“…Besides the original CC-CVS approach, we have also investigated other approximations: - Further restricting the definition of the projectors to also drop excited configurations with two core indices (ND, for “No Doubly core hole determinants”); this corresponds to the method suggested, e.g., in ref , obtaining
- Freezing the core in the ground-state calculation, thus retaining only the valence orbitals, typically defined as the orbitals with the highest principal quantum number n (FC-V); this essentially corresponds to using eq while setting ϵ CV to a fairly high value (for example, in the atom of Xe, ϵ 4d < ϵ CV < ϵ 5s ).
- Freezing all core orbitals, except for those that are to be targeted in the EOM step (FC-V-except); for example, this means treating a core spinor k , that should make up the most important core-excited configurations for state μ, different from other core spinors in the ground-state calculation. This corresponds to setting projectors for ground and excited states such that This approach is equivalent to the one of Sorensen et al
- The definition of the core/valence spaces follows that of the CVS definition/threshold, that is, only the core orbitals with the same or lower energy than the ones belonging to the edge under investigation are frozen (FC-f). This is the same approach adopted in ref , and it corresponds to setting projectors for ground and excited states such that
- Further restricting the number of frozen-core spinors to only those below the ones of the edge of interest (FC-fpMO frozen corefollow previous MO).
…”