Dispersion-correcting potentials can significantly improve the bond dissociation enthalpies and noncovalent binding energies predicted by density-functional theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersion-correcting potentials (DCPs) are atom-centered Gaussian functions that are applied in a manner that is similar to effective core potentials. Previous work on DCPs has focussed on their use as a simple means of improving the ability of conventional density-functional theory methods to predict the binding energies of noncovalently bonded molecular dimers. We show in this work that DCPs developed for use with the LC-ωPBE functional along with 6-31+G(2d,2p) basis sets are capable of simultaneously improving predicted noncovalent binding energies of van der Waals dimer complexes and covalent bond dissociation enthalpies in molecules. Specifically, the DCPs developed herein for the C, H, N, and O atoms provide binding energies for a set of 66 noncovalently bonded molecular dimers (the "S66" set) with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.21 kcal/mol, which represents an improvement of more than a factor of 10 over unadorned LC-ωPBE/6-31+G(2d,2p) and almost a factor of two improvement over LC-ωPBE/6-31+G(2d,2p) used in conjunction with the "D3" pairwise dispersion energy corrections. In addition, the DCPs reduce the MAE of calculated X-H and X-Y (X,Y = C, H, N, O) bond dissociation enthalpies for a set of 40 species from 3.2 kcal/mol obtained with unadorned LC-ωPBE/6-31+G(2d,2p) to 1.6 kcal/mol. Our findings demonstrate that broad improvements to the performance of DFT methods may be achievable through the use of DCPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".