Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

A Reduced Cost Two-component Relativistic Equation-of-Motion Coupled Cluster Method for Ionization Potential

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-component relativistic equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method reproduces four-component ionization potentials to within 0.001 eV and becomes feasible for medium-sized heavy-element molecules.

desk verdict Solid implementation paper; the load-bearing four-component equivalence claim is supported only by five hydrogen halides, so the authors should soften it or test more. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06805 v1 pith:2TQ36XFM submitted 2025-06-07 physics.chem-ph

Somesh Chamoli , Malaya K. Nayak , Achintya Kumar Dutta This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords ionizationpotentialequation-of-motioncoupledclustertwo-componentrelativisticmethodsX2Catomicmean-fieldCholeskydecompositionfrozennaturalspinorsheavy-elementmoleculesphotoelectronspectra
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that accurate relativistic ionization potentials no longer require four-component calculations. It combines the exact two-component atomic mean-field Hamiltonian (X2CAMF) with Cholesky decomposition of two-electron integrals and frozen natural spinors, yielding an IP-EOM-CCSD method whose stored integrals never have more than two virtual indices and whose virtual space is trimmed by an occupation-number cutoff. The claim is that this cheaper machinery reproduces four-component relativistic IP-EOM-CCSD results to within roughly 0.001 eV for the hydrogen halides, matches experimental vertical ionization energies of 74 heavy-element molecules with a mean absolute error of 0.13 eV, and runs on a medium-sized hydrated iodide anion with 1,698 virtual spinors. If true, this gives a practical route to reliable ionization energies and photoelectron spectra for heavy-element systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the X2CAMF Hamiltonian, a two-component relativistic Hamiltonian in which the spin-dependent two-electron interaction is absorbed into an atomic mean-field one-electron operator and spin-free two-electron integrals are kept at the nonrelativistic level, so no molecular relativistic two-electron integrals need to be built. The implementation places Cholesky decomposition on top, storing only integrals with two or fewer virtual indices and constructing the rest on the fly, and then applies frozen natural spinors, obtained by diagonalizing an MP2 virtual-virtual density matrix and truncating by occupation number, to shrink the virtual space and cut floating-point work. The argument works because these two approximations attack the dominant costs of relativistic IP-EOM-CCSD, memory and operation count, while the X2CAMF Hamiltonian preserves the four-component accuracy that the paper benchmarks against the hydrogen halides.

What would settle it

Compute the first three ionization potentials of a heavy-atom molecule with strong ligand-field spin-orbit coupling, for example a bismuth or thallium complex, using both the two-component FNS-CD-X2CAMF-IP-EOM-CCSD method and a four-component FNS-IP-EOM-CCSD method with the same basis and truncation thresholds. If the state-resolved IP differences exceed the roughly 0.001 eV seen for the hydrogen halides, the X2CAMF approximations do not transfer to that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the FNS-CD-X2CAMF-IP-EOM-CCSD method gives ionization potentials essentially identical to those of four-component FNS-IP-EOM-CCSD for the HX series (HF, HCl, HBr, HI, HAt), with differences of at most 0.001 eV, while also capturing the spin-orbit splittings that a spin-free treatment misses. Against experiment, the method attains a mean absolute error of 0.13 eV over 74 heavy-element molecules from the SOC-81 set, and it reproduces the photoelectron band patterns of CdCl2, CdBr2, and CdI2, including the spin-orbit-induced reordering in CdI2. The system [I(H2O)12]-, with 1,698 virtual spinors before truncation, yields a first vertical ionization energy of 4.30 eV and a solvation blue shift of 1.23 eV relative to atomic iodide, showing that the cost reductions make such medium-sized systems tractable.

