This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
A variation of Gaussian-3 (G3) theory is presented in which the geometries and zero-point energies are obtained from B3LYP density functional theory [B3LYP/6-31G(d)] instead of geometries from second-order perturbation theory [MP2(FU)/6-31G(d)] and zero-point energies from Hartree–Fock theory [HF/6-31G(d)]. This variation, referred to as G3//B3LYP, is assessed on 299 energies (enthalpies of formation, ionization potentials, electron affinities, proton affinities) from the G2/97 test set [J. Chem. Phys. 109, 42 (1998)]. The G3//B3LYP average absolute deviation from experiment for the 299 energies is 0.99 kcal/mol compared to 1.01 kcal/mol for G3 theory. Generally, the results from the two methods are similar, with some exceptions. G3//B3LYP theory gives significantly improved results for several cases for which MP2 theory is deficient for optimized geometries, such as CN and O2+. However, G3//B3LYP does poorly for ionization potentials that involve a Jahn–Teller distortion in the cation (CH4+, BF3+, BCl3+) because of the B3LYP/6-31G(d) geometries. The G3(MP2) method is also modified to use B3LYP/6-31G(d) geometries and zero-point energies. This variation, referred to as G3(MP2)//B3LYP, has an average absolute deviation of 1.25 kcal/mol compared to 1.30 kcal/mol for G3(MP2) theory. Thus, use of density functional geometries and zero-point energies in G3 and G3(MP2) theories is a useful alternative to MP2 geometries and HF zero-point energies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baboul et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: