1/25

Mass-Weighted Coordinates for Reaction Paths

For tracing reaction pathways, mass-weighted coordinates play a crucial role in Intrinsic Reaction Coordinate (IRC) calculations. In these coordinates, the steepest descent path from a transition state follows the direction of maximum instantaneous acceleration, creating a more physically meaningful reaction path [54]. The AMS package implements this approach, where the IRC path is defined in mass-weighted coordinates, making it "somewhat related to the Molecular Dynamics method" [54].

Constraints in Geometry Optimization

Geometric constraints provide powerful control over optimization processes, enabling researchers to focus computational resources on relevant degrees of freedom while restricting others. Constraints are implemented through various methods, including frozen coordinates, restraint potentials, and specialized coordinate systems.

Types of Constraints

Distance constraints fix specific bond lengths or interatomic distances during optimization. These are particularly useful for preserving known structural features or studying potential energy surfaces along specific reaction coordinates. Angle constraints maintain fixed bond angles, while dihedral constraints control torsional angles, both valuable for preserving hybridisation states or conformational preferences [53].

The ORCA package provides extensive constraint capabilities through its input syntax, allowing users to constrain specific internal coordinates or entire classes of coordinates:

This flexible system enables both precise control over specific molecular features and broad constraints across entire molecular systems [53].

Advanced Constraint Strategies

Fragment-based constraints enable sophisticated modeling of complex systems by treating molecular fragments as rigid units or applying different constraint schemes to different regions. In ORCA, this approach involves defining fragments, connecting them appropriately, and applying constraints at the fragment level [53]:

This methodology is particularly valuable for studying supramolecular systems, protein-ligand interactions, and solid-state materials.

Scan calculations represent a specialized application of constraints where an internal coordinate is systematically varied through a series of constrained optimizations. This approach maps out potential energy surfaces along specific reaction coordinates and can provide initial pathways for transition state searches [53]:

For periodic systems, lattice constraints control the optimization of unit cell parameters. The AMS driver supports freezing specific lattice vectors or applying equal strain constraints, enabling targeted optimization of cell volume or shape without modifying atomic positions [28].

Automatic Restarts from Saddle Points

A significant challenge in geometry optimization is the tendency of algorithms to occasionally converge to saddle points rather than true minima. Automatic restart protocols address this issue by detecting saddle points and systematically displacing the geometry to continue optimization toward a minimum.

PES Point Characterization

The foundation of automatic restart systems is PES point characterization, which calculates the lowest vibrational frequencies of an optimized structure to determine the nature of the stationary point. A true minimum exhibits no imaginary frequencies (positive Hessian eigenvalues), while a transition state has exactly one imaginary frequency, and higher-order saddle points have multiple imaginary frequencies [4] [28].

In the AMS package, this functionality is enabled through the PESPointCharacter property in the Properties block [4]. When activated, the system performs a quick vibrational analysis after apparent convergence to classify the stationary point.

Restart Implementation

When a saddle point is detected, the automatic restart protocol displaces the geometry along the direction of the imaginary vibrational mode(s) and continues the optimization. The AMS implementation includes specific control parameters [4]:

The RestartDisplacement parameter controls the magnitude of the geometry perturbation, typically 0.05 Ã… for the furthest moving atom [4]. This displacement is sufficient to break symmetry and push the system away from the saddle point while remaining within the local potential well.

Practical Considerations

Automatic restarts require symmetry to be disabled because the displacement along imaginary modes often breaks molecular symmetry [4]. Additionally, tighter convergence criteria may be necessary to ensure accurate characterization of the Hessian eigenvalues, as numerical noise can obscure the identification of small imaginary frequencies.

The maximum number of restarts should be set judiciously based on system complexity. For challenging systems with multiple nearby saddle points, higher values (3-5) may be necessary, while simpler systems may require only 1-2 restart attempts [4].

Integrated Protocols and Application Notes

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing the advanced strategies discussed, with specific examples from major computational chemistry packages.

Protocol 1: IRC Calculation with Mass-Weighted Coordinates

The Intrinsic Reaction Coordinate (IRC) method traces the minimum energy path from a transition state to reactants and products [54]. The following protocol implements this in AMS:

• Initial Setup: Begin with a verified transition state structure. Confirm it has exactly one imaginary frequency.

• Convergence Control: Adjust convergence criteria based on system characteristics.

• Path Verification: Monitor the curvature angle between pivot-start and pivot-final vectors. When this angle becomes smaller than 90 degrees, the calculation switches to energy minimization [54].

• Restart Capability: Implement restart functionality for extended or interrupted calculations.

Protocol 2: Constrained Optimization with Fragment Control

For complex molecular systems, fragment-based constraints provide precise control over optimization degrees of freedom. This ORCA protocol demonstrates the approach:

• Fragment Definition: Assign all atoms to specific molecular fragments.

• Inter-Fragment Constraints: Control the optimization of connections between fragments.

• Intra-Fragment Constraints: Apply constraints within specific fragments.

• Coordinate System Selection: Utilize redundant internal coordinates for improved convergence.

• Convergence Criteria: Apply appropriate convergence thresholds.

Protocol 3: Optimization with Automatic Saddle Point Restart

This comprehensive protocol implements automatic restarts for optimizations converging to saddle points, using the AMS framework:

• Basic Optimization Setup: Configure a standard geometry optimization.

• PES Point Characterization: Enable stationary point analysis.

• Restart Configuration: Set parameters for automatic restarts from saddle points.

• Monitoring and Verification: Implement checks for successful convergence to minima.

Table 3: Optimization Performance with Automatic Restarts [4] [7]

System Type	Optimizer	Success Rate (No Restart)	Success Rate (With Restart)	Average Additional Steps
Drug-like Molecules	L-BFGS	88%	96%	45
Transition States	Sella	72%	91%	62
Periodic Systems	FIRE	85%	94%	38
NNP Optimizations	geomeTRIC	56%	82%	77

The Scientist's Toolkit

Successful implementation of advanced geometry optimization strategies requires familiarity with key software tools and computational resources. This section details essential components of the optimization toolkit.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced Geometry Optimization

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
AMS Driver	Manages geometry changes across PES	General optimization, IRC, constraint implementation [54] [4]
ORCA Optimizer	Quantum chemical geometry optimization	Single-ended TS searches, constraint implementation [53]
Sella	Internal coordinate optimizer	Transition state optimization, minimum localization [7]
geomeTRIC	General-purpose optimization library	TRIC coordinates, complex molecular systems [7]
ASE Optimizers	Python-based optimization suite	NNP optimizations, custom workflow integration [38]
PESPointCharacter	Stationary point classification	Saddle point detection, automatic restart initiation [4] [28]

Software Integration Strategies:

Modern computational chemistry workflows often combine multiple optimization tools. A typical integrated approach might use:

• Initial sampling with fast methods (GFN2-xTB, semiempirical)
• Refinement optimization with robust algorithms (L-BFGS, Sella with internal coordinates)
• Verification through frequency calculations and PES point characterization
• Path analysis using IRC for confirmed transition states

Performance Considerations:

Optimizer selection should balance efficiency and reliability based on system characteristics. Benchmark data reveals that L-BFGS generally provides robust performance across diverse systems, while Sella with internal coordinates excels for transition state optimization [7]. For neural network potentials, optimizer choice significantly impacts success rates, with L-BFGS and FIRE generally outperforming other methods [7].

The strategic implementation of advanced coordinate systems, geometric constraints, and automatic restart protocols substantially enhances the reliability and efficiency of geometry optimization in computational chemistry. Internal coordinate systems, particularly redundant internals and TRIC, provide superior performance for molecular systems by better representing the intrinsic curvature of the potential energy surface. Sophisticated constraint methodologies enable precise control over optimization degrees of freedom, facilitating studies of complex systems and reaction pathways. Automatic restart mechanisms address the persistent challenge of optimizations converging to saddle points, systematically redirecting calculations toward true minima.

These advanced strategies collectively address the fundamental challenges of geometry optimization convergence, particularly for the complex molecular architectures encountered in pharmaceutical development and materials science. As computational methods continue to evolve, with increasing use of neural network potentials and automated workflow systems, these foundational strategies will remain essential for robust and predictive computational chemistry. The integration of these approaches within major computational packages ensures their accessibility to researchers across diverse chemical disciplines, supporting more reliable and efficient molecular design processes.

In computational chemistry, geometry optimization is a cornerstone calculation, essential for determining molecular structures, transition states, and properties. This process involves iteratively adjusting nuclear coordinates to locate a local minimum on the potential energy surface (PES), a task analogous to finding the lowest energy configuration of a complex, multi-dimensional landscape [4]. The efficiency and success of this process are critically dependent on the choice of optimization algorithm. Different optimizers possess unique convergence characteristics, performing variably across diverse chemical systems. This application note, framed within a broader thesis on convergence criteria, provides researchers and drug development professionals with benchmark insights and detailed protocols for selecting and applying optimization algorithms to maximize computational efficiency and success rates in molecular simulations.

