2007
DOI: 10.1021/ct600185a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical Assessment of the Performance of Density Functional Methods for Several Atomic and Molecular Properties

Abstract: The reliable prediction of molecular properties is a vital task of computational chemistry. In recent years, density functional theory (DFT) has become a popular method for calculating molecular properties for a vast array of systems varying in size from small organic molecules to large biological compounds such as proteins. In this work we assess the ability of many DFT methods to accurately determine atomic and molecular properties for small molecules containing elements commonly found in proteins, DNA, and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
249
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 309 publications
(270 citation statements)
references
References 112 publications
21
249
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Autogenerated delocalized coordinates [10] were used in geometry optimizations with a medium-sized basis set, 6-31+G(d), since increasing the basis sets to triple-ζ quality gives very small additional corrections to the geometries while dramatically increasing the computational cost, and the use of such large basis sets for geometry optimization is often considered unnecessary from a computational point of view [11][12][13]. Accurate DFT energies of the optimized geometries obtained with each density functional were then calculated using the same functional with several triple-ζ quality basis sets: 6-311+G(d,p), 6-311+G(2d,p), 6-311+G(2d,2p), and 6-311+G(3d,2p).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Autogenerated delocalized coordinates [10] were used in geometry optimizations with a medium-sized basis set, 6-31+G(d), since increasing the basis sets to triple-ζ quality gives very small additional corrections to the geometries while dramatically increasing the computational cost, and the use of such large basis sets for geometry optimization is often considered unnecessary from a computational point of view [11][12][13]. Accurate DFT energies of the optimized geometries obtained with each density functional were then calculated using the same functional with several triple-ζ quality basis sets: 6-311+G(d,p), 6-311+G(2d,p), 6-311+G(2d,2p), and 6-311+G(3d,2p).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DFT calculates the ground state energy of a system as a functional of its electronic density while approximating the exchange and correlation (XC) component of the energy functional. The simplest XC approximation is the time-honoured local density approximation (LDA), which produces significant errors when computing AEAs [121]. The next rung in the ladder is the Generalised Gradient Approximation (GGA), that includes the density and its gradient.…”
Section: Electron Affinitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All calculations were performed with Gaussian 03 (Gaussian Inc., USA) [23]. The expected uncertainty of this treatment is ϳ10 kcal mol -1 , which is a factor of 1.5-2 lower than that of the AM1 model [24,25].…”
Section: Data Processing For Calibrating Ion Internal Energiesmentioning
confidence: 99%