What Is the Accuracy Limit of Adiabatic Linear-Response TDDFT Using Exact Exchange–Correlation Potentials and Approximate Kernels?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calculation of vertical excitation energies by the adiabatic linear-response time-dependent density-functional theory (TDDFT) requires static Kohn-Sham potentials and exchange-correlation kernels. When these quantities are derived from standard density-functional approximations (DFA), mean absolute errors (MAE) of the method are known to range from 0.2 eV to over 1 eV, depending on the functional and type of excitation. We investigate how the performance of TDDFT varies when increasingly accurate exchange-correlation potentials derived from Hartree-Fock (HF) and post-HF wavefunctions are combined with different approximate kernels. The lowest MAEs obtained in this manner for valence excitations are about 0.15-0.2 eV, which appears to be the practical limit of the accuracy of TDDFT that can be achieved by improving the Kohn-Sham potentials alone. These findings are consistent with previous reports on the benefits of accurate exchange-correlation potentials in TDDFT, but provide new insights and afford more definitive conclusions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".