Influence of the Lennard-Jones Combination Rules on the Simulated Properties of Organic Liquids at Optimal Force-Field Parametrization

[Image: see text] We recently introduced the CombiFF scheme [Oliveira et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 7525], an approach for the automated refinement of force-field parameters against experimental condensed-phase data for large compound families. Using this scheme, once the time-consuming task of target-data selection and curation has been performed, the force-field optimization itself is both straightforward and fast. As a result, CombiFF provides an ideal framework for evaluating the influence of functional-form decisions on the accuracy of a force field at an optimal level of parametrization. We already used this approach to assess the effect of using an all-atom representation compared to united-atom representations in the force field [Oliveira et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2022, 18, 6757]. Here, CombiFF is applied to assess the effect of three Lennard-Jones combination rules, geometric-mean (GM), Lorentz–Berthelot (LB), or Waldman–Hagler (WH), on the simulated properties of organic liquids. The comparison is performed in terms of the experimental liquid density ρ(liq), vaporization enthalpy ΔH(vap), surface-tension coefficient γ, static relative dielectric permittivity ϵ, and self-diffusion coefficient D. The calibrations of the three force-field variants are carried out independently against 2044 experimental values for ρ(liq), and ΔH(vap) concerning 1516 compounds. The resulting root-mean-square deviations from experiment are 30.0, 26.9, and 36.7 kg m(–3) for ρ(liq) and 2.8, 2.8, and 2.9 kJ mol(–1) for ΔH(vap), when applying the GM, LB, and WH combination rules, respectively. In terms of these (and the other) properties, the three combination rules perform comparatively well, with the GM and LB results being more similar to each other and slightly more accurate compared to experiment. In contrast, the use of distinct combination rules for the parameter calibration and property calculation leads to much larger errors.