MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2421993078 · doi:10.1021/ct500775r

Why Do TD-DFT Excitation Energies of BODIPY/Aza-BODIPY Families Largely Deviate from Experiment? Answers from Electron Correlated and Multireference Methods

2015· article· en· W2421993078 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad R. Momeni, Alex Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence and Fluorescent Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsBODIPYExcitationElectronChemistryComputational chemistryAtomic physicsPhysicsComputer scienceFluorescenceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertical excitation energies of 17 boron-dipyrromethene (BODIPY) core structures with a variety of substituents and ring sizes are benchmarked using time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) with nine different functionals combined with the cc-pVTZ basis set. When compared to experimental measurements, all functionals provide mean absolute errors (mean AEs) greater than 0.3 eV, larger than the 0.1-0.3 eV differences typically expected from TD-DFT. Due to the high linear correlation of TD-DFT results with experiment, most functionals can be used to predict excitation energies if corrected empirically. Using the CAM-B3LYP functional, 0-0 transition energies are determined, and while the absolute difference is improved (mean AE = 0.478 eV compared to 0.579 eV), the correlation diminishes substantially (R(2) = 0.961 to 0.862). Two very recently introduced charge transfer (CT) indices, q(CT) and d(CT), and electron density difference (EDD) plots demonstrate that CT does not play a significant role for most of the BODIPYs examined and, thus, cannot be the source of error in TD-DFT. To assess TD-DFT methods, vertical excitation energies are determined utilizing TD-HF, configuration interaction CIS and CIS(D), equation of motion EOM-CCSD, SAC-CI, and Laplace-transform based local coupled-cluster singles and approximate doubles LCC2* methods. Moreover, multireference CASSCF and CASPT2 vertical excitation energies were also obtained for all species (except CASPT2 was not feasible for the four largest systems). The SAC-CI/cc-pVDZ, LCC2*/cc-pVDZ, and CASPT2/cc-pVDZ approaches are shown to have the smallest mean AEs of 0.154, 0.109, and 0.100 eV, respectively; the utility of the LCC2* approach is demonstrated for eight extended BODIPYs and aza-BODIPYs. We found that the problems with TD-DFT arise from difficulties in dealing with the differential electron correlation (as assessed by comparing CCS, CC2, LR-CCSD, CCSDR(T), and CCSDR(3) vertical excitation energies for five compounds) and from contributions of multireference character and double excitations (from analysis of the CASSCF wave functions).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicLuminescence and Fluorescent MaterialsFrench-language works237,207