Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 565

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 ionization potentials and electron affinities

Curtiss, Larry A., Redfern, Paul C., Raghavachari, Krishnan, Pople, John A.·1998·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

A set of 146 well-established ionization potentials and electron affinities is presented. This set, referred to as the G2 ion test set, includes the 63 atoms and molecules whose ionization potentials and electron affinities were used to test Gaussian-2 (G2) theory [J. Chem. Phys. 94, 7221 (1991)] and 83 new atoms and molecules. It is hoped that this new test set combined with the recently published test set of enthalpies of neutral molecules [J. Chem. Phys. 106, 1063 (1997)] will provide a means for assessing and improving theoretical models. From an assessment of G2 and density functional theories on this test set, it is found that G2 theory is the most reliable method. It has an average absolute deviation of 0.06 eV for both ionization potentials and electron affinities. The two modified versions of G2 theory, G2(MP2,SVP) and G2(MP2) theory, have average absolute deviations of 0.08–0.09 eV for both ionization potentials and electron affinities. The hybrid B3LYP density functional method has the smallest average absolute deviation (0.18 eV) of the seven density functional methods tested for ionization potentials. The largest deviation for the density functional methods is for the ionization potential of CN (>1 eV). The BLYP density functional method has the smallest average absolute deviation (0.11 eV) of the seven density functional methods tested for electron affinities, while the BPW91, B3LYP, and B3PW91 methods also do quite well.

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 · 10.1063/1.476538

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 565

Metadata

Authors
Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., Raghavachari, K., & Pople, J. A.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
109
Issue
1
Pages
42-55
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2049704162
Cited by
565
References
2
FWCI
21.83
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: Assessment of Gaussian-2 and density functional theories for the computation of ionization potentials and electron affinities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.476538
The paper
Curtiss, L. A., Redfern, P. C., Raghavachari, K., & Pople, J. A. (1998). Assessment of Gaussian-2 and density functional theories for the computation of ionization potentials and electron affinities. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.476538

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.