Load-bearing premise

Validation against four-component theory covers only the five hydrogen halides; the paper assumes the atomic mean-field treatment of spin-orbit and the neglect of scalar two-electron picture-change effects transfer unchanged to all 74 benchmark molecules and to the iodide-water cluster.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ionization energies and photoelectron spectra of heavy-element molecules can be obtained at four-component-level accuracy without four-component cost, making such calculations routine for systems with hundreds of virtual spinors.
  • Spin-orbit effects, including the reordering of ionized states in heavy halides such as CdI2, are captured by the two-component treatment with errors within 0.001 eV of four-component results for the tested HX series.
  • A loose Cholesky and frozen-natural-spinor threshold is enough for vertical ionization potentials: the mean error changes by less than 0.005 eV between the loosest and tightest thresholds, so users can trade accuracy for speed with little risk.
  • The method's storage pattern, with only integrals containing two or fewer virtual indices, extends the size limit of relativistic IP-EOM-CCSD to molecules like [I(H2O)12]-, completing a four-root EOM calculation in under five days on one workstation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's benchmarks, the approximations are likely to face their hardest test in molecules where spin-orbit coupling is delocalized or strongly altered by the chemical environment, such as heavy transition-metal complexes; a two- versus four-component comparison there would map the method's true domain of validity.
  • The same combination of Cholesky decomposition, frozen natural spinors, and the X2CAMF Hamiltonian could plausibly be carried into electron-attachment and excited-state EOM-CC variants, extending the cost reduction to other charged and neutral excitations.
  • Because the loose threshold barely changes ionization energies, the practical bottleneck is the ground-state CCSD step's formal $O(N^6)$ scaling; combining frozen natural spinors with local or pair-natural-orbital truncations could push calculations toward larger molecular sizes than the iodide-water cluster.
  • The hydration blue shift of 1.23 eV in the paper agrees with prior embedded EOM-CC results, suggesting the method is accurate enough to map solvent effects on heavy-element ionization energies, a direction the paper does not develop beyond a single cluster.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an implementation of the ionization-potential variant of equation-of-motion coupled-cluster singles and doubles (IP-EOM-CCSD) within the exact two-component atomic mean-field (X2CAMF) relativistic framework, using Cholesky decomposition (CD) and frozen natural spinors (FNS) to reduce storage and floating-point cost. The method is benchmarked on 18 iodine-containing molecules, on 74 heavy-element molecules from the SOC-81 set against experimental vertical IPs, on the hydrogen halide series against four-component FNS-IP-EOM-CCSD, and on the photoelectron spectra of CdX2. The paper also reports an application to [I(H2O)12]- with 1698 virtual spinors. The central claim is that FNS-CD-X2CAMF-IP-EOM-CCSD produces ionization potentials that are 'almost identical' to four-component IP-EOM-CCSD while being substantially cheaper.

