MENU
  • Scitation Home
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE

Thank you

For your interest in The Journal of Chemical Physics

Check for updates on crossmark
Prev Next
No Access Submitted: 18 August 2019 Accepted: 22 December 2019 Published Online: 08 January 2020

  • Large-scale excited-state calculation using dynamical polarizability evaluated by divide-and-conquer based coupled cluster linear response method

J. Chem. Phys. 152, 024102 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5124909
Takeshi Yoshikawa1, Jyunya Yoshihara2, and Hiromi Nakai1,2,3,a)
more...View Affiliations
View Contributors
  • Takeshi Yoshikawa
  • Jyunya Yoshihara
  • Hiromi Nakai
ABSTRACT
This study attempted to propose an efficient scheme at the coupled cluster linear response (CCLR) level to perform large-scale excited-state calculations of not only local excitations but also nonlocal ones such as charge transfers and transitions between delocalized orbitals. Although standard applications of fragmentation techniques to the excited-state calculations brought about the limitations that could only deal with local excitations, this study solved the problem by evaluating the excited states as the poles of dynamical polarizability. Because such an approach previously succeeded at the time-dependent density functional theory level [H. Nakai and T. Yoshikawa, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 124123 (2017)], this study was considered as an extension to the CCLR level. To evaluate the dynamical polarizability at the CCLR level, we revisited three equivalent formulas, namely, coupled-perturbed self-consistent field (CPSCF), random phase approximation (RPA), and Green’s function (GF). We further extended these formulas to the linear-scaling methods based on the divide-and-conquer (DC) technique. We implemented the CCLR with singles and doubles (CCSDLR) program for the six schemes, i.e., the standard and DC-type CPSCF, RPA, and GF. Illustrative applications of the present methods demonstrated the accuracy and efficiency. Although the standard three treatments could exactly reproduced the conventional frequency-domain CCSDLR results, their computational costs were commonly higher than that of the conventional ones due to large amount of computations for individual frequencies of the external electric field. The DC-type treatments, which approximately reproduced the conventional results, could achieve quasilinear scaling computational costs. Among them, DC-GF was found to exhibit the best performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Some of the presented calculations were performed at the Research Center for Computational Science (RCCS), Okazaki Research Facilities, Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS). This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) “KAKENHI Grant No. JP18H05264” from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). This work was also supported by Element Strategy Initiative of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technolog (MEXT), Grant Number JPMXP0112101003.

