Optimizing Geometry Convergence Thresholds for Molecular Stiffness: A Practical Guide for Computational Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive framework for computational chemists and drug development researchers to master geometry optimization by strategically selecting convergence thresholds tailored to molecular stiffness. It bridges foundational theory with practical application, explaining how stiffness influences the potential energy surface and how to adjust energy, gradient, and step criteria in popular software like xtb and AMS. The guide further offers advanced troubleshooting protocols for challenging systems and presents a rigorous methodology for validating optimization outcomes through frequency analysis and benchmark comparisons, ultimately enabling more reliable and efficient predictions of molecular behavior in drug discovery pipelines.

Understanding Molecular Stiffness and Its Impact on the Potential Energy Surface

Defining Molecular Stiffness in the Context of Potential Energy Surfaces

Troubleshooting Guide: Geometry Optimization and Stiffness Analysis

Q1: My geometry optimization is converging very slowly. How is this related to molecular stiffness? Slow convergence often occurs when optimizing "soft" molecules with shallow potential energy surfaces (PES) or when the initial Hessian (second derivative matrix) is a poor guess. The curvature of the PES, which defines stiffness, directly impacts the optimization path. Shallow, flat regions (low stiffness) cause small energy changes and gradient norms per step, leading to slower progress [1].

Q2: The optimizer finds a structure, but frequency calculations reveal imaginary vibrations. What went wrong? This indicates convergence to a transition state (saddle point) instead of a minimum. The optimization likely started with an inaccurate initial Hessian or used steps too large for the local PES topography. For stiff molecules with deep, narrow potential wells, this can happen if the initial model Hessian underestimates the true curvature [2].

Q3: How does molecular stiffness affect the choice of convergence thresholds? Stiffer molecules (with rapidly changing gradients) often require tighter convergence thresholds to accurately capture the equilibrium geometry, as small displacements cause large energy changes. Softer molecules may converge sufficiently with normal thresholds but risk stopping in shallow regions of the PES if thresholds are too loose [1] [2] [3].

The table below summarizes standard geometry convergence criteria from two computational chemistry packages, ORCA and xtb.

Q4: What is the best coordinate system for optimizing large, flexible molecules? For large, flexible (soft) molecules with many degrees of freedom, redundant internal coordinates are generally recommended as they provide a more natural description of molecular motions like bond stretching and angle bending. If this fails, Cartesian coordinates can be attempted, though convergence may be slower [2].

FAQ: Molecular Stiffness and Computational Protocols

Q: What is the fundamental definition of molecular stiffness on a PES? Molecular stiffness is determined by the curvature of the PES around a minimum. A steeper curvature corresponds to a higher force constant, leading to higher vibrational frequencies and a stiffer, less flexible molecular structure in that particular degree of freedom [1] [4].

Q: Which initial Hessian is recommended for optimizing a typical organic molecule to its minimum? For minimizing standard organic molecules, the Almlöf model Hessian is a good default choice. It provides a better approximation of the initial PES curvature than a unit matrix, leading to faster and more reliable convergence [2].

Q: How can I optimize a molecule in an excited state? You can perform an excited-state geometry optimization using methods like TD-DFT. In packages like ORCA, this involves specifying the %tddft block to define the state of interest and then using a standard Opt keyword [2].

Q: My molecule has both rigid and flexible regions. How can I ensure the rigid parts are optimized correctly? For systems with mixed stiffness, using a tight optimization threshold ensures that the geometry of rigid, stiff parts (with deep potential wells) is precisely located. Using a better initial Hessian (e.g., from a lower-level frequency calculation) can also greatly help [2].

Experimental Protocol: Calculating and Analyzing Molecular Stiffness

Objective: To locate a minimum-energy molecular geometry and quantify its stiffness by analyzing the PES curvature.

Methodology:

• System Setup

  • Obtain an initial molecular geometry from a database or build it using chemical intuition.
  • Select an appropriate computational method (e.g., DFT with a suitable functional and basis set) for your system [2].

• Geometry Optimization

  • Keyword: Use the Opt keyword in your computational chemistry package.
  • Initial Hessian: For a minimum search, use a model Hessian like Almlöf [2].
  • Convergence Criteria:
    • For a final production run, use tight thresholds (e.g., !TightOpt in ORCA) to ensure high accuracy, especially for stiff molecules [2].
    • For a pre-optimization, normal or even loose thresholds can be used to save time [3].
  • Coordinates: Perform the optimization in redundant internal coordinates.
  • Output: The optimized geometry is typically written to a file like xtbopt.xyz or similar [3].

• Frequency Calculation

  • Keyword: Perform a frequency (vibrational) analysis on the optimized geometry using the Freq keyword.
  • Purpose: This calculation computes the second derivatives of the energy (the Hessian matrix) at the minimum. The vibrational frequencies are the square roots of the Hessian's eigenvalues. The absence of imaginary frequencies confirms a true minimum was found [1] [4].

• Stiffness Analysis

  • The magnitude of the vibrational frequencies is directly related to the stiffness. Higher frequencies indicate stiffer vibrational modes [1].
  • The force constant for a specific bond or angle can often be approximated from the computed Hessian.

This workflow for determining molecular stiffness through geometry optimization and frequency analysis is summarized in the following diagram.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists essential computational tools and their functions for researching molecular stiffness.

How Stiffness Influences Optimization Pathways and Convergence Behavior

Troubleshooting Guide: Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 1: My geometry optimization is not converging. What should I check first?

Answer: First, verify that your convergence thresholds are appropriate for your system's stiffness. Excessively tight criteria can prevent convergence for "wobbly" or flexible molecules [5]. We recommend a tiered approach:

• For initial scans or less critical properties: Use Convergence%Quality Basic or Normal [6].
• For final, publication-quality geometries: Use Convergence%Quality Good or VeryGood [6].
• For UV-Vis or fluorescence spectra: Standard convergence criteria are often sufficient, as errors from the subsequent spectral calculation (e.g., TD-DFT) typically outweigh minor geometrical inaccuracies [5].

FAQ 2: The optimization converged but found a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum. How can I fix this?

Answer: This indicates the optimizer settled in a region with a negative Hessian eigenvalue. Enable automatic restarts to guide the optimization toward a true minimum.

• Enable PES Point Characterization: This calculates the lowest Hessian eigenvalues to check the nature of the stationary point found [6].
• Configure Automatic Restarts: Set MaxRestarts to a value greater than 0 (e.g., 5). The optimizer will then automatically displace the geometry along the imaginary vibrational mode and restart [6].
• Disable Symmetry: Ensure UseSymmetry False is set, as the symmetry-breaking displacement is only applied when no symmetry operators are present [6].

FAQ 3: My system is large and the optimization is computationally expensive. What strategies can improve efficiency?

Answer: For large systems, a sequential optimization protocol significantly improves efficiency.

• Start with a lower level of theory: Begin optimization with a semi-empirical method or a lower-level DFT with a small basis set.
• Gradually increase precision: Use the geometry from the previous step as the starting point for a higher-level theory calculation [5].
• Consider the optimizer: For very large systems, the L-BFGS optimizer is often a good choice due to its memory efficiency.

FAQ 4: How accurate are the final optimized coordinates from a converged calculation?

Answer: The convergence threshold for coordinates (Convergence%Step) provides only an order-of-magnitude estimate of coordinate precision. For accurate results, the gradient criterion (Convergence%Gradients) is more reliable. Tightening the gradient criterion will generally yield more accurate geometries than tightening the step criterion [6].

Understanding Convergence Criteria

A geometry optimization is considered converged only when multiple stringent conditions are simultaneously met [6].

Table 1: Standard Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria [6]

Note: If the maximum and RMS gradients are more than 10 times stricter than the Gradients criterion, the step-based criteria (4 and 5) are ignored [6].

You can set these criteria individually or use predefined quality levels.

Table 2: Predefined Convergence Quality Settings in AMS [6]

Experimental Protocol: A Step-by-Step Guide for Stiffness-Dependent Studies

This protocol outlines a systematic approach for optimizing molecular geometries with varying perceived stiffness.

Objective: To obtain a converged, minimum-energy geometry for a molecule, starting from an initial guess structure.

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Instructions:

• Initial Structure Preparation:

  • Generate a reasonable 3D starting structure using a molecular builder. Ensure the structure is chemically plausible to avoid extreme initial forces.

• Pre-Optimization Configuration:

  • In your input file, set the task to Task GeometryOptimization [6].
  • Enable PES point characterization and automatic restarts to handle saddle points.

• Execute Tiered Optimization:

  • Tier 1 (Coarse): Run an optimization with Convergence%Quality Basic and a fast, low-level theoretical method (e.g., a semi-empirical method or a small basis set). This quickly refines the geometry.
  • Tier 2 (Intermediate): Use the output geometry from Tier 1 as the new input. Perform an optimization with Convergence%Quality Normal and your intermediate method of choice (e.g., B3LYP/6-31G*).
  • Tier 3 (Final): Use the output geometry from Tier 2 as the new input. Perform the final optimization with Convergence%Quality Good and your target high-level theory (e.g., B3LYP/6-311G*).

• Validate the Result:

  • Run a frequency calculation on the final optimized geometry.
  • Successful Outcome: All vibrational frequencies are real (positive). This confirms a local minimum has been found [5].
  • Problematic Outcome: One or more imaginary (negative) frequencies are found. If MaxRestarts is configured, the calculation will automatically displace the geometry and restart the optimization. Otherwise, you must manually perturb the geometry and restart.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Parameters for Geometry Optimization

The Critical Link Between Flexibility, Binding Affinity, and Convergence Demands

Frequently Asked Questions

How does molecular flexibility influence binding affinity? Molecular flexibility is a crucial determinant of binding affinity, but its effect is not monotonic. Research shows that binding is strong for both highly rigid and highly flexible molecules. However, for molecules in the middle of the flexibility spectrum, the relationship is complex: small decreases in rigidity can markedly reduce affinity for highly rigid molecules, while precisely the opposite occurs for more flexible molecules, for which increasing flexibility leads to stronger binding [7]. This happens because flexibility affects the balance between the entropic cost and enthalpic gain of binding.

My geometry optimization won't converge. Could molecular flexibility be the cause? Yes. "Wobbly" or flexible molecules can be particularly difficult to optimize [5]. The potential energy surface of flexible molecules has many shallow minima, making it hard for the optimizer to find a true minimum. If an optimization fails, it is often more effective to start with a less accurate method or looser convergence criteria and incrementally increase the precision, rather than immediately using the tightest settings [5].

For spectroscopic calculations like UV-Vis, how critical is a tightly converged geometry? For properties like UV-Vis spectra calculated with Time-Dependent DFT (TD-DFT), the inherent errors of the TD-DFT method itself are often larger than those introduced by using standard instead of very tight geometry convergence criteria [5]. Therefore, a geometry optimized with standard convergence thresholds is typically sufficient, provided that the structure is a true minimum (all vibrational frequencies are positive) [5].

What is the difference between the 'induced-fit' and 'conformational selection' binding models? The 'induced-fit' model posits that the bound protein conformation forms only after interaction with a binding partner [8]. In contrast, the 'conformational selection' model postulates that the bound conformation pre-exists in an ensemble of protein conformations, and the binding partner selectively stabilizes it [8]. Most real-world binding events involve a combination of both mechanisms [9].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Geometry Optimization Failing for Flexible Molecules

Symptoms: The optimization calculation hits the maximum number of iterations without converging, or it oscillates between several structures. Solutions:

• Use a Stepped Optimization Protocol: Begin with a faster, less accurate method (e.g., a semi-empirical method or a small basis set) to get a rough geometry. Then, use this pre-optimized structure as the starting point for your target, more accurate method [5].
• Loosen Convergence Criteria Initially: Start with Convergence%Quality Basic or Normal before moving to Good or VeryGood for the final optimization [6].
• Enable Automatic Restarts: If your software supports it, use the PES point characterization and automatic restart feature. This can help if the optimization converges to a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum [6].

• Verify the Minimum: After a seemingly successful optimization, always calculate the vibrational frequencies to ensure all are positive, confirming you have found a local minimum and not a saddle point [5].

