Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

A Guide to Molecular Properties from the Bethe-Salpeter Equation

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 This review argues that the GW-BSE method, already competitive with TD-DFT for excitation energies, is becoming a general first-principles framework for molecular response properties such as polarizabilities, hyperpolarizabilities…

desk verdict Useful and honest mini-review of GW-BSE response properties, but the Summary oversells robustness and the nonlinear/NMR results rest on two approximations whose error is not quantified; worth a real peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08753 v1 pith:BA2XOKMU submitted 2025-02-12 physics.chem-ph

Christof Holzer , Yannick J. Franzke This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords Bethe-SalpeterequationGWapproximationmolecularresponsepropertiesTD-DFTpolarizabilityhyperpolarizabilityNMRspin-spincouplingtransientabsorption
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

The paper asks whether the GW-BSE method, already established as a cost-efficient alternative to TD-DFT for excitation energies, can become a general framework for molecular properties. Its answer is yes: the same linear-response machinery has recently been extended to static and dynamic polarizabilities, hyperpolarizabilities, two-photon absorption, transient absorption, excited-state dipole moments, NMR spin-spin coupling constants, and dispersion energies. The review's central claim is that properties evaluated from the BSE are very reliable, often outperforming TD-DFT at the same computational scaling, and that the preceding GW step removes most of the dependence on the underlying density functional. A sympathetic reader would care because TD-DFT's accuracy is entangled with functional choice, whereas GW-BSE offers a single first-principles workflow across many observables.

What carries the argument

The Bethe-Salpeter equation for the electron-hole two-particle Green's function, written in the same A/B Hessian form as TD-DFT but with GW quasiparticle energies and a screened Coulomb kernel. In the coupled-perturbed version, the right-hand side is the property-operator integral, so electric dipole, magnetic dipole, Fermi contact, spin-dipole, paramagnetic spin-orbit, and other operators all feed the same response equations. The formal object that carries the main unexamined approximation is the BSE hyperkernel $g^{BSE}$, the second derivative of the self-energy with respect to the Green's function, which is set to zero in nonlinear response and state-to-state transition calculations.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to evaluate the first hyperpolarizability of water, methanol, and dimethyl ether at 1064 nm with the BSE hyperkernel $g^{BSE}$ included, comparing against the zero-hyperkernel GW-BSE values and the experimental uncertainties; a shift beyond those uncertainties would contradict the review's justification for the approximation. A second check is a transient-absorption calculation of [Ru(bpy)3]2+ with and without the hyperkernel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery reported is that the BSE is not limited to optical absorption spectra: its electronic Hessian, built from GW quasiparticle energies and a screened Coulomb kernel, can be used in a coupled-perturbed response equation for arbitrary one-electron operators. With real-valued orbitals the equations split into symmetric and skew-symmetric pairs, matching electric and magnetic perturbations, and the same structure serves for linear response, nonlinear response, and state-to-state transitions. The paper documents benchmark agreements with experiment for metallocene polarizabilities, small-molecule hyperpolarizabilities, and dispersion energies close to CCSD(T) reference values, plus a correlation-kernel correction that makes NMR coupling constants competitive. The paper also states that the nonlinear and state-to-state results rest on setting the BSE hyperkernel to zero, an approximation whose impact has not yet been assessed in detail.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the BSE hyperkernel can be set to zero in all nonlinear response and state-to-state transition calculations, an approximation the paper explicitly says has not yet been assessed in detail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a single GW-BSE workflow can replace functional-dependent TD-DFT for a broad set of response calculations.
  • Static and dynamic polarizabilities of metal-containing systems, where hybrid functionals underestimate the response, are brought closer to experiment.
  • First hyperpolarizabilities of small molecules match measured values when a suitable Kohn-Sham starting point is used, with the GW step transferring that good behavior to higher-order derivatives.
  • Transient absorption spectra, including intersystem-crossing channels, become accessible without functional tuning when spin-orbit coupling is included.
  • Dispersion energies from BSE-based symmetry-adapted perturbation theory come within a fraction of a kJ/mol of CCSD(T) for weak complexes, so the method also serves ground-state interaction energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the remaining practical knob is the Kohn-Sham starting point; the review notes that a fully self-consistent quasiparticle step would remove it but is costly and convergence-prone, making starting-point sensitivity a testable next step.
  • The unassessed hyperkernel is the natural place to probe the nonlinear claims: if it turns out negligible for hyperpolarizabilities but not for high-energy transitions, the framework's generality would hold for nonlinear optics but not for all state-to-state probes.
  • The cBSE result implies that the triplet inaccuracy of the bare BSE, not the GW step, is the bottleneck for spin-dependent properties; a systematic triplet correction would likely extend the method to a broader class of magnetic resonance observables.
  • Since BSE dispersion energies inherit the quality of BSE polarizabilities, response improvements propagate directly to interaction energies, with possible knock-on benefits for many-body dispersion models.
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. This mini-review by Holzer and Franzke surveys recent extensions of the GW-BSE approach beyond excitation energies, covering static and dynamic polarizabilities, hyperpolarizabilities, state-to-state transition moments, excited-state dipole moments, NMR spin–spin coupling constants, and ground-state correlation/dispersion energies. The paper derives the working equations from the BSE eigenvalue problem and the coupled-perturbed response formalism, and it benchmarks the resulting methods mostly against the authors' own published data, with experimental or CC3 references. The central claim is that GW-BSE provides a generally reliable framework for molecular response properties, often outperforming TD-DFT at comparable computational cost and largely removing the dependence on the underlying density functional.