REFERENCES
Section:
Previous section

  1. 1. T. D. Crawford and H. F. Schaefer III, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, edited by K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd (Wiley, New York, 2000), Vol. 14, pp. 33–136. Google ScholarCrossref
  2. 2. I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett, Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009). Google ScholarCrossref
  3. 3. H. Nakatsuji and K. Hirao, J. Chem. Phys. 68, 2053 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.436028, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  4. 4. H. Nakatsuji, Chem. Phys. Lett. 59, 362 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(78)89113-1, Google ScholarCrossref
  5. 5. H. Nakatsuji, Chem. Phys. Lett. 67, 329 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(79)85172-6, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  6. 6. H. Nakatsuji, Chem. Phys. Lett. 67, 334 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(79)85173-8, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  7. 7. M. Ehara, J. Hasegawa, and H. Nakatsuji, in Theory and Applications of Computational Chemistry: The First Forty Years, edited by C. E. Dykstra, G. Frenking, K. S. Kim, and G. E. Scuseria (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2005), pp. 1099–1141. Google ScholarCrossref
  8. 8. H. J. Monkhorst, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 12, 421 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560120850, Google ScholarCrossref
  9. 9. D. Mukherjee and P. K. Mukherjee, Chem. Phys. 39, 325 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0104(79)80153-6, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  10. 10. H. Sekino and R. Bartlett, Int. J. Quantum. Chem. Symp. 26, 255 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560260826, Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. Montgomery, Jr., T. Vreven, K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyenger, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G. A. Petersson, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Naki, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian, J. B. Cross, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Damenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, O. Farkas, D. K. Malick, A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskotz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C. Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, and J. A. Pople, gaussian 03, Revision B.01, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 2003. Google Scholar
  12. 12. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, X. Li, M. Caricato, A. V. Marenich, J. Bloino, B. G. Janesko, R. Gomperts, B. Mennucci, H. P. Hratchian, J. V. Ortiz, A. F. Izmaylov, J. L. Sonnenberg, D. Williams-Young, F. Ding, F. Lipparini, F. Egidi, J. Goings, B. Peng, A. Petrone, T. Henderson, D. Ranasinghe, V. G. Zakrzewski, J. Gao, N. Rega, G. Zheng, W. Liang, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven, K. Throssell, J. A. Montgomery, Jr., J. E. Peralta, F. Ogliaro, M. J. Bearpark, J. J. Heyd, E. N. Brothers, K. N. Kudin, V. N. Staroverov, T. A. Keith, R. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. Raghavachari, A. P. Rendell, J. C. Burant, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, M. Cossi, J. M. Millam, M. Klene, C. Adamo, R. Cammi, J. W. Ochterski, R. L. Martin, K. Morokuma, O. Farkas, J. B. Foresman, and D. J. Fox, gaussian 16, Revision B.01, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford, CT, 2016. Google Scholar
  13. 13. Linear-scaling Techniques in Computational Chemistry and Physics, edited by R. G. Zalesiny, M. Papadopoulos, P. G. Mezey, and J. Leszszynski (Springer, Amsterdam, 2011). Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. Fragmentation: Toward Accurate Calculations on Complex Molecular Systems, edited by M. S. Gordon (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2017). Google ScholarCrossref
  15. 15. C. Y. Yam, S. Yokojima, and G. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 153105 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.68.153105, Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. F. Wang, C. Y. Yam, and G.-H. Chen, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 244102 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2746034, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  17. 17. Y. Mochizuki, S. Koikegami, S. Amari, K. Segawa, K. Kitaura, and T. Nakano, Chem. Phys. Lett. 406, 283 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2005.03.008, Google ScholarCrossref
  18. 18. Y. Mochizuki, K. Tanaka, K. Yamashita, T. Ishikawa, T. Nakano, S. Amari, K. Segawa, T. Murase, H. Tokiwa, and M. Sakurai, Theor. Chem. Acc. 117, 541 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00214-006-0181-6, Google ScholarCrossref
  19. 19. M. Chiba, D. G. Fedorov, and K. Kitaura, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 104108 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2772850, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  20. 20. S. Hirata, M. Valiev, M. Dupuis, S. S. Xantheas, S. Sugiki, and H. Sekino, Mol. Phys. 103, 2255 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/00268970500083788, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  21. 21. H. Nakatsuji, T. Miyahara, and R. Fukuda, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 084104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2464113, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  22. 22. S. Coriani, S. Høst, B. Jansik, L. Thøgersen, J. Olsen, P. Jørgensen, S. Reine, F. Pawlowski, T. Helgaker, and P. Salek, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 154108 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2715568, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  23. 23. K. Fujimoto and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 129, 054102 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2958257, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  24. 24. Q. Li, Q. Li, and Z. Shuai, Synth. Met. 158, 330 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synthmet.2008.02.002, Google ScholarCrossref
  25. 25. M. Miura and Y. Aoki, J. Comput. Chem. 30, 2213 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21206, Google ScholarCrossref
  26. 26. T. Yoshikawa, M. Kobayashi, A. Fujii, and H. Nakai, J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 5565 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp401819d, Google ScholarCrossref
  27. 27. N. Komoto, T. Yoshikawa, J. Ono, Y. Nishimura, and H. Nakai, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 1719 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01214, Google ScholarCrossref
  28. 28. J. Neugebauer, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 134116 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2713754, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  29. 29. A. Krishtal, D. Ceresoli, and M. Pavanello, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 154116 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4918276, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  30. 30. D. V. Chulhai and L. Jensen, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 21032 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp00310a, Google ScholarCrossref
  31. 31. F. Wu, W. Liu, Y. Zhang, and Z. Li, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 3643 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1021/ct200225v, Google ScholarCrossref
  32. 32. J. Liu and J. Herbert, J. Chem. Phys. 143, 034106 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4926837, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  33. 33. Q. Ge, Y. Mao, A. F. White, E. Epifanovsky, K. D. Closser, and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 044111 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4973611, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  34. 34. T. Fujita and Y. Mochizuki, J. Phys. Chem. A 122, 3886 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.8b00446, Google ScholarCrossref
