Search

We argue that when one divides a molecular property into atom‐in‐a‐molecule contributions, one should perform the division based on the property density of the quantity being partitioned. This is opposition to the normal approach, where the electron density is given a privileged role in defining the properties of atoms‐in‐a‐molecule. Because partitioning each molecular property based on its own property density is inconvenient, we design a reference‐free approach that does not (directly) refer atomic property densities. Specifically, we propose a stockholder partitioning method based on relative influence of a molecule's atomic nuclei on the electrons at a given point in space. The resulting method does not depend on an “arbitrary” choice of reference atoms and it has some favorable properties, including the fact that all of the electron density at an atomic nucleus is assigned to that nucleus and the fact all the atoms in a molecule decay at a uniform asymptotic rate. Unfortunately, the resulting model is not easily applied to spatially degenerate ground states. Furthermore, the practical realizations of this strategy that we tried here gave disappointing numerical results. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider the problem of defining an appropriate local descriptor corresponding to an arbitrary global descriptor. Although it does not seem easy to rigorously and uniquely define local analogues of derived global descriptors (e.g., the electrophilicity) or the fundamental global descriptors associated with the canonical ensemble (e.g., the hardness), the local response of these global descriptors can be defined unambiguously. We look at the local response of the global electrophilicity and compare it to the conventional, ad hoc, definition of the local electrophilicity. The local response of global nucleofugality and electrofugality is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We discuss an extension of the venerable Parr‐Pearson parabolic charge transfer model that explicitly includes 3rd order effects. We then use this new model to provide new arguments supporting the validity of Parr and Yang's "|Δμ| big is good" (DMB) principle. Additionally, we show how to re‐derive this principle from the Parr‐Pearson parabolic model, using simpler arguments than those presented in our previous proof of the DMB rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]