A Mountaineering Strategy to Excited States: Highly-Accurate Reference Energies and Benchmarks

TL;DR

This paper establishes highly accurate reference energies for excited states of small molecules using advanced coupled cluster and configuration interaction methods, providing benchmarks for evaluating various excited-state computational approaches.

Contribution

It introduces a systematic approach combining high-level CC and sCI calculations to generate near-FCI quality transition energies and benchmarks multiple excited-state methods against these references.

Findings

CCSDTQ achieves near-FCI accuracy with 0.01 eV error.

Coupled cluster methods with iterative triples are highly accurate, with 0.03 eV error.

ADC(3) shows significant errors, overestimating energies.

Abstract

Striving to define very accurate vertical transition energies, we perform both high-level coupled cluster (CC) calculations (up to CCSDTQP) and selected configuration interaction (sCI) calculations (up to several millions of determinants) for 18 small compounds. By systematically increasing the order of the CC expansion, the number of determinants in the CI expansion as well as the size of the one-electron basis set, we have been able to reach near full CI (FCI) quality transition energies. These calculations are carried out on CC3/aug-cc-pVTZ geometries, using a series of increasingly large atomic basis sets systematically including diffuse functions. In this way, we define a list of 110 transition energies for states of various characters to be used as references for further calculations. Benchmark transition energies are provided at the aug-pVTZ level as well as with additional basis set corrections, in order to obtain results close to the complete basis set limit. These reference data are used to benchmark a series of twelve excited-state wave function methods accounting for double and triple contributions, namely ADC(2), ADC(3), CIS(D), CIS(D$_\infty$), CC2, STEOM-CCSD, CCSD, CCSDR(3), CCSDT-3, CC3, CCSDT and CCSDTQ. It turns out that CCSDTQ yields a negligible difference with the extrapolated CI values with a mean absolute error as small as $0.01$ eV, whereas the coupled cluster approaches including iterative triples are also very accurate (mean absolute error of $0.03$ eV). Consequently, CCSDT-3 and CC3 can be used to define reliable benchmarks. This observation does not hold for ADC(3) that delivers quite large errors for this set of small compounds, with a clear tendency to overcorrect its second-order version, ADC(2). Finally, we discuss the possibility to use basis set extrapolation approaches so as to tackle more easily larger compounds.