The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of coupled-cluster results with a hybrid of Hartree–Fock and density functional theory
Abstract
The performance of a hybrid of Hartree–Fock and density functional theory is tested on a set of ‘‘pathological’’ quantum chemistry problems. The predictions of this hybrid model are in qualitative agreement with coupled-cluster results and with experiment. Given the modest computational cost of the procedure, this is an extremely encouraging development.
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
Champagne, B., Perpète, E. A., van Gisbergen, S. J. A., Baerends, E.-J., Snijders, J. G., Soubra-Ghaoui, C., Robins, K. A., & Kirtman, B. (1998) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.477731 · Cited by 482
Hydrolysis Theory for Cisplatin and Its Analogues Based on Density Functional Studies
Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., & You, X.-Z. (2001) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja0023938 · Cited by 317
Tanak, H., & Yavuz, M. (2010) · Journal of Molecular Modeling · doi:10.1007/s00894-009-0539-5 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Scuseria, G. E.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 1992-11-15
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 7528-7530
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2091493559
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.83
- 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: Comparison of coupled-cluster results with a hybrid of Hartree–Fock and density functional theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.463977
- The paper
- Scuseria, G. E. (1992). Comparison of coupled-cluster results with a hybrid of Hartree–Fock and density functional theory. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.463977
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.
