Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Generalized coupled cluster theory for ground and excited state intersections

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that projecting the lowest Jacobian eigenvector out of the cluster amplitudes makes the coupled cluster ground state well-behaved at conical intersections, restoring the geometric phase and eliminating bifurcations.

desk verdict GCCSD is a real step forward for ground-state intersections in coupled cluster theory, but the central convexity claim is asserted rather than proven; worth refereeing with a request for proof or a softening of the claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08751 v3 pith:XUVMVZVZ submitted 2024-11-13 physics.chem-ph

Federico Rossi , Eirik F. Kj{o}nstad , Sara Angelico , Henrik Koch This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph MSC 81V5581Q70 PACS 31.15.ve31.50.Df03.65.Vf
keywords coupledclustertheoryconicalintersectionsgeometricphasebifurcationgroundstatenonadiabaticdynamicsgeneralizedsize-extensivity
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 presents a modified coupled-cluster method, GCC, that keeps the ground-state equations well behaved at conical intersections between the ground and first excited states, a situation where standard coupled-cluster theory fails. By removing the component of the cluster amplitudes along the lowest eigenvector of the Jacobian, the effective Jacobian becomes positive definite and the amplitude equations become convex, eliminating the bifurcations that give standard CCSD multiple, partially divergent solutions. The removed component is reintroduced by diagonalizing a small non-Hermitian matrix, which restores the conical topology and the geometric phase while keeping the amplitudes and Jacobian eigenvectors single-valued. Demonstrations on lithium fluoride, ethylene, thymine, and 2,4-cyclohexadien-1-ylamine show continuous potential energy surfaces around ground-state intersections, and the same construction is extended to CC2, Hartree-Fock, and DFT.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the projector $\hat{P}_1 = |R_1\rangle\langle L_1|$ built from the biorthonormal left and right eigenvectors of the coupled-cluster Jacobian $A$ associated with the lowest eigenvalue $\omega_1$. Writing the cluster amplitudes as $|t\rangle = |t'\rangle - |R_1\rangle\langle L_1|t'\rangle$ strips out the diverging component, and the amplitude equations are solved in the modified manifold $\langle\tilde{\mu}| = \langle\mu| - \langle\mu|R_1\rangle\langle L_1|$ so that the effective Jacobian is positive definite. The projected component is returned through the reduced $2\times 2$ matrix $H_{\mathrm{RS}}$ whose eigenstates carry the geometric phase; the full space matrix $H_{\mathrm{FS}}$, with the block $\langle\tilde{\mu}|\bar{H}|\tilde{\nu}\rangle$, gives the exact limit. The same biorthogonal projectors are used to keep the phase of the eigenvectors continuous when scanning geometries, by matching the sign of the overlap with the previous geometry.

