The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Study of Selected Wave Function and Density Functional Methods for Noncovalent Interaction Energy Calculations Using the Extended S22 Data Set
Abstract
In this paper, an extension of the S22 data set of Jurecka et al. ( Jurečka , P. ; Šponer , J. ; Černý , J. ; Hobza , P. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2006 , 8 , 1985. ), the data set of benchmark CCSD(T)/CBS interaction energies of twenty-two noncovalent complexes in equilibrium geometries, is presented. The S22 data set has been extended by including the stretched (one shortened and three elongated) complex geometries of the S22 data set along the main noncovalent interaction coordinate. The goal of this work is to assess the accuracy of the popular wave function methods (MP2-, MP3- and, CCSD-based) and density functional methods (with and without empirical correction for the dispersion energy) for noncovalent complexes based on a statistical evaluation not only in equilibrium, but also in nonequilibrium geometries. The results obtained in this work provide information on whether an accurate and balanced description of the different interaction types and complex geometry distortions can be expected from the tested methods. This information has an important implication in the calculation of large molecular complexes, where the number of distant interacting molecular fragments, often in far from equilibrium geometries, increases rapidly with the system size. The best performing WFT methods were found to be the SCS-CCSD (spin-component scaled CCSD, according to Takatani , T. ; Hohenstein , E. G. ; Sherrill , C. D. J. Chem. Phys. 2008 , 128 , 124111 ), MP2C (dispersion-corrected MP2, according to Hesselmann , A. J. Chem. Phys. 2008 , 128 , 144112 ), and MP2.5 (scaled MP3, according to Pitoňák , M. ; Neogrády , P. ; Černý , J. ; Grimme , S. ; Hobza , P. ChemPhysChem 2009 , 10 , 282. ). Since none of the DFT methods fulfilled the required statistical criteria proposed in this work, they cannot be generally recommended for large-scale calculations. The DFT methods still have the potential to deliver accurate results for large molecules, but most likely on the basis of an error cancellation.
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
Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. XX. A basis set for correlated wave functions
Krishnan, R., Binkley, J. S., Seeger, R., & Pople, J. A. (1980) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.438955 · Cited by 17,772
Cited by
Goerigk, L., Hansen, A., Bauer, C., Ehrlich, S., Najibi, A., & Grimme, S. (2017) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c7cp04913g · Cited by 1,894
S66: A Well-balanced Database of Benchmark Interaction Energies Relevant to Biomolecular Structures
Řezáč, J., Riley, K. E., & Hobza, P. (2011) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct2002946 · Cited by 1,019
Self-citationMardirossian, N., & Head-Gordon, M. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c3cp54374a · Cited by 986
Revised Damping Parameters for the D3 Dispersion Correction to Density Functional Theory
Smith, D. G. A., Burns, L. A., Patkowski, K., & Sherrill, C. D. (2016) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00780 · Cited by 532
Benchmark Calculations of Interaction Energies in Noncovalent Complexes and Their Applications
Řezáč, J., & Hobza, P. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00526 · Cited by 455
Self-citationChristensen, A. S., Kubař, T., Cui, Q., & Elstner, M. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00584 · Cited by 446
Risthaus, T., & Grimme, S. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct301081n · Cited by 423
Kozuch, S., Gruzman, D., & Martin, J. M. L. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry C · doi:10.1021/jp1070852 · Cited by 398
Marshall, M. S., Burns, L. A., & Sherrill, C. D. (2011) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.3659142 · Cited by 351
Goerigk, L., Kruse, H., & Grimme, S. (2011) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.201100826 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Gráfová, L., Pitoňák, M., Řezáč, J., & Hobza, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-07-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2365-2376
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2063267830
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.86
- 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.