Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spin‐component‐scaled double hybrids: An extensive search for the best fifth‐rung functionals blending DFT and perturbation theory

Kozuch, Sebastian, Martin, Jan M. L.·2013·Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract

Following up on an earlier preliminary communication (Kozuch and Martin, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 20104), we report here in detail on an extensive search for the most accurate spin‐component‐scaled double hybrid functionals [of which conventional double hybrids (DHs) are a special case]. Such fifth‐rung functionals approach the performance of composite ab initio methods such as G3 theory at a fraction of their computational cost, and with analytical derivatives available. In this article, we provide a critical analysis of the variables and components that maximize the accuracy of DHs. These include the selection of the exchange and correlation functionals, the coefficients of each component [density functional theory (DFT), exact exchange, and perturbative correlation in both the same spin and opposite spin terms], and the addition of an ad‐hoc dispersion correction; we have termed these parametrizations “DSD‐DFT” (Dispersion corrected, Spin‐component scaled, Double‐hybrid DFT). Somewhat surprisingly, the quality of DSD‐DFT is only mildly dependent on the underlying DFT exchange and correlation components, with even DSD‐LDA yielding respectable performance. Simple, nonempirical GGAs appear to work best, whereas meta‐GGAs offer no advantage (with the notable exception of B95c). The best correlation components appear to be, in that order, B95c, P86, and PBEc, while essentially any good GGA exchange yields nearly identical results. On further validation with a wider variety of thermochemical, weak interaction, kinetic, and spectroscopic benchmarks, we find that the best functionals are, roughly in that order, DSD‐PBEhB95, DSD‐PBEP86, DSD‐PBEPW91, and DSD‐PBEPBE. In addition, DSD‐PBEP86 and DSD‐PBEPBE can be used without source code modifications in a wider variety of electronic structure codes. Sample job decks for several commonly used such codes are supplied as electronic Supporting Information. Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcc.23391

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Kozuch, S., & Martin, J. M. L.
Venue
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-26
Volume
34
Issue
27
Pages
2327-2344
ISSN
  • 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-987X
OpenAlex
W2041306940
Cited by
418
References
5
FWCI
10.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.