Table 5 Comparison of SSUB database⁴⁶ and alternative sources for experimental formation energies

Composition	SSUB	ΔH_f (eV/atom) alternative	OQMD
LiNbO₃	−5.660	−2.774 ^a	−2.739
Eu₂O₃	−3.437	−3.423 ^b	−2.574
SiB₆	−0.173	−0.181 ^c	0.455
EuF₃	−4.104	−4.195 ^d	−3.483
MnSe	−0.889	−0.922 ^e	−0.363
InN	−0.500	−0.148 ^f	−0.021
AlB₂	−0.521	−0.055 ^g	−0.044
PtZr	−1.561	−0.99 ^d	−1.086
Ba₂Pb	−1.012	−0.694 ^h	−0.540
PuCl₃	−2.614	−2.486 ⁱ	−2.176
PrO₂	−3.280	−3.316 ^j	−2.846
CaAl₂	−0.759	−0.346 ^k	−0.335
BaSiO₃	−3.354	−3.330 ^l	−2.945
CeN	−1.715	−1.763 ^m	−1.326

Abbreviations: OQMD, Open Quantum Materials Database; SSUB, SGTE Solid SUBstance.
Comparison made for outlying compounds that show a large disagreement between SSUB data and OQMD-predicted formation energies (using fit-partial chemical potentials).
Differences between SSUB and alternative-source formation energies ranging from 0.008 eV/atom (SiB₆) to 2.885 eV/atom (LiNbO₃).
^aReference 53.
^bReference 54.
^cReference 55.
^dReference 56.
^eReference 57.
^fReference 58.
^gReference 59.
^hReference 60.
ⁱReference 61.
^jReference 62.
^kReference 63.
^lReference 64.
^mReference 65.

Quick links

Search