The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic comparison of molecular properties obtained using Hartree–Fock, a hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory, and coupled-cluster methods
Abstract
We present results of a systematic study of the theoretical determination of equilibrium geometries, harmonic frequencies, total atomization energies, and dipole moments using Hartree–Fock, a hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory, and coupled-cluster methods in conjunction with a triple zeta basis set for a large set of molecules. This allows a direct comparison of the three theoretical methods applied to a range of chemical systems. The average errors (‖experimental value-theoretical value‖) for the Hartree–Fock, hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory, and coupled-cluster methods, respectively, are bond length (Å) 0.022, 0.005, 0.005; bond angle (degrees) 2.7, 1.7, 1.9; harmonic frequencies (cm−1) 144, 40, 30; atomization energies (kcal/mol) 81.9, 3.6, 11.5; and dipole moments (debye) 0.29, 0.14, 0.10. This clearly demonstrates that the relatively inexpensive hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory method yields results which represent a reliable, significant improvement over those obtained with the Hartree–Fock method. The results obtained using the hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory method are, in fact, quite comparable with the corresponding results obtained using the high level, ab initio coupled-cluster method. For certain difficult open shell examples, the hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional theory using a spin restricted open shell Hartree–Fock density is much improved over the corresponding hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory results obtained using a spin unrestricted Hartree–Fock density.
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
Self-interaction correction to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems
Perdew, J. P., & Zunger, A. (1981) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.23.5048 · Cited by 20,887
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
Hill, P. S., Tripati, A. K., & Schauble, E. A. (2014) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2013.06.018 · Cited by 155
Tanak, H., & Yavuz, M. (2010) · Journal of Molecular Modeling · doi:10.1007/s00894-009-0539-5 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Oliphant, N., & Bartlett, R. J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 1994-05-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 6550-6561
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2007432258
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.65
- 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: A systematic comparison of molecular properties obtained using Hartree–Fock, a hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory, and coupled-cluster methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.467064
- The paper
- Oliphant, N., & Bartlett, R. J. (1994). A systematic comparison of molecular properties obtained using Hartree–Fock, a hybrid Hartree–Fock density-functional-theory, and coupled-cluster methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.467064
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.