--- abstract: 'The performance of two recent <span>*ab initio*</span> computational thermochemistry schemes, W1 and W2 theory \[J.M.L. Martin and G. de Oliveira, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**111**</span>, 1843 (1999)</span></span>\], is assessed for an enlarged sample of thermochemical data consisting of the ionization potentials and electron affinities in the G2-1 and G2-2 sets, as well as the heats of formation in the G2-1 and a subset of the G2-2 set. We find W1 theory to be several times more accurate for ionization potentials and electron affinities than commonly used (and less expensive) computational thermochemistry schemes such as G2, G3, and CBS-QB3: W2 theory represents a slight improvement for electron affinities but no significant one for ionization potentials. The use of a two-point $A+B/L^5$ rather than a three-point $A+B/C^L$ extrapolation for the SCF component greatly enhances the numerical stability of the W1 method for systems with slow basis set convergence. Inclusion of first-order spin-orbit coupling is essential for accurate ionization potentials and electron affinities involving degenerate electronic states: inner-shell correlation is somewhat more important for ionization potentials than for electron affinities, while scalar relativistic effects are required for the highest accuracy. The mean deviation from experiment for the G2-1 heats of formation is within the average experimental uncertainty. W1 theory appears to be a valuable tool for obtaining benchmark quality proton affinities.' address: 'Department of Organic Chemistry, Kimmelman Building, Room 262, Weizmann Institute of Science, IL-76100 Reovot, Israel ' author: - 'Srinivasan Parthiban and Jan M.L. Martin[^1]' date: '<span>*J. Chem. Phys.*</span> MS <span>**303115JCP**</span>; Received Oct. 31, 2000; Accepted Jan. 24, 2001' title: 'Assessment of W1 and W2 theories for the computation of electron affinities, ionization potentials, heats of formation, and proton affinities[^2]' --- =6.5in =9.26in Introduction ============ Development of models based on molecular orbital theory for theoretical thermochemistry involves five key steps@pople99: defining a target accuracy, formulation of theory, implementation through programs, validating the models against reliable experimental values and prediction on any molecular system by the end user. At present, only <span>*ab initio*</span> methods can claim "chemical accuracy" (commonly defined as 1 kcal/mol) for small and medium sized molecules. The most popular such methods are the Gaussian-$n$ (G$n$) theories@g1paper [@g2paper; @g3paper] of Pople and coworkers (which are based on a combination of additivity approximations and empirical corrections applied to relatively low-level calculations), followed by the CBS approaches@cbs1 [@cbs2; @cbs3] of Petersson and coworkers which are intricate combinations of extrapolation and empirical correction schemes. Very recently, Martin and de Oliveira presented two theoretical thermochemistry schemes known as W1 and W2 (Weizmann-1 and Weizmann-2) theory@w1, which aim at 'benchmark accuracy', defined by these authors as 1 kJ/mol (0.24 kcal/mol). For a set of 28 experimentally very precisely known molecular total atomization energies, the more cost-effective of the two schemes, W1 theory, achieved a mean absolute error of 0.37 kcal/mol, while the more rigorous of the two schemes, W2 theory, achieved a mean absolute error of 0.23 kcal/mol. (It should be pointed out that these methods are free of parameters derived from experiment: W1 theory does contain one parameter — the exponent for the valence correlation extrapolation — that is derived from W2 calculations, not experiment.) Martin later proposed a minor modification of W1 theory, denoted W1$'$ theory@so3tae, which appeared to yield considerably improved results for second-row compounds at no additional cost. (For first-row compounds, it is identical to W1 theory.) In recent years, density functional theory (DFT) methods have also reached a level of sophistication where they can provide thermochemical data to within a few kcal/mol, notably the hybrid B3LYP (Becke 3-parameter exchange with Lee-Yang-Parr correlation@Bec93 [@LYP]) and B97 (Becke 1997@Bec97) exchange-correlation functionals, but also the 'pure DFT' HCTH (Hamprecht-Cohen-Tozer-Handy@hcth) exchange-correlation functional. A recent collection of reviews on computational thermochemistry methods may be found in an ACS Symposia volume edited by Irikura and Frurip.@acs677 The most fundamental thermochemical property of a compound, from an experimental point of view, is its heat of formation (<span>$\Delta H^\circ_f$</span> ) in the gas phase. From a computational chemistry point of view, the total atomization energy (TAE, $\Sigma D_0$)@martin-en is the most fundamental such quantity. Using the experimental heats of formation of the atoms in the gas phase, TAEs can be directly related to the gas-phase heats of formation. Prior to proper application of any new model by the end user, it should be tested against known high quality experimental results. For this purpose, Pople and coworkers proposed two standard test sets of thermochemical data: the G2-1 test set@g2paper being the smaller and containing small molecules, and the G2-2 test set@g2hof [@g2ipea] containing larger systems. These sets of thermochemical data, covering 148 neutral and 146 ionic species, have been used fairly extensively (e.g.@Fel99) to test the performance of various computational thermochemistry methods, notably the G$n$ theories and their variants@g2hof [@g2ipea; @aleph; @beit; @gimel; @dalet], density functional methods@g2hof [@g2ipea; @charlie95; @deproft97], and the CBS family of methods@cbs1 [@cbs2; @cbs3; @cbs4]. The main problem with the G2-1 and G2-2 test sets for heats of formation is the limited accuracy of the experimental data themselves. These were critically reviewed by Liebman and Johnson@liebman, who concluded that less than half of the data even met the less rigorous 1 kcal/mol accuracy criterion. For methods of the W1/W1$'$/W2 type, this is clearly a major impediment to their validation for a larger experimental data set, and alternatives need to be sought. Pople and coworkers also defined G2-1@g2paper and G2-2@g2ipea data sets for ionization potentials and electron affinities. The accuracy of these experimental data is much more satisfactory, and it could be argued that they are in fact more suitable test sets for the validation of theoretical thermochemistry methods. While ionization potentials are comparatively easy to reproduce well, electron affinities are a very taxing test for any electronic structure method. This is true both in terms of the basis set (addition of the electron entails a profound change in the spatial extent of the wave function) and in terms of the electron correlation method (effectively, the number of interacting electrons in the system changes). The purpose of the present paper is to assess the performance of W1 and W2 theory for an extended data set of thermochemical data. Specifically, for W1 theory we shall consider the G2-1 and G2-2 datasets for ionization potentials and electron affinities, as well as the G2-1 and a subset of the G2-2 data set for heats of formation. W2 theory will be considered for the G2-1 data set for IPs, EAs, and heats of formation. Finally we shall turn to W1 and W2 theory for proton affinities. Computational methods ===================== Geometry optimizations and vibrational frequency calculations using the B3LYP (Becke 3-parameter-Lee-Yang-Parr@Bec93 [@LYP]) density functional method have been carried out using Gaussian 98 revision travis07@example.org. (Following the recommendations in Ref.