  35. 35. W. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1438 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.66.1438, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  36. 36. W. Yang and T. S. Lee, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 5674 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.470549, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  37. 37. T. Akama, M. Kobayashi, and H. Nakai, J. Comput. Chem. 28, 2003 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20707, Google ScholarCrossref
  38. 38. M. Kobayashi, Y. Imamura, and H. Nakai, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 074103 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2761878, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  39. 39. M. Kobayashi and H. Nakai, J. Chem. Phys. 129, 044103 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2956490, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  40. 40. M. Kobayashi and H. Nakai, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 114108 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3211119, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  41. 41. H. Nishizawa, Y. Nishimura, M. Kobayashi, S. Irle, and H. Nakai, J. Comput. Chem. 37, 1983 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24419, Google ScholarCrossref
  42. 42. T. Yoshikawa, T. Doi, and H. Nakai, Chem. Phys. Lett. 725, 18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2019.04.001, Google ScholarCrossref
  43. 43. F. Shimojo, R. K. Kalia, A. Nakano, and P. Vashishta, Phys. Rev. B 77, 085103 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.77.085103, Google ScholarCrossref
  44. 44. L. W. Wang, Z. J. Zhao, and J. Mera, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165113 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.77.165113, Google ScholarCrossref
  45. 45. X. He and K. M. Merz, Jr., J. Chem. Theor. Comput. 6, 405 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/ct9006635, Google ScholarCrossref
  46. 46. Z. H. He, X. B. Ye, and B. C. Pan, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 114107 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5088918, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  47. 47. M. Kobayashi and T. Taketsugu, Chem. Lett. 45, 1268 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1246/cl.160699, Google ScholarCrossref
  48. 48. M. Kobayashi, T. Fujimori, and T. Taketsugu, J. Comput. Chem. 39, 909 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.25174, Google ScholarCrossref
  49. 49. T. Touma, M. Kobayashi, and H. Nakai, Chem. Phys. Lett. 485, 247 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2009.12.043, Google ScholarCrossref
  50. 50. H. Nakai and T. Yoshikawa, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 124123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4978952, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  51. 51. K. Sawada, K. A. Brueckner, N. Fukuda, and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. 108, 507 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.108.507, Google ScholarCrossref
  52. 52. M. Baranger, Phys. Rev. 120, 957 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.120.957, Google ScholarCrossref
  53. 53. R. Zwanzig, Physica 30, 1109 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-8914(64)90102-8, Google ScholarCrossref
  54. 54. D. P. Santry and T. E. Raidy, Chem. Phys. Lett. 61, 413 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(79)80676-4, Google ScholarCrossref
  55. 55. R. A. Ferrell and T. T. Quinn, Phys. Rev. 108, 570 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.108.570, Google ScholarCrossref
  56. 56. J. Goldstone and K. Gottfried, Nuovo Cimento 13, 849 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02726371, Google ScholarCrossref
  57. 57. D. J. Rowe, Nucl. Phys. 80, 209 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5582(66)90837-6, Google ScholarCrossref
  58. 58. R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. 107, 1631 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.107.1631, Google ScholarCrossref
  59. 59. D. J. Thouless, Nucl. Phys. 22, 78 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5582(61)90364-9, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  60. 60. Y. Ikabata, Q. Wang, T. Yoshikawa, A. Ueda, T. Murata, K. Kariyazono, M. Moriguchi, H. Okamoto, Y. Morita, and H. Nakai, npj Quantum Mater. 2, 27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-017-0033-8, Google ScholarCrossref
  61. 61. D. P. O’Neill, M. Kállay, and J. Gauss, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 9257 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1805494, Google ScholarScitation
  62. 62. M. Kállay and J. Gauss, J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 768, 71 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theochem.2006.05.021, Google ScholarCrossref
  63. 63. J. F. Stanton and R. J. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 5178 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.466019, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  64. 64. H. Sekino and R. J. Bartlett, Chem. Phys. Lett. 225, 486 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(94)87116-7, Google ScholarCrossref
  65. 65. H. Sekino and R. J. Bartlett, Adv. Quantum Chem. 35, 149 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3276(08)60459-1, Google ScholarCrossref
  66. 66. P. B. Rozyczko, S. A. Perera, M. Nooijen, and R. J. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6736 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.474917, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  67. 67. E. R. Davidson, J. Comput. Phys. 17, 87 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(75)90065-0, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  68. 68. H. Nakai, Chem. Phys. Lett. 363, 73 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-2614(02)01151-x, Google ScholarCrossref
  69. 69. H. P. Roy, A. Gupta, and P. K. Mukherjee, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 4, 75 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560090109, Google ScholarCrossref
  70. 70. A. Dalgamo, A. L. Ford, and J. C. Browne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 1033 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.27.1033, Google ScholarCrossref
  71. 71. H. Nakai, T. Yoshikawa, and Y. Nonaka, J. Comput. Chem. 38, 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24507, Google ScholarCrossref
  72. 72. T. H. Dunning, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.456153, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  73. 73. M. W. Schmidt, K. K. Baldridge, J. A. Boatz, S. T. Elbert, M. S. Gordon, J. J. Jensen, S. Koseki, N. Matsunaga, K. A. Nguyen, S. Su, T. L. Windus, M. Dupuis, and J. A. Montgomery, J. Comput. Chem. 14, 1347 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540141112, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  74. 74. D. A. Case, R. M. Betz, D. S. Cerutti, T. E. Cheatham III, T. A. Darden, R. E. Duke, T. J. Giese, H. Gohlke, A. W. Goetz, N. Homeyer, N. S. Izadi, P. Janowski, J. Kaus, A. Kovalenko, T. S. Lee, S. LeGrand, P. Li, C. Lin, T. Luchko, R. Luo, B. Madej, D. Mermelstein, K. M. Merz, G. Monard, H. Nguyen, H. T. Nguyen, I. Omelyan, A. Onufriev, D. R. Roe, A. Roitberg, C. Sagui, C. L. Simmerling, W. M. Botello-Smith, J. Swails, R. C. Walker, J. Wang, R. M. Wolf, X. Wu, L. Xiao, and P. A. Kollman, AMBER 2016, University of California, San Francisco, 2016. Google Scholar
  75. 75. J. Wang, R. M. Wolf, J. W. Caldwell, P. A. Kollman, and D. A. Case, J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1157 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20035, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  76. 76. W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.445869, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  77. 77. H. Iikura, T. Tsuneda, T. Yanai, and K. Hirao, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 3540 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1383587, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  78. 78. N. S. Bayliss and G. Wills-Joenson, Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 24, 551 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0584-8539(68)80087-x, Google ScholarCrossref
  1. © 2020 Author(s). Published under license by AIP Publishing.

Article Metrics

Views
510
Citations
Crossref 0
Web of Science
ISI 3

Altmetric

Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.