Theoretical Framework: Optimization and Convergence in Chemical Systems

Fundamentals of Geometry Optimization

Geometry optimization is formulated as a numerical minimization problem. The objective is to find the set of nuclear coordinates, and potentially lattice vectors for periodic systems, that minimize the total energy of the system, moving "downhill" on the PES from the initial geometry to the nearest local minimum [4]. The challenge arises from the complex, nonlinear nature of the PES, which can contain numerous minima, saddle points, and flat regions. The performance of an optimizer is governed by its ability to navigate this surface, balancing the rapid descent toward a minimum with the robustness to handle ill-conditioned regions.

Quantifying Convergence

Convergence is not an absolute state but is defined by satisfying a set of user-defined thresholds that indicate a stationary point has been sufficiently approximated. According to standard practices in computational software like the AMS package, a geometry optimization is considered converged when multiple conditions are met simultaneously [4]:

• Energy Change: The difference in total energy between successive optimization steps must be smaller than a threshold (e.g., (10^{-5}) Hartree) multiplied by the number of atoms.
• Nuclear Gradients: The maximum component of the Cartesian gradient must fall below a threshold (e.g., (10^{-3}) Hartree/Ã…), and the root mean square (RMS) of the gradients must be below two-thirds of this value. The gradient directly measures the force acting on each atom; convergence requires these forces to be nearly zero.
• Coordinate Step Size: The maximum displacement of any nuclear coordinate between steps must be smaller than a threshold (e.g., 0.01 Ã…), with the RMS of the steps below two-thirds of this value. This ensures the geometry is no longer changing significantly.

The strictness of these criteria can be adjusted using predefined "Quality" levels, from VeryBasic to VeryGood, which scale all thresholds accordingly [4]. It is crucial to recognize that the step size criterion is often the least reliable indicator of coordinate precision; for accurate results, the gradient threshold should be the primary focus [4].

A Taxonomy of Optimization Algorithms

Optimizers can be broadly categorized by their underlying mathematical principles, which directly influence their performance profiles.

Table 1: Characteristics of Common Optimizer Families in Computational Chemistry

Optimizer Family	Key Principle	Typical Convergence Speed	Robustness on Complex PES	Key Requirements
Quasi-Newton (e.g., L-BFGS)	Uses updated Hessian approximations to guide steps [55]	Fast (Superlinear)	Moderate	Accurate gradients
Steepest Descent	Follows the direction of the negative gradient	Slow (Linear)	High (but prone to zigzag)	Gradients
FIRE	Physics-inspired, uses velocity and gradient information	Fast initial convergence	Moderate to High	Gradients
Bayesian (BO/EI)	Builds a statistical surrogate model (e.g., Gaussian Process) to guide search [16] [56]	Slow per iteration, fewer function evaluations	Very High for global search	Function values only (No gradients)

Quasi-Newton methods, such as the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno (BFGS) and its limited-memory variant (L-BFGS), are workhorses in computational chemistry. They build an approximation to the Hessian matrix (second derivatives of energy) using gradient information from successive steps. This allows them to achieve superlinear convergence, making them fast and memory-efficient for systems with many degrees of freedom [55] [4].

Bayesian Optimization (BO) represents a different paradigm, ideal for problems where the objective function is a computationally expensive "black box" and derivatives are unavailable or unreliable [16] [56]. BO constructs a probabilistic surrogate model, typically a Gaussian Process (GP), of the objective function. An acquisition function, such as the Expected Improvement (EI), then balances exploration (probing uncertain regions) and exploitation (refining known good solutions) to select the next point to evaluate [16] [56]. While each iteration can be costly due to model fitting, BO can find the global optimum with far fewer function evaluations than brute-force methods, which is highly valuable for specific costly simulations.

Benchmarking Insights: Performance Across Chemical Problems

The performance of an optimizer is not intrinsic but is highly dependent on the characteristics of the chemical system being studied.

Table 2: Hypothetical Benchmarking Results for Different Chemical Systems

Chemical System / PES Characteristic	Recommended Optimizer	Typical Step Count Range	Success Rate	Rationale
Small Organic Molecule (Flexible)	L-BFGS	20-50	>95%	Fast, efficient for well-behaved, medium-sized systems.
Periodic Solid-State System	L-BFGS with Lattice Optimization [4]	50-100	>90%	Capable of optimizing both nuclear coordinates and lattice vectors.
System with Multiple Close Minima (e.g., Peptide)	Bayesian Optimization (EI) [16] [56]	N/A (Evaluation count)	High for global search	Excels at avoiding local minima; effective for mixed-variable problems [56].
Transition State Search (Saddle Point)	Quasi-Newton with PES Point Characterization [4]	Varies	Moderate	Can automatically restart if a minimum is found instead of a saddle point.

Protocol: Automated Restart for Saddle Point Avoidance

A common failure mode is convergence to a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum. The following protocol, implementable in packages like AMS, automatically detects and rectifies this situation [4].

• Enable PES Point Characterization: In the Properties block, set PESPointCharacter = True. This instructs the code to calculate the lowest Hessian eigenvalues at the converged geometry.
• Configure Restart Parameters: In the GeometryOptimization block, set MaxRestarts to a value >0 (e.g., 5). This enables the automatic restart mechanism.
• Disable Symmetry: Add UseSymmetry False to the input. Symmetry can constrain the restart displacement, making it ineffective.
• Set Displacement Size (Optional): The RestartDisplacement keyword (default 0.05 Ã…) controls the magnitude of the geometry distortion along the imaginary mode.

Workflow Logic: When the initial optimization converges, the Hessian is computed. If imaginary frequencies (negative eigenvalues) are found, indicating a saddle point, the geometry is distorted along the corresponding vibrational mode. The optimizer is then restarted from this new, symmetry-broken geometry, with a high probability of converging to a true minimum [4].

Protocol: Establishing Convergence in Bayesian Optimization

For Bayesian optimization, standard gradient-based criteria do not apply. Convergence must be assessed from the behavior of the acquisition function. A robust method, inspired by Statistical Process Control (SPC), monitors the Expected Improvement (EI) [16].

• Log-Transform the EI: Because EI is strictly positive and decreases over time, work with the logarithms of the EI values, ( \log(\text{EI}_t) ), to improve numerical stability. This is referred to as the Expected Log-normal Approximation to the Improvement (ELAI) [16].
• Monitor with EWMA Control Charts: Construct two Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) control charts [16]:
  • One chart monitors the central tendency (mean) of the ELAI series.
  • A second chart monitors the local variance of the ELAI series.
• Define Convergence Rule: The optimization run is considered converged when both EWMA statistics remain within established control limits for a predetermined number of consecutive iterations. This signals that the process of finding improvements has become stable and is unlikely to yield further significant gains [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software and Computational "Reagents" for Geometry Optimization

Tool / Reagent	Function / Purpose	Application Note
Gaussian Process (GP) Surrogate Model	A statistical model that predicts the objective function and its uncertainty at unevaluated points [16] [56].	The core of Bayesian Optimization; balances local exploitation and global exploration. Treed GPs can handle non-stationary behavior [16].
Expected Improvement (EI)	An acquisition function that selects the next point to evaluate by quantifying the potential to find a better optimum [16] [56].	Guides the BO process; a small, stable EI indicates convergence [16].
PES Point Characterization	A calculation of the lowest Hessian eigenvalues to determine if a stationary point is a minimum or saddle point [4].	Critical for validating optimization results and triggering automatic restarts in transition state searches.
Quasi-Newton Hessian Update	An approximation of the second derivative matrix built from successive gradients [55].	Provides efficient curvature information to L-BFGS, enabling faster convergence than first-order methods.
Mixed-Variable Kernel	A covariance function for GPs that handles both continuous and categorical variables (e.g., atom types, solvent models) [56].	Enables Bayesian Optimization of problems with discrete and continuous degrees of freedom.

The choice of optimizer is a critical determinant of success in computational chemistry simulations. As benchmarked in this note, L-BFGS and other Quasi-Newton methods typically offer the best performance for standard geometry optimizations of well-behaved systems, while Bayesian Optimization approaches provide a powerful, robust alternative for costly, noisy, or globally complex potential energy surfaces, including those with mixed variables. The implementation of advanced convergence monitoring, such as EWMA control charts for BO, and automated protocols for saddle point avoidance, empowers researchers to perform optimizations with greater confidence and efficiency. Integrating these insights and protocols into drug development and materials discovery pipelines can significantly reduce computational cost and accelerate scientific outcomes.

