Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

The exchange-correlation dipole moment dispersion method

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces XCDM, which adds dynamical correlation hole terms to the exchange-hole dipole moment dispersion model and roughly halves molecular C6 error, posting the best GMTKN55 weighted errors among dispersion corrections tested.

desk verdict Useful new dispersion variant and the first XDM/MBD GMTKN55 benchmark, but the headline C6 improvement rests on an in-sample fit until tested externally. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02352 v1 pith:CZXEWKQ5 submitted 2025-06-03 physics.chem-ph

Kyle R Bryenton , Erin R Johnson This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords exchange-holedipolemomentXCDMdynamicalcorrelationholeC6dispersioncoefficientsGMTKN55dampingfunctionWTMAD-4correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes XCDM, a dispersion correction that adds same- and opposite-spin dynamical correlation hole terms to the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) model. The authors report that this addition roughly halves the mean absolute percent error in molecular $C_6$ dispersion coefficients on a 20-molecule benchmark, from about 18% in XDM to about 8.5%, and removes the systematic underestimation. On the GMTKN55 thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent-interaction benchmark, XCDM with the two-parameter atomic-radius damping gives the lowest weighted mean absolute deviations among the dispersion corrections tested, and paired with the B86bPBE0 or LC-$\omega$PBE functionals it is competitive with the best minimally empirical functionals in the literature. The paper also tests a one-parameter atomic-number damping that fixes alkali-metal cluster overbinding and identifies a flaw in the standard GMTKN55 weighting, proposing a new WTMAD-4 metric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exchange-correlation hole dipole moment: the dipole moment of the reference electron together with its exchange hole and its same-spin and opposite-spin dynamical correlation holes, evaluated at each point in the molecule. The correlation holes follow a real-space model in which the same-spin hole is built from the difference between the exact kinetic-energy density and a one-orbital squared-gradient approximation, the opposite-spin hole from the spin density of the other spin, and both have correlation lengths set by inverse exchange potentials with two constants fit to atomic correlation energies. Adding these hole dipoles to the exchange-hole dipole before computing the atomic multipole moments in the XDM formula is what raises the $C_6$ coefficients and lowers benchmark errors. The two damping functions used at the end—the two-parameter atomic-radius damping and the one-parameter atomic-number damping—control how the dispersion series is cut off at short range but are not the source of the XCDM accuracy gain.

What would settle it

Compute XCDM and XDM $C_6$ coefficients for a set of heteronuclear dimers and open-shell atoms where same- and opposite-spin correlation are weighted differently—for example Li$_2$, Na$_2$, LiH, and NaH—against dipole-oscillator-strength or CCSD(T) reference values; if the roughly 10-percentage-point improvement over XDM does not appear for these cases, the correlation-hole dipole terms are not the physical cause of the reported gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that including the dynamical correlation hole in the dispersion dipole is both physically meaningful and numerically beneficial. XCDM replaces the exchange-hole dipole moment $d_{X\sigma}$ with the exchange-correlation-hole dipole moment $d_{XC\sigma}$, which adds to $d_{X\sigma}$ the dipole moments of the same-spin and opposite-spin correlation holes; these extra terms depend on the kinetic-energy density, the spin densities, and correlation lengths set by inverse exchange potentials. Substituting this into the XDM multipole-moment integrals increases the molecular $C_6$ coefficients by about 10%, eliminating the negative mean percent error of XDM while keeping the mean absolute percent error at roughly half its previous value. Across the full GMTKN55 set, XCDM with atomic-radius damping achieves the lowest WTMAD-2 and WTMAD-4 values of the dispersion corrections compared, making it the most accurate post-SCF correction tested for molecular systems; the exception is layered materials, where XCDM overbinds.

