A New Benchmark Set for Excitation Energy of Charge Transfer States: Systematic Investigation of Coupled-Cluster Type Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous publications on benchmarking quantum chemistry methods for excited states. These studies rarely include Charge Transfer (CT) states although many interesting phenomena in e.g. biochemistry and material physics involve transfer of electron between fragments of the system. Therefore, it is timely to test the accuracy of quantum chemical methods for CT states, as well. In this study we first suggest a set benchmark systems consisting of dimers having low-energy CT states. On this set, the excitation energy has been calculated with coupled cluster methods including triple excitations (CC3, CCSDT-3, CCSD(T)(a)* ), as well as with methods including full or approximate doubles (CCSD, STEOM-CCSD, CC2, ADC(2), EOM-CCSD(2)). The results show that the popular CC2 and ADC(2) methods are much more inaccurate for CT states than for valence states. On the other hand, CCSD seems to have similar systematic overestimation of the excitation energies for both valence and CT states. Concerning triples methods, the new CCSD(T)(a)* method including non-iterative triple excitations preforms very well for all type of states, delivering essentially CCSDT quality results.
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 | 0.000 | 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".