Significance. If the central claim is fully substantiated, this is a practically valuable method for relativistic IP calculations on medium-sized heavy-element systems. The work has clear strengths: the integration of CD and FNS into an already established X2CAMF-CC framework is technically non-trivial; the 74-molecule experimental benchmark with MAE 0.13 eV is useful and independent; the sub-milli-eV agreement with four-component results for the five hydrogen halides is an impressive consistency check; and the [I(H2O)12]- calculation demonstrates real applicability. The main gap is that the headline equivalence to four-component theory is established only for a narrow set of closed-shell diatomics, and the threshold convergence evidence is indirect. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the method, but they need to be closed or the claims tempered before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.4, Table 3; Abstract; Conclusions] The claim that the X2CAMF IP values are 'almost identical' to four-component results is supported only by the five hydrogen halides HX (X=F, Cl, Br, I, At). These are closed-shell diatomics in which the ionized hole is localized on a single heavy atom, which is the least demanding case for the two key approximations: the atomic mean-field replacement of the spin-dependent two-electron interaction in Eq. (4) and the neglect of scalar two-electron picture-change effects in Eq. (8). The abstract and conclusions state the equivalence without this scope limitation. To make the claim load-bearing for the 74-molecule benchmark and the [I(H2O)12]- application, the authors should either add four-component FNS-IP-EOM-CCSD comparisons for at least a few representative SOC-81 molecules with open d/f shells, multiple heavy centers, or delocalized valence holes, or explicitly restrict the equivalence claim to the systems tested.
  2. [4.1, Table 1; 4.5] The choice of LOOSEFNS as the default threshold is justified in §4.1 by comparing experimental MAEs at three threshold settings. This is not a direct test of the FNS/CD truncation error, because the experimental MAE also contains basis-set, correlation, and Hamiltonian errors. The three MAE values (0.068, 0.066, and 0.065 eV) could be nearly identical even if LOOSEFNS deviates from TIGHTFNS by more than the quoted precision. The authors should report the mean and maximum absolute IP differences between LOOSEFNS and TIGHTFNS (or between LOOSEFNS and an untruncated reference) for the 18-molecule set, and for at least a subset of the SOC-81 molecules, before using LOOSEFNS for the headline benchmarks and for [I(H2O)12]-.
  3. [4.4, Table 3; 4.2, Table 2] The direct four-component comparison in Table 3 is performed at the TIGHTFNS setting (FNS threshold 10^-5, CD threshold 10^-5), while the 74-molecule benchmark in Table 2 and the [I(H2O)12]- application use LOOSEFNS. The sub-meV agreement with four-component theory therefore does not directly validate the threshold setting used for the main results. The paper should either provide a four-component comparison at LOOSEFNS for a few molecules or explain why the equivalence established at TIGHTFNS transfers to LOOSEFNS; as written, the abstract's 'almost identical' claim is not directly supported at the default threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.3, Figure 2] The text says the computed spectra are compared 'directly' with experiment, but a uniform energy shift is applied per molecule to align the lowest-energy peaks. The authors should state explicitly that Figure 2 validates relative peak positions and splittings, not absolute ionization energies, and that the applied shifts are for visual alignment only.
  2. [Abstract; title] There is a typo in the title and abstract: 'T wo-component' should read 'Two-component'.
  3. [4.2, Table 2] The comparison with the GW results of Ref. 49 should state the basis sets, geometries, and frozen-core settings used in those calculations, so that the comparison in Table 2 is not compromised by protocol differences.
  4. [4.4, Table 3] The notation for the ionization states (e.g., '5Π1', '4Π1', '3Σ2') is not defined; the authors should specify whether these are term symbols or state ordering labels and how they are assigned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: absolute IPs and spectral shapes are benchmarked against independent four-component and experimental references; the only fitted element is a disclosed spectral shift.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that FNS-CD-X2CAMF-IP-EOM-CCSD reproduces four-component IP-EOM-CCSD results and experimental ionization energies at low cost. The X2CAMF Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) is adopted from prior work (Refs 15–17) and is not defined in terms of the target IPs; the IPs are obtained by solving the EOM-CCSD eigenproblem, not by fitting. The four-component comparison in Table 3 uses values from the authors' earlier study (Ref 31), but those are parameter-free results with stated basis sets, frozen-core settings, and FNS thresholds; they are also checked against experiment within Table 3, so they constitute independent support rather than a self-referential reduction. The threshold selection on 18 iodine molecules (Sec 4.1) is a hyperparameter choice, not a fit of ionization energies, and the subsequent 74-molecule benchmark (Table 2) is an external experimental test. The only fitted element is the uniform energy shift applied to the simulated CdX2 photoelectron spectra in Sec 4.3; this is explicitly disclosed, does not enter the tabulated IP values, and is used only to align spectral patterns, so it does not make the spectral-shape prediction circular. No equation or predicted quantity reduces by construction to its inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked. The self-citations to Refs 31 and 32 are methodological and benchmark-related, not argumentative dependencies.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on established relativistic and correlation approximations (no-pair, X2CAMF, AMF, FNS truncation) rather than on new physical entities. The only genuinely tunable inputs are the CD/FNS thresholds and the per-molecule PES alignment shifts, none of which are fitted to the target IP values in a way that would make the benchmark circular.

