Our last example is the lithium beryllide triplet anion [LiBe] -, whose potential energy surface contains nonphysical local minima as a result of D4. We note that the spin ground amend this problem and do not feature additional minima in this system, the position of their minimum is shifted with respect to reference data. We note that the PES of CAM-B3LYP-D4S and CAM-B3LYP-D4SL is dominated by its DFT contribution, wherefore the shifted equilibrium geometry is not caused by D4S or D4SL. To assess the effect of the D4S and D4SL methods on relative DFT energies, we performed benchmarks on the MGCDB84 dataset in combination with various density functionals. The MGCDB84 set contains approximately 5000 datapoints, which are classified into four categories: Thermochemical data, isomerization energies, barrier heights and non-covalent interaction energies. The result of this benchmark can be seen in table . It can be seen that the choice of dispersion correction between D4S, D4SL, and D4 hardly changes the energy quality, while all three consistently show improvement with regards to D3, D3S(BJ) and D3(BJ). The optimal choice of dispersion correction depends on the chosen functional, however, the discrepancy is always within 1 kJ/mol. Therefore, D4S and D4SL are just as apt to use for thermochemical calculations as D4. To remedy these issues with D4, we have proposed the D4S and D4SL methods. Both methods remove artifical minima and bumps in the systems examined within this work and are appropriate for use in thermochemical calculations, with the preference given to D4S as a more straightforward method that minimally alters the original D4 scheme.