Excited states from modified coupled cluster methods: Are they any better than EOM CCSD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simplifications or modifications of coupled cluster methods such as the CCSD (coupled cluster singles and doubles) model often perform better than the original method in providing the total energy, equilibrium geometries, and harmonic vibration frequencies for the ground state. Three such methods that have been recently proposed include 2CC, parameterized CCSD generalizations, and distinguishable cluster singles and doubles (DCSD) approach. In this paper, we lay the theoretical foundation needed to treat excited states via the equation of motion (EOM) approach using these ground state CC methods. As these ground state approximations to CCSD share its property of being exact for two-electron systems, so will their excited state extensions. These methods are tested for two complementary benchmark sets of excited states for a wide range of organic molecules with focus on singlet and triplet excited states of both valence and Rydberg nature. We also test these methods for doubly excited states, taking CH+ as an example to test their performance at equilibrium and stretched bond geometries. Finally, we assess if any of these methods perform consistently better than EOM CCSD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".