Assessment of local coupled cluster methods for excited states of <scp>BODIPY</scp>/<scp>Aza‐BODIPY</scp> families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It was previously reported that Laplace transformed local CC2 (LCC2*) provided the best agreement (MAE = 0.145 eV) when comparing vertical excitation energies to experimental λmax for a benchmark set of 17 BODIPY/Aza‐BODIPY molecules. However, these energies did not agree with values obtained from canonical CC2. Here we report LCC2* computations of vertical excitation energies on the same benchmark set of molecules using a newly implemented treatment of the ground state. Comparison with resolution‐of‐identity approximate coupled cluster to second‐order (RI‐CC2) results demonstrate that the new LCC2* results agree quantitatively. Furthermore, these values can easily be corrected empirically to also provide excellent agreement with the experiment. We show that the local algebraic diagrammatic construction to second‐order (LADC(2)) method exhibits the same differences between implementations as seen for LCC2. The source of the difference is traced to an improved treatment of the ground state in the local methods, which decreases agreement with the experiment (as attributed to a fortuitous cancellation of errors) but significantly improves agreement with RI‐CC2. While the absolute vertical excitation energies now show larger deviations, there remains a strong linear correlation between the LCC2* results and the experiment. For the 17 BODIPY/Aza‐BODIPY molecules vertical excitation energies are determined using DLPNO‐STEOM‐CCSD and shown to have excellent agreement with experimental λmax (MAE = 0.145 eV), which is the best of all the single‐reference methods. The vertical excitation energies are determined using LCC2*, empirically corrected LCC2*, and RI‐CC2 for a series of eight large BODIPYs and Aza‐BODIPYs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".