» Articles » PMID: 32323870

How Accurate Are TD-DFT Excited-state Geometries Compared to DFT Ground-state Geometries?

Overview
Journal J Comput Chem
Publisher Wiley
Specialties Biology
Chemistry
Date 2020 Apr 24
PMID 32323870
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In this work, we take a different angle to the benchmarking of time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) for the calculation of excited-state geometries by extensively assessing how accurate such geometries are compared to ground-state geometries calculated with ordinary DFT. To this end, we consider 20 medium-sized aromatic organic compounds whose lowest singlet excited states are ideally suited for TD-DFT modeling and are very well described by the approximate coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CC2) method, and then use this method and six different density functionals (BP86, B3LYP, PBE0, M06-2X, CAM-B3LYP, and ωB97XD) to optimize the corresponding ground- and excited-state geometries. The results show that although each hybrid functional reproduces the CC2 excited-state bond lengths very satisfactorily, achieving an overall root mean square error of 0.011 Å for all 336 bonds in the 20 molecules, these errors are distinctly larger than those of only 0.004-0.006 Å with which the hybrid functionals reproduce the CC2 ground-state bond lengths. Furthermore, for each functional employed, the variation in the error relative to CC2 between different molecules is found to be much larger (by at least a factor of 3) for the excited-state geometries than for the ground-state geometries, despite the fact that the molecules/states under investigation have rather uniform chemical and spectroscopic character. Overall, the study finds that even in favorable circumstances, TD-DFT excited-state geometries appear intrinsically and comparatively less accurate than DFT ground-state ones.

Citing Articles

NIR-II emissive donor-acceptor-donor fluorophores for dual fluorescence bioimaging and photothermal therapy applications.

Sparks N, Smith C, Stahl T, Amarasekara D, Hamadani C, Lambert E J Mater Chem C Mater. 2024; 12(12):4369-4383.

PMID: 38525159 PMC: 10955863. DOI: 10.1039/d3tc04747d.


Amine-Reactive BODIPY Dye: Spectral Properties and Application for Protein Labeling.

Ksenofontova K, Kerner A, Ksenofontov A, Shagurin A, Bocharov P, Lukanov M Molecules. 2022; 27(22).

PMID: 36432012 PMC: 9692440. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27227911.


Dopamine Photochemical Behaviour under UV Irradiation.

Falamas A, Petran A, Hada A, Bende A Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(10).

PMID: 35628293 PMC: 9141693. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23105483.


New Red-Shifted 4-Styrylcoumarin Derivatives as Potential Fluorescent Labels for Biomolecules.

Eustaquio R, Ramalho J, Caldeira A, Pereira A Molecules. 2022; 27(5).

PMID: 35268562 PMC: 8912076. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27051461.


Excited States Computation of Models of Phenylalanine Protein Chains: TD-DFT and Composite CC2/TD-DFT Protocols.

Lebel M, Very T, Gloaguen E, Tardivel B, Mons M, Brenner V Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(2).

PMID: 35054802 PMC: 8776158. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23020621.