Significance. The review is a compact derivation guide and a useful status report for a rapidly moving field. Its strengths are the transparent presentation of the working equations, the explicit admission of known failures (Fermi-contact NMR terms, triplet over-screening, Z-vector approximations), and the inclusion of concrete tables and figures with error metrics. If the central claim is taken at face value, the paper makes a strong case for GW-BSE as a quasi-universal property method. However, the evidence base is limited in size and originates almost exclusively from the authors' own groups, and the generality claim is only partially supported by the benchmarks shown. These caveats do not invalidate the review but should be tightened in the final version.

major comments (3)
  1. [§ 'Excited States from the BSE', Eq. (8)] The static-screening approximation W(Ω)≈W(0) is used in every subsequent response calculation (polarizabilities, hyperpolarizabilities, transition moments, excited-state dipoles, NMR couplings), yet the text quantifies its error only for excitation energies (0.1–0.3 eV). No estimate is given for how this approximation affects the nonlinear and NMR benchmarks in Tables 3–4 and Figures 2–5. Since the review's central claim of general reliability rests on these results, the authors should either provide a quantitative bound (e.g., a frequency-dependent BSE calculation for a representative molecule) or explicitly state, as they do for the hyperkernel in Eq. (32), that the static-kernel error is unquantified for these properties. Without such a statement, the claim "Properties evaluated from the BSE have been shown to be very reliable" is stronger than the evidence presented.
  2. [Summary and Table 3] The Summary states that "most of the dependence on the underlying functional is removed by the preceding GW step", but the data in Table 3 show a substantial starting-point and self-consistency dependence: for dimethyl ether, G0W0-BSE@PBE0 gives −126.3 a.u. versus evGW-BSE@TMHF −96.4 a.u., with experimental −94.0; for water, evGW-BSE@TMHF (−16.7) lies outside the experimental error bar (−19.2±0.9) while G0W0-BSE@PBE0 (−20.6) lies within it. The NMR section similarly notes that the protocol "relies on ev GW and a suitable functional approximation" and uses cBSE@BH&HLYP. This does not substantiate "most dependence removed". The claim should be qualified to "reduced" with the residual dependence acknowledged, or the authors should explain why the TMHF-specific benchmarks are representative of the general case.
  3. [Optical Non-Linear Response Properties, Eq. (32)] The review acknowledges that the BSE hyperkernel g^BSE is set to zero but concludes "neglecting the BSE hyperkernel also seems to be well justified for hyperpolarizabilities" based on only three molecules (H2O, MeOH, DME) in Table 3. The same approximation underlies the state-to-state transition moments in Eqs. (37)–(38) and the excited-state dipole Z-vector equations (43)–(44), where no independent wave-function benchmark is presented in this review. A more cautious wording—noting that the hyperkernel's impact is unknown for these properties rather than "well justified"—would better match the evidence base and the paper's otherwise candid tone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§ 'Excited States from the BSE', Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), the screened Coulomb interaction under the integral should be W_pq,rs(ω') rather than W_pq,rs(Ω); as written, the kernel would be evaluated at the external frequency Ω and the integration variable would be unused, which is inconsistent with the standard frequency-dependent BSE kernel.
  2. [Table 1] The entry for the magnetic dipole operator, ⃗r × ⃗B, is dimensionally inconsistent; the standard one-electron orbital magnetic moment operator is proportional to ⃗r × ⃗∇ (or ⃗r × ⃗p) in atomic units. This appears to be a typographical error, but it could mislead readers implementing the operators.
  3. [Eqs. (43)–(44)] The symbol K_bj in Eqs. (43)–(44) is not defined; it should be identified as the Z-vector (the solution of the coupled-perturbed equations) or renamed to avoid confusion with the interaction kernel C.
