CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions?
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2021-04-21
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR: 1.482
CiteScore: 9.8
Impact factor: 5.5
ISSN: 15499618, 15499626
PubMed ID:
33881869
Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
Computer Science Applications
Abstract
We present the CHAL336 benchmark set-the most comprehensive database for the assessment of chalcogen-bonding (CB) interactions. After careful selection of suitable systems and identification of three high-level reference methods, the set comprises 336 dimers each consisting of up to 49 atoms and covers both σ- and π-hole interactions across four categories: chalcogen-chalcogen, chalcogen-π, chalcogen-halogen, and chalcogen-nitrogen interactions. In a subsequent study of DFT methods, we re-emphasize the need for using proper London dispersion corrections when treating noncovalent interactions. We also point out that the deterioration of results and systematic overestimation of interaction energies for some dispersion-corrected DFT methods does not hint at problems with the chosen dispersion correction but is a consequence of large density-driven errors. We conclude this work by performing the most detailed DFT benchmark study for CB interactions to date. We assess 109 variations of dispersion-corrected and dispersion-uncorrected DFT methods and carry out a detailed analysis of 80 of them. Double-hybrid functionals are the most reliable approaches for CB interactions, and they should be used whenever computationally feasible. The best three double hybrids are SOS0-PBE0-2-D3(BJ), revDSD-PBEP86-D3(BJ), and B2NCPLYP-D3(BJ). The best hybrids in this study are ωB97M-V, PW6B95-D3(0), and PW6B95-D3(BJ). We do not recommend using the popular B3LYP functional nor the MP2 approach, which have both been frequently used to describe CB interactions in the past. We hope to inspire a change in computational protocols surrounding CB interactions that leads away from the commonly used, popular methods to the more robust and accurate ones recommended herein. We would also like to encourage method developers to use our set for the investigation and reduction of density-driven errors in new density functional approximations.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
|
|
Journal of Physical Chemistry A
8 publications, 12.9%
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Physics
6 publications, 9.68%
|
|
|
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
6 publications, 9.68%
|
|
|
Journal of Computational Chemistry
5 publications, 8.06%
|
|
|
ChemPhysChem
4 publications, 6.45%
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
4 publications, 6.45%
|
|
|
Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry
2 publications, 3.23%
|
|
|
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science
2 publications, 3.23%
|
|
|
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
2 publications, 3.23%
|
|
|
RSC Advances
2 publications, 3.23%
|
|
|
Chemistry - A European Journal
2 publications, 3.23%
|
|
|
ChemistrySelect
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Natural Sciences
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Australian Journal of Chemistry
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Inorganics
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Journal of Molecular Modeling
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Silicon
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Electronic Structure
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Scientific data
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
ACS Chemical Biology
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Journal of Organic Chemistry
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Structural Chemistry
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Journal of Physical Chemistry B
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Journal of the American Chemical Society
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Chemical Reviews
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Carbon
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
Publishers
|
5
10
15
20
|
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
20 publications, 32.26%
|
|
|
Wiley
15 publications, 24.19%
|
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
10 publications, 16.13%
|
|
|
AIP Publishing
6 publications, 9.68%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
4 publications, 6.45%
|
|
|
Elsevier
3 publications, 4.84%
|
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
MDPI
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
IOP Publishing
1 publication, 1.61%
|
|
|
5
10
15
20
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
63
Total citations:
63
Citations from 2024:
22
(35%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex |
MLA
Cite this
GOST
Copy
Mehta N. et al. CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions? // Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 2021. Vol. 17. No. 5. pp. 2783-2806.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
Mehta N., Fellowes T., White J. A., Goerigk L. CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions? // Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 2021. Vol. 17. No. 5. pp. 2783-2806.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00006
UR - https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00006
TI - CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions?
T2 - Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
AU - Mehta, Nisha
AU - Fellowes, Thomas
AU - White, Jonathan A.
AU - Goerigk, Lars
PY - 2021
DA - 2021/04/21
PB - American Chemical Society (ACS)
SP - 2783-2806
IS - 5
VL - 17
PMID - 33881869
SN - 1549-9618
SN - 1549-9626
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2021_Mehta,
author = {Nisha Mehta and Thomas Fellowes and Jonathan A. White and Lars Goerigk},
title = {CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions?},
journal = {Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation},
year = {2021},
volume = {17},
publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
month = {apr},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00006},
number = {5},
pages = {2783--2806},
doi = {10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00006}
}
Cite this
MLA
Copy
Mehta, Nisha, et al. “CHAL336 Benchmark Set: How Well Do Quantum-Chemical Methods Describe Chalcogen-Bonding Interactions?.” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 17, no. 5, Apr. 2021, pp. 2783-2806. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00006.
Profiles