@grids larger grids than the default were used in the DFT calculations if necessary, specifically a pruned (99,590) grid for integration and gradients, and a pruned (50,194) grid for the solution of the coupled perturbed Kohn-Sham equations.) All other calculations were carried out using MOLPRO 98.1@molpro98 and a driver for the W1/W2 calculations@autoW1W2 written in MOLPRO's scripting language. The lion's share of the calculations was carried out on a Compaq ES40 with four 667 MHz Alpha EV67 CPUs, and a scratch volume consisting of six 18GB SCSI 2 ultrawide disks striped in software. Remaining calculations were carried out on the SGI Origin 2000 of the Faculty of Chemistry. The SCF and valence correlation basis sets are Dunning's augmented correlation consistent $n$-tuple zeta@Dun89 [@Ken92; @Dun97] (aug-cc-pV$n$Z) basis sets; for second-row atoms, high-exponent $d$ and $f$ functions were added (denoted '+2d' or '+2d1f') as was found repeatedly@Bau95 [@so2] to be necessary for accommodating inner-shell correlation effects. (Unless indicated otherwise, regular 'un-augmented' cc-pV$n$Z basis sets are used for H, Li, and Be, as well as cc-pV$n$Z+2d1f for Na and Mg.) For all remaining steps (inner-shell correlation, scalar relativistic effects, and spin-orbit coupling), the MTsmall (Martin-Taylor small@w1) core correlation basis set was used. Restricted open-shell wave functions were used throughout for open-shell species. The W1/W2 energy consists of seven components, each of which we shall detail in turn for reasons of clarity and self-containedness. <span>**(0)**</span> Reference geometries are obtained at the B3LYP/cc-pVTZ+1 level in the case of W1 theory, and at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVQZ+1 level in the case of W2 theory. In both cases, the '+1' signifies the addition@sio of a high-exponent $d$ function to second-row elements, the exponent having been set equal to the highest $d$ exponent in the corresponding cc-pV5Z basis set. <span>**(1)**</span> In the original W1 and W2 papers, the SCF limit was obtained by geometric extrapolation@Fel92 $$TAE_{\rm SCF}(n)=TAE_{SCF,\infty}+A.B^n$$ of the molecular total atomization energy TAE computed using cc-pV$n$Z+2d1f basis sets, where for W2 theory $n=\{T,Q,5\}$ (with $l$={3,4,5}), and for W1 theory $n=\{D,T,Q\}$ (with $l$={2,3,4}). (In practice, this means that $TAE_{SCF,\infty}=TAE_{SCF,n}-(TAE_{SCF,n}-TAE_{SCF,n-1})^2/(TAE_{SCF,n}-2TAE_{SCF,n-1}+TAE_{SCF,n-2})$. The exponential convergence behavior of the SCF energy has repeatedly been demonstrated empirically (e.g. by Jensen@JensenSCF and by Martin and Taylor@n2h2) in comparisons with numerical Hartree-Fock energies for small molecules. The geometric formula, for this particular application, has the minor disadvantage that its extrapolated limit depends on whether the extrapolation is carried out on TAE, or on the constituent energies. (In practice the differences are quite minor.) Based on the asymptotic convergence behavior@Sch63 [@Hil85; @Kut92] of the pair energy in an electron pair that does not have an interelectronic cusp, Petersson and coworkers@PetSCF previously considered (within the context of their CBS family of methods) an alternative formula $E_{\rm SCF}(n)=E_{SCF,\infty}+\sum_{l=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{A}{l+1/2}^6$. (Using Euler-Maclaurin summation, we find this to be equivalent to the simple two-point formula $E_{\rm SCF}(n)=E_{SCF,\infty}+A/n^5+O(n^{-7})$.) Martin and Taylor@c2h4tae previously considered the difference between the three-point geometric formula (with $n$={T,Q,5}) and the two-point formula (with $n$={Q,5}) for a small set of molecules and found the differences to be negligible. We also find this to be the case for the much larger sample of molecules surveyed here. However, when considering three-point geometric $n$={D,T,Q} versus two-point $n$={T,Q} in the present work, we found that, while the differences are quite small for almost all first-row and most second-row systems, significant differences (in excess of 1 kcal/mol) exist for a few first-row systems (e.g. LiF) and a rather larger number of second-row systems (e.g. many silicon compounds). Some conspicuous examples can be found in Table <span>I</span>. Upon closer inspection, this was revealed to be caused by the three points lying nearly on a straight line, causing the geometric extrapolation to yield erratic results. The two-point extrapolation is invariably closer to the extrapolated limit obtained from the larger basis sets: in unproblematic cases, it yields essentially the same results as the three-point extrapolation. As a result, we are recommending that the two-point $A+B/l^5$ extrapolation be used in W1 and W2 theory from now on: one beneficial side effect is that the extrapolated limit for this two-point formula is easily seen to be independent of whether the extrapolation is carried out on the molecule or the constituent atoms. Since the SCF component was the only component for which such an ambiguity existed in the original W1 and W2 theory, this permits the quoting of "total W1 and W2 energies" for arbitrary systems. It is also seen in Table <span>I</span> that the main argument in favor of W1$'$ theory (in which the AVTZ+2d1f basis set is replaced by an AVTZ+2d basis set, for balance reasons@so3tae) over standard W1 theory, namely an SCF limit in better agreement with that obtained from larger basis sets, appears to be obviated by the new extrapolation. We shall not consider W1$'$ theory further in the course of this paper. <span>**(2)**</span> In the W2 case, the CCSD (coupled cluster with all singles and doubles@Pur82) valence correlation contribution to TAE is obtained using the aug-cc-pVQZ+2d1f and aug-cc-pV5Z+2d1f basis sets, then extrapolated to the infinite basis limit using the expression@Hal98 $E(l)=E_\infty+A/L^3$. (In practice, this means $E_\infty=E_l+(E_l-E_{l-1})/((\frac{l}{l-1})^3-1)$.) The arguments in favor of this expression (derived from the known asymptotic convergence behavior of the interelectronic cusp@Sch63 [@Hil85; @Kut92]) have been detailed at length elsewhere@w1 [@Hal98; @Bak2000] and will not be repeated here. In the W1 case, the unmodified expression leads to systematically overestimated correlation contributions to TAE@w1: here we employ $E_\infty=E_l+(E_l-E_{l-1})/((\frac{l}{l-1})^\alpha-1)$, where $\alpha=3.22$ was determined@w1 to yield the best agreement with the extrapolated W2 CCSD energies. Both for W1 and W2 theory, the largest basis set CCSD calculation is carried out (except for very small systems) using the direct CCSD algorithm of Schütz, Lindh, and Werner@dirccsd as implemented in MOLPRO98.1. <span>**(3)**</span> The contribution of connected triple excitations is obtained at the CCSD(T) level (CCSD with a quasiperturbative a posteriori correction for connected triple excitations@Rag89). As the $T_3$ contribution is known@Hel97 to converge more rapidly than the contribution of $\exp(T_1+T_2)$, hence this contribution is obtained from CCSD(T) calculations with the smaller two basis sets and extrapolated to the infinite-basis limit using $E_\infty=E_l+(E_l-E_{l-1})/((\frac{l}{l-1})^\alpha-1)$, where, as for the CCSD energy, $\alpha$=3 exactly for W2 theory and $\alpha$=3.22 for W1 theory. (For open-shell systems, the definitions of the restricted CCSD and CCSD(T) energy as given in Ref.