2021
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00746
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Polishing the Gold Standard: The Role of Orbital Choice in CCSD(T) Vibrational Frequency Prediction

Abstract: While CCSD(T) with spin-restricted Hartree−Fock (RHF) orbitals has long been lauded for its ability to accurately describe closed-shell interactions, the performance of CCSD(T) on open-shell species is much more erratic, especially when using a spin-unrestricted HF (UHF) reference. Previous studies have shown improved treatment of open-shell systems when a non-HF set of molecular orbitals, like Brueckner or Kohn−Sham density functional theory (DFT) orbitals, is used as a reference. Inspired by the success of r… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
44
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 97 publications
2
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a final test of the quality of the results, we also compare with higher level theory calculations based on CCSD(T), which is often regarded as the gold standard of chemical accuracy in quantum chemistry. 87 Taking the same basis sets, we find that the T-CDFT results agree reasonably well with CCSD(T), 88,89 with a MAD of 0.5 eV for PBE S 1 energies. This is comparable to MADs for S 1 of 0.4 and 0.5 eV for PBE0 calculations with ∆SCF and TDDFT respectively, and lower than the PBE-based ∆SCF and TDDFT MADs of 1.0 and 0.8 eV respectively, further confirming the reliability of T-CDFT.…”
Section: Acenessupporting
confidence: 56%
“…As a final test of the quality of the results, we also compare with higher level theory calculations based on CCSD(T), which is often regarded as the gold standard of chemical accuracy in quantum chemistry. 87 Taking the same basis sets, we find that the T-CDFT results agree reasonably well with CCSD(T), 88,89 with a MAD of 0.5 eV for PBE S 1 energies. This is comparable to MADs for S 1 of 0.4 and 0.5 eV for PBE0 calculations with ∆SCF and TDDFT respectively, and lower than the PBE-based ∆SCF and TDDFT MADs of 1.0 and 0.8 eV respectively, further confirming the reliability of T-CDFT.…”
Section: Acenessupporting
confidence: 56%
“…It is our expectation that when orbitals obtained from theories which include (even approximately) dynamical correlation such as DFT and κ-UOOMP2 are employed, subsequent CC predictions will improve in accuracy, as has already been seen in main group molecules. 145,146 Thus, in our view, the common notion that transition metals are difficult for traditional electronic structure methods is due to both static and dynamic correlation, yet we stress our finding that truly MR situations are encountered only in the special cases enumerated above (and perhaps a few others), making the proper treatment of dynamic correlation more important in most commonly-encountered cases.…”
Section: Metal Complexes With Higher Coordination Numbermentioning
confidence: 70%
“…We first consider the acenes, comparing our benchmark results with higher-level theory calculations based on CCSD(T), which is often regarded as the gold standard of chemical accuracy in quantum chemistry. 81 We employ the values from ref ( 82 ) (and references within). The low-lying singlet excitations in the acenes are termed 1 L a and 1 L b , which differ in energetic ordering depending on the acene in question.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%