119 lines
6.1 KiB
TeX
119 lines
6.1 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[11pt]{letter}
|
|
\usepackage{UPS_letterhead,color,mhchem,mathpazo,ragged2e,bm}
|
|
\newcommand{\alert}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\begin{letter}%
|
|
{To the Editors of Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters}
|
|
|
|
\justifying
|
|
\opening{Dear Editors,}
|
|
|
|
Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript entitled
|
|
{\it "A Density-Based Basis-Set Correction For Wave Function Theory"}.
|
|
|
|
We would to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments.
|
|
Our detailed responses to their comments can be found below.
|
|
For convenience, all modifications and changes are highlighted in red in the revised version of the manuscript.
|
|
We hope that you will agree that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in JPCL.
|
|
|
|
We look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
|
\closing{Sincerely, the authors.}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%%% REVIEWER 1 %%%
|
|
\noindent \textbf{\large Authors' answer to Reviewer \#1}
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{This manuscript reports a major advance in electronic structure theory, by providing a cheap and mathematically motivated correction for finite basis size effects in high-level theories.
|
|
I expect it to have immediate applications among users, certainly once user friendly code is released.
|
|
The work is definitely worthy of being published in JPCL, after changes.
|
|
That said, for the reasons explained below, I think the current manuscript requires changes somewhere between major and minor.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{We thank the reviewer for his/her support.
|
|
We also believe that the present contribution is a major advance in electronic structure theory.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{My main issue with the manuscript is that it is not sufficiently well self-contained or explained.
|
|
Being familiar with previous work on the topic, I was mostly able to follow the manuscript without hassle.
|
|
Someone without familiarity would struggle.
|
|
For example, the authors refer several times to work in the Appendix of a previous paper.
|
|
The gist of such results should (IMO) be summarised here.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{I am not super sure this is worth it.
|
|
%We have added a summary of the different results derived in the previous paper.
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{This readability issue is not made easier by the authors' commendable focus on generality, which leaves the reader carrying a lot of variables and ideas in their head.
|
|
Fine for a long paper, not so much for a Letter.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{Thank you for pointing that out.
|
|
We have made the manuscript more explicit.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{My first suggestion to the authors would be to change from describing things in terms of a generic method "Y" to using a specific case [e.g. CCSD(T)] and then generalizing only at the end, e.g., "Of course, the above holds true for any method that provides a good approximation to the energy, not just CCSD(T).".
|
|
Other changes along these lines would probably also be useful.
|
|
This would help the reader cement the key concept (basis correction) without worrying about quite so many variables.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{As proposed by the reviewer, we have explicitly specified the methods X and Y that we have employed.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{On a related note, I do not see the benefit of reporting the LDA correction in the main text, although for sure it belongs in the SI.
|
|
There seems to be no practical reason to do LDA when it just as expensive (??) as GGA, but gives worse results.
|
|
This would have the added advantage of reducing discussion on outcomes.
|
|
I kind of understand why the authors report LDA, but think it is a distraction since they have PBE.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{We have moved the description and discussion of the LDA functional to the SI.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{What I think would be very useful is to show $\mu(\bm{r})$ for an example, e.g. along the bond in an interesting diatom.
|
|
This would illustrate the range of values taken by $\mu$, and the advantage of doing things point-by-point.
|
|
If values for multiple basis sets were reported it might also help in understanding how and where larger basis sets help, which might point to how to improve basis sets in a more systematic fashion.
|
|
Removing the discussion on LDA would probably free enough space to show this, especially if Figure 2 was condensed into a single figure (which should be feasible sans LDA).}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{This is for Manu!
|
|
We have reported a figure showing $\mu(\bm{r})$ in \ce{} for various basis sets.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{One final (minor) key point is that the proposed use of density fitting or related time-saving steps seems rather ambitious, given that it necessarily introduces a further basis set dependence.
|
|
I would suggest the authors do not mention the last sentence in the relevant paragraph, or give more detail if it is included.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{Following the reviewer's advice, we have removed our comment on density-fitting and related methods.}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textit{Regardless of my issues with presentation, this is important work which should definitely be published in JPCL.
|
|
It just first needs to be made a bit easier to follow.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\alert{We would like to thank the reviewer for these supportive comments.}
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%%% REVIEWER 2 %%%
|
|
\noindent \textbf{\large Authors' answer to Reviewer \#2}
|
|
|
|
\textit{This is an excellent paper on density-based basis-set corrections for accelerating the basis-set convergence of an arbitrary wavefunction method.
|
|
The corrections are examined for the atomization and correlation energies of the G2 set of molecules.
|
|
In wavefunction theory, F12 methods have been developed in the 2000s.
|
|
The approach described in this paper provides a fast alternative to F12 that requires relatively large auxiliary basis functions for computing three- and four-electron integrals.
|
|
As a small notice, I suggest the the following for an update of reviews on F12, Grueneis et al., J. Chem. Phys., 146, 080901 (2017), Ma and Werner, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 8:e1371 (2018).
|
|
To summarize, I think this is an excellent paper that should be published in JPCL basically in the present form.}
|
|
|
|
\alert{We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her kinds comments.
|
|
We have added the two references suggested by the reviewer in due place.}
|
|
|
|
\end{letter}
|
|
\end{document}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|