The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of Gaussian-3 and density functional theories for a larger experimental test set
Abstract
The G2/97 test set [J. Chem. Phys. 106, 1063 (1997)] for assessing quantum chemical methods used to predict thermochemical data is expanded to include 75 additional enthalpies of formation of larger molecules. This new set, referred to as the G3/99 test set, includes enthalpies of formation, ionization potentials, electron affinities, and proton affinities in the G2/97 set and 75 new enthalpies of formation. The total number of energies in the G3/99 set is 376. Overall, G3 theory has a mean absolute deviation of 1.07 kcal/mol for the G3/99 test set and does about as well for the new hydrocarbons and substituted hydrocarbons as it does for those in the G2/97 test. However, G3 theory has large deviations for several of the new nonhydrogen systems in the G3/99 test set such as SF6 and PF5. Part of the source of error is traced to the inadequate geometries used in G3 theory for these molecules. Other variations of G3 theory are also assessed such as G3(MP2), G3(MP3), and the versions of G3 theory using scaled energy terms instead of the higher level correction. These variations also do well for the larger hydrocarbons and substituted hydrocarbons, but fail for the same nonhydrogen systems as G3 theory. The density functional methods assessed in this study, including the hybrid B3LYP method, all have much larger deviations from experiment for the new enthalpies of formation in the expanded test set; the mean absolute deviation more than doubles compared to that for the enthalpies in the G2/97 test set. This is due to a cumulative effect of the errors in the larger molecules in the density functional methods.
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
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
Accurate and Numerically Efficient r2SCAN Meta-Generalized Gradient Approximation
Furness, J. W., Kaplan, A. D., Ning, J., Perdew, J. P., & Sun, J. (2020) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405 · Cited by 1,438
Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems
Keith, J. A., Vassilev-Galindo, V., Cheng, B., Chmiela, S., Gastegger, M., Müller, K.-R., & Tkatchenko, A. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00107 · Cited by 849
Data‐Driven Materials Science: Status, Challenges, and Perspectives
Himanen, L., Geurts, A., Foster, A. S., & Rinke, P. (2019) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.201900808 · Cited by 808
Huang, B., & von Lilienfeld, O. A. (2016) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4964627 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2000-05-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 7374-7383
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W1973934867
- Cited by
- 725
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.02
- 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-3 and density functional theories for a larger experimental test set. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.481336
- The paper
- Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A. (2000). Assessment of Gaussian-3 and density functional theories for a larger experimental test set. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.481336
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.