Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 425

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

A General Database for Main Group Thermochemistry, Kinetics, and Noncovalent Interactions − Assessment of Common and Reparameterized (meta-)GGA Density Functionals

Goerigk, Lars, Grimme, Stefan·2010·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

We present a quantum chemistry benchmark database for general main group thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent interactions (GMTKN24). It is an unprecedented compilation of 24 different, chemically relevant subsets that either are taken from already existing databases or are presented here for the first time. The complete set involves a total of 1.049 atomic and molecular single point calculations and comprises 731 data points (relative chemical energies) based on accurate theoretical or experimental reference values. The usefulness of the GMTKN24 database is shown by applying common density functionals on the (meta-)generalized gradient approximation (GGA), hybrid-GGA, and double-hybrid-GGA levels to it, including an empirical London dispersion correction. Furthermore, we refitted the functional parameters of four (meta-)GGA functionals based on a fit set containing 143 systems, comprising seven chemically different problems. Validation against the GMTKN24 and the molecular structure (bond lengths) databases shows that the reparameterization does not change bond lengths much, whereas the description of energetic properties is more prone to the parameters' values. The empirical dispersion correction also often improves for conventional thermodynamic problems and makes a functional's performance more uniform over the entire database. The refitted functionals typically have a lower mean absolute deviation for the majority of subsets in the proposed GMTKN24 set. This, however, is also often accompanied at the expense of poor performance for a few other important subsets. Thus, creating a broadly applicable (and overall better) functional by just reparameterizing existing ones seems to be difficult. Nevertheless, this benchmark study reveals that a reoptimized (i.e., empirical) version of the TPSS-D functional (oTPSS-D) performs well for a variety of problems and may meet the standards of an improved functional. We propose validation against this new compilation of benchmark sets as a definitive way to evaluate a new quantum chemical method's true performance.

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/ct900489g

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 425

Metadata

Authors
Goerigk, L., & Grimme, S.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2009-11-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
107-126
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2080864929
Cited by
425
References
2
FWCI
17.10
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.