Problem: Inaccurate Prediction of Binding Affinity

Symptoms: Docking or binding free energy calculations yield poor correlation with experimental data. Potential Causes and Solutions:

• Cause: Neglecting Protein Flexibility. Treating the receptor as completely static (rigid docking) ignores the thermodynamic consequences of molecular motion, which can generate large errors in binding entropy, enthalpy, and free energy [7] [8].
  • Solution: Use methods that account for flexibility, such as molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, conformational ensemble docking, or normal mode analysis (NMA) [8].
• Cause: Insufficient Sampling. The conformational space of the flexible molecule or complex may not be adequately explored.
  • Solution: For MD, use enhanced sampling techniques like temperature replica exchange MD (T-REMD) or Hamiltonian replica exchange MD (H-REMD) to achieve better convergence of the free energy landscape [8].

Experimental Protocols & Data

Methodology: Simulating the Role of Flexibility in Binding

This protocol is based on the coarse-grained molecular dynamics approach used to isolate the effect of flexibility [7].

• System Setup:
  • Model Molecules: Use linear chains of coarse-grained beads. The minimum energy structure is set to be fully extended.
  • Control Flexibility: Apply a harmonic bending potential, ( U = k{\text{bend}} (\theta - \theta0)^2 ), at each angle ( \theta ). The bending force constant ( k{\text{bend}} ) controls flexibility, with a range from ~0.3 (very flexible) to 1000 (nearly rigid). The equilibrium angle ( \theta0 ) is set to 180° for an extended chain.
  • Interactions: Non-bonded bead-bead interactions are modeled with a generic Lennard-Jones potential (e.g., σ = 0.85, ε = 1.0), identical for all chain pairs to ensure differences arise purely from flexibility.
• Simulation Details:
  • Software: Simulations can be performed using LAMMPS (Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator).
  • Ensemble: Canonical (NVT) ensemble using a Langevin thermostat for temperature control and implicit solvent.
  • Analysis:
    • Binding Constant: Calculate ( Ka = V \cdot t{\text{bound}} / t{\text{unbound}} ) by monitoring the fraction of simulation time the chains spend in a bound state (defined by a threshold number of inter-chain contacts).
    • Energetics: Determine the free energy ( \Delta G = -RT \ln Ka ), enthalpy ( \Delta H ) as the energy difference between bound and unbound states, and entropy from ( -T\Delta S = \Delta G - \Delta H ).

Quantitative Data on Flexibility and Affinity

The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from simulations of chain-like molecules with varying flexibility [7].

Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria

The following table outlines standard convergence thresholds for geometry optimizations, which can be tightened or loosened depending on the flexibility of the system and the required accuracy [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Visualizing Key Concepts

Binding Affinity Relationship to Flexibility

Geometry Optimization Convergence

In computational chemistry and materials science, geometry optimization is a fundamental process. The goal is to find a stable molecular configuration where the net forces acting on all atoms are effectively zero, representing a local or global energy minimum. Determining when this process is complete relies on convergence criteria—numerical thresholds for energy changes, gradients (forces), and atomic displacements. Setting these thresholds is a critical balance between computational cost and result accuracy, particularly in stiffness research where precise energy landscapes are essential.

The following FAQs and troubleshooting guides address the practical challenges researchers face when working with these criteria, framed within the context of molecular stiffness research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the default convergence criteria typically checked during a geometry optimization? Most computational software packages monitor three primary quantities by default. The specific active criteria often depend on the problem's degrees of freedom (e.g., translations, rotations, vibrations) [10]. The standard criteria are:

• Energy Change: The difference in total energy between successive optimization steps.
• Gradient (Force): The root-mean-square (RMS) or maximum value of the forces on the atoms. The force is the negative derivative of the energy with respect to atomic coordinates (-dE/dR).
• Displacement: The RMS or maximum change in atomic coordinates between steps.

Q2: My optimization is not converging. How do I determine if the problem is with the wavefunction or the geometry? This is a fundamental diagnostic question [11].

• Wavefunction (SCF) Convergence Issues: These occur during the single-point energy calculation at a fixed geometry. The self-consistent field procedure fails to find a stable electronic state.
• Geometry Optimization Convergence Issues: These occur when the algorithm cannot find a geometry where the forces are below the specified threshold, even if each single-point energy calculation completed successfully. The optimization may oscillate between structures or fail to lower the energy significantly.

Q3: Why should I avoid relying solely on Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) plots to judge convergence? Although intuitive, using RMSD plots is highly subjective and unreliable. A scientific survey demonstrated that when different scientists were shown the same RMSD plots, there was no mutual consensus on the point of equilibrium [12]. Their decisions were significantly biased by factors like the color and Y-axis scaling of the plot. A more robust approach combines quantitative convergence criteria with analysis of other properties.

Q4: What is the concept of "partial equilibrium," and why is it relevant to biomolecular simulations? A system can be in partial equilibrium when some properties have reached their converged values, while others have not [13]. This is common in complex biomolecules. For instance, average bond lengths or local side-chain angles (which depend on high-probability conformational regions) may stabilize quickly. In contrast, properties like the free energy or transition rates to rare conformations (which depend on full exploration of the conformational space) may require much longer simulation times to converge [13]. This is crucial for stiffness research, as different mechanical properties may converge at different rates.

Q5: How can I adjust convergence thresholds if my optimization is too slow or fails? Most software allows you to manually loosen or tighten the convergence criteria via keywords [11].

• To combat slow convergence, you can increase the tolerance (e.g., GRADIENTTOLERANCE=0.001 instead of the default 0.0001). This tells the algorithm to stop when the forces are smaller, which may be acceptable for preliminary scans.
• If an optimization fails due to an excessive number of steps, you can increase the cycle limit (e.g., GEOMETRYCYCLES=500). However, first examine the molecule's geometry to ensure it is not undergoing an unexpected chemical reaction.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Diagnosing and Resolving Geometry Optimization Failures

Problem: A geometry optimization job terminates without reaching the defined convergence criteria.

Diagnostic Workflow:

Diagram Title: Troubleshooting Geometry Optimization Failures

Solutions:

• Poor Starting Geometry:
  • Action: Manually inspect the initial molecular structure. Use a molecular mechanics minimizer to "clean up" the structure before the quantum mechanical optimization [11].
  • Advanced Strategy: For large molecules, optimize a small core first, then add the remaining atoms and optimize again [11].

• Poor Quality Hessian: The Hessian (matrix of second energy derivatives) guides the optimization direction. A bad guess can lead to slow or failed convergence.

  • Action: Use a conservative unit Hessian via the HESS=UNIT keyword [11].
  • Best Practice: Calculate an initial Hessian at a lower theory level (e.g., Semi-Empirical or Hartree-Fock) by running a frequency calculation (IR). Then, use this Hessian for the higher-level optimization [11].

• Symmetry Problems: The default use of symmetry can sometimes interfere.

  • Action: Use the IGNORESYMMETRY or NOGEOMSYMMETRY keyword to disable symmetry handling [11]. Physically breaking the molecular symmetry slightly can also help.

• Optimization Ran Out of Cycles:

  • Action: Use the OPTCYCLE or GEOMETRYCYCLES keyword to increase the maximum number of steps [11]. Before resubmitting, verify that the geometry is evolving as expected.

Guide 2: Ensuring Meaningful Convergence for Stiffness Research

Problem: The optimization met the technical criteria, but the resulting structure or properties (like stiffness) do not appear physically meaningful or reproducible.

Methodology:

Diagram Title: Protocol for Valid Convergence

Protocol:

• Go Beyond Technical Criteria: Do not rely solely on the software's "job completed" message. Visually inspect the convergence plots for energy, gradient, and displacement to ensure they have stabilized to a flat plateau [13].
• Monitor Relevant Properties: For stiffness research, define key structural properties a priori (e.g., hinge region dihedral angles, core residue distances). Plot these properties over the course of the simulation to ensure they have also converged [13].
• Check for Partial Equilibrium: Understand that your system may be in partial equilibrium. While the overall energy may be stable, the specific conformational mode governing molecular stiffness might require a longer simulation time to fully sample [13].
• Validate with Extended Sampling: After optimization, run a longer molecular dynamics simulation starting from the optimized geometry. Analyze the fluctuation of key properties to confirm they fluctuate around a stable average, indicating true convergence [13].

Data Presentation

Table 1: Standard Convergence Criteria and Adjustable Parameters

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Experiments

Setting Convergence Thresholds: A Practical Guide for Different Software Platforms

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does the "geometry optimization did not converge" error mean and how can I fix it? This error indicates that the xtb optimizer failed to find a minimum energy structure within the allowed number of cycles or encountered a problem in a single-point energy calculation during the optimization process [14]. The underlying cause is often a failure of the Self-Consistent Field (SCF) procedure to converge [14]. To resolve this:

• Increase SCF iterations: Use a simpler GFN method (e.g., GFN0-xTB) to generate a better initial guess for the wavefunction, then restart the optimization with GFN2-xTB [15].
• Adjust electronic temperature: Use the --etemp flag to temporarily increase the electronic temperature, which can help SCF convergence, and then restart the calculation at normal temperature [15].
• Check geometry: Ensure your initial molecular geometry is reasonable, as problematic structures can prevent convergence [14].

2. My optimization converged but has small imaginary frequencies. What should I do? Small imaginary frequencies (e.g., below ~15 cm⁻¹) can be artifacts and are often straightforward to eliminate.

• xtb has an automatic feature to handle this. When an imaginary frequency is detected during a frequency calculation (--ohess), the program writes a distorted geometry file (xtbhess.coord) [15].
• Simply use this distorted structure as a new starting point for another optimization and frequency calculation. This process usually requires only a few steps to remove the artificial imaginary mode [15].

3. How do I choose the right convergence level for my project? The choice depends on your specific accuracy requirements and computational resources.

• For preliminary screening or large systems: Use loose or normal for faster results [3].
• For final production geometries: Use tight to ensure high accuracy for subsequent property calculations [3] [16].
• For benchmarking or sensitive properties: vtight or extreme may be necessary, but these are computationally demanding and often represent a development feature more than a requirement for most applications [15].

Optimization Convergence Levels

The xtb program provides a built-in geometry optimizer, the approximate normal coordinate rational function optimizer (ANCopt), which is activated with the --opt [level] flag [3]. The following table summarizes the predefined convergence levels, which control the strictness of the optimization [3] [15].

• Energy Convergence: The threshold for the change in total energy between optimization cycles [3].
• Gradient Convergence: The threshold for the norm of the energy gradient (forces), which should be close to zero at a minimum [3].
• Accuracy: This value is automatically passed to the single-point calculations, tightening integral cutoffs and SCF convergence criteria to match the geometry optimization thresholds [3].

Experimental Protocol: GFN Method Benchmarking for Molecular Stiffness

This protocol outlines a methodology for benchmarking GFN methods against higher-level theories like Density Functional Theory (DFT) to assess their reliability for predicting molecular geometries, a crucial step in molecular stiffness research [16].

1. Dataset Curation

• Select a representative set of molecules relevant to your research domain. For organic semiconductors, this could involve filtering databases like QM9 based on HOMO-LUMO gaps (< 3 eV) to mimic semiconductor behavior, or using specialized datasets like the Harvard Clean Energy Project (CEP) database [16].

2. Computational Workflow

• Geometry Optimization: Optimize all molecular structures using various GFN methods (GFN0-xTB, GFN1-xTB, GFN2-xTB, GFN-FF) and a reference method (e.g., DFT with a specific functional and basis set).
• Frequency Analysis: Perform a frequency calculation on the optimized geometry to confirm it is a true minimum (no imaginary frequencies) and to obtain thermochemical corrections.
• Property Calculation: Calculate key properties from the optimized geometries for comparison.

3. Benchmarking Metrics Compare the GFN-optimized structures and properties against the reference DFT data using these metrics:

• Heavy-atom Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD): Measures the overall geometric similarity [16].
• Bond Lengths and Angles: Quantifies deviations in specific structural parameters [16].
• Equilibrium Rotational Constants: A sensitive measure of the overall molecular structure [16].
• HOMO-LUMO Gap: Assesses the accuracy of electronic properties derived from the geometry [16].
• Computational CPU Time: Evaluates the efficiency of each method [16].

The diagram below illustrates the key decision points in a geometry optimization workflow, from method selection to verifying a successful result.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key computational tools and concepts used in xtb geometry optimizations for molecular stiffness research.

