The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Activation Energies of Pericyclic Reactions: Performance of DFT, MP2, and CBS-QB3 Methods for the Prediction of Activation Barriers and Reaction Energetics of 1,3-Dipolar Cycloadditions, and Revised Activation Enthalpies for a Standard Set of Hydrocarbon Pericyclic Reactions
Abstract
Activation barriers and reaction energetics for the three main classes of 1,3-dipolar cycloadditions, including nine different reactions, were evaluated with the MPW1K and B3LYP density functional methods, MP2, and the multicomponent CBS-QB3 method. The CBS-QB3 values were used as standards for 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition activation barriers and reaction energetics, and the density functional theory (DFT) and MP2 methods were benchmarked against these values. The MPW1K/6-31G* method and basis set performs best for activation barriers, with a mean absolute deviation (MAD) value of 1.1 kcal/mol. The B3LYP/6-31G* method and basis set performs best for reaction enthalpies, with a MAD value of 2.4 kcal/mol, while the MPW1K method shows large errors for reaction energetics. The MP2 method gives the expected systematic underestimation of barriers. Concerted and nearly synchronous transition structures are predicted by all DFT and MP2 methods. Also reported are revised estimated 0 K experimental activation enthalpies for a standard set of hydrocarbon pericyclic reactions and updated comparisons to experiment for DFT, ab initio, and multicomponent methods. B3LYP and MPW1K methods with MAD values of 1.5 and 2.1 kcal/mol, respectively, fortuitously outperform the multicomponent CBS-QB3 method, which has a MAD value of 2.3. The MAD value of the O3LYP functional improves to 2.4 kcal/mol from the previously reported 3.0 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.
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
Cited by
Kozuch, 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
Najibi, A., & Goerigk, L. (2018) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00842 · Cited by 320
Ess, D. H., Jones, G. O., & Houk, K. N. (2006) · Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis · doi:10.1002/adsc.200600431 · Cited by 285
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ess, D. H., & Houk, K. N.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-10-01
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 42
- Pages
- 9542-9553
- ISSN
- 1089-5639 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5215
- OpenAlex
- W2130029082
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.15
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Activation Energies of Pericyclic Reactions: Performance of DFT, MP2, and CBS-QB3 Methods for the Prediction of Activation Barriers and Reaction Energetics of 1,3-Dipolar Cycloadditions, and Revised Activation Enthalpies for a Standard Set of Hydrocarbon Pericyclic Reactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jp052504v
- The paper
- Ess, D. H., & Houk, K. N. (2005). Activation Energies of Pericyclic Reactions: Performance of DFT, MP2, and CBS-QB3 Methods for the Prediction of Activation Barriers and Reaction Energetics of 1,3-Dipolar Cycloadditions, and Revised Activation Enthalpies for a Standard Set of Hydrocarbon Pericyclic Reactions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp052504v
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.