Load-bearing premise

The improved accuracy rests on the assumption that the simple local model of electron correlation holes, with its two fitted constants, describes how electrons of the same and opposite spin avoid each other inside molecules; if that model is wrong for molecules, the improved $C_6$ coefficients are fitting artifacts rather than physical progress.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For molecular thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent interactions, XCDM with the standard atomic-radius damping becomes the most accurate post-SCF dispersion correction among those tested, with B86bPBE0-XCDM(BJ) posting the lowest WTMAD-4.
  • The systematic underestimation of pairwise $C_6$ coefficients seen in XDM is essentially removed, so dispersion-corrected binding energies that previously relied on error cancellation should shift toward the reference values.
  • The one-parameter atomic-number damping, XDM(Z), resolves the alkali-metal cluster overbinding while staying competitive on GMTKN55 and molecular crystals, offering a minimally empirical option for solid-state and cluster work.
  • Because XCDM overbinds layered materials while XDM does not, the paper implies that the missing three-body repulsion and the semi-empirical atom-in-molecule polarizabilities must be revisited before the dynamical correlation terms can be used in solids.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the correlation-hole dipole model is transferable, XCDM should improve not just $C_6$ but also $C_8$ and $C_{10}$ coefficients; comparing those higher-order coefficients for the same MolC6 molecules against reference values would test this directly.
  • The WTMAD-4 proposal implies that published GMTKN55 rankings could shift when re-weighted; readers comparing methods should report both raw category errors and the weighting scheme, since the choice of metric can reverse the apparent winner.
  • A natural stress test is to apply XCDM to molecular crystals with strong hydrogen-bonding or halogen-bonding motifs, where the dynamical correlation hole may interact with the damping function differently; the paper's ICE13 and HalCrys4 results are a first step, but a broader set of polymorphs would clarify the boundary of its applicability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new dispersion correction, XCDM, which augments the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) model with same- and opposite-spin dynamical correlation hole terms. Four variants are tested: XDM and XCDM, each with Becke-Johnson (BJ) or the recently proposed Z damping, across nine density functionals on the GMTKN55 benchmark, four molecular-crystal/layered-material benchmarks (X23, HalCrys4, ICE13, LM26), and the MolC6 molecular C6 set. The paper also proposes a new GMTKN55 weighting scheme, WTMAD-4, to replace WTMAD-2. The central claims are that XCDM substantially improves molecular C6 dispersion coefficients, that XCDM(BJ) gives the best GMTKN55 WTMAD among the dispersion corrections tested, and that B86bPBE0 paired with any XDM variant performs excellently for molecular systems.

