Firefly and PC GAMESS-related discussion club

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

Re^2: orbital selection for active space. natural orbitals and cityp=aldet/guga

Solntsev Pasha

Dear Alex.

I like your idea to run MCSCF-CISDT(Q) for large active space and check the orbitals after that. One more thing i would like to clarify. How do you think, is it good idea to use MCSCF calculation with excitation lower than that corresponding to CASSCF case? Thus, if for MCSCF-FORS iexcit=6, may i use iexcit=4 + QDPT2? Or QDPT2 was designed specifically for MCSCF-FORS case?



On Mon May 20 '13 1:29am, Alex Granovsky wrote
>Dear Pavel,

>Your methodology makes sense providing you are interested in
>a ground state. If you are interested in excited states as well,
>a better methodology would be to run CI, or, better, a several
>iterations of state-averaged MCSCF using focas converger with
>iexcit set to 3 i.e. to perform CISDT or MCSCF-CISDT. This would
>allow to describe ground and single-electron excited states
>approximately on an equal footing. Similarly, to properly catch
>orbitals required to describe two-electron-excited states within
>CASSCF one may use CISDTQ.

>All the best,
>On Sat May 18 '13 4:14am, Solntsev Pasha wrote
>>Dear friends.

>>Please, correct me if i am wrong. I have some high symmetric molecule with transition metal. I am thinking about CASSCF for the molecule. I did DFT calculations and found all orbitals which were proposed by group-theoretical analysis and used them as starting orbitals for following calculations. The active space is too large: 18e19o. Since i am going to use cistep=guga for CASSCF i decided to run cityp=guga for my active space (iexcit=2, nstate=16, wstate=1,-0) for my large active space to estimate the population of the orbitals. I am interesting mainly in ground state, but of course low lying excited states also will be considered. After cityp=guga run the population of the natural orbital in atomic basis was analyzed. I found that population of two the lowest orbital and two the highest orbitals within my active significantly differ from the other orbitals. Does it mean i can remove two valence and two virtual orbitals from the active space and thus contract my active space 18e19o->14e15o for the casscf run? Does this methodology make sense?



[ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Index ]           Tue May 21 '13 6:01pm
[ Reply ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]           This message read 857 times