Configuring the GeometryOptimization Block in AMS for Stiff and Flexible Systems

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I choose the right convergence criteria for my system? The Convergence%Quality keyword offers a quick way to set thresholds. The default Normal settings are reasonable for many applications, but you may need to adjust them based on the stiffness of your molecule [6].

Table: Predefined convergence criteria sets in AMS, selected via the Convergence%Quality keyword [6].

My geometry optimization does not converge. What should I check first? First, examine the energy changes over the last ten iterations [18]. A steady energy decrease suggests you should simply increase MaxIterations. If the energy oscillates, the gradients may be inaccurate, and you should increase the numerical quality or tighten the SCF convergence [18].

What can I do if my optimization converges to a saddle point instead of a minimum? You can enable automatic restarts. Use the PESPointCharacter property in the Properties block to characterize the stationary point, and set MaxRestarts to a value >0 in the GeometryOptimization block. This will automatically displace the geometry along the imaginary mode and restart the optimization [6].

How can I optimize the lattice vectors of a periodic system? Set OptimizeLattice Yes in the GeometryOptimization block. This is supported with the Quasi-Newton, FIRE, and L-BFGS optimizers [6].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Geometry Optimization Fails to Converge

Diagnosis: Check the optimization output. If the energy oscillates around a value and the gradient stops improving, the calculation setup may be the issue [18].

Solutions:

• Increase computational accuracy: The success of optimization depends on accurate forces [18].
  • Set NumericalQuality Good [18].
  • Tighten the SCF convergence criterion, for example, to 1e-8 [18].
• Check for small HOMO-LUMO gap: A small gap can indicate a changing electronic structure between steps. Verify you have the correct ground state and consider using an OCCUPATIONS block to freeze electrons per symmetry [18].
• Change optimization coordinates: If you are using Cartesian coordinates, try switching to delocalized internal coordinates, which often converge faster [18].

Example input with stricter accuracy settings [18]:

Problem: Optimization is Too Slow for a Large, Flexible Molecule

Diagnosis: Flexible systems with many degrees of freedom require many small steps. The default settings may be too strict for preliminary screening.

Solutions:

• Use looser convergence criteria: Start with Convergence%Quality Basic or VeryBasic for an initial, faster optimization. You can later restart the optimization from the resulting geometry with tighter criteria [6].
• Automate accuracy settings: Use the EngineAutomations block to start with loose SCF and optimization settings, which automatically tighten as the geometry improves. This saves time in the initial stages [19].

Example automation for a flexible system [19]:

Problem: Optimized Bond Lengths Are Unrealistically Short

Diagnosis: This is often a basis set problem, particularly when using the Pauli relativistic method, or can be caused by large frozen cores overlapping [18].

Solutions:

• Switch relativistic method: Abandon the Pauli method and use the ZORA approach for heavy elements [18].
• Adjust the frozen core: If you must use the Pauli formalism, apply larger frozen cores. If you suspect your frozen cores are already too large, use smaller ones, but be wary of using the Pauli formalism in this case [18].

Problem: SCF Convergence Issues During Geometry Optimization

Diagnosis: An unconverged SCF leads to noisy gradients, preventing geometry convergence. Some systems (e.g., metallic slabs) are inherently harder to converge [19].

Solutions:

• Use conservative SCF settings: Decrease the SCF mixing and/or use a more conservative DIIS strategy [19].
• Employ a finite electronic temperature: This can help initial convergence. Use EngineAutomations to start with a higher temperature and reduce it as the optimization progresses [19].
• Try a different SCF algorithm: The MultiSecant method can be a robust alternative to DIIS [19].

Example SCF configuration for difficult cases [19]:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Experimental Protocol: Systematic Optimization for Stiff Systems

This protocol is designed for optimizing stiff molecular systems where high accuracy is required.

• Initial Setup: Begin with your initial molecular geometry in the System block and select Task GeometryOptimization.
• Configure Convergence: In the GeometryOptimization block, set Convergence%Quality to Good or VeryGood to ensure tight thresholds [6].
• Ensure Gradient Accuracy: In the engine-specific block (e.g., BAND, ADF), set NumericalQuality Good and consider tightening the SCF convergence criterion to 1e-7 or 1e-8 to provide low-noise gradients [18].
• Characterize the Result: In the Properties block, set PESPointCharacter True to confirm the optimization has found a true minimum and not a saddle point [6].
• Run and Analyze: Execute the calculation and check the output file to verify that all convergence criteria were met and the PES point is a minimum.

Workflow for Geometry Optimization Configuration

The following diagram outlines the logical decision process for configuring the GeometryOptimization block based on your system's characteristics and research goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I choose the right optimizer for my molecular system? The optimal choice depends on your primary goal. For general-purpose use and robust performance, L-BFGS is often recommended and is considered the best general-purpose quasi-Newton method in some packages [20] [21]. If you are optimizing on a potentially noisy potential energy surface, FIRE may be more tolerant [22]. For the fastest convergence to a minimum when using internal coordinates is feasible, Sella (internal) shows exceptional speed [22].

My optimization is not converging. What should I check first? First, verify that your convergence criteria are appropriate for your system. Excessively tight criteria may require an impractical number of steps [6]. Ensure that the maximum force component (fmax) is set to a reasonable value (e.g., 0.01 eV/Ã…) [22] [21]. Second, confirm that your calculator provides gradients that are accurate and noise-free enough for the chosen optimizer, as this is critical for quasi-Newton methods [6].

The optimization finished, but my molecule has imaginary frequencies. What went wrong? This indicates that the optimization converged to a saddle point (transition state) rather than a local minimum [6]. Some optimizers are more prone to this than others. You can address this by:

• Using an optimizer with better performance for finding minima, such as Sella with internal coordinates or L-BFGS, which tend to find more true minima [22].
• Enabling automatic restarts in your optimization software (if available), which can displace the geometry along the imaginary mode and restart the optimization [6].

Can I use L-BFGS as a steepest-descent optimizer? Yes. If you set the memory_size parameter to zero, the L-BFGS optimizer will behave like a steepest descent optimizer [20].

Troubleshooting Guides

Poor Convergence or Slow Performance

Convergence to Incorrect Stationary Points

Experimental Benchmarking Data

The following data, adapted from a benchmark study on 25 drug-like molecules, compares the performance of various optimizers when paired with different Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) and a semiempirical method (GFN2-xTB). Convergence was determined by a maximum force threshold of 0.01 eV/Ã… [22].

Table 1: Number of Successful Optimizations (out of 25)

Table 2: Average Number of Steps for Successful Optimizations

Table 3: Number of True Local Minima Found (No Imaginary Frequencies)

Detailed Experimental Protocols

1. Benchmarking Optimizer Performance

• Objective: Systematically evaluate the efficiency and robustness of different geometry optimizers on a set of drug-like molecules.
• System Setup:
  • Select a diverse set of initial molecular structures (e.g., 25 drug-like molecules) [22].
  • Configure the computational environment (e.g., ASE, Sella, geomeTRIC) and choose the potential energy calculator (e.g., an NNP or DFT calculator) [22] [21].
• Optimization Execution:
  • For each molecule and optimizer pair, run a geometry optimization.
  • Set a convergence criterion based on the maximum force component, for example, fmax = 0.01 eV/Ã… [22] [21].
  • Define a maximum step limit (e.g., 250 steps) to identify non-converging runs [22].
• Post-Optimization Analysis:
  • Record the success rate, number of steps to convergence, and the final energy.
  • Perform a vibrational frequency calculation on the optimized structure to determine if it is a true minimum (no imaginary frequencies) or a saddle point (one or more imaginary frequencies) [22] [6].

2. Protocol for a Standard Geometry Optimization

• Initialization:
  • Define the initial atomic structure and set up the calculator (e.g., LCAO Calculator in QuantumATK, EMT in ASE, or an NNP) [20] [21].
  • Choose an optimizer (e.g., L-BFGS) and set its parameters (e.g., memory_size=20, finite_difference=0.01*Angstrom) [20].
  • Set convergence thresholds. A common choice is to base convergence solely on the maximum force fmax [22] [21]. For more control, you can set multiple criteria including energy change, gradients, and step size [6].
• Execution:
  • Run the optimization algorithm. The optimizer will repeatedly query the calculator for energy and forces, updating the atomic coordinates until convergence is reached [20] [21].
• Validation:
  • Always check the output to confirm that convergence was achieved and not just the step limit exceeded.
  • Perform a frequency calculation to confirm the nature of the stationary point found [22].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Workflow Visualization

Optimizer Selection and Validation Workflow

Troubleshooting Guide: Geometry Optimization Convergence

FAQ: My optimization fails with a "Back transformation failed" error. What should I do?

Problem: This error indicates a failure in converting between internal and Cartesian coordinates, often accompanied by a "Cartesian Step size too large" message. This is frequent in flexible molecules with constrained dihedrals [24].

Solutions:

• Stabilize the Optimization: Use settings like ENSURE_BT_CONVERGENCE True and DYNAMIC_LEVEL 1.0 to increase the robustness of the coordinate transformation process [24].
• Adjust Coordinate System: Switch the optimization coordinate system. While redundant internal coordinates are often recommended, trying Cartesian coordinates (coordsys cartesian) can sometimes resolve convergence issues in difficult cases [2].
• Review Constraints: For very flexible molecules, an excessive number of frozen dihedral angles can sometimes lead to this error. Check if all applied constraints are necessary.

FAQ: How do I select the right convergence thresholds for my system?

Problem: Using default convergence criteria may be inefficient (too loose) or computationally expensive (too tight). The optimal settings depend on molecular stiffness and research goals [6].

Solutions:

• Follow Presets: Start with standard convergence profiles. !Opt (Normal) is a good default, while !TightOpt is for high-precision results. !LooseOpt can be used for initial scans [2].
• Tune for Stiffness: For rigid, drug-like molecules, standard or tight thresholds are appropriate. For flexible chains, looser thresholds may be needed initially, with tightening in later stages [6].
• Prioritize Gradients: For an accurate final geometry, tightening the gradient convergence criterion (TolMaxG, TolRMSG) is more reliable than tightening the step size criterion [6].

FAQ: My flexible molecule optimization is slow. How can I speed it up?

Problem: Flexible molecules with many rotatable bonds have a complex energy landscape, causing optimizations to require many steps or get stuck.

Solutions:

• Improve the Initial Hessian: A better initial guess for the Hessian (force constant matrix) significantly speeds up convergence. For the first optimization, use a model Hessian like Almloef (default in ORCA) or Schlegel instead of a unit matrix [2].
• Use a Multi-Step Protocol:
  • Perform an initial, fast optimization with a low-level method (e.g., semi-empirical like AM1) or a loose convergence threshold to generate a good Hessian.
  • Use the resulting Hessian as the starting point (InHess Read) for a high-level optimization [2].
• Employ Specialized Optimizers: For very large systems, use optimizers designed for efficiency, such as the L-BFGS algorithm [2].

Experimental Protocols & Data Presentation

Comparative Optimization Protocol

This protocol outlines a systematic approach for comparing the optimization behavior of rigid and flexible molecules.

1. System Preparation:

• Rigid Drug-like Molecule: Select a fragment-like molecule adhering to the "Rule of Three" (MW ≤ 300, HBD ≤ 3, HBA ≤ 3, cLogP ≤ 3) for efficient binding [25].
• Flexible Chain Fragment: Select a linear molecule with multiple rotatable bonds (e.g., >5).

2. Computational Setup:

• Method and Basis Set: Use a consistent level of theory (e.g., ! B3LYP def2-SVP Opt in ORCA).
• Initial Geometry: Generate a reasonable 3D structure for both molecules.

3. Optimization Execution:

• Run geometry optimizations for both molecules using the same convergence criteria (e.g., the default !Opt settings).
• Monitor the number of optimization cycles, total computation time, and whether convergence is achieved.

4. Analysis:

• Compare the number of steps and time to convergence.
• Analyze the final geometries and energy changes during the optimization process.

Optimization Thresholds and Convergence Criteria

The tables below summarize standard convergence criteria across computational packages, providing a reference for designing experiments.

Table 1: Standard geometry optimization convergence thresholds in ORCA (in atomic units) [2].

Table 2: Convergence quality settings in the AMS package [6].