@Wat93 has been used.) <span>**(4)**</span> The inner-shell correlation contribution is computed as the difference between CCSD(T)/MTsmall@w1 values with and without constraining the inner-shell orbitals to be doubly occupied. (In the case of the second-row elements, the very deep-lying (1s)-like orbitals are constrained to be doubly occupied throughout.) <span>**(5)**</span> The scalar relativistic contribution is computed as expectation values of the one-electron Darwin and mass-velocity (DMV) operators@Cow76 [@Mar83] for the ACPF/MTsmall (averaged coupled pair functional@Gda88) wave function, with all inner-shell electrons correlated except the (1s)-like orbitals of second-row elements. Bauschlicher@Bau2000 demonstrated that, for first- and second-row systems, this approach yields essentially identical results to more rigorous relativistic calculations. <span>**(6)**</span> For closed-shell systems, or open-shell systems in nondegenerate electronic states, there is no molecular first-order spin-orbit contribution, and the contribution to TAE is merely the sum of the atomic spin-orbit corrections. For open-shell systems in degenerate states, we have calculated spin-orbit corrections at the CISD level with the MTsmall basis set, and again correlating all electrons except for the (1s) on second-row elements. <span>**(7)**</span> The molecular zero-point energy and thermal corrections were obtained at the B3LYP/cc-pVTZ+1 level. The zero-point energies within the harmonic approximation are scaled by 0.985, primarily to correct for anharmonicity. The scale factor was obtained@w1 by comparison with experimental (or high-level theoretical) anharmonic zero-point energies for 28 molecules. (Adiabatic) electron affinities (EAs) are calculated as the difference between the TAE$_0$ values of the anion and the corresponding neutral species, at their respective optimized geometries: $$EA_0 = TAE_0({\rm anion}) - TAE_0({\rm neutral})$$ Likewise, the (adiabatic) ionization potentials (IPs) are calculated as the difference in total atomization energies at 0 K of the cation and the corresponding neutral, at their respective optimized geometries: $$IP_0 = TAE_0({\rm neutral}) - TAE_0({\rm cation})$$ Theoretical heats of formation at 0 K were calculated by subtracting the W$n$ calculated TAE$_0$ ($\Sigma D_0$) value from experimental enthalpies of formation of the isolated atoms. For any molecule, such as A$_x$B$_y$H$_z$, the heat of formation at 0 K is given by $$\Delta H_f^{0} (A_xB_yH_z,0 K) = x\Delta H_f^{0} (A, 0 K) + y\Delta H_f^{0} (B, 0 K) + z\Delta H_f^{0} (H, 0 K) - \Sigma D_0.$$ The CODATA@Cod89 values of the atomic $\Delta H_f^{0}$ are used with the exception of boron and silicon, for which we have used revised values recommended by Bauschlicher, Martin, and Taylor@bf3 [@bf3cwb] for boron and by Martin and Taylor@martin-si99 for silicon. Theoretical heats of formation at 298 K (<span>$\Delta H^\circ_f$</span>) are calculated by correction to $\Delta H_f^{0}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \Delta H_f^{0} (A_xB_yH_z, 298 K)&=& \Delta H_f^{0} (A_xB_yH_z,0 K) \nonumber\\ &+& [H^o (A_xB_yH_z, 298 K) - H^o (A_xB_yH_z, 0 K)] \nonumber\\ &-& x {\rm hcf}_{298}[{\rm A, st}] - y {\rm hcf}_{298}[{\rm B, st}] - z {\rm hcf}_{298}[{\rm H, st}] \end{aligned}$$ While the enthalpy functions $hcf_{T}\equiv H_{T}-H_0$ for the molecule are obtained using the RRHO (rigid rotor-harmonic oscillator) approximation from the unscaled B3LYP/cc-pVTZ+1 vibrational frequencies, the enthalpy functions for the standard states of the elements are taken directly from CODATA. Proton affinities (PA) are obtained from the total atomization energies at 0 K as follows: $$PA_0(B) = TAE_0({\rm BH^+}) - TAE_0({\rm B})$$ Finally, PAs at 298 K are calculated by correction to PA$_0$ as follows: $$PA_{298}(B) = PA_0(B) + {\rm hcf}_{298}(BH^+) - {\rm hcf}_{298}(B) - \frac{5RT}{2}$$ where $5RT/2$ is the enthalpy function of the $H^+$ ion. Test sets used ============== The original G2-1 ion test set consists of 25 EAs and 38 IPs while the G2-2 test set included 33 EAs and 50 IPs. In the G3 paper, Curtiss <span><span>*et al.*</span></span>@g3paper applied G3 theory to the G2-1 and G2-2 test sets, minus three ionization potentials (due to the size of the molecules concerned). In this study we exclude five additional ionization potentials and one electron affinity from the G2-2 test set, for the same reason. Both W1 and W2 theories were evaluated for the G2-1 test set, while only W1 theory was considered for the G2-2 test set. For the purpose of evaluation of <span>$\Delta H^\circ_f$</span>, the original G2-1 neutral test set consists of 55 molecules while the G2-2 test set includes 93 molecules. Again, we have considered both W1 and W2 theories for the G2-1 neutral test set of molecules and compared the results with G2, G3 and CBS-Q values. (For the W2 calculations, three species were omitted because of their size.) It should be noted that the G2-2 test set contains several fairly large molecules and some of the experimental <span>$\Delta H^\circ_f$</span> for the species in G2-2 test set possess large uncertainties as well as several experimental values spanning a wide range. Therefore, we have selected a subset of 27 out of the 93 G2-2 neutral molecules, which are tractably small and for which the experimental enthalpies are reasonably accurate. To these molecules we applied W1 theory, and to a subset of them W2 theory. Results and Discussion ====================== Electron Affinities ------------------- We shall first consider the G2-1 test set. A breakdown of the different components of the W1 values is given in Table <span>II</span>, while a comparison between various levels of theory (including W1, W2, G2, G3, and CBS-Q) and experiment is given in Table <span>III</span>. We note first that a substantial number of species have negative electron affinities at the SCF level: the binding of the electron results from the additional correlation energy in those cases. Inclusion of connected triple excitations is essential. In contrast, inner-shell correlation does not appear to be very important for the G2-1 EAs. Scalar relativistic effects are somewhat more important: with the exception of CH$_{2}$, CH$_{3}$, and SiH$_{3}$ they uniformly decrease the electron affinity. As expected, the scalar relativistic effect is somewhat more important in second-row than in first-row systems. The change in the zero-point energies can be fairly substantial, particularly for hydrides. For heats of formation of closed-shell systems (and open-shell systems with nondegenerate ground states), the molecular first-order spin-orbit splitting vanishes, reducing the spin-orbit correction to the sum of the corrections for the constituent atoms. Since a fair number of the species in the G2-1 set have a degenerate state for either the neutral or the anionic system (or in fact for both), some account for molecular spin-orbit coupling cannot be avoided. We have considered a number of (relatively) inexpensive approximations within the MTsmall basis set used for the core correlation and scalar relativistic steps, including SCF, CISD, and CISD with inner-shell electrons correlated. The computed corrections at these levels of theory for a number of (neutral, cationic, and anionic) species have been compared in Table <span>IV</span> with values obtained from experimental fine structures. For most first-row species, satisfactory results are already obtained at the SCF and definitely at the CISD level; for the second-row species, correlation from the (2s2p) inner-shell orbitals appears to be essential, as was previously found by de Oliveira et al.