Firefly and PC GAMESS-related discussion club


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



Re^4: MCSCF interpretation

Pavlo Solntsev
pavlo.solntsev@gmail.com


Dear Alex.

Thanks a lot. Your comment was very helpful. It should be probably included into a next release of the manual.


On Fri Jan 24 '14 4:05pm, Alex Granovsky wrote
----------------------------------------------
>Pavel,

>as to your question I think it is more important to use the same
>orbitals and Fock operators in both XMCQDPT2 computations.

>This can be done as follows. You need to run state-averaged
>MCSCF averaging over doublets and quartet, and specify mplevl=2.
>You need to add the following to the $mcscf group:

>

 $mcscf iforb=1 canonc=1 $end

>and specify the following in the $xmcqdpt group

>

 $xmcqdpt iforb(1)=-1,1,1 mult=2 nstate=... $end

>This will perform computations for doublets.

>Then you need rerun computations for quartets:

>

 $mcscf iforb=1 canonc=1 $end
 $xmcqdpt iforb(1)=-1,1,1 mult=4 nstate=... $end

>The $xmcqdpt iforb(1)=-1,1,1 directive forces XMCQDPT2 code
>to use orbitals and effective Fock operators generated at the
>MCSCF step while $mcscf iforb=1 canonc=1 options direct MCSCF
>to produce state-averaged semi-canonical MOs.

>Hope this helps.

>Kind regards,
>Alex Granovsky
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu Jan 23 '14 11:37pm, Pavlo Solntsev wrote
>-----------------------------------------------
>>Alex,

>>Thank you for a quick answer. One more questions about the size of Hef in XMCQDPT. If i have SA-MCSCF solution over two doublets, do i need to examine Hef with size more than 2, by using nstate=n ?

>>If i have quartet state very close to the second doublet, which is very close to the ground doublet. How do you think, is it good approach to do SS over two doublets and one quartet and then run XMCQDPT for doublets and quartets. In this case, for quartets i have Hef = 1. I am going to check the effect of the triplet state on the reference MCSCF. Maybe you have seen this situation before.

>>Sincerely,
>>Pavel.
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu Jan 23 '14 11:14pm, Alex Granovsky wrote
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>Dear Pavel,

>>>this expansion corresponds to "-MCHF- OPTIMIZED ORBITALS".

>>>Kind regards,
>>>Alex Granovsky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu Jan 23 '14 9:33pm, Pavlo Solntsev wrote
>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>Dear friends.

>>>>I have a small question i would like to clarify. After a MCSCF wave function has been converged i have all states and their composition. For example:

>>>>       ALPHA        |       BETA         | COEFFICIENT
>>>>--------------------|--------------------|------------
>>>> 111111111111111110 | 111111111111111010 |  -0.6988141
>>>> 111111111111110111 | 111111111111110011 |  -0.5277073
>>>> 111111111111111011 | 111111111111110110 |  -0.3496834
>>>> 111111111111110111 | 111111111111111010 |  -0.1966670
>>>> 111111111111111110 | 111111111111110011 |  -0.1530164
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To understand the nature of all major configurations that contribute to this state i need to analyze MO. What MO should i look at? Natural MO after MCSCF minimization? Any comments and suggestions would be very helpful.

>>>>Pavel.
>>>>


[ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Index ]           Fri Jan 24 '14 6:34pm
[ Reply ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]           This message read 595 times