free parameters (3)
  • Cholesky decomposition threshold = LOOSEFNS: 1e-3; NORMAL: 1e-4; TIGHT: 1e-5
    Truncation threshold for the Cholesky decomposition of two-electron integrals; selected by balancing MAE against experimental IPs for 18 iodine molecules (Table 1).
  • Frozen natural spinor occupation cutoff = LOOSEFNS: 1e-4; NORMAL: 10^-4.5; TIGHT: 1e-5
    Occupation-number cutoff for truncating the virtual space in FNS; selected using the same benchmark set and then applied to all subsequent calculations.
  • PES alignment shift per CdX2 molecule = -0.02 eV (CdCl2), +0.2 eV (CdBr2), -0.12 eV (CdI2)
    Uniform energy shift applied to simulated CdX2 photoelectron spectra to match the lowest experimental peak; disclosed in Section 4.3 and not used for tabulated IP values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption No-pair approximation: only positive-energy four-component spinors are included in the Hamiltonian
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and justified by reference to Sucher's no-pair framework; standard in relativistic CC but a physical approximation.
  • domain assumption Scalar two-electron picture-change effects are negligible for the X2CAMF Hamiltonian
    Eq. (8) sets the spin-free two-electron integrals to their nonrelativistic forms; the equivalence to four-component theory depends on this approximation.
  • domain assumption Atomic mean-field approximation captures spin-dependent two-electron interactions
    Eq. (4) replaces molecular spin-dependent two-electron integrals with atom-centered mean-field terms; accepted from prior literature but load-bearing for spin-orbit splittings.
  • ad hoc to paper LOOSEFNS truncation introduces negligible error for valence IPs across heavy-element systems
    Convergence is tested only on 18 iodine-containing molecules (Table 1); the same threshold is then used for the 74-molecule benchmark and for [I(H2O)12]-.
  • domain assumption Experimental geometries from SOC-81 and NIST vertical IPs are reliable references
    All benchmarks use geometries from Ref. 48 and experimental vertical IPs from the NIST WebBook; any systematic error in these references enters the reported MAE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Reduced Cost Two-component Relativistic Equation-of-Motion Coupled Cluster Method for Ionization Potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TQ36XFM

@misc{pith2026250606805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Reduced Cost Two-component Relativistic Equation-of-Motion Coupled Cluster Method for Ionization Potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TQ36XFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06805}
}
abstract

We report an efficient implementation of the ionization potential (IP) variant of the equation-of-motion coupled cluster (IP-EOM-CC) method based on the exact two-component atomic mean field (X2CAMF) framework, utilizing Cholesky decomposition (CD) and frozen natural spinors (FNS). The CD approximation significantly reduces memory demands, whereas the FNS approximation lowers the number of floating-point operations. Together, these techniques make the method computationally efficient for accurate relativistic IP-EOM-CC calculations of molecules containing heavy elements. The calculated IP values are almost identical to those obtained by the four-component relativistic IP-EOM-CC method. Benchmark studies show good agreement with experimental ionization energies and photoelectron spectra, demonstrating the method's reliability. The practical applicability of the approach is demonstrated by IP calculations on the medium-sized [I(H$_{2}$O)$_{12}$]$^{-}$ complex, with 1698 virtual spinors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of errors in vertical ionization energy using the FNS-CD-X2CAMF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of experimental photoelectron spectra with the spectra obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Molecular structure for the [I(H2O)12] − complex. 5 Conclusions We present an efficient implementation of the relativistic IP-EOM-CCSD method, based on the FNS- and CD-based X2CAMF Hamiltonian, aimed at significantly reducing computa￾tional cost while maintaining similar accuracy as that of the four-component Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian. The present formulation avoids the construction and storage of integrals and inte… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ROWE, D. J. Equations-of-Motion Method and the Extended Shell Model. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1968, 40, 153--166

    1968

  2. [2]

    F.; Bartlett, R

    Stanton, J. F.; Bartlett, R. J. The equation of motion coupled-cluster method. A systematic biorthogonal approach to molecular excitation energies, transition probabilities, and excited state properties. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 7029--7039

