Is this approximate equivalence table between Pople's basis sets and <PERSON>'s DFT attuned polarization consistent basis sets (pcseg-n) correct?
I have some calculations results I runned previously using Pople's basis sets, mostly 6-311+G(d), under Gaussian09. These days I read some texts on <PERSON> family of polarization consistent, segmented basis sets, optimized for DFT (pcseg-0, pcseg-1, pcseg-2, pcseg-3, pcseg-4 and the respective augmented versions). Now I'm thinking about trying to reproduce my results using <PERSON>'s basis set family and Gamess-US.
Said that, I'm not sure about the correspondence between the two sets. I understand in <PERSON>'s basis sets, for light elements (first 3 periods of the periodic table) it's common to see people using double zeta(DZ) 3-21G for rough calculations, and either double zeta 6-31G or triple zeta(TZ) 6-311G for more precise work. Both 6-31G and 6-311G can have up to two polarization functions (or none) and up to two diffuse functions (or none) associated, resulting in 2x3x3 = 12 combinations between them (not counting heavier elements, that would require f polarization orbitals). In the table 5 of <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and <PERSON>. 1020
“Basis Sets in Quantum Chemistry.” Reviews in Computational Chemistry (2017): 93–150. Print., they group together 3-21G and pcseg-0; 6-31G(d), cc-pVDZ and pcseg-1; and 6-311G(2df), cc-pVTZ and pcseg-2. So I assume each basis set inside these 3 groups to be equivalent (but not sure). As pcseg-2 is the only triple zeta option, despite already falling in the range of f-polarized basis, I suppose that, to map these 12 Pople's basis into the respective Jensen's basis, I need some combination between pcseg-0, pcseg-1, pcseg-2, aug-pcseg-0, aug-pcseg-1 and aug-pcseg-2 over H and heavier atoms (6x6 = 36 possibilities). For me it's not trivial to choose which of the 36 <PERSON>'s possibilities in this range best match the 12 Pople's ones not explicitly cited on the paper. My guess at the closest mapping between the 2 sets is as follow:
Type POPLE's DUNNING JENSEN'S CLOSEST DZ 3-21G pcseg-0 on all atoms? DZ 6-31G ? DZP 6-31G(d) cc-PVDZ pcseg-0 on H, pcseg-1 on heavier? DZP 6-31+G(d) pcseg-0 on H, aug-pcseg-1 on heavier? DZP 6-31G(d,p) pcseg-1 on H, pcseg-1 on heavier? DZP 6-31+G(d,p) pcseg-1 on H, aug-pcseg-1 on heavier? DZP 6-31++G(d,p) aug-pcseg-1 on H, aug-pcseg-1 on heavier? TZ 6-311G ? TZ 6-311+G ? TZP 6-311+G(d) pcseg-0 on H, aug-pcseg-2 on heavier? TZP 6-311G(d,p) pcseg-1 on H, pcseg-2 on heavier? TZP 6-311+G(d,p) pcseg-1 on H, aug-pcseg-2 on heavier? TZP 6-311++G(d,p) aug-pcseg-1 on H, aug-pcseg-2 on heavier? TZP 6-311G(2df) cc-PVTZ pcseg-2 on all
Is my reasoning sound and the proposed equivalence table correct, or did I get it all wrong? If wrong, could somebody please give the correct mapping from Pople's traditional basis sets to Jensen's optimized ones? 1020