Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40129253›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025

An Analysis of Regularized Second-Order Energy Expressions in the Context of Post-HF and KS-DFT Calculations: What Do We Gain and What Do We Lose?

Igor Sawicki, Vincenzo Triglione, Subrata Jana, Szymon Śmiga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Igor SawickiInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul. Grudzia̧dzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.
Vincenzo TriglioneInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul. Grudzia̧dzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5668-573X
Subrata JanaInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul. Grudzia̧dzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3736-1948
Szymon ŚmigaInstitute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul. Grudzia̧dzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5941-5409

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Møller-Plesset second-order (MP2) perturbation energy expression has been a workhorse for quantum chemistry methods for many years due to its very appealing accuracy/cost ratio compared to more advanced methods. It has been widely utilized in the post-Hartree-Fock (post-HF) calculations and Kohn-Sham density functional theory (KS-DFT) to define, e.g., the double-hybrid class of density functional approximations. Although the list of successful applications of the MP2 method is quite long, it suffers from various limitations, e.g., in strongly correlated systems, divergence in small energy gap systems, or overestimation of binding energies for large noncovalently bonded species. In this work, we analyze a few of the most commonly utilized forms of regularized MP2 correlation energy expression in the context of post-HF and KS-DFT calculations. To this end, we perform various tests for model systems, e.g., homogeneous electron gas, one-dimensional Hubbard model, Harmonium atoms, and some real-life examples, to trace back the advantages and disadvantages of these formulas, providing practical guidelines for their utilization in everyday quantum chemical calculations.

Identifiers

PMID40129253
PMCPMC11948328

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.