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Nooijen, M.; Bartlett, R. J. Equation of motion coupled cluster method for electron attachment. J. Chem. Phys. 1995, 102, 3629--3647

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Hess, B. A. Relativistic electronic-structure calculations employing a two-component no-pair formalism with external-field projection operators. Phys. Rev. A 1986, 33, 3742--3748

    1986

  5. [5]

    J.; Snijders, J

    van Lenthe, E.; van Leeuwen, R.; Baerends, E. J.; Snijders, J. G. Relativistic regular two-component Hamiltonians. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1996, 57, 281--293

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Dyall, K. G. Interfacing relativistic and nonrelativistic methods. I. Normalized elimination of the small component in the modified Dirac equation . J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 106, 9618--9626

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    A new relativistic theory: a relativistic scheme by eliminating small components (RESC)

    Nakajima, T.; Hirao, K. A new relativistic theory: a relativistic scheme by eliminating small components (RESC). Chem. Phys. Lett. 1999, 302, 383--391

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Barysz, M.; Sadlej, A. J. Two-component methods of relativistic quantum chemistry: from the Douglas-Kroll approximation to the exact two-component formalism. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2001, 573, 181--200

    work page 2001

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Exact two-component Hamiltonians revisited

    Liu, W.; Peng, D. Exact two-component Hamiltonians revisited . J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131, 031104

    2009

  2. [10]

    Relativistic Hamiltonians for Chemistry : A Primer

    Saue, T. Relativistic Hamiltonians for Chemistry : A Primer . ChemPhysChem 2011, 12, 3077--3094

    2011

  3. [11]

    Quasirelativistic theory equivalent to fully relativistic theory

    Kutzelnigg, W.; Liu, W. Quasirelativistic theory equivalent to fully relativistic theory . J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 241102

    2005

  4. [12]

    An infinite-order two-component relativistic Hamiltonian by a simple one-step transformation

    Ilia s , M.; Saue, T. An infinite-order two-component relativistic Hamiltonian by a simple one-step transformation . J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 126, 064102

    2007

  5. [13]

    G.; Faegri, K

    Dyall, K. G.; Faegri, K. Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Chemistry; Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    A.; Marian, C

    He , B. A.; Marian, C. M.; Wahlgren, U.; Gropen, O. A mean-field spin-orbit method applicable to correlated wavefunctions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1996, 251, 365--371

    1996

  7. [15]

    An atomic mean-field spin-orbit approach within exact two-component theory for a non-perturbative treatment of spin-orbit coupling

    Liu, J.; Cheng, L. An atomic mean-field spin-orbit approach within exact two-component theory for a non-perturbative treatment of spin-orbit coupling . J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 148, 144108

    2018

  8. [16]

    Atomic Mean-Field Approach within Exact Two-Component Theory Based on the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian

    Zhang, C.; Cheng, L. Atomic Mean-Field Approach within Exact Two-Component Theory Based on the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian. J. Phys. Chem. A 2022, 126, 4537--4553, PMID: 35763592

    2022

  9. [17]

    Knecht, S.; Repisky, M.; Jensen, H. J. A.; Saue, T. Exact two-component Hamiltonians for relativistic quantum chemistry: Two-electron picture-change corrections made simple . J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 157, 114106

    2022

  10. [18]

    Exact two-component equation-of-motion coupled-cluster singles and doubles method using atomic mean-field spin-orbit integrals

    Asthana, A.; Liu, J.; Cheng, L. Exact two-component equation-of-motion coupled-cluster singles and doubles method using atomic mean-field spin-orbit integrals. J. Chem. Phys. 2019, 150, 074102

    2019

  11. [19]

    Analytic gradients for relativistic exact-two-component equation-of-motion coupled-cluster singles and doubles method

    Zhang, C.; Zheng, X.; Liu, J.; Asthana, A.; Cheng, L. Analytic gradients for relativistic exact-two-component equation-of-motion coupled-cluster singles and doubles method. J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 244113