@glen99 for the 2nd-row atoms and by Nicklass et al.@Nic2000 in a convergence study for the halogen atoms. (The rather weak basis set dependence found by these latter authors@Nic2000 is consistent with our own findings.) Only for the ClO molecule we find a substantial error: inspection of the spectroscopic constants@Hub79 for the few lowest states reveals that the $X~^2\Pi$ ground state in fact has a anomalously small splitting compared to the $A~^2\Pi$ state; since this latter state mixes in quite prominently into the $X~^2\Pi$ wave function, the splitting is severely underestimated unless the $A~^2\Pi$ state is admitted to the zero-order wave function. Using a CASSCF reference space consisting of the valence orbitals except for the Cl(3s) and O(2s) like orbitals, and supplemented with the first Rydberg $\pi$ orbitals, yields a spin-orbit correction in excellent agreement with experiment. As can be seen from Table <span>II</span>, these spin-orbit corrections are in fact essential for good agreement with experiment for several of the systems. At the W1 level, we find a mean absolute discrepancy (MAD) from experiment of 0.016 eV (Table <span>III</span>), which is a quite substantial improvement over the G2 (0.057 eV), G3 (0.049 eV), and CBS-QB3 (0.054 eV) values. Perhaps even more importantly, the maximum error is likewise much smaller, 0.051 eV for CH$_{3}$, followed by 0.043 eV for SiH$_{2}$. In the case of CH$_{3}$, not only is the electron affinity very small (G3 and CBS-QB3 in fact predict the wrong sign), but the harmonic approximation for the zero-point energy is of dubious reliability (see Schwenke@Schwenke99CH3). W2 represents a minor improvement over W1, at vastly greater computational expense: MAD=0.012 eV. Using even larger basis sets, de Oliveira et al.@glen99 found the mean absolute error for the atoms H, B–F, and Al–Cl to be 0.009 eV at the CCSD(T) level; by employing CCSDT and full CI corrections, this error could be reduced by an order of magnitude. (The importance of these corrections was about evenly split between higher-order $T_3$ effects and effects of connected quadruple excitations, $T_{4}$.) We conclude that the accuracy of W2 theory (and, to a lesser extent, W1 theory) is mostly determined by the imperfections in the CCSD(T) method. We shall now consider the G2-2 set of electron affinities, for which only W1 (not W2) calculations were carried out. A comparison with other theoretical thermochemistries and with experiment is given in Table <span>V</span>, while a breakdown of contributions is given in Table <span>S-I</span>@epaps. The trends seen for the G2-1 set largely continue for the G2-2 set. However, inner-shell correlation is somewhat more important for some species (e.g. Al, because of the small subvalence/valence gap, C$_{2}$, and S$_{2}$O). One exception to the general trends is that electron correlation in fact <span>*decreases*</span> EA(C$_{2}$): this is an artifact of the multireference character of the $X~^1\Sigma^{+}_{g}$ state. At first sight, scalar relativistic effects seem less important, but this is an artifact of the relative preponderance of first-row species compared to the G2-2 set. Standard W1 results for Li and Na would not involve diffuse functions on these low-electronegativity atoms. Not surprisingly, very poor electron affinities are thus obtained. We have optimized diffuse functions (available in the supplementary material) for Li, Be, Na, and Mg to accompany the standard cc-pV$n$Z basis set: the exponents were optimized individually for each angular momentum at the CISD level for the atomic anion. The W1aug results obtained with these basis sets are in near-perfect agreement with experiment. (This can reasonably be expected since the electron correlation methods used are exact within the finite basis set for the valence correlation contributions.) As for the G2-1 set, we find W1 theory to be quite substantially more reliable than G2 and G3 theory. Substantial discrepancies between W1 theory and experiment are found for ozone, CH$_{2}$NC, and FO: the first two species (and, to a lesser extent, FO) exhibit strong nondynamical correlation effects, and hence methods that do not include corrections for correlation effects beyond CCSD(T) are expected to yield poor results. G3 theory fortuitously agrees better with experiment than W1 theory for these species. Ionization Potentials --------------------- We shall again first consider the G2-1 set. A breakdown of components in the W1 computed values can be found in Table <span>VI</span>, while a comparison with experiment and less expensive theoretical thermochemistry methods can be found in Table <span>VII</span>. The relative importance of correlation is smaller than for the electron affinities: yet in absolute terms its contribution is almost as significant as in the EA case. While connected triple excitations appear to be somewhat less important than for EAs, they can certainly not be neglected with impunity. Inner-shell correlation contributions, on the other hand, are more important than in the EA case because the valence excitation creates a "hole" into which core electrons can be excited. The large contributions for Na (4 kcal/mol) and Mg (2 kcal/mol) come as no surprise given the small core-valence gap in these atoms. Scalar relativistic contributions are important for accurate work: with the exception of Li–C and Na–Mg, they consistently lower the IP. Like for the EAs, we see substantial zero-point effects for the hydrides: in the case of CH$_{4}$, this contribution is especially large because of the known fluxional nature@Davidson1991andrefs of the CH$_{4}^{+}$ cation. And again, spin-orbit splitting is a factor to be reckoned with, particularly for such second-row species as exhibit first-order spin-orbit splitting. Agreement with experiment is highly satisfactory at the W1 level, except for CH$_{4}$ where an atypically large discrepancy is seen. Upon inspection, it is revealed that the B3LYP/cc-pVTZ geometry for CH$_{4}^{+}$ is qualitatively incorrect, exhibiting $D_{2}$ rather than $C_{2v}$ symmetry. This reflects itself both in an error in the total energy for the cation and in an error in the zero-point contribution. Using a CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ reference geometry, excellent agreement with experiment is in fact obtained. In an attempt to ascertain whether this issue is specific to the B3LYP exchange-correlation functional, we carried out geometry optimizations and vibrational frequency calculations for CH$_4^+$ using the cc-pVTZ basis set and a variety of exchange-correlation functionals, including B3P86 (Becke 3-parameter exchange with Perdew-1986 correlation@Perdew86), B3PW91 (Becke 3-parameter exchange with Perdew-Wang-1991 correlation@PW91), mPW1PW91 (modified Perdew-Wang@Ada98), mPW1K (Truhlar's empirical modification of the latter@mPW1K), BHLYP (Becke half-and-half exchange@BHandH with LYP correlation), BHPW91 (ditto with PW91 