Zheng Jingjing, Zhao Yan, Truhlar Donald G
J Chem Theory Comput. 2009 Apr 14;5(4):808-21. doi: 10.1021/ct800568m. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
The diverse barrier height database DBH24 is updated by using W4 and W3.2 data (Karton, A.; Tarnopolsky, A.; Lamère, J.-F.; Schatz, G. C.; Martin, J. M. L. J. Phys. Chem. A 2008, 112, 12868) to replace previous W1 values; we call the new database DBH24/08. We used the new database to assess 348 model chemistries, each consisting of a combination of a wave function theory level or a density functional approximation with a one-electron basis set. All assessments are made by simultaneous consideration of accuracy and cost. The assessment includes several electronic structure methods and basis sets that have not previously been systematically tested for barrier heights. Some conclusions drawn in our previous work (Zheng, J.; Zhao, Y.; Truhlar, D. G. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2007, 3, 569) are still valid when using this improved database and including more model chemistries. For example, BMC-CCSD is again found to be the best method whose cost scales as N(6), and its cost is an order of magnitude smaller than the N(7) method with best performance-to-cost ratio, G3SX(MP3), although the mean unsigned error is only marginally higher, namely 0.70 kcal/mol vs 0.57 kcal/mol. Other conclusions are now broader in scope. For example, among single-reference N(5) methods (that is, excluding MRMP2), we now conclude not only that doubly hybrid density functionals and multicoefficient extrapolated density functional methods perform better than second-order Møller-Plesset-type perturbation theory (MP2) but also that they perform better than any correlation-energy-scaled MP2 method. The most recommended hybrid density functionals, if functionals are judged only on the basis of barrier heights, are M08-SO, M06-2X, M08-HX, BB1K, BMK, PWB6K, MPW1K, BHandHLYP, and TPSS25B95. MOHLYP and HCTH are found to be the best performing local density functionals for barrier heights. The basis set cc-pVTZ+ is more efficient than aug-cc-pVTZ with similar accuracy, especially for density functional theory. The basis sets cc-pVDZ+, 6-31+G(d,p), 6-31B(d,p), 6-31B(d), MIDIY+, MIDIX+, and MIDI! are recommended for double-ζ-quality density functional calculations on large systems for their good balance between accuracy and cost, and the basis sets cc-pVTZ+, MG3S, MG3SXP, and aug-cc-pVDZ are recommended for density functional calculations when larger basis sets are affordable. The best performance of any methods tested is attained by CCSD(T)(full)/aug-cc-pCV(T+d)Z with a mean unsigned error of 0.46 kcal/mol; however, this is several orders of magnitude more expensive than M08-SO/cc-pVTZ+, which has a mean unsigned error of only 0.90 kcal/mol.
通过使用W4和W3.2数据(卡尔顿,A.;塔尔诺波尔斯基,A.;拉梅尔,J.-F.;沙茨,G. C.;马丁,J. M. L.《物理化学杂志A》2008年,112卷,12868页)来更新多样的势垒高度数据库DBH24,以取代之前的W1值;我们将新数据库称为DBH24/08。我们使用新数据库评估了348种模型化学方法,每种方法都由一种波函数理论水平或密度泛函近似与单电子基组的组合构成。所有评估都是在同时考虑准确性和成本的情况下进行的。该评估包括几种以前未针对势垒高度进行系统测试的电子结构方法和基组。当使用这个改进的数据库并纳入更多模型化学方法时,我们之前工作(郑,J.;赵,Y.;特鲁哈拉,D. G.《化学理论与计算杂志》2007年,3卷,569页)中得出的一些结论仍然有效。例如,再次发现BMC - CCSD是成本按N(6)缩放的最佳方法,其成本比具有最佳性价比的N(7)方法G3SX(MP3)小一个数量级,尽管平均绝对误差仅略高,分别为0.70千卡/摩尔和0.57千卡/摩尔。现在其他结论的范围更广。例如,在单参考N(5)方法(即不包括MRMP2)中,我们现在不仅得出双杂化密度泛函和多系数外推密度泛函方法比二阶莫勒 - 普莱塞特型微扰理论(MP2)表现更好的结论,而且它们比任何相关能缩放的MP2方法表现更好。如果仅根据势垒高度来判断泛函,最推荐的杂化密度泛函是M08 - SO、M06 - 2X、M08 - HX、BB1K、BMK、PWB6K、MPW1K、BHandHLYP和TPSS25B95。发现MOHLYP和HCTH是势垒高度方面表现最佳的局域密度泛函。基组cc - pVTZ + 在具有相似准确性的情况下比aug - cc - pVTZ更高效,特别是对于密度泛函理论。对于大型系统上的双ζ质量密度泛函计算,推荐基组cc - pVDZ +、6 - 31 + G(d,p)、6 - 31B(d,p)、6 - 31B(d)、MIDIY +、MIDIX + 和MIDI!,因为它们在准确性和成本之间具有良好的平衡,当能够负担更大基组时,对于密度泛函计算推荐基组cc - pVTZ +、MG3S、MG3SXP和aug - cc - pVDZ。测试的任何方法中性能最佳的是CCSD(T)(全)/aug - cc - pCV(T + d)Z,平均绝对误差为0.46千卡/摩尔;然而,这比M08 - SO/cc - pVTZ + 贵几个数量级,后者的平均绝对误差仅为0.90千卡/摩尔。