4.3 Article

First-Principles Calculation of Transition Metal Hyperfine Coupling Constants with the Strongly Constrained and Appropriately Normed (SCAN) Density Functional and its Hybrid Variants

期刊

MAGNETOCHEMISTRY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/magnetochemistry5040069

关键词

hyperfine coupling; density functional theory; spectroscopy; hybrid functionals

资金

  1. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density functional theory (DFT) is used extensively for the first-principles calculation of hyperfine coupling constants in both main-group and transition metal systems. As with many other properties, the performance of DFT for hyperfine coupling constants is of variable quality, particularly for transition metal complexes, because it strongly depends on the nature of the chemical system and the type of approximation to the exchange-correlation functional. Recently, a meta-generalized-gradient approximation (mGGA) functional was proposed that obeys all known exact constraints for such a method, known as the Strongly Constrained and Appropriately Normed (SCAN) functional. In view of its theoretically superior formulation a benchmark set of complexes is used to assess the performance of SCAN for the challenging case of transition metal hyperfine coupling constants. In addition, two global hybrid versions of the functional, SCANh and SCAN0, are described and tested. The values computed with the new functionals are compared with experiment and with those of other DFT approximations. Although the original SCAN and the SCAN-based hybrids may offer improved hyperfine coupling constants for specific systems, no uniform improvement is observed. On the contrary, there are specific cases where the new functionals fail badly due to a flawed description of the underlying electronic structure. Therefore, despite these methodological advances, systematically accurate and system-independent prediction of transition metal hyperfine coupling constants with DFT remains an unmet challenge.

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

4.3
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