Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
We develop a combined coupled-cluster (CC) or equation-of-motion coupled-cluster (EOM-CC) theory and Rayleigh–Schrödinger perturbation theory on the basis of a perturbation expansion of the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian H̄=exp(−T)H exp(T). This theory generates a series of perturbative corrections to any of the complete CC or EOM-CC models and hence a hierarchy of the methods designated by CC(m)PT(n) or EOM-CC(m)PT(n). These methods systematically approach full configuration interaction (FCI) as the perturbation order (n) increases and/or as the cluster and linear excitation operators become closer to complete (m increases), while maintaining the orbital-invariance property and size extensivity of CC at any perturbation order, but not the size intensivity of EOM-CC. We implement the entire hierarchy of CC(m)PT(n) and EOM-CC(m)PT(n) into a determinantal program capable of computing their energies and wave functions for any given pair of m and n. With this program, we perform CC(m)PT(n) and EOM-CC(m)PT(n) calculations of the ground-state energies and vertical excitation energies of selected small molecules for all possible values of m and 0⩽n⩽5. When the Hartree–Fock determinant is dominant in the FCI wave function, the second-order correction to CCSD CC(2)PT(2) reduces the differences in the ground-state energy between CCSD and FCI by more than a factor of 10, and thereby significantly outperforms CCSD(T) or even CCSDT. The third-order correction to CCSD CC(2)PT(3) further diminishes the energy difference between CC(2)PT(2) and FCI and its performance parallels that of some CCSD(TQ) models. CC(m)PT(n) for the ground state with some multideterminantal character and EOM-CC(m)PT(n) for the excitation energies, however, appear to be rather slowly convergent with respect to n.
Hirata et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: