pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.20635 · v4 · submitted 2025-06-25 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.str-el· physics.chem-ph· physics.comp-ph

Reducing Self-Interaction Error in Transition-Metal Oxides with Different Exact-Exchange Fractions for Energy and Density

Harshan Reddy Gopidi , Ruiqi Zhang , Yanyong Wang , Abhirup Patra , Jianwei Sun , Adrienn Ruzsinszky , John P. Perdew , Pieremanuele Canepa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords self-interaction errorexact exchangetransition metal oxidesdensity functional theoryr2SCANstrongly correlated systemsoxidation energiesband gaps
0
0 comments X

The pith

Different exact-exchange fractions for density and energy reduce self-interaction errors in transition-metal oxides.

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

The paper proposes the r²SCANY@r²SCANX method to improve DFT predictions for strongly correlated transition-metal oxides. It applies one fraction of exact Hartree-Fock exchange when generating the electron density and a different fraction when evaluating the total energy. This split targets both density-driven and functional-driven self-interaction errors that limit standard r²SCAN. With only one or two global parameters that stay fixed across systems, the approach yields better results for band gaps, magnetic moments, and oxidation energies on 20 oxides than plain r²SCAN and even the parameterized DFT(r²SCAN)+U method.

Core claim

r²SCANY@r²SCANX employs different exact Hartree-Fock exchange fractions X for the electronic density and Y for the density functional approximation of the total energy. This simultaneously addresses functional-driven and density-driven inaccuracies. For example, r²SCAN10@r²SCAN50 reduces uncertainties in oxidation energies and magnetic moments while r²SCAN10@r²SCAN improves band gaps. The method outperforms DFT(r²SCAN)+U on 20 highly correlated oxides and diminishes the density-driven error of the energy in r²SCAN and r²SCAN10.

What carries the argument

The r²SCANY@r²SCANX method, which assigns distinct exact-exchange fractions X and Y separately to the density and the energy within the r²SCAN meta-GGA.

If this is right

  • r²SCAN10@r²SCAN50 reduces prediction uncertainties for oxidation energies and magnetic moments of transition metal oxides.
  • Band gaps improve when using r²SCAN10@r²SCAN.
  • r²SCAN10@r²SCAN50 diminishes the density-driven error of the energy in r²SCAN and r²SCAN10.
  • The same global parameters apply without change to s-p-bonded systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decoupling of density and energy exchange fractions could be tested on other meta-GGA functionals to check for similar gains in correlated materials.
  • Such global-parameter methods may enable more reliable high-throughput screening of transition-metal compounds for catalysis and energy storage.
  • Further validation on wider oxide sets would test whether the chosen fractions transfer without retuning.

Load-bearing premise

A single pair of exact-exchange fractions chosen once on a small set will correct self-interaction errors across diverse transition-metal oxides without introducing compensating errors.

What would settle it

Testing r²SCAN10@r²SCAN50 on additional transition-metal oxides outside the original set and finding no improvement or worse performance than r²SCAN for oxidation energies or band gaps would challenge the claim.

