We evaluate the performance of the most widely used wavefunction, density functional theory, and semiempirical methods for the description of noncovalent interactions in a set of larger, mostly dispersion-stabilized noncovalent complexes (the L7 data set). The methods tested include MP2, MP3, SCS-MP2, SCS(MI)-MP2, MP2.5, MP2.X, MP2C, DFT-D, DFT-D3 (B3-LYP-D3, B-LYP-D3, TPSS-D3, PW6B95-D3, M06-2X-D3) and M06-2X, and semiempirical methods augmented with dispersion and hydrogen bonding corrections: SCC-DFTB-D, PM6-D, PM6-DH2 and PM6-D3H4. The test complexes are the octadecane dimer, the guanine trimer, the circumcoronene…adenine dimer, the coronene dimer, the guanine-cytosine dimer, the circumcoronene…guanine-cytosine dimer, and an amyloid fragment trimer containing phenylalanine residues. The best performing method is MP2.5 with relative root mean square deviation (rRMSD) of 4 %. It can thus be recommended as an alternative to the CCSD(T)/CBS (alternatively QCISD(T)/CBS) benchmark for molecular systems which exceed current computational capacity. The second best non-DFT method is MP2C with rRMSD of 8 %. A method with the most favorable “accuracy/cost” ratio belongs to the DFT family: BLYP-D3, with an rRMSD of 8 %. Semiempirical methods deliver less accurate results (the rRMSD exceeds 25 %). Nevertheless, their absolute errors are close to some much more expensive methods such as M06-2X, MP2 or SCS(MI)-MP2, and thus their price/performance ratio is excellent.

The performance of the second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory MP2.5 and MP2.X methods, tested on the S22, S66, X40, and other benchmark datasets is briefly reviewed. It is found that both methods produce highly accurate binding energies for the complexes contained in these data sets. Both methods also provide reliable potential energy curves for the complexes in the S66 set. Among the routinely used wavefunction methods, the only other technique that consistently produces lower errors, both for stabilization energies and geometry scans, is the spin-component-scaled coupled-clusters method covering iterative single- and double-electron excitations, which is, however, substantially more computationally intensive. The structures originated from full geometrical gradient optimizations at the MP2.5 and MP2.X level of theory were confirmed to be the closest to the CCSD(T)/CBS (coupled clusters covering iterative single- and double-electron excitations and perturbative triple-electron excitations performed at the complete basis set limit) geometries among all the tested methods (e.g. MP3, SCS(MI)-MP2, MP2, M06-2X, and DFT-D method evaluated with the TPSS functional). The MP2.5 geometries for the tested complexes deviate from the references almost negligibly. Inclusion of the scaled third-order correlation energy results in a substantial improvement of the ability to accurately describe noncovalent interactions. The results shown here serve to support the notion that MP2.5 and MP2.X are reasonable alternative methods for benchmark calculations in cases where system size or (lack of) computational resources preclude the use of CCSD(T)/CBS computations. MP2.X allows for the use of smaller basis sets (i.e. 6-31G*) with results that are nearly identical to those of MP2.5 with larger basis sets, which dramatically decreases computation times and makes calculations on much larger systems possible.

The reduction of N,C,N-chelated bismuth chlorides [C6H3-2,6-(CH=NR)2]BiCl2 [where R = tBu (1), 2',6'-Me2C6H3 (2), or 4'-Me2NC6H4 (3)] or N,C-chelated analogues [C6H2-2-(CH=N-2',6'-iPr2C6H3)-4,6-(tBu)2]BiCl2 (4) and [C6H2-2-(CH2NEt2)-4,6-(tBu)2]BiCl2 (5) is reported. Reduction of compounds 1-3 gave monomeric N,C,N-chelated bismuthinidenes [C6H3-2,6-(CH=NR)2]Bi [where R = tBu (6), 2',6'-Me2C6H3 (7) or 4'-Me2NC6H4 (8)]. Similarly, the reduction of 4 led to the isolation of the compound [C6H2-2-(CH=N-2',6'-iPr2C6H3)-4,6-(tBu)2]Bi (9) as an unprecedented two-coordinated bismuthinidene that has been structurally characterized. In contrast, the dibismuthene {[C6H2-2-(CH2NEt2)-4,6-(tBu)2]Bi}2 (10) was obtained by the reduction of 5. Compounds 6-10 were characterized by using (1)H and (13)C NMR spectroscopy and their structures, except for 7, were determined with the help of single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis. It is clear that the structure of the reduced products (bismuthinidene versus dibismuthene) is ligand-dependent and particularly influenced by the strength of the N→Bi intramolecular interaction(s). Therefore, a theoretical survey describing the bonding situation in the studied compounds and related bismuth(I) systems is included. Importantly, we found that the C3NBi chelating ring in the two-coordinated bismuthinidene 9 exhibits significant aromatic character by delocalization of the bismuth lone pair.