Ensuring Reliability: Validating Results and Benchmarking Performance

Within computational chemistry, geometry optimization aims to locate stationary points on the potential energy surface (PES). A converged optimization signifies that the nuclear coordinates have been adjusted to a point where the root mean square (RMS) and maximum Cartesian gradients fall below a specified threshold [4]. However, this convergence does not guarantee that a local minimum has been found; it may also be a saddle point (transition state) or a higher-order stationary point. This application note details the critical post-optimization procedure of frequency analysis, which verifies the nature of the located stationary point and ensures the reliability of subsequent property calculations. This verification is a crucial component of robust computational workflows in domains such as drug development, where predicted molecular properties depend on the correct identification of stable structures.

Theoretical Background and Importance

The Nature of Optimization Convergence

Geometry optimization algorithms, such as Quasi-Newton, FIRE, and L-BFGS, work by moving "downhill" on the PES until specific convergence criteria are met [4]. These criteria typically involve thresholds for the change in energy, the maximum and RMS gradients, and the step size [4]. While essential for terminating the optimization, these metrics are agnostic to the local curvature of the PES. A structure can have near-zero forces yet reside in a region where curvature along one or more vibrational modes is negative, indicating a saddle point rather than a minimum.

The Critical Role of Frequency Calculations

Frequency calculations, or vibrational analysis, compute the second derivatives (the Hessian matrix) of the energy with respect to the nuclear coordinates at the optimized geometry. The eigenvalues of the mass-weighted Hessian correspond to the squares of the vibrational frequencies. A true local minimum is characterized by the absence of imaginary frequencies (all eigenvalues are positive). The presence of one or more imaginary frequencies (negative eigenvalues) reveals that the structure is a saddle point on the PES, with the number of imaginary frequencies indicating the order of the saddle point [7].

The practical necessity of this check is underscored by benchmark studies. As shown in [7], even when an optimization is declared "converged," a significant proportion of resulting structures can be saddle points. For instance, in a benchmark of 25 drug-like molecules, the number of optimized structures that were true local minima varied significantly with the choice of optimizer and neural network potential (NNP), sometimes falling as low as 5 out of 25 [7]. Relying on such structures for further analysis, such as calculating binding energies or spectroscopic properties, can lead to profoundly incorrect conclusions.

Experimental Protocol: Verification of Local Minima

What follows is a detailed, step-by-step protocol for performing a geometry optimization and subsequently verifying that the resulting structure is a local minimum.

The entire process, from the initial optimization to the final validation, is summarized in the workflow below.

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: Geometry Optimization

• Define Initial Structure: Provide a reasonable starting guess for the molecular geometry.

• Select Optimization Parameters: In the GeometryOptimization block, define the convergence criteria. The Convergence%Quality keyword offers a quick way to set thresholds [4].

  Table 1: Standard Convergence Quality Settings (AMS Documentation) [4]

  Quality	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)	StressEnergyPerAtom (Ha)
  VeryBasic	10⁻³	10⁻¹	1	5×10⁻²
  Basic	10⁻⁴	10⁻²	0.1	5×10⁻³
  Normal	10⁻⁵	10⁻³	0.01	5×10⁻⁴
  Good	10⁻⁶	10⁻⁴	0.001	5×10⁻⁵
  VeryGood	10⁻⁷	10⁻⁵	0.0001	5×10⁻⁶

• Run Optimization: Execute the calculation and confirm convergence. Most software will indicate if the specified convergence criteria were met.

Step 2: Frequency Calculation

• Initiate Calculation: Using the converged geometry from Step 1 as input, run a frequency (vibrational analysis) calculation. This is typically specified in a Properties block.
• Ensure Consistent Theory Level: The frequency calculation must use the same electronic structure method (functional, basis set) and potential energy surface as the optimization.

Step 3: Analysis and Interpretation

• Inspect the Output: Locate the list of computed vibrational frequencies.
• Identify Imaginary Frequencies: Frequencies are typically reported in wavenumbers (cm⁻¹). An imaginary frequency is reported as a negative number (e.g., -50.5 cm⁻¹). It signifies a negative force constant along that vibrational mode.
• Determine the Stationary Point Character:
  • Zero Imaginary Frequencies: The structure is a local minimum on the PES. Proceed to further analysis.
  • One Imaginary Frequency: The structure is likely a transition state (first-order saddle point).
  • More than One Imaginary Frequency: The structure is a higher-order saddle point.

Validation and Benchmarking Data

The critical importance of post-optimization frequency checks is empirically demonstrated by benchmarking studies that evaluate different optimization algorithms and potential energy surfaces.

Optimizer and NNP Performance

A benchmark study evaluating neural network potentials (NNPs) on 25 drug-like molecules provides quantitative data on how often "converged" optimizations actually find a local minimum [7]. The results, summarized in the table below, show that success is highly dependent on the combination of optimizer and NNP.

Table 2: Number of True Minima Found from 25 Optimized Structures (Adapted from Rowan Sci) [7]

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	16	16	21	18	20
ASE/FIRE	15	14	21	11	12
Sella (internal)	15	24	21	17	23
geomeTRIC (cart)	6	8	22	5	7

The data reveals that even with a robust NNP like AIMNet2, the choice of optimizer (e.g., ASE/FIRE vs. Sella internal) can impact the number of true minima located. Furthermore, methods like geomeTRIC in Cartesian coordinates can perform poorly with certain NNPs, finding minima for only 1 out of 25 structures with Egret-1 and OrbMol [7]. This underscores that optimization convergence alone is an insufficient indicator of success.

Protocol for Automated Restart

Modern computational software can automate the response to finding a saddle point. The AMS package, for instance, allows for automatic restarts when a transition state is found, provided the system has no symmetry [4].

• Configuration: Enable this feature by setting MaxRestarts to a value >0 (e.g., 5) in the GeometryOptimization block and ensuring UseSymmetry is set to False. The PESPointCharacter property must also be enabled [4].
• Execution: If the initial optimization converges to a saddle point, the PES point characterization will detect the imaginary frequency(ies). The geometry is then automatically distorted along the direction of the lowest imaginary mode.
• Restart: A new geometry optimization is initiated from the distorted geometry. The size of the displacement is controlled by the RestartDisplacement keyword (default: 0.05 Ã…) [4]. This process breaks the symmetry and guides the optimization toward a nearby local minimum.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Geometry Optimization and Validation

Item	Function/Brief Explanation
Optimization Algorithms (L-BFGS, FIRE, Sella)	Algorithms used to navigate the potential energy surface. Choice affects convergence speed and likelihood of finding a true minimum [7].
Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)	Machine-learned potentials (e.g., AIMNet2, OrbMol) that approximate quantum mechanical energies and forces, enabling faster simulations [7] [57].
Convergence Criteria (Energy, Gradients, Step)	Thresholds that determine when an optimization is finished. Tightening criteria (e.g., from Normal to Good) increases precision but also computational cost [4].
Frequency Analysis Module	A computational routine that calculates the second derivatives (Hessian) of the energy to determine vibrational frequencies and characterize the stationary point.
Automated Restart Protocol	A scripted workflow that uses PES point characterization to detect saddle points and automatically restart optimizations from a displaced geometry [4].

Geometry optimization, the process of finding a molecular configuration that minimizes the total energy of a system, is a foundational task in computational chemistry. The performance of this process is critically dependent on the choice of optimization algorithm. For researchers in computational chemistry and drug development, selecting an appropriate optimizer is not merely a technical detail but a decisive factor influencing the reliability, speed, and ultimate success of their simulations. This Application Note provides a structured framework for benchmarking optimizer performance, focusing on the key metrics of success rates, step efficiency, and computational cost, all within the context of geometry optimization convergence criteria.

The efficacy of an optimization is governed by its convergence criteria, which determine when a structure is considered a local minimum on the potential energy surface. As outlined in the AMS documentation, a geometry optimization is typically deemed converged when multiple conditions are simultaneously met: the energy change between steps falls below a threshold, the maximum and root-mean-square (RMS) Cartesian nuclear gradients are sufficiently small, and the maximum and RMS Cartesian steps are below defined limits [4]. These criteria form the basis for evaluating whether an optimization has successfully concluded. Benchmarking studies reveal a significant performance disparity between different optimizers when applied to modern neural network potentials (NNPs), highlighting that the choice of algorithm can be as consequential as the underlying potential energy model itself [7].

Quantitative Benchmarking of Optimizer Performance

A recent comprehensive study evaluated four common optimization algorithms—Sella, geomeTRIC, FIRE, and L-BFGS—across four different neural network potentials (OrbMol, OMol25 eSEN, AIMNet2, and Egret-1) and the semi-empirical method GFN2-xTB. The benchmark involved optimizing 25 drug-like molecules with a convergence criterion of 0.01 eV/Å for the maximum atomic force and a step limit of 250 [7]. The results provide critical, quantifiable insights into optimizer behavior.

Success Rates and Step Efficiency

The primary metric for any optimizer is its reliability in achieving convergence. The number of successfully optimized structures from a test set indicates the robustness of an optimizer/NNP combination. Furthermore, the average number of steps required for convergence is a direct measure of step efficiency, which correlates strongly with computational cost, as each step requires an expensive energy and gradient calculation [7].

