Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comprehensive Thermochemical Benchmark Set of Realistic Closed-Shell Metal Organic Reactions

Dohm, Sebastian, Hansen, Andreas, Steinmetz, Marc, Grimme, Stefan, Checinski, Marek P.·2018·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
DOI 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01183
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We introduce the new MOR41 benchmark set consisting of 41 closed-shell organometallic reactions resembling many important chemical transformations commonly used in transition metal chemistry and catalysis. It includes significantly larger molecules than presented in other transition metal test sets and covers a broad range of bonding motifs. Recent progress in linear-scaling coupled cluster theory allowed for the calculation of accurate DLPNO-CCSD(T)/CBS(def2-TZVPP/def2-QZVPP) reference energies for 3d,4d,5d-transition metal compounds with up to 120 atoms. Furthermore, 41 density functionals, including seven GGAs, three meta-GGAs, 14 hybrid functionals, and 17 double-hybrid functionals combined with two different London dispersion corrections, are benchmarked with respect to their performance for the newly compiled MOR41 reaction energies. A few wave function-based post-HF methods as, e.g., MP2 or RPA with similar computational demands are also tested and in total, 90 methods were considered. The double-hybrid functional PWPB95-D3(BJ) outperformed all other assessed methods with an MAD of 1.9 kcal/mol, followed by the hybrids ωB97X-V (2.2 kcal/mol) and mPW1B95-D3(BJ) (2.4 kcal/mol). The popular PBE0-D3(BJ) hybrid also performs well (2.8 kcal/mol). Within the meta-GGA class, the recently published SCAN-D3(BJ) functional as well as TPSS-D3(BJ) perform best (MAD of 3.2 and 3.3 kcal/mol, respectively). Many popular methods like BP86-D3(BJ) (4.9 kcal/mol) or B3LYP-D3(BJ) (4.9 kcal/mol) provide significantly worse reaction energies and are not recommended for organometallic thermochemistry considering the availability of better methods with the same computational cost. The results regarding the performance of different functional approximations are consistent with conclusions from previous main-group thermochemistry benchmark studies.

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 · 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01183

Cites

81 of 81 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 286

Metadata

Authors
Dohm, S., Hansen, A., Steinmetz, M., Grimme, S., & Checinski, M. P.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2018-03-22
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
2596-2608
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
DOI
10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01183
OpenAlex
W2790580607
Cited by
286
References
81
FWCI
14.49
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.