The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmark Energetic Data in a Model System for Grubbs II Metathesis Catalysis and Their Use for the Development, Assessment, and Validation of Electronic Structure Methods
Open accessAbstract
We present benchmark relative energetics in the catalytic cycle of a model system for Grubbs second-generation olefin metathesis catalysts. The benchmark data were determined by a composite approach based on CCSD(T) calculations, and they were used as a training set to develop a new spin-component-scaled MP2 method optimized for catalysis, which is called SCSC-MP2. The SCSC-MP2 method has improved performance for modeling Grubbs II olefin metathesis catalysts as compared to canonical MP2 or SCS-MP2. We also employed the benchmark data to test 17 WFT methods and 39 density functionals. Among the tested density functionals, M06 is the best performing functional. M06/TZQS gives an MUE of only 1.06 kcal/mol, and it is a much more affordable method than the SCSC-MP2 method or any other correlated WFT methods. The best performing meta-GGA is M06-L, and M06-L/DZQ gives an MUE of 1.77 kcal/mol. PBEh is the best performing hybrid GGA, with an MUE of 3.01 kcal/mol; however, it does not perform well for the larger, real Grubbs II catalyst. B3LYP and many other functionals containing the LYP correlation functional perform poorly, and B3LYP underestimates the stability of stationary points for the cis-pathway of the model system by a large margin. From the assessments, we recommend the M06, M06-L, and MPW1B95 functionals for modeling Grubbs II olefin metathesis catalysts. The local M06-L method is especially efficient for calculations on large systems.
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
Lee, C., Yang, W., & Parr, R. G. (1988) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.37.785 · Cited by 100,874
te Velde, G., Bickelhaupt, F. M., Baerends, E. J., Fonseca Guerra, C., van Gisbergen, S. J. A., Snijders, J. G., & Ziegler, T. (2001) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.1056 · Cited by 10,152
Cited by
Mardirossian, N., & Head-Gordon, M. (2017) · Molecular Physics · doi:10.1080/00268976.2017.1333644 · Cited by 2,307
Density functional theory for transition metals and transition metal chemistry
Cramer, C. J., & Truhlar, D. G. (2009) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/b907148b · Cited by 1,648
Self-citationKozuch, S., Gruzman, D., & Martin, J. M. L. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry C · doi:10.1021/jp1070852 · Cited by 398
Goerigk, L., Kruse, H., & Grimme, S. (2011) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.201100826 · Cited by 323
Ding, K., Miranda, M. O., Moscato-Goodpaster, B., Ajellal, N., Breyfogle, L. E., Hermes, E. D., Schaller, C. P., Roe, S. E., Cramer, C. J., Hillmyer, M. A., et al. (2012) · Macromolecules · doi:10.1021/ma301130b · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-01-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 324-333
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2028632252
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benchmark Energetic Data in a Model System for Grubbs II Metathesis Catalysis and Their Use for the Development, Assessment, and Validation of Electronic Structure Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ct800386d
- The paper
- Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G. (2009). Benchmark Energetic Data in a Model System for Grubbs II Metathesis Catalysis and Their Use for the Development, Assessment, and Validation of Electronic Structure Methods. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct800386d
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.