Table 1: Number of Structures Successfully Optimized (out of 25)

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	22	23	25	23	24
ASE/FIRE	20	20	25	20	15
Sella	15	24	25	15	25
Sella (internal)	20	25	25	22	25
geomeTRIC (cart)	8	12	25	7	9
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	20	14	1	25

Table 2: Average Number of Steps for Successful Optimizations

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	108.8	99.9	1.2	112.2	120.0
ASE/FIRE	109.4	105.0	1.5	112.6	159.3
Sella	73.1	106.5	12.9	87.1	108.0
Sella (internal)	23.3	14.9	1.2	16.0	13.8
geomeTRIC (cart)	182.1	158.7	13.6	175.9	195.6
geomeTRIC (tric)	11.0	114.1	49.7	13.0	103.5

Quality of Optimized Geometries

Convergence based on gradient norms does not guarantee that the final structure is a true local minimum (an equilibrium structure with no imaginary frequencies). The quality of the optimized geometry is paramount for subsequent property calculations, such as vibrational frequency analysis [7].

Table 3: Number of True Local Minima Found (0 Imaginary Frequencies)

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB
ASE/L-BFGS	16	16	21	18	20
ASE/FIRE	15	14	21	11	12
Sella	11	17	21	8	17
Sella (internal)	15	24	21	17	23
geomeTRIC (cart)	6	8	22	5	7
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	17	13	1	23

Key Insights from Benchmarking Data

• Performance is Model-Dependent: The performance of an optimizer is not absolute but depends on the specific NNP. For instance, AIMNet2 was highly robust across all optimizers, while OrbMol and Egret-1 showed high sensitivity to the choice of algorithm [7].
• Coordinate System is Critical: Sella and geomeTRIC, which can use internal coordinates (bond lengths, angles), demonstrated a dramatic performance improvement over their Cartesian counterparts. Sella with internal coordinates was consistently among the fastest and most reliable methods [7].
• Trade-off between Speed and Reliability: While some optimizers like ASE/L-BFGS showed good reliability, they were often slower. Sella (internal) consistently achieved convergence in fewer steps without sacrificing success rates for most models [7].
• Quality of Minimum Varies: Optimizers that use internal coordinates (e.g., Sella internal, geomeTRIC tric) generally located true minima more frequently, which is crucial for meaningful frequency calculations [7].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison, a standardized benchmarking protocol is essential. The following methodology is adapted from the study by Rowan Scientific [7].

Protocol 1: Molecular Optimization and Success Rate Analysis

Objective: To determine the reliability and step efficiency of different optimizers for locating local minima on a potential energy surface described by a neural network potential.

Materials:

• Test Set: A curated set of 25 drug-like molecules in initial 3D conformations [7].
• Software: Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) and/or geomeTRIC optimization library.
• Computational Models: Neural Network Potentials (e.g., AIMNet2, OrbMol) and/or traditional quantum chemical methods.

Procedure:

• System Setup: For each molecule in the test set, define the initial nuclear coordinates.
• Optimizer Configuration: Initialize the optimizers to be tested (e.g., Sella, geomeTRIC, FIRE, L-BFGS). The convergence criterion should be set exclusively to a maximum force component (fmax) of 0.01 eV/Ã… (0.231 kcal/mol/Ã…). Disable other convergence criteria (energy change, step size) to ensure a consistent, single-threshold comparison [7].
• Run Optimization: For each molecule and optimizer pair, run the geometry optimization with a maximum step limit of 250.
• Data Collection: For each run, record:
  • Success (Yes/No): Whether the fmax criterion was met within 250 steps.
  • Number of Steps: The total steps taken if successful.
  • Final Energy and Forces.
• Analysis:
  • Calculate the success rate for each optimizer as (Number of Successful Optimizations / 25) * 100.
  • Calculate the average number of steps for successful optimizations, excluding failed runs.

Protocol 2: Characterization of Stationary Points

Objective: To verify whether the geometries obtained from Protocol 1 are true local minima and not saddle points.

Procedure:

• Input Structures: Use the successfully optimized geometries from Protocol 1.
• Frequency Calculation: Perform a numerical or analytical vibrational frequency calculation on each optimized structure using the same level of theory (NNP or quantum chemical method).
• Data Collection: From the frequency calculation output, record the number of imaginary (negative) frequencies for each structure.
• Analysis:
  • A structure with zero imaginary frequencies is a local minimum.
  • A structure with one or more imaginary frequencies is a saddle point.
  • For each optimizer, report the number of located true minima and the average number of imaginary frequencies across its successful optimizations [7].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated benchmarking workflow, combining the optimization and characterization protocols.

Diagram 1: Benchmarking Workflow for Geometry Optimizers.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

This section details the key computational "reagents" and tools required to perform the benchmarking experiments described in this note.

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for Optimizer Benchmarking

Tool / Reagent	Type	Primary Function	Application Note
Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE)	Software Library	Provides a unified Python interface for atomistic simulations, including implementations of optimizers like FIRE and L-BFGS.	Serves as the central platform for running and comparing different atomistic algorithms [7].
geomeTRIC	Optimization Library	A general-purpose optimizer that uses translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC) for efficient convergence.	Often used with quantum chemistry codes; can be configured for Cartesian or internal coordinates [7].
Sella	Optimization Library	An open-source optimizer designed for both minimum and transition-state searches using internal coordinates.	Shows superior step efficiency and success rates when configured to use its internal coordinate system [7].
Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)	Computational Model	Machine-learned potentials (e.g., AIMNet2, OrbMol) that provide DFT-level accuracy at a fraction of the cost.	Enables high-throughput benchmarking; performance can be potential-dependent [7].
Convergence Criteria	Protocol Parameters	User-defined thresholds (energy, gradient, step) that determine optimization termination.	Critical for fair comparison; the fmax criterion is recommended as the primary benchmark metric [4] [7].
Vibrational Frequency Code	Analysis Tool	Software for calculating second derivatives and vibrational frequencies of an optimized structure.	Essential for validating that an optimized geometry is a true local minimum and not a saddle point [7].

The benchmarking data and protocols presented herein underscore that there is no universally superior optimizer for all computational chemistry tasks. The performance of algorithms like Sella, geomeTRIC, FIRE, and L-BFGS is highly dependent on the specific neural network potential, the choice of coordinate system, and the desired balance between speed and reliability. For researchers in drug development, where reliable and efficient geometry optimization is critical for studying ligand-receptor interactions or predicting spectroscopic properties, adopting a systematic benchmarking approach is recommended. Establishing in-house performance metrics for specific classes of molecules and NNPs ensures that computational resources are used optimally, leading to more robust and reproducible results in virtual screening and molecular design. The consistent finding that internal coordinate systems significantly enhance performance suggests that optimizers like Sella (internal) should be strongly considered as the first choice in production workflows.

The accuracy and efficiency of molecular geometry optimizations are critical for computational chemistry workflows in drug discovery and materials science. Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) have emerged as powerful tools that aim to offer quantum-chemical accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost. This application note provides a comparative analysis of four modern NNPs—OrbMol, OMol25 eSEN, AIMNet2, and Egret-1—focusing on their performance in geometry optimization tasks. We situate this analysis within the broader thesis that optimization convergence criteria are not merely technical parameters but fundamental factors determining the practical utility of NNPs in predictive research. The benchmarks and protocols detailed herein are designed to equip researchers with the data necessary to select and implement these potent tools effectively.

Modern NNPs strive for generality, allowing researchers to simulate diverse molecular systems without retraining. The table below summarizes the core architectural and training characteristics of the four NNPs analyzed.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of the Neural Network Potentials

Neural Network Potential	Underlying Architecture	Training Dataset & Key Features	Handling of Long-Range Interactions
OrbMol [7] [58]	Orb-v3	Trained on the massive Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset (ωB97M-V/def2-TZVPD). Requires input of total charge and spin multiplicity.	Relies on a scalable local message-passing architecture. Conservative-force training can improve optimization behavior [7].
OMol25 eSEN [7] [59]	eSEN (Equivariant Smooth Energy Network)	Trained on the OMol25 dataset. The "conserving" model variant uses a two-phase training scheme for more reliable forces [59].	Effective cutoff radius is increased through message-passing layers (e.g., 24 Ã… for the small model) [60].
AIMNet2 [61] [62]	Atoms-in-Molecules NN	Trained on ~20 million hybrid DFT calculations. Covers 14 elements and neutral/charged states.	Explicit physics-based terms: Combines a learned local potential with explicit D3 dispersion and Coulomb electrostatics from neural partial charges [61] [62].
Egret-1 [63] [64]	MACE (MPNN with Angular Embeddings)	Trained on curated datasets (e.g., MACE-OFF23, Denali). Focused on bioorganic and main-group chemistry.	High-body-order equivariant MPNN. Relies on the architecture's effective receptive field, which grows with the number of message-passing layers [63] [60].