correlation), and BLYP (Becke 1988 exchange@Bec88 with LYP correlation). Results are summarized in Table <span>VIII</span>. Only the functionals with 50% Hartree-Fock exchange (BHLYP, BHPW91) or nearly so (mPW1K) find this structure to be a local minimum, while all other functionals find an imaginary frequency of $a_2$ symmetry. Following the latter downhill leads to the $D_{2d}$ structure. Given that this behavior persists with a fairly wide variety of correlation functionals, the problem appears to reside in the exchange functional. (Note that since W1 theory does not contain any parameters that depend on the level of theory for the reference geometry, it can quite well be carried out from, say, a mPW1K/cc-pVTZ reference geometry for systems which exhibit this type of problem.) Mean absolute deviation for W1 is a factor of 3–4 smaller than for the inexpensive methods. In this case, only marginal improvement is seen upon going to the much more expensive W2 method, which is easily understood in terms of the faster basis set convergence for the cation compared to the anion. Again, we have reason to believe that the principal factor limiting the accuracy of our calculations are small deficiencies in the CCSD(T) electron correlation method. Let us now consider the G2-2 ionization potentials (Tables <span>IX</span> and <span>S-II</span>). Most systems in that set do not exhibit first-order spin-orbit splitting, the main exceptions being Ne, Ar, OCS, and CS$_{2}$. Most trends from the G2-1 set are continued: one clear exception to the general rule is CN, for which electron correlation <span>*reduces*</span> the IP. At first sight, this system also exhibits a large discrepancy of 0.27 eV between theory and experiment, and discrepancies for the more approximate G2 and G3 methods are similarly high. An explanation in terms of the extreme multireference character of the CN$^{+}$ cation would be tempting: however, we repeated the W2 calculation using full valence CAS-ACPF instead of CCSD(T) at every step, and found an <span>*increase*</span> by 0.04 eV in our computed value (to 13.93 eV). Upon closer inspection, it appears that the 'experimental' IP(CN)=13.6 eV is in fact a propagated transcription error from Ref.@Ber94. The only experimental value without a large error bar, 14.03$\pm$0.02 eV, was obtained by Berkowitz et al.@Ber69 from photoionization data for HCN$\rightarrow$H$^+$+CN+$e^-$ (19.00$\pm$0.01 eV) and HCN$\rightarrow$H+CN$^+$+$e^-$ (19.43$\pm$0.01 eV), as well as the well-established IP(H). The error bars on the extrapolated ionization limits may be somewhat optimistic: in addition, it is well known from benchmark calculations (e.g.@Pet95: see also @She98) that CN$^-$ has a very low-lying $a~^3\Pi$ state ($T_e$=880$\pm$100 cm$^{-1}$@Pet95, or 0.11 eV). It is not inconceivable that the Berkowitz et al. value in fact corresponds to generation of the $^3\Pi$ state (especially since the ground state of HCN$^+$ is $X~^2\Pi$): our W1 and W2 computed IPs in that case are both 14.07 eV, in excellent agreement with the Berkowitz value. This problem merits further investigation. For the purpose of assessment of the error statistics of the various methods, however, we have removed IP(CN) from the sample. Significant discrepancies — out of character with the other results — are then still seen for B$_{2}$H$_{4}$, sec-C$_{3}$H$_{7}$, Si$_2$H$_6$, and CH$_{3}$OF. None of these species exhibits severe nondynamical correlation, and we note that there are significant discrepancies between G3 and experiment for all these species except Si$_2$H$_6$. We suggest that these experimental values may need to be reconsidered. In the case of B$_2$H$_4$, it has previously been suggested@Sta92 that the surface between the $D_{2d}$ structure and the doubly bridged $C_{2v}$ isomer is flat enough that rigid molecule treatments may not be appropriate. The remaining three cases contain internal rotations, likewise casting doubt on the applicability of the RRHO approximation for the zero-point energy. (For both B$_2$H$_4$ and Si$_2$H$_6$, W2 calculations were feasible, and were found to yield essentially the same result as the W1 calculation.) Neither neutral nor cationic systems exhibit appreciable multireference character which could negatively affect the quality of the W1 and W2 results. Upon eliminating the four doubtful species, we find a MAD for the G2-2 test set that is only slightly higher than for the G2-1 set. Regardless of whether these four species are eliminated, it is clear that W1 represents a significant improvement over G2 and G3 theory. Heats of Formation ------------------ We shall finally turn to heats of formation for a larger set of molecules than was considered in the original W1/W2 paper. A comparison with experiment and more approximate methods can be found in Table <span>X</span>, while a breakdown by components of the atomization energies of the G2-1 set of neutral molecules is given in Table <span>S-III</span>. First of all, we note that the mean uncertainty for the experimental values is itself 0.6 kcal/mol. In fact, the MAD values for W1 and W2 theory travis07@example.org and 0.5 kcal/mol, respectively, suggesting that these theoretical values are in the same reliability range as the experimental data. The MAD for W2 theory is more than twice as large as in the original W1/W2 paper: however, comparisons there were made against a smaller set of molecules for which the experimental uncertainties were all 0.25 kcal/mol or less, mostly 0.1 kcal/mol or less. For ten species do discrepancies between W1 theory and experiment reach or exceed 1 kcal/mol. Out of these, four experimental values carry uncertainties of 1 kcal/mol or more, and can be ignored. Of the remaining six, the experimental heat of formation of SiH$_{4}$ contains an ambiguity@Mar99SiH4, P$_{2}$ is a notoriously difficult molecule@PerssonTaylorP4 and carries an uncertainty of 0.5 kcal/mol, and ClO is strongly multireference and carries an uncertainty of 0.5 kcal/mol. (For this latter molecule, however, 'upgrading' the calculation to W2 theory reduces the discrepancy with experiment to 0.5 kcal/mol, suggesting that slow basis set convergence may be at stake here.) As for Si$_{2}$H$_{6}$, W1, W2, G2, and CBS-Q theories exhibit similar discrepancies from experiment (G3 a somewhat smaller one), strongly suggesting that the experimental value may be in error. We note that W1/W2 and the less expensive methods "err" in the same direction for P$_{2}$ and ClO as well, suggesting that some revision of the experimental data may be in order there as well. Revisions for BeH and NH$_{2}$ were suggested previously@Martin1997hydrides: all methods unanimously suggest the PH$_{2}$ value to be in error. As pointed out repeatedly@fritz, the JANAF heat of formation for SiH$_{4}$ is in fact the older Gunn and Green value@GunnGreen increased by a somewhat arbitrary term of 1 kcal/mol for a Si(amorphous)$\rightarrow$Si(cr) phase change. The W1 and W2 results, like a previous benchmark study@sih4, favor the older Gunn-Green value. Finally, we selected 26 species with relatively small error bars out of the 93 molecules in the G2-2 test set for heats of formation. The experimental <span>$\Delta H^\circ_f$</span> along with deviation of W1, G2, and G3 values from experiment are presented in Table <span>XI</span>, while a summary of our computed TAEs and their different components for the 27 G2-2 neutral test molecules set calculated at the W1 level is presented in Table <span>S-IV</span>. The average discrepancy between the W1 values and experiment for this subset is 0.7 kcal/mol, compared to an average experimental uncertainty of 0.4 kcal/mol. In order to establish the reason for some of the discrepancies, we have carried out W2 calculations on selected systems. In the case of BF$_3$ and CF$_4$, the culprit appears to be slow basis set convergence in these highly ionic systems. We were unable to complete the CCSD/aug-cc-pV5Z calculation for CF$_4$: but applying the W1 and W2 extrapolations to the published CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pV$n$Z ($n$=3,4 and 4,5, respectively) total energies for CF$_4$ of Dixon et al.