Significance. If the claims are validated, XCDM would be a physically motivated, minimally empirical improvement to XDM, and the first GMTKN55 benchmarking of XDM and MBD would be a useful community resource. The paper is strong in computational transparency: it specifies the FHI-aims commit, fitting protocols, geometry sources, and data availability, and it benchmarks against an external set (KB49) for damping parameters. The proposed WTMAD-4 scheme addresses a real deficiency in the standard metric. However, the headline C6 improvement is currently supported only by an in-sample fit to the same benchmark used for parameter selection, and the new WTMAD-4 weights appear to be derived with knowledge of the methods being ranked. These issues do not invalidate the extensive benchmarking, but they materially weaken the novelty claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.2, 3.1; Table 1] The central claim that XCDM 'substantially improves accuracy for molecular C6 dispersion coefficients' is not validated out-of-sample. Section 2.2 states that the gσσ and gσσ′ parameters in Eqs. (31)-(32), and the choice of the sech normalization function F1, were selected by testing on MolC6, and Section 3.1 says these 'C6 reference values were used to ... guide the optimal determination of the g parameters.' Table 1 then reports the XCDM error reduction on that same set. The MAPE decrease from ~18% to ~8.5% is therefore an in-sample fit statistic, not an independent validation. Please provide an external molecular C6 set (or cross-validation) to support the claimed physical improvement, or temper the claim in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (43)] The WTMAD-4 weights appear to be derived from the same calculations being benchmarked. The text says the weights are based on 'typical errors observed for well-behaved functionals' and uses 'mean MAE across our methods' for IL16 as a motivating example. If the wi values were chosen after inspecting the XDM/XCDM results, the conclusion that XCDM(BJ) gives the best WTMAD-4 among dispersion corrections is partly circular. Please specify an a priori protocol for setting the weights (e.g., from a reference functional's literature errors) or demonstrate that the ranking is robust to reasonable variations in the weights.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (31)-(34)] The definition of the correlation-hole dipole moments is notationally inconsistent. Equations (31) and (32) define dCσσ(r) and dCσσ′(r) as (length expression) − r, while Eq. (34) writes dXCσ = bσ + [length expression] + [length expression] − r. If the bracketed terms already contain the − r term, it is double-counted; if they do not, the expression mixes a scalar length with the vector r. This is a central formula for the method, so please clarify whether dX, dC, and dXC are vector or scalar quantities and provide the correct expression used in the numerical implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 4] The text states that B86bPBE0 consistently achieves the minimum error on MB16-43 (13.6–14.0 kcal/mol), but Fig. 4 shows B86bPBE50 and PBE50 with MAEs of 5.30 and 5.41 kcal/mol on the same benchmark; please correct this contradiction.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The correlation-hole normalization functions F1–F3 are attributed to Ref. 50, but Ref. 50 is Becke's 1988 multicenter integration paper; the correct source appears to be Ref. 51 (Becke's 1994 correlation-hole paper). Please verify and correct the citation.
  3. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (39)] The Z-damping expression is ambiguous as printed; please insert parentheses to show that the damping term is zdamp Cn,i j/(Zi + Z j).
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The statement that 'XCDM(BJ) yields the best results of any of the DCs for the GMTKN55, according to both WTMAD-2 and WTMAD-4 metrics' is not true for LC-ωPBE, where XCDM(Z) has lower WTMAD-2 and WTMAD-4 than XCDM(BJ) (Table 3). Please qualify the claim to 'for most functionals' or specify the averaging used.
  5. [Abstract] The claim of 'substantially improving accuracy for molecular C6 dispersion coefficients' should be qualified to indicate that the improvement is assessed on the same benchmark used to fit the new parameters.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline molecular C6 improvement is in-sample: gσσ and gσσ′ are fit to MolC6 and then evaluated on the same MolC6 set, so Table 1 does not independently validate the correlation-hole dipole physics.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec 2.2 (Eqs 31-32 and g-parameter choice); Sec 3.1 (MolC6); Table 1]
    "XCDM was tested using each normalisation function on a molecular C6 benchmark (see Section 3.1), and the values from the sech-type form of Eq. 21 were ultimately chosen, specifically gσσ = 0.01243 and gσσ′ = 0.5360. ... These C6 reference values were used to assess the accuracy of XCDM relative to XDM and to guide the optimal determination of the gσσ and gσσ′ parameters, as described in Section 2.2."

    The constants gσσ and gσσ′ enter the correlation-hole dipole contributions in Eqs. 31-32, which are added to the exchange-hole dipole to form the XCDM C6 coefficients. The paper states that the MolC6 reference values were used to guide the optimal determination of these two parameters. Table 1 then reports the lower MAPE/MPE of XCDM versus XDM on the same MolC6 benchmark. Therefore the headline claim of 'substantially improving accuracy for molecular C6 dispersion coefficients' is an in-sample fit statistic: the parameters were adjusted to minimize error on MolC6, and the reported improvement is measured on that same set.

full rationale

The paper is generally self-contained: the correlation-hole model, normalization functions, and damping forms are adopted from external Becke work, and the damping parameters are fit to KB49 rather than to the main GMTKN55 benchmark. The single clear circularity is the molecular C6 validation. Because gσσ and gσσ′ are explicitly optimized using MolC6 and Table 1 reports MolC6 errors for the optimized model, the abstract's C6 accuracy improvement reduces by construction to the fit. This is a validation gap rather than an internal inconsistency, and the GMTKN55 WTMAD-2 results, with damping fit only through KB49, remain meaningful external evidence. The WTMAD-4 weights are chosen partly from typical errors of well-behaved functionals, which introduces a mild self-referential element in ranking, but it is not a physical prediction and does not control the circularity verdict. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: one central quantitative claim is in-sample, while the broader benchmark claims retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The XCDM model pulls several empirical constants and modeling choices from prior literature or fits them in this paper. The most consequential are the two correlation-hole constants c fit to atomic correlation energies, the two g constants selected using the MolC6 C6 benchmark, damping parameters fit to KB49, and the hand-set WTMAD-4 weights. The central physics also assumes the Becke-Roussel exchange hole and Becke correlation hole forms, Hirshfeld partitioning, pairwise C6-C10 dispersion, and neglect of the ATM three-body term.

