Firefly and PC GAMESS-related discussion club

Learn how to ask questions correctly  
We are NATO-free zone

Re^9: Problems with SA-MCSCF Geometry optimization

Alex Granovsky

Dear Lello,

thanks for posting your feedback here.
We are performing some tests now and will be back to you soon.

Kind regards,

On Sat May 25 '13 10:14pm, lello wrote
>Just to close my feedback on this point. I used the same input
>posted on the site but without PCM and the geometry optimization
>at SA-MCSCF level converged without problems in a about 8 cycles.

>On Mon May 20 '13 3:14pm, Alex Granovsky wrote

>>the problem was not specific to state-averaged calculations,
>>it was pertained to state-specific MCSCF + PCM gradients as well.

>>Kind regards,
>>Alex Granovsky
>>On Mon May 20 '13 2:59pm, lello wrote
>>>Ok thanks, I was running other calculations of the same type
>>>and I guess I must resubmit the jobs. Just to be sure,
>>>was it a problem only for state averaged or also for state
>>>specific calculations?


>>>On Mon May 20 '13 2:25pm, Alex Granovsky wrote

>>>>this problem (a missed factor of 0.5 in gradient contribution)
>>>>was specific to combination of PCM + MCSCF + gradients only.

>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>Alex Granovsky

>>>>On Mon May 20 '13 2:13pm, lello wrote
>>>>>Thanks a lot.
>>>>>I'll try the new release right away.
>>>>>Could you please tell me if all SA-MCSCF calculations
>>>>>were affected by this problem, or if it was specific to this case?

>>>>>On Mon May 20 '13 1:40pm, Alex Granovsky wrote
>>>>>>Dear Lello,

>>>>>>we have fixed the problem. Attached please find a sample input and
>>>>>>output files. You need to update to the latest Firefly v. 8.0.0 RC
>>>>>>build # 7697 binaries (I have updated them today).

>>>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>>>Alex Granovsky

>>>>>>On Thu May 16 '13 8:56am, lello wrote
>>>>>>>I have attached the input.
>>>>>>>On Wed May 15 '13 11:31pm, Alex Granovsky wrote

>>>>>>>>could you please send me your input file?

>>>>>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>Alex Granovsky
>>>>>>>>On Wed May 15 '13 10:55pm, lello wrote
>>>>>>>>>Dear all,

>>>>>>>>>I am trying to perform a SA-MCSCF geometry optimization
>>>>>>>>>of the ground state of a system, and I have the following behaviour
>>>>>>>>>of the energy of the target state:

>>>>>>>>> NSERCH=  0     ENERGY= -915.9734212   RMS GRAD = 0.0095239
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  1     ENERGY= -915.9501045   RMS GRAD = 0.0196205
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  2     ENERGY= -915.9576756   RMS GRAD = 0.0058206
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  3     ENERGY= -915.9634734   RMS GRAD = 0.0091716
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  4     ENERGY= -915.9626773   RMS GRAD = 0.0056877
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  5     ENERGY= -915.9597202   RMS GRAD = 0.0036023
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  6     ENERGY= -915.9586388   RMS GRAD = 0.0022706
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  7     ENERGY= -915.9581777   RMS GRAD = 0.0020863
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  8     ENERGY= -915.9575078   RMS GRAD = 0.0033306
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH=  9     ENERGY= -915.9566032   RMS GRAD = 0.0036036
>>>>>>>>>  NSERCH= 10     ENERGY= -915.9559209   RMS GRAD = 0.0035010
>>>>>>>>>As you can see the first point is quite low in energy but after that
>>>>>>>>>the energy increase a lot. I have let the optimization run for more than 100 cycles but the energy is always high and never reaches
>>>>>>>>>that of the first point.
>>>>>>>>>I have observed this behaviour in a several
>>>>>>>>>cases. Is it just a problem of coordinate choice for the optimization
>>>>>>>>>or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>>>>>>Below is my input:

>>>>>>>>>         D5=.T. FSTINT=.T. GENCON=.T. ICHARG=1 MULT=2 INTTYP=HONDO  
>>>>>>>>>         ICUT=11   ITOL=20 $END
>>>>>>>>> $SCF DIRSCF=.TRUE. $END
>>>>>>>>> $SYSTEM TIMLIM=1000000 MEMORY=100000000 KDIAG=0 NOJAC=100 $END
>>>>>>>>> $P2P P2P=.T. DLB=.T. $END
>>>>>>>>> $MCSCF NPFLG(9)=1 $END
>>>>>>>>> $DET NCORE=66 NACT=4 NELS=3 NSTATE=4 ITERMX=400
>>>>>>>>>     WSTATE(1)=1.0,1.0 CVGTOL=1.0E-7 $END
>>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance,

[ This message was edited on Tue May 28 '13 at 1:54am by the author ]

[ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Index ]           Tue May 28 '13 1:54am
[ Reply ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]           This message read 805 times