CCL: DFT14poll
- From: "Abrash, Samuel" <sabrash :
richmond.edu>
- Subject: CCL: DFT14poll
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:17:30 +0000
Sent to CCL by: "Abrash, Samuel" [sabrash..richmond.edu]
I think people are taking the words "popularity contest" too
seriously. It's just a poll to find out what members of this listserve, who are
mostly computational chemistry professionals, are using. I agree that the
absence of "why" makes this somewhat less useful. However, I think
it's useful because if I see a functional that I don't know about used widely,
I'm going to investigate it. (Note not blindly use it, but investigate it.)
Still the why is a useful bit of information. For example, I use M062X for
many of my calculations now, and if asked why, I'd say "because reviewers
insisted that it's better for complexes than PBEPBE even though my results come
out the same with either functional, and I wanted my paper published."
Best,
Sam
-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+sabrash==richmond.edu#ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+sabrash==richmond.edu#ccl.net] On Behalf Of Laidig,
Bill laidig.wd(_)pg.com
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 8:45 PM
To: Abrash, Samuel
Subject: CCL: DFT14poll
Sent to CCL by: "Laidig, Bill" [laidig.wd=pg.com] I strongly disagree
with this position. There are many scientifically valid reasons to know which
functionals are most popular among theoretical and computational chemists (who,
I am assuming, are the bulk of this mailing list). For example:
1. Even if a functional is clearly inferior to another, if it is used much more
in real calculations then there may be several reasons to use the inferior
function:
a. It is likely more widely implemented meaning you have a wider choice of
programs
to use and ways to validate that the calculations were performed
correctly.
b. Wider use means that there is a larger statistical pool of data for
assessing accuracy,
etc. This is often much more important than using a marginally better
method. We
see this in the long-term popularity of methods such as HF/3-21G, and
B3LYP/6-31G*.
2. Highly accurate, but arcane theoretical methods make communication of results
difficult outside the expert community as the reader has little basis for
assessing the quality of results. I learned this the hard way in my career in
industry.
Most users of computational chemistry want to know what small handful of methods
can be applied broadly to large classes of problems. As experts, we are the
group that is defining the next generation of standard methods so I find it very
useful to know in what directions we are heading. Learning why we are using
functionals can also let the developer of the "next big thing" know
when their efforts to publicize and promote their methodology has fallen short
and inspire them to better efforts in the future.
Bill Laidig
-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chemistry+laidig.wd==pg.com^ccl.net
> [mailto:owner-chemistry+laidig.wd==pg.com^ccl.net] On Behalf
Of Robert
> Molt Jr r.molt.chemical.physics!=!gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 3:07 PM
To: Laidig, Bill
Subject: CCL: DFT14poll
Sent to CCL by: Robert Molt Jr [r.molt.chemical.physics]_[gmail.com]
Sirs and Madames:
A "popularity contest" is anathema to science. The world should not
weight the opinion of Rodney Bartlett and Robert Molt equally in coupled cluster
theory.
Perhaps we should take a poll on what people think the first spherical harmonic
is? Or take a poll on whether Planck's constant is too small?
Evidence and and logic drive science.
-Robert Molt
On 06/01/2014 12:26 PM, VÃctor LuaÃa Cabal
victor,fluor.quimica.uniovi.es wrote:
> Sent to CCL by: =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=EDctor_Lua=F1a?= Cabal
> [victor-.-fluor.quimica.uniovi.es]
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 06:01:52AM +0000, Rzepa, Henry S
h.rzepa:imperial.ac.uk wrote:
>> Can I suggest that in future this poll be extended to indicate WHY any
person indicates they LIKE a functional? As we all know, the choice of
functional so often depends on what the property of interest is.
>>
>> I suggest initially a relatively short controlled list of properties,
>> which can then be extended by âcrowd sourcingâ. Properties
I have
>> in mind might be eg
>>
>> 1. Reaction barriers
>> 2. Normal mode analysis
>> 3. Chiroptical properties
>> 4. Hydrogen bonds
>> 5. Excitation energies
>> 6. Main group elements
>> 7. Transition metals
>> 8. Relativistic elements
>> 9. NMR shieldings, NMR couplings
>> 10. etc
>>
>> That way, we could find out eg the most liked functional for eg
>> looking at hydrogen bonds. That would be enormously helpful to
>> anyone looking to study eg hydrogen bonds.
> Dear Prof. Rzepa,
>
> I have a deep respect for your work, that I use to love, but in this
> case I dislike strongly the idea of deciding the use of a functional
> by popularity. There are plenty of examples in which the most popular
> route was not the best, just the easiest. It took decades, in many
> cases, to turn back wrong but popular decisions. Two candidates should
> be advised to create a safe road: the easiest AND the the best
> founded. Notice that the most popular is not in my list. Popularity
> can be obtained by well studied techniques that have nothing to do
> with any real measurement of quality.
>
> As for your list of properties it is very useful and I will keep it
> carefully.
>
> Best regards,
> Dr. VÃctor LuaÃa
>
> --
> \|/
> |^.^|
> +---!OO--\_/--OO!------------------------------+----------------------
> +-
> ! Dr.VÃctor LuaÃa !
> ! Departamento de QuÃmica FÃsica y AnalÃtica !
> ! Universidad de Oviedo, 33006-Oviedo, Spain !
> ! e-mail: victor*fluor.quimica.uniovi.es !
> ! phone: +34-985-103491 fax: +34-985-103125 !
> +----------------------------------------------+
> GroupPage : http://azufre.quimica.uniovi.es/ (being
> reworked)http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp-:-//www.ccl
> .net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txthttp-:-//www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp-:-//www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp-:-//www.ccl.net/spammers.txt