Austin model 1 method

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 However its use today has been superseded by that of more accurate methods such as Austin model 1 (AMI) and parameterization method 3 (PM3).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... 

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. 

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. 

The methods of the NDDO family were further developed, which resulted in two quite successful parametrizations for organic species [68,69] known as the Austin Model (AMI) and Parametrized Model (PM3) and further, PM5 and SAMI (semi-ab initio model) parametrizations [74,75]. 

The popular semiempirical methods, MNDO (Dewar and Thiel, 1977), Austin Model 1 AMI Dewar et al., 1985), Parameterized Model 3 (PM3 Stewart 1989a 1989b), and Parameterized Model 5 (PM5 Stewart, 2002), are all confined to treating only valence electrons explicitly, and employ a minimum basis set (one 5 orbital for hydrogen, and one 5 and three p orbitals for all heavy atoms). Most importantly, they are based on the NDDO approximation (Stewart, 1990a, 1990b Thiel, 1988, 1996 Zemer, 1991) ... 

Theoretical study using semiempirical Austin Model 1 (AMI) and modified neglect of diatomic overlap (MNDO) methods on the interconversion of the closed [6,6] and the open [5,6] isomers of CsoS revealed a stepwise pathway via a local energy minimum corresponding to the closed [5,6] isomer. The results are in good agreement with those derived from the experiments <2002JPC9284>. 

A Computational Study of the Tensile and Compressive Properties of Ordered Polymers Via the Austin Model 1 (AMI) Semiempirical Molecular Orbital Method. ... 

The calculated individual contributions to the total aqueous solvation free energies of 30 organic compounds are given in Table 1. The electrostatic (SCRF) contributions were calculated using semiempirical AMI (Austin Model 1 [60,61]) method. The dispersion energies were calculated using INDO/1 parameterization [62] and AMI optimized molecular geometries in solution. A comparison of different columns in Table 1 with the experimental solvation... 

Many popular semiempirical methods are based on the original MNDO method. The most prominent of these are Austin Model 1 (AMI) by Dewar et al. [73] and Parametric Method 3 (PM3) by Stewart [74], These three methods represent the semiempirical standard for the calculation of organic molecules and are included in popular program packages such as Gaussian [78], CERIUS [79], SPARTAN [80], MOP AC [81], and AMPAC [82], Recently, AM 1 and PM3 have also been extended for the treatment of transition metal compounds [75-77], In principle, they only differ in the parameterization and in the empirical function fAB [Eq. (42)]. 

---