@DixonCF4, we found the estimated W2 TAE to be 1.5 kcal/mol lower than the estimated W1 TAE. This accounts for essentially all the discrepancy between experiment and W1 theory for CF$_4$. (A similar phenomenon was previously noted for travis07@example.org.) The NO$_2$ molecule exhibits strong nondynamical correlation effects, and the W2 result is actually further removed from experiment than the W1 result. ClNO likewise exhibits substantial nondynamical correlation, and here the W2 result is basically identical to its W1 counterpart. Improving agreement with experiment for these two molecules will certainly require accounting for correlation effects neglected at the CCSD(T) level. While this may be true to a lesser extent of the N$_2$O molecule, an error in the experimental value cannot completely be ruled out there. For F$_2$O, the discrepancies of -0.8 (W1) and -1.0 (W2) kcal/mol with experiment, as well as the absence of significant nondynamical correlation, suggest that the experimental value may need to be reinvestigated. At least for some of the larger systems (as well as those which have internal rotations), neglect of anharmonicity in the zero-point energy may account for part of the discrepancy with experiment. Proton affinities ----------------- Curtiss et al.@g3paper, in the original G3 paper, considered proton affinities of eight molecules as well. We have calculated W1 and W2 proton affinities for the same systems. However, rather than the somewhat older experimental data used by these authors, we have taken the data from the very recent compilation by Hunter and travis07@example.org. Various methods are compared with experiment in Table <span>XII</span>, while a breakdown of the different components at the W1 level is given in Table <span>S-V</span>. Since protonation/deprotonation is an isogyric reaction, the proton affinity converges considerably more rapidly with the level of theory than, say, the heat of formation. (This is expressed, for instance, in the comparatively small contribution of valence correlation, and the quite small contributions of inner-shell correlation and scalar relativistic effects.) Indeed, we note that only minute differences exist between the W1 and W2 proton affinities: W1 theory can basically be considered converged for this purpose. Mean absolute deviation from experiment is 0.43 kcal/mol (compared to 1.2 kcal/mol for the inexpensive G3 theory). While only a few of the values in Hunter and Lias carry explicit error bars (e.g. water, $\pm$0.7 kcal/mol, H$_2$S, $\pm$1.3 kcal/mol), it is clear that the uncertainty on the computed W1 values is considerably lower than that of the experimental values themselves (with the exception of H$_2$, for which the Hunter and Lias value is a theoretical one). As such, W1 theory should be a powerful tool for obtaining benchmark-quality proton affinities: for application to larger systems, the inner-shell correlation and scalar relativistic steps can fairly safely be skipped for this application. The somewhat surprising difference of 0.4 kcal/mol for PA(H$_2$) (after all, both unprotonated and protonated systems should be treatable essentially exactly at this level) is in part due to the harmonic approximation for the zero-point energy. We have calculated CCSD(T)/cc-pVQZ quartic force fields for H$_2$ and H$_3^+$, and found that the anharmonic zero-point energies thus obtained lead to PA(H$_2$)=101.10 kcal/mol, or only 0.2 kcal/mol higher than the evaluated Hunter and Lias value. Conclusions =========== We have assessed the performance of two recently developed methods for benchmark-quality computational thermochemistry, W1 and W2 theory, for a fairly large set of heats of formation, as well as for the G2-1 and G2-2 sets of ionization potentials and electron affinities, and a number of proton affinities. For molecules which exhibit slow basis set convergence, the numerical stability of the W1 method is considerably enhanced by substituting the three-point geometric extrapolation of the SCF component, $E_{SCF}(L)=E_{SCF,\infty}+A/B^L$, by a two-point extrapolation $E_{SCF}(L)=E_{SCF,\infty}+A/L^5$ which does not involve results with the smallest of the three valence basis sets. W1 theory performs excellently for ionization potentials, achieving a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 0.013 eV for the G2-1 set and 0.018 eV for the G2-2 set (minus CN, B$_{2}$H$_{4}$, sec-C$_{3}$H$_{7}$, Si$_2$H$_6$, and CH$_{3}$OF). Both mean and maximum errors are several times smaller than those of other, less expensive, theoretical thermochemistry methods. The vastly more expensive W2 method (which uses the same correlation methods but larger basis sets) yields only a marginal improvement over the W1 method: it appears that the main impediments to greater accuracy for these properties are the residual imperfections (higher-order $T_3$, $T_4$) in the CCSD(T) method. The performance of W1 theory for electron affinities is similar, with a MAD of 0.016 eV for the G2-1 and 0.019 eV for the G2-2 set. The latter value is reduced to 0.016 eV if two strongly multireference systems (O$_{3}$ and CH$_{2}$NC) are eliminated. For the G2-1 set, W2 theory (MAD=0.012 eV) does represent a minor improvement over W1 theory, reflecting the stronger basis set sensitivity of electron affinities. Inner-shell correlation is somewhat more important for ionization potentials than for electron affinities: scalar relativistic effects cannot be neglected for either property if results of the highest accuracy are desired. For IPs or EAs involving systems in degenerate states, spin-orbit splitting corrections are essential. With the exception of ClO (where a fairly large active space is required for good results), sufficiently accurate spin-orbit splittings can be computed at the CISD/MTsmall level provided the (2s2p) orbitals on second-row atoms are included in the correlation. Comparison with experiment for the heats of formation in the G2-1 and (part of) the G2-2 set is complicated somewhat by the uncertainties in the experimental values: the MADs of both W1 and W2 theory are lower than the average experimental uncertainty. For parametrizing more approximate methods, W1 and especially W2 level heats of formation may well be more suitable than the experimental data. Computed proton affinities at the W1 level appear to be converged with the level of theory, and agree excellently with experiment. As a final conclusion, we have established that the previously proposed W1 and W2 theories are in fact valuable and powerful tools for accurate ab initio thermochemistry, with mean and maximum absolute errors that are several times smaller than those of more popular (and less expensive) schemes such as G2, G3, and CBS-Q/CBS-QB3. SP acknowledges a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Feinberg Graduate School (Weizmann Institute). JM is the incumbent of the Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Career Development Chair. This research was supported by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany, and by the <span>*Tashtiyot*</span> Program of the Ministry of Science (Israel). The authors would like to thank Profs. Joel F. Liebman (NIST and UMBC) and Chava Lifshitz (Hebrew U. of Jerusalem) for helpful discussions on some of the experimental data. Supplementary material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered} ====================== Calculated total energies and geometries of the species discussed in the paper, as well as aug-cc-pV$n$Z basis sets for Li, Be, Na, and Mg, are available on the World Wide Web at the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) <http://theochem.weizmann.ac.il/web/papers/w1w2.html> as well as in Ref.