PM6-DH+ gives much improved interaction energies compared to PM6. Whereas in PM6, the average unsigned error for interaction energies for the complexes in the S22 set, using the S22 geometries, is 3.27 Kcal/mol, for PM6-DH+, the equivalent average unsigned error is 0.57 Kcal/mol. For details of PM6-DH+, see: M. Korth, "Third-Generation Hydrogen-Bonding Corrections for Semiempirical QM Methods and Force Fields," J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2010, 6 (12), pp 3808-3816.
Unlike PM6-DH2, there are no errors in the gradient of the energy with respect to geometry, so PM6-DH+ can be used to optimize geometries.
However, the errors in the PM6-DH2 gradients are small, and the average unsigned error in hydrogen bonding energy from PM6-DH+ for the optimized structures is 0.87 kcal/mol compared to PM6-DH2 average of 0.60 kcal/mol.
The following table is provided to assist users in deciding which method to use. Intermolecular interactions that are different between PM6-DH2 and PM6-DH+ are shown in black, where hydrogen bonds are absent the results are in green, and should be the same for both methods. (There are small differences in the optimized geometry results because PM6-DH+ uses derivatives calculated by diatomic finite difference, and PM6-DH2 uses derivatives calculated by differences of full SCF calculations.)
PM6 - type calculations at the S22 geometry | PM6 - type calculations at the PM6-type geometry | ||||||||||||||||
Chemical Sample | Ref. : CCSD(T)/CBS | PM6 error | PM6-DH2 error | mod | PM6-DH+ error | mod | PM6 error | PM6-DH2 error | mod | PM6-DH+ error | mod | ||||||
01 Ammonia dimer | -3.170 | 0.865 | -0.034 | 0.034 | -0.042 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.809 | -0.905 | 0.905 | -2.149 | 2.149 | |||||
02 Water dimer | -5.020 | 1.084 | 0.121 | 0.121 | 1.573 | -1.452 | 1.452 | 1.132 | -0.103 | 0.103 | -1.620 | 1.620 | |||||
03 Formic acid dimer | -18.610 | 7.474 | -0.044 | 0.044 | -0.916 | 0.872 | 0.872 | 8.573 | 0.275 | 0.275 | 2.290 | 2.290 | |||||
04 Formamide dimer | -15.960 | 3.412 | 0.095 | 0.095 | 1.987 | -1.892 | 1.892 | 5.130 | 1.754 | 1.754 | -0.427 | 0.427 | |||||
05 Uracil HB | -20.470 | 7.146 | -0.727 | 0.727 | -1.841 | 1.114 | 1.114 | 7.973 | -0.068 | 0.068 | 2.055 | 2.055 | |||||
06 Pyridoxine aminopyridine | -16.710 | 6.729 | 0.355 | 0.355 | 0.427 | -0.072 | 0.072 | 7.111 | 0.339 | 0.339 | 0.605 | 0.605 | |||||
07 Adenine thymine WC | -16.370 | 7.311 | -0.083 | 0.083 | -0.579 | 0.496 | 0.496 | 7.482 | -0.411 | 0.411 | 0.964 | 0.964 | |||||
08 Methane dimer | -0.530 | 0.466 | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.000 | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.461 | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.082 | |||||
09 Ethylene dimer | -1.510 | 1.109 | 0.449 | 0.449 | 0.000 | 0.449 | 0.449 | 1.103 | 0.426 | 0.426 | 0.426 | 0.426 | |||||
10 Benzene methane | -1.500 | 1.026 | 0.107 | 0.107 | 0.000 | 0.107 | 0.107 | 1.007 | -0.008 | 0.008 | -0.002 | 0.002 | |||||
11 Benzene dimer stack | -2.730 | 2.856 | -0.840 | 0.840 | 0.000 | -0.840 | 0.840 | 2.156 | -0.884 | 0.884 | -0.884 | 0.884 | |||||
12 Pyrazine dimer | -4.420 | 2.614 | -0.921 | 0.921 | 0.000 | -0.921 | 0.921 | 2.275 | -1.371 | 1.371 | -1.371 | 1.371 | |||||
