The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
W4‐17: A diverse and high‐confidence dataset of atomization energies for benchmarking high‐level electronic structure methods
Open accessAbstract
Atomization reactions are among the most challenging tests for electronic structure methods. We use the first‐principles Weizmann‐4 (W4) computational thermochemistry protocol to generate the W4‐17 dataset of 200 total atomization energies (TAEs) with 3σ confidence intervals of 1 kJ mol−1. W4‐17 is an extension of the earlier W4‐11 dataset; it includes first‐ and second‐row molecules and radicals with up to eight non‐hydrogen atoms. These cover a broad spectrum of bonding situations and multireference character, and as such are an excellent benchmark for the parameterization and validation of highly accurate ab initio methods (e.g., CCSD(T) composite procedures) and double‐hybrid density functional theory (DHDFT) methods. The W4‐17 dataset contains two subsets (i) a non‐multireference subset of 183 systems characterized by dynamical or moderate nondynamical correlation effects (denoted W4‐17‐nonMR) and (ii) a highly multireference subset of 17 systems (W4‐17‐MR). We use these databases to evaluate the performance of a wide range of CCSD(T) composite procedures (e.g., G4, G4(MP2), G4(MP2)‐6X, ROG4(MP2)‐6X, CBS‐QB3, ROCBS‐QB3, CBS‐APNO, ccCA‐PS3, W1, W2, W1‐F12, W2‐F12, W1X‐1, and W2X) and DHDFT methods (e.g., B2‐PLYP, B2GP‐PLYP, B2K‐PLYP, DSD‐BLYP, DSD‐PBEP86, PWPB95, ωB97X‐2(LP), and ωB97X‐2(TQZ)). © 2017 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Effect of the damping function in dispersion corrected density functional theory
Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S., & Goerigk, L. (2011) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21759 · Cited by 28,221
Quantitative quantum chemistry
Helgaker, T., Klopper, W., & Tew, D. P. (2008) · Molecular Physics · doi:10.1080/00268970802258591 · Cited by 255
Cited by
Santra, G., Sylvetsky, N., & Martin, J. M. L. (2019) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.9b03157 · Cited by 517
Self-citationPushing the frontiers of density functionals by solving the fractional electron problem
Kirkpatrick, J., McMorrow, B., Turban, D. H. P., Gaunt, A. L., Spencer, J. S., Matthews, A. G. D. G., Obika, A., Thiry, L., Fortunato, M., Pfau, D., et al. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abj6511 · Cited by 375
Carbon Tunneling in the Automerization of Cyclo[18]carbon
Nandi, A., Solel, E., & Kozuch, S. (2020) · Chemistry – A European Journal · doi:10.1002/chem.201904929 · Cited by 64
Molecule‐Specific Uncertainty Quantification in Quantum Chemical Studies
Reiher, M. (2022) · Israel Journal of Chemistry · doi:10.1002/ijch.202100101 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Karton, A., Sylvetsky, N., & Martin, J. M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-07-04
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 2063-2075
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- OpenAlex
- W2726770424
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: W4‐17: A diverse and high‐confidence dataset of atomization energies for benchmarking high‐level electronic structure methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.24854
- The paper
- Karton, A., Sylvetsky, N., & Martin, J. M. L. (2017). W4‐17: A diverse and high‐confidence dataset of atomization energies for benchmarking high‐level electronic structure methods. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24854
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.