ArticleCommunications chemistry2026
A detailed comparison of ΔSCF methods with the constraint-based orbital-optimized excited state method.
Article in Communications chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A detailed comparison of ΔSCF methods with the constraint-based orbital-optimized excited state method.Communications chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Orbital-optimized methods to variationally determine electronically excited states are becoming increasingly popular for overcoming some of the well-known shortcomings of linear-response theories. In this work we compare established ΔSCF methods with the recently proposed constraint-based orbital-optimized excited states method (COOX). In order to be able to accurately analyze the differences between both approaches, we apply the COOX method to specific orbital rotations, as defined in ΔSCF, to propose a ΔCOOX method. The main differences between these methods, as well as their performance regarding accuracy and stability, are discussed in detail. We present results for a variety of molecular systems including valence-, core-, Rydberg-, double-, and charge-transfer excitations obtained with both methods. The analysis provided in this work clearly shows that the COOX approach is superior to established ΔSCF methods in many instances, in particular regarding the overall stability for variational excited state calculations, while providing results of comparable quality.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.