    2023

  12. [20]

    Relativistic Cholesky-decomposed density matrix MP2

    Helmich-Paris, B.; Repisky, M.; Visscher, L. Relativistic Cholesky-decomposed density matrix MP2. Chem. Phys. 2019, 518, 38--46

    2019

  13. [21]

    G.; Li, X

    Banerjee, S.; Zhang, T.; Dyall, K. G.; Li, X. Relativistic resolution-of-the-identity with Cholesky integral decomposition . J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 114119

    2023

  14. [22]

    Cholesky Decomposition in Spin-Free Dirac-Coulomb Coupled-Cluster Calculations

    Uhl\' r ov\'a, T.; Cianchino, D.; Nottoli, T.; Lipparini, F.; Gauss, J. Cholesky Decomposition in Spin-Free Dirac-Coulomb Coupled-Cluster Calculations. J. Phys. Chem. A 2024, 128, 8292--8303, PMID: 39268870

    2024

  15. [23]

    S.; Shiozaki, T

    Kelley, M. S.; Shiozaki, T. Large-scale Dirac-Fock-Breit method using density fitting and 2-spinor basis functions . J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 138, 204113

    2013

  16. [24]

    E.; Shiozaki, T

    Bates, J. E.; Shiozaki, T. Fully relativistic complete active space self-consistent field for large molecules: Quasi-second-order minimax optimization . J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 142, 044112

    2015

  17. [25]

    Cholesky Decomposition-Based Implementation of Relativistic Two-Component Coupled-Cluster Methods for Medium-Sized Molecules

    Zhang, C.; Lipparini, F.; Stopkowicz, S.; Gauss, J.; Cheng, L. Cholesky Decomposition-Based Implementation of Relativistic Two-Component Coupled-Cluster Methods for Medium-Sized Molecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 787--798, PMID: 38198515

    2024

  18. [26]

    K.; Vaval, N.; Pal, S

    Pathak, H.; Sasmal, S.; Nayak, M. K.; Vaval, N.; Pal, S. Relativistic equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method for the ionization problem: Application to molecules. Phys. Rev. A 2014, 90, 062501

    2014

  19. [27]

    Spin-orbit coupling with approximate equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method for ionization potential and electron attachment

    Cao, Z.; Wang, F.; Yang, M. Spin-orbit coupling with approximate equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method for ionization potential and electron attachment. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 154110

    2016

  20. [28]

    K.; Dutta, A

    Chamoli, S.; Surjuse, K.; Jangid, B.; Nayak, M. K.; Dutta, A. K. A reduced cost four-component relativistic coupled cluster method based on natural spinors . J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 204120

    2022

  21. [29]

    Yuan, X.; Visscher, L.; Gomes, A. S. P. Assessing MP2 frozen natural orbitals in relativistic correlated electronic structure calculations . J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 224108

    2022

  22. [30]

    K.; Dutta, A

    Chamoli, S.; Nayak, M. K.; Dutta, A. K. Electron Density; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2024; Chapter 5, pp 83--96

    2024

  23. [31]

    K.; Dutta, A

    Surjuse, K.; Chamoli, S.; Nayak, M. K.; Dutta, A. K. A low-cost four-component relativistic equation of motion coupled cluster method based on frozen natural spinors: Theory, implementation, and benchmark . J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 157, 204106

    2022

  24. [32]

    K.; Dutta, A

    Chamoli, S.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Nayak, M. K.; Dutta, A. K. Frozen Natural Spinors for Cholesky Decomposition-Based Two-Component Relativistic Coupled Cluster Method. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2025, 21, 4532--4542, PMID: 40265900

    2025

  25. [33]

    Foundations of the relativistic theory of many-electron atoms

    Sucher, J. Foundations of the relativistic theory of many-electron atoms. Phys. Rev. A 1980, 22, 348--362

    1980

  26. [34]

