4.6 Article

Benchmarks for 0-0 transitions of aromatic organic molecules: DFT/B3LYP, ADC(2), CC2, SOS-CC2 and SCS-CC2 compared to high-resolution gas-phase data

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 15, 期 18, 页码 6623-6630

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2cp42694c

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study a benchmark set of medium-sized and large aromatic organic molecules with 10-78 atoms is presented. For this test set 0-0 transition energies measured in supersonic jets are compared to those calculated with DFT and the B3LYP functional, ADC(2), CC2 and the spin-scaled CC2 variants SOS-CC2 and SCS-CC2. Geometries of the ground and excited states have been optimized with these methods in polarized triple zeta basis sets. Zero-point vibrational corrections have been calculated with the same methods and basis sets. In addition the energies have been corrected by single point calculations with a triple zeta basis augmented with diffuse functions, aug-cc-pVTZ. The deviations of the theoretical results from experimental electronic origins, which have all been measured in the gas phase with high-resolution techniques, were evaluated. The accuracy of SOS-CC2 is comparable to that of unscaled CC2, whereas ADC(2) has slightly larger errors. The lowest errors were found for SCS-CC2. All correlated wave function methods provide significantly better results than DFT with the B3LYP functional. The effects of the energy corrections from the augmented basis set and the method-consistent calculation of the zero-point vibrational corrections are small. With this benchmark set reliable reference data for 0-0 transition energies for larger organic chromophores are available that can be used to benchmark the accuracy of other quantum chemical methods such as new DFT functionals or semi-empirical methods for excitation energies and structures and thereby augments available benchmark sets augments present benchmark sets which include mainly smaller molecules.

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

4.6
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