Here, we improve the accuracy of eXact-integral simplified Tamm–Dancoff approximation (XsTDA) excitation energies through reference-guided and machine-learning-assisted molecule-specific tuning of exchange–correlation functional parameters in the XsTDA response calculation. Using DLPNO-STEOM-CCSD excitation energies for 55,624 organic molecules, we systematically tune one exchange–correlation functional parameter for four hybrid functionals: the exact-exchange fraction ax for PBE0 and M06–2X, and the range-separation parameter ω for CAM-B3LYP and ωB97X-D. Two objectives are considered, targeting either the first 10 singlet excited states or only S1. With the standard functional parameters, XsTDA yields 10-state MAEs of 0.61–0.97 eV relative to DLPNO-STEOM-CCSD, whereas molecule-specific tuning reduces these errors to 0.19–0.28 eV. The two objectives reveal a clear one-parameter trade-off: S1-specific tuning provides the highest S1 accuracy but compromises higher excited states, whereas 10-state tuning gives more balanced multistate performance. To enable practical application to new molecules, five machine-learning architectures are trained to predict the tuned parameters directly from molecular structure, yielding held-out-test MAEs of 0.21–0.30 eV for the 10-state objective and 0.13–0.16 eV for the S1-only objective. Among the models, a directed message-passing neural network shows the strongest overall transferability; combined with ωB97X-D, it yields MAEs of 0.23 and 0.24 eV for the 10-state and S1-only objectives on the 32-molecule subset derived from the original XsTDA benchmark. These results establish ML-assisted molecule-specific parameter tuning as a practical route to improve XsTDA excitation energies while retaining its computational efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: