Cited by 208Advanced Chemical Physics StudiesMachine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions

Bayesian Error Estimation in Density-Functional Theory

Open access
Mortensen, J. J., Kaasbjerg, K., Frederiksen, S. L., Nørskov, J. K., Sethna, J. P., Jacobsen, K. W.·2005·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We present a practical scheme for performing error estimates for density-functional theory calculations. The approach, which is based on ideas from Bayesian statistics, involves creating an ensemble of exchange-correlation functionals by comparing with an experimental database of binding energies for molecules and solids. Fluctuations within the ensemble can then be used to estimate errors relative to experiment on calculated quantities such as binding energies, bond lengths, and vibrational frequencies. It is demonstrated that the error bars on energy differences may vary by orders of magnitude for different systems in good agreement with existing experience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.95.216401

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Empirically, models with more than roughly eight parameters are often recognizably sloppy.

    “Empirically we find, from studying a variety of models [3, 4, 7] as well as subsystems of models (like PC12 in Figure 1 (a)) [18], that models with more than roughly eight parameters are often recognizably sloppy.”
  • Systems with many parameters are often sloppy: their behavior depends only on a few stiff combinations of parameters and is unchanged as other sloppy parameter combinations vary by orders of magnitude.

    “Systems with many parameters are often sloppy . For practical purposes their behavior depends only on a few stiffly constrained combinations of the parameters; other directions in parameter space can change by orders of magnitude without significantly changing the behavior.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mortensen, J. J., Kaasbjerg, K., Frederiksen, S. L., Nørskov, J. K., Sethna, J. P., & Jacobsen, K. W.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2005-11-15
Volume
95
Issue
21
Pages
216401-216401
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2024745355
Cited by
208
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Advanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
Keywords
error estimation, density functional theory, exchange-correlation functionals, Bayesian ensemble, binding energy, bond lengths, vibrational frequencies, functional benchmarking, comparison with experimental data
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Models, Biological, Models, Chemical

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