Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36862983›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2023

Are Accelerated and Enhanced Wave Function Methods Accurate to Compute Static Linear and Nonlinear Optical Properties?

Carmelo Naim, Pau Besalú-Sala, Robert Zaleśny, Josep M Luis, Frédéric Castet, Eduard Matito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carmelo NaimDonostia International Physics Center (DIPC), Manuel Lardizabal Ibilbidea 4, 20018 Donostia, Euskadi, Spain.
Pau Besalú-SalaInstitut de Química Computacional i Catàlisi and Departament de Química, Universitat de Girona, 17003 Girona, Catalonia, Spain.
Robert ZaleśnyFaculty of Chemistry, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wyb. Wyspiańskiego 27, PL-50370 Wrocław, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8998-3725
Josep M LuisInstitut de Química Computacional i Catàlisi and Departament de Química, Universitat de Girona, 17003 Girona, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2880-8680
Frédéric CastetUniv. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, ISM, UMR 5255, F-33400 Talence, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6622-2402
Eduard MatitoDonostia International Physics Center (DIPC), Manuel Lardizabal Ibilbidea 4, 20018 Donostia, Euskadi, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6895-4562

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Key components of organic-based electro-optic devices are challenging to design or optimize because they exhibit nonlinear optical responses, which are difficult to model or rationalize. Computational chemistry furnishes the tools to investigate extensive collections of molecules in the quest for target compounds. Among the electronic structure methods that provide static nonlinear optical properties (SNLOPs), density functional approximations (DFAs) are often preferred because of their low cost/accuracy ratio. However, the accuracy of the SNLOPs critically depends on the amount of exact exchange and electron correlation included in the DFA, precluding the reliable calculation of many molecular systems. In this scenario, wave function methods such as MP2, CCSD, and CCSD(T) constitute a reliable alternative to compute SNLOPs. Unfortunately, the computational cost of these methods significantly restricts the size of molecules to study, a limitation that hampers the identification of molecules with significant nonlinear optical responses. This paper analyzes various flavors and alternatives to MP2, CCSD, and CCSD(T) methods that either drastically reduce the computational cost or improve their performance but were scarcely and unsystematically employed to compute SNLOPs. In particular, we have tested RI-MP2, RIJK-MP2, RIJCOSX-MP2 (with GridX2 and GridX4 setups), LMP2, SCS-MP2, SOS-MP2, DLPNO-MP2, LNO-CCSD, LNO-CCSD(T), DLPNO-CCSD, DLPNO-CCSD(T0), and DLPNO-CCSD(T1). Our results indicate that all these methods can be safely employed to calculate the dipole moment and the polarizability with average relative errors below 5% with respect to CCSD(T). On the other hand, the calculation of higher-order properties represents a challenge for LNO and DLPNO methods, which present severe numerical instabilities in computing the single-point field-dependent energies. RI-MP2, RIJK-MP2, or RIJCOSX-MP2 are cost-effective methods to compute first and second hyperpolarizabilities with a marginal average error with respect to canonical MP2 (up to 5% for β and up to 11% for γ). More accurate hyperpolarizabilities can be obtained with DLPNO-CCSD(T1); however, this method cannot be employed to obtain reliable second hyperpolarizabilities. These results open the way to obtain accurate nonlinear optical properties at a computational cost that can compete with current DFAs.

Identifiers

PMID36862983
PMCPMC10061658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.