Dear Dirac experts,
My apologies in advance for the undoubtably naive question, but while recognizing differences in implementation for atomic cases, e.g., finite basis sets vs. numerical radial/angular solutions, is there an actual difference between 4-component MCSCF (as in Dirac) and what is referred to as simply MCDHF (as in Grasp2k) in the literature ? Likewise, is a 4c-KRCI in Dirac essentially equivalent to a MCDHF + RCI calculation? I want to be careful not to mix terms, but on the surface these appear to be equivalent.
thanks in advance,
-Kirk
Hi Kirk,
I believe Ken to be the best placed to answer this question, but here is a start: A major difference between basis set and numerical code is the ease at which one can obtain virtual orbitals. At the SCF level codes like GRASP solve differential equations for each OCCUPIED orbital, whereas in finite basis we solve for all orbitals in a single shot and get virtual orbitals in the same go. From that point of view MCSCF is nice for numerical codes, since it allows to optimize also some orbitals with low occupation, or, i other words, by making your MCSCF big enough you get enough virtuals. I leave the rest to Ken...
All the best,
Trond
Hi Trond,
thanks for the quick response, this is helpful. From your text below, it seems to me that recovering dynamical correlation would then be more difficult for the numerical codes.
best wishes,
-Kirk
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dirac-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
dirac-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/7f28db2f-9da0-811f-bc2b-364fe8f62eb8%40irsamc.ups-tlse.fr.
Yes, they have to define big CI-spaces for MCSCF and then have to
cope with problematic convergence for orbitals of feeble
occupation.
it seems to me that recovering dynamical correlation would then be more difficult for the numerical codes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dirac-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dirac-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/58dd1397-2091-3a52-f8ff-8b651e5dbacb%40irsamc.ups-tlse.fr.
Hi Ken,
thanks very much for the detailed explanation. The papers that use MCDHF and MCDHF+RCI never seem to talk about how those methods compare to finite basis set relativistic methods except maybe to cast doubt on their accuracy. Do you have a feeling for why the atomic physics community seems to be so entrenched in using MCDHF-based approaches?
I need to respond to some referee comments that imply that codes like Molpro or Dirac (note the emphasis on codes rather than methods) aren't often used for atomic calculations and their accuracy somehow is suspect. I thought that was very odd and wanted to make sure I reply with some accurate statements.
best wishes,
-Kirk
From: <dirac...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Kenneth Dyall <diracso...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dirac...@googlegroups.com" <dirac...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2021 at 1:34 PM
To: Dirac Users <dirac...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [dirac-users] a question of terminology
Hi Kirk,
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/CAKEb7iU%2BOdvx43DQPOcoZkWGkj%3Do6BP%3DuTzhSeWJgjziXKa_Og%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/1573DDFC-22A6-4432-AF47-46D4594F6044%40wsu.edu.
Hi Ken,
yes, I'm very aware of the work by Eliav since in some ways it is similar to what my group does, particularly when they use CCSD(T) rather than just FS-CCSD (although we tend to not do 4c everywhere). The referee didn't seem to be too worried about high level relativistic effects, so I will definitely avoid bringing up the QED issues. It is interesting to think about comparing the MCDHF approach to coupled cluster. Some recent previous work on the electron affinity of Th atom (MCDHF/RCI) ended in amazing agreement with experiment, but we've found that correlation of the 5d electrons (via coupled cluster) can have a fairly large effect but this is something they ignored.
best, -Kirk
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/CAKEb7iXfuTVd0xS01KN5RCNk%2B-0TwzfZCM6XBDzq_aua2TiW6A%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/15E88F9E-25D8-4773-81B0-EFB51EAE8985%40wsu.edu.
HI Ken,
I am not sure that I follow you here; you are saying that correlating spinors are sum/integrals ?
All the best,
Trond
One is that the numerical integration constructs correlating spinors that are essentially a sum over occupied orbitals and an integration over both continua, positive and negative.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dirac-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dirac-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/0ba55daf-ff0f-ac31-4684-2981d12d4fe5%40irsamc.ups-tlse.fr.
Hi Ken,
I was thinking that as well, that's why we always try to do what you suggest below, although showing convergence in the n-particle space is the most difficult (particularly for SO). Previously we have though gone to CCSDTQ for the EA of Th and for several An-containing small molecules with good effect (scalar rel only for those parts).
-Kirk
PS - I'll have to start using the term "appalling point" :)
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dirac-users/CAKEb7iUR4WHV%3D12hyLDKXeZ9xg%2BbeBvSTPb03X%3DhTGUOfPSPLg%40mail.gmail.com.