How accurate are the Minnesota density functionals for non-covalent interactions, isomerization energies, thermochemistry, and barrier heights involving molecules composed of main-group elements? Narbe Mardirossiany and Martin Head-Gordon∗,y yKenneth S. Pitzer Center for Theoretical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA zChemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA E-mail:
[email protected] Abstract ten hybrid Minnesota functionals). Similarly, the main strength of the local Minnesota den- The 14 Minnesota density functionals pub- sity functionals is that the best ones provide lished between the years 2005 and early 2016 very good performance for thermochemistry are benchmarked on a comprehensive database (e.g. MN15-L), barrier heights (e.g. MN12- of 4986 data points (84 datasets) involving L), and systems heavily characterized by self- molecules composed of main-group elements. interaction error (e.g. MN12-L and MN15-L), The database includes non-covalent interac- while the main weakness is that none of them tions, isomerization energies, thermochemistry, are state-of-the-art for the full spectrum of non- and barrier heights, as well as equilibrium bond covalent interactions and isomerization energies lengths and equilibrium binding energies of (although M06-L is clearly the best from the non-covalent dimers. Additionally, the sensi- four local Minnesota functionals). As an over- tivity of the Minnesota density functionals to all guide, M06-2X and MN15 are perhaps the the choice of basis set and integration grid is most broadly useful hybrid Minnesota function- explored for both non-covalent interactions and als, while M06-L and MN15-L are perhaps the thermochemistry.