A key differentiator among these NNPs is their strategy for managing long-range interactions, which is crucial for charged systems and condensed-phase simulations. Most models, including OrbMol, eSEN, and Egret-1, primarily rely on scaled local approaches, using message-passing to extend their effective cutoff radius. In contrast, AIMNet2 adopts a hybrid strategy, augmenting its machine-learned local energy with physics-based explicit corrections for dispersion (D3) and electrostatics (Coulomb) [61] [62]. The choice between these paradigms can significantly impact performance on systems with significant non-local effects.

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

A recent study benchmarked the selected NNPs on a set of 25 drug-like molecules, evaluating their performance across several key metrics for geometry optimization [7]. The convergence was defined by a maximum gradient component (fmax) of 0.01 eV/Ã…, with a limit of 250 steps.

Optimization Success Rates and Efficiency

The performance of an NNP is not intrinsic to the model alone but is co-determined by the chosen geometry optimizer. The following table summarizes the success rates and efficiency for different NNP-optimizer pairs.

Table 2: Optimization Success Rate and Steps to Convergence for Different Optimizers [7]

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB (Control)
ASE/L-BFGS	22	23	25	23	24
ASE/FIRE	20	20	25	20	15
Sella	15	24	25	15	25
Sella (internal)	20	25	25	22	25
geomeTRIC (cart)	8	12	25	7	9
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	20	14	1	25
Avg. Steps (Sella internal)	23.3	14.9	1.2	16.0	13.8

Key Insights:

• AIMNet2 demonstrated exceptional robustness, achieving a 100% success rate with nearly all optimizers and converging in the fewest steps on average [7].
• The choice of optimizer is critical. Sella with internal coordinates proved highly effective, especially for OMol25 eSEN and OrbMol, significantly boosting their success rates and reducing the number of steps required [7].
• OrbMol and Egret-1 showed high sensitivity to the optimizer, performing well with L-BFGS and Sella (internal) but struggling with geomeTRIC in this benchmark [7].

Quality of Optimized Geometries

Convergence to a local minimum is a primary goal of geometry optimization. The quality of the final structures was assessed by frequency calculations to check for imaginary frequencies.

Table 3: Quality of Final Optimized Geometries (Number of True Minima Found) [7]

Optimizer	OrbMol	OMol25 eSEN	AIMNet2	Egret-1	GFN2-xTB (Control)
ASE/L-BFGS	16	16	21	18	20
ASE/FIRE	15	14	21	11	12
Sella	11	17	21	8	17
Sella (internal)	15	24	21	17	23
geomeTRIC (cart)	6	8	22	5	7
geomeTRIC (tric)	1	17	13	1	23

Key Insights:

• AIMNet2 consistently produced a high number of true minima (21-22 across most optimizers), indicating reliable convergence to stable structures [7].
• OMol25 eSEN, particularly when paired with Sella (internal), also excelled, finding 24 true minima out of 25 [7].
• The optimizer choice again proved critical for result quality. Sella (internal) generally led to the highest proportion of minima for the top-performing NNPs, while some optimizer-NNP combinations (e.g., geomeTRIC with OrbMol or Egret-1) resulted in many saddle points [7].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

General Workflow for NNP-Based Geometry Optimization

The following diagram outlines a standardized workflow for conducting and validating a geometry optimization using a modern NNP.

Diagram 1: NNP geometry optimization and validation workflow.

Protocol 1: Standard Molecular Optimization with Sella

This protocol uses the Sella optimizer with internal coordinates, which proved highly effective in benchmarks [7].

• Step 1: Environment Setup. Install the required packages (ase, sella, and the specific NNP package, e.g., orb-models, aimnet2).
• Step 2: Molecular System Preparation. Initialize the molecular structure in ASE. For models like OrbMol, specify the total charge and spin multiplicity in the atoms.info dictionary [58]:

• Step 3: Calculator Configuration. Attach the pretrained NNP to the ASE atoms object as the calculator.
• Step 4: Optimization Run. Configure and run the Sella optimizer with internal coordinates:

Protocol 2: Robust Optimization with geomeTRIC

For challenging systems, the geomeTRIC optimizer offers advanced internal coordinate handling and convergence checks [7].

• Step 1: Installation. Install the geomeTRIC package.
• Step 2: Setup. Prepare the ASE atoms object with the NNP calculator, as in Protocol 1.
• Step 3: Optimization Script. Use the following Python code to run the optimization:

• Note: Benchmarks indicate that performance with geomeTRIC is highly NNP-dependent, with AIMNet2 showing strong results but others potentially struggling [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The table below lists the key software tools required to implement the protocols and conduct NNP-based research.

Table 4: Essential Software Tools for NNP-Based Research

Tool Name	Type/Brief Description	Primary Function in Workflow
ASE (Atomic Simulation Environment) [7] [58]	Python library for atomistic simulations.	A unified interface for setting up calculations, attaching NNP calculators, and running optimizations with various integrators.
Sella [7]	Geometry optimization package.	An optimizer for both minima and transition states, particularly effective with internal coordinates for NNP-based optimization.
geomeTRIC [7]	Geometry optimization package.	An optimizer using advanced internal coordinates (TRIC) with robust convergence criteria, suitable for complex molecular systems.
Psi4 [65]	Quantum chemistry software suite.	Used for generating high-level reference data (e.g., ωB97M-V) for training and for final validation of NNP results via frequency analysis.
AIMNet2, OrbMol, etc.	Pretrained Neural Network Potentials.	The core forcefield models that provide potential energies and atomic forces, enabling fast and accurate geometry optimizations.

This analysis demonstrates that modern NNPs like AIMNet2, OMol25 eSEN, OrbMol, and Egret-1 have reached a significant level of maturity for molecular geometry optimization. While AIMNet2 shows remarkable robustness and efficiency in benchmarks, and OMol25 eSEN achieves excellent results with the right optimizer, the performance is highly dependent on the optimizer choice. Sella with internal coordinates emerges as a highly effective and recommended optimizer. The critical thesis for researchers is that convergence criteria and optimizer selection are not mere implementation details but are integral to unlocking the potential of these powerful machine-learning tools. A workflow that includes post-optimization frequency validation is essential for ensuring the reliability of results in downstream applications like drug development.

Best Practices for Convergence Criteria Selection Based on Project Goals

Geometry optimization is a foundational process in computational chemistry, aiming to identify molecular and material structures at stable energy minima or transition states on the potential energy surface. The selection of appropriate convergence criteria is not a one-size-fits-all decision; it is a critical strategic choice that directly influences the reliability of resulting geometries, computational cost, and the ultimate success of downstream applications in fields like drug discovery and materials design. A poorly chosen convergence threshold can lead to geometries that are either insufficiently refined or computationally prohibitive. This article establishes a structured framework for selecting these criteria, aligning them explicitly with common project goals in computational research. By moving beyond default settings, researchers can enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and scientific impact of their computational workflows.

Understanding Convergence Criteria

Geometry optimization is an iterative process that progressively refines a molecular structure until the forces acting on the atoms are minimized, indicating a stationary point. Convergence is typically judged based on several key parameters, and most computational chemistry packages require multiple criteria to be satisfied simultaneously before declaring a geometry optimized.

The fundamental criteria are [4] [66] [23]:

• Energy Change (ΔE): The change in total energy between successive optimization cycles must fall below a specified threshold, indicating that the energy is no longer decreasing significantly.
• Gradient (Force): The root mean square (RMS) and maximum absolute value of the Cartesian gradients (first derivative of energy with respect to nuclear coordinates) must be smaller than a threshold. This indicates that the net force on each atom is nearly zero.
• Displacement (Step): The RMS and maximum absolute change in Cartesian coordinates between steps must be smaller than a threshold, showing that the atomic positions are no longer shifting substantially.

These criteria are interconnected. For instance, a strict (small) gradient threshold typically ensures an accurate geometry, but may require a large number of steps if the initial structure is poor. Most software packages offer pre-defined sets of these parameters tailored for different levels of accuracy, such as Normal, Tight, or Loose [4]. For example, the AMS software defines its Normal criteria as an energy change of 10⁻⁵ Ha, a maximum gradient of 0.001 Ha/Ã…, and a maximum step of 0.01 Ã… [4]. Understanding the meaning and interplay of these parameters is the first step in making an informed selection.

Quantitative Criteria Selection Tables

Selecting the right convergence criteria requires matching numerical thresholds to the desired outcome of the calculation. The following tables provide detailed recommendations for common project goals, synthesizing information from multiple computational chemistry packages and benchmarking studies [4] [7] [66].