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

Geometry Optimization Decision Workflow

This diagram outlines the key decision points during a geometry optimization, including the critical check for unintended transition states and the subsequent restart procedure [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Essential computational tools and methods for geometry optimization studies.

The Role of Internal vs. Cartesian Coordinates in Efficient Convergence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the fundamental difference between internal and Cartesian coordinates in geometry optimization?

Cartesian coordinates define the position of each atom in a molecule using its absolute (x, y, z) coordinates in space. In contrast, internal coordinates describe the molecular structure based on the relative positions of atoms, using bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles. Internal coordinates directly represent the natural vibrational modes of a molecule, which often leads to more efficient convergence on the potential energy surface, especially for systems with complex bonding patterns [22].

2. When should I prioritize using internal coordinates over Cartesian coordinates?

Internal coordinates are generally preferred for optimizing isolated molecules, particularly when significant structural changes involving bond stretching or angle bending are expected. They are highly effective for avoiding convergence issues related to rotational and translational degrees of freedom. Cartesian coordinates may be more suitable for periodic systems (e.g., crystals), complex constraints, or when using certain force fields where the coordinate transformation is computationally expensive [22].

3. A key benchmark study reported that "Sella (internal)" successfully optimized 20 out of 25 drug-like molecules, while "geomeTRIC (tric)" only optimized 1 for the OrbMol neural network potential. Why such a large discrepancy despite both using internal coordinates?

This significant performance difference, as observed in a 2025 benchmark, highlights that the type of internal coordinate system is critical [22]. The "Sella" optimizer uses a standard internal coordinate system, while "geomeTRIC (tric)" employs a specific scheme called "translation–rotation internal coordinates" (TRIC). The implementation details, such as how the coordinate system handles molecular translations and rotations, can drastically affect performance with different potential energy surfaces. This suggests that researchers should test multiple optimizers tailored to their specific computational method (e.g., the NNP or quantum chemistry method) rather than assuming all internal coordinate methods are equivalent [22].

4. My geometry optimization is not converging. How can I adjust my convergence thresholds?

Most computational packages allow you to adjust convergence criteria. Tightening these thresholds leads to a more precise optimization but requires more computational steps. The Convergence%Quality setting in the AMS package, for example, offers a quick way to change these thresholds [6]. The following table summarizes standard convergence criteria for different quality levels:

Table: Standard Geometry Convergence Thresholds (AMS Package) [6]

5. What are the key performance differences between optimizers using internal and Cartesian coordinates?

The choice of optimizer and coordinate system significantly impacts the efficiency and success rate of geometry optimizations. Benchmark studies on drug-like molecules provide quantitative comparisons. The table below summarizes key performance metrics for different optimizer and coordinate system combinations when used with Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) and a traditional GFN2-xTB method.

Table: Optimizer Performance Comparison (25 Drug-like Molecules Benchmark) [22]

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Slow or Non-Converging Optimization

Symptoms:

• The optimization exceeds the maximum number of steps (e.g., 250) without meeting convergence criteria [22].
• The energy, gradients, or step size oscillate without a clear downward trend.

Solutions:

• Switch the Coordinate System: If you are using Cartesian coordinates, try switching to an optimizer that uses internal coordinates, such as Sella, or vice versa. Internal coordinates can be particularly effective for flexible molecules [22].
• Adjust Convergence Criteria: Loosen the convergence thresholds (e.g., from "Good" to "Normal" or "Basic") if high precision is not critical for your immediate goal. This is controlled by the Convergence%Quality keyword or similar in your software [6].
• Select a Different Optimizer: If one optimizer fails, try another. Benchmark data shows that success rates vary significantly. For example, if "geomeTRIC (tric)" fails, "Sella (internal)" might succeed on the same system [22].
• Increase Maximum Iterations: If the optimization is progressing steadily but slowly, increase the MaxIterations parameter to allow more steps [6].

Problem: Optimization Converges to a Saddle Point (Not a Minimum)

Symptoms:

• Frequency calculations on the optimized structure reveal one or more imaginary frequencies, indicating a transition state or higher-order saddle point [22].

Solutions:

• Enable Automatic Restarts: Some software, like AMS, can automatically restart optimizations if a saddle point is detected. This requires enabling the PESPointCharacter property and setting MaxRestarts to a value greater than 0 (e.g., 5) [6].
• Use an Optimizer with Better Minima-Finding Performance: Refer to benchmark data. For instance, "Sella (internal)" consistently finds more true minima than its Cartesian counterparts for many NNPs [22].
• Apply a Small Displacement: Manually distort the molecular geometry along the normal mode of the imaginary frequency and restart the optimization.

Problem: Noisy Gradients from Neural Network Potentials (NNPs)

Symptoms:

• Unstable optimization steps, even with robust optimizers.
• Inconsistent performance across different NNP architectures.

Solutions:

• Use a Noise-Tolerant Optimizer: First-order methods like FIRE are often more robust against noise on the potential energy surface compared to second-order methods like L-BFGS [22].
• Employ Internal Coordinates: Optimizers using internal coordinates, such as Sella, have demonstrated faster and more reliable convergence with various NNPs, as they are less sensitive to the pathologies of the potential energy surface [22].
• Verify NNP Precision: Ensure the NNP is running at sufficient numerical precision (e.g., float32-highest), as lower precision can cause convergence failures that are resolvable by increasing the allowed steps [22].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Optimizer Performance

Objective: To systematically evaluate the performance of different geometry optimizers and coordinate systems for a set of molecular structures.

Methodology:

• System Selection: Choose a diverse set of molecular structures (e.g., 25 drug-like molecules) representing different chemistries and conformational flexibility [22].
• Optimizer Setup: Select a range of optimizers (e.g., L-BFGS, FIRE, Sella, geomeTRIC) with both Cartesian and internal coordinate options.
• Convergence Criteria: Define a consistent convergence threshold for all tests, typically based on the maximum force component (e.g., fmax = 0.01 eV/Ã… or 0.231 kcal/mol/Ã…). Disable other convergence criteria to ensure a fair comparison if necessary [22].
• Execution: Run each optimizer on each molecular system with a fixed maximum step limit (e.g., 250 steps).
• Data Collection: Record for each run:
  • Success/Failure status.
  • Number of steps to convergence.
  • Final energy.
• Post-Processing Analysis: Perform frequency calculations on all successfully optimized structures to determine if they are true local minima (zero imaginary frequencies) or saddle points (one or more imaginary frequencies) [22].

Workflow: Benchmarking Optimizer Performance

Protocol 2: Transition State Restart Procedure

Objective: To automatically recover from a geometry optimization that has converged to a saddle point.

Methodology:

• Enable Characterization: In the Properties block, set PESPointCharacter = True to calculate the lowest Hessian eigenvalues after optimization [6].
• Configure Restarts: In the GeometryOptimization block, set MaxRestarts to a value greater than 0 (e.g., 5) to enable the automatic restart feature [6].
• Disable Symmetry: For the restart mechanism to work correctly, disable symmetry using UseSymmetry False. The displacement is often symmetry-breaking [6].
• Displacement: If a saddle point is found, the algorithm will automatically displace the geometry along the imaginary vibrational mode. The displacement size can be controlled with the RestartDisplacement keyword (default: 0.05 Ã…) [6].
• Re-optimization: The optimization is automatically restarted from the displaced geometry. This process repeats until a minimum is found or the maximum number of restarts is reached.

Workflow: Automatic Restart for Saddle Points

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools for Geometry Optimization Studies

Diagnosing and Solving Common Convergence Failures in Stiff Systems

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What are the primary convergence criteria in a geometry optimization, and how do I interpret them? A geometry optimization is considered converged when several conditions are met simultaneously [6]:

• The energy change between subsequent steps is smaller than the Energy threshold (in Hartree) multiplied by the number of atoms in the system.
• The maximum Cartesian nuclear gradient is below the Gradients threshold (in Hartree/Ã…).
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian nuclear gradients is below 2/3 of the Gradients threshold.
• The maximum Cartesian step is smaller than the Step threshold (in Ã…ngstrom).
• The root mean square (RMS) of the Cartesian steps is smaller than 2/3 of the Step threshold. If the maximum and RMS gradients are 10 times stricter than the convergence criterion, the step criteria (the last two points) are ignored [6].

Q2: My optimization is oscillating between two similar energy values. What does this mean and how can I address it? Oscillation in the energy or coordinates often indicates that the optimization process is struggling to find a clear downhill path on the potential energy surface. This can be due to a poorly conditioned Hessian (an approximation of the second derivative matrix) or the optimizer taking steps that are too large for the region of the surface it is in [27] [28]. To address this:

• Tighten Convergence Criteria: Switching from Normal to Good or VeryGood quality can force the optimization to take smaller, more precise steps [6].
• Improve the Hessian: A better initial Hessian can dramatically improve convergence. Some software packages can compute an initial Hessian using faster, approximate methods (e.g., neural network potentials or GFN2-xTB) to guide the optimization [29].
• Change Coordinates: Using delocalized internal coordinates instead of Cartesians can often enhance convergence rates by an order of magnitude for molecular systems [27].

Q3: The optimization is making very slow progress, with minimal energy change over many steps. What should I do? Slow progress, or a "plateau" in the energy, suggests the optimizer is in a very flat region of the potential energy surface. This can be addressed by:

• Checking Gradient Values: If the gradients are also very small, the optimization may be close to convergence, and you should simply allow it to continue or slightly tighten the gradient convergence threshold [6].
• Restarting with a Better Hessian: In a flat region, the optimizer's internal Hessian may be inaccurate. Restarting the optimization from the current geometry with a recalculated Hessian can provide a better direction for the next step [27].
• Using Advanced Optimizers: Algorithms like Adam or RMSProp, common in machine learning, use adaptive moment estimation to navigate flat regions and noisy gradients more effectively. Similar principles are embedded in advanced optimizers like the eigenvector-following (EF) algorithm or GDIIS for molecular systems [28] [27].

Q4: The optimization converged, but a frequency calculation reveals an imaginary mode. What happened? This indicates that the optimization has likely converged to a saddle point (like a transition state) rather than a local minimum [29]. Many optimization algorithms can automatically handle this if configured correctly:

• Enable Automatic Restarts: You can configure the optimizer to perform a PES point characterization upon convergence. If a transition state is found, it can automatically restart the optimization after a small displacement along the imaginary mode. This requires setting MaxRestarts to a value >0 and ensuring symmetry is disabled with UseSymmetry False [6].
• Transition State Optimization: If you intentionally suspect a transition state, use a dedicated transition-state optimization task (optimize_ts), which is designed to walk uphill along the lowest Hessian mode and downhill along all others [29] [27].

Troubleshooting Guides

Diagnosing Oscillating Optimizations

Problem: The total energy, gradients, or coordinates show a clear oscillatory pattern over successive optimization steps.

Methodology for Diagnosis:

• Plot the Data: Generate plots of the total energy and the maximum gradient versus optimization cycle.
• Identify the Pattern: Visually confirm an oscillatory pattern (values going up and down) instead of a steady decrease.
• Check the Coordinate System: Consult your output files to determine which coordinate system (Cartesian, Z-matrix, delocalized internals) is being used.

Resolution Protocol:

• Primary Action: Reduce the maximum step size allowed by the optimizer. This prevents it from "jumping over" the minimum.
• Secondary Action: If using a quasi-Newton method, request a Hessian update or recomputation. An improved second-derivative matrix provides a better estimate of the curvature, leading to more rational step directions [27].
• Advanced Action: Consider switching optimizers. An algorithm that incorporates momentum, analogous to SGD with Momentum in machine learning, can help smooth out oscillations and push through noisy regions [28].

Resolving Slow or Stalled Optimizations

Problem: The optimization is proceeding with a very small energy decrease per step, and convergence seems unlikely within the maximum number of steps.

Methodology for Diagnosis:

• Check Convergence Criteria: Review the convergence thresholds currently in use (e.g., Basic, Normal). Excessively loose criteria can make an optimization appear stalled when it is simply "close enough" by its own standards [6].
• Examine Gradient Norms: If the energy change is small but the gradients remain large, the system may be on a shallow but sloping potential energy surface. This is a genuine slow convergence issue.
• Review the Initial Geometry: Ensure the starting structure is chemically reasonable. A poor initial guess can lead to long, slow journeys across flat potential energy surfaces.

