pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.04429 · v3 · pith:5FWGQB2Mnew · submitted 2025-09-04 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Toward an affordable density-based measure for the quality of a coupled cluster calculation

Gregory H. Jones , Kaila E. Weflen , Jan M. L. Martin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph
keywords coupled clusterstatic correlationdensity diagnosticsCCSD(T)Matito diagnosticpost-CCSD(T)correlation effectswave function quality
0
0 comments X

The pith

A ratio of changes in static and total correlation diagnostics between CCSD and CCSD(T) moderately predicts post-CCSD(T) effects.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces two density-based diagnostics to assess how static correlation affects the quality of coupled cluster calculations. The first tracks the change in the Matito nondynamical correlation indicator from the CCSD level to the CCSD(T) level. The second is the ratio of that change to the overall change in the total correlation indicator. Small values of the difference suggest the electron density has largely stabilized, so further energy refinements come mainly from dynamical correlation. The ratio itself correlates reasonably well with the magnitude of corrections needed from methods beyond CCSD(T), offering an affordable check on calculation reliability.

Core claim

We propose two new diagnostics for the degree to which static correlation impacts the quality of a coupled cluster calculation. The first is the change in the Matito static correlation diagnostic between CCSD and CCSD(T). The second is the ratio of the same and of the corresponding change in the total correlation diagnostic. In general, a small value indicates that at this level of theory the density is converged and any further changes to the energy come from dynamical correlation, while larger values indicate that the density is still not converged and some static correlation remains. The ratio is found to be a moderately good predictor for the importance of post-CCSD(T) correlation.

What carries the argument

The ratio r_I[(T)] of the change in the averaged nondynamical correlation diagnostic to the change in the total correlation diagnostic from CCSD to CCSD(T), which quantifies the fractional contribution of static correlation updates at the perturbative triples level.

Load-bearing premise

That the change in the Matito nondynamical correlation diagnostic between CCSD and CCSD(T) directly signals whether the electron density has converged with respect to static correlation effects.

What would settle it

A benchmark set of molecules in which the r_I[(T)] values fail to align with the actual energy contributions computed explicitly at CCSDT or CCSDT(Q) levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04429 by Gregory H. Jones, Jan M. L. Martin, Kaila E. Weflen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Heatmap of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Heatmapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose two new diagnostics for the degree to which static correlation impacts the quality of a coupled cluster calculation. The first is the change in the Matito static correlation diagnostic $\overline{I_{ND}}$ between CCSD and CCSD(T), $\Delta I_{ND}[\textrm{(T)}]=\overline{I_{ND}}[\textrm{CCSD(T)}]-\overline{I_{ND}}[\textrm{CCSD}]$. The second is the ratio of the same and of the corresponding change in the total correlation diagnostic $\overline{I_{T}}=\overline{I_{ND}}+\overline{I_{D}}$, i.e., $r_I[(T)]=\Delta I_{ND}[\textrm{(T)}]/\Delta I_{T}[\textrm{(T)}]$. The first diagnostic can be extended to higher-order improvements in the wave function, e.g., $\Delta I_{ND}[\textrm{(Q)}]=\overline{I_{ND}}[\textrm{CCSDT(Q)}]-\overline{I_{ND}}[\textrm{CCSDT}]$. In general, a small $\Delta I_{ND}$[\textrm{level$_1$}] value indicates that at this level$_1$ of theory, the density is converged and any further changes to the energy come from dynamical correlation, while larger $\Delta I_{ND}$[\textrm{level$_2$}] indicates that the density is still not converged at level$_2$ and some static correlation remains. $r_I[(T)]$ is found to be a moderately good predictor for the importance of post-CCSD(T) correlation effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes two new diagnostics for assessing static correlation effects in coupled cluster calculations: ΔI_ND[(T)] as the difference in the Matito static correlation diagnostic between CCSD and CCSD(T), and r_I[(T)] as the ratio of this difference to the corresponding change in the total correlation diagnostic I_T. It asserts that small ΔI_ND values indicate convergence of the one-particle density (with further energy changes being dynamical), while larger values signal remaining static correlation, and reports that r_I[(T)] is a moderately good predictor for the importance of post-CCSD(T) correlation effects. The approach extends to higher orders such as (Q).