@epaps. <span>99</span> J.A. Pople, <span><span>Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. <span>**38**</span>, 1894 (1999)</span></span> J. A. Pople, M. Head-Gordon, D. J. Fox, K. Raghavachari, and L. A. Curtiss, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**90**</span>, 5622 (1989)</span></span>; L. A. Curtiss, C. Jones, G. W. Trucks, K. Raghavachari, and J. A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**93**</span>, 2537 (1990)</span></span> L.A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, G.W. Trucks, and J.A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**94**</span>, 7221 (1991)</span></span> L.A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P.C. Redfern, V. Rassolov, and J.A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**109**</span>, 7764 (1998)</span></span> J.A. Montgomery Jr., J.W. Ochterski, and G.A. Petersson, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**101**</span>, 5900 (1994)</span></span> J.W. Ochterski, G.A. Petersson, and J.A. Montgomery Jr. <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**104**</span>, 2598 (1996)</span></span> J.A. Montgomery Jr., M.J. Frisch, J.W. Ochterski, and G.A. Petersson <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**110**</span>, 2822 (1999)</span></span> J.M.L. Martin, and G. De Oliveira, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**111**</span>, 1843 (1999)</span></span> J. M. L. Martin, <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**310**</span>, 271 (1999)</span></span> A.D. Becke, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**98**</span>, 5648 (1993)</span></span>. C. Lee, W. Yang, and R. G. Parr, <span><span>Phys. Rev. B <span>**37**</span>, 785 (1988)</span></span> A. D. Becke, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**107**</span>, 8554 (1997)</span></span> F. A. Hamprecht, A. J. Cohen, D. J. Tozer, and N. C. Handy, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**109**</span>, 6264 (1998)</span></span> K.K. Irikura and D.J. Frurip, <span>*Computational Thermochemistry: Prediction and Estimation of Molecular Thermodynamics*</span> (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1998). J.M.L. Martin, <span>*Benchmark Studies on small molecules*</span>, in <span>*Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry*</span>, Ed. P. von Ragué Schleyer (Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1998). L. A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P.C. Redfern, and J. A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**106**</span>, 1063 (1997)</span></span> L. A. Curtiss, P. C. Redfern, K. Raghavachari, and J. A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**109**</span>, 42 (1998)</span></span> D. Feller and K. A. Peterson, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**110**</span>, 8384 (1999)</span></span>; <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**108**</span>, 154 (1998)</span></span> G. S. Kedziora, J. A. Pople, V. A. Rassolov, M. A. Ratner, P. C. Redfern, and L. A. Curtiss, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**110**</span>, 7123 (1999)</span></span> L. A. Curtiss, P. C. Redfern, K. Raghavachari, and J. A. Pople, <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**313**</span>, 600 (1999)</span></span> A. B. Baboul, L. A. Curtiss, P. C. Redfern, and K. Raghavachari, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**110**</span>, 7650 (1999)</span></span> L. A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P. C. Redfern, and J. A. Pople, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**112**</span>, 1125 (2000)</span></span> C.W. Bauschlicher Jr. and H. Partridge, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**103**</span>, 1788 (1995)</span></span>; <span>*erratum*</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**105**</span>, 4398 (1996)</span></span> F. De Proft, and P. Geerlings, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**106**</span>, 3270 (1997)</span></span> L.A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P. C. Redfern and B.B. Stefanov, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**108**</span>, 692 (1998)</span></span> J. F. Liebman, personal communication; R. D. Johnson III (editor), <span>*Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark DataBase*</span>, National Institute for Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2000. Website: <http://srdata.nist.gov/cccbdb/> <span>M.J. Frisch, </span> <span>G.W. Trucks, </span> <span>H.B. Schlegel, </span> <span>G.E. Scuseria, </span> <span>M.A. Robb, </span> <span>J.R. Cheeseman, </span> <span>V.G. Zakrzewski, </span> <span>J.A. Montgomery Jr., </span> <span>R. E. Stratmann, </span> <span>J. C. Burant, </span> <span>S. Dapprich, </span> <span>J. M. Millam, </span> <span>A. D. Daniels, </span> <span>K. N. Kudin, </span> <span>M. C. Strain, </span> <span>O. Farkas, </span> <span>J. Tomasi, </span> <span>V. Barone, </span> <span>M. Cossi, </span> <span>R. Cammi, </span> <span>B. Mennucci, </span> <span>C. Pomelli, </span> <span>C. Adamo, </span> <span>S. Clifford, </span> <span>J. Ochterski, </span> <span>G. A. Petersson, </span> <span>P. Y. Ayala, </span> <span>Q. Cui, </span> <span>K. Morokuma, </span> <span>D. K. Malick, </span> <span>A. D. Rabuck, </span> <span>K. Raghavachari, </span> <span>J. B. Foresman, </span> <span>J. Cioslowski, </span> <span>J. V. Ortiz, </span> <span>A. G. Baboul, </span> <span>B. B. Stefanov, </span> <span>G. Liu, </span> <span>A. Liashenko, </span> <span>P. Piskorz, </span> <span>I. Komaromi, </span> <span>R. Gomperts, </span> <span>R. L. Martin, </span> <span>D. J. Fox, </span> <span>T. Keith, </span> <span>M.A. Al-Laham, </span> <span>C. Y. Peng, </span> <span>A. Nanayakkara, </span> <span>C. Gonzalez, </span> <span>M. Challacombe, </span> <span>P. M. W. Gill, </span> <span>B. Johnson, </span> <span>W. Chen, </span> <span>M. W. Wong, </span> <span>J. L. Andres, </span> <span>C. Gonzalez, </span> <span>M. Head-Gordon, </span> <span>E. S. Replogle, </span> <span>and J. A. Pople, </span> <span>*Gaussian 98, Revision A.7*</span> (Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1998). J. M. L. Martin, C. W. Bauschlicher Jr., and A. Ricca, <span>Comput. Phys. Commun. <span>**133**</span>, 189 (2001)</span> MOLPRO is a package of ab initio programs written by H.