Resolution Protocol:

• Primary Action: Tighten the convergence criteria, particularly for the energy and gradients. Using the Quality setting to switch from Normal to Good will reduce all thresholds by an order of magnitude [6].
• Secondary Action: Change the optimization coordinate system to delocalized internal coordinates, which are often more efficient for molecular systems [27] [29].
• Advanced Action: For molecular systems, consider using an optimizer that employs the GDIIS algorithm, which can often accelerate convergence compared to standard quasi-Newton methods [27].

Data Tables for Convergence Criteria

Table 1: Standard Convergence Quality Settings

This table summarizes the predefined convergence criteria in Hartree (Ha) and Ã…ngstrom (Ã…). The Quality keyword offers a quick way to change all thresholds [6].

Table 2: Core Convergence Parameters and Descriptions

This table details the key parameters you can adjust to fine-tune the optimization process [6].

Experimental Workflow and Pathway Diagrams

Diagram 1: Optimization diagnostics workflow.

Diagram 2: Oscillation resolution steps.

Diagram 3: Slow progress resolution steps.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

When to Tighten Gradient Tolerances and When to Adjust Maximum Step Size

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: My geometry optimization is stuck in a cycle of small, non-progressive steps. Should I tighten the gradient tolerance or reduce the step size? This symptom often indicates that the algorithm is struggling to find a true downhill path due to a rough energy landscape. Tightening the gradient tolerance is the recommended action. A stricter tolerance (e.g., from 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶ a.u.) forces the optimization to continue until it finds a more authentic critical point, preventing premature termination in a flat but slightly noisy region of the potential energy surface [30].

Q2: My simulation crashes immediately or produces unrealistic atomic velocities. What parameter should I change first? This is a classic sign of an unstable integration scheme. Your primary action should be to reduce the maximum step size. A time step that is too large fails to capture the highest frequency vibrations in the system (e.g., bonds involving hydrogen atoms), leading to energy blow-ups. For systems with light atoms, a time step of 1 fs is a safe starting point [31].

Q3: The optimization converges, but the final structure has abnormally long bonds or high-energy bond angles. What is the likely cause? This can occur when the maximum step size is too large. An excessively large step can cause atoms to "jump" over energy barriers into unrealistic configurations before the force calculation can correct the path. Reducing the step size allows for a more precise and gentle relaxation of the geometry toward the nearest local minimum [31].

Q4: I am simulating a large, complex system like a protein, and the optimization is computationally expensive. How can I speed up convergence without sacrificing accuracy? For large systems, a strategic combination of both parameters is effective. You can often use a slightly looser gradient tolerance for initial pre-optimization stages to quickly relieve severe strains, followed by a final optimization with a tighter tolerance for the production result. Furthermore, employing a multiple time-stepping (MTS) algorithm can improve efficiency by calculating more computationally expensive long-range forces less frequently than short-range ones [32].

Q5: How does molecular stiffness influence the choice between adjusting tolerance and step size? Stiff systems, characterized by both very fast and very slow dynamic processes, are highly sensitive to the integration step size [33]. For these systems, an overly large step size will inevitably lead to instability. Therefore, adjusting the maximum step size is paramount. The choice of gradient tolerance is more related to the desired final accuracy of the optimized structure than to the stiffness of the system itself.

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Symptoms and Solutions

Experimental Protocols for Threshold Optimization

Protocol 1: Systematic Calibration of Step Size for Stiff Systems

• Initial Setup: Begin with a conservative time step (e.g., 0.5 fs) for any system containing hydrogen atoms or high-frequency bonds [31].
• NVE Test: Run a short simulation (100-1000 steps) in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble using the candidate step size.
• Energy Conservation Check: Monitor the total energy of the system. If the energy exhibits a significant drift (non-conservation), the time step is too large.
• Iterative Increase: Gradually increase the time step in small increments (e.g., 0.1 fs) and repeat the NVE test until energy conservation is satisfactorily maintained. A value of 1-2 fs is often stable for systems with constrained bonds [32].

Protocol 2: Establishing a Convergence Workflow for Robust Geometry Optimization

• Pre-Optimization: Use a coarse gradient tolerance (e.g., 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ a.u.) and a robust algorithm like Steepest Descent or Conjugate Gradient to quickly minimize large forces and strains [32].
• Production Optimization: Switch to a more efficient algorithm like L-BFGS and a tighter gradient tolerance (e.g., 10⁻⁶ a.u.) to achieve a well-converged minimum [32] [30].
• Validation: Perform a vibrational frequency calculation on the final structure to confirm that it is a true minimum (all frequencies real) and not a transition state.

Decision Workflow: Tolerance vs. Step Size

The diagram below outlines the logical decision process for addressing convergence issues.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following tools and datasets are critical for developing and validating methods in molecular stiffness research and geometry optimization.

Strategies for Systems with Shallow Minima or Multiple Conformational States

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 1: My geometry optimization is not converging and oscillates between several structures. What should I do?

Your system may be sampling multiple conformational states with similar energies, a characteristic of shallow minima on the potential energy surface. To address this:

• Tighten Convergence Criteria: Stricter thresholds, especially on gradients, force the optimizer to find a more precise minimum [6]. Use the Convergence%Quality Good or VeryGood settings [6].
• Characterize the Stationary Point: Use the PESPointCharacter property to check if your optimized structure is a true minimum or a saddle point. This can be combined with automatic restarts (MaxRestarts) to push the optimization away from transition states [6].
• Employ Enhanced Sampling: For conformer generation, use tools that introduce noise to explore alternative states. For example, the AFsample2 method uses random MSA column masking to break co-evolutionary constraints and generate diverse models, which can be crucial for proteins [36].

FAQ 2: How can I efficiently generate a diverse set of conformers for my molecule?

A systematic conformer generation workflow is key. You can use the AMS Conformers tool, which combines several methods [37]:

• Generation: Use the Generate task with an engine like ForceField for speed or a more accurate quantum mechanical engine for fidelity.
• Optimization and Filtering: Refine the initial set using the Optimize and Filter tasks to remove high-energy duplicates and non-minima structures.
• Equivalence Checking: Define uniqueness using methods like CREST (based on rotational constants) or AMS (based on distance matrices and dihedrals) to avoid redundant conformers [37].

The diagram below illustrates a robust workflow for generating accurate conformer sets.

FAQ 3: What are the recommended convergence thresholds for studying flexible molecules?

The default settings may be inadequate for very flexible systems. The table below summarizes the convergence criteria for different quality settings in the AMS geometry optimizer [6]. For shallow minima, Good or VeryGood settings are recommended.

Table: Geometry optimization convergence criteria per atom. Data from [6].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Enhanced Conformational Sampling with AFsample2 for Proteins

This protocol uses AFsample2 to predict alternative conformational states of proteins by manipulating Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) [36].

• Input Preparation: Provide the amino acid sequence of the target protein.
• MSA Generation and Masking: Query standard sequence databases to generate the MSA. AFsample2 then randomly masks a percentage of columns in the MSA with "X" (unknown residue), excluding the target sequence itself. A masking level of 15% is a good starting point [36].
• Model Inference: Run the AF2 inference with dropout activated. A unique randomly masked MSA is used for each model to maximize diversity.
• Analysis and Clustering: Identify state representatives by clustering the generated models based on structure. Analyze confidence metrics and select extremity conformations to represent different states.

Effect of MSA Masking Level on Model Quality and Diversity The level of MSA masking is a critical parameter. The following table outlines its effect on model quality and confidence, based on benchmark results [36].

Table: Guidelines for MSA masking levels in AFsample2. Data adapted from [36].

The relationship between key parameters and outcomes in this protocol is summarized below.

Protocol 2: Systematic Conformer Generation and Optimization for Drug-Like Molecules

This protocol uses the AMS Conformers utility for small, drug-like molecules, balancing computational cost and accuracy [37].

• Initial Generation:
  • Use the Generate task with a fast Engine ForceField (UFF).
  • Select a generator Method. RDKit is the default and recommended for most cases due to its efficiency [37].
  • This step produces a broad set of initial conformers.
• Optimization and Refinement:
  • Use the Optimize task on the initial set, specifying a more accurate engine (e.g., DFTB or ADF).
  • This step refines the geometries and provides more reliable energies.
• Filtering and Uniqueness:
  • Use the Filter task with MaxEnergy (e.g., 3-5 kcal/mol) to remove high-energy structures.
  • Set the Equivalence%Method (e.g., CREST or AMS) to identify and remove duplicate conformers [37].
• Final Scoring:
  • Use the Score task with a high-accuracy engine to compute single-point energies for the final, unique set of conformers for ranking.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Leveraging Hessian Updates and Initial Guesses for Faster Convergence

Frequently Asked Questions

1. My geometry optimization is converging very slowly. What is the most effective way to speed it up? The quality of the initial Hessian (force constant matrix) is often the most critical factor. Using a good model Hessian instead of the default unit matrix can dramatically improve convergence. For minimum energy optimizations, the Almlöf model Hessian is highly recommended. If a semi-empirical or lower-level of theory Hessian is available, reading it in can be even more effective [38].

2. My transition state (TS) optimization fails. What steps should I take? TS optimizations are more sensitive than minimizations. First, ensure you are using an initial Hessian that is not positive definite. The best practice is to use an exact analytic Hessian calculated at the starting geometry, which is available for methods like HF, DFT, and MP2 [38] [39]. If this is too costly, a Hybrid Hessian or the results from a relaxed surface scan can provide a good approximation of the TS mode [38].

3. When should I use Cartesian coordinates instead of internal coordinates for optimization? The default redundant internal coordinates are usually the best choice for faster convergence. However, if you encounter convergence failure or slow progress, particularly with large molecules or condensed systems where atoms distant in bonding may be close in space, switching to Cartesian coordinates (COPT) can be more stable, albeit often slower [38].

4. What is the benefit of using a machine learning (ML) potential for Hessian calculations? ML potentials, such as NewtonNet, can provide analytical Hessians that are several orders of magnitude faster to compute than their ab initio DFT counterparts. Using the full ML Hessian at every optimization step leads to more robust convergence and a significant reduction (2–3×) in the number of steps needed to find a transition state, even with poor initial guesses [39].

5. How do I know if my optimization has successfully converged? Do not rely solely on a normal program termination message. You should look for explicit convergence messages. In ORCA, a successful optimization will output: "* THE OPTIMIZATION HAS CONVERGED *". A warning message like "The optimization did not converge but reached the maximum number of cycles..." indicates failure [38]. Convergence is typically based on simultaneous satisfaction of thresholds for energy change, gradients, and step size [6] [40].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Slow or No Convergence in Minimization

Possible Causes and Solutions:

• Cause 1: Poor initial Hessian guess.

  • Solution: Do not use the default unit matrix Hessian. Instead, use the Almloef model Hessian, which is the default for minimizations in some software [38]. For a better guess, calculate a quick Hessian at a lower level of theory (e.g., semi-empirical methods like AM1 or PM3 for organic molecules, or a fast RI-DFT calculation) and read it in for the higher-level optimization [38].

• Cause 2: The molecule is too flexible or has a shallow potential energy surface.

  • Solution: Tighten the convergence criteria gradually. The table below shows standard convergence thresholds [6]. Using Good or VeryGood quality can help, but ensure your electronic structure method provides gradients with sufficiently low numerical noise [6].

  Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization [6]

• Cause 3: The optimization is stuck in Cartesian coordinates.
  • Solution: Check if your software supports and is using redundant internal coordinates by default, as they are typically more efficient [38] [41]. If the optimization in internal coordinates fails, the program may automatically switch to Cartesians, which can be slower. You can manually force the use of internal coordinates or try a different initial guess.

Problem: Transition State Optimization Converges to a Minimum

Possible Causes and Solutions:

• Cause 1: The initial guess geometry is too far from the saddle point.

  • Solution: Use a double-ended method like the Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) or a relaxed surface scan to generate a structure closer to the true transition state before starting the TS optimization [38].

• Cause 2: The initial Hessian does not have the correct saddle-point character (one negative eigenvalue).