read the original abstract

Density functional theory (DFT) in chemistry and materials science aims for "chemical accuracy," but this goal is challenged by the need to approximate the exact exchange-correlation (XC) energy functional. The r$^2$SCAN, meta-generalized gradient approximation to the XC functional fulfills 17 exact constraints of the XC energy, and has significantly boosted prediction accuracy for molecules and materials. However, r$^2$SCAN remains inadequate at predicting properties of open \textit{d} and \textit{f} transition-metal strongly correlated compounds, such as band gaps, magnetic moments, and oxidation energies. Prediction inaccuracies of r$^2$SCAN energies arise from functional and density-driven errors, mainly resulting from the DFT self-interaction error. We propose the r$^2$SCANY@r$^2$SCANX method to mitigate the self-interaction error of XC functionals for the accurate simulations of electronic, magnetic, and thermochemical properties of transition metal oxides. r$^2$SCANY@r$^2$SCANX uses different fractions of exact Hartree-Fock exchange: X for the electronic density and Y for the density functional approximation of the total energy, thereby simultaneously addressing functional-driven and density-driven inaccuracies. Building just on 1 (or maximum 2) parameters that apply unchanged to \emph{s-p}-bonded systems, we demonstrate that, r$^2$SCANY@r$^2$SCANX improves upon the r$^2$SCAN predictions for 20 highly correlated oxides and even outperforms the highly parameterized DFT(r$^2$SCAN)+\emph{U} method -- the state-of-the-art approach to predict strongly correlated materials. Prediction uncertainties for oxidation energies and magnetic moments of transition metal oxides are significantly reduced by r$^2$SCAN10@r$^2$SCAN50 and band gaps with r$^2$SCAN10@r$^2$SCAN. r$^2$SCAN10@r$^2$SCAN50 diminishes the density-driven error of the energy in r$^2$SCAN and r$^2$SCAN10.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the r²SCANY@r²SCANX approach, which applies distinct exact-exchange fractions X (to the density) and Y (to the energy) within the r²SCAN meta-GGA to simultaneously address functional-driven and density-driven self-interaction errors. It reports that r²SCAN10@r²SCAN50 and r²SCAN10@r²SCAN improve band gaps, magnetic moments, and oxidation energies for 20 transition-metal oxides relative to plain r²SCAN, while outperforming the more heavily parameterized DFT(r²SCAN)+U method, using only one or two global parameters that are asserted to transfer unchanged to s-p systems.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the method would provide a low-parameter, globally transferable correction for self-interaction errors in meta-GGAs for strongly correlated oxides, offering a simpler alternative to DFT+U while preserving the constraint-satisfying character of r²SCAN. The explicit separation of density and energy mixing fractions is a conceptually clean idea that could generalize beyond the reported test set.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that r²SCANY@r²SCANX 'outperforms the highly parameterized DFT(r²SCAN)+U method' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the abstract supplies no error-bar details, no explicit training-versus-test split, and no discussion of whether the specific X/Y pairs (e.g., X=10, Y=50) were selected or validated on the same 20-oxide set; this leaves open the possibility that reported gains partly reflect post-hoc tuning rather than a priori transferability.
  2. [Abstract and §4 (Results)] Abstract and §4 (Results): the assertion that a single pair of global fractions 'apply unchanged to s-p-bonded systems' while simultaneously correcting both error types for every one of the 20 TM oxides requires per-compound error tables or cross-validation statistics; without them it is impossible to rule out compensating errors (e.g., improved gaps at the expense of oxidation energies on some compounds) or test-set influence on the chosen fractions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the mixed functional (r²SCANY@r²SCANX) is introduced without an explicit equation defining how the density is obtained with fraction X and the energy evaluated with fraction Y; a short formal definition would improve clarity.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript should state the precise values of X and Y used for each reported property (band gaps vs. oxidation energies) in a single table for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important aspects of clarity and substantiation in our presentation. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions to the manuscript will be made to strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that r²SCANY@r²SCANX 'outperforms the highly parameterized DFT(r²SCAN)+U method' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the abstract supplies no error-bar details, no explicit training-versus-test split, and no discussion of whether the specific X/Y pairs (e.g., X=10, Y=50) were selected or validated on the same 20-oxide set; this leaves open the possibility that reported gains partly reflect post-hoc tuning rather than a priori transferability.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by additional quantitative context. The specific values X=10 and Y=50 were selected on the basis of physical considerations (low exact exchange for density corrections to reduce density-driven self-interaction error, higher fraction for the energy to address functional-driven error) and informed by prior hybrid-functional benchmarks on transition-metal oxides, as described in Section 3. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report representative mean absolute errors together with their standard deviations for band gaps, magnetic moments, and oxidation energies. We will also add a concise statement on the parameter-selection rationale. The 20-oxide set was treated as a comprehensive validation suite rather than a training set; the same global parameters were applied without adjustment to s-p systems, supporting a priori transferability rather than post-hoc fitting. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §4 (Results)] Abstract and §4 (Results): the assertion that a single pair of global fractions 'apply unchanged to s-p-bonded systems' while simultaneously correcting both error types for every one of the 20 TM oxides requires per-compound error tables or cross-validation statistics; without them it is impossible to rule out compensating errors (e.g., improved gaps at the expense of oxidation energies on some compounds) or test-set influence on the chosen fractions.

