1985
DOI: 10.1016/0167-7977(85)90001-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Symmetric group approach to configuration interaction methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
54
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 111 publications
0
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…No line-up permutations or interaction classes need to be calculated as in SGA. 31 Our implementation can handle arbitrary spin states, excitation levels, and reference configurations, and includes an efficient analytic CI gradient 32 for all semiempirical methods that offer an analytic SCF gradient. 33,34 Efficient gradients are important for locating stationary points [35][36][37][38][39] or conical intersections, 40,41 and for following intrinsic reaction coordinates 42 or general minimum energy paths.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…No line-up permutations or interaction classes need to be calculated as in SGA. 31 Our implementation can handle arbitrary spin states, excitation levels, and reference configurations, and includes an efficient analytic CI gradient 32 for all semiempirical methods that offer an analytic SCF gradient. 33,34 Efficient gradients are important for locating stationary points [35][36][37][38][39] or conical intersections, 40,41 and for following intrinsic reaction coordinates 42 or general minimum energy paths.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is especially important because the Hamiltonian in multireference (MR) CI procedures is very sparse. In the alternative symmetric group approach (SGA), 31 the pre-exclusion of vanishing matrix elements has to be done explicitly. 11 In GUGA, many common intermediates may be reused in different matrix elements.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus the spin function which forms a two-electron singlet for the electron pairs (1,2) and (2,3) should be coupled with configurations of the type (n a , n a , n b ) and (n a , n b , n b ) since it has to be antisymmetric with respect to the exchange of the electron pairs (1,2) and (2,3). It is convenient to impose on the orbital configuration (n 1 , n 2 , ..., n N ) the restriction that the singly occupied orbitals always precede the doubly occupied [34]. With this restriction the latter two three-electron configurations can be represented by the configuration (n a , n b , n b ).…”
Section: Polyad Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first inequality, 0 ≤ n 1 < n 2 < n 3 , is imposed in order to remove redundancy in the configurations since permutations of the electron coordinates are performed in the process of antisymmetrization to form configuration state functions. The former configuration is constructed of thee different orbitals and can be coupled both to the two-types of doublet spin functions and the one-type of quartet spin function while the latter configuration has a doubly-occupied orbital and can be coupled only to the one-type of doublet spin function forming a two-electron singlet between the electrons residing in the doubly-occupied orbital [42]. Therefore the lowest energy configuration |1, 0 2 is a doublet state with the polyad quantum number 1 as shown in figure 2.…”
Section: Energy Spectrummentioning
confidence: 99%