    Dyall, K. G. An exact separation of the spin-free and spin-dependent terms of the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian . J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 2118--2127

    1994

  27. [35]

    E.; Havriliak, S

    Stanton, R. E.; Havriliak, S. Kinetic balance: A partial solution to the problem of variational safety in Dirac calculations. J. Chem. Phys. 1984, 81, 1910--1918

    1984

  28. [36]

    Shavitt, I.; Bartlett, R. J. Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory; Cambridge Molecular Science; Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    A generalization of the Davidson's method to large nonsymmetric eigenvalue problems

    Hirao, K.; Nakatsuji, H. A generalization of the Davidson's method to large nonsymmetric eigenvalue problems. J. Comput. Phys. 1982, 45, 246--254

    1982

  30. [38]

    Beebe, N. H. F.; Linderberg, J. Simplifications in the generation and transformation of two-electron integrals in molecular calculations. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1977, 12, 683--705

    1977

  31. [39]

    Koch, H.; S\'anchez de Mer\'as, A.; Pedersen, T. B. Reduced scaling in electronic structure calculations using Cholesky decompositions. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 118, 9481--9484

    2003

  32. [40]

    Aquilante, F.; Pedersen, T. B. Quartic scaling evaluation of canonical scaled opposite spin second-order M ller-Plesset correlation energy using Cholesky decompositions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2007, 449, 354--357

    2007

  33. [41]

    B.; Aquilante, F.; Lindh, R

    Pedersen, T. B.; Aquilante, F.; Lindh, R. Density fitting with auxiliary basis sets from Cholesky decompositions. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2009, 124, 1--10

    2009

  34. [42]

    S.; Pedersen, T

    Aquilante, F.; Boman, L.; Bostr \"o m, J.; Koch, H.; Lindh, R.; de Mer \'a s, A. S.; Pedersen, T. B. In Linear-Scaling Techniques in Computational Chemistry and Physics: Methods and Applications; Zalesny, R., Papadopoulos, M. G., Mezey, P. G., Leszczynski, J., Eds.; Springer N...

    2011

  35. [43]

    D.; Kj nstad, E

    Folkestad, S. D.; Kj nstad, E. F.; Koch, H. An efficient algorithm for Cholesky decomposition of electron repulsion integrals. J. Chem. Phys. 2019, 150, 194112

    2019

  36. [44]

    F.; Li, X

    Zhang, T.; Liu, X.; Valeev, E. F.; Li, X. Toward the Minimal Floating Operation Count Cholesky Decomposition of Electron Repulsion Integrals. J. Phys. Chem. A 2021, 125, 4258--4265, PMID: 33970626

    2021

  37. [45]

    Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems

    L\"owdin, P.-O. Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems. I. Physical Interpretations by Means of Density Matrices, Natural Spin-Orbitals, and Convergence Problems in the Method of Configurational Interaction. Phys. Rev. 1955, 97, 1474--1489

    1955

  38. [46]

    K.; Manna, A.; Jangid, B.; Majee, K.; Surjuse, K.; Mukherjee, M.; Thapa, M.; Arora, S.; Chamoli, S.; Haldar, S.; Chakraborty, S.; Mukhopadhyay, T

    Dutta, A. K.; Manna, A.; Jangid, B.; Majee, K.; Surjuse, K.; Mukherjee, M.; Thapa, M.; Arora, S.; Chamoli, S.; Haldar, S.; Chakraborty, S.; Mukhopadhyay, T. BAGH: A Quantum Chemistry Software Package . 2023; https://sites.google.com/iitb.ac.in/bagh, Accessed: 2023-09-19

    2023

  39. [47]

    2024; https://github.com/xubwa/socutils, Accessed: 2024-12-24

    Xubwa socutils. 2024; https://github.com/xubwa/socutils, Accessed: 2024-12-24

    2024

  40. [48]

    Implementation and Validation of Fully Relativistic GW Calculations: Spin-Orbit Coupling in Molecules, Nanocrystals, and Solids

