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
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.
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
Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange
Becke, A. D. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464913 · Cited by 103,767
Lee, C., Yang, W., & Parr, R. G. (1988) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.37.785 · Cited by 100,874
Cited by
Semiempirical GGA‐type density functional constructed with a long‐range dispersion correction
Grimme, S. (2006) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20495 · Cited by 31,038
Hybrid functionals based on a screened Coulomb potential
Heyd, J., Scuseria, G. E., & Ernzerhof, M. (2003) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1564060 · Cited by 19,629
Long-range corrected hybrid density functionals with damped atom–atom dispersion corrections
Chai, J.-D., & Head-Gordon, M. (2008) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/b810189b · Cited by 14,648
Semiempirical hybrid density functional with perturbative second-order correlation
Grimme, S. (2006) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2148954 · Cited by 3,385
Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., & Raghavachari, K. (2007) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2436888 · Cited by 2,115
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- 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.