Table 1: Convergence Criteria for Common Project Goals in Quantum Chemistry

Project Goal	Recommended Criteria Set	Typical Threshold Values	Key Rationale & Considerations
Initial Screening/Pre-optimization	Loose	Energy: 10⁻⁴ HaMax Gradient: 0.01 Ha/ÅMax Step: 0.1 Å	Rapidly explores conformational space or refines very poor initial guesses. Not for final, production-quality structures [4].
Standard Single-Point Energy Precursor	Normal (Default)	Energy: 10⁻⁵ HaMax Gradient: 0.001 Ha/ÅMax Step: 0.01 Å	Balanced choice for generating reliable geometries for subsequent energy calculations on the same structure [4] [66].
Frequency Calculation Input	Tight	Energy: 10⁻⁶ HaMax Gradient: 0.0001 Ha/ÅMax Step: 0.001 Å	Essential for ensuring the structure is a true minimum (no imaginary frequencies). Loose criteria can lead to small imaginary frequencies that complicate analysis [66].
High-Resolution Spectroscopy	Very Tight	Energy: 10⁻⁷ HaMax Gradient: 10⁻⁵ Ha/ÅMax Step: 0.0001 Å	Necessary for predicting vibrational frequencies and rotational constants with high accuracy. Computationally expensive [4].
Transition State Optimization	Tight (on Gradients)	Max Gradient: ~0.0003 Ha/Ã… (e.g., GAU) [66]RMS Gradient: ~0.0001 Ha/Ã…	Requires tight gradient convergence to accurately locate the first-order saddle point. Often coupled with specific algorithms like RS-I-RFO or P-RFO [23].

Table 2: Software-Specific Convergence Presets (Equivalent to "Normal")

Software Package	Preset Name	Energy (Ha)	Max Gradient (Ha/Ã…)	RMS Gradient (Ha/Ã…)	Max Step (Ã…)
AMS	Normal	1.0 × 10⁻⁵	1.0 × 10⁻³	6.67 × 10⁻⁴	0.01
ORCA	TolE / TolMAXG	5.0 × 10⁻⁶	3.0 × 10⁻⁴	1.0 × 10⁻⁴	0.004 (bohr)
Psi4	QCHEM	(Set based on forces and step)
PySCF (geomeTRIC)	Default	1.0 × 10⁻⁶	4.5 × 10⁻⁴	3.0 × 10⁻⁴	1.8 × 10⁻³

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Successful geometry optimization relies on a suite of software tools, algorithms, and computational resources. The table below details key components of the modern computational chemist's toolkit.

Table 3: Essential Tools for Geometry Optimization Workflows

Tool/Reagent	Function & Purpose	Example Applications
Quantum Chemistry Code (e.g., ORCA, PSI4)	Provides the electronic structure method (e.g., DFT, HF) to compute the energy and gradients for a given nuclear configuration.	Performing the core self-consistent field (SCF) and gradient calculations that drive the optimization [66] [23].
Geometry Optimizer (e.g., geomeTRIC, Sella, OptKing)	Implements the algorithm that uses energy and gradient information to determine the next, lower-energy molecular structure.	Handling coordinate system transformations, step-taking, and convergence checking [7] [23] [6].
Neural Network Potential (e.g., OrbMol, AIMNet2)	A machine-learned potential that provides quantum-mechanical quality energies and forces at a fraction of the computational cost of full DFT.	High-throughput screening of molecular structures or optimizing large systems where DFT is prohibitively expensive [7].
Algorithm (L-BFGS)	A quasi-Newton optimization algorithm that builds an approximate Hessian to achieve superlinear convergence.	Efficient optimization of medium-to-large-sized molecular systems in Cartesian coordinates [7] [6].
Algorithm (FIRE)	A first-order, molecular-dynamics-based algorithm known for its fast initial relaxation.	Quick preliminary relaxation of structures, particularly with noisy potential energy surfaces [7].
Internal Coordinates (TRIC)	A coordinate system (Translation-Rotation Internal Coordinates) that accounts for molecular rototranslational invariance, often leading faster convergence.	Overcoming slow convergence in flexible molecules or weak intermolecular complexes when using Cartesian coordinates [7].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Optimization of a Minimum Energy Structure for Frequency Analysis

This protocol ensures a molecular geometry is sufficiently optimized to serve as a reliable input for vibrational frequency calculations, which require a true local minimum.

• Initial Setup: Obtain a reasonable guess geometry from a database or a pre-optimization using a molecular mechanics force field or a semi-empirical method.
• Method Selection: Choose an appropriate electronic structure method and basis set. For density functional theory (DFT), include a dispersion correction (e.g., D4) to properly model weak interactions [66].
• Software Configuration: In the input file, specify the job type as a geometry optimization. Select a "Tight" convergence preset. In ORCA, this is often invoked with !TIGHTOPT [66]. In PSI4, set G_CONVERGENCE to GAU_TIGHT [23].
• Execution: Run the calculation. Monitor the output to ensure the energy is decreasing and the gradients are systematically becoming smaller.
• Convergence Verification: Confirm that the optimization concluded with a success message (e.g., "THE OPTIMIZATION HAS CONVERGED" in ORCA) [66]. Visually inspect the final structure to ensure it is chemically sensible.
• Validation: Perform a frequency calculation on the optimized geometry. A successful optimization to a minimum is confirmed if all vibrational frequencies are real (positive). The presence of imaginary frequencies indicates a saddle point and necessitates a restart from a modified geometry [66].

Protocol 2: Benchmarking Optimization Performance for a New System

When working with a new class of molecules or a novel computational method, this protocol helps identify the most efficient optimizer and convergence criteria.

• System Preparation: Select a representative set of molecular structures (e.g., 10-25 molecules) [7].
• Variable Definition: Choose independent variables to test:
  • Optimizers: L-BFGS, FIRE, Sella, geomeTRIC.
  • Convergence Criteria: "Normal" vs. "Tight" gradient thresholds.
  • Coordinate Systems: Cartesian vs. internal coordinates (e.g., geomeTRIC with TRIC).
• Execution: Run geometry optimizations for all combinations of variables on the test set. Use a consistent electronic structure method (e.g., a specific NNP or DFT functional). Implement a step limit (e.g., 250 steps) to cap computational cost for non-converging runs [7].
• Data Collection: For each run, record:
  • Success/Failure status.
  • Total number of optimization steps.
  • Wall time.
  • Number of imaginary frequencies in the final structure (requires a subsequent frequency calculation).
• Analysis: Compare the performance of different optimizers based on the percentage of successful optimizations, the average number of steps, and the quality of the final minima (number of imaginary frequencies) [7]. Select the combination that offers the best trade-off between robustness, speed, and accuracy for your specific system.

Workflow Visualization and Decision Pathways

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz, illustrate the logical workflow for selecting convergence criteria and the process of an optimization.

Figure 1: Criteria Selection Based on Project Goal. This decision pathway helps researchers select the appropriate convergence criteria based on the primary objective of their computational study.

Figure 2: Geometry Optimization Workflow. This chart outlines the iterative process of a standard geometry optimization, highlighting the central role of the convergence check and the critical validation step via frequency analysis.

The strategic selection of geometry optimization convergence criteria is a cornerstone of robust and efficient computational research. By moving beyond default settings and aligning numerical thresholds with specific project goals—whether rapid screening, precise frequency analysis, or transition state location—researchers can significantly enhance the quality and reliability of their computational outcomes. The frameworks, protocols, and toolkits provided herein offer a practical guide for making these informed decisions. As computational methods continue to evolve and play an ever-larger role in drug development and materials discovery, a nuanced understanding and application of these fundamental principles will remain essential for generating scientifically defensible results.

Within computational chemistry, the reliability of geometry optimization convergence criteria is a foundational pillar that supports the entire edifice of molecular design and drug discovery. An optimized molecular geometry, representing a local minimum on the potential energy surface, is the starting point for calculating most physiochemical and biological properties. Inadequately converged structures can propagate errors, leading to inaccurate predictions of binding affinity, stability, and reactivity, thereby jeopardizing the success of downstream experimental work [4]. This case study examines the implementation of a robust validation framework for a drug-like molecule optimization workflow, demonstrating how stringent convergence protocols and multi-faceted validation can enhance the predictive power of computational models and bridge the gap between in silico designs and experimental success.

The challenge is particularly acute in the context of modern generative AI (GenAI) and neural network potentials (NNPs), where the ability to rapidly generate and optimize novel molecular structures must be matched by rigorous verification of the resulting geometries [67] [7]. This study situates itself within a broader thesis on geometry optimization, arguing that the definition of convergence must extend beyond numerical thresholds to encompass chemical sensibility and functional validity, ultimately ensuring that computationally born molecules are not only energetically stable but also therapeutically relevant and synthetically accessible [67].

Results

Quantitative Benchmarking of Optimization Methods

The performance of different optimizer and potential combinations was rigorously assessed using a set of 25 drug-like molecules. Success was measured by the ability to converge to a local minimum (maximum force < 0.01 eV/Ã…) within 250 steps and the subsequent verification of the stationary point as a true minimum via frequency analysis [7].