    Scherpelz, P.; Govoni, M.; Hamada, I.; Galli, G. Implementation and Validation of Fully Relativistic GW Calculations: Spin-Orbit Coupling in Molecules, Nanocrystals, and Solids. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 3523--3544, PMID: 27331614

    2016

  41. [49]

    Relativistic Fully Self-Consistent GW for Molecules: Total Energies and Ionization Potentials

    Abraham, V.; Harsha, G.; Zgid, D. Relativistic Fully Self-Consistent GW for Molecules: Total Energies and Ionization Potentials. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 4579--4590, PMID: 38778459

    2024

  42. [50]

    W.; Allen, J

    Boggess, G. W.; Allen, J. D.; Schweitzer, G. K. The photoelectron spectra of gaseous zinc(II) and cadmium(II) chlorides, bromides, and iodides. J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1973, 2, 467--473

    1973

  43. [51]

    WebPlotDigitizer

    Rohatgi, A. WebPlotDigitizer. https://automeris.io

  44. [52]

    NIST Chemistry WebBook

    Linstrom, P.; Mallard, W. NIST Chemistry WebBook. NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD, 20899, 2025; https://doi.org/10.18434/T4D303, (retrieved April 25, 2025)

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Majumder, R.; Sokolov, A. Y. Algebraic Diagrammatic Construction Theory of Charged Excitations with Consistent Treatment of Spin-Orbit Coupling and Dynamic Correlation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2025, 21, 2414--2431, PMID: 39979128

    2025

  46. [54]

    S.; Shirley, D

    Banna, M. S.; Shirley, D. A. Molecular photoelectron spectroscopy at 132.3 eV. The second-row hydrides. J. Chem. Phys. 1975, 63, 4759--4766

    1975

  47. [55]

    Threshold photoelectron spectroscopy of HCl and DCl

    Yencha, A.; Cormack, A.; Donovan, R.; Hopkirk, A.; King, G. Threshold photoelectron spectroscopy of HCl and DCl. Chem. Phys. 1998, 238, 109--131

    1998

  48. [56]

    High resolution X-ray excited inner valence photoelectron spectra of HBr and DBr

    Adam, M.; Keane, M.; Naves de Brito , A.; Correia, N.; Baltzer, P.; Wannberg, B.; Karlsson, L.; Svensson, S. High resolution X-ray excited inner valence photoelectron spectra of HBr and DBr. J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1992, 58, 185--197

    1992

  49. [57]

    High-resolution threshold photoelectron spectroscopy of hydrogen iodide

    Cormack, A.; Yencha, A.; Donovan, R.; Lawley, K.; Hopkirk, A.; King, G. High-resolution threshold photoelectron spectroscopy of hydrogen iodide. Chem. Phys. 1997, 221, 175--188

    1997

  50. [58]

    The ORCA program system

    Neese, F. The ORCA program system. WIRES Comput. Molec. Sci. 2012, 2, 73--78

    2012

  51. [59]

    R.; McDermid, I

    Webster, C. R.; McDermid, I. S.; Rettner, C. T. Laser optogalvanic photodetachment spectroscopy: A new technique for studying photodetachment thresholds with application to I-. J. Chem. Phys. 1983, 78, 646--651

    1983

  52. [60]

    Photoelectron spectroscopy of iodine anion solvated in water clusters

    Markovich, G.; Giniger, R.; Levin, M.; Cheshnovsky, O. Photoelectron spectroscopy of iodine anion solvated in water clusters. J. Chem. Phys. 1991, 95, 9416--9419

    1991

  53. [61]

    Interfacing relativistic and nonrelativistic methods. I. Normalized elimination of the small component in the modified Dirac equation

    Bouchafra, Y.; Shee, A.; R\'eal, F.; Vallet, V.; Severo Pereira Gomes, A. Predictive Simulations of Ionization Energies of Solvated Halide Ions with Relativistic Embedded Equation of Motion Coupled Cluster Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 266001 mcitethebibliography main.bi...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.