free parameters (7)
  • gσσ (same-spin correlation-hole dipole constant) = 0.01243
    Selected using the MolC6 C6 benchmark (Sec 3.1) after testing three normalization functions (Sec 2.2).
  • gσσ′ (opposite-spin correlation-hole dipole constant) = 0.5360
    Selected alongside gσσ using the MolC6 C6 benchmark; value depends on the chosen sech normalization function.
  • cσσ (same-spin correlation length coefficient) = 0.63
    Fitted to atomic correlation energies in prior work (Ref 51), used in Eq 17; input from prior literature but empirical.
  • cσσ′ (opposite-spin correlation length coefficient) = 0.88
    Fitted to atomic correlation energies in prior work (Ref 51), used in Eq 18.
  • a1, a2 (BJ damping parameters) = per functional and basis set, in ESI
    Fit to minimize RMSPE on the KB49 dimer set (Sec 3.1, Eq 36).
  • zdamp (Z damping parameter) = per functional and basis set, in ESI; typical value around 105 Ha^-1
    Single empirical parameter in Eq 39, fit to KB49 RMSPE (Sec 3.1).
  • WTMAD-4 weights wi (55 values) = 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25, 50 as listed in Eq 43
    Hand-assigned based on 'typical errors observed for well-behaved functionals' (Sec 3.2), so the metric is partly internal to the benchmarked methods.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Becke-Roussel exchange hole (Eqs 8-14) accurately represents the exchange plus non-dynamical correlation hole for dispersion purposes.
    This is the basis of XDM (Sec 2.1) and is taken from prior work (Refs 18, 45); XCDM inherits it.
  • domain assumption The same- and opposite-spin correlation holes have the functional forms in Eqs 15-16, with correlation lengths set by inverse exchange potentials (Eqs 17-18).
    Taken from Becke (Refs 50, 51); this is the new physics added by XCDM (Sec 2.2).
  • domain assumption Atom-in-molecule polarizabilities follow Eq 4 with Hirshfeld volumes and free-atom polarizabilities.
    Semi-empirical assumption inherited from XDM (Sec 2.1), used to compute Cn coefficients.
  • domain assumption The dispersion energy is a pairwise sum of C6, C8, C10 terms and ignores the Axilrod-Teller-Muto three-body term.
    Eq 1; the paper acknowledges the ATM omission in Sec 5.2 when explaining layered-material overbinding.
  • domain assumption The localized BR exchange hole implicitly captures non-dynamical correlation, so only dynamical correlation needs to be added.
    Sec 2.1 and Fig 1; underlying justification for XCDM's additive correlation correction.
  • domain assumption E(hybrid/tight) can be approximated as E(hybrid/lightdenser) + E(GGA/tight) - E(GGA/lightdenser) (Eq 44).
    Used for all hybrid solid-state results (Sec 4); assumes basis-set incompleteness errors are additive and transferable between functionals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The exchange-correlation dipole moment dispersion method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZXEWKQ5

@misc{pith2026250602352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The exchange-correlation dipole moment dispersion method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZXEWKQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02352}
}
abstract

Density-functional theory (DFT) has become the workhorse of modern computational chemistry, with dispersion corrections such as the exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) model playing a key role in high-accuracy modelling of large-scale systems. Here, we introduce a new physics-guided XDM variant, termed the exchange-correlation dipole moment (XCDM) model, which supplements XDM with same- and opposite-spin dynamical correlation terms, substantially improving accuracy for molecular $C_6$ dispersion coefficients. Both XDM and XCDM are implemented for use with the Becke-Johnson damping function based on atomic radii, as well as a one-parameter damping function based on atomic numbers, recently proposed by Becke. All four variants are benchmarked on the comprehensive GMTKN55 database using minimally empirical generalised-gradient-approximation, global hybrid, and range-separated hybrid functionals. This marks the first time that the XDM (and many-body dispersion, MBD) corrections have been tested for the GMTKN55 set. Five solid-state benchmarks spanning molecular crystals and layered materials are also considered. The B86bPBE0 hybrid functional, paired with any of the XDM variants, shows excellent performance for molecular systems. Finally, we identify a flaw in the weighted mean absolute deviation (WTMAD-2) scheme commonly used for the GMTKN55 set, which underweights some of its component benchmarks by orders of magnitude. We propose a new WTMAD-4 scheme based on typical errors observed for well-behaved functionals, ensuring fair treatment across all benchmarks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Dion, H. Rydberg, E. Schr \"o der, D. C. Langreth and B. I. Lundqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 92, 246401