What would settle it

At a S0/S1 conical intersection in ethylene, scan the branching plane and compute the lowest eigenvalue of the effective Jacobian after the projection; any geometry where the projected eigenvalue is zero or negative would contradict the convexity claim and should show a bifurcation (two real GCCSD solutions or a non-convergence region) in a continuation run.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In standard coupled cluster theory the amplitude equations are solved by an exponential ansatz $\exp(T)|\mathrm{HF}\rangle$ whose amplitudes are required to contain no component along the state that becomes degenerate with the ground state. Near a ground-state conical intersection, the component of the amplitude vector along the lowest left eigenvector of the Jacobian diverges, and the near-zero Jacobian eigenvalue produces a bifurcation point so that several real solutions coexist or none exist. GCC solves this by parametrizing the wave function with amplitudes from which the lowest Jacobian-eigenvector component has been projected out; after this projection the effective Jacobian is positive definite, the amplitude equations are convex and have a single solution, and the wave function is well behaved throughout the branching plane. The missing component is reintroduced by diagonalizing the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian in a space that includes the projected state, which gives the geometric phase and a correct conical intersection while keeping cluster amplitudes and Jacobian eigenvectors without a phase, and therefore single-valued.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that eliminating the lowest Jacobian-eigenvector component makes the effective Jacobian positive definite everywhere the method is used; the paper asserts this from numerics, not from a proof, and if it fails at some geometries the bifurcations would reappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GCCSD yields continuous single-valued potential energy surfaces for S0 and S1 across the full branching plane of a ground-state conical intersection, including the region where standard CCSD has a phase-effect mismatch, a flipped solution with negative excitation energy, or no convergent solution at all.
  • Traversing a loop around the intersection, the GCCSD amplitudes and Jacobian eigenvectors return to their starting values after $2\pi$ while the eigenstates of the reduced/full space Hamiltonian change sign, reproducing the geometric phase without phase-carrying amplitudes.
  • The two-state reduced matrix reproduces the full-space eigenvalues to about $10^{-8}$ Hartree in the tested cases, so the method's cost stays close to CCSD (wall time factor about 1.7 for the ethylene example).
  • The method preserves size-extensivity of energies and size-intensivity of excitation energies when the projected state is localized in a single non-interacting subsystem, and projects states into the same subsystem in multi-system calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The positive-definiteness of the projected Jacobian is asserted from numerical evidence, not proven; a spectral analysis of the projected Jacobian for minimal models would settle whether the convexity guarantee is general or geometry-dependent.
  • Because the lowest Jacobian eigenvalue can change character as geometries move, an automatic criterion for choosing which eigenvector (or subspace) to project could make GCC a drop-in solver for nonadiabatic dynamics; this is not implemented in the paper.
  • The same projection strategy could plausibly cure the analogous failures in algebraic-diagrammatic-construction methods, which the paper identifies as sharing the ground-state intersection problem, though GCC-ADC is not formulated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper introduces a generalized coupled cluster (GCC) framework in which the cluster amplitudes are constrained to have no components along one or several selected eigenvectors of the coupled-cluster Jacobian. The amplitudes and the selected eigenvectors are determined from coupled equations, and the final ground and excited states are obtained by diagonalizing a similarity-transformed Hamiltonian in a reduced or full space that reintroduces the projected components. The authors claim that this construction removes the bifurcations of the standard CCSD amplitude equations near ground-state conical intersections and restores the correct geometric phase, while preserving size extensivity and size intensivity. The method is applied to LiF, ethylene, thymine, and 2,4-cyclohexadien-1-ylamine, with numerical demonstrations of continuous potential energy surfaces, the expected sign change of the eigenvectors of the reduced matrix after a 2π loop, and the invariance of excitation energies when non-interacting subsystems are added.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant step: it would provide a single-reference coupled cluster description of S0/S1 conical intersections of the same symmetry, where standard CCSD is known to give divergent, multi-valued, or non-converging solutions. The numerical results are encouraging and include several favorable features: no fitted physical parameters; continuous GCCSD surfaces for LiF and ethylene; a correct geometric phase sign change in the reduced-space eigenvectors; and explicit size-extensivity/size-intensivity tests with non-interacting molecules. The paper also outlines extensions to CC2 and to Hartree-Fock/DFT, which broaden its potential impact. However, the theoretical foundation for the key claim—that the projected amplitude equations are convex and free of bifurcations—is asserted rather than proven, and the numerical evidence does not cover all configurations. The method also depends on a user-chosen number of projected states, and no criterion is given for that choice.