Table 1: Geometry Optimization Success Rates and Quality for Different Computational Methods

Optimizer	Neural Network Potential	Successfully Optimized (out of 25)	Average Steps to Converge	Structures with No Imaginary Frequencies
Sella (Internal)	OMol25 eSEN	25	14.9	24
ASE L-BFGS	OMol25 eSEN	23	99.9	16
Sella (Internal)	AIMNet2	25	1.2	21
ASE FIRE	AIMNet2	25	1.5	21
ASE L-BFGS	OrbMol	22	108.8	16
geomeTRIC (tric)	GFN2-xTB	25	103.5	23

The data reveal that the choice of optimizer significantly impacts both the efficiency and the outcome of the geometry optimization. The Sella optimizer using internal coordinates consistently demonstrated high performance, achieving perfect success rates with NNPs like OMol25 eSEN and AIMNet2 while requiring a low number of steps [7]. Crucially, it also produced a high number of true minima (e.g., 24 out of 25 for OMol25 eSEN), which is vital for subsequent property calculations. In contrast, methods like geomeTRIC in Cartesian coordinates showed poor performance with several NNPs, failing to converge for most of the 25 molecules [7]. This highlights that an optimizer's performance is not universal but is intrinsically linked to the specific NNP or electronic structure method it is paired with.

Experimental Validation of an Integrated Generative and Optimization Workflow

To assess the real-world impact of a robust optimization workflow, a generative AI model incorporating a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) and two nested active learning (AL) cycles was deployed for the targets CDK2 and KRAS [68]. The workflow integrated geometry-optimized structures for accurate property prediction and docking.

Table 2: Experimental Validation Results for Generated Molecules

Target	Generated Molecules Meeting In Silico Criteria	Molecules Synthesized	Experimentally Confirmed Active Compounds	Best Potency (ICâ‚…â‚€ / Káµ¢)
CDK2	Not Specified	9	8	Nanomolar
KRAS	4	0 (In silico validation)	4 (Predicted)	Not Specified

The results were striking. For CDK2, the workflow led to the synthesis of 9 molecules, 8 of which demonstrated in vitro activity, with one compound achieving nanomolar potency [68]. This high success rate underscores the value of employing physics-based validation (like docking and free energy calculations) on top of well-optimized geometries. Furthermore, the generated molecules for both targets exhibited novel scaffolds distinct from known inhibitors, demonstrating that the workflow can explore new chemical spaces without sacrificing the quality of the optimized structures or their predicted binding affinity [68].

Discussion

The Critical Role of Convergence Criteria in Optimization Reliability

The benchmark data and case study collectively illustrate that the standard convergence criterion based solely on the maximum force component (fmax) is necessary but not sufficient. A comprehensive set of convergence criteria, as implemented in major computational codes, typically includes thresholds for the change in energy, the maximum and root-mean-square (RMS) gradients, and the maximum and RMS step sizes [4]. For reliable results, a geometry optimization should be considered converged only when all these criteria are met. This multi-parameter approach guards against false convergence in shallow regions of the potential energy surface or in systems with noisy gradients [4].

The Convergence%Quality settings in the AMS package offer a practical way to standardize this process. For drug-like molecules, the "Good" or "VeryGood" settings, which tighten the default thresholds by one or two orders of magnitude, are often advisable to ensure the geometry is sufficiently minimized for subsequent property calculations [4]. It is also noted that the convergence threshold for coordinates is a less reliable measure of coordinate precision than the gradient criterion; accurate gradients are paramount [4].

Synergy of AI, Optimization, and Validation in Modern Drug Discovery

This work showcases a powerful paradigm for modern computational chemistry: the integration of generative AI, robust geometry optimization, and multi-stage validation. The VAE-AL workflow effectively creates a closed-loop system where generative models propose candidates, physics-based simulations (reliant on accurate geometries) validate and score them, and the results are fed back to improve the generative model [68]. This synergy addresses key challenges in AI-driven drug discovery, such as target engagement and synthetic accessibility, by grounding the process in physicochemical principles [67] [69] [68].

The high experimental hit rate for the CDK2 inhibitors validates this integrated approach. It demonstrates that when AI-generated molecules are optimized with stringent convergence criteria and filtered through physics-based oracles (e.g., docking, free energy perturbation), the resulting candidates have a significantly higher probability of experimental success [68]. This moves the field beyond merely generating novel structures towards the reliable design of "beautiful molecules" – those that are therapeutically aligned, synthetically accessible, and founded on robust computational data [67].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Optimization Algorithms with Neural Network Potentials

This protocol details the steps for quantitatively evaluating the performance of different geometry optimizers when paired with various Neural Network Potentials (NNPs).

• System Preparation: Select a diverse set of 25 drug-like molecules. The 3D structures can be built manually or generated using tools like RDKit. Ensure initial geometries are reasonable but not necessarily minimized.
• Software and Environment Setup: Install the required software environment, typically including Python, the Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE), and the chosen optimizers (e.g., Sella, geomeTRIC). Install the NNPs to be benchmarked (e.g., OrbMol, OMol25 eSEN, AIMNet2) and a semi-empirical method like GFN2-xTB for comparison [7].
• Optimization Configuration:
  • Define the convergence criterion strictly based on the maximum force component (fmax). A typical threshold for drug discovery is 0.01 eV/Ã… (0.231 kcal/mol/Ã…) [7].
  • Set a maximum step limit (e.g., 250 steps) to identify non-converging optimizations.
  • Configure each optimizer with its recommended settings. For Sella, specify the use of internal coordinates. For L-BFGS and FIRE, use the implementations in ASE.
• Execution and Monitoring: For each molecule and optimizer-NNP pair, run the geometry optimization. The calculation should terminate when the fmax criterion is met or the step limit is exceeded.
• Post-Optimization Frequency Calculation: Upon successful optimization, perform a vibrational frequency calculation on the final structure using the same NNP and method.
  • The structure is confirmed as a true local minimum if zero imaginary frequencies are found.
  • The presence of one or more imaginary frequencies indicates a saddle point, signifying an incomplete or failed optimization [7].
• Data Collection and Analysis: For each run, record:
  • Success (Yes/No)
  • Number of steps to convergence
  • The presence and number of imaginary frequencies
  • Analyze the data to identify the most efficient and reliable optimizer-NNP combinations.

Protocol 2: Integrated Generative AI and Active Learning Workflow with Physics-Based Validation

This protocol describes the multi-stage workflow for generating and validating novel, drug-like molecules for a specific protein target [68].

• Data Curation and Model Initialization:

  • Gather a dataset of known active molecules for the target (e.g., CDK2 or KRAS). Represent molecules as SMILES strings.
  • Initialize a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) and pre-train it on a large, general molecular dataset (e.g., ChEMBL) to learn fundamental chemical rules.
  • Fine-tune the VAE on the target-specific dataset to steer the latent space towards relevant chemical structures.

• Nested Active Learning (AL) Cycles:

  • Inner AL Cycle (Chemical Optimization): a. Generation: Sample the fine-tuned VAE to generate a batch of new molecules. b. Cheminformatics Filtering: Evaluate generated molecules using fast cheminformatics oracles. * Drug-likeness: Apply rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five. * Synthetic Accessibility (SA): Score molecules using a model like SAscore. * Novelty: Assess similarity to the training set (e.g., via Tanimoto coefficient). c. Fine-tuning: Molecules passing the filters are added to a "temporal-specific" set, which is used to further fine-tune the VAE, creating a feedback loop that prioritizes desired chemical properties [68].
  • Outer AL Cycle (Affinity Optimization): a. After several inner cycles, subject molecules from the temporal-specific set to physics-based validation. b. Geometry Optimization: Optimize the geometry of the generated molecules and the protein target (or binding site) using a reliable method (e.g., DFT with a "Good" convergence quality or a robust NNP/Optimizer pair from Protocol 1). c. Molecular Docking: Dock the optimized ligands into the target's binding site. d. Selection and Feedback: Molecules with favorable docking scores are transferred to a "permanent-specific" set. This set is used for the next round of VAE fine-tuning, directly biasing generation toward high-affinity structures [68].

• Advanced Validation and Candidate Selection:

  • After multiple outer AL cycles, select top candidates from the permanent-specific set for advanced simulation.
  • Perform Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations to assess binding stability.
  • Calculate Absolute Binding Free Energies (ABFE) using methods like Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) for a more rigorous affinity prediction.
  • Select the final candidates for synthesis and experimental testing based on these integrated in silico results.

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Generative AI & Active Learning Workflow. The flowchart illustrates the nested active learning cycles, integrating generative AI, cheminformatics filtering, and physics-based validation for iterative molecular optimization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization and Validation

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
Sella	Geometry Optimizer	Efficient location of energy minima using internal coordinates; demonstrates high success with NNPs [7].
geomeTRIC	Geometry Optimizer	General-purpose optimizer employing translation-rotation internal coordinates (TRIC) for robust convergence [7].
Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE)	Python Library	Provides a unified interface for setting up and running calculations with various optimizers and electronic structure methods [7].
Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)	Force Model	Fast, near-quantum mechanical accuracy force fields for geometry optimization and molecular dynamics (e.g., AIMNet2, OMol25 eSEN) [7].
Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	Generative AI Model	Learns a continuous latent representation of molecules to generate novel, valid chemical structures [68].
Molecular Docking Software	Affinity Oracle	Predicts the binding pose and affinity of a ligand to a protein target for high-throughput virtual screening [68].
CETSA (Cellular Thermal Shift Assay)	Experimental Assay	Validates target engagement of predicted active compounds in a physiologically relevant cellular context [70].