  4. [Throughout the manuscript] Several typographical errors should be corrected: "on-linear" for "non-linear" (near Table 1), "to extended" for "to extend" (Abstract), "fluctations" for "fluctuations" (Summary), "he regular" for "the regular" (near Eq. 51), and "bohrs2" for "bohr^2" (Figure 1 caption).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's property claims rest on external benchmarks (experiment, CC3, CCSD(T)) and the key approximations are explicitly acknowledged as approximations, not disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper is a review of GW-BSE molecular properties, and most benchmarks are drawn from the authors' own implementations. However, the central claims are anchored to external references: polarizabilities are compared to experiment (Table 2), hyperpolarizabilities to experiment (Table 3), NMR couplings to CC3 (Figure 4), and dispersion energies to CCSD(T) (Table 4). These are independent falsifiable data, so the favorable conclusions do not reduce to the model's own definitions. The two principal approximations, the static screened kernel W(Omega) ≈ W(0) in Eq. 8 and the neglected hyperkernel g^BSE = 0 in Eq. 32, are stated explicitly with their limitations: the text notes the static approximation gives errors of 0.1 to 0.3 eV and overscreens triplets, and it states that the impact of the hyperkernel neglect 'has not yet been assessed in detail.' These are honest acknowledgments of approximation, not circular moves. The recommended TMHF starting point and other self-citations are frequent but not load-bearing in the sense of defining the predicted quantities; the predictions are checked against external data. No equation is found to be equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Karplus fit in Figure 5 is a fit of computed data to a known functional form, not a prediction derived from the fit parameters. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained relative to its external benchmarks, and the review's limitations are openly disclosed rather than hidden.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review itself introduces no new fitted constants or postulated entities. Its central claims rest on four background assumptions: the static screening approximation, the neglected hyperkernel, the accuracy of GW quasiparticle energies, and standard response theory. The Karplus coefficients in Fig. 5 are illustrative fits to the authors' own cBSE data and are not load-bearing for the review's main argument.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The static screened approximation (Eq. 8) is accurate enough for the response properties discussed.
    Invoked throughout the review; it causes 0.1 to 0.3 eV excitation energy errors and known triplet-state deficiencies, yet all property calculations rely on it.
  • domain assumption The BSE hyperkernel can be neglected (Eq. 32).
    Set to zero in all nonlinear response and state-to-state transition equations; the paper states the impact of this neglect has not yet been assessed in detail.
  • domain assumption GW quasiparticle energies from G0W0, evGW, or qsGW schemes are sufficiently accurate inputs for subsequent BSE properties.
    All property equations use GW eigenvalues; benchmark accuracy depends on the starting Kohn-Sham functional, for example TMHF for optical properties or BH&HLYP and CAM-QTP for NMR couplings.
  • standard math Standard linear response theory applies to the molecular electronic Hamiltonian.
    All derivations of polarizabilities, hyperpolarizabilities, and NMR couplings are built on linear or quadratic response; no non-perturbative effects are considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Guide to Molecular Properties from the Bethe-Salpeter Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BA2XOKMU

@misc{pith2026250208753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Guide to Molecular Properties from the Bethe-Salpeter Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BA2XOKMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08753}
}
read the original abstract

The Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) combined with the Green's function GW method has successfully transformed into a robust computational tool to describe light-matter interactions and excitation spectra for molecules, solids, and materials from first principles. Thanks to its ability to accurately describe charge-transfer and Rydberg excitations, the GW-BSE already forms an established and cost-efficient alternative to time-dependent density functional theory. This raises the question whether the GW-BSE approach can become a more general framework for molecular properties beyond excitation energies. In this mini-review, we recapitulate recent endeavors along this point in terms of both theoretical and practical developments for quantum chemistry, physical chemistry, and related fields. In doing so, we provide guidelines for current applications to chemical challenges in collaboration with experimentalists as well as to future developments to extended the GW-BSE toolkit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Damped response BSE (blue solid lines) and CVS-BSE XAS spectra (red dashed lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predicted evGW–BSE transient absorption (upper) and optical rotation (lower) spec￾tra of [Ru(bpy)3] 2+ obtained from scalar-relativistic (1c, dotted line) and scalar-relativistic plus perturbative spin–orbit coupling (1c+SOC, solid line). Negative oscillator strengths correspond to emission lines. An arbitrary broadening of 0.05eV is applied. The absorption cross sec￾tion at 0.0eV is an artifact of this broadening. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Excess dipole moment of the S1 excited state of the push-pull oligomers H2N − [CH = CH]N − NO2 for various system sizes. Calculations are performed at the time-dependent HF, linear-response CC2 (relaxed), PBE0 TDDFT, and the evGW-BSE@PBE0 levels using the cc-pVTZ basis set. BSE results are shown for the finite-field (ff) approach using a 5-point stencil formula and the analytical Z-vector (Z) approach. The excess di… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean absolute percent-wise error for NMR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Deviations of the Boltzmann-averaged coupling constants of the 13 tin com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Bethe--Salpeter Equation Formalism: From Physics to Chemistry

    Blase, X.; Duchemin, I.; Jacquemin, D.; Loos, P.-F. The Bethe--Salpeter Equation Formalism: From Physics to Chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2020, 11, 7371--7382, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c01875

    doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c01875 2020

  2. [2]

    Casida, M. E. Time-dependent density-functional theory for molecules and molecular solids. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2009, 914, 3--18, DOI: doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2009.08.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2009.08.018 2009

  3. [3]

    The GW compendium: A practical guide to theoretical photoemission spectroscopy

    Golze, D.; Dvorak, M.; Rinke, P. The GW compendium: A practical guide to theoretical photoemission spectroscopy. Front. Chem. 2019, 7, 377, DOI: doi:10.3389/fchem.2019.00377

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Accuracy Assessment of GW Starting Points for Calculating Molecular Excitation Energies Using the Bethe--Salpeter Formalism

    Gui, X.; Holzer, C.; Klopper, W. Accuracy Assessment of GW Starting Points for Calculating Molecular Excitation Energies Using the Bethe--Salpeter Formalism. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 2127--2136, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00014

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00014 2018

  5. [5]

    Combining Renormalized Singles GW Methods with the Bethe–Salpeter Equation for Accurate Neutral Excitation Energies

    Li, J.; Golze, D.; Yang, W. Combining Renormalized Singles GW Methods with the Bethe–Salpeter Equation for Accurate Neutral Excitation Energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2022, 18, 6637--6645, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00686

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00686 2022

  6. [6]

    The Bethe--Salpeter equation in chemistry: relations with TD-DFT , applications and challenges

    Blase, X.; Duchemin, I.; Jacquemin, D. The Bethe--Salpeter equation in chemistry: relations with TD-DFT , applications and challenges. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 1022--1043, DOI: doi:10.1039/C7CS00049A

    doi:10.1039/c7cs00049a 2018

  7. [7]

    Rohlfing, M.; Louie, S. G. Excitonic Effects and the Optical Absorption Spectrum of Hydrogenated Si Clusters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 3320--3323, DOI: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3320

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.3320 1998

  8. [8]

    Many-body Green's function GW and Bethe-Salpeter study of the optical excitations in a paradigmatic model dipeptide

    Faber, C.; Boulanger, P.; Duchemin, I.; Attaccalite, C.; Blase, X. Many-body Green's function GW and Bethe-Salpeter study of the optical excitations in a paradigmatic model dipeptide. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 194308, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.4830236

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4830236 2013

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Ionized, electron-attached, and excited states of molecular systems with spin--orbit coupling: Two-component GW and Bethe--Salpeter implementations

