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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Accurate Is Density Functional Theory at Predicting Dipole Moments? An Assessment Using a New Database of 200 Benchmark Values

Open access
Hait, Diptarka, Head-Gordon, Martin·2018·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

Dipole moments are a simple, global measure of the accuracy of the electron density of a polar molecule. Dipole moments also affect the interactions of a molecule with other molecules as well as electric fields. To directly assess the accuracy of modern density functionals for calculating dipole moments, we have developed a database of 200 benchmark dipole moments, using coupled cluster theory through triple excitations, extrapolated to the complete basis set limit. This new database is used to assess the performance of 88 popular or recently developed density functionals. The results suggest that double hybrid functionals perform the best, yielding dipole moments within about 3.6-4.5% regularized RMS error versus the reference values-which is not very different from the 4% regularized RMS error produced by coupled cluster singles and doubles. Many hybrid functionals also perform quite well, generating regularized RMS errors in the 5-6% range. Some functionals, however, exhibit large outliers, and local functionals in general perform less well than hybrids or double hybrids.

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.7b01252

Cites

6 of 6 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

Metadata

Authors
Hait, D., & Head-Gordon, M.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2018-03-21
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
1969-1981
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2755159604
Cited by
286
References
6
FWCI
13.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.