...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of chemical theory and computation: JCTC >Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods
【24h】

Benchmarks for Electronically Excited States with CASSCF Methods

机译:用CASSCF方法为电子激发态的基准

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The accuracy of three different complete active space (CAS) self-consistent field (CASSCF) methods is investigated for the electronically excited-state benchmark set of Schreiber, M.; et al. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 134110. 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 similar to 1 eV with respect to more accurate coupled cluster (CC3) excitation energies. The opposite trend is observed for the subset of n -> pi* 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 -> pi* 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 -> pi* (MAE 192%) and pi -> pi* 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.
机译:三种不同的完整活动空间(CAS)自洽场(CASSCF)方法的准确性被研究用于舒雷纤维,M的电子兴奋状态基准组;等等。 J.Chem。物理。 CASSCF线性响应(LR)方法的比较MC-RPA和MC-TDA以及状态平均(SA)CASSCF方法,用于122个单线型激发能量和69个振荡器强度。在所有CASSCF方法中,在考虑完整的测试集时,MC-RPA对于励磁能量和振荡器优势,分别为0.74eV的平均绝对误差(MAE)和51%的振荡能量和振荡器强度。 MC-TDA和SA-CASSCF显示了类似于与更精确的耦合簇(CC3)激励能量相似的MAE的激励能量的相似精度。对于SA-CASSCF表现出最小偏差(MAE 0.65eV)的N - > PI *励磁能量的子集观察到相反的趋势。通过更详细地查看S-四嗪,我们得出结论,N - > PI * SA-CASSCF激励能量的更好性能可以归因于幸运的误差补偿。对于振荡器优势,SA-CASSCF为完整的测试集(MAE 100%)以及N - > PI *(MAE 192%)和PI - > PI *激励(MAE 84.9%)的亚组进行最差。通常,CASSCF由于MC-RPA和TD-DFT(BP86)显示出类似的性能,因此由于缺乏动态电子相关的主要部分,因此给出了迄今为止所考虑的所有激励状态AB初始方法的激励能量的最差性能。在所有LR型方法中,LR-CASSCF振荡器强度为相同原因最低的振荡器强度。由于在LR-CASSCF中占了状态特异性轨道松弛效果,振荡器强度明显比MS-Caspt2更精确。我们的调查结果应鼓励具有更高的准确性和可行性的基于响应理论的多推导方法的进一步发展。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号