    Authors: We accept that per-compound detail would make the uniformity of improvement more transparent. The main text and figures report average errors and overall improvements, but the underlying per-compound data exist in our calculations. In the revised version we will move these per-compound tables to the supplementary information and reference them explicitly in Section 4, allowing readers to verify that gains in band gaps, moments, and oxidation energies occur without systematic trade-offs. For s-p-bonded systems the identical X and Y values were used without re-optimization, drawing on established benchmarks; we will add a short paragraph summarizing those results to demonstrate unchanged applicability. While a formal leave-one-out cross-validation was not performed in the original submission, the global character of the parameters and their consistent performance across chemically diverse oxides already argue against strong test-set influence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

X/Y fractions appear selected for TM-oxide performance then asserted as fixed general parameters

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Building just on 1 (or maximum 2) parameters that apply unchanged to s-p-bonded systems, we demonstrate that, r²SCANY@r²SCANX improves upon the r²SCAN predictions for 20 highly correlated oxides and even outperforms the highly parameterized DFT(r²SCAN)+U method"

    The 1-2 parameters (exact-exchange fractions X for density, Y for energy) are presented as fixed and general, yet the demonstration of improvement is performed on the identical set of 20 oxides. Without an independent selection protocol stated, the performance gain reduces to a fitted result on the validation data rather than an a-priori prediction.

full rationale

The central claim rests on r²SCANY@r²SCANX with one or two fixed global fractions (e.g., X=10, Y=50) delivering improvement on the 20 oxides while transferring unchanged to s-p systems. The abstract supplies no cross-validation statement or explicit declaration that the fractions were locked exclusively on external s-p data before testing on the oxides. This creates moderate risk that the reported gains partly reflect the same data used to choose the fractions, though the method itself is not a pure self-definition and still contains independent content in the two-fraction ansatz.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the r²SCAN functional satisfying 17 exact constraints (prior literature) and on the empirical observation that one or two global mixing parameters suffice; two free parameters (X and Y) are introduced and appear tuned to the oxide test set.

free parameters (2)
  • X (exact-exchange fraction for density)
    Chosen value (e.g., 10) to reduce density-driven error; applied uniformly.
  • Y (exact-exchange fraction for energy)
    Chosen value (e.g., 50 or 0) to reduce functional-driven error; applied uniformly.
axioms (1)
  • standard math r²SCAN fulfills 17 exact constraints of the XC energy
    Invoked in abstract as background justification for starting from r²SCAN.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5960 in / 1312 out tokens · 35104 ms · 2026-05-19T07:38:12.164300+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

179 extracted references · 179 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    J. E. Saal, S. Kirklin, M. Aykol, B. Meredig, and C. Wolverton, JOM 65, 1501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, APL Mater. 1, 011002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Zunger, Nat

    A. Zunger, Nat. Rev. Chem. 2, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    C. W. Park and C. Wolverton, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 063801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A. K. Cheetham, R. Seshadri, and F. Wudl, Nat. Synth. 1, 514 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Schmidt, H.-C

    J. Schmidt, H.-C. Wang, T. F. T. Cerqueira, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, Sci. Data 9, 64 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Curtarolo, W

    S. Curtarolo, W. Setyawan, G. L. W. Hart, M. Jahnatek, R. V. Chepulskii, R. H. Taylor, S. Wang, J. Xue, K. Yang, O. Levy, M. J. Mehl, H. T. Stokes, D. O. Demchenko, and D. Morgan, Comput. Mater. Sci. 58, 218 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Merchant, S

    A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S. S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, and E. D. Cubuk, Nature 624, 80 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Stevanovi´ c, S

    V. Stevanovi´ c, S. Lany, X. Zhang, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 85, 115104 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Chen and S

    C. Chen and S. P. Ong, Nat Comput Sci 2, 718 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    B. Deng, P. Zhong, K. Jun, J. Riebesell, K. Han, C. J. Bartel, and G. Ceder, Nat Mach Intell 5, 1031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.07697 , title =

