Merge branch 'master' of https://git.irsamc.ups-tlse.fr/loos/CBD
This commit is contained in:
commit
90770ba4b5
@ -1,13 +1,25 @@
|
||||
%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
|
||||
%% https://bibdesk.sourceforge.io/
|
||||
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/
|
||||
|
||||
%% Created for Pierre-Francois Loos at 2022-04-02 21:11:12 +0200
|
||||
%% Created for Pierre-Francois Loos at 2022-04-04 11:49:40 +0200
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@article{Giner_2019,
|
||||
author = {E. Giner and A. Scemama and J. Toulouse and P. F. Loos},
|
||||
date-added = {2022-04-04 11:49:35 +0200},
|
||||
date-modified = {2022-04-04 11:49:35 +0200},
|
||||
doi = {10.1063/1.5122976},
|
||||
journal = {J. Chem. Phys.},
|
||||
pages = {144118},
|
||||
title = {Chemically accurate excitation energies with small basis sets},
|
||||
volume = {151},
|
||||
year = {2019},
|
||||
bdsk-url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5052714}}
|
||||
|
||||
@article{Shao_2003,
|
||||
author = {Shao,Yihan and Head-Gordon,Martin and Krylov,Anna I.},
|
||||
date-added = {2022-04-02 21:11:09 +0200},
|
||||
|
@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ The spin-flip version of our recently proposed composite approach, namely SF-ADC
|
||||
We have also carried out spin-flip calculations within the TD-DFT framework (SF-TD-DFT), \cite{Shao_2003} and these are also performed with Q-CHEM 5.2.1. \cite{qchem}
|
||||
The B3LYP, \cite{Becke_1988b,Lee_1988a,Becke_1993b} PBE0 \cite{Adamo_1999a,Ernzerhof_1999} and BH\&HLYP hybrid functionals are considered, which contain 20\%, 25\%, 50\% of exact exchange, respectively.
|
||||
These calculations are labeled as SF-TD-BLYP, SF-TD-B3LYP, SF-TD-PBE0, and SF-TD-BH\&HLYP in the following.
|
||||
Additionally, we have also computed SF-TD-DFT excitation energies using range-separated hybrid (RSH) functionals: CAM-B3LYP (19\% of short-range exact exchange and 65\% at long range), \cite{Yanai_2004a} LC-$\omega$PBE08 (16.7\% of short-range exact exchange and 100\% at long range), \cite{Weintraub_2009a} and $\omega$B97X-V (16.7\% of short-range exact exchange and 100\% at long range). \cite{Mardirossian_2014}
|
||||
Additionally, we have also computed SF-TD-DFT excitation energies using range-separated hybrid (RSH) functionals: CAM-B3LYP (19\% of short-range exact exchange and 65\% at long range), \cite{Yanai_2004a} LC-$\omega$PBE08 (0\% of short-range exact exchange and 100\% at long range), \cite{Weintraub_2009a} and $\omega$B97X-V (16.7\% of short-range exact exchange and 100\% at long range). \cite{Mardirossian_2014}
|
||||
Finally, the hybrid meta-GGA functional M06-2X (54\% of exact exchange) \cite{Zhao_2008} and the RSH meta-GGA functional M11 (42.8\% of short-range exact exchange and 100\% at long range) \cite{Peverati_2011} are also employed.
|
||||
Note that all SF-TD-DFT calculations are done within the Tamm-Dancoff approximation. \cite{Hirata_1999}
|
||||
%EOM-SF-CCSD and EOM-SF-CC(2,3) are also performed with Q-CHEM 5.2.1.
|
||||
@ -274,11 +274,11 @@ Two different sets of geometries obtained with different levels of theory are co
|
||||
First, because the autoisomerization barrier is obtained as a difference of energies computed at distinct geometries, it is paramount to obtain these at the same level of theory.
|
||||
However, due to the fact that the ground state of the square arrangement is a transition state of singlet open-shell nature, it is technically difficult to optimize the geometry with high-order CC methods.
|
||||
Therefore, we rely on CASPT2(12,12)/aug-cc-pVTZ for both the {\Dtwo} and {\Dfour} ground-state structures.
|
||||
(Note that these optimizations are done with the IPEA shift.)
|
||||
(Note that these optimizations are done without IPEA shift.)
|
||||
Second, because the vertical transition energies are computed for a particular equilibrium geometry, we can afford to use different methods for the rectangular and square structures.
