The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Basis set consistent revision of the S22 test set of noncovalent interaction energies
Open accessAbstract
The S22 test set of interaction energies for small model complexes [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 8, 1985 (2006)] has been very valuable for benchmarking new and existing methods for noncovalent interactions. However, the basis sets utilized to compute the CCSD(T) interaction energies for some of the dimers are insufficient to obtain converged results. Here we consistently extrapolate all CCSD(T)/complete basis set (CBS) interaction energies using larger basis sets for the CCSD(T) component of the computation. The revised values, which we designate S22A, represent the most accurate results to date for this set of dimers. The new values appear to be within a few hundredths of 1 kcal mol−1 of the true CCSD(T)/CBS limit at the given geometries, but the former S22 values are off by as much as 0.6 kcal mol−1 compared to the revised values. Because some of the most promising methods for noncovalent interactions are already achieving this level of agreement (or better) compared to the S22 data, more accurate benchmark values would clearly be helpful. The MP2, SCS-MP2, SCS-CCSD, SCS(MI)-MP2, and B2PLYP-D methods have been tested against the more accurate benchmark set. The B2PLYP-D method outperforms all other methods tested here, with a mean average deviation of only 0.12 kcal mol−1. However, the consistent, slight underestimation of the interaction energies computed by the SCS-CCSD method (an overall mean absolute deviation and mean deviation of 0.24 and −0.23 kcal mol−1, respectively) suggests that the SCS-CCSD method has the potential to become even more accurate with a reoptimization of its parameters for noncovalent interactions.
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
Molnar, L. F., He, X., Wang, B., & Merz, K. M. (2009) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.3173809 · Cited by 123
Cited by
Effect of the damping function in dispersion corrected density functional theory
Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S., & Goerigk, L. (2011) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21759 · Cited by 28,221
Density functional theory with London dispersion corrections
Grimme, S. (2011) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.30 · Cited by 2,829
Higher-accuracy van der Waals density functional
Lee, K., Murray, É. D., Kong, L., Lundqvist, B. I., & Langreth, D. C. (2010) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.82.081101 · Cited by 2,755
Supramolecular Binding Thermodynamics by Dispersion‐Corrected Density Functional Theory
Grimme, S. (2012) · Chemistry – A European Journal · doi:10.1002/chem.201200497 · Cited by 2,111
Accurate and Efficient Method for Many-Body van der Waals Interactions
Tkatchenko, A., DiStasio, R. A., Car, R., & Scheffler, M. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.236402 · Cited by 1,528
Metadata
- Authors
- Takatani, T., Hohenstein, E. G., Malagoli, M., Marshall, M. S., & Sherrill, C. D.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2010-04-08
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 144104-144104
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2068918072
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.