major comments (3)
  1. [Generalized coupled cluster theory] The statement after Eq. (15) that 'the effective Jacobian that enters the amplitude equations becomes positive definite and we obtain a convex problem without a bifurcation' is not proven. The argument removes only the component along the lowest right/left eigenvector pair, but the projected amplitude equations (19) are solved together with the eigenvector equations (20)-(21), and the projection operator depends on the cluster amplitudes through r1 and l1. The Jacobian of this coupled system therefore contains additional terms arising from derivatives of the projection operator, not just the restriction of A to the complement of the lowest eigenvector. Even ignoring that coupling, removing one eigenvector does not guarantee positive definiteness if the second-lowest eigenvalue becomes small or vanishes, which could occur at three-state intersections or when another state approaches degeneracy. Since the central claim of the paper rests on this assertion, a proof or a precise set of conditions under which it holds is required.
  2. [Applications / Supporting Information Table S3] The number of projected states, n_proj, is a user-chosen parameter, and the paper provides no criterion for selecting it. Table S3 shows that in thymine, changing n_proj from 1 to 5 shifts excitation energies by up to about 0.02 eV and changes the ground state energy by several microhartree, while the paper itself notes that simultaneous projection of eigenvectors from different subsystems breaks size extensivity. Without a specification of how n_proj should be chosen, the framework is incompletely defined, and the size-extensivity statement in the main text applies only under conditions that may not be enforceable in practice.
  3. [Applications (ethylene, thymine, cyclohexadienylamine scans)] The numerical demonstrations are finite scans over selected branching-plane and circular coordinates, and they do not establish that the projected amplitude equations are free of bifurcations for all geometries in a neighborhood of the intersection or in the full configuration space. The paper's abstract and introduction claim that GCC 'avoids bifurcations of the solutions to the ground state equations' in general. To support that claim, the authors need either a general proof of the convexity/positive-definiteness assertion or an explicit characterization of the region in which the GCC equations have a unique solution. The current evidence, while suggestive, is not sufficient for the global statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'T able' in the captions of Tables 1 and 2, and 'enegies' in the Supporting Information. These should be corrected in a revised version.
  2. [Supporting Information, Table S8] The g vector for ethylene contains a misplaced bracket: the last component is written as '-0.10184678772]' instead of a clean number. This is a formatting error that should be fixed.
  3. [Conclusions] The phrase 'in an (N − 1) dimensional configuration space' should be hyphenated as '(N − 1)-dimensional' for clarity, and the intended meaning (intermediate normalization renders the full CC wave function undefined on a measure-zero set) could be stated more explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 2b] The small region of complex energies near the intersection is acknowledged in the text as expected from Ref. 7. It would be helpful to state explicitly that this defect is distinct from the bifurcation problem addressed by GCC and that it can be removed by the similarity-constrained transformation mentioned in the paper, to avoid confusion for readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction identified. GCCSD is a genuine modification of CCSD, validated against FCI for HeH2 and against the known conical-intersection sign-change behavior; the main weakness is an unproven positive-definiteness claim (a correctness risk), and several same-group citations are used for motivation and inputs without being the sole evidence.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is not circular. The GCC construction (Eqs. 18-21) is a genuine modification of standard CCSD: it removes the lowest Jacobian eigenvector component from the cluster amplitudes and solves a coupled system for the projected amplitudes plus left/right eigenvectors. The final ground and excited state energies come from a separate diagonalization of the full space matrix H_FS (Eq. 22), not from the projected amplitude equations themselves, so no energy is forced by construction. The load-bearing claim that 'the effective Jacobian that enters the amplitude equations becomes positive definite and we obtain a convex problem without a bifurcation' (paragraph after Eq. 15) is asserted from numerical observation, not proven; this is an unsupported correctness risk, not a circularity, because positive-definiteness is not a definitional consequence of projecting out one eigenvector. The geometric phase result is verified numerically (Fig. 4) against the known two-level behavior cited from Williams et al. (Ref. 8), and the sign change at 2π emerges from the eigenvector following rather than from the SI sign-tracking convention, which only fixes continuity between neighboring geometries. Size-extensivity and size-intensivity are proven analytically in the 'Scaling with system size' section, and the SI reports agreement with an FCI reference for HeH2/STO-3G, providing an external benchmark. The paper relies on several same-group citations for motivation and inputs - Ref. 13 (geometric-phase failure of CCSD), Ref. 18 (epsilon-MECI structures), Ref. 40 (g/h vectors) - but it independently demonstrates the CCSD failure numerically (Figs. 3 and 5) and checks its own surfaces against known conical-intersection topology, so these citations corroborate rather than single-handedly carry the argument. Table S3 shows that excitation energies shift by up to ~0.02 eV when the user-chosen number of projected states is varied, but this dependence is disclosed and is a methodological freedom, not a fitted parameter presented as a prediction. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction; the score of 2 reflects minor self-citation reliance without actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard CC machinery plus one unproven positivity and convexity assumption. There are no fitted physical constants, and the method introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of projected states (n_proj) = 1 (ethylene), 2 (thymine), 3 (LiF, water), 5 (thymine test)
    User-selected; the results, including ground state energies and excitation energies, shift with n_proj (Table S4). No automatic selection rule is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Jacobian is diagonalizable at the geometries of interest
    Used to expand the amplitude equations in the eigenbasis and define the projection (Eqs. 8-15). The paper later notes matrix defects exist, so this is an idealization.
  • ad hoc to paper Removing the lowest eigenvector component makes the effective Jacobian positive definite
    Central to the claim that the projected amplitude equations are convex and bifurcation-free; asserted without proof in the paragraph after Eq. (15).
  • domain assumption Closed-shell single-reference Hartree-Fock reference with a well-defined excitation manifold
    The whole GCC construction is built on the CC parametrization around one HF determinant; the authors explicitly exclude the general multireference dissociation case.
  • standard math Intermediate normalization of the CC state and validity of the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian
    Required background for the CC amplitude and Jacobian equations (Eqs. 3-9).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized coupled cluster theory for ground and excited state intersections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUVMVZVZ

@misc{pith2026241108751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized coupled cluster theory for ground and excited state intersections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUVMVZVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08751}
}
read the original abstract

Coupled cluster theory in the standard formulation is unable to correctly describe conical intersections among states of the same symmetry. This limitation has restricted the practical application of an otherwise highly accurate electronic structure model, particularly in nonadiabatic dynamics. Recently, the intersection problem among the excited states was fully characterized and resolved. However, intersections with the ground state remain an open challenge, and addressing this problem is our objective here. We present a generalized coupled cluster framework that correctly accounts for the geometric phase effect and avoids bifurcations of the solutions to the ground state equations. Several applications are presented that demonstrate the correct description of ground state conical intersections. We also propose how the framework can be used for other electronic-structure methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) GCCSD energy levels of LiF at different interatomic distances while projecting 3 states. The CCSD results are reported in b) starting from 1.0 Å and increasing the interatomic distance and in c) starting from 9.0 Å and decreasing the interatomic distance. The inset shows a close-up view of the avoided crossing. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The GCCSD potential energy surfaces of S0 and S1 in ethylene. (b) A detailed view of the region close to the conical intersection. The basis is aug-cc-pVDZ and for each point the energies are plotted relative to the average energy 1 2 (E0 + E1). A plot of the same region, showing the absolute energies of the two states in Hartree can be found in the Supporting Information. The ε-MECI structure is shown in the mi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The CCSD potential energy surfaces of S0 and S1 in ethylene. The basis is aug-cc-pVDZ and for each point the energies are plotted relative to the average energy 1 2 (E0 + E1). There are three notable regions: in A, a mismatch in energies appears due to the phase effect; in B, a new set of flipped solutions is obtained, characterized by negative excitation energies; and in C, the region where we were not able to conv… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The GCCSD potential energy curves of S0 and S1 in ethylene (a), when traversing on a circle around the conical intersection, using aug-cc-pVDZ. In (b), some selected GCCSD parameter values are reported for a 4π rotation around the intersection. Starting from the top, t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The CCSD potential energy curves of S0 and S1 in ethylene, when traversing on a circle around the conical intersection, using aug-cc-pVDZ. The two sets of curves in (a) and (c) have been obtained starting from opposite points, (g, h) = (0, ±0.8) respectively, and resta…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CCSD (a) and GCCSD (b) potential energy surfaces of S1 and S2 in thymine with cc-pVDZ basis. All energies are plotted in eV, relative to the average 1 2 (E1 + E2) for each point. The conical intersection structure is shown in the middle, which corresponds to the geomet…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The GCCSD potential energy surfaces of S0 and S1 in 2,4-cyclohexadien-1-ylamine with cc-pVDZ. In (a) the energies for each point are plotted in eV relative to the average energy 1 2 (E0 + E1) whereas in (b) the total energies are shown in Hartree. The initial structure…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The CC2 ground state and first excited state energies when traversing a circle around the conical intersection in ethylene, using aug-cc-pVDZ. The two sets of curves have been obtained starting from opposite points, (g, h) = 0, ±0.8 for the dash-dot and dotted lines re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Determining minimum energy conical intersections by enveloping the seam: exploring ground and excited state intersections in coupled cluster theory