|
||||
Hence, we rely on CC3/aug-cc-pVTZ to compute the equilibrium geometry of the {\oneAg} state in the rectangular ({\Dtwo}) arrangement and the restricted open-shell (RO) version of CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVTZ to obtain the equilibrium geometry of the {\Atwog} state in the square ({\Dfour}) arrangement.
|
||||
These two geometries are the lowest-energy equilibrium structure of their respective spin manifold (see Fig.~\ref{fig:CBD}).
|
||||
The cartesian coordinates of all these geometries are provided in the {\SupInf}.
|
||||
The cartesian coordinates of these geometries are provided in the {\SupInf}.
|
||||
Table \ref{tab:geometries} reports the key geometrical parameters obtained at these levels of theory as well as previous geometries computed by Manohar and Krylov at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ level.
|
||||
%================================================
|
||||
|
||||
@ -335,8 +335,8 @@ SF-TD-BH\&HLYP & $11.90$ & $12.02$ & $12.72$ & $12.73$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-M06-2X & $9.32$ & $9.62$ & $10.35$ & $10.37$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-CAM-B3LYP& $18.05$ & $18.10$ & $18.83$ & $18.83$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-$\omega$B97X-V & $18.26$ & $18.24$ & $18.94$ & $18.92$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-M11 & $11.03$ & $10.25$ & $11.22$ & $11.12$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-LC-$\omega$PBE08 & $19.05$ & $18.98$ & $19.74$ & $19.71$ \\[0.1cm]
|
||||
SF-TD-M11 & $11.03$ & $10.25$ & $11.22$ & $11.12$ \\
|
||||
SF-ADC(2)-s & $6.69$ & $6.98$ & $8.63$ & \\
|
||||
SF-ADC(2)-x & $8.63$ & $8.96$ &$10.37$ & \\
|
||||
SF-ADC(2.5) & $7.36$ & $7.76$ & $9.11$ & \\
|
||||
@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ CCSDTQ & $7.51$ & $[ 7.89]$\fnm[4]& $[ 8.93]$\fnm[5]& $[ 9.11]$\fnm[6]\\
|
||||
|
||||
The results concerning the autoisomerization barrier are reported in Table \ref{tab:auto_standard} for various basis sets and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:AB} for the aug-cc-pVTZ basis.
|
||||
|
||||
First, one can see large variations of the energy barrier at the SF-TD-DFT level, with differences as large as \SI{10}{\kcalmol} for a given basis set between the different functionals.
|
||||
First, one can see large variations of the energy barrier at the SF-TD-DFT level, with differences as large as \SI{10}{\kcalmol} between the different functionals for a given basis set.
|
||||
Nonetheless, it is clear that the performance of a given functional is directly linked to the amount of exact exchange at short range.
|
||||
Indeed, hybrid functionals with a large fraction of short-range exact exchange (\eg, BH\&HLYP, M06-2X, and M11) perform significantly better than the functionals having a small fraction of short-range exact exchange (\eg, B3LYP, PBE0, CAM-B3LYP, $\omega$B97X-V, and LC-$\omega$PBE08).
|
||||
However, they are still off by \SIrange{1}{4}{\kcalmol} from the TBE reference value.
|
||||
@ -385,21 +385,21 @@ For the RSH functionals, the autoisomerization barrier is much less sensitive to
|
||||
Another important feature of SF-TD-DFT is the fast convergence of the energy barrier with the size of the basis set. \cite{Loos_2019d}
|
||||
With the augmented double-$\zeta$ basis, the SF-TD-DFT results are basically converged to sub-\kcalmol accuracy, which is a drastic improvement compared to wave function approaches where this type of convergence is reached with the augmented triple-$\zeta$ basis.
|
||||
|
||||
For the SF-ADC family of methods, the energy differences are much smaller with a maximum deviation of \SI{2.0}{\kcalmol} between different versions.
|
||||
For the SF-ADC family of methods, the energy differences are much smaller with a maximum deviation of \SI{2}{\kcalmol} between different versions.
|
||||
In particular, we observe that SF-ADC(2)-s and SF-ADC(3), which scale as $\order*{N^5}$ and $\order*{N^6}$ respectively (where $N$ is the number of basis functions), under- and overestimate the autoisomerization barrier, making SF-ADC(2.5) a good compromise with an error of only \SI{0.18}{\kcalmol} with the aug-cc-pVTZ basis.