    I. Batatia, D. P. Kov´ acs, G. N. C. Simm, C. Ortner, and G. Cs´ anyi, MACE: Higher Order Equivariant Message Passing Neural Networks for Fast and Accurate Force Fields (2023), arXiv:2206.07697 [stat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    R. G. Parr and Y. Weitao, Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules (Oxford University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    Koch and M

    W. Koch and M. C. Holthausen, A Chemist’s Guide to Density Functional Theory , 1st ed., edited by M. C. Holthausen (Wiley, Weinheim, 2001)

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-S´ anchez, and W. Yang, Science321, 792 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    J. P. Perdew and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13244 (1992)

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). 33

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, and J. Perdew, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    J. W. Furness, Y. Zhang, C. Lane, I. G. Buda, B. Barbiellini, R. S. Markiewicz, A. Bansil, and J. Sun, Commun. Phys. 1, 11 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    A. D. Kaplan, M. Levy, and J. P. Perdew, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 74, 193 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Lebeda, T

    T. Lebeda, T. Aschebrock, and S. K¨ ummel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 136402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    D. A. Kitchaev, H. Peng, Y. Liu, J. Sun, J. P. Perdew, and G. Ceder, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045132 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Furness, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, A. Zunger, and J. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 102, 045112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Sai Gautam and E

    G. Sai Gautam and E. A. Carter, Phys. Rev. Materials 2, 095401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    O. Y. Long, G. Sai Gautam, and E. A. Carter, Phys. Rev. Materials 4, 045401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Artrith, J

    N. Artrith, J. A. Garrido Torres, A. Urban, and M. S. Hybertsen, Phys. Rev. Materials 6, 035003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    C. J. Bartel, A. W. Weimer, S. Lany, C. B. Musgrave, and A. M. Holder, npj Comput. Mater. 5, 4 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    L. Wang, T. Maxisch, and G. Ceder, Phys. Rev. B 73, 195107 (2006)

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    A. Jain, G. Hautier, S. P. Ong, C. J. Moore, C. C. Fischer, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Phys. Rev. B 84, 045115 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    R. S. Kingsbury, A. S. Rosen, A. S. Gupta, J. M. Munro, S. P. Ong, A. Jain, S. Dwaraknath, M. K. Horton, and K. A. Persson, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 195 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    J. Sun, R. C. Remsing, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, H. Peng, Z. Yang, A. Paul, U. Waghmare, X. Wu, M. L. Klein, and J. P. Perdew, Nat. Chem. 8, 831 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Sun, J. P. Perdew, and X. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035143 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. W. Furness, B. Xiao, and J. Sun, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 014105 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Zhang, B

    R. Zhang, B. Singh, C. Lane, J. Kidd, Y. Zhang, B. Barbiellini, R. S. Markiewicz, A. Bansil, and J. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195134 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    J. Ning, J. W. Furness, and J. Sun, Chem. Mater. 34, 2562 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    work page 1998

  38. [38]

    D. B. Tekliye and G. Sai Gautam, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 093801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Swathilakshmi, R

    S. Swathilakshmi, R. Devi, and G. Sai Gautam, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 4202 (2023). 34

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    R. Devi, B. Singh, P. Canepa, and G. Sai Gautam, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 160 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    N. E. Kirchner-Hall, W. Zhao, Y. Xiong, I. Timrov, and I. Dabo, Applied Sciences 11, 2395 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Phys. Rev. B 71, 035105 (2005)

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085127 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    M. Yu, S. Yang, C. Wu, and N. Marom, npj Comput. Mater. 6, 180 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Uhrin, A

    M. Uhrin, A. Zadoks, L. Binci, N. Marzari, and I. Timrov, npj Comput. Mater. 11, 19 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Illas and R

    F. Illas and R. L. Martin, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 2519 (1998)

    work page 1998

  47. [47]