    2004

  2. [2]

    Rom \'a n-P \'e rez and J

    G. Rom \'a n-P \'e rez and J. M. Soler, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2009, 103, 096102

    2009

  3. [3]

    Lee, \'E

    K. Lee, \'E . D. Murray, L. Kong, B. I. Lundqvist and D. C. Langreth, Phys. Rev. B, 2010, 82, 081101

    2010

  4. [4]

    O. A. Vydrov and T. Van Voorhis, J. Chem. Phys., 2010, 133, 244103

    2010

  5. [5]

    Sabatini, T

    R. Sabatini, T. Gorni and S. De Gironcoli, Phys. Rev. B, 2013, 87, 041108

    2013

  6. [6]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Comput. Chem., 2004, 25, 1463--1473

    2004

  7. [7]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Comput. Chem., 2006, 27, 1787--1799

    2006

  8. [8]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich and H. Krieg, J. Chem. Phys., 2010, 132, 154104

    2010

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich and L. Goerigk, J. Comput. Chem., 2011, 32, 1456--1465

    2011

  2. [10]

    Caldeweyher, S

    E. Caldeweyher, S. Ehlert, A. Hansen, H. Neugebauer, S. Spicher, C. Bannwarth and S. Grimme, J. Chem. Phys., 2019, 150, 154122

    2019

  3. [11]

    Tkatchenko and M

    A. Tkatchenko and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2009, 102, 073005

    2009

  4. [12]

    Tkatchenko, R

    A. Tkatchenko, R. A. DiStasio Jr, R. Car and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2012, 108, 236402

    2012

  5. [13]

    Ambrosetti, A

    A. Ambrosetti, A. M. Reilly, R. A. DiStasio Jr and A. Tkatchenko, J. Chem. Phys., 2014, 140, 18A508

    2014

  6. [14]

    Hermann and A

    J. Hermann and A. Tkatchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2020, 124, 146401

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. Kim, W. J. Kim, T. Gould, E. K. Lee, S. Lebegue and H. Kim, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2020, 142, 2346--2354

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gould, S

    T. Gould, S. Lebegue, J. G. \' A ngy \' a n and B. Tom \' a s , J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2016, 12, 5920--5930

    2016

  9. [17]

    E. R. Johnson, in The Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Dispersion Model, Elsevier, 2017, ch. 5, pp. 169--194

    2017

  10. [18]

    A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2005, 123, 154101

    2005

  11. [19]

    E. R. Johnson and A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 2006, 124, 174104

    2006

  12. [20]

    A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2007, 127, 154108

    2007

  13. [21]

    K. R. Bryenton and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2023, 158, 204110

    2023

  14. [22]

    K. R. Bryenton, Oscallot, 2023, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7942358

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    F. O. Kannemann and A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2010, 6, 1081--1088

    2010

  16. [24]

    Otero-de-la Roza and E

    A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2013, 138, 204109

    2013

  17. [25]

    A. J. A. Price, A. Otero-de-la-Roza and E. R. Johnson, Chem. Sci., 2023, 14, 1252--1262

    2023

  18. [26]

    C. J. Nickerson, K. R. Bryenton, A. J. Price and E. R. Johnson, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2023, 127, 8712--8722

    2023

  19. [27]

    A. A. Adeleke and E. R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B, 2023, 107, 064101

    2023

  20. [28]

    Otero-de-la Roza and E

    A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2020, 153, 054121

    2020

  21. [29]