  • Solution: Compute the exact analytic Hessian at the starting geometry. For methods where this is not available, a numerical frequency calculation can be performed to check and, if correct, the Hessian can be read for the TS optimization [38] [42]. Some software also features automatic restarts upon finding a minimum; if enabled, the optimizer will displace the geometry along the lowest frequency mode and try again [6].

• Cause 3: The optimizer is following the wrong mode.

  • Solution: Use a mode-following algorithm (e.g., RS-I-RFO or P-RFO) and specify the correct mode (negative eigenvalue) to follow during the optimization [41] [40].

Problem: Optimization Fails Due to Numerical Issues or Step Size

Possible Causes and Solutions:

• Cause 1: The SCF convergence is too loose, creating noisy gradients.

  • Solution: Enable a tight SCF convergence setting (e.g., TightSCF in ORCA) to reduce numerical noise in the gradients, which is critical for the optimizer [38].

• Cause 2: The optimization step is too large, causing the molecule to distort.

  • Solution: Implement a trust radius or step size limit. For example, in PSI4, you can use intrafrag_step_limit to control the maximum step size in internal coordinates, preventing the optimizer from taking destabilizing steps [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Essential computational materials and methods for efficient geometry optimizations.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Two-Step Optimization with Calculated Initial Hessian

This protocol uses a lower-level calculation to generate a high-quality Hessian to accelerate a subsequent high-level optimization [38] [42].

• Step 1: Hessian Calculation

  • Choose a fast but reasonable theoretical method (e.g., a semi-empirical method like AM1 or a low-level DFT functional with a small basis set like BP/SV(P)).
  • Run a frequency (Hessian) calculation on your initial molecular structure.
  • Software Note: In GAMESS, this involves hess=calc [42]. In ORCA, a frequency calculation at the lower level would be used.

• Step 2: High-Level Optimization

  • Use the optimized geometry and the Hessian from Step 1 as input for the high-level calculation (e.g., CCSD(T)/def2-TZVP).
  • In the input, specify that the initial Hessian should be read from the previous calculation.
  • Example Code (ORCA compound job): [38]

Protocol 2: Transition State Optimization using a Machine Learning Hessian

This protocol leverages a pre-trained ML potential to perform robust TS optimizations with full Hessians at every step [39].

• Preparation: Obtain or fine-tune an ML potential (e.g., NewtonNet) on a dataset relevant to your chemical system, ensuring it accurately predicts energies and forces around transition states.
• Initial Guess: Generate an initial guess for the transition state structure, for example, from an NEB calculation or a chemical intuition.
• Optimization Setup: Configure the TS optimizer (e.g., in the Sella code) to use analytical Hessians provided by the ML potential at every optimization step.
• Execution: Run the optimization. The use of accurate, low-cost Hessians should lead to convergence in fewer steps compared to quasi-Newton methods, even with a degraded initial guess.

Workflow for Geometry Optimization Strategy

The diagram below outlines a logical decision pathway for selecting the most effective Hessian and optimization strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: My geometry optimization converges, but a frequency calculation reveals an imaginary mode. What does this mean and how can I fix it? This indicates that the optimization has found a saddle point (e.g., a transition state) instead of a local minimum. To correct this, you should enable automatic restarts. This feature requires the geometry optimization to have MaxRestarts set to a value greater than 0, UseSymmetry set to False, and the PES point characterization enabled in the Properties block. The optimizer will then automatically displace the geometry along the imaginary mode and restart the optimization [6].

Q2: Why is my optimization failing to converge to a minimum even with automatic restarts enabled? Automatic restarts are only performed for systems with no symmetry operators or with symmetry explicitly disabled via UseSymmetry False [6]. If your system has inherent symmetry, the automatic displacement along the imaginary mode may be symmetry-breaking and is therefore not performed by default. For such systems, you may need to manually provide a slightly distorted initial geometry to guide the optimization away from the saddle point.

Q3: What is the practical impact of different convergence quality settings on my final geometry? Tighter convergence criteria lead to geometries closer to the true local minimum but require more computational steps. The Convergence%Quality setting provides a quick way to adjust all relevant thresholds. The following table summarizes the predefined settings [6]:

Q4: How do I choose an optimizer for my molecular stiffness research? The choice of optimizer can depend on the system and the potential energy surface. Here is a comparison of common algorithms:

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Optimization Consistently Converges to a Saddle Point Issue: The calculation finishes without errors, but subsequent frequency analysis shows imaginary vibrational modes. Solution:

• Enable PES Point Characterization: In the Properties block, set PESPointCharacter True to identify the nature of the stationary point [6].
• Configure Automatic Restarts: In the GeometryOptimization block, set MaxRestarts to 5 (for example). This allows the job to automatically restart if a saddle point is found [6].
• Disable Symmetry: Set UseSymmetry False in the main input block. Automatic restarts require symmetry to be disabled because the displacement along the imaginary mode is often symmetry-breaking [6].
• Adjust Displacement (Optional): You can control the size of the displacement with the RestartDisplacement keyword (default is 0.05 Ã…) [6].

Sample Input Block:

Problem: Optimization is Unnecessarily Slow for a Preliminary Scan Issue: The optimization is taking too many steps, using excessive computational resources for a high-throughput study. Solution:

• Loosen Convergence Criteria: In the GeometryOptimization%Convergence block, use the Quality keyword. For a preliminary scan, Basic or VeryBasic quality can significantly speed up the calculation [6].
• Set a Practical Iteration Limit: Use the MaxIterations keyword to prevent the job from running indefinitely [6].

Sample Input Block:

Workflow Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the decision process and workflow for handling automatic restarts and symmetry.

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key computational "reagents" and parameters essential for managing geometry optimizations in molecular stiffness research.

Ensuring Success: Validating Optimized Geometries and Benchmarking Performance

Why is a frequency calculation necessary after a geometry optimization?

A geometry optimization concludes when the energy gradients (forces) are zero, indicating a stationary point on the potential energy surface. However, this point could be a minimum (all positive vibrational frequencies) or a saddle point like a transition state (one or more imaginary frequencies) [6] [44]. A frequency calculation is the only way to determine the nature of this stationary point by computing the Hessian (second derivative matrix) and its vibrational frequencies, confirming you have found the desired structure for your molecular stiffness research [6].

What does an "imaginary frequency" mean, and how should I troubleshoot it?

An imaginary frequency (often reported as a negative value) indicates a saddle point, not a minimum. This means the structure is at an energy peak along one vibrational coordinate.

Troubleshooting Steps:

• Verify the Optimization Convergence: First, confirm your geometry optimization fully converged. An incomplete optimization can yield a structure that is not a true stationary point.
• Examine the Imaginary Mode: Visualize the vibrational mode associated with the imaginary frequency. This mode shows the atomic motions that will lower the energy.
• Displace and Re-optimize: Distort your geometry along the direction of the imaginary vibrational mode and start a new optimization from this displaced geometry. Some software packages, like AMS, can automate this process upon detecting a saddle point [6].
• Check Method and Basis Set Suitability: Ensure your computational method (e.g., DFT functional, basis set) is appropriate for your system, particularly for transition metal complexes or systems with weak interactions.

How do I set convergence thresholds for optimizations in different software?

Convergence thresholds control how tightly the optimization criteria are enforced. Tighter thresholds lead to more precise geometries but require more computational resources. Most software packages offer pre-defined sets of thresholds. The table below summarizes common criteria across different platforms.

Experimental Protocol: Optimization and Frequency Analysis

This protocol outlines the standard workflow for obtaining a validated minimum-energy structure.

1. Initial Geometry Preparation

• Source: Obtain a reasonable starting structure from a database, molecular builder, or pre-optimization with a fast method (e.g., Molecular Mechanics/UFF) [45].
• Software Pre-optimization: Many graphical interfaces have built-in pre-optimizers to clean up hand-drawn structures [45].

2. Geometry Optimization Setup

• Method: Select an appropriate quantum chemical method with analytic gradients (e.g., HF, DFT, MP2) [2].
• Coordinates: Use redundant internal coordinates for faster convergence in most molecular cases [2] [44].
• Initial Hessian: For minimizations, a model Hessian (e.g., Almloef) is recommended for good convergence [2].
• Convergence: Choose a threshold (e.g., Normal or TightOpt) based on your required precision [2] [6].

3. Frequency Calculation

• Run: Using the fully optimized geometry as input, perform a frequency calculation at the same level of theory as the optimization.
• Analysis:
  • Confirm no imaginary frequencies exist for a minimum.
  • One imaginary frequency typically indicates a transition state.
  • The frequencies provide thermodynamic corrections for energy calculations.

The following workflow diagram illustrates this process and the critical troubleshooting step.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table lists key computational "reagents" and their functions for geometry optimization and frequency analysis.

Establishing a Robust Benchmarking Protocol for Optimization Methods

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

This section addresses common issues you might encounter when benchmarking optimization methods for molecular systems.

Q1: My geometry optimization is taking a very long time and has not converged after many steps. What should I check?

A: This is a common issue, often related to the system's stiffness or inappropriate convergence criteria.

• Check Convergence Settings: The default convergence thresholds may be too strict for your system. For initial scans, consider using a lower Convergence%Quality setting like Basic (increasing the energy threshold to 10⁻⁴ Ha and gradients to 10⁻² Ha/Ã…) to save time [6].
• Verify System Stiffness: Molecules can differ significantly in the stiffness around their energy minimum. Very stiff systems require more steps and tighter convergence criteria, which naturally increases computation time [6].
• Review Maximum Iterations: Ensure the MaxIterations limit is not set too low for a complex system. The default is typically a large number, but if you have modified it, it might be stopping the optimization prematurely [6].

Q2: The final geometry from my optimization has small forces but the atomic coordinates are still far from expected values. Why did this happen?

A: This indicates convergence based on gradients but not on the step size.

• Understand Convergence Criteria: A geometry optimization is considered converged only when multiple criteria are met, including thresholds for energy change, maximum gradient, root mean square (RMS) gradient, maximum step size, and RMS step size [6].
• Tighten Step Criterion: If the maximum and RMS gradients are more than 10 times smaller than the Convergence%Gradients threshold, the step size criteria are ignored [6]. To get more accurate coordinates, you should tighten the Convergence%Gradients criterion, which forces the optimizer to also satisfy the step criteria [6].
• Note on Coordinate Precision: The convergence threshold for coordinates (Convergence%Step) is not always a reliable measure for the final precision of the coordinates. For accurate results, tightening the criterion on the gradients is more effective than tightening the step criterion [6].

Q3: My optimization converged to a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum. How can I automatically recover from this?

A: Some software packages offer automatic recovery for this scenario.

• Enable PES Point Characterization: Use the PESPointCharacter property in the Properties block to calculate the lowest few Hessian eigenvalues and determine the type of stationary point found [6].
• Use Automatic Restarts: Enable automatic restarts by setting MaxRestarts to a value greater than 0 (e.g., 5). If a transition state is found, the geometry will be distorted along the imaginary mode and the optimization will restart [6].
• Disable Symmetry: This automatic restart feature typically requires that the system has no symmetry operators or that UseSymmetry False is explicitly set [6].

Q4: When benchmarking different optimizers, how do I choose the right one for my system?

A: The choice depends on your system's size and characteristics. Performance is highly task-specific, so benchmarking is crucial [46].

• For small to medium systems: Quasi-Newton methods like BFGS or L-BFGS are often a good default choice, as they build an approximation of the Hessian to achieve faster convergence [21].
• For systems with tricky convergence: Dynamical methods like FIRE or MDMin can be more robust in navigating complex potential energy surfaces [21].
• For global minimum searches: You may need global optimization algorithms, which are a much harder task than local optimization [21].
• Key Consideration: Algorithm selection should not be based solely on final performance. Computational time, stability, and sensitivity to initialization are also critical factors to consider in your benchmark [46].

Q5: The gradients from my electronic structure calculator are noisy, causing the optimization to fail. What can I do?

A: This is a known challenge when using certain computational methods.

• Increase Numerical Accuracy: Tight convergence criteria require accurate and noise-free gradients. Check your engine's documentation for options to increase its numerical accuracy (e.g., the NumericalQuality keyword in some codes) [6].
• Use a Robust Optimizer: Some optimizers are more tolerant to numerical noise. In such cases, algorithms like FIRE might be more stable than quasi-Newton methods that rely heavily on precise gradient information to update the Hessian [21].
• Loosen Convergence Criteria: If high numerical accuracy is too costly, you may need to use looser convergence thresholds (e.g., Basic quality) that are consistent with the accuracy of your gradients [6].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Data

Standard Convergence Criteria for Geometry Optimization

The table below summarizes the default convergence criteria in a typical quantum chemistry package, which serve as a starting point for benchmarking [6].