    I. de P. R. Moreira, F. Illas, and R. L. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 65, 155102 (2002)

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    Cor` a, M

    F. Cor` a, M. Alfredsson, G. Mallia, D. S. Middlemiss, W. C. Mackrodt, R. Dovesi, and R. Or- lando, in Principles and Applications of Density Functional Theory in Inorganic Chemistry II , Vol. 113 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004) pp. 171–232, series Title: Structure and Bonding

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Alfredsson, G

    M. Alfredsson, G. David Price, C. R. A. Catlow, S. C. Parker, R. Orlando, and J. P. Brodholt, Phys. Rev. B 70, 165111 (2004)

    work page 2004

  50. [50]

    Alfredsson, J

    M. Alfredsson, J. P. Brodholt, P. B. Wilson, G. D. Price, F. Cor` a, M. Calleja, R. Bruin, L. J. Blanshard, and R. P. Tyer, Mol. Simulat. 31, 367 (2005)

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    Illas, I

    F. Illas, I. d. P. R. Moreira, J. M. Bofill, and M. Filatov, Theor. Chem. Acc. 116, 587 (2006)

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    Marsman, J

    M. Marsman, J. Paier, A. Stroppa, and G. Kresse, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 064201 (2008)

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    J. L. F. Da Silva, M. V. Ganduglia-Pirovano, J. Sauer, V. Bayer, and G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B 75, 045121 (2007)

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    B. G. Janesko, T. M. Henderson, and G. E. Scuseria, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 11, 443 (2009)

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    Paier, M

    J. Paier, M. Marsman, and G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B 78, 121201 (2008)

    work page 2008

  56. [56]

    V. L. Chevrier, S. P. Ong, R. Armiento, M. K. Y. Chan, and G. Ceder, Phys. Rev. B 82, 075122 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Canepa, E

    P. Canepa, E. Schofield, A. V. Chadwick, and M. Alfredsson, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 12826 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [58]

    J. Yang, S. Falletta, and A. Pasquarello, npj Comput. Mater. 9, 108 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    F. Tran, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and P. Nov´ ak, Phys. Rev. B74, 155108 (2006). 35

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    Graciani, A

    J. Graciani, A. M. M´ arquez, J. J. Plata, Y. Ortega, N. C. Hern´ andez, A. Meyer, C. M. Zicovich-Wilson, and J. F. Sanz, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 56 (2011)

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    M. D. Radin and D. J. Siegel, Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 2370 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    D.-H. Seo, A. Urban, and G. Ceder, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115118 (2015)

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    J. H. Skone, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, Phys. Rev. B 93, 235106 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    T. Das, G. Di Liberto, S. Tosoni, and G. Pacchioni, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 6294 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5648 (1993)

    work page 1993

  66. [66]

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

    work page 1994

  67. [67]

    Franchini, R

    C. Franchini, R. Podloucky, J. Paier, M. Marsman, and G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B 75, 195128 (2007)

    work page 2007

  68. [68]

    G¨ orling and M

    A. G¨ orling and M. Levy, J. Chem. Phys.106, 2675 (1997)

    work page 1997

  69. [69]

    J. P. Perdew, M. Ernzerhof, and K. Burke, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 9982 (1996)

    work page 1996

  70. [70]

    Adamo and V

    C. Adamo and V. Barone, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 6158 (1999)

    work page 1999

  71. [71]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)

    work page 2003

  72. [72]

    Jaramillo, G

    J. Jaramillo, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 1068 (2003)

    work page 2003

  73. [73]

    B. G. Janesko and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 164117 (2007)

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    T. M. Henderson, B. G. Janesko, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Phys. Chem. A 112, 12530 (2008)

    work page 2008

  75. [75]

    B. G. Janesko, A. V. Krukau, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 129, 124110 (2008)

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    Clementi and S

    E. Clementi and S. J. Chakravorty, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 2591 (1990)

    work page 1990

  77. [77]

    P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, J. A. Pople, and M. J. Frisch, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 44, 319 (1992)

    work page 1992

  78. [78]

    G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 7528 (1992)

    work page 1992

  79. [79]

    Oliphant and R

    N. Oliphant and R. J. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 100, 6550 (1994)

    work page 1994

  80. [80]

    B. G. Janesko and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 244112 (2008)

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.