All three electrostatics models (AM1-BCC, AM1-BCC-dPol with element-based polarizability types, and AM1-BCC-dPol with Sage LJ types) give good agreement with experimental mass densities (Figure and Table ) with RMS errors of 0.03, 0.05, and 0.07 g/mL respectively. Compared to results from the non-polarizable Sage force field, liquid densities computed with polarizable electrostatic models are somewhat less accurate, but this is as expected given that the Sage FF was fitted against liquid state data using the non-polarizable AM1-BCC electrostatics model. We anticipate that retraining the LJ and torsional terms against liquid state data in the context of AM1-BCC-dPol will lead to liquid densities as accurate as those obtained with the non-polarizable AM1-BCC model. We also find that going from the nonpolarizable AM1-BCC model to the AM1-BCC-dPol models dramatically improves the accuracy of the dielectric constants computed for organic liquids, (Figure and Table ), with root nean square deviation (RMSD) of the inverse dielectric constant (1/D) improving from 0.33 to 0.05 and the slope going from 1.75 to 1.07, in the case of element-based polarizabilities, and similar results for Sage LJ-based polarizabilities. Although improvements are seen across the range of dielectric constants, nonpolar liquids show the greatest improvement. Precisely because they are nonpolar, the orientational polarizability of a nonpolar liquid is negligible, so omitting electronic polarizability causes them to have dielectric constants of about one; i.e., near zero polarizability.