    physics.chem-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Keeping two electronic states at a small fixed energy gap, the tube algorithm finds approximate minimum energy conical intersections, and CCSD versions of these structures match CASSCF and SF-TDDFT reference geometrie...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Multireference coupled-cluster Ansatz

    Jeziorski, B. Multireference coupled-cluster Ansatz. Mol. Phys. 2010, 108, 3043--3054

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    I.; Musia , M.; Lotrich, V

    Lyakh, D. I.; Musia , M.; Lotrich, V. F.; Bartlett, R. J. Multireference nature of chemistry: The coupled-cluster view. Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 182--243

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Evangelista, F. A. Perspective: Multireference coupled cluster theories of dynamical electron correlation . J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 149, 030901

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Molecular photochemistry: recent developments in theory

    Mai, S.; Gonz \'a lez, L. Molecular photochemistry: recent developments in theory. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 16832--16846

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Structure optimizations for excited states with correlated second-order methods: CC2 and ADC (2)

    H \"a ttig, C. Structure optimizations for excited states with correlated second-order methods: CC2 and ADC (2). Adv. Quantum Chem. 2005, 50, 37--60

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Can coupled-cluster theory treat conical intersections? J

    K \"o hn, A.; Tajti, A. Can coupled-cluster theory treat conical intersections? J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 127, 044105

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    F.; Myhre, R

    Kj nstad, E. F.; Myhre, R. H.; Mart \' nez, T. J.; Koch, H. Crossing conditions in coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 164105

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    M.; Kj nstad, E

    Williams, D. M.; Kj nstad, E. F.; Mart \' nez, T. J. Geometric phase in coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 214122

    work page 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    F.; Koch, H

    Kj nstad, E. F.; Koch, H. Resolving the notorious case of conical intersections for coupled cluster dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 4801--4807

    2017

  2. [10]

    F.; Koch, H

    Kj nstad, E. F.; Koch, H. An orbital invariant similarity constrained coupled cluster model. J. Chem. Theory and Comput. 2019, 15, 5386--5397

    2019

  3. [11]

    F.; Angelico, S.; Koch, H

    Kj nstad, E. F.; Angelico, S.; Koch, H. Coupled cluster theory for nonadiabatic dynamics: nuclear gradients and nonadiabatic couplings in similarity constrained coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Theory and Comput. 2024, 20, 7080--7092

    2024

  4. [12]

    F.; Fajen, O

    Kj nstad, E. F.; Fajen, O. J.; Paul, A. C.; Angelico, S.; Mayer, D.; G \"u hr, M.; Wolf, T. J.; Mart \' nez, T. J.; Koch, H. Photoinduced hydrogen dissociation in thymine predicted by coupled cluster theory. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 10128

    2024

  5. [13]

    F.; Koch, H

    Kjønstad, E. F.; Koch, H. Understanding failures in electronic structure methods arising from the geometric phase effect. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08209

