<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=1801&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Multiwfn forum / Judgement on DFT vs MR method selection]]></title>
		<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?id=1801</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Judgement on DFT vs MR method selection.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 22:39:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Judgement on DFT vs MR method selection]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5604#p5604</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>1 In most case DFT works reasonably. For example, H2+H• -&gt; H• + H2, DFT can nicely represent the whole PES.</p><p>2 MRPT is not absolutely necessary, depending on the specific reaction.</p><p>3 If transition metal is directly involved in the process, multireference treatment may be necessary, but still not always.</p><p>4 When excited state is involved, the situation is significantly more complex; whenever possible, using a proper multireference method is recommended, especially when transition metal participates in the process.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (sobereva)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 22:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5604#p5604</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Judgement on DFT vs MR method selection]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5603#p5603</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Dear Prof. Lu,</p><p>I&#039;m studying spin-delocalized states. Specifically, I&#039;m looking at a transition state of radical transfer (A-B + C_dot -&gt; A_dot + B-C), 3-center-3-electron bonding situation.</p><p>For this, I have the following questions:</p><p>1. Is it correct that this situation inherently requires multireference methods, and normal DFT is absolutely not suitable?</p><p>2. Is it reasonable (or common) to optimize the geometries of the reactants and the TS by DFT, obtain thermal correction and dissolution free energies by DFT, evaluate the single point gas-phase energies by MRPT, and then sum everything to obtain free energies?</p><p>3. Do the answers to 1 and 2 change if the radical donor &quot;A&quot; is 3rd-row (prone to degeneracy) or 4/5th-row (less prone to degeneracy, but relativistic effect emerges) transition metal?</p><p>4. Do the answers change if what I want to study is transition state of excited-state homolysis of carbon-carbon, carbon-heteroatom, or main group atom - transition metal bond (as a part of a much bigger molecule)?</p><p>Thank you very much.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (wham09)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5603#p5603</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
