Is ADC(3) as Accurate as CC3 for Valence and Rydberg Transition Energies?
Pierre-Fran\c{c}ois Loos, Denis Jacquemin

TL;DR
This paper compares the accuracy of ADC(3) and CC3 methods for excited state energies, revealing ADC(3) is less accurate than CC3, and proposes a new composite method ADC(2.5) that improves results.
Contribution
The study provides a comprehensive comparison showing ADC(3) is less accurate than CC3 and introduces ADC(2.5), a new averaging approach that enhances excitation energy predictions.
Findings
ADC(3) is less accurate than CC3 for transition energies.
ADC(2.5) improves upon ADC(3) by averaging ADC(2) and ADC(3).
Experimental and high-level theoretical data support the conclusions.
Abstract
The search for new \emph{ab initio} models rapidly delivering accurate excited state energies and properties is one of the most active research lines of theoretical chemistry. Along with these methodological developments, the performances of known methods are constantly reassessed thanks to the emergence of new benchmark values. In this Letter, we show that, in contrast to previous claims, the third-order algebraic diagrammatic construction, ADC(3), does not yield transition energies of the same quality as the third-order coupled cluster method, CC3. There is indeed a significant difference in terms of accuracy between the two approaches, as we clearly and unambiguously demonstrate here thanks to extensive comparisons with several hundreds high-quality vertical transition energies obtained with FCI, CCSDTQ, and CCSDT. Direct comparisons with experimental 0-0 energies of small- and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
