4.8 Review

Benchmark Calculations of Interaction Energies in Noncovalent Complexes and Their Applications

Journal

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
Volume 116, Issue 9, Pages 5038-5071

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00526

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. IOCB AS CR [RVO:61388963]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P208/12/G016]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LO1305]
  4. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Large Infrastructures for Research, Experimental Development and Innovations project [LM2015070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data sets of benchmark interaction energies in noncovalent complexes are an important tool for quantifying the accuracy of computational methods used in this field, as well as for the development of new Computational approaches. This review is intended as a guide to conscious use of these data sets. We discuss their construction and accuracy, list the data sets available in the literature, and demonstrate their application to validation and parametrization of quaritum-mechanical computational methods. In practical model systems, the benchmark interaction energies are usually obtained using composite CCSD(T)/CBS schemes. To use these results as a benchmark, their accuracy should be estimated first. We analyze the errors of this methodology with respect to both the approximations involved and the basis set size. We list the most prominent data Sets covering various aspects of the field, from general ones to sets focusing on specific types of interactions or systems. The benchmark data are then used to validate more efficient computational approaches, including those based on explicitly correlated methods. Special attention is paid to the transition to large systems, where accurate benchmarking is difficult or impossible, and to the importance of nonequilibrium geometries in parametrization of more approximate methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available