Unitary group adapted state specific multireference perturbation theory: Formulation and pilot applications. Issue 9 (16th February 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sen, Avijit; Sen, Sangita; Samanta, Pradipta Kumar; Mukherjee, Debashis
• Is Part Of: Journal of computational chemistry. Volume 36:Issue 9(2015)
• Page Start: 670
• Page End: 688
• Publication Date: 2015-02-16
• Subjects: Chemistry -- Data processing -- Periodicals; 542.85
• DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23851
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0192-8651

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>We present here a comprehensive account of the formulation and pilot applications of the second‐order perturbative analogue of the recently proposed unitary group adapted state‐specific multireference coupled cluster theory (UGA‐SSMRCC), which we call as the UGA‐SSMRPT2. We also discuss the essential similarities and differences between the UGA‐SSMRPT2 and the allied SA‐SSMRPT2. Our theory, like its parent UGA‐SSMRCC formalism, is size‐extensive. However, because of the noninvariance of the theory with respect to the transformation among the active orbitals, it requires the use of localized orbitals to ensure size‐consistency. We have demonstrated the performance of the formalism with a set of pilot applications, exploring (a) the accuracy of the potential energy surface (PES) of a set of small prototypical difficult molecules in their various low‐lying states, using natural, pseudocanonical and localized orbitals and compared the respective nonparallelity errors (NPE) and the mean average deviations (MAD) vis‐a‐vis the full CI results with the same basis; (b) the efficacy of localized active orbitals to ensure and demonstrate manifest size‐consistency with respect to fragmentation. We found that natural orbitals lead to the best overall PES, as evidenced by the NPE and MAD values. The MRMP2 results for individual states and of the MCQDPT2 for multiple states displaying avoided curve crossings are uniformly poorer as compared with the UGA‐SSMRPT2 results. The striking aspect of the size‐consistency check is the complete insensitivity of the sum of fragment energies with given fragment spin‐multiplicities, which are obtained as the asymptotic limit of super‐molecules with different coupled spins. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> </abstract>