Abstract:The diverse barrier height database DBH24 is updated by using W4 and W3.2 data (Karton, A.; Tarnopolsky, A.; Lamere, 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 Moller-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 TPSS251395. 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-zeta-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.

Computed versus experimental energy barriers in solution: Influence of the type of the density functional approximation

Computed vs Experimental Energy Barriers in Solution: Influence of the type of the density functional approximation.

Tests Of The Rpbe, Revpbe, Tau-Hcthhyb, Omega B97x-D, And Mohlyp Density Functional Approximations And 29 Others Against Representative Databases For Diverse Bond Energies And Barrier Heights In Catalysis

Extension of the B3LYP - Dispersion-Correcting Potential Approach to the Accurate Treatment of both Inter- and Intramolecular Interactions

Tests of second-generation and third-generation density functionals for thermochemical kineticsElectronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Mean errors for pure and hybrid DFT methods. See http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/cp/b3/b316260e/

How Accurate Can a Local Coupled Cluster Approach Be in Computing the Activation Energies of Late-Transition-Metal-Catalyzed Reactions with Au, Pt, and Ir?

Assessment of the Performance of Density Functionals for Predicting Potential Energy Curves in Hydrogen Storage Applications

Reaction barriers at metal surfaces computed using the random phase approximation: Can we beat DFT in the generalized gradient approximation?

Pericyclic reaction benchmarks: hierarchical computations targeting CCSDT(Q)/CBS and analysis of DFT performance

Thirty years of density functional theory in computational chemistry: an overview and extensive assessment of 200 density functionals

Benchmarking Density Functionals on Structural Parameters of Small-/Medium-Sized Organic Molecules.

Enforcing the Linear Behavior of the Total Energy with Hybrid Functionals: Implications for Charge Transfer, Interaction Energies, and the Random-Phase Approximation

Which Density Functional is the Best in Computing C-H Activation Energies by Pincer Complexes of Late Platinum Group Metals?

The Extended Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof Functional With Improved Accuracy For Thermodynamic And Electronic Properties Of Molecular Systems

Benchmark Study of Popular Density Functionals for Calculating Binding Energies of Three-Center Two-Electron Bonds.

The DBH24/08 Database and Its Use to Assess Electronic Structure Model Chemistries for Chemical Reaction Barrier Heights

SBH17: Benchmark Database of Barrier Heights for Dissociative Chemisorption on Transition Metal Surfaces

Accuracy of generalized gradient approximation functionals for density functional perturbation theory calculations

Comparison of DFT, MP2/CBS, and CCSD(T)/CBS methods for a dual-level QM/MM Monte Carlo simulation approach calculating the free energy of activation of reactions in solution and “on water”: a case study

Density Functionals for Hydrogen Storage: Defining the H2Bind275 Test Set with Ab Initio Benchmarks and Assessment of 55 Functionals

Assessment of Dispersion Correction Methods Within Density Functional Theory for Energetic Materials