On the nature of homo- and hetero-dinuclear metal–metal quadruple bonds — Analysis of the bonding situation and benchmarking DFT against wave function methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homo- and hetero-dimetallic (d–d)8 analogues of the formally quadruply bonded [Re2Cl8]2– system with the general formula [MM′Cl8]x (M, M′ = Tc, Re, Ru, Os, Rh, Ir and x = –2, –1, 0, +1, +2) have been calculated with the density functional theory (DFT) functionals SVWN, BLYP, BP86, PBE, OLYP, OPBE, HCTH, B3LYP, O3LYP, X3LYP, BH&HLYP, TPSS, VSXC, TPPSh, and ab initio methods (CASPT2, CCSD(T)) using basis sets of triple-ζ quality. The performance of the functionals for the description of the metal–metal bond distance and the bond dissociation energy as well as the singlet–triplet gap was evaluated with respect to ab initio data at the CASPT2 level. Generally, the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals, BLYP, BP86, and PBE, show good performance in the description of the metal–metal bond distance and for the dissociation energy. Hybrid functionals are not to be used for compounds of the type discussed here as they lead to increasingly too short and too weak bonds with the amount of exact exchange included. All functionals underestimate the singlet–triplet gap, with the GGA functionals BLYP, BP86, PBE being the closest to the CASPT2 values. The bonding situations of the [MM′Cl8]x compounds were analyzed at the DFT level (BP86) using the natural bond orbital (NBO) method and the energy decomposition analysis. The M–M bond in homodimetallic compounds, [MMCl8]x, becomes weaker from group 7 to group 8 to group 9 metals and the bond is weaker for 4d metal systems than for 5d transition metal compounds. The M–M bonds have approximately 50% covalent and 50% electrostatic character and the covalent contribution is dominated by the π orbitals, whereas the δ orbitals do not contribute significantly to the covalent bonding. Heterodimetallic systems, [MM′Cl8]x, have significantly stronger metal–metal bonds than the homodimetallic compounds. This comes from weaker Pauli repulsion and stronger electrostatic attraction. The most stable heterodimetallic bonds are observed for 5d–5d metal pairs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".