The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmark of Electronically Excited States for Semiempirical Methods: MNDO, AM1, PM3, OM1, OM2, OM3, INDO/S, and INDO/S2
Abstract
Semiempirical configuration interaction (CI) calculations with eight different Hamiltonians are reported for a recently proposed benchmark set of 28 medium-sized organic molecules. Vertical excitation energies and one-electron properties are computed using the same geometries as in our previous ab initio benchmark study on electronically excited states. The CI calculations for the standard methods (MNDO, AM1, PM3) and for the orthogonalization-corrected methods (OM1, OM2, OM3) include single, double, triple, and quadruple excitations (CISDTQ) using the graphical unitary group approach (GUGA) as implemented in the MNDO code. The CIS calculations for the established INDO/S method and the reparametrized INDO/S2 variant employ a modified version of the ZINDO program. As compared to the best theoretical reference data from the ab initio benchmark, all currently applied semiempirical methods tend to underestimate the vertical excitation energies, but the errors are much larger in the case of the standard methods (MNDO, AM1, PM3). Overall, the mean absolute deviations relative to the theoretical best estimates are lowest for OM3, and only slightly higher for OM1 and OM2 (in the range of 0.4-0.5 eV). INDO/S performs similar to OM2 for the vertical excitation energies of singlet states, but deteriorates considerably for triplet states. The INDO/S2 reparametrization for oxygen improves the results for low-lying singlet states of oxygen-containing compounds, but makes them worse for high-lying singlets as well as for triplets. The ab initio reference data for oscillator strengths and excited-state dipole moments are again best reproduced by the orthogonalization-corrected approaches (OM1, OM2, OM3), which thus emerge as the most favorable semiempirical methods overall for treating valence excited states of large organic chromophores.
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
Density-Functional Theory for Time-Dependent Systems
Runge, E., & Gross, E. K. U. (1984) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.52.997 · Cited by 8,914
Cited by
Recent Advances and Perspectives on Nonadiabatic Mixed Quantum–Classical Dynamics
Crespo-Otero, R., & Barbatti, M. (2018) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00577 · Cited by 733
Brunk, E., & Rothlisberger, U. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500628b · Cited by 494
Dye chemistry with time-dependent density functional theory
Laurent, A. D., Adamo, C., & Jacquemin, D. (2014) · Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. · doi:10.1039/c3cp55336a · Cited by 398
Semiempirical quantum–chemical methods
Thiel, W. (2014) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1161 · Cited by 353
Self-citationShellaiah, M., Wu, Y.-H., Singh, A., Ramakrishnam Raju, M. V., & Lin, H.-C. (2013) · J. Mater. Chem. A · doi:10.1039/c2ta00574c · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Silva-Junior, M. R., & Thiel, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-03-31
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1546-1564
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2015331254
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.82
- 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.