4.4 Article

Chalcogen bonds: Hierarchical ab initio benchmark and density functional theory performance study

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 688-698

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.26489

关键词

benchmark study; chalcogen bonds; coupled‐ cluster; density functional calculations; noncovalent interactions

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study conducted a hierarchical benchmark and performance analysis of selenium bonds using ab initio and DFT methods. The results indicated that M06-2X, B3LYP, and M06 were the top-performing functionals, while BLYP-D3(BJ) and PBE showed poorer performance.
We have performed a hierarchical ab initio benchmark and DFT performance study of D(2)Ch center dot center dot center dot A(-) chalcogen bonds (Ch = S, Se; D, A = F, Cl). The ab initio benchmark study is based on a series of ZORA-relativistic quantum chemical methods [HF, MP2, CCSD, CCSD(T)], and all-electron relativistically contracted variants of Karlsruhe basis sets (ZORA-def2-SVP, ZORA-def2-TZVPP, ZORA-def2-QZVPP) with and without diffuse functions. The highest-level ZORA-CCSD(T)/ma-ZORA-def2-QZVPP counterpoise-corrected complexation energies (Delta E-CPC) are converged within 1.1-3.4 kcal mol(-1) and 1.5-3.1 kcal mol(-1) with respect to the method and basis set, respectively. Next, we used the ZORA-CCSD(T)/ma-ZORA-def2-QZVPP (Delta E-CPC) as reference data for analyzing the performance of 13 different ZORA-relativistic DFT approaches in combination with the Slater-type QZ4P basis set. We find that the three-best performing functionals are M06-2X, B3LYP, and M06, with mean absolute errors (MAE) of 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 kcal mol(-1), respectively. The MAE for BLYP-D3(BJ) and PBE amount to 8.5 and 9.3 kcal mol(-1), respectively.

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