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chow, S.-N.; Hale, J. K. Methods of bifurcation theory; Springer-Verlag, 1982

    1982

  7. [15]

    Solving the single reference coupled cluster equations involving highly excited clusters in quasidegenerate situations

    Piecuch, P.; Adamowicz, L. Solving the single reference coupled cluster equations involving highly excited clusters in quasidegenerate situations . J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 5857--5869

    1994

  8. [16]

    Physical and mathematical content of coupled cluster equations: Correspondence between coupled–cluster and configuration–interaction solutions

    Jankowski, K.; Kowalski, K. Physical and mathematical content of coupled cluster equations: Correspondence between coupled–cluster and configuration–interaction solutions . J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 3714--3729

    1999

  9. [17]

    Sverrisdóttir, S.; Faulstich, F. M. Exploring Ground and Excited States Via Single Reference Coupled-Cluster Theory and Algebraic Geometry. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 8517

    2024

  10. [18]

    F.; Koch, H

    Angelico, S.; Kjønstad, E. F.; Koch, H. Determining minimum energy conical intersections by enveloping the seam: exploring ground and excited state intersections in coupled cluster theory . 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08207

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Casanova, D.; Krylov, A. I. Spin-flip methods in quantum chemistry. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020, 22, 4326--4342

    2020

  12. [20]

    Krylov, A. I. Size-consistent wave functions for bond-breaking: the equation-of-motion spin-flip model. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2001, 338, 375--384

    2001

  13. [21]

    K.; Hohenstein, E

    Bannwarth, C.; Yu, J. K.; Hohenstein, E. G.; Martínez, T. J. Hole–hole Tamm–Dancoff-approximated density functional theory: A highly efficient electronic structure method incorporating dynamic and static correlation. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153, 024110

    2020

  14. [22]

    K.; Bannwarth, C.; Hohenstein, E

    Yu, J. K.; Bannwarth, C.; Hohenstein, E. G.; Martínez, T. J. Ab Initio Nonadiabatic Molecular Dynamics with Hole–Hole Tamm–Dancoff Approximated Density Functional Theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 5499--5511

    2020

  15. [23]

    Nooijen, M.; Bartlett, R. J. Similarity transformed equation-of-motion coupled-cluster theory: Details, examples, and comparisons. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 6812--6830

    1997

  16. [24]

    F.; Stanton, J

    Gulania, S.; Kjønstad, E. F.; Stanton, J. F.; Koch, H.; Krylov, A. I. Equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method with double electron-attaching operators: Theory, implementation, and benchmarks. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154, 114115

    2021

  17. [25]

    T.; Zhang, F.; Cave, R

    Maitra, N. T.; Zhang, F.; Cave, R. J.; Burke, K. Double excitations within time-dependent density functional theory linear response. J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 5932--5937

    2004

  18. [26]

    Teh, H.-H.; Subotnik, J. E. The Simplest Possible Approach for Simulating S0–S1 Conical Intersections with DFT/TDDFT: Adding One Doubly Excited Configuration. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 3426--3432

    2019

  19. [27]

    Spin-restricted ensemble-referenced Kohn--Sham method: basic principles and application to strongly correlated ground and excited states of molecules

    Filatov, M. Spin-restricted ensemble-referenced Kohn--Sham method: basic principles and application to strongly correlated ground and excited states of molecules. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2015, 5, 146--167

    2015

  20. [28]

    Schmerwitz, Y. L. A.; Levi, G.; Jónsson, H. Calculations of Excited Electronic States by Converging on Saddle Points Using Generalized Mode Following. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2023, 19, 3634--3651

    2023

  21. [29]

    Jensen, H. J. A.; Jo/rgensen, P. A direct approach to second‐order MCSCF calculations using a norm extended optimization scheme. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1984, 80, 1204--1214

    1984

  22. [30]

