Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 513

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The DBH24/08 Database and Its Use to Assess Electronic Structure Model Chemistries for Chemical Reaction Barrier Heights

Zheng, Jingjing, Zhao, Yan, Truhlar, Donald G.·2009·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

The diverse barrier height database DBH24 is updated by using W4 and W3.2 data (Karton, A.; Tarnopolsky, A.; Lamère, J.-F.; Schatz, G. C.; Martin, J. M. L. J. Phys. Chem. A 2008, 112, 12868) to replace previous W1 values; we call the new database DBH24/08. We used the new database to assess 348 model chemistries, each consisting of a combination of a wave function theory level or a density functional approximation with a one-electron basis set. All assessments are made by simultaneous consideration of accuracy and cost. The assessment includes several electronic structure methods and basis sets that have not previously been systematically tested for barrier heights. Some conclusions drawn in our previous work (Zheng, J.; Zhao, Y.; Truhlar, D. G. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2007, 3, 569) are still valid when using this improved database and including more model chemistries. For example, BMC-CCSD is again found to be the best method whose cost scales as N(6), and its cost is an order of magnitude smaller than the N(7) method with best performance-to-cost ratio, G3SX(MP3), although the mean unsigned error is only marginally higher, namely 0.70 kcal/mol vs 0.57 kcal/mol. Other conclusions are now broader in scope. For example, among single-reference N(5) methods (that is, excluding MRMP2), we now conclude not only that doubly hybrid density functionals and multicoefficient extrapolated density functional methods perform better than second-order Møller-Plesset-type perturbation theory (MP2) but also that they perform better than any correlation-energy-scaled MP2 method. The most recommended hybrid density functionals, if functionals are judged only on the basis of barrier heights, are M08-SO, M06-2X, M08-HX, BB1K, BMK, PWB6K, MPW1K, BHandHLYP, and TPSS25B95. MOHLYP and HCTH are found to be the best performing local density functionals for barrier heights. The basis set cc-pVTZ+ is more efficient than aug-cc-pVTZ with similar accuracy, especially for density functional theory. The basis sets cc-pVDZ+, 6-31+G(d,p), 6-31B(d,p), 6-31B(d), MIDIY+, MIDIX+, and MIDI! are recommended for double-ζ-quality density functional calculations on large systems for their good balance between accuracy and cost, and the basis sets cc-pVTZ+, MG3S, MG3SXP, and aug-cc-pVDZ are recommended for density functional calculations when larger basis sets are affordable. The best performance of any methods tested is attained by CCSD(T)(full)/aug-cc-pCV(T+d)Z with a mean unsigned error of 0.46 kcal/mol; however, this is several orders of magnitude more expensive than M08-SO/cc-pVTZ+, which has a mean unsigned error of only 0.90 kcal/mol.

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/ct800568m

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 513

Metadata

Authors
Zheng, J., Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2009-03-23
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
808-821
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2012165618
Cited by
513
References
2
FWCI
23.79
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.