    Holzer, C.; Klopper, W. Ionized, electron-attached, and excited states of molecular systems with spin--orbit coupling: Two-component GW and Bethe--Salpeter implementations. J. Chem. Phys. 2019, 150, 204116, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.5094244

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    J.; Berkelbach, T

    Bintrim, S. J.; Berkelbach, T. C. Full-frequency dynamical Bethe–Salpeter equation without frequency and a study of double excitations . J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 044114, DOI: doi:10.1063/5.0074434

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    E.; Seiler, C.; Weigend, F.; Evers, F.; van Setten, M

    Kaplan, F.; Harding, M. E.; Seiler, C.; Weigend, F.; Evers, F.; van Setten, M. J. Quasi-Particle Self-Consistent GW for Molecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 2528--2541, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01238

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Practical Post-Kohn–Sham Methods for Time-Reversal Symmetry Breaking References

    Holzer, C. Practical Post-Kohn–Sham Methods for Time-Reversal Symmetry Breaking References. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19, 3131--3145, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00156

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Resolution-of-identity approach to Hartree–Fock, hybrid density functionals, RPA, MP2 and GW with numeric atom-centered orbital basis functions

    Ren, X.; Rinke, P.; Blum, V.; Wieferink, J.; Tkatchenko, A.; Sanfilippo, A.; Reuter, K.; Scheffler, M. Resolution-of-identity approach to Hartree–Fock, hybrid density functionals, RPA, MP2 and GW with numeric atom-centered orbital basis functions. New J. Phys. 2012, 14, 053020...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Rohlfing, M.; Louie, S. G. Electron-hole excitations and optical spectra from first principles. Phys. Rev. B 2000, 62, 4927--4944, DOI: doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.62.4927

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    GW method and Bethe--Salpeter equation for calculating electronic excitations

    Leng, X.; Jin, F.; Wei, M.; Ma, Y. GW method and Bethe--Salpeter equation for calculating electronic excitations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2016, 6, 532--550, DOI: doi:10.1002/wcms.1265

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Quasiparticle Self-Consistent GW -Bethe–Salpeter Equation Calculations for Large Chromophoric Systems

    F \"o rster, A.; Visscher, L. Quasiparticle Self-Consistent GW -Bethe–Salpeter Equation Calculations for Large Chromophoric Systems. J. Chem Theory Comput. 2022, 18, 6779--6793, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00531

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    W.-z.; Jin, Y.; Galli, G.; Govoni, M

    Yu, V. W.-z.; Jin, Y.; Galli, G.; Govoni, M. GPU-Accelerated Solution of the Bethe–Salpeter Equation for Large and Heterogeneous Systems. J. Chem Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 10899--10911, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01253

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    The GW/BSE Method in Magnetic Fields

    Holzer, C.; Pausch, A.; Klopper, W. The GW/BSE Method in Magnetic Fields. Front. Chem. 2021, 9, 746162, DOI: doi:10.3389/fchem.2021.746162

    2021

  11. [19]

    Dynamic polarizability of many-electron systems within a time-dependent density-functional theory

    Ghosh, S.; Deb, B. Dynamic polarizability of many-electron systems within a time-dependent density-functional theory. Chem. Phys. 1982, 71, 295--306, DOI: doi:10.1016/0301-0104(82)87030-4

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    E.; Salahub, D

    Jamorski, C.; Casida, M. E.; Salahub, D. R. Dynamic polarizabilities and excitation spectra from a molecular implementation of time‐dependent density‐functional response theory: N _2 as a case study . J. Chem. Phys. 1996, 104, 5134--5147, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.471140

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    J.; Holzer, C.; Klopper, W

    Kehry, M.; Franzke, Y. J.; Holzer, C.; Klopper, W. Quasirelativistic two-component core excitations and polarisabilities from a damped-response formulation of the Bethe--Salpeter equation. Mol. Phys. 2020, 118, e1755064, DOI: doi:10.1080/00268976.2020.1755064

    2020

  14. [22]

    Robust relativistic many-body Green’s function based approaches for assessing core ionized and excited states

    Kehry, M.; Klopper, W.; Holzer, C. Robust relativistic many-body Green’s function based approaches for assessing core ionized and excited states . J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 044116, DOI: doi:10.1063/5.0160265

