Papers › State-Specific Coupled-Cluster Methods for Excited States

State-Specific Coupled-Cluster Methods for Excited States

10 Jan 2024arXiv:2401.05048links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Yann Damour, Anthony Scemama, Denis Jacquemin, Fábris Kossoski, Pierre-François Loos

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

We reexamine ΔCCSD, a state-specific coupled-cluster (CC) with single and double excitations (CCSD) approach that targets excited states through the utilization of non-Aufbau determinants. This methodology is particularly efficient when dealing with doubly excited states, a domain where the standard equation-of-motion CCSD (EOM-CCSD) formalism falls short. Our goal here is to evaluate the effectiveness of ΔCCSD when applied to other types of excited states, comparing its consistency and accuracy with EOM-CCSD. To this end, we report a benchmark on excitation energies computed with the ΔCCSD and EOM-CCSD methods, for a set of molecular excited-state energies that encompasses not only doubly excited states but also doublet-doublet transitions and (singlet and triplet) singly-excited states of closed-shell systems. In the latter case, we rely on a minimalist version of multireference CC known as the two-determinant CCSD method to compute the excited states. Our dataset, consisting of 276 excited states stemming from the \textsc{quest} database [V\'eril \textit{et al.}, \textit{WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.} \textbf{2021}, 11, e1517], provides a significant base to draw general conclusions concerning the accuracy of ΔCCSD. Except for the doubly-excited states, we found that ΔCCSD underperforms EOM-CCSD. For doublet-doublet transitions, the difference between the mean absolute errors (MAEs) of the two methodologies (of \SI{0.10}{\eV} and \SI{0.07}{\eV}) is less pronounced than that obtained for singly-excited states of closed-shell systems (MAEs of \SI{0.15}{\eV} and \SI{0.08}{\eV}). This discrepancy is largely attributed to a greater number of excited states in the latter set exhibiting multiconfigurational characters, which are more challenging for ΔCCSD.

PaperPDFCode

Code

lcpq/simplewick officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections