forked from PTEROSOR/QUESTDB
discussion on Toto results
This commit is contained in:
parent
3251dd129d
commit
c8748c17f7
@ -315,20 +315,20 @@ Only the last $M>2$ computed energy differences are considered. $M$ is chosen su
|
||||
If all the values of $P(\mathcal{G})$ are below $0.8$, $M$ is chosen such that $P(\mathcal{G})$ is maximal.
|
||||
A Python code associated with this procedure is provided in the {\SupInf}.
|
||||
|
||||
The singlet and triplet excitation energies obtained at the FCI/6-31+G(d) level are reported in Table \ref{tab:cycles} alongside the computed error bars estimated with the method presented above based on Gaussian random variables.
|
||||
The singlet and triplet FCI/6-31+G(d) excitation energies and their corresponding error bars estimated with the method presented above based on Gaussian random variables are reported in Table \ref{tab:cycles}.
|
||||
For the sake of comparison, we also report the CC3 and CCSDT vertical energies from Ref.~\cite{Loos_2020b} computed in the same basis.
|
||||
The estimated values of the excitation energies obtained via a three-point linear extrapolation considering the three largest CIPSI wave functions are also gathered in Table \ref{tab:cycles}.
|
||||
In this case, the error bar is estimated via the extrapolation distance, \ie, the difference in excitation energies obtained with the three-point linear extrapolation and the largest CIPSI wave function.
|
||||
This strategy has been considered in some of our previous works \cite{Loos_2020b,Loos_2020c,Loos_2020e}.
|
||||
The deviation from the CCSDT excitation energies for the same set of excitations are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:errors}, where the red dots correspond to the excitation energies and error bars estimated via the present method, and the blue dots correspond to the excitation energies obtained via a three-point linear fit using the three largest CIPSI wave functions, and error bars estimated via the extrapolation distance.
|
||||
These results are a good balance between well-behaved and ill-behaved cases.
|
||||
For example, cyclopentadiene and furan correspond to well-behaved cases where the two flavor of excitation energy estimates are nearly identical and the error bars associated with these two methods overlap nicely.
|
||||
The deviation from the CCSDT excitation energies for the same set of excitations are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:errors}, where the red dots correspond to the excitation energies and error bars estimated via the present method, and the blue dots correspond to the excitation energies obtained via a three-point linear fit and error bars estimated via the extrapolation distance.
|
||||
These results contains a good balance between well-behaved and ill-behaved cases.
|
||||
For example, cyclopentadiene and furan correspond to well-behaved scenarios where the two flavor of excitation energy estimates are nearly identical and the error bars associated with these two methods nicely overlap.
|
||||
In these cases, one can observe that our method based on Gaussian random variables provides almost systematically smaller error bars.
|
||||
Even in less idealistic situations (like in imidazole, pyrrole, and thiophene), the results are very satisfactory.
|
||||
The six-membered rings correspond to much more challenging cases for SCI methods, and even for these systems the newly-developed method provides realistic error bars.
|
||||
The present scheme has also been tested on much smaller systems when one can easily tightly converged the CIPSI calculations.
|
||||
In these cases, the agreement is nearly perfect in every cases.
|
||||
Some of these results can be found in the {\SupInf}.
|
||||
Even in less idealistic situations (like in imidazole, pyrrole, and thiophene), the results are very satisfactory and stable.
|
||||
The six-membered rings represent much more challenging cases for SCI methods, and even for these systems the newly-developed method provides realistic error bars, and allows to easily detect problematic events (like pyridine for instance).
|
||||
The present scheme has also been tested on smaller systems when one can tightly converged the CIPSI calculations.
|
||||
In such cases, the agreement is nearly perfect in every scenario that we have encountered.
|
||||
A selection of these results can be found in the {\SupInf}.
|
||||
|
||||
%%% TABLE I %%%
|
||||
\begin{table}
|
||||
@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ All quantities are given in eV. ``Count'' refers to the number of transitions co
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{llccccccccccccccc}
|
||||
\headrow
|
||||
& & \thead{CIS(D)} & \thead{CC2} & \thead{CCSD(2)} & \thead{STEOM-CCSD} & \thead{CCSD} & \thead{CCSDR(3)} & \thead{CCCSDT-3} & \thead{CC3}
|
||||
& \thead{SOS-ADC(2)[TM]} & \thead{SOS-CC2[TM]} & \thead{SCS-CC2[TM]} & \thead{SOS-ADC(2) [QC]} & \thead{ADC(2)} & \thead{ADC(3)} & \thead{ADC(2.5)} \\
|
||||
& \thead{SOS-ADC(2)$^a$} & \thead{SOS-CC2$^a$} & \thead{SCS-CC2$^a$} & \thead{SOS-ADC(2)$^b$} & \thead{ADC(2)} & \thead{ADC(3)} & \thead{ADC(2.5)} \\
|
||||
Count & & 429 & 431 & 427 & 360 & 431 & 259 & 251 & 431 & 430 & 430 & 430 & 430 & 426 & 423 & 423 \\
|
||||
Max(+) & & 1.06 & 0.63 & 0.80 & 0.59 & 0.80 & 0.43 & 0.26 & 0.19 & 0.87 & 0.84 & 0.76 & 0.73 & 0.64 & 0.60 & 0.24 \\
|
||||
Max($-$) & & -0.69 & -0.71 & -0.38 & -0.56 & -0.25 & -0.07 & -0.07 & -0.09 & -0.29 & -0.24 & -0.92 & -0.46 & -0.76 & -0.79 & -0.34 \\
|
||||
@ -646,6 +646,10 @@ MAE & & 0.22 & 0.16 & 0.22 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.22
|
||||
& 7--10 non-H & 0.24 & 0.11 & 0.42 & 0.12 & 0.23 & 0.10 & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.27 & 0.29 & 0.19 & 0.12 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.07 \\
|
||||
\hline
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\begin{tablenotes}
|
||||
\item $^a$ Excitation energies compute with TURBOMOLE.
|
||||
\item $^b$ Excitation energies compute with Q-CHEM.
|
||||
\end{tablenotes}
|
||||
\end{threeparttable}
|
||||
\end{sidewaystable}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -667,7 +671,6 @@ Thanks to this website, one can easily test and compare the accuracy of a given
|
||||
Because computing 450 excitation energies can be a costly exercise, we are planning on developing a ``diet set'' following the philosophy of the ``diet GMTKN55'' set \cite{Goerigk_2017} proposed recently by Gould \cite{Gould_2018b}.
|
||||
Although our present goal is to produce chemically accurate vertical excitation energies, we are currently devoting great efforts to obtain of highly-accurate excited-state properties as such dipoles and oscillator strengths for molecules of small and medium sizes \cite{Chrayteh_2020}.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section*{acknowledgements}
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user