Benchmarking TD-DFT and Wave Function Methods for Oscillator Strengths and Excited-State Dipole Moments

TL;DR

This study benchmarks various wave function and TD-DFT methods for calculating oscillator strengths and excited-state dipole moments, revealing the impact of gauge choice, formalism, and method accuracy on these properties.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of multiple computational methods and gauges for excited-state properties, highlighting the advantages of higher-order methods and specific functionals.

Findings

CCSD improves oscillator strength accuracy over CC2.

Orbital relaxation significantly improves ADC(2) and CC2 dipole moments.

CAM-B3LYP performs best among tested TD-DFT functionals.

Abstract

Using a set of oscillator strengths and excited-state dipole moments of near full configuration interaction (FCI) quality determined for small compounds, we benchmark the performances of several single-reference wave function methods (CC2, CCSD, CC3, CCSDT, ADC(2), and ADC(3/2)) and time-dependent density-functional theory (TD-DFT) with various functionals (B3LYP, PBE0, M06-2X, CAM-B3LYP, and $\omega$B97X-D). We consider the impact of various gauges (length, velocity, and mixed) and formalisms: equation of motion (EOM) \emph{vs} linear response (LR), relaxed \emph{vs} unrelaxed orbitals, etc. Beyond the expected accuracy improvements and a neat decrease of formalism sensitivy when using higher-order wave function methods, the present contribution shows that, for both ADC(2) and CC2, the choice of gauge impacts more significantly the magnitude of the oscillator strengths than the choice of formalism, and that CCSD yields a notable improvement on this transition property as compared to CC2. For the excited-state dipole moments, switching on orbital relaxation appreciably improves the accuracy of both ADC(2) and CC2, but has a rather small effect at the CCSD level. Going from ground to excited states, the typical errors on dipole moments for a given method tend to roughly triple. Interestingly, the ADC(3/2) oscillator strengths and dipoles are significantly more accurate than their ADC(2) counterparts, whereas the two models do deliver rather similar absolute errors for transition energies. Concerning TD-DFT, one finds: i) a rather negligible impact of the gauge on oscillator strengths for all tested functionals (except for M06-2X); ii) deviations of ca.~0.10 D on ground-state dipoles for all functionals; iii) the better overall performance of CAM-B3LYP for the two considered excited-state properties.