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 44 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 41 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 86 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 208 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 447 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A Mountaineering Strategy to Excited States: Highly-Accurate Reference Energies and Benchmarks (1807.02045v1)

Published 5 Jul 2018 in physics.chem-ph and physics.comp-ph

Abstract: Striving to define very accurate vertical transition energies, we perform both high-level coupled cluster (CC) calculations (up to CCSDTQP) and selected configuration interaction (sCI) calculations (up to several millions of determinants) for 18 small compounds. By systematically increasing the order of the CC expansion, the number of determinants in the CI expansion as well as the size of the one-electron basis set, we have been able to reach near full CI (FCI) quality transition energies. These calculations are carried out on CC3/aug-cc-pVTZ geometries, using a series of increasingly large atomic basis sets systematically including diffuse functions. In this way, we define a list of 110 transition energies for states of various characters to be used as references for further calculations. Benchmark transition energies are provided at the aug-pVTZ level as well as with additional basis set corrections, in order to obtain results close to the complete basis set limit. These reference data are used to benchmark a series of twelve excited-state wave function methods accounting for double and triple contributions, namely ADC(2), ADC(3), CIS(D), CIS(D$_\infty$), CC2, STEOM-CCSD, CCSD, CCSDR(3), CCSDT-3, CC3, CCSDT and CCSDTQ. It turns out that CCSDTQ yields a negligible difference with the extrapolated CI values with a mean absolute error as small as $0.01$ eV, whereas the coupled cluster approaches including iterative triples are also very accurate (mean absolute error of $0.03$ eV). Consequently, CCSDT-3 and CC3 can be used to define reliable benchmarks. This observation does not hold for ADC(3) that delivers quite large errors for this set of small compounds, with a clear tendency to overcorrect its second-order version, ADC(2). Finally, we discuss the possibility to use basis set extrapolation approaches so as to tackle more easily larger compounds.

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.