Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,130

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Gaussian-2 and density functional theories for the computation of enthalpies of formation

Curtiss, Larry A., Raghavachari, Krishnan, Redfern, Paul C., Pople, John A.·1997·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

A set of 148 molecules having well-established enthalpies of formation at 298 K is presented. This set, referred to as the G2 neutral test set, includes the 55 molecules whose atomization energies were used to test Gaussian-2 (G2) theory [J. Chem. Phys. 94, 7221 (1991)] and 93 new molecules. The G2 test set includes 29 radicals, 35 nonhydrogen systems, 22 hydrocarbons, 47 substituted hydrocarbons, and 15 inorganic hydrides. It is hoped that this new test set will provide a means for assessing and improving new theoretical models. From an assessment of G2 and density functional theories (DFT) on this test set it is found that G2 theory is the most reliable method both in terms of average absolute deviation (1.58 kcal/mol) and maximum deviation (8.2 kcal/mol). The largest deviations between experiment and G2 theory occur for molecules having multiple halogens. Inclusion of spin–orbit effects reduces the average absolute deviation to 1.47 kcal/mol and significantly improves the results for the chlorine substituted molecules, but little overall improvement is seen for the fluorine substituted molecules. Of the two modified versions of G2 theory examined in this study, G2(MP2,SVP) theory (average absolute deviation=1.93 kcal/mol) performs better than G2(MP2) theory (2.04 kcal/mol). The G2(MP2,SVP) theory is found to perform very well for hydrocarbons, radicals, and inorganic hydrides. Of the seven DFT methods investigated, the B3LYP method has the smallest average absolute deviation (3.11 kcal/mol). It also has a significantly larger distribution of error than the G2 methods with a maximum deviation of 20.1 kcal/mol.

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 · 10.1063/1.473182

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 2,130

Metadata

Authors
Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
1997-01-15
Volume
106
Issue
3
Pages
1063-1079
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2077528747
Cited by
2,130
References
2
FWCI
63.17
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-2 and density functional theories for the computation of enthalpies of formation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.473182
The paper
Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A. (1997). Assessment of Gaussian-2 and density functional theories for the computation of enthalpies of formation. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.473182

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.