|
||||
Nonetheless, at a $\order*{N^5}$ computational scaling, SF-ADC(2)-s is particularly accurate, even compared to high-order CC methods (see below).
|
||||
We note that SF-ADC(2)-x is probably not worth its extra cost [as compared to SF-ADC(2)-s] as it overestimates the energy barrier even more than SF-ADC(3).
|
||||
Overall, even with the best exchange-correlation functional, SF-TD-DFT is clearly outperformed by the more expensive SF-ADC methods.
|
||||
|
||||
Concerning the multi-reference approaches with the smaller (4e,4o) active space, the TBEs are bracketed by the CASPT2 and NEVPT2 values that differ by approximately \SI{1.5}{\kcalmol} for all the bases.
|
||||
In this case, the NEVPT2 values are fairly accurate with differences below half a \si{\kcalmol} with the TBEs.
|
||||
Concerning the multi-reference approaches with the minimal (4e,4o) active space, the TBEs are bracketed by the CASPT2 and NEVPT2 values that differ by approximately \SI{1.5}{\kcalmol} for all bases.
|
||||
In this case, the NEVPT2 values are fairly accurate with differences below half a \si{\kcalmol} compared to the TBEs.
|
||||
The CASSCF results predict an even lower barrier than CASPT2 due to the well known lack of dynamical correlation at the CASSCF level.
|
||||
For the larger (12e,12o) active space, we see larger differences of the order of \SI{3}{\kcalmol} through all the bases between CASSCF and the second-order variants (CASPT2 and NEVPT2).
|
||||
The deviations between CASPT2(12,12) and NEVPT2(12,12) are much smaller with an energy difference of around \SIrange{0.1}{0.2}{\kcalmol} for all bases, CASPT2 being slightly more accurate than NEVPT2 in this case.
|
||||
Thought, the deviations between CASPT2(12,12) and NEVPT2(12,12) are much smaller with an energy difference of around \SIrange{0.1}{0.2}{\kcalmol} for all bases, CASPT2 being slightly more accurate than NEVPT2 in this case.
|
||||
For each basis set, both CASPT2(12,12) and NEVPT2(12,12) are less than a \si{\kcalmol} away from the TBEs.
|
||||
For the two active spaces that we have considered here, the PC- and SC-NEVPT2 schemes provide nearly identical barriers independently of the size of the one-electron basis.
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, for the CC family of methods, we observe the usual systematic improvement following the series CCSD $<$ CC3 $<$ CCSDT $<$ CC4 $<$ CCSDTQ, which is also linked with the increase in computational cost of $\order*{N^6}$, $\order*{N^7}$, $\order*{N^8}$, $\order*{N^9}$, and $\order*{N^{10}}$, respectively.
|
||||
Finally, for the CC family of methods, we observe the usual systematic improvement following the series CCSD $<$ CC3 $<$ CCSDT $<$ CC4 $<$ CCSDTQ, which is also linked to their increase in computational cost: $\order*{N^6}$, $\order*{N^7}$, $\order*{N^8}$, $\order*{N^9}$, and $\order*{N^{10}}$, respectively.
|
||||
Note that the introduction of the triple excitations is clearly mandatory to have an accuracy beyond SF-TD-DFT, while it is also clear that the iterative triples and quadruples can be included approximately via the CC3 and CC4 methods.
|
||||
%================================================
|
||||
|
||||
@ -580,17 +580,19 @@ CIPSI &6-31+G(d)& $1.486\pm 0.005$ & $3.348\pm 0.024$ & $4.084\pm 0.012$ \\
|
||||
\end{figure*}
|
||||
%%% %%% %%% %%%
|
||||
|
||||
Table \ref{tab:sf_tddft_D2h} reports, at the {\Dtwo} rectangular equilibrium geometry of the {\oneAg} ground state, the singlet and triplet vertical transition energies associated with the {\tBoneg}, {\sBoneg}, and {\twoAg} states obtained using the spin-flip formalism, while Table \ref{tab:D2h} gathers the same quantities obtained with the multi-reference and CC methods.
|
||||
Table \ref{tab:sf_tddft_D2h} reports, at the {\Dtwo} rectangular equilibrium geometry of the {\oneAg} ground state, the singlet and triplet vertical transition energies associated with the {\tBoneg}, {\sBoneg}, and {\twoAg} states obtained using the spin-flip formalism, while Table \ref{tab:D2h} gathers the same quantities obtained with the multi-reference, CC, and CIPSI methods.
