There
are two primary foci in this research on WE (E = Si, P, and
S) bonds: prediction of their bond dissociation enthalpies (BDEs),
including σ- and π-bond energy components, and assessing
the uncertainty of these BDE predictions for levels of theory commonly
used in the literature. The internal standards for computational accuracy
include metal–element bond lengths (mean absolute error = 1.8
± 1.2%), main group homolog BDEs versus higher levels of ab initio theory (W1U and G4 BDEs, R
2 = 0.98), and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/def2-QZVPP calculations for metal–ligand
BDEs (R
2 = 0.88). The WSi first
π-bond is underreported for density functional theory (DFT)/MP2
methods versus DLPNO-CCSD(T), while the latter shows negligible strength
for the W;Si second π-bond, consistent with the literature.
This research highlights clear issues with the underlying assumptions
required for the use of perturbation theory methods for the fragments
derived from W–P homolysis. The difficulties associated with
modeling the metal thermochemistry with DFT (and MP2) levels of theory
are manifest in the broad standard deviations observed. However, the
average BDEs found using 48 popular DFT and MP2 levels of theory are
reliable, 10.8 ± 6.8% mean absolute error (with W–P removed)
versus DLPNO-CCSD(T), with the caveat that the individual basis set/pseudopotential/valence
basis set combination can vary wildly. Analysis of the absolute error
percentages with respect to the level of theory indicates little benefit
to going higher on Jacob’s Ladder, as simpler methods have
lower error versus high-level ab initio techniques
such as G4 and DLPNO-CCSD(T).