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Comparative study of the dipole polarizability of the metallocenes Fe(C _5 H _5 ) _2 , Ru(C _5 H _5 ) _2 and Os(C _5 H _5 ) _2

    Goebel, D.; Hohm, U. Comparative study of the dipole polarizability of the metallocenes Fe(C _5 H _5 ) _2 , Ru(C _5 H _5 ) _2 and Os(C _5 H _5 ) _2 . J. Chem. Soc. , Faraday Trans. 1997, 93, 3467--3472, DOI: doi:10.1039/A702715J

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Ab initio calculations of optical absorption spectra: Solution of the Bethe–Salpeter equation within density matrix perturbation theory

    Rocca, D.; Lu, D.; Galli, G. Ab initio calculations of optical absorption spectra: Solution of the Bethe–Salpeter equation within density matrix perturbation theory . J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 133, 164109, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.3494540

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    M.; Rappoport, D.; Furche, F

    Parker, S. M.; Rappoport, D.; Furche, F. Quadratic Response Properties from TDDFT: Trials and Tribulations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 807--819, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01008

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Non-linear light–matter interactions from the Bethe–Salpeter equation

    Rauwolf, N.; Klopper, W.; Holzer, C. Non-linear light–matter interactions from the Bethe–Salpeter equation . J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 160, 061101, DOI: doi:10.1063/5.0191499

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Lagrangian Z-vector approach to Bethe–Salpeter analytic gradients: Assessing approximations

    Villalobos-Castro, J.; Knysh, I.; Jacquemin, D.; Duchemin, I.; Blase, X. Lagrangian Z-vector approach to Bethe–Salpeter analytic gradients: Assessing approximations . J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 024116, DOI: doi:10.1063/5.0156687

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Excited state properties from the Bethe–Salpeter equation: State-to-state transitions and spin–orbit coupling

    Himmelsbach, P.; Holzer, C. Excited state properties from the Bethe–Salpeter equation: State-to-state transitions and spin–orbit coupling. J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 161, 244105, DOI: doi:10.1063/5.0244254

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    A.; Shelton, D

    Kaatz, P.; Donley, E. A.; Shelton, D. P. A comparison of molecular hyperpolarizabilities from gas and liquid phase measurements . J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 108, 849--856, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.475448

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    W.; Shelton, D

    Couling, V. W.; Shelton, D. P. Hyperpolarizability dispersion measured for (CH _3 ) _2 O . J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 143, 224307, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.4936865

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Stability analysis for solutions of the closed shell Kohn--Sham equation

    Bauernschmitt, R.; Ahlrichs, R. Stability analysis for solutions of the closed shell Kohn--Sham equation. J. Chem. Phys. 1996, 104, 9047--9052, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.471637

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    Knysh, I.; Villalobos-Castro, J. D. J.; Duchemin, I.; Blase, X.; Jacquemin, D. Excess and excited-state dipole moments of real-life dyes: a comparison between wave-function , BSE/ GW , and TD-DFT values. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2023, 25, 29993--30004, DOI: doi:10.1039/D3CP04467J

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Knysh, I.; Villalobos-Castro, J. D. J.; Duchemin, I.; Blase, X.; Jacquemin, D. Exploring Bethe–Salpeter Excited-State Dipoles: The Challenging Case of Increasingly Long Push–Pull Oligomers. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2023, 14, 3727--3734, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00699

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Excited-State Geometry Optimization of Small Molecules with Many-Body Green’s Functions Theory

    C aylak, O.; Baumeier, B. Excited-State Geometry Optimization of Small Molecules with Many-Body Green’s Functions Theory. J. Chem Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 879--888, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01099

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Ismail-Beigi, S.; Louie, S. G. Excited-State Forces within a First-Principles Green's Function Formalism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 90, 076401, DOI: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.076401

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    Ab initio methods for the calculation of NMR shielding and indirect spin-spin coupling constants

    Helgaker, T.; Jaszu\'nski, M.; Ruud, K. Ab initio methods for the calculation of NMR shielding and indirect spin-spin coupling constants. Chem Rev. 1999, 99, 293--352, DOI: doi:10.1021/cr960017t

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    J.; Holzer, C.; Mack, F

    Franzke, Y. J.; Holzer, C.; Mack, F. NMR Coupling Constants Based on the Bethe--Salpeter Equation in the GW Approximation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2022, 18, 1030--1045, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00999