    M. S. Christian, E. R. Johnson and T. M. Besmann, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2021, 125, 2791--2799

    2021

  22. [30]

    Otero-de-la Roza, L

    A. Otero-de-la Roza, L. M. LeBlanc and E. R. Johnson, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2020, 11, 2298--2302

    2020

  23. [31]

    A. F. Rumson and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2023, 159, 174701

    2023

  24. [32]

    M. S. Christian, A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2016, 12, 3305--3315

    2016

  25. [33]

    M. S. Christian, A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, Carbon, 2017, 124, 531--540

    2017

  26. [34]

    Otero-de-la Roza and E

    A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2012, 137, 054103

    2012

  27. [35]

    Otero-de-la Roza, B

    A. Otero-de-la Roza, B. H. Cao, I. K. Price, J. E. Hein and E. R. Johnson, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2014, 53, 7879--7882

    2014

  28. [36]

    Otero-de-la Roza, L

    A. Otero-de-la Roza, L. M. LeBlanc and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2019, 15, 4933--4944

    2019

  29. [37]

    V. Blum, R. Gehrke, F. Hanke, P. Havu, V. Havu, X. Ren, K. Reuter and M. Scheffler, Comput. Phys. Commun., 2009, 180, 2175--2196

    2009

  30. [38]

    A. J. A. Price, R. A. Mayo, A. Otero-de-la-Roza and E. R. Johnson, CrystEngComm, 2023, 25, 953--960

    2023

  31. [39]

    R. A. Mayo, A. J. A. Price, A. Otero-de-la-Roza and E. R. Johnson, Acta Crystallogr., 2024, B80, 595--605

    2024

  32. [40]

    Salem, Mol

    L. Salem, Mol. Phys., 1960, 3, 441--452

    1960

  33. [41]

    Dalgarno and W

    A. Dalgarno and W. D. Davison, Adv. At. Mol. Phys., 1966, 2, 1--32

    1966

  34. [42]

    J. G. \'A ngy \'a n, J. Chem. Phys., 2007, 127, 024108

    2007

  35. [43]

    P. W. Ayers, J. Math. Chem., 2009, 46, 86--96

    2009

  36. [44]

    Heßelmann, J

    A. Heßelmann, J. Chem. Phys., 2009, 130, 084104

    2009

  37. [45]

    A. D. Becke and M. R. Roussel, Phys. Rev. A, 1989, 39, 3761

    1989

  38. [46]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 2003, 119, 2972--2977

    2003

  39. [47]

    Buijse and E

    M. Buijse and E. Baerends, Mol. Phys., 2002, 100, 401--421

    2002

  40. [48]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 2024, 160, 204118

    2024

  41. [49]

    Goerigk, A

    L. Goerigk, A. Hansen, C. Bauer, S. Ehrlich, A. Najibi and S. Grimme, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2017, 19, 32184--32215

    2017

  42. [50]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1988, 88, 1053--1062

    1988

  43. [51]

    A. D. Becke, Int. J. Quantum Chem., 1994, 52, 625--632

    1994

  44. [52]

    L \"o wdin, Int

    P.-O. L \"o wdin, Int. J. Quantum Chem, 1985, 28, 19--37

    1985

  45. [53]

    A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2007, 127, 124108

    2007

  46. [54]

    F. L. Hirshfeld, Theor. Chim. Acta, 1977, 44, 129--138

    1977

  47. [55]

    Heidar-Zadeh, P

    F. Heidar-Zadeh, P. W. Ayers, T. Verstraelen, I. Vinogradov, E. V\" o hringer-Martinez and P. Bultinck, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2017, 122, 4219--4245

    2017

  48. [56]

    J. R. Rumble, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC press, 2021, vol. 102

    2021

  49. [57]

    A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2005, 122, 154104

    2005

  50. [58]

    Neumann, R

    R. Neumann, R. H. Nobes and N. C. Handy, Mol. Phys., 1996, 87, 1--36

    1996

  51. [59]

    C. F. von Weizs\" a cker, Z. Phys., 1935, 96, 431--458

    1935

  52. [60]