    The second-order approximate coupled cluster singles and doubles model CC2

    Christiansen, O.; Koch, H.; Jørgensen, P. The second-order approximate coupled cluster singles and doubles model CC2. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1995, 243, 409--418

    1995

  23. [31]

    G.; Ko, C.; Quenneville, J.; Mart \'i nez, T

    Levine, B. G.; Ko, C.; Quenneville, J.; Mart \'i nez, T. J. Conical intersections and double excitations in time-dependent density functional theory. Mol. Phys. 2006, 104, 1039--1051

    2006

  24. [32]

    Electronic structure methods for the description of nonadiabatic effects and conical intersections

    Matsika, S. Electronic structure methods for the description of nonadiabatic effects and conical intersections. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121, 9407--9449

    2021

  25. [33]

    Molecular electronic-structure theory; John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    Helgaker, T.; J rgensen, P.; Olsen, J. Molecular electronic-structure theory; John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Coupled cluster response functions

    Koch, H.; Jørgensen, P. Coupled cluster response functions . J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 93, 3333--3344

    1990

  27. [35]

    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

    1993

  28. [36]

    Koch, H.; Jensen, H. J. A.; J rgensen, P.; Helgaker, T. Excitation energies from the coupled cluster singles and doubles linear response function (CCSDLR). Applications to Be, CH+, CO, and H2O . J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 93, 3345--3350

    1990

  29. [37]

    D.; Kj nstad, E

    Folkestad, S. D.; Kj nstad, E. F.; Myhre, R. H.; Andersen, J. H.; Balbi, A.; Coriani, S.; Giovannini, T.; Goletto, L.; Haugland, T. S.; Hutcheson, A. et al. eT 1.0: An open source electronic structure program with emphasis on coupled cluster and multilevel methods. J. Chem. Ph...

    2020

  30. [38]

    A.; Köhn, A

    Aoto, Y. A.; Köhn, A. Internally contracted multireference coupled-cluster theory in a multistate framework . J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 074103

    2016

  31. [39]

    Low-lying electronic states of LiF molecule with inner electrons correlation

    Wan, M.-j.; Huang, D.-h.; Yang, J.-s.; Cao, Q.-l.; Jin, C.-g.; Wang, F.-h. Low-lying electronic states of LiF molecule with inner electrons correlation. Mol. Phys. 2015, 113, 1359--1367

    2015

  32. [40]

    F.; Koch, H

    Kjønstad, E. F.; Koch, H. Communication: Non-adiabatic derivative coupling elements for the coupled cluster singles and doubles model . J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 161106

    2023

  33. [41]

    MacDonell, R. J. Polyene MECI dataset. 2019; https://github.com/ryjmacdonell/polyene-meci-dataset.git, Date of access: 2024-12-09

    2019

  34. [42]

    T.; Tozer, D

    Taylor, J. T.; Tozer, D. J.; Curchod, B. F. E. On the Topological Phase around Conical Intersections with Tamm–Dancoff Linear-Response Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory. J. Phys. Chem. A 2024, 128, 5314--5320

    2024

  35. [43]

    Beyond the random-phase approximation: A new approximation scheme for the polarization propagator

    Schirmer, J. Beyond the random-phase approximation: A new approximation scheme for the polarization propagator. Phys. Rev. A 1982, 26, 2395--2416

    1982

  36. [44]

    The algebraic diagrammatic construction scheme for the polarization propagator for the calculation of excited states

    Dreuw, A.; Wormit, M. The algebraic diagrammatic construction scheme for the polarization propagator for the calculation of excited states. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2015, 5, 82--95

    2015

  37. [45]

    *b pBM "z b AOS] ]B eb1 ( 2*œ

    Taylor, J. T.; Tozer, D. J.; Curchod, B. F. E. On the description of conical intersections between excited electronic states with LR-TDDFT and ADC(2). J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 214115 mcitethebibliography main_rev.tex0000664000000000000000000015126714732371446012127 0ustar roo...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.