-J. Werner and P. J. Knowles, with contributions from J. Almlöf, R. D. Amos, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, F. Eckert, S. T. Elbert, C. Hampel, R. Lindh, A. W. Lloyd, W. Meyer, A. Nicklass, K. Peterson, R. Pitzer, A. J. Stone, P. R. Taylor, M. E. Mura, P. Pulay, M. Schütz, H. Stoll, and T. Thorsteinsson. <span>J. M. L. Martin and S. Parthiban,</span> <span>*autoW1W2*</span> (Weizmann Institute of Science, 2000). This driver is available on request from the authors. <span>T. H. Dunning Jr., </span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**90**</span>, 1007 (1989)</span></span> <span>R. A. Kendall, </span> <span>T. H. Dunning, </span> <span>and R. J. Harrison, </span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**96**</span>, 6796 (1992)</span></span> <span>T.H. Dunning Jr., </span><span>K.A. Peterson, </span><span>D.E. Woon, </span> "Correlation consistent basis sets for molecular calculations", in <span>*Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry*</span>(P. von Ragué Schleyer, Ed.), Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1998. <span>C. W. Bauschlicher Jr. and H. Partridge,</span> <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**240**</span>, 533 (1995)</span></span> <span>J. M. L. Martin, </span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**108**</span>, 2791 (1998)</span></span> <span>J. M. L. Martin and O. Uzan,</span> <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**282**</span>, 16 (1998)</span></span> <span>D. Feller,</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**96**</span>, 6104 (1992)</span></span> F. Jensen, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**110**</span>, 6601 (1999)</span></span>; F. Jensen, <span><span>Theor. Chem. Acc. <span>**104**</span>, 484 (2000)</span></span> J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor, Mol. Phys. <span>**96**</span>, 681 (1999) <span>C. Schwartz,</span> <span>In <span>*Methods in Computational Physics 2*</span>; B. J. Alder; Academic Press: New York, 1963</span>. <span>R. N. Hill,</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**83**</span>, 1173 (1985)</span></span> W. Kutzelnigg and J. D. Morgan III, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**96**</span>, 4484 (1992)</span></span>; <span><span>erratum <span>**97**</span>, 8821 (1992)</span></span> G. A. Petersson, A. Bennett, T. G. Tensfeldt, M. A. Al-Laham, W. A. Shirley, J. Mantzaris, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**89**</span>, 2193 (1988)</span></span>. <span>J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor,</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**106**</span>, 8620 (1997)</span></span> <span>G. D. Purvis III and R. J. Bartlett,</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**76**</span>, 1910 (1982)</span></span> <span>A. Halkier, </span> <span>T. Helgaker, </span> <span>P. J<span>ø</span>rgensen, </span> <span>W. Klopper, </span> <span>H. Koch, </span> <span>J. Olsen, </span> <span>and A. K. Wilson, </span> <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**286**</span>, 243 (1998)</span></span> K. L. Bak, P. J<span>ø</span>rgensen, J. Olsen, T. Helgaker, and W. Klopper, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**112**</span>, 9229 (2000)</span></span> M. Schütz, R. Lindh, and H.-J. Werner, <span><span>Mol. Phys. <span>**96**</span>, 719 (1999)</span></span> <span>K. Raghavachari, </span> <span>G. W. Trucks, </span> <span>J. A. Pople, </span> <span>and M. Head-Gordon, </span> <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**157**</span>, 479 (1989)</span></span>. <span>W. Klopper, </span> <span>J. Noga, </span> <span>H. Koch, </span> <span>and T. Helgaker, </span> <span><span>Theor. Chem. Acc. <span>**97**</span>, 164 (1997)</span></span> <span>J. D. Watts, </span> <span>J. Gauss, </span> <span>and R. J. Bartlett, </span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**98**</span>, 8718 (1993)</span></span> R. D. Cowan and M. Griffin, <span><span>J. Opt. Soc. Am. <span>**66**</span>, 1010 (1976)</span></span> R.L. Martin <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. <span>**87**</span>, 750 (1983)</span></span> <span>R. J. Gdanitz and R. Ahlrichs,</span> <span><span>Chem. Phys. Lett. <span>**143**</span>, 413 (1988)</span></span> <span>C. W. Bauschlicher Jr.,</span> <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. A <span>**104**</span>, 2281 (2000)</span></span> J. D. Cox, D. D. Wagman, and V. A. Medvedev, <span>*CODATA key values for thermodynamics*</span> (Hemisphere, New York, 1989); see also <http://www.codata.org/codata/databases/key1.html> J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor, <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. A <span>**102**</span>, 2995 (1998)</span></span> C.W. Bauschlicher Jr., J. M. L. Martin, and P. R. Taylor, <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. <span>**103**</span>, 7715 (1999)</span></span> J.M.L. Martin, and P. Taylor, <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. <span>**103**</span>, 4427 (1999)</span></span> G. de Oliveira, J.M.L. Martin, F. De Proft, and P. Geerlings <span><span>Phys. Rev. A <span>**60**</span>, 1034 (1999)</span></span> A. Nicklass, K. A. Peterson, A. Berning, H.-J. Werner, and P. J. Knowles, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**112**</span>, 5624 (2000)</span></span> K. P. Huber and G. Herzberg, <span>*Constants of Diatomic Molecules*</span> (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979) D. W. Schwenke, <span>Spectrochim. Acta A <span>**55**</span>, 731 (1999)</span> See EPAPS Document No. xxxxxxxx for Tables S-I through S-V to the present paper. This document may be retrieved via the EPAPS homepage (<http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html>) or from ftp.aip.org in the directory /epaps/. See the EPAPS homepage for more information. M. Reeves and E. R. Davidson, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**95**</span>, 6551 (1991)</span></span> and references therein. J. P. Perdew, <span><span>Phys. Rev. B <span>**33**</span>, 8822 (1986)</span></span> <span>J. P. Perdew, </span> <span>J. A. Chevary, </span> <span>S. H. Vosko, </span> <span>K. A. Jackson, </span> <span>M. R. Pederson, </span> <span>D. J. Singh, </span> <span>and C. Fiolhais, </span> <span><span>Phys. Rev. B <span>**46**</span>, 6671 (1992)</span></span> and references therein <span>C. Adamo and V. Barone,</span> <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**108**</span>, 664 (1998)</span></span> B. J. Lynch, P. L. Fast, M. Harris, and D. G. Truhlar, <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. A <span>**104**</span>, 4811 (2000)</span></span> A. D. Becke, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**98**</span>, 1372 (1993)</span></span> A. D. Becke, <span><span>Phys. Rev. A <span>**38**</span>, 3098 (1988)</span></span>; <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**88**</span>, 2547 (1988)</span></span> J. Berkowitz, G. B. Ellison, and D. Gutman, <span><span>J. Phys. Chem. <span>**98**</span>, 2744 (1994)</span></span> J. Berkowitz, W.A. Chupka, and T.A. Walter, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**50**</span>, 1497 (1969)</span></span> K. A. Peterson, <span><span>J. Chem. Phys. <span>**102**</span>, 262 (1995)</span></span>; see also D. M. Hirst, <span><span>Mol. Phys. <span>**82**</span>, 359 (1994)</span></span> M. L. Leininger,
{'source': 'arXiv_out/physics0101072_extract_303115JCP'}