|
||||
Considering the aug-cc-pVTZ basis, the evolution of the vertical excitation energies with respect to the level of theory is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:D2h}.
|
||||
|
||||
At the CC3/aug-cc-pVTZ level, the percentage of single excitation involved in the {\tBoneg}, {\sBoneg}, and {\twoAg} are 99\%, 95\%, and 1\%, respectively.
|
||||
Therefore, the two formers are dominated by single excitations, while the latter state is a genuine double excitation.
|
||||
|
||||
\alert{First, let us discuss the basis set effects at the SF-TD-DFT level.
|
||||
These are small and the results are basically converged to the basis set limit with the triple-$\zeta$ basis.
|
||||
Again, we clearly see that the functional with the largest amount of short-range exact exchange are the most accurate ones.
|
||||
However, their accuracy remains average especially for the {\sBoneg} state (due to spin contamination?).
|
||||
Mention that the amount of exact exchange is key for SF-TD-DFT as this is the only non-vanishing term in the spin-flip block. \cite{Shao_2003}}
|
||||
First, let us discuss basis set effects at the SF-TD-DFT level.
|
||||
As expected, these are found to be small and the results are basically converged to the basis set limit with the triple-$\zeta$ basis, which is definitely not the case for the wave function methods. \cite{Giner_2019}
|
||||
Regarding now the accuracy of the vertical excitation energies, again, we clearly see that, for each transition, the functionals with the largest amount of short-range exact exchange (\eg, BH\&HLYP, M06-2X, and M11) are the most accurate.
|
||||
Functionals with large amount of exact exchange are known to perform best in the SF-TD-DFT framework as the Hartree-Fock exchange term is the only non-vanishing term in the spin-flip block. \cite{Shao_2003}
|
||||
However, their overall accuracy remains average especially for the singlet states, {\sBoneg} and {\twoAg}, with error of the order of \SIrange{0.2}{0.5}{\eV} compared to the TBEs for the best functionals.
|
||||
The triplet state, {\tBoneg}, is much better described with errors below \SI{0.1}{\eV}.
|
||||
Note that, as evidenced by the data reported in {\SupInf}, none of these states exhibit a strong spin contamination.
|
||||
|
||||
First, we discuss the SF-TD-DFT values with hybrid functionals.
|
||||
For the B3LYP functional we can see that the energy differences for each state and throughout all bases are small with the largest one for the {\tBoneg} state with \SI{0.012}{\eV}.
|
||||
@ -892,8 +894,8 @@ SF-TD-BHHLYP & $3.79$ & $0.078$ & $-0.393$ & $0.343$ & $-0.099$ & $-0.251$ & $-0
|
||||
SF-TD-M06-2X & $1.42$ & $0.000$ & $-0.354$ & $0.208$ & $-0.066$ & $-0.097$ & $-0.432$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-CAM-B3LYP & $9.90$ & $0.280$ & $-0.807$ & $-0.011$ & $-0.134$ & $-0.920$ & $-1.370$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-$\omega $B97X-V & $10.01$ & $0.335$ & $-0.774$ & $0.064$ & $-0.118$ & $-0.928$ & $-1.372$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-M11 & $2.29$ & $0.097$ & $-0.474$ & $0.151$ & $-0.063$ & $-0.312$ & $-0.675$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-LC-$\omega $PBE08 & $10.81$ & $0.435$ & $-0.710$ & $0.199$ & $-0.086$ & $-0.939$ & $-1.376$ \\[0.1cm]
|
||||
SF-TD-LC-$\omega $PBE08 & $10.81$ & $0.435$ & $-0.710$ & $0.199$ & $-0.086$ & $-0.939$ & $-1.376$ \\
|
||||
SF-TD-M11 & $2.29$ & $0.097$ & $-0.474$ & $0.151$ & $-0.063$ & $-0.312$ & $-0.675$ \\[0.1cm]
|
||||
SF-ADC(2)-s & $-0.30$ & $0.069$ & $-0.026$ & $-0.018$ & $0.112$ & $0.112$ & $-0.190$ \\
|
||||
SF-ADC(2)-x & $1.44$ & $0.077$ & $-0.094$ & $-0.446$ & $0.068$ & $-0.409$ & $-0.303$ \\
|
||||
SF-ADC(2.5) & $0.18$ & $0.013$ & $0.006$ & $0.029$ & $0.024$ & $0.094$ & $-0.185$ \\
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user