Significance. If the proposed mapping from ΔI_ND to density convergence holds and the predictive performance of r_I[(T)] is robustly validated, the work would offer an affordable, density-based tool to gauge CCSD(T) quality without routine recourse to CCSDT or higher, building directly on existing Matito I_ND and I_T diagnostics in a parameter-free ratio form. This could aid practical decisions on when post-CCSD(T) corrections matter.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central interpretive claim that 'a small ΔI_ND[level1] value indicates that at this level1 of theory, the density is converged and any further changes to the energy come from dynamical correlation' is asserted without derivation from the Matito diagnostic equations or explicit validation against reference densities (e.g., from CCSDT or FCI) on the same systems used to test r_I[(T)]. Because CCSD and CCSD(T) are non-variational, this unverified mapping is load-bearing for the predictor claim and requires a direct correlation check with actual density differences.
  2. [Results (predictive performance paragraph)] The section reporting predictive performance: The statement that r_I[(T)] 'is found to be a moderately good predictor' lacks quantitative support such as correlation coefficients, error metrics, or comparison against existing diagnostics on a defined test set; without these, the strength of the claim and its utility relative to ΔI_ND alone cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. Ensure consistent use of overline notation for averaged diagnostics (I_ND and I_T) throughout the text and equations.
  2. Clarify whether the diagnostics are computed from relaxed or unrelaxed densities in the CC implementations referenced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the opportunity to clarify our work. We address the major comments point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the manuscript while agreeing to revisions where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central interpretive claim that 'a small ΔI_ND[level1] value indicates that at this level1 of theory, the density is converged and any further changes to the energy come from dynamical correlation' is asserted without derivation from the Matito diagnostic equations or explicit validation against reference densities (e.g., from CCSDT or FCI) on the same systems used to test r_I[(T)]. Because CCSD and CCSD(T) are non-variational, this unverified mapping is load-bearing for the predictor claim and requires a direct correlation check with actual density differences.

    Authors: The interpretive claim follows from the established purpose of Matito's I_ND as a density-based indicator of non-dynamical correlation: a small ΔI_ND[(T)] means the inclusion of perturbative triples produces little further change in this static-correlation measure, implying that the one-particle density has stabilized and that remaining energy contributions are predominantly dynamical. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain an explicit derivation from the diagnostic equations or a side-by-side comparison of ΔI_ND values against numerical density differences obtained from CCSDT or FCI on the identical test systems. Because CCSD and CCSD(T) are non-variational, such a direct check would indeed strengthen the mapping. We will revise the abstract and the relevant discussion section to articulate the rationale more explicitly from the diagnostic definition and to note the non-variational caveat as a limitation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (predictive performance paragraph)] The section reporting predictive performance: The statement that r_I[(T)] 'is found to be a moderately good predictor' lacks quantitative support such as correlation coefficients, error metrics, or comparison against existing diagnostics on a defined test set; without these, the strength of the claim and its utility relative to ΔI_ND alone cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the current phrasing relies on qualitative trends observed across the test systems rather than explicit numerical metrics. The manuscript describes r_I[(T)] as 'moderately good' on the basis of its ability to flag cases where post-CCSD(T) corrections are known to be significant. To address the concern, we will add quantitative measures in the revised results section, including the Pearson correlation coefficient between r_I[(T)] and the size of post-CCSD(T) energy contributions on the defined test set, root-mean-square error relative to a threshold, and a direct comparison of predictive performance against the T1 and D1 diagnostics. This will allow a clearer assessment of its utility relative to ΔI_ND alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; definitions and predictor claim are independent