13 Uracil dimer stack | -9.880 | 5.422 | 0.439 | 0.439 | -0.027 | 0.466 | 0.466 | 5.440 | 0.937 | 0.937 | 0.696 | 0.696 | |||||
14 Indole benzene stack | -5.220 | 5.291 | 0.168 | 0.168 | 0.000 | 0.168 | 0.168 | 2.664 | 0.111 | 0.111 | 0.213 | 0.213 | |||||
15 Adenine thymine stack | -12.230 | 7.288 | 0.541 | 0.541 | -0.026 | 0.567 | 0.567 | 6.921 | 0.571 | 0.571 | 0.511 | 0.511 | |||||
16 Ethene ethyne | -1.530 | 0.982 | 0.580 | 0.580 | 0.000 | 0.580 | 0.580 | 0.984 | 0.552 | 0.552 | 0.552 | 0.552 | |||||
17 Benzene water | -3.280 | 0.999 | 0.101 | 0.101 | 0.000 | 0.101 | 0.101 | 0.644 | -0.277 | 0.277 | -0.277 | 0.277 | |||||
18 Benzene ammonia | -2.350 | 0.822 | -0.193 | 0.193 | 0.000 | -0.193 | 0.193 | 0.327 | -1.041 | 1.041 | -1.039 | 1.039 | |||||
19 Benzene hydrogen cyanide | -4.460 | 2.475 | 1.472 | 1.472 | 0.000 | 1.472 | 1.472 | 2.444 | 1.455 | 1.455 | 1.452 | 1.452 | |||||
20 Benzene dimer T | -2.740 | 1.965 | 0.152 | 0.152 | 0.000 | 0.152 | 0.152 | 1.937 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.125 | |||||
21 Indole benzene T | -5.730 | 3.326 | 0.801 | 0.801 | 0.000 | 0.801 | 0.801 | 3.219 | 0.614 | 0.614 | 0.615 | 0.615 | |||||
22 Phenol dimer | -7.050 | 3.673 | -0.007 | 0.007 | 0.001 | -0.008 | 0.008 | 2.758 | -1.115 | 1.115 | -1.113 | 1.113 | |||||
23 Methanol dimer | -5.700 | 2.201 | -0.552 | 0.552 | 0.105 | -0.657 | 0.657 | 0.933 | -0.583 | 0.583 | 0.235 | 0.235 | |||||
24 Methanol formaldehyde | -5.310 | 1.899 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.321 | -0.222 | 0.222 | 1.418 | -0.363 | 0.363 | -1.052 | 1.052 | |||||
Average: | 3.268 | 0.090 | 0.373 | 0.049 | 0.571 | 3.121 | 0.005 | 0.599 | 0.037 | 0.865 |
Note: Heats of formation predicted by PM6-DH+ should not be compared to reference heats of formation. This is because PM6-DH+ is designed for predicting energies of interaction. If heats of formation are wanted then use PM6, for which the predicted ΔHf can be compared to experimental values.
The above values are for the S22 set. M. Korth has also supplied data for two other sets. First, results for the 105 small, H-bonded complexes of the PM6-DH1 Fit Set; giving Mean Signed (MSE), Mean Unsigned (MUEs), and Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE) as well as the Maximum Error Span, r, with respect to the Benchmark CCSD(T)/CBS Interaction Energies. All values are in kcal/mol.
PM6-D | PM6-DH2 | PM6-DH+ | ||||
MSE | -1.66 | -0.43 | 0.46 | |||
MUE | 1.77 | 1.15 | 1.21 | |||
RMSE | 2.35 | 1.54 | 1.44 | |||
r | 9.61 | 7.37 | 6.18 |
Second, results for the JSCH2005 H-bonded DNA base pairs with respect to the Benchmark CCSD(T)/CBS Interaction Energies are presented. Again all values are in kcal/mol.
PM6-D | PM6-DH2 | PM6-DH+ | ||||
MSE | -6.10 | -0.54 | -0.87 | |||
MUE | 6.10 | 1.76 | 1.35 | |||
RMSE | 6.30 | 2.23 | 1.59 | |||
r | 7.67 | 7.94 | 5.94 |
PM6-DH+ has some theoretical and practical advantages over the other hydrogen bonding correction methods in PM6; for a detailed discussion of these issues see: M. Korth, "Third-Generation Hydrogen-Bonding Corrections for Semiempirical QM Methods and Force Fields," J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2010, 6 (12), pp 3808-3816.