2016
DOI: 10.1063/1.4961095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Blind test of density-functional-based methods on intermolecular interaction energies

Abstract: In the past decade, a number of approaches have been developed to fix the failure of (semi)local density-functional theory (DFT) in describing intermolecular interactions. The performance of several such approaches with respect to highly accurate benchmarks is compared here on a set of separation-dependent interaction energies for ten dimers. Since the benchmarks were unknown before the DFT-based results were collected, this comparison constitutes a blind test of these methods.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
123
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(127 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
3
123
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There is still room for development in sampling techniques, the choice of reaction progress coordinate (Meyer et al 2016), new DFT methods for molecular interactions (Brémond et al 2016;Taylor et al 2016), and so on. Grand challenges are the DFT treatment for colloidal dimension systems as proteins and RNA/DNA or high-level quantum chemistry calculations for medium molecules with inclusion of the solvent sampling.…”
Section: A Quantum Mechanical Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is still room for development in sampling techniques, the choice of reaction progress coordinate (Meyer et al 2016), new DFT methods for molecular interactions (Brémond et al 2016;Taylor et al 2016), and so on. Grand challenges are the DFT treatment for colloidal dimension systems as proteins and RNA/DNA or high-level quantum chemistry calculations for medium molecules with inclusion of the solvent sampling.…”
Section: A Quantum Mechanical Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To further benchmark the methods of interest here on a different dataset, we have chosen the one created by Taylor et al 31 , composed of 10 dimers with a range of sizes (from 6 to 32 atoms). In their work, the authors did not release the reference values before the various calculations were conducted, which therefore constituted a "blind" test.…”
Section: B "Blind" Test Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, a majority of dimers of this set are not found in other sets. The geometries used here correspond to the near equilibrium positions, and were taken from the supplementary material of Taylor et al 31 optimized at the MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ level of theory. The reference values for the binding energies have been obtained with CCSD(T) extrapolated to CBS by the same authors 31 .…”
Section: B "Blind" Test Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations