4.7 Article

Benchmarking the Bethe-Salpeter Formalism on a Standard Organic Molecular Set

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages 3290-3304

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00304

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC)
  2. Region des Pays de la Loire [Marches 278845]
  3. French National Research Agency [ANR-2012-BS04 PANELS]
  4. National GENGI-IDRIS Supercomputing Centers at Orsay [i2012096655, c2015085117]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We perform benchmark calculations of the Bethe Salpeter vertical excitation energies for the set of 28 molecules constituting the well-known Thiel's set, complemented by a series of small molecules representative of the dye chemistry field. We show that Bethe Salpeter calculations based on a molecular orbital energy spectrum obtained with non-self-consistent G(0)W(0) calculations starting from semilocal DFT functionals dramatically underestimate the transition energies. Starting from the popular PBEO hybrid functional significantly improves the results even though this leads to an average -0.59 eV redshift compared to reference calculations for Thiel's set. It is shown, however, that a simple self-consistent scheme at the GW level, with an update of the quasiparticle energies, not only leads to a much better agreement with reference values, but also significantly reduces the impact of the starting DFT functional. On average, the Bethe Salpeter scheme based on self-consistent GW calculations comes close to the best timedependent DFT calculations with the PBEO functional with a 0.98 correlation coefficient and a 0.18 (0.25) eV mean absolute deviation compared to TD-PBEO (theoretical best estimates) with a tendency to be red-shifted. We also observe that TD-DFT and the standard adiabatic Bethe Salpeter implementation may differ significantly for states implying a large multiple excitation character.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available