Austin Model 1

The inability to reproduce hydrogen bonding was fatal to the application of MNDO to the study of biologically interesting systems. Dewar immediately started work on correcting this problem. Reparameterization was not the answer, since no terms existed within MNDO that could correct for the excessive repulsions at van der Waals distances. Instead, each atom was assigned a number of spherical Gaussians that were intended to mimic the correlation effects. The core-core term in AMI became 

This increased the number of parameters from the original seven to between 13 and 16 per atom. 

---

There are three modihed intermediate neglect of differential overlap (MINDO) methods MINDO/1, MINDO/2, and MINDO/3. The MINDO/3 method is by far the most reliable of these. This method has yielded qualitative results for organic molecules. However its use today has been superseded by that of more accurate methods such as Austin model 1 (AMI) and parameterization method 3 (PM3). MINDO/3 is still sometimes used to obtain an initial guess for ah initio calculations. 

AIM (atoms in molecules) a population analysis technique AMI (Austin model 1) a semiempirical method... 

A new parametric quantum mechanical model AMI (Austin model 1), based on the NDDO approximations, is described. In it the major weakness of MNDO, in particular the failure to reproduce hydrogen bonds, have been overcome without any increase in eoraputer time. Results for 167 molecules are reported. Parameters are currently available for C, H, O and N. 

After some experience with MNDO, it became clear that there were certain systematic en ors. For example the repulsion between two atoms which are 2-3 A apart is too high. This has as a consequence that activation energies in general are too large. The source was traced to too repulsive an interaction in the core-core potential. To remedy this, the core-core function was modified by adding Gaussian functions, and the whole model was reparameterized. The result was called Austin Model 1 (AMl) in honour of Dewar s move to the University of Austin. The core-core repulsion of AMI has the form ... 

The systems discussed in this chapter give some examples using different theoretical models for the interpretation of, primarily, UPS valence band data, both for pristine and doped systems as well as for the initial stages of interface formation between metals and conjugated systems. Among the various methods used in the examples are the following semiempirical Hartree-Fock methods such as the Modified Neglect of Diatomic Overlap (MNDO) [31, 32) and Austin Model 1 (AMI) [33] the non-empirical Valence Effective Hamiltonian (VEH) pseudopotential method [3, 34J and ab initio Hartree-Fock techniques. 

ADAPT Automated data analysis and pattern recognition toolkit AMI Austin model 1... 

Again, let Dewar give the summary for the Austin Model 1 (AMI) ... 

Various parameterizations of NDDO have been proposed. Among these are modified neglect of diatomic overlap (MNDO),152 Austin Model 1 (AMI),153 and parametric method number 3 (PM3),154 all of which often perform better than those based on INDO. The parameterizations in these methods are based on atomic and molecular data. All three methods include only valence s and p functions, which are taken as Slater-type orbitals. The difference in the methods is in how the core-core repulsions are treated. These methods involve at least 12 parameters per atom, of which some are obtained from experimental data and others by fitting to experimental data. The AMI, MNDO, and PM3 methods have been focused on ground state properties such as enthalpies of formation and geometries. One of the limitations of these methods is that they can be used only with molecules that have s and p valence electrons, although MNDO has been extended to d electrons, as mentioned below. 

---