The structure of the phenylacetylene-dimer has been elucidated using IR-UV double resonance spectroscopy in combination with high level ab initio calculations at the CCSD(T)/CBS level. The IR spectra in the acetylenic and the aromatic C-H stretching regions indicate that the two phenylacetylene moieties are in identical environments and very similar to the phenylacetylene monomer. Calculated stabilization energies and the free energies at the CCSD(T)/CBS level favor the formation of an anti-parallel π-stacked structure. The DFT-SAPT energy decomposition analysis points out that the anti-parallel π-stacked structure maximizes electrostatic as well as the dispersion components of energy. The observed IR spectra are consistent with the anti-parallel π-stacked structure.

Weak, medium, and strong charge-transfer (CT) complexes containing various electron donors (C(2)H(4), C(2)H(2), NH(3), NMe(3), HCN, H(2)O) and acceptors (F(2), Cl(2), BH(3), SO(2)) were investigated at the CCSD(T)/complete basis set (CBS) limit. The nature of the stabilization for these CT complexes was evaluated on the basis of perturbative NBO calculations and DFT-SAPT/CBS calculations. The structure of all of the complexes was determined by the counterpoise-corrected gradient optimization performed at the MP2/cc-pVTZ level, and most of complexes possess a linear-like contact structure. The total stabilization energies lie between 1 and 55 kcal/mol and the strongest complexes contain BH(3) as an electron acceptor. When ordering the electron donors and electron acceptors on the basis of these energies, we obtain the same order as that based on the perturbative E2 charge-transfer energies, which provides evidence that the charge-transfer term is the dominant energy contribution. The CCSD(T) correction term, defined as the difference between the CCSD(T) and MP2 interaction energies, is mostly small, which allows the investigation of the CT complexes of this type at the "cheap" MP2/CBS level. In the case of weak and medium CT complexes (with stabilization energy smaller than about 15 kcal/mol), the dominant stabilization originates in the electrostatic term; the dispersion as well as induction and δ(HF) terms covering the CT energy contribution are, however, important as well. For strong CT complexes, induction energy is the second (after electrostatic) most important energy term. The role of the induction and δ(HF) terms is unique and characteristic for CT complexes. For all CT complexes, the CCSD(T)/CBS and DFT-SAPT/CBS stabilization energies are comparable, and surprisingly, it is true even for very strong CT complexes with stabilization energy close to 50 kcal/mol characteristic by substantial charge transfer (more than 0.3 e). It is thus possible to conclude that perturbative DFT-SAPT analysis is robust enough to be applied even for dative-like complexes with substantial charge transfer.

Interaction energies computed with density functional theory can be divided into physically meaningful components by symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (DFT-SAPT) or the canonical energy decomposition analysis (EDA). In this work, the decomposition results obtained by these schemes were compared for more than 200 hydrogen-, halogen-, and pnicogen-bonded, dispersion-bound, and mixed complexes to investigate their similarity in the evaluation of the nature of noncovalent interactions. BLYP functional with D3(BJ) correction was used for the EDA scheme, whereas asymptotically corrected PBE0 functional for DFT-SAPT provided some of the best combinations for description of noncovalent interactions. Both schemes provide similar results concerning total interaction energies and insight into the individual energy components. For most complexes, the dominant energetic term was identified equally by both decomposition schemes. Because the canonical EDA is computationally less demanding than the DFT-SAPT, the former can be especially used in cases where the systems investigated are very large.

The infrared spectra in the acetylenic C-H stretching region for the complexes of phenylacetylene with water, methanol, ammonia, and methylamine are indicative of change in the intermolecular structure upon substitution with a methyl group. High-level ab initio calculations at CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVDZ level indicate that the observed complexes of water and ammonia are energetically the most favored structures, and electrostatics play a dominant role in stabilizing these structures. The ability of the pi electron density of the benzene ring to offer a larger cross-section for the interaction and the increased polarizability of the O-H and N-H groups in methanol and methylamine favor the formation of pi hydrogen-bonded complexes, in which dispersion is the dominant force. Further, the observed phenylacetylene-methylamine complex can be tentatively assigned to a kinetically trapped higher energy structure. The observed methyl group-induced hydrogen bond switching in the phenylacetylene complexes can be attributed to the switching of the dominant interaction from electrostatic to dispersion.

The effect of polar flattening on the stability of 32 halogen-bonded complexes was investigated by utilizing CCSD(T)/CBS, DFT, and DFT-SAPT/CBS methods. It is shown that the value of polar flattening increases with the decreasing value of studied isodensity. For the complexes investigated, the polar flattening based on the isodensity of 0.001 au reaches 0.2-0.3 Å and 10-15% in absolute and relative values, respectively. These geometrical changes induce differences in the stabilization energy up to 20%.