4.2 Article

Assessment of advanced xDH@B3LYP methods in describing various potential energy curves driven by π-π, CH/π, and SH/π non-bonded interactions

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 720-726

出版社

CHINESE PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1063/1674-0068/cjcp2206098

关键词

Density functional theory; Non-bonded interaction; Doubly hybrid approximations; xDH@B3LYP model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate description of potential energy curves driven by non-bonded interactions remains a challenge for pure density functional approximations (DFAs). Empirical dispersion correction is commonly used to treat non-bonded interactions. However, the revXYG3 and XYG7 functionals, which are doubly hybrid approximations, show promise in providing a balanced description of non-bonded interactions for various prototype interactions.
Accurate description of potential energy curves driven by non-bonded interactions remains a great challenge for pure density functional approximations (DFAs). It is because the R-6 decay behavior of dispersion cannot be intrinsically captured by the (semi)-local ingredients and the exact-exchange used in the popular hybrid DFAs. Overemphasizing the accuracy on the equilibrium region for the functional construction would likely deteriorate the overall performance on the other regions of potential energy surfaces. In consequence, the empirical dispersion correction becomes the standard component in DFAs to treat the non-bonded interactions. In this Letter, we demonstrate that without the use of empirical dispersion correction, doubly hybrid approximations, in particular two recently proposed revXYG3 and XYG7 functionals, hold the promise to have a balanced description of non-bonded interactions on the whole potential energy curves for several prototypes of pi-pi, CH/pi, and SH/pi interactions. The error of revXYG3 and XYG7 for non-bonded interactions is around 0.1 kcal/mol, and their potential energy curves almost coincide with the accurate CCSD(T)/CBS curves.

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

4.2
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