Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38752491›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2024

Benchmarking Ionization Potentials from pCCD Tailored Coupled Cluster Models.

Marta Gałyńska, Katharina Boguslawski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Marta GałyńskaInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy, and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Grudziadzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.
Katharina BoguslawskiInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy, and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Grudziadzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7793-1151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ionization potential (IP) is an important parameter providing essential insights into the reactivity of chemical systems. IPs are also crucial for designing, optimizing, and understanding the functionality of modern technological devices. We recently showed that limiting the CC ansatz to the seniority-zero sector proves insufficient in predicting reliable and accurate ionization potentials within an IP equation-of-motion coupled-cluster formalism. Specifically, the absence of dynamical correlation in the seniority-zero pair coupled cluster doubles (pCCD) model led to unacceptably significant errors of approximately 1.5 eV. In this work, we aim to explore the impact of dynamical correlation and the choice of the molecular orbital basis (canonical vs localized) in CC-type methods targeting 230 ionized states in 70 molecules, comprising small organic molecules, medium-sized organic acceptors, and nucleobases. We focus on pCCD-based approaches as well as the conventional IP-EOM-CCD and IP-EOM-CCSD. Their performance is compared to the CCSD(T) or CCSDT equivalent and experimental reference data. Our statistical analysis reveals that all investigated frozen-pair coupled cluster methods exhibit similar performance, with differences in errors typically within chemical accuracy (1 kcal/mol or 0.05 eV). Notably, the effect of the molecular orbital basis, such as canonical Hartree-Fock or natural pCCD-optimized orbitals, on the IPs is marginal if dynamical correlation is accounted for. Our study suggests that triple excitations are crucial in achieving chemical accuracy in IPs when modeling electron detachment processes with pCCD-based methods.

Identifiers

PMID38752491
PMCPMC11137826

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.