Comparison of Density-Functional Theory Dispersion Corrections for the DES15K Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While density-functional theory (DFT) remains one of the most widely used tools in computational chemistry, most functionals fail to properly account for the effects of London dispersion. Hence, there are many popular post-self-consistent methods to add a dispersion correction to the DFT energy. Until now, the most popular methods have never been compared on equal footing due to not being implemented in the same electronic structure packages. In this work, we performed a large-scale benchmarking study, directly comparing the accuracy of the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM), D3BJ, D4, TS, MBD, and MBD-NL dispersion models when applied to the recent DES15K database of nearly 15,000 molecular complexes at both expanded and compressed geometries. Our study showed similarly good performance for all dispersion methods (except TS) when applied to neutral complexes. However, they all performed worse for ionic complexes, particularly those involving dications of alkaline earth metals, due to systematic overbinding by the base PBE0 density functional. Investigation of the largest outliers also revealed that only the MBD and MBD-NL methods demonstrate surprising errors for complexes involving alkali metal cations at compressed geometries where they tended to significantly overbind. As we would expect minimal dispersion binding for such complexes, we further investigated the origins of these errors for the potential energy curve of a model cation–π complex. Overall, there is little choice between the XDM, D3BJ, D4, MBD, and MBD-NL dispersion methods for most systems. However, the MBD-based methods are not recommended for complexes involving organic species and alkali or alkaline earth metal cations, for example when modeling Li + intercalation into graphite.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".