4.4 Article

Further benchmarks of a composite, convergent, statistically calibrated coupled-cluster-based approach for thermochemical and spectroscopic studies

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYSICS
卷 110, 期 19-20, 页码 2381-2399

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00268976.2012.684897

关键词

electronic structure; thermochemistry; molecular structure

资金

  1. Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-03ER15481]
  2. University of Alabama
  3. Argonne National Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A flexible, high-level, composite approach based on coupled cluster theory has been used to predict the atomization energies and equilibrium structures of 13 small, first-row compounds. Each of the major components in this approach can be systematically improved, thereby providing a practical measure of the inherent uncertainty (or degree of convergence) in the final results. Comparison with Active Thermochemical Table data, which relies on a network of experimental and theoretical data, showed excellent agreement for the atomization energies. With the addition of the latest molecular systems to the Computational Results Database, the composite approach was found to yield a mean absolute deviation of 0.19 kcal mol(-1) and a root-mean-square deviation of 0.31 kcal mol(-1) across 142 comparisons. If the analysis is limited to experimental data with estimated uncertainties of 0.2 kcal mol(-1) or less, the error metrics are cut in half. Similar good agreement is found with experimental structures, but the relative scarcity of accurate equilibrium structures limits the significance of the statistical analysis. Unavoidably, many of the comparisons could not be made with r(e) structural parameters. Explicitly correlated methods were found to be effective at replicating results obtained from the standard method with large basis sets, thereby reducing the high computational cost for several of the components.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据