    E. R. Johnson and A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 2005, 123, 024101

    2005

  53. [61]

    M. A. Spackman, J. Chem. Phys., 1991, 94, 1295--1305

    1991

  54. [62]

    Kumar, W

    A. Kumar, W. J. Meath, P. B \"u ndgen and A. J. Thakkar, J. Chem. Phys., 1996, 105, 4927--4937

    1996

  55. [63]

    Kumar and W

    A. Kumar and W. J. Meath, Mol. Phys., 1992, 75, 311--324

    1992

  56. [64]

    Kumar, J

    A. Kumar, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM, 2002, 591, 91--99

    2002

  57. [65]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Kumar and W. J. Meath, Chem. Phys., 2003, 286, 227--236

    2003

  58. [66]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Kumar and W. J. Meath, Mol. Phys., 2003, 101, 1535--1543

    2003

  59. [67]

    Wu and W

    Q. Wu and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys., 2002, 116, 515--524

    2002

  60. [68]

    Otero-de-la-Roza , refdata, 2015, https://github.com/aoterodelaroza/refdata

    A. Otero-de-la-Roza , refdata, 2015, https://github.com/aoterodelaroza/refdata

    2015

  61. [69]

    E. R. Johnson, gmtkn55-fhiaims, 2024, https://github.com/erin-r-johnson/gmtkn55-fhiaims

    2024

  62. [70]

    Wittmann, H

    L. Wittmann, H. Neugebauer, S. Grimme and M. Bursch, J. Chem. Phys., 2023, 159, 224103

    2023

  63. [71]

    A. M. Reilly and A. Tkatchenko, J. Chem. Phys., 2013, 139, 024705

    2013

  64. [72]

    G. A. Dolgonos, J. Hoja and A. D. Boese, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2019, 21, 24333--24344

    2019

  65. [73]

    J. A. Dean, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, 15th edn., 1999

    1999

  66. [74]

    J. G. Brandenburg, T. Maas and S. Grimme, J. Chem. Phys., 2015, 142, 124104

    2015

  67. [75]

    Della Pia, A

    F. Della Pia, A. Zen, D. Alf \`e and A. Michaelides, J. Chem. Phys., 2022, 157, 134701

    2022

  68. [76]

    Bj \"o rkman, J

    T. Bj \"o rkman, J. Chem. Phys., 2014, 141, 074708

    2014

  69. [77]

    S. A. Tawfik, T. Gould, C. Stampfl and M. J. Ford, Phys. Rev. Mater., 2018, 2, 034005

    2018

  70. [78]

    Zagorac, H

    D. Zagorac, H. M \"u ller, S. Ruehl, J. Zagorac and S. Rehme, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 2019, 52, 918--925

    2019

  71. [79]

    X. Ren, P. Rinke, V. Blum, J. Wieferink, A. Tkatchenko, A. Sanfilippo, K. Reuter and M. Scheffler, New J. Phys., 2012, 14, 053020

    2012

  72. [80]

    S. V. Levchenko, X. Ren, J. Wieferink, R. Johanni, P. Rinke, V. Blum and M. Scheffler, Comput. Phys. Commun., 2015, 192, 60--69

    2015

  73. [81]

    Kokott, F

    S. Kokott, F. Merz, Y. Yao, C. Carbogno, M. Rossi, V. Havu, M. Rampp, M. Scheffler and V. Blum, J. Chem. Phys., 2024, 161, 024112

    2024

  74. [82]

    V. W.-z. Yu, F. Corsetti, A. Garc \' a, W. P. Huhn, M. Jacquelin, W. Jia, B. Lange, L. Lin, J. Lu, W. Mi, A. Seifitokaldani, A. V\' a zquez-Mayagoitia, C. Yang, H. Yang and V. Blum, Comput. Phys. Commun., 2018, 222, 267--285

    2018

  75. [83]

    V. Havu, V. Blum, P. Havu and M. Scheffler, J. Chem. Phys., 2009, 228, 8367--8379

    2009

  76. [84]

