Coupled cluster (CC) is a numerical technique used for describing many-body systems. Its most common use is as one of several post-Hartree–Fock ab initio quantum chemistry methods in the field of computational chemistry, but it is also used in nuclear physics. Coupled cluster essentially takes the basic Hartree–Fock molecular orbital method and constructs multi-electron wavefunctions using the exponential cluster operator to account for electron correlation. Some of the most accurate calculations for small to medium-sized molecules use this method.[1] [2] [3]
The method was initially developed by Fritz Coester and Hermann Kümmel in the 1950s for studying nuclear-physics phenomena, but became more frequently used when in 1966 Jiří Čížek (and later together with Josef Paldus) reformulated the method for electron correlation in atoms and molecules. It is now one of the most prevalent methods in quantum chemistry that includes electronic correlation.
CC theory is simply the perturbative variant of the many-electron theory (MET) of Oktay Sinanoğlu, which is the exact (and variational) solution of the many-electron problem, so it was also called "coupled-pair MET (CPMET)". J. Čížek used the correlation function of MET and used Goldstone-type perturbation theory to get the energy expression, while original MET was completely variational. Čížek first developed the linear CPMET and then generalized it to full CPMET in the same work in 1966. He then also performed an application of it on the benzene molecule with Sinanoğlu in the same year. Because MET is somewhat difficult to perform computationally, CC is simpler and thus, in today's computational chemistry, CC is the best variant of MET and gives highly accurate results in comparison to experiments.[4] [5] [6]
Coupled-cluster theory provides the exact solution to the time-independent Schrödinger equation
H|\Psi\rangle=E|\Psi\rangle,
where
H
|\Psi\rangle
The wavefunction of the coupled-cluster theory is written as an exponential ansatz:
|\Psi\rangle=eT|\Phi0\rangle,
where
|\Phi0\rangle
T
|\Phi0\rangle
The choice of the exponential ansatz is opportune because (unlike other ansatzes, for example, configuration interaction) it guarantees the size extensivity of the solution. Size consistency in CC theory, also unlike other theories, does not depend on the size consistency of the reference wave function. This is easily seen, for example, in the single bond breaking of F2 when using a restricted Hartree–Fock (RHF) reference, which is not size-consistent, at the CCSDT (coupled cluster single-double-triple) level of theory, which provides an almost exact, full-CI-quality, potential-energy surface and does not dissociate the molecule into F− and F+ ions, like the RHF wave function, but rather into two neutral F atoms.[11] If one were to use, for example, the CCSD, or CCSD(T) levels of theory, they would not provide reasonable results for the bond breaking of F2, with the latter one approaches unphysical potential energy surfaces,[12] though this is for reasons other than just size consistency.
A criticism of the method is that the conventional implementation employing the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian (see below) is not variational, though there are bi-variational and quasi-variational approaches that have been developed since the first implementations of the theory. While the above ansatz for the wave function itself has no natural truncation, however, for other properties, such as energy, there is a natural truncation when examining expectation values, which has its basis in the linked- and connected-cluster theorems, and thus does not suffer from issues such as lack of size extensivity, like the variational configuration-interaction approach.
The cluster operator is written in the form
T=T1+T2+T3+ … ,
where
T1
T2
T1=\sumi\suma
i | |
t | |
a |
\hat{a}a\hat{a}i,
T2=
1 | |
4 |
\sumi,j\suma,b
ij | |
t | |
ab |
\hat{a}a\hat{a}b\hat{a}j\hat{a}i,
and for the general n-fold cluster operator
Tn=
1 | |
(n!)2 |
\sum | |
i1,i2,\ldots,in |
\sum | |
a1,a2,\ldots,an |
i1,i2,\ldots,in | |
t | |
a1,a2,\ldots,an |
a1 | |
\hat{a} |
a2 | |
\hat{a} |
\ldots
an | |
\hat{a} |
\hat{a} | |
in |
\ldots
\hat{a} | |
i2 |
\hat{a} | |
i1 |
.
