It can be seen that when ∆Edc is obviously lower than ∆Eels, w is large and thus most part of DFT correlation term will be mixed with ∆Edc to yield dispersion term of sobEDAw. By employing the w defined in this way, we plotted ∆Edisp/∆Eels of sobEDAw and that of DFT-SAPT for the S66 set as Fig. ). It can be seen that the former nicely match the latter for almost all complexes, and there is no systematical deviation in any range. One may find that in the region of very large ∆Edisp/∆Eels, the inconsistency between sobEDAw and DFT-SAPT is seemingly more evident, actually this is not an issue since the relative deviation is still small, and more importantly, the d/e ratio derived by different SAPT implementations are not very consistent with each other in this case. As an instance, for the dispersion-dominated benzene•••ethene complex, DFT-SAPT gives a d/e ratio of 4.57 in the original paper of S66 set, while its value given by SAPT2+/CBS calculation is merely 3.27. Fig. Correlation between terms defined in sobEDAw and DFT-SAPT for S66 set. The sobEDAw data were obtained at B3LYP-D3(BJ)/aug-cc-pVTZ level, ∆Edisp was evaluated using Eqs. 4 and 5 with fitted parameters c = 0.472, a = 0.024 and r = 2.478. DFT-SAPT data were taken from S66 original paper. The red lines highlight the diagonals in the figures for ease of comparison.