full rationale

The paper defines ΔI_ND[(T)] and r_I[(T)] explicitly as the difference and ratio of the pre-existing Matito I_ND and I_T diagnostics. The statement that small ΔI_ND indicates density convergence is presented as an interpretive guideline rather than a mathematical derivation or fit. The claim that r_I[(T)] is a moderately good predictor is phrased as an empirical finding ('is found to be') and does not reduce by construction to the input definitions or any self-citation chain. No load-bearing self-referential steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work are present in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the pre-existing Matito I_ND diagnostic for static correlation and the interpretation that its changes between CC levels reflect density convergence. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Matito's I_ND diagnostic accurately quantifies static correlation effects in the electron density.
    Invoked when defining what small ΔI_ND indicates about density convergence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5823 in / 1275 out tokens · 31884 ms · 2026-05-21T22:06:00.322809+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. FNO-CCSDTQ(5)$_\Lambda$ as an economical alternative for connected quintuple excitations contributions in coupled cluster thermochemistry

    physics.chem-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FNO-CCSDTQ(5) with NO cutoffs of 0.0025 or 0.001, plus naive extrapolation, provides a viable low-cost approximation to quintuple excitation contributions in coupled cluster thermochemistry.

  2. A new open-shell CCSDTQ implementation and its application to the basis set convergence of post-CCSDT(Q) corrections in computational thermochemistry

    physics.chem-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Open-shell CCSDTQ implementation reveals rapid convergence of (Q)Λ corrections and identifies a combined CCSDTQ(5)Λ-CCSDT(Q)Λ correction as most efficient, with good agreement for ozone electron affinity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    author author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.202100111 journal journal Israel J. Chem. \ volume 62 ,\ pages e202100111 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/ijch.202100111 2022

  2. [2]

    Shavitt \ and\ author R

    author author I. Shavitt \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596834 title Many-body methods in chemistry and physics: MBPT and coupled-cluster theory \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ address Cambridge, England ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511596834 2009

  3. [3]

    Raghavachari , author G

    author author K. Raghavachari , author G. W. \ Trucks , author J. A. \ Pople , \ and\ author M. Head-Gordon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(89)87395-6 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 157 ,\ pages 479 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(89)87395-6 1989

  4. [4]

    author author J. D. \ Watts , author J. Gauss , \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464480 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 8718 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.464480 1993

  5. [5]

    author author K. L. \ Bak , author P. J rgensen , author J. Olsen , author T. Helgaker , \ and\ author J. Gauss ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(99)01315-9 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 317 ,\ pages 116 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(99)01315-9 2000

  6. [6]

    author author T. A. \ Ruden , author T. Helgaker , author P. Jørgensen , \ and\ author J. Olsen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00225-2 journal journal Chemical Physics Letters \ volume 371 ,\ pages 62 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(03)00225-2 2003

  7. [7]

    author author A. D. \ Boese , author M. Oren , author O. Atasoylu , author J. M. L. \ Martin , author M. K \' a llay , \ and\ author J. Gauss ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1638736 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 120 ,\ pages 4129 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1638736 2004

  8. [8]

    Tajti , author P

    author author A. Tajti , author P. G. \ Szalay , author A. G. \ Császár , author M. Kállay , author J. Gauss , author E. F. \ Valeev , author B. A. \ Flowers , author J. Vázquez , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1811608 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 121 ,\ pages 11599 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1811608 2004

  9. [9]

    author author Y. J. \ Bomble , author J. Vázquez , author M. Kállay , author C. Michauk , author P. G. \ Szalay , author A. G. \ Császár , author J. Gauss , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2206789 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 064108 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2206789 2006

  10. [10]

    author author M. E. \ Harding , author J. Vázquez , author B. Ruscic , author A. K. \ Wilson , author J. Gauss , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2835612 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 114111 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2835612 2008

  11. [11]

    Karton , author E

    author author A. Karton , author E. Rabinovich , author J. M. L. \ Martin , \ and\ author B. Ruscic ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2348881 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 144108 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2348881 2006

  12. [12]

    Karton , author P

    author author A. Karton , author P. R. \ Taylor , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2755751 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 127 ,\ pages 064104 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2755751 2007

  13. [13]