Predefined Convergence Qualities

For easier setup, many codes offer predefined settings. The energy, gradient, and step values are set as shown in the table below [6].

Performance Comparison of Optimization Algorithms

A benchmark on a lithium-ion battery aging dataset highlighted the complementary strengths of different optimization approaches, underscoring that performance is task-specific [46].

Workflow Visualization

Optimization Benchmarking Protocol

Troubleshooting Logic for Non-Convergence

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key computational "reagents" and their functions for setting up optimization benchmarks.

Comparing Property Prediction (e.g., Solubility) from Different Optimized Geometries

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How do geometry convergence thresholds directly impact the prediction of properties like solubility? The convergence criteria for a geometry optimization determine how close the calculated structure is to a local energy minimum on the potential energy surface (PES). Using thresholds that are too loose (e.g., 'Basic' or 'VeryBasic') can result in a geometry that is far from the minimum, even if the total energy is close to the minimum value [6]. Since properties such as solubility are derived from the molecular geometry and its energy, an inaccurate geometry will lead to incorrect property predictions. For instance, the molecular dipole moment or the surface area available for solvent interaction could be miscalculated, directly affecting the predicted solubility [47].

2. My molecular dynamics (MD) simulation shows stable energy, but my calculated solubility is inconsistent. Is the system equilibrated? A stable total energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a system to be equilibrated for all properties [13]. A system can be in partial equilibrium, where properties that depend on high-probability regions of conformational space (like average distances) have converged, while properties that depend on low-probability regions (like certain transition rates or the full conformational partition function) have not [13]. Solubility is a complex property that can be influenced by these infrequent conformational changes. You should monitor multiple structural and dynamic properties relevant to solvation (e.g., radius of gyration, solvent-accessible surface area) over time to ensure they have also reached a plateau [13].

3. What is the difference between thermodynamic and kinetic solubility, and which should I predict from computed geometries?

• Thermodynamic Solubility is the concentration of a compound in solution at equilibrium with its most stable crystalline form. This is the standard for lead optimization in drug development [47].
• Kinetic Solubility is often measured in early discovery by precipitating a compound from a DMSO stock solution. It is a crude estimate of thermodynamic solubility and does not involve a controlled crystalline form [47]. Computational models, especially those based on quantum mechanics or force fields that assume a stable state, are best suited for predicting intrinsic or thermodynamic solubility [47]. The initial molecular geometry used in such calculations should ideally represent the global minimum or a low-energy conformation of the most stable crystal form.

4. Why does my machine learning (ML) model for solubility perform poorly on new compounds, even with well-optimized geometries? This often relates to the applicability domain of the ML model and the quality of its training data. A model may perform poorly prospectively if [47]:

• Data Source Mixture: The training data was a mixture of intrinsic, apparent, and water solubility measurements without proper distinction, leading to a model that does not accurately represent a single, well-defined property [47].
• Overlooked Historical Data: The model was trained on modern datasets that overlap with but overlook key historical data sources, creating hidden biases and overoptimistic performance metrics [47].
• Insufficient Features: The feature set (molecular descriptors) may not adequately capture the key physical determinants of solubility from your optimized geometries, such as the electrostatic potential surface or hydrogen-bonding capacity.

Troubleshooting Guide

Problem 1: Poor Convergence of Geometry Optimization

Problem 2: Property Prediction is Sensitive to Small Geometric Changes

Problem 3: Discrepancy Between Predicted and Experimental Solubility

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Protocol 1: Standardized Workflow for Geometry Optimization and Property Prediction

This protocol ensures consistent, comparable results when studying the effect of molecular stiffness on properties.

1. Initial Geometry Preparation:

• Obtain a starting 3D structure from a crystal database (e.g., PDB, CSD) or use a molecular builder.
• Perform a preliminary conformational search using molecular mechanics to identify low-energy starting points.

2. Systematic Geometry Optimization:

• Use a consistent electronic structure method (e.g., DFT functional and basis set) for all compounds.
• Optimize the geometry using a range of convergence thresholds as defined in the table below. This is crucial for stiffness research.
• For periodic systems, set OptimizeLattice Yes [6].
• For each optimization, record the final energy, number of steps, and whether convergence was achieved.

3. Property Calculation:

• Using each optimized geometry, calculate the target property (e.g., solubility via an ML model like fastsolv [48] or via thermodynamic cycles).
• Also calculate and record geometric metrics that correlate with stiffness, such as lowest vibrational frequency or root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) from a reference structure.

4. Analysis:

• Plot the predicted property (e.g., logS) against the convergence threshold and the geometric metrics to identify correlations and determine a sufficient level of optimization.

Workflow Diagram: Geometry Optimization for Property Prediction

Protocol 2: Validating Equilibration in Molecular Dynamics for Solvation Studies

Before extracting properties from an MD simulation, you must ensure the system is equilibrated. This protocol uses the concept of partial equilibrium [13].

1. Simulation Setup:

• Start from an optimized geometry. Solvate the molecule in a water box using a tool like CHARMM-GUI [49].
• Perform standard energy minimization, heating, and pressurization steps.

2. Production Run and Data Collection:

• Run an unrestrained MD simulation for as long as computationally feasible (aim for µs-scale for biomolecules [13]).
• Track the following properties over time: Total energy, Potential energy, RMSD of the solute, Radius of gyration (Rg), Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), Number of hydrogen bonds with solvent.

3. Convergence Analysis:

• For each property, calculate the rolling average from time 0 to t, 〈Ai〉(t).
• A property is considered "equilibrated" after a time tc if the fluctuations of 〈Ai〉(t) around its final average 〈Ai〉(T) remain small for a significant portion of the trajectory (t > tc) [13].
• The system is sufficiently equilibrated for your purposes when the key properties related to your study (e.g., SASA for solubility) have stabilized.

Workflow Diagram: MD Equilibration Validation

Research Reagent Solutions & Data Tables

Essential Software Tools for Analysis

Standard Geometry Convergence Criteria

The table below, based on the AMS documentation, provides standard convergence thresholds. For stiffness research, comparing results from 'Normal' to 'VeryGood' is recommended [6].

Comparison of Solubility Prediction Methods

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the default convergence criteria for a geometry optimization in AMS, and when should I tighten them? The default convergence criteria in the AMS package are classified as "Normal" quality. A geometry optimization is considered converged only when multiple conditions are met simultaneously, including thresholds for energy change, maximum gradient, RMS gradient, maximum step, and RMS step [6]. The "Good" and "VeryGood" settings tighten these thresholds by one and two orders of magnitude, respectively, which is recommended for final, high-accuracy optimizations, especially when the system has a stiff potential energy surface [6].

2. My optimization is converging very slowly. What can I do? Slow convergence can often be traced to an inaccurate initial Hessian (force constant matrix). For tricky potential energy surfaces, a highly effective strategy is to calculate the exact Hessian at the beginning of the optimization and periodically recalculate it every few steps [51]. This provides the optimizer with better directional information. Additionally, ensure that the SCF convergence criteria and numerical integration grids (for DFT) are sufficiently tight, as numerical noise in the gradients can significantly slow down the optimization process [51].

3. I keep getting SCF convergence errors. How can I fix this? SCF convergence failures are a common issue. First, try using the TIGHTSCF keyword (in ORCA) or its equivalent in other software to enforce stricter convergence of the electronic structure [51]. If the problem persists, it can be related to the system itself or numerical settings. Using a larger integration grid for DFT calculations can sometimes improve stability and even speed up the overall geometry optimization by providing more accurate gradients [51].

4. What does the error "Error in internal coordinate system" or "FormBX had a problem" mean? This error in programs like Gaussian often occurs when several atoms become co-linear during the optimization, causing a failure in the internal coordinate system [52]. A reliable solution is to switch the optimization to work in Cartesian coordinates by using the opt=cartesian keyword. While this may increase the number of optimization steps, it avoids the limitations of internal coordinates in these special cases [52].

5. My optimization converged to a saddle point. What now? If your optimization converges to a transition state (a saddle point of order 1) instead of a minimum, some packages like AMS can automatically handle this. Provided that symmetry is disabled (UseSymmetry False), PESPointCharacter is enabled in the properties, and MaxRestarts is set to a value greater than 0, the optimizer will displace the geometry along the imaginary mode and restart the optimization automatically [6].

Troubleshooting Guide

Optimization Does Not Converge

• Problem: The optimization hits the maximum number of cycles without meeting the convergence criteria.
• Solutions:
  • Increase MaxIterations: This is a temporary fix; investigate the root cause.
  • Improve Hessian: Calculate the exact Hessian at the start or read in a Hessian from a previous frequency calculation to guide the optimizer [51].
  • Check Gradients: Ensure that the electronic structure method provides accurate and noise-free gradients. You may need to tighten the SCF convergence or use a larger DFT grid [6] [51].
  • Change Coordinates: If using internal coordinates, try switching to Cartesian coordinates (opt=cartesian in Gaussian) to avoid issues with linear bends and torsions [52].

Optimization Crashes with Specific Errors

• Error: "FormBX had a problem" / "Error in internal coordinate system"

  • Cause: Linear arrangements of atoms in the molecular structure [52].
  • Fix: Use opt=cartesian in Gaussian or similar functionality in other software. Re-optimizing the final structure from a different starting point can also sometimes resolve the issue [52].

• Error: "Linear search skipped for unknown reason" / "Inconsistency: ModMin= N Eigenvalue= MM"

  • Cause: The optimization Hessian has become invalid [52].
  • Fix: Restart the optimization using the opt=calcFC keyword in Gaussian, which forces a recalculation of the initial Hessian at the starting geometry [52].

• Error: "RedCar/ORedCr failed for GTrans" (Common in QST2 calculations)

  • Cause: Incorrect atom numbering between reactant and product structures or an internal program issue [52].
  • Fix: Confirm consistent atom numbering. If the error persists, try an alternative transition-state search method like QST3 or TS(Berny) [52].

Optimization Converges to an Incorrect Structure

• Problem: The optimization converges to a saddle point or a high-energy structure.
• Solutions:
  • Characterize the Point: Use frequency calculations (e.g., PESPointCharacter in AMS) to determine if the stationary point is a minimum or a saddle point [6].
  • Automatic Restarts: In AMS, use MaxRestarts to automatically displace the geometry and re-optimize if a saddle point is found [6].
  • Improve Starting Geometry: Use pre-optimization with a cheap but robust method (e.g., GFN-xTB, HF-3c) or manually check the initial bond lengths and angles [51].

Convergence Criteria and Performance Data

Standard Convergence Thresholds

The following table summarizes the predefined convergence criteria sets in the AMS package. An optimization must satisfy all the listed criteria types to be considered converged [6].

Table 1: Standard Geometry Optimization Convergence Criteria (AMS) [6]

Convergence Logic: The optimization is converged when:

• Energy change < Energy × number of atoms.
• Max gradient < Gradients.
• RMS gradient < 2/3 × Gradients.
• Max step < Step.
• RMS step < 2/3 × Step. (Note: If the max and RMS gradients are 10 times tighter than the criterion, the step criteria are ignored.) [6]

Recommended Protocols for Common Scenarios

Table 2: Recommended Optimization Protocols for Different Scenarios

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standard Geometry Optimization Procedure

The following workflow outlines a robust protocol for conducting a geometry optimization, from initial structure preparation to final validation.

Standard geometry optimization and validation workflow.

Protocol: Optimization with Exact Hessian

For systems with tricky, flat potential energy surfaces, using the exact Hessian can dramatically improve convergence.

• Input Preparation: In your input file, specify the keywords to request an exact Hessian calculation. For methods with analytical Hessians (like HF, GGA, and hybrid DFT), this will trigger an analytical computation [51].
• Initial Step: The first optimization step will involve a more expensive energy, gradient, and Hessian calculation.
• Optimization Cycle: The optimizer uses the precise curvature information from the Hessian to take more informed steps toward the minimum.
• Hessian Recalculation: For very difficult cases, set the Recalc_Hess keyword (e.g., every 5 or 10 steps) to keep the Hessian accurate throughout the process [51].

