Cargando…

Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods

[Image: see text] The accuracy of three different complete active space (CAS) self-consistent field (CASSCF) methods is investigated for the electronically excited-state benchmark set of M. Schreiber; et al. J. Chem. Phys.2008, 128, 13411018397056. Comparison of the CASSCF linear response (LR) metho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Helmich-Paris, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6620717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31136706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00325
_version_ 1783434087227195392
author Helmich-Paris, Benjamin
author_facet Helmich-Paris, Benjamin
author_sort Helmich-Paris, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] The accuracy of three different complete active space (CAS) self-consistent field (CASSCF) methods is investigated for the electronically excited-state benchmark set of M. Schreiber; et al. J. Chem. Phys.2008, 128, 13411018397056. Comparison of the CASSCF linear response (LR) methods MC-RPA and MC-TDA and the state-averaged (SA) CASSCF method is made for 122 singlet excitation energies and 69 oscillator strengths. Of all CASSCF methods, when considering the complete test set, MC-RPA performs best for both excitation energies and oscillator strengths with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.74 eV and 51%, respectively. MC-TDA and SA-CASSCF show a similar accuracy for the excitation energies with a MAE of ∼1 eV with respect to more accurate coupled cluster (CC3) excitation energies. The opposite trend is observed for the subset of n → π* excitation energies for which SA-CASSCF exhibits the least deviations (MAE 0.65 eV). By looking at s-tetrazine in more detail, we conclude that better performance for the n → π* SA-CASSCF excitation energies can be attributed to a fortunate error compensation. For oscillator strengths, SA-CASSCF performs worst for the complete test set (MAE 100%) as well as for the subsets of n → π* (MAE 192%) and π → π* excitations (MAE 84.9%). In general, CASSCF gives the worst performance for excitation energies of all excited-state ab initio methods considered so far due to lacking the major part of dynamic electron correlation, though MC-RPA and TD-DFT (BP86) show similar performance. Among all LR-type methods, LR-CASSCF oscillator strengths are the ones with the least accuracy for the same reason. As state-specific orbital relaxation effects are accounted for in LR-CASSCF, oscillator strengths are significantly more accurate than those of MS-CASPT2. Our findings should encourage further developments of response theory-based multireference methods with higher accuracy and feasibility.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6620717
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66207172019-07-12 Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods Helmich-Paris, Benjamin J Chem Theory Comput [Image: see text] The accuracy of three different complete active space (CAS) self-consistent field (CASSCF) methods is investigated for the electronically excited-state benchmark set of M. Schreiber; et al. J. Chem. Phys.2008, 128, 13411018397056. Comparison of the CASSCF linear response (LR) methods MC-RPA and MC-TDA and the state-averaged (SA) CASSCF method is made for 122 singlet excitation energies and 69 oscillator strengths. Of all CASSCF methods, when considering the complete test set, MC-RPA performs best for both excitation energies and oscillator strengths with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.74 eV and 51%, respectively. MC-TDA and SA-CASSCF show a similar accuracy for the excitation energies with a MAE of ∼1 eV with respect to more accurate coupled cluster (CC3) excitation energies. The opposite trend is observed for the subset of n → π* excitation energies for which SA-CASSCF exhibits the least deviations (MAE 0.65 eV). By looking at s-tetrazine in more detail, we conclude that better performance for the n → π* SA-CASSCF excitation energies can be attributed to a fortunate error compensation. For oscillator strengths, SA-CASSCF performs worst for the complete test set (MAE 100%) as well as for the subsets of n → π* (MAE 192%) and π → π* excitations (MAE 84.9%). In general, CASSCF gives the worst performance for excitation energies of all excited-state ab initio methods considered so far due to lacking the major part of dynamic electron correlation, though MC-RPA and TD-DFT (BP86) show similar performance. Among all LR-type methods, LR-CASSCF oscillator strengths are the ones with the least accuracy for the same reason. As state-specific orbital relaxation effects are accounted for in LR-CASSCF, oscillator strengths are significantly more accurate than those of MS-CASPT2. Our findings should encourage further developments of response theory-based multireference methods with higher accuracy and feasibility. American Chemical Society 2019-05-28 2019-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6620717/ /pubmed/31136706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00325 Text en Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_ccby_termsofuse.html) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the author and source are cited.
spellingShingle Helmich-Paris, Benjamin
Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title_full Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title_fullStr Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title_short Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
title_sort benchmarks for electronically excited states with casscf methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6620717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31136706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00325
work_keys_str_mv AT helmichparisbenjamin benchmarksforelectronicallyexcitedstateswithcasscfmethods