    A. C. Ihrig, J. Wieferink, I. Y. Zhang, M. Ropo, X. Ren, P. Rinke, M. Scheffler and V. Blum, New J. Phys., 2015, 17, 093020

    2015

  77. [85]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1986, 84, 4524--4529

    1986

  78. [86]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  79. [87]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1997, 78, 1396--1396

    1997

  80. [88]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1986, 85, 7184--7187

    1986

  81. [89]

    A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A, 1988, 38, 3098

    1988

  82. [90]

    A. D. Beck, J. Chem. Phys, 1993, 98, 5648--5652

    1993

  83. [91]

    C. Lee, W. Yang and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B, 1988, 37, 785

    1988

  84. [92]

    P. J. Stephens, F. J. Devlin, C. F. Chabalowski and M. J. Frisch, J. Phys. Chem., 1994, 98, 11623--11627

    1994

  85. [93]

    S. H. Vosko, L. Wilk and M. Nusair, Can. J. Phys., 1980, 58, 1200--1211

    1980

  86. [94]

    Adamo and V

    C. Adamo and V. Barone, J. Chem. Phys., 1999, 110, 6158--6170

    1999

  87. [95]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 1372--1377

    1993

  88. [96]

    K. R. Bryenton, A. A. Adeleke, S. G. Dale and E. R. Johnson, WIRES: Comput. Mol. Sci., 2023, 13, e1631

    2023

  89. [97]

    O. A. Vydrov and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys., 2006, 125, 234109

    2006

  90. [98]

    O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria and J. P. Perdew, J. Chem. Phys., 2007, 126, 154109

    2007

  91. [99]

    J. A. Pople, M. Head‐Gordon, D. J. Fox, K. Raghavachari and L. A. Curtiss, J. Chem. Phys., 1989, 90, 5622–5629

    1989

  92. [100]

    L. A. Curtiss, C. Jones, G. W. Trucks, K. Raghavachari and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys., 1990, 93, 2537–2545

    1990

  93. [101]

    M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, X. Li, M. Caricato, A. V. Marenich, J. Bloino, B. G. Janesko, R. Gomperts, B. Mennucci, H. P. Hratchian, J. V. Ortiz, A. F. Izmaylov,...

    2016

  94. [102]

    Otero-de-la-Roza , K

    A. Otero-de-la-Roza , K. R. Bryenton, F. Kannemann, E. R. Johnson, R. M. Dickson, H. Schmider and A. D. Becke, postg (release: XCDM(Z) ) , 2015, https://github.com/aoterodelaroza/postg

    2015

  95. [103]

    Hoja and A

    J. Hoja and A. Tkatchenko, Faraday Discuss., 2018, 211, 253--274

    2018

  96. [104]

    A. J. A. Price, K. R. Bryenton and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2021, 154, 230902

    2021

  97. [105]

    Santra, N

    G. Santra, N. Sylvetsky and J. M. Martin, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2019, 123, 5129--5143

    2019

  98. [106]

    o rmann, B. Hourahine, W. B. How, W. P. Huhn, M. H\

    J. W. Abbott, C. M. Acosta, A. Akkoush, A. Ambrosetti, V. Atalla, A. Bagrets, J. Behler, D. Berger, B. Bieniek, J. Bj\" o rk, V. Blum, S. Bohloul, C. L. Box, N. Boyer, D. S. Brambila, G. A. Bramley, K. R. Bryenton, M. Camarasa-G\' o mez, C. Carbogno, F. Caruso, S. Chutia, M. C...

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Axilrod and E

    B. Axilrod and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys., 1943, 11, 299--300

    1943

  100. [108]

    Y. Muto, J. Phys. Math. Soc. Japan, 1943, 17, 629

    1943

  101. [109]

    Otero-de-la Roza and E

    A. Otero-de-la Roza and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys., 2013, 138, 054103

    2013

  102. [110]

    o rkman, Torbj \

    A. Otero-de-la Roza, L. M. LeBlanc and E. R. Johnson, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2020, 22, 8266--8276 mcitethebibliography main.bib0000664000000000000000000040434115017440042011163 0ustar rootroot @article angyan2007exchange, title= On the exchange-hole model of London dispersio...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.