In the above formulae
\hat{a}a=
\dagger | |
\hat{a} | |
a |
\hat{a}i
|\Phi0\rangle
T1
T2
|\Phi0\rangle
T1
T2
i | |
t | |
a |
ij | |
t | |
ab |
|\Psi\rangle
The exponential operator
eT
T1
T2
T
eT=1+T+
1 | |
2! |
T2+ … =1+T1+T2+
1 | |
2 |
2 | |
T | |
1 |
+
1 | |
2 |
T1T2+
1 | |
2 |
T2T1+
1 | |
2 |
2 | |
T | |
2 |
+ …
Though in practice this series is finite because the number of occupied molecular orbitals is finite, as is the number of excitations, it is still very large, to the extent that even modern-day massively parallel computers are inadequate, except for problems of a dozen or so electrons and very small basis sets, when considering all contributions to the cluster operator and not just
T1
T2
T5
T6
T
T
T=T1+...+Tn,
then Slater determinants for an N-electron system excited more than
n
<N
|\Psi\rangle
Tn
The Schrödinger equation can be written, using the coupled-cluster wave function, as
H|\Psi0\rangle=HeT|\Phi0\rangle=EeT|\Phi0\rangle,
where there are a total of q coefficients (t-amplitudes) to solve for. To obtain the q equations, first, we multiply the above Schrödinger equation on the left by
e-T
T
|\Phi0\rangle
|\Phi*\rangle
a\rangle | |
|\Phi | |
i |
ab | |
|\Phi | |
ij |
\rangle
\langle\Phi0|e-THeT|\Phi0\rangle=E\langle\Phi0|\Phi0\rangle=E,
\langle\Phi*|e-THeT|\Phi0\rangle=E
*|\Phi | |
\langle\Phi | |
0\rangle |
=0,
the latter being the equations to be solved, and the former the equation for the evaluation of the energy. (Note that we have made use of
e-TeT=1
Considering the basic CCSD method:
\langle\Phi0|
-(T1+T2) | |
e |
H
(T1+T2) | |
e |
|\Phi0\rangle=E,
a| | |
\langle\Phi | |
i |
-(T1+T2) | |
e |
H
(T1+T2) | |
e |
|\Phi0\rangle=0,
ab | |
\langle\Phi | |
ij |
|
-(T1+T2) | |
e |
H
(T1+T2) | |
e |
|\Phi0\rangle=0,
in which the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian
\bar{H}
\bar{H}=e-THeT=H+[H,T]+
1 | |
2! |
[[H,T],T]+...=(H
T) | |
e | |
C. |
The subscript C designates the connected part of the corresponding operator expression.
The resulting similarity-transformed Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian, resulting in different left and right vectors (wave functions) for the same state of interest (this is what is often referred to in coupled-cluster theory as the biorthogonality of the solution, or wave function, though it also applies to other non-Hermitian theories as well). The resulting equations are a set of non-linear equations, which are solved in an iterative manner. Standard quantum-chemistry packages (GAMESS (US), NWChem, ACES II, etc.) solve the coupled-cluster equations using the Jacobi method and direct inversion of the iterative subspace (DIIS) extrapolation of the t-amplitudes to accelerate convergence.
The classification of traditional coupled-cluster methods rests on the highest number of excitations allowed in the definition of
T
Thus, the
T
T=T1+T2+T3.
