CIS(D) and its cousins explained in the above are all based on a second-order
non-degenerate perturbative correction scheme on the CIS energy
(“diagonalize-and-then-perturb” scheme). Therefore, they may fail when
multiple excited states come close in terms of their energies. In this case,
the system can be handled by applying quasi-degenerate perturbative correction
scheme (“perturb-and-then-diagonalize” scheme). The working expression can be
obtained by slightly modifying CIS(D) expression shown in
Section 7.9.2.
502
Mol. Phys.
(1999),
96,
pp. 593.
Link
First, starting from Eq. (7.67), one can be explicitly write the CIS(D)
energy as
189
J. Chem. Phys.
(2008),
128,
pp. 164106.
Link
,
502
Mol. Phys.
(1999),
96,
pp. 593.
Link
(7.73) |
To avoid the failures of the perturbation theory near degeneracies, the entire
single and double blocks of the response matrix should be diagonalized. Because
such a diagonalization is a non-trivial non-linear problem, an additional
approximation from the binomial expansion of the
is further
applied:
502
Mol. Phys.
(1999),
96,
pp. 593.
Link
(7.74) |
The CIS(D) energy is defined as the eigen-solution of the response matrix with the zero-th order expansion of this equation. Namely,
(7.75) |
Similar to SOS-CIS(D), SOS-CIS(D) theory is defined by taking the opposite-spin
portions of this equation and then scaling them with two semi-empirical
parameters:
189
J. Chem. Phys.
(2008),
128,
pp. 164106.
Link
(7.76) |
Using the Laplace transform and the auxiliary basis expansion techniques, this can also be handled with a 4th-order scaling computational effort. In Q-Chem, an efficient 4th-order scaling analytical gradient of SOS-CIS(D) is also available. This can be used to perform excited state geometry optimizations on the electronically excited state surfaces.