    Sinano g lu ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470143520.ch7 booktitle Adv

    author author O. Sinano g lu ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470143520.ch7 booktitle Adv. Chem. Phys. ,\ Vol. volume 6 ,\ editor edited by\ editor I. Prigogine \ ( publisher Interscience Publishers ,\ address New York ,\ year 1964 )\ pp.\ pages 315--412 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470143520.ch7 1964

  14. [14]

    author author B. O. \ Roos ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58150-2_4 booktitle Lecture Notes in Quantum Chemistry ,\ series Lecture Notes in Chemistry , Vol. volume 58 \ ( publisher Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg ,\ year 1992 )\ pp.\ pages 177--254 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58150-2_4 1992

  15. [15]

    author author A. S. \ Edelstein ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-8853(02)00697-2 journal journal Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials \ volume 256 ,\ pages 430 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-8853(02)00697-2 2003

  16. [16]

    author author J. W. \ Hollett \ and\ author P. M. W. \ Gill ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3570574 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 134 ,\ pages 114111 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3570574 2011

  17. [17]

    author author U. R. \ Fogueri , author S. Kozuch , author A. Karton , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00214-012-1291-y journal journal Theor. Chem. Acc. \ volume 132 ,\ pages 1291 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1007/s00214-012-1291-y 2012

  18. [18]

    Xu , author L

    author author X. Xu , author L. Soriano-Agueda , author X. López , author E. Ramos-Cordoba , \ and\ author E. Matito ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0250636 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 162 ,\ pages 124102 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0250636 2025

  19. [19]

    author author T. J. \ Lee \ and\ author P. R. \ Taylor ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560360824 journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 199 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/qua.560360824 1989

  20. [20]

    Jayatilaka \ and\ author T

    author author D. Jayatilaka \ and\ author T. J. \ Lee ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464352 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 98 ,\ pages 9734 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.464352 1993

  21. [21]

    author author T. J. \ Lee ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00435-4 journal journal Chemical Physics Letters \ volume 372 ,\ pages 362 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(03)00435-4 2003

  22. [22]

    author author C. L. \ Janssen \ and\ author I. M. B. \ Nielsen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(98)00504-1 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 290 ,\ pages 423 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(98)00504-1 1998

  23. [23]

    This is no longer the case when the vector is replaced by a rectangular matrix, such as that of the T_1 or T_2 amplitudes

    note For the outer product of a 1-column vector, i.e., a rank one matrix, the matrix 2-norm and the Frobenius 2-norm --- a.k.a., `the Euclidean norm of a matrix' --- are equivalent. This is no longer the case when the vector is replaced by a rectangular matrix, such as that of the T_1 or T_2 amplitudes. Stop

    work page

  24. [24]

    author author I. M. B. \ Nielsen \ and\ author C. L. \ Janssen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(99)00770-8 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 310 ,\ pages 568 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(99)00770-8 1999

  25. [25]

    author author J. M. L. \ Martin , author G. Santra , \ and\ author E. Semidalas ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0119280 journal journal AIP Conf. Proc. \ volume 2611 ,\ pages 020014 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0119280 2022

  26. [26]

    \ L \"o wdin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.97.1474 journal journal Phys

    author author P.-O. \ L \"o wdin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.97.1474 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 97 ,\ pages 1474 ( year 1955 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.97.1474 1955

  27. [27]

    \ L \"o wdin \ and\ author H

    author author P.-O. \ L \"o wdin \ and\ author H. Shull ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.101.1730 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 101 ,\ pages 1730 ( year 1956 ) ,\ note suggests that deviations from 0 or 2 can be regarded as measures of correlation strength NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.101.1730 1956

  28. [28]

    Ziesche ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560560422 journal journal Int

    author author P. Ziesche ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560560422 journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 56 ,\ pages 363 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/qua.560560422 1995

  29. [29]

    author author K. E. \ Weflen , author M. R. \ Bentley , author J. H. \ Thorpe , author P. R. \ Franke , author J. M. L. \ Martin , author D. A. \ Matthews , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00885 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 5121 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00885 2025

  30. [30]