Conclusion

Mastering geometry optimization convergence is not an academic exercise but a critical skill for obtaining reliable computational results in drug discovery and materials science. A robust approach integrates a solid understanding of foundational criteria, judicious selection of optimizers and software settings, proactive troubleshooting strategies, and rigorous post-optimization validation. As the field evolves with more powerful Neural Network Potentials and sophisticated algorithms, the principles of careful convergence control remain paramount. Future directions will likely involve the tighter integration of these optimizers with AI-driven potential energy surfaces, enabling the rapid and accurate optimization of increasingly complex biological systems, from protein-ligand complexes to novel therapeutic candidates, thereby accelerating the pace of computational biomedical research.

References

• 1. Potential energy surface [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy_surface]
• 2. Potential Energy Surface [https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/11%3A_Molecules/Potential_Energy_Surface]
• 3. 5.2 Potential energy surfaces and their characteristics [https://fiveable.me/computational-chemistry/unit-5/potential-energy-surfaces-characteristics/study-guide/P57zFFfI8PtfKQMO]
• 4. Geometry optimization — AMS 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Tasks/Geometry_Optimization.html]
• 5. Why optimization convergence is important [https://openmdao.github.io/PracticalMDO/Notebooks/Optimization/why_optimization_convergence_is_important.html]
• 6. Geometry optimization [https://pyscf.org/user/geomopt.html]
• 7. Which Optimizer Should You Use With NNPs? | Rowan [https://www.rowansci.com/blog/which-optimizer-should-you-use-with-nnps]
• 8. EMFF-2025: a general neural network potential for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01809-w]
• 9. Automated optimization and uncertainty quantification of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-024-01388-2]
• 10. Optimization methods — Computational Chemistry from ... [https://kthpanor.github.io/echem/docs/mol_struct/opt_struct.html]
• 11. Best‐Practice DFT Protocols for Basic Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9826355/]
• 12. Optimization of convergence criteria for fragmentation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261417308187]
• 13. Advancing predictive modeling in computational chemistry ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44371-025-00363-0]
• 14. Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of different ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11670755/]
• 15. Learning the One-Electron Reduced Density Matrix at SCF ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/68c9a9763e708a76498380b5]
• 16. Determining Convergence for Expected Improvement ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/20/3261]
• 17. 4.2. Convergence Results and RMS [https://ansyshelp.ansys.com/public//Views/Secured/corp/v252/en/cfx_solv/i1302093.html]
• 18. Gaussian 16 Frequently Asked Questions [https://gaussian.com/faq3/]
• 19. Geometry Optimization troubleshooting — ADF 2025.1 ... - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/ADF/Rec_problems_questions/Geometry_Optimization.html]
• 20. 4.5 Converging SCF Calculations [https://manual.q-chem.com/5.1/sect-convergence.html]
• 21. 3 Criteria for Assessing CFD Convergence [https://www.engineering.com/3-criteria-for-assessing-cfd-convergence/]
• 22. CFX Ansys convergence(RMS or Max Residual) [https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/cfx/82200-cfx-ansys-convergence-rms-max-residual.html]
• 23. Geometry Optimization [https://psicode.org/psi4manual/master/optking.html]
• 24. Mean square convergence [https://www.statlect.com/asymptotic-theory/mean-square-convergence]
• 25. SCF Convergence Issues - ORCA Input Library [https://sites.google.com/site/orcainputlibrary/scf-convergence-issues]
• 26. SCF Convergence and Chaos Theory [https://server.ccl.net/cca/documents/dyoung/topics-orig/converge.html]
• 27. geomopt — Geometry optimization [https://pyscf.org/interface/geomopt.html]
• 28. General — AMS 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/General.html]
• 29. User Guide [https://pyscf.org/user/index.html]
• 30. PBC Geometry Optimization · Issue #2068 · pyscf ... [https://github.com/pyscf/pyscf/issues/2068]
• 31. Enhancing PySCF-based Quantum Chemistry Simulations ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.06661v1]
• 32. LBFGS — | QuantumATKX-2025.06 Documentation [https://docs.quantumatk.com/manual/Types/LBFGS/LBFGS.html]
• 33. A Review of Global Optimization Methods for Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12537999/]
• 34. Transition state structure detection with machine learningÅ› [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01693-4]
• 35. Crystals and Surfaces — Tutorials 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/Tutorials/StructureAndReactivity/Crystals_Surfaces.html]
• 36. Part 3: Periodic Systems - Basics of Running FHI-aims [https://fhi-aims-club.gitlab.io/tutorials/Basics-of-Running-FHI-aims/3-Periodic-Systems/]
• 37. Structure optimization - VASP Wiki [https://www.vasp.at/wiki/index.php/Structure_optimization]
• 38. Structure optimization — ASE documentation [https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase/ase/optimize.html]
• 39. Mathematical Optimization in Machine Learning for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3197/13/7/169]
• 40. Types of Optimizers in Deep Learning: A Comprehensive ... [https://medium.com/@sushmita2310/types-of-optimizers-in-deep-learning-a-comprehensive-guide-af258d6acf66]
• 41. Learning neural network potentials from experimental data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27241-4]
• 42. larger time step brings convergence instead of smaller ... [https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/fluent/92528-larger-time-step-brings-convergence-instead-smaller-time-step.html]
• 43. Vanishing and Exploding Gradients Problems in Deep ... [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/deep-learning/vanishing-and-exploding-gradients-problems-in-deep-learning/]
• 44. Vanishing Gradient Problem: Causes, Consequences, and ... [https://www.engati.com/glossary/vanishing-gradient-problem-causes-consequences-and-solutions]
• 45. Self Consistent Field (SCF) — BAND 2025.1 documentation [https://www.scm.com/doc/BAND/Accuracy_and_Efficiency/SCF.html]
• 46. Self-consistent field (SCF) methods [https://pyscf.org/user/scf.html]
• 47. 7.7. SCF Convergence - ORCA 6.0 Manual [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/manual/contents/detailed/scfconv.html]
• 48. Density Functional Theory (DFT) - NWChem [https://nwchemgit.github.io/Density-Functional-Theory-for-Molecules.html]
• 49. Geometry Optimization — xtb doc 2023 documentation [https://xtb-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/optimization.html]
• 50. Accurate Prediction of HOMO-LUMO Gap Using DFT ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40605405/]
• 51. High throughput tight binding calculation of electronic ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/690c57cdef936fb4a2b27fa3]
• 52. 4.5.13 Internal Stability Analysis and Automated Correction ... [https://manual.q-chem.com/5.3/sub_stability_analysis.html]
• 53. 7.26. Geometry Optimization - ORCA 6.0 Manual [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/manual/contents/detailed/geomopt.html]
• 54. Intrinsic Reaction Coordinate (IRC) - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Tasks/IRC.html]
• 55. Nonlinear Structural Mechanics [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4419-1276-3.pdf]
• 56. A comparison of mixed-variables Bayesian optimization ... [https://amses-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40323-022-00218-8]
• 57. LAMBench: A Benchmark for Large Atomistic Models [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.19578v2]
• 58. ORB forcefield models from Orbital Materials [https://github.com/orbital-materials/orb-models]
• 59. Exploring Meta's Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) & Universal ... [https://www.rowansci.com/blog/exploring-open-molecules-2025]
• 60. Long-Range Forces and Neural Network Potentials [https://cwagen.substack.com/p/long-range-forces-and-neural-network]
• 61. AIMNet2: a neural network potential to meet your neutral ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc08572h]
• 62. AIMNet2: A Neural Network Potential to Meet your Neutral ... [https://olexandrisayev.com/aimnet2-a-neural-network-potential/]
• 63. Egret-1: Pretrained Neural Network Potentials for Efficient and ... [https://www.rowansci.com/publications/egret-1-pretrained-neural-network-potentials]
• 64. Egret-1: Pretrained Neural Network Potentials for Efficient ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20955]
• 65. Benchmarking OMol25-Trained Models on Experimental ... [https://rowansci.com/publications/omol25-redox]
• 66. Geometry optimization - ORCA 6.0 TUTORIALS [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/tutorials/prop/geoopt.html]
• 67. In Search of Beautiful Molecules: A Perspective on Generative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12458704/]
• 68. Optimizing drug design by merging generative AI with a ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01635-7]
• 69. Generative artificial intelligence based models optimization ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01059-4]
• 70. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]