Protocol: Transition State Optimization

Locating a transition state (a first-order saddle point) requires a different approach than finding a minimum.

Transition state search and verification workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key computational tools and methods essential for successful geometry optimizations.

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Methods

Lessons from Real-World Applications in Cement Hydrates and Drug Solubility Prediction

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: My geometry optimization for a cement hydrate model is not converging. The energy oscillates without settling. What should I check? A: This is common in systems with "molecular stiffness," where strong ionic bonds and weak van der Waals forces create a complex potential energy surface. First, verify your convergence criteria. The default Normal setting in many codes (Energy=1e-5 Ha, Gradients=0.001 Ha/Ã…) may be insufficient [6]. For stiff systems, try the Good or VeryGood quality presets, which tighten the gradient threshold by one or two orders of magnitude, respectively [6]. Second, ensure the optimizer can handle the stiffness. The FIRE algorithm is often effective for such landscapes as it uses Newtonian dynamics with friction to efficiently navigate towards a minimum [21].

Q2: How can I accurately predict the solubility of a new drug candidate molecule in a range of solvents without running dozens of lab experiments? A: Machine learning models like FastSolv are designed for this task. You can use this model to predict the solubility (as log10(Solubility)) of any given molecule across hundreds of organic solvents and at different temperatures [53] [48]. The model was trained on the large experimental dataset BigSolDB, which contains over 54,000 solubility measurements, making it capable of predicting for previously unseen molecules [48]. This allows for rapid, computational screening of solvent candidates, helping to minimize the use of hazardous solvents early in the development pipeline [53].

Q3: My optimization converged to a saddle point (transition state) instead of a minimum. How can I automatically correct this? A: Enable PES (Potential Energy Surface) Point Characterization in your optimization setup. This feature calculates the lowest few Hessian eigenvalues to determine the nature of the stationary point found [6]. If a saddle point is detected, you can configure the optimizer to automatically restart by applying a small displacement along the imaginary vibrational mode. This requires setting MaxRestarts to a value greater than 0 (e.g., 5) and ensuring symmetry is disabled with UseSymmetry False [6].

Q4: What is a practical method for selecting a solvent for a synthesis reaction that balances solubility with environmental and safety concerns? A: Combine modern ML predictions with traditional principles. Use a model like FastSolv to identify solvents with high predicted solubility for your solute [53]. Then, cross-reference this list with known hazardous solvent lists. A key advantage of accurate models is their ability to identify high-solubility alternatives to commonly used but damaging solvents, supporting the development of greener chemical processes [53].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Slow or Failed Convergence in Cement Hydrate Geometry Optimization

Cement hydrates present a challenge due to their heterogeneous nature and a mix of strong covalent/ionic and dispersive interactions.

Diagnosis and Solution Protocol:

• Tighten Convergence Criteria Methodically:

  • Action: Do not rely on default (Normal) settings. Systematically increase the convergence quality.
  • Implementation: In your input script, set the Convergence%Quality to Good or VeryGood. The specific thresholds are outlined below [6]:

  Convergence Quality	Energy (Ha)	Gradients (Ha/Ã…)	Step (Ã…)
  Normal (Default)	1.0 × 10⁻⁵	1.0 × 10⁻³	0.01
  Good	1.0 × 10⁻⁶	1.0 × 10⁻⁴	0.001
  VeryGood	1.0 × 10⁻⁷	1.0 × 10⁻⁵	0.0001

• Select a Robust Optimization Algorithm:

  • Action: For stiff systems, use an optimizer that efficiently handles varying curvature on the potential energy surface.
  • Implementation: The BFGSLineSearch (often called QuasiNewton) or FIRE algorithms are recommended. FIRE is particularly noted for its performance in complex energy landscapes [21].

• Verify the Internal Coordinate System:

  • Action: Ensure constraints or lattice optimizations are correctly set.
  • Implementation: For periodic cement hydrate models, if optimizing the unit cell, explicitly set OptimizeLattice Yes [6].

Problem: Predicting Drug Solubility Across Solvents and Temperatures

Accurate solubility prediction is critical for drug formulation and synthesis planning.

Experimental and Computational Protocol:

• Define the Solute-Solvent System:

  • Action: Identify the drug molecule (solute) and the list of target solvents.
  • Implementation: Prepare a computational representation of the solute (e.g., a SMILES string or 3D geometry file). Compile a list of common organic solvents (e.g., ethanol, acetone, acetonitrile, water) [53] [48].

• Execute a Machine Learning Prediction Workflow:

  • Action: Use a pre-trained model like FastSolv for high-throughput prediction.
  • Implementation: Input the solute and solvent information into the model. FastSolv uses numerical molecular descriptors (from libraries like mordred) for both solute and solvent, along with temperature, as inputs to a neural network [48]. The model outputs the predicted log10(Solubility).

• Analyze Temperature-Dependent Results:

  • Action: Run predictions across a temperature range (e.g., 0°C to 50°C) to understand the solubility profile.
  • Implementation: The model will generate a graph of solubility versus temperature for each solvent. Analyze these curves to identify solvents with high solubility and desirable temperature dependence for crystallization [48].

Conclusion

Mastering geometry convergence thresholds is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor but a critical, molecule-specific skill that directly impacts the reliability of computational results in drug discovery. This synthesis demonstrates that by understanding molecular stiffness, methodically applying and configuring optimization algorithms, and rigorously validating outcomes, researchers can significantly enhance the predictive power of their simulations. Future advancements hinge on the development of even more adaptive optimization protocols and the deeper integration of machine learning to pre-emptively recommend optimal settings based on molecular structure. Such progress will be pivotal in accelerating the design of novel therapeutics with optimized binding affinity and improved physicochemical properties, ultimately increasing the success rate of clinical candidates.

References

• 1. 10.2 Potential energy surfaces and molecular interactions [https://fiveable.me/molecular-physics/unit-10/potential-energy-surfaces-molecular-interactions/study-guide/C4oVszsA7a2rqLF3]
• 2. 4.1. Geometry - ORCA 6.1 Manual Optimizations [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.1/manual/contents/structurereactivity/optimizations.html]
• 3. — xtb doc 2023 documentation Geometry Optimization [https://xtb-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/optimization.html]
• 4. 3.1: Potential Energy Surface and Bonding Interactions [https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_University/Biophysical_Chemistry_(Smirnov_and_McCarty)/03%3A_Molecular_Mechanics_and_Statistical_Thermodynamics/3.01%3A_Potential_Energy_Surface_and_Bonding_Interactions]
• 5. gaussian - Convergence problem in geometry optimization ... [https://mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/questions/11236/convergence-problem-in-geometry-optimization-in-gaussian16]
• 6. Geometry optimization — AMS 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Tasks/Geometry_Optimization.html]
• 7. The Fundamental Role of Flexibility on the Strength of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3374587/]
• 8. Flexibility and binding affinity in protein–ligand, protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3223636/]
• 9. Protein conformational flexibility modulates kinetics and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02258-w]
• 10. 3.2. Convergence Criteria [https://ansyshelp.ansys.com/public/Views/Secured/corp/v251/en/ans_mul/Hlp_G_MULCONVCRIT.html]
• 11. Convergence Questions [https://downloads.wavefun.com/FAQ/converge.html]
• 12. Is an Intuitive Convergence Definition of Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3145956/]
• 13. Convergence and equilibrium in molecular dynamics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-024-01114-5]
• 14. GFN2-xTB geometry optimization doesn't converge #814 [https://github.com/grimme-lab/xtb/discussions/814]
• 15. Quickstart into Production — xtb doc 2023 documentation [https://xtb-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/basics.html]
• 16. Comparative analysis of GFN methods in geometry ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.09606v1]
• 17. Combining de novo molecular design with semiempirical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11577348/]
• 18. Geometry Optimization troubleshooting — ADF 2025.1 ... - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/ADF/Rec_problems_questions/Geometry_Optimization.html]
• 19. Troubleshooting — BAND 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/BAND/Troubleshooting/Trouble_Shooting.html]
• 20. LBFGS — | QuantumATKX-2025.06 Documentation [https://docs.quantumatk.com/manual/Types/LBFGS/LBFGS.html]
• 21. Structure optimization — ASE documentation [https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase/ase/optimize.html]
• 22. Which Optimizer Should You Use With NNPs? | Rowan [https://www.rowansci.com/blog/which-optimizer-should-you-use-with-nnps]
• 23. L-BFGS optimizer stops at exactly 30 iterations, no matter ... [https://github.com/lululxvi/deepxde/issues/1819]
• 24. Failing convergence of Flexible - Back transformation failed Molecule [https://forum.psicode.org/t/failing-convergence-of-flexible-molecule-back-transformation-failed/3374]
• 25. Fragment‐based drug discovery—the importance of high ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9627785/]
• 26. Opt [https://gaussian.com/opt/]
• 27. A.1.1 Overview‣ A.1 Introduction ‣ Appendix A Geometry ... [https://manual.q-chem.com/5.4/A1.S1.SS1.html]
• 28. Deep Learning 101: Lesson 13: Optimizers - Muneeb S. Ahmad [https://muneebsa.medium.com/deep-learning-101-lesson-13-optimizers-7bbb91084fa1]
• 29. Geometry Optimization | Rowan Documentation [https://docs.rowansci.com/science/quantum-chemistry/geometry-optimization]
• 30. Geometry Optimization Algorithms in Conjunction with the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201553/]
• 31. Molecular Dynamics - QuantumATK [https://docs.quantumatk.com/manual/technicalnotes/molecular_dynamics/molecular_dynamics.html]
• 32. Molecular dynamics parameters (.mdp options) [https://manual.gromacs.org/2025-rc/user-guide/mdp-options.html]
• 33. Optimized step size control within the Rosenbrock solvers for ... [https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/18/4273/2025/]
• 34. GEOM, energy-annotated molecular conformations for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01288-4]
• 35. Introduction - GROMACS 2025-rc documentation [https://manual.gromacs.org/documentation/2025-rc/reference-manual/introduction.html]
• 36. AFsample2 predicts multiple conformations and ensembles ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11882827/]
• 37. Conformers — AMS 2025.1 documentation - SCM [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Utilities/Conformers.html]
• 38. 6.3. Geometry Optimizations , Surface Scans, Transition States... [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/manual/contents/typical/optimizations.html]
• 39. Analytical ab initio hessian from a deep learning potential for transition... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11473838/]
• 40. 10.1.2 Job Control‣ 10.1 Equilibrium Geometries and Transition-State... [https://manual.q-chem.com/5.2/Ch10.S1.SS2.html]
• 41. Geometry Optimization [https://psicode.org/psi4manual/master/optking.html]
• 42. PC GAMESS Tutorial: Dehydration Reaction, Part 4 [https://people.chem.ucsb.edu/kahn/kalju/chem226/public/pcgamess_tutorial_A4.html]
• 43. Driving torsion scans with wavefront propagation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7320903/]
• 44. A.1 Introduction‣ Appendix A Geometry Optimization with ... [https://manual.q-chem.com/5.2/A1.S1.html]
• 45. Getting started: Geometry of ethanol — Tutorials... optimization [https://www.scm.com/doc/Tutorials/GettingStarted/GeometryOptimizationOfEthanol.html]
• 46. Benchmarking optimization methods for materials research [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775325018853]
• 47. Will we ever be able to accurately predict solubility? [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03105-6]
• 48. The Evolution of Solubility Prediction Methods - Rowan Scientific [https://rowansci.com/blog/solubility-prediction-methods]
• 49. VMD and PyMOL. [https://charmm-gui.org/?doc=lecture&module=pdb&lesson=2]
• 50. Lightweight Object Oriented Structure analysis: Tools for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4227929/]
• 51. Geometry optimizations - ORCA Input Library [https://sites.google.com/site/orcainputlibrary/geometry-optimizations]
• 52. Gaussian Common Errors and Solutions | Zhe WANG, Ph.D. [https://wongzit.github.io/gaussian-common-errors-and-solutions/]
• 53. A new model predicts how molecules will dissolve in ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/new-model-predicts-how-molecules-will-dissolve-in-different-solvents-0819]