    Tishchenko , author J

    author author O. Tishchenko , author J. Zheng , \ and\ author D. G. \ Truhlar ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/ct800077r journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 1208 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/ct800077r 2008

  31. [31]

    Ramos-Cordoba , author P

    author author E. Ramos-Cordoba , author P. Salvador , \ and\ author E. Matito ,\ https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP03072F journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 18 ,\ pages 24015 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/c6cp03072f 2016

  32. [32]

    Xu , author L

    author author X. Xu , author L. Soriano-Agueda , author X. López , author E. Ramos-Cordoba , \ and\ author E. Matito ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01073 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 20 ,\ pages 721 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01073 2024

  33. [33]

    author author D. A. \ Matthews , author L. Cheng , author M. E. \ Harding , author F. Lipparini , author S. Stopkowicz , author T.-C. \ Jagau , author P. G. \ Szalay , author J. Gauss , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004837 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 152 ,\ pages 214108 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0004837 2020

  34. [34]

    author author G. H. \ Jones , author E. Semidalas , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2025-0542 journal journal Pure Appl. Chem. \ volume XX ,\ pages yyyy ( year 2025 ) ,\ note special issue for International Year of Quantum Science and Technology NoStop

    work page doi:10.1515/pac-2025-0542 2025

  35. [35]

    \ Werner , author P

    author author H.-J. \ Werner , author P. J. \ Knowles , author F. R. \ Manby , author J. A. \ Black , author K. Doll , author A. He elmann , author D. Kats , author A. K \" o hn , author T. Korona , author D. A. \ Kreplin , author Q. Ma , author T. F. \ Miller III , author A. Mitrushchenkov , author K. A. \ Peterson , author I. Polyak , author G. Rauhut ,...

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0005081 2020

  36. [36]

    Karton , author N

    author author A. Karton , author N. Sylvetsky , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24854 journal journal J. Comput. Chem. \ volume 38 ,\ pages 2063 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.24854 2063

  37. [37]

    author author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theochem.2006.03.035 journal journal J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM \ volume 771 ,\ pages 19 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2006.03.035 2006

  38. [38]

    author author T. H. \ Dunning Jr ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.456153 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 90 ,\ pages 1007 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.456153 1989

  39. [39]

    author author D. E. \ Woon \ and\ author T. H. \ Dunning Jr. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464303 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 1358 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.464303 1993

  40. [40]

    author author G. D. \ Purvis \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.443164 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 76 ,\ pages 1910 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.443164 1910

  41. [41]

    Urban , author J

    author author M. Urban , author J. Noga , author S. J. \ Cole , \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.449067 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 83 ,\ pages 4041 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.449067 1985

  42. [42]

    author author J. D. \ Watts \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.459002 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 93 ,\ pages 6104 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.459002 1990

  43. [43]

    author author Y. J. \ Bomble , author J. F. \ Stanton , author M. K \' a llay , \ and\ author J. Gauss ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1950567 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 123 ,\ pages 054101 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1950567 2005

  44. [44]

    author author S. A. \ Kucharski \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.463930 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 97 ,\ pages 4282 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.463930 1992

  45. [45]

    Matito2025 ; the diagnostics defined in Eqs

    note The ratio I_ ND / I_ T was considered in Ref. Matito2025 ; the diagnostics defined in Eqs. eq:delta and eq:ratio are however new to the present work. Stop

    work page

  46. [46]

    Karton , author S

    author author A. Karton , author S. Daon , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Martin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2011.05.007 journal journal Chem. Phys. Lett. \ volume 510 ,\ pages 165 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2011.05.007 2011

  47. [47]

    Chan ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.4c06148 journal journal J

    author author B. Chan ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.4c06148 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 128 ,\ pages 9829–9836 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.4c06148 2024

  48. [48]

    note This dichotomy is easily illustrated by comparing and contrasting the problematic Be _2 molecules with N+++ -- the latter has a very high D_2 diagnostic from type B static correlation between 2s and 2p orbitals, but CCSD can handle it perfectly well. Stop

    work page