Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Density-functional theory vs density-functional fits

Authors: Axel D. Becke;

Density-functional theory vs density-functional fits

Abstract

Kohn–Sham density-functional theory (DFT), the predominant framework for electronic structure computations in chemistry today, has undergone considerable evolution in the past few decades. The earliest DFT approximations were based on uniform electron gas models completely free of empirical parameters. Tremendous improvements were made by incorporating density gradients and a small number of parameters, typically one or two, obtained from fits to atomic data. Incorporation of exact exchange and fitting to molecular data, such as experimental heats of formation, allowed even further improvements. This, however, opened a Pandora’s Box of fitting possibilities, given the limitless choices of chemical reactions that can be fit. The result is a recent explosion of DFT approximations empirically fit to hundreds, or thousands, of chemical reference data. These fitted density functionals may contain several dozen empirical parameters. What has been lost in this fitting trend is physical modeling based on theory. In this work, we present a density functional comprising our best efforts to model exchange–correlation in DFT using good theory. We compare its performance to that of heavily fit density functionals using the GMTKN55 chemical reference data of Goerigk and co-workers [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 32184 (2017)]. Our density-functional theory, using only a handful of physically motivated pre-factors, competes with the best heavily fit Kohn–Sham functionals in the literature.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    49
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
49
Top 1%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!