Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 37 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 41 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 10 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 84 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 31 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

State-Specific Coupled-Cluster Methods for Excited States (2401.05048v2)

Published 10 Jan 2024 in physics.chem-ph, cond-mat.mtrl-sci, and nucl-th

Abstract: We reexamine $\Delta$CCSD, a state-specific coupled-cluster (CC) with single and double excitations (CCSD) approach that targets excited states through the utilization of non-Aufbau determinants. This methodology is particularly efficient when dealing with doubly excited states, a domain where the standard equation-of-motion CCSD (EOM-CCSD) formalism falls short. Our goal here is to evaluate the effectiveness of $\Delta$CCSD when applied to other types of excited states, comparing its consistency and accuracy with EOM-CCSD. To this end, we report a benchmark on excitation energies computed with the $\Delta$CCSD and EOM-CCSD methods, for a set of molecular excited-state energies that encompasses not only doubly excited states but also doublet-doublet transitions and (singlet and triplet) singly-excited states of closed-shell systems. In the latter case, we rely on a minimalist version of multireference CC known as the two-determinant CCSD method to compute the excited states. Our dataset, consisting of 276 excited states stemming from the \textsc{quest} database [V\'eril \textit{et al.}, \textit{WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.} \textbf{2021}, 11, e1517], provides a significant base to draw general conclusions concerning the accuracy of $\Delta$CCSD. Except for the doubly-excited states, we found that $\Delta$CCSD underperforms EOM-CCSD. For doublet-doublet transitions, the difference between the mean absolute errors (MAEs) of the two methodologies (of \SI{0.10}{\eV} and \SI{0.07}{\eV}) is less pronounced than that obtained for singly-excited states of closed-shell systems (MAEs of \SI{0.15}{\eV} and \SI{0.08}{\eV}). This discrepancy is largely attributed to a greater number of excited states in the latter set exhibiting multiconfigurational characters, which are more challenging for $\Delta$CCSD.

Citations (7)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com