The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of Gaussian-3 and density-functional theories on the G3/05 test set of experimental energies
Abstract
The G3/99 test set [L. A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P. C. Redfern, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 7374 (2000)] of thermochemical data for validation of quantum chemical methods is expanded to include 78 additional energies including 14 enthalpies of formation of the first- and second-row nonhydrogen molecules, 58 energies of molecules containing the third-row elements K, Ca, and Ga–Kr, and 6 hydrogen-bonded complexes. The criterion used for selecting the additional systems is the same as before, i.e., experimental uncertainties less than ±1kcal∕mol. This new set, referred to as the G3/05 test set, has a total of 454 energies. The G3 and G3X theories are found to have mean absolute deviations of 1.13 and 1.01kcal∕mol, respectively, when applied to the G3/05 test set. Both methods have larger errors for the nonhydrogen subset of 79 species for which they have mean absolute deviations of 2.10 and 1.64kcal∕mol, respectively. On all of the other types of energies the G3 and G3X methods are very reliable. The G3/05 test set is also used to assess density-functional methods including a series of new functionals. The most accurate functional for the G3/05 test set is B98 with a mean absolute deviation of 3.33kcal∕mol, compared to 4.14kcal∕mol for B3LYP. The latter functional has especially large errors for larger molecules with a mean absolute deviation of 9kcal∕mol for molecules having 28 or more valence electrons. For smaller molecules B3LYP does as well or better than B98 and the other functionals. It is found that many of the density-functional methods have significant errors for the larger molecules in the test set.
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
Lee, C., Yang, W., & Parr, R. G. (1988) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.37.785 · Cited by 100,874
Cited by
Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G. (2008) · Theoretical Chemistry Accounts · doi:10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x · Cited by 30,302
Long-range corrected hybrid density functionals with damped atom–atom dispersion corrections
Chai, J.-D., & Head-Gordon, M. (2008) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/b810189b · Cited by 14,648
Semiempirical hybrid density functional with perturbative second-order correlation
Grimme, S. (2006) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2148954 · Cited by 3,385
Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., & Raghavachari, K. (2007) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2436888 · Cited by 2,115
Self-citationQuantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules
Ramakrishnan, R., Dral, P. O., Rupp, M., & von Lilienfeld, O. A. (2014) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.22 · Cited by 1,966
Metadata
- Authors
- Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., & Raghavachari, K.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2005-09-22
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 124107-124107
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2045063489
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.96
- 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: Assessment of Gaussian-3 and density-functional theories on the G3/05 test set of experimental energies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.2039080
- The paper
- Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., & Raghavachari, K. (2005). Assessment of Gaussian-3 and density-functional theories on the G3/05 test set of experimental energies. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2039080
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.