4.7 Article

An efficient implementation of the NEVPT2 and CASPT2 methods avoiding higher-order density matrices

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 155, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0072129

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By factorizing the matrix elements of the Dyall Hamiltonian, the computational bottleneck caused by explicit evaluation of high-order density matrices is avoided, leading to improved efficiency. Residual terms in approximate complete active space configuration interaction solutions can be evaluated with little additional effort by choosing a favorable factorization. Such approaches result in a considerable gain in computational efficiency without compromising numerical accuracy or stability.
A factorization of the matrix elements of the Dyall Hamiltonian in N-electron valence state perturbation theory allowing their evaluation with a computational effort comparable to the one needed for the construction of the third-order reduced density matrix at the most is presented. Thus, the computational bottleneck arising from explicit evaluation of the fourth-order density matrix is avoided. It is also shown that the residual terms arising in the case of an approximate complete active space configuration interaction solution and containing even the fifth-order density matrix for two excitation classes can be evaluated with little additional effort by choosing again a favorable factorization of the corresponding matrix elements. An analogous argument is also provided for avoiding the fourth-order density matrix in complete active space second-order perturbation theory. Practical calculations indicate that such an approach leads to a considerable gain in computational efficiency without any compromise in numerical accuracy or stability.& nbsp;(c) 2021 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据