Journal of Chemical Physics, volume 127, issue 2, pages 24103

Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals?

Joachim Paier 1, 2
Martijn Marsman 1, 2
Georg Kresse 1, 2
2
 
Center for Computational Materials Science Faculty of Physics, and , Sensengasse 8/12, A-1090 Wien, Austria
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2007-07-10
Quartile SCImago
Q1
Quartile WOS
Q1
Impact factor4.4
ISSN00219606, 10897690
Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
General Physics and Astronomy
Abstract

The B3LYP hybrid functional has shown to successfully predict a wide range of molecular properties. For periodic systems, however, the failure to attain the exact homogeneous electron gas limit as well as the semiempirical construction turns out to be a major drawback of the functional. We rigorously assess the B3LYP functional for solids through calculations of lattice parameters, bulk moduli, and thermochemical properties (atomization energies and reaction energies). The theoretical lattice constants overestimate the experimental ones by approximately 1%, and hence behave similarly to the PBE gradient-corrected exchange-correlation functional. B3LYP atomization energies of solids are drastically worse than those of nonempirical hybrid Hartree-Fock/density functionals (HF/DFT) such as PBE0 and HSE03. These large errors can be traced back to the lack of a proper description of “free-electron-like” systems with a significant itinerant character (metals and small gap semiconductors). Similar calculations using the popular semiempirical B3PW91 hybrid functional, which fulfills the uniform electron gas limit, show a clear improvement over B3LYP regarding atomization energies. Finally, theoretical values for heats of formation for both the B3LYP as well as the B3PW91 functionals are presented. These document a most likely fortuitously good agreement with experiment for the B3LYP hybrid functional.

Top-30

Journals

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Journal of Chemical Physics
36 publications, 7.35%
Journal of Physical Chemistry C
32 publications, 6.53%
Physical Review B
29 publications, 5.92%
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
28 publications, 5.71%
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
26 publications, 5.31%
Journal of Physics Condensed Matter
16 publications, 3.27%
Journal of Physical Chemistry A
15 publications, 3.06%
International Journal of Quantum Chemistry
11 publications, 2.24%
Chemical Reviews
9 publications, 1.84%
Journal of Molecular Modeling
8 publications, 1.63%
Applied Surface Science
8 publications, 1.63%
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
6 publications, 1.22%
Journal of the Electrochemical Society
6 publications, 1.22%
Theoretical Chemistry Accounts
6 publications, 1.22%
Computational and Theoretical Chemistry
6 publications, 1.22%
Journal of Computational Chemistry
6 publications, 1.22%
Journal of the American Chemical Society
6 publications, 1.22%
Chemistry of Materials
5 publications, 1.02%
Physical Review Letters
5 publications, 1.02%
Physical Review Materials
5 publications, 1.02%
Journal of Molecular Structure
5 publications, 1.02%
New Journal of Physics
5 publications, 1.02%
Chemical Physics Letters
5 publications, 1.02%
RSC Advances
5 publications, 1.02%
Molecules
4 publications, 0.82%
Journal of Physical Chemistry B
4 publications, 0.82%
ACS applied materials & interfaces
4 publications, 0.82%
Bulletin of Materials Science
3 publications, 0.61%
Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing
3 publications, 0.61%
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Publishers

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
American Chemical Society (ACS)
127 publications, 25.92%
Elsevier
67 publications, 13.67%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
49 publications, 10%
Springer Nature
49 publications, 10%
American Physical Society (APS)
41 publications, 8.37%
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
40 publications, 8.16%
Wiley
37 publications, 7.55%
IOP Publishing
26 publications, 5.31%
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
10 publications, 2.04%
The Electrochemical Society
7 publications, 1.43%
Taylor & Francis
7 publications, 1.43%
Science in China Press
2 publications, 0.41%
Annual Reviews
2 publications, 0.41%
Canadian Science Publishing
1 publication, 0.2%
Mineralogical Society of America
1 publication, 0.2%
The Royal Society
1 publication, 0.2%
Frontiers Media S.A.
1 publication, 0.2%
Pleiades Publishing
1 publication, 0.2%
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
1 publication, 0.2%
IntechOpen
1 publication, 0.2%
Chinese Physical Society
1 publication, 0.2%
Hindawi Limited
1 publication, 0.2%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1 publication, 0.2%
Bentham Science
1 publication, 0.2%
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Paier J. et al. Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals? // Journal of Chemical Physics. 2007. Vol. 127. No. 2. p. 24103.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Paier J., Marsman M., Kresse G. Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals? // Journal of Chemical Physics. 2007. Vol. 127. No. 2. p. 24103.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1063/1.2747249
UR - https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2747249
TI - Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals?
T2 - Journal of Chemical Physics
AU - Paier, Joachim
AU - Marsman, Martijn
AU - Kresse, Georg
PY - 2007
DA - 2007/07/10
PB - American Institute of Physics (AIP)
SP - 24103
IS - 2
VL - 127
SN - 0021-9606
SN - 1089-7690
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex Copy
@article{2007_Paier,
author = {Joachim Paier and Martijn Marsman and Georg Kresse},
title = {Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals?},
journal = {Journal of Chemical Physics},
year = {2007},
volume = {127},
publisher = {American Institute of Physics (AIP)},
month = {jul},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2747249},
number = {2},
pages = {24103},
doi = {10.1063/1.2747249}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Paier, Joachim, et al. “Why does the B3LYP hybrid functional fail for metals?.” Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 127, no. 2, Jul. 2007, p. 24103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2747249.
Found error?