The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Quantum Chemical Methods for Large Noncovalent Complexes
Open accessAbstract
We evaluate the performance of the most widely used wavefunction, density functional theory, and semiempirical methods for the description of noncovalent interactions in a set of larger, mostly dispersion-stabilized noncovalent complexes (the L7 data set). The methods tested include MP2, MP3, SCS-MP2, SCS(MI)-MP2, MP2.5, MP2.X, MP2C, DFT-D, DFT-D3 (B3-LYP-D3, B-LYP-D3, TPSS-D3, PW6B95-D3, M06-2X-D3) and M06-2X, and semiempirical methods augmented with dispersion and hydrogen bonding corrections: SCC-DFTB-D, PM6-D, PM6-DH2 and PM6-D3H4. The test complexes are the octadecane dimer, the guanine trimer, the circumcoronene…adenine dimer, the coronene dimer, the guanine-cytosine dimer, the circumcoronene…guanine-cytosine dimer, and an amyloid fragment trimer containing phenylalanine residues. The best performing method is MP2.5 with relative root mean square deviation (rRMSD) of 4 %. It can thus be recommended as an alternative to the CCSD(T)/CBS (alternatively QCISD(T)/CBS) benchmark for molecular systems which exceed current computational capacity. The second best non-DFT method is MP2C with rRMSD of 8 %. A method with the most favorable "accuracy/cost" ratio belongs to the DFT family: BLYP-D3, with an rRMSD of 8 %. Semiempirical methods deliver less accurate results (the rRMSD exceeds 25 %). Nevertheless, their absolute errors are close to some much more expensive methods such as M06-2X, MP2 or SCS(MI)-MP2, and thus their price/performance ratio is excellent.
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
Molnar, L. F., He, X., Wang, B., & Merz, K. M. (2009) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.3173809 · Cited by 123
Cited by
Dispersion-Corrected Mean-Field Electronic Structure Methods
Grimme, S., Hansen, A., Brandenburg, J. G., & Bannwarth, C. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00533 · Cited by 1,621
Mardirossian, N., & Head-Gordon, M. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c3cp54374a · Cited by 986
B97-3c: A revised low-cost variant of the B97-D density functional method
Brandenburg, J. G., Bannwarth, C., Hansen, A., & Grimme, S. (2018) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.5012601 · Cited by 760
Hermann, J., DiStasio, R. A., & Tkatchenko, A. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00446 · Cited by 657
Lu, T., & Chen, Q. (2020) · Theoretical Chemistry Accounts · doi:10.1007/s00214-019-2541-z · Cited by 466
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
Peluso, P., & Chankvetadze, B. (2022) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00846 · Cited by 371
Metadata
- Authors
- Sedlak, R., Janowski, T., Pitoňák, M., Řezáč, J., Pulay, P., & Hobza, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2013-07-25
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3364-3374
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2066510699
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.85
- 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.