The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integration Grid Errors for Meta-GGA-Predicted Reaction Energies: Origin of Grid Errors for the M06 Suite of Functionals
Open accessAbstract
We have assessed integration grid errors arising from the use of popular DFT quadrature schemes for a set of 34 organic reaction energies. The focus is primarily on M05-2X and the M06 suite of functionals (M06-L, M06, M06-2X, and M06-HF). M05-2X, M06, and M06-2X outperform popular older DFT functionals for the reaction energies studied, and offer accuracies comparable to results from perturbative hybrid DFT functionals. However, these new functionals are more sensitive to the choice of quadrature grid than previous generations of DFT functionals. Errors in predicted reaction energies arising from the use of the popular SG-1 grid, which is the default in the Q-Chem package, are significant. In particular, M06-HF reaction energies computed with the SG-1 grid exhibit errors ranging from -6.7 to 3.2 kcal mol(-1) relative to results computed with a very fine integration grid. This grid-sensitivity is not a problem for meta-GGA functionals in general, but is instead due to the specific functional forms used in these functionals. The large grid errors are traced to the kinetic energy density enhancement factor utilized in the exchange component of the M05-2X and M06 functionals. This term contains empirically adjusted parameters that are of large magnitude for all of the M06 functionals and for M06-HF in particular. The product of these large constants with modest integration errors for the kinetic energy density results in very large errors in individual contributions to the exchange energy. This gives rise to the troubling large errors exhibited by these functionals for certain integration grids.
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
Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange
Becke, A. D. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464913 · Cited by 103,767
Cited by
Mardirossian, N., & Head-Gordon, M. (2017) · Molecular Physics · doi:10.1080/00268976.2017.1333644 · Cited by 2,307
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
Mardirossian, N., & Head-Gordon, M. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c3cp54374a · Cited by 986
Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems
Keith, J. A., Vassilev-Galindo, V., Cheng, B., Chmiela, S., Gastegger, M., Müller, K.-R., & Tkatchenko, A. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00107 · Cited by 849
CRYSTAL23: A Program for Computational Solid State Physics and Chemistry
Erba, A., Desmarais, J. K., Casassa, S., Civalleri, B., Donà, L., Bush, I. J., Searle, B., Maschio, L., Edith-Daga, L., Cossard, A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00958 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Wheeler, S. E., & Houk, K. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-01-15
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 395-404
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W1999132213
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.10
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Integration Grid Errors for Meta-GGA-Predicted Reaction Energies: Origin of Grid Errors for the M06 Suite of Functionals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ct900639j
- The paper
- Wheeler, S. E., & Houk, K. N. (2010). Integration Grid Errors for Meta-GGA-Predicted Reaction Energies: Origin of Grid Errors for the M06 Suite of Functionals. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct900639j
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.