Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 161

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

A comparison of methods for the calculation of NMR chemical shifts

Gregor, Thomas, Mauri, Francesco, Car, Roberto·1999·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

A theory (MPL) to compute the NMR chemical shifts in condensed matter systems using periodic boundary conditions was presented by F. Mauri, B. Pfrommer, and S. G. Louie [Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5300 (1996)]. The MPL method has been implemented so far within a pseudopotential formulation in which the wave functions are expanded in plane waves. In this paper, we compare analytically the MPL approach within the density functional theory to existing methods for the calculation of the chemical shifts such as GIAO (gauge-including atomic orbitals), CSGT (continuous set of gauge transformations), and IGAIM (individual gauges for atoms in molecules). To this end we apply the MPL approach to molecules since the latter methods are conceived only for finite systems. We show theoretically the equivalence between a variant of the CSGT and the MPL method applied to finite systems. Moreover, we analyze numerically the efficiency of the different methods when atomic orbital basis sets are employed, by comparing the basis-set convergence properties. We find that the CSGT and IGAIM approaches have the same convergence properties as GIAO, whereas their computational time is significantly smaller. In the MPL method, the contribution of the valence electrons to the chemical shift converges rapidly with respect to the size of the basis set, whereas the convergence properties of the core contribution are poor. We improve the convergence by separating the core and the valence contributions in a gauge-invariant manner, by applying the MPL method only to the valence contribution, and by treating the core contribution with IGAIM. The performances of the resulting approach compare favorably with those of the other methods. Finally we find that the core contribution to the chemical shift is independent of the chemical environment, in contrast to what is sometimes found in the literature. In conclusion, our results indicate that, to compute the chemical shifts in both molecules and solids, using atomic orbital basis sets, one could use the MPL method to evaluate the valence contribution and add to it a rigid core contribution as obtained, for instance, from an atomic calculation.

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 · 10.1063/1.479451

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 161

Metadata

Authors
Gregor, T., Mauri, F., & Car, R.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
1999-08-01
Volume
111
Issue
5
Pages
1815-1822
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2080283615
Cited by
161
References
2
FWCI
2.92
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 comparison of methods for the calculation of NMR chemical shifts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.479451
The paper
Gregor, T., Mauri, F., & Car, R. (1999). A comparison of methods for the calculation of NMR chemical shifts. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.479451

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.