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Franzke, Y. J. Reducing Exact Two-Component Theory for NMR Couplings to a One-Component Approach: Efficiency and Accuracy. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19, 2010--2028, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01248

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    J.; Mack, F.; Weigend, F

    Franzke, Y. J.; Mack, F.; Weigend, F. NMR Indirect Spin--Spin Coupling Constants in a Modern Quasirelativistic Density Functional Framework. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 3974--3994, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00167

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Benchmark of Bethe-Salpeter for Triplet Excited-States

    Jacquemin, D.; Duchemin, I.; Blondel, A.; Blase, X. Benchmark of Bethe-Salpeter for Triplet Excited-States. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 767--783, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01169

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    M.; Bruneval, F.; Neaton, J

    Rangel, T.; Hamed, S. M.; Bruneval, F.; Neaton, J. B. An assessment of low-lying excitation energies and triplet instabilities of organic molecules with an ab initio Bethe-Salpeter equation approach and the Tamm-Dancoff approximation. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 146, 194108, DOI: doi...

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Communication: A hybrid Bethe--Salpeter/time-dependent density-functional-theory approach for excitation energies

    Holzer, C.; Klopper, W. Communication: A hybrid Bethe--Salpeter/time-dependent density-functional-theory approach for excitation energies. J. Chem- Phys. 2018, 149, 101101, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.5051028

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Faber, R.; Sauer, S. P. A.; Gauss, J. Importance of Triples Contributions to NMR Spin--Spin Coupling Constants Computed at the CC3 and CCSDT Levels. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 696--709, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01003

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J.; Kehry, M

    Holzer, C.; Franzke, Y. J.; Kehry, M. Assessing the Accuracy of Local Hybrid Density Functional Approximations for Molecular Response Properties. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 2928--2947, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00203

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    N.; Kowall, B

    Mitchell, T. N.; Kowall, B. Karplus-type dihedral angle dependence for the coupling constants ^3J ( ^ 119 Sn -- C -- C -- ^ 119 Sn ) and ^3J ( ^ 119 Sn -- C -- C -- ^ 29 Si ). Magn. Reson. Chem. 1995, 33, 325--328, DOI: doi:10.1002/mrc.1260330502

    1995 doi

  38. [46]

    E.; Kresse, G.; Helgaker, T.; Klopper, W

    Holzer, C.; Gui, X.; Harding, M. E.; Kresse, G.; Helgaker, T.; Klopper, W. Bethe--Salpeter correlation energies of atoms and molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 149, 144106, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.5047030

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Pros and Cons of the Bethe--Salpeter Formalism for Ground-State Energies

    Loos, P.-F.; Scemama, A.; Duchemin, I.; Jacquemin, D.; Blase, X. Pros and Cons of the Bethe--Salpeter Formalism for Ground-State Energies. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2020, 11, 3536--3545, DOI: doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c00460

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Correlation energy for the homogeneous electron gas: Exact Bethe-Salpeter solution and an approximate evaluation

    Maggio, E.; Kresse, G. Correlation energy for the homogeneous electron gas: Exact Bethe-Salpeter solution and an approximate evaluation. Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 235113, DOI: doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.93.235113

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    F.; Teale, A

    Rekkedal, J.; Coriani, S.; Iozzi, M. F.; Teale, A. M.; Helgaker, T.; Pedersen, T. B. Communication: Analytic gradients in the random-phase approximation. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 081101, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.4819399

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    Communication: Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory with intermolecular induction and dispersion energies from the Bethe--Salpeter equation

    Holzer, C.; Klopper, W. Communication: Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory with intermolecular induction and dispersion energies from the Bethe--Salpeter equation. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 181101, DOI: doi:10.1063/1.5007929

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    " xmlns:pdf='http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/' pdf:Producer='GPL Ghostscript 10.04.0'/> <rdf:Description rdf:about=

    Holzer, C.; Franzke, Y. J. Beyond Electrons: Correlation and Self-Energy in Multicomponent Density Functional Theory. ChemPhysChem 2024, 25, e202400120, DOI: doi:10.1002/cphc.202400120 mcitethebibliography manuscript.tex0000664000000000000000000020453014753175122012500 0ustar ...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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