Terms in round brackets indicate that these terms are calculated based on perturbation theory. For example, the CCSD(T) method means:
The complexity of equations and the corresponding computer codes, as well as the cost of the computation, increases sharply with the highest level of excitation. For many applications CCSD, while relatively inexpensive, does not provide sufficient accuracy except for the smallest systems (approximately 2 to 4 electrons), and often an approximate treatment of triples is needed. The most well known coupled-cluster method that provides an estimate of connected triples is CCSD(T), which provides a good description of closed-shell molecules near the equilibrium geometry, but breaks down in more complicated situations such as bond breaking and diradicals. Another popular method that makes up for the failings of the standard CCSD(T) approach is -CC(2,3), where the triples contribution to the energy is computed from the difference between the exact solution and the CCSD energy and is not based on perturbation-theory arguments. More complicated coupled-cluster methods such as CCSDT and CCSDTQ are used only for high-accuracy calculations of small molecules. The inclusion of all n levels of excitation for the n-electron system gives the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation within the given basis set, within the Born–Oppenheimer approximation (although schemes have also been drawn up to work without the BO approximation[13] [14]).
One possible improvement to the standard coupled-cluster approach is to add terms linear in the interelectronic distances through methods such as CCSD-R12. This improves the treatment of dynamical electron correlation by satisfying the Kato cusp condition and accelerates convergence with respect to the orbital basis set. Unfortunately, R12 methods invoke the resolution of the identity, which requires a relatively large basis set in order to be a good approximation.
The coupled-cluster method described above is also known as the single-reference (SR) coupled-cluster method because the exponential ansatz involves only one reference function
|\Phi0\rangle
Kümmel comments:[1]
Considering the fact that the CC method was well understood around the late fifties[,] it looks strange that nothing happened with it until 1966, as Jiří Čížek published his first paper on a quantum chemistry problem. He had looked into the 1957 and 1960 papers published in Nuclear Physics by Fritz and myself. I always found it quite remarkable that a quantum chemist would open an issue of a nuclear physics journal. I myself at the time had almost given up the CC method as not tractable and, of course, I never looked into the quantum chemistry journals. The result was that I learnt about Jiří's work as late as in the early seventies, when he sent me a big parcel with reprints of the many papers he and Joe Paldus had written until then.
Josef Paldus also wrote his first-hand account of the origins of coupled-cluster theory, its implementation, and exploitation in electronic wave-function determination; his account is primarily about the making of coupled-cluster theory rather than about the theory itself.[15]
The Cj excitation operators defining the CI expansion of an N-electron system for the wave function
|\Psi0\rangle
|\Psi0\rangle=(1+C)|\Phi0\rangle,
C=
N | |
\sum | |
j=1 |
Cj,
are related to the cluster operators
T
TN
C1=T1,
C2=T2+
1 | |
2 |
2, | |
(T | |
1) |
C3=T3+T1T2+
1 | |
6 |
3, | |
(T | |
1) |
C4=T4+
1 | |
2 |
2 | |
(T | |
2) |
+T1T3+
1 | |
2 |
2 | |
(T | |
1) |
T2+
1 | |
24 |
4, | |
(T | |
1) |
etc. For general relationships see J. Paldus, in Methods in Computational Molecular Physics, Vol. 293 of Nato Advanced Study Institute Series B: Physics, edited by S. Wilson and G. H. F. Diercksen (Plenum, New York, 1992), pp. 99–194.
The symmetry-adapted cluster (SAC)[18] [19] approach determines the (spin- and) symmetry-adapted cluster operator
S=\sumISI
\langle\Phi|(H-E0)eS|\Phi\rangle=0,
a1\ldotsan | |
\langle\Phi | |
i1\ldotsin |
|(H-E0)eS|\Phi\rangle=0,
i1< … <in, a1< … <an, n=1,...,Ms,
where
a1\ldotsan | |
|\Phi | |
i1\ldotsin |
\rangle
|\Phi\rangle
Ms
eS
HeS
\tfrac{1}{2}
2 | |
S | |
2 |
In nuclear physics, coupled cluster saw significantly less use than in quantum chemistry during the 1980s and 1990s. More powerful computers, as well as advances in theory (such as the inclusion of three-nucleon interactions), have spawned renewed interest in the method since then, and it has been successfully applied to neutron-rich and medium-mass nuclei. Coupled cluster is one of several ab initio methods in nuclear physics and is specifically suitable for nuclei having closed or nearly closed shells.[21]