Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

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

Curtiss, Larry A., Redfern, Paul C., Raghavachari, Krishnan·2005·The Journal of Chemical Physics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.2039080

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., & Raghavachari, K.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
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.