Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 725

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

Curtiss, Larry A., Raghavachari, Krishnan, Redfern, Paul C., Pople, John A.·2000·The Journal of Chemical Physics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.481336

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 725

Metadata

Authors
Curtiss, L. A., Raghavachari, K., Redfern, P. C., & Pople, J. A.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
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.