Abstract:Using a set of oscillator strengths and excited-state dipole moments of near full configuration interaction quality determined for small compounds, we benchmark the performances of several single-reference wave function methods [CC2, CCSD, CC3, CCSDT, ADC(2), and ADC(3/2)] and time-dependent density-functional theory (TD-DFT) with various functionals (B3LYP, PBE0, M06-2X, CAM-B3LYP, and ωB97X-D). We consider the impact of various gauges (length, velocity, and mixed) and formalisms: equation of motion versus linear response, relaxed versus unrelaxed orbitals, and so forth. Beyond the expected accuracy improvements and a neat decrease of formalism sensitivity when using higher-order wave function methods, the present contribution shows that, for both ADC(2) and CC2, the choice of gauge impacts more significantly the magnitude of the oscillator strengths than the choice of formalism and that CCSD yields a notable improvement on this transition property as compared to CC2. For the excited-state dipole moments, switching on orbital relaxation appreciably improves the accuracy of both ADC(2) and CC2 but has a rather small effect at the CCSD level. Going from ground to excited states, the typical errors on dipole moments for a given method tend to roughly triple. Interestingly, the ADC(3/2) oscillator strengths and dipoles are significantly more accurate than their ADC(2) counterparts, whereas the two models do deliver rather similar absolute errors for transition energies. Concerning TD-DFT, one finds: (i) a rather negligible impact of the gauge on oscillator strengths for all tested functionals (except for M06-2X); (ii) deviations of <i>ca.</i> 0.10 D on ground-state dipoles for all functionals; (iii) strong differences between excited-state dipoles obtained with, on the one hand, B3LYP and PBE0 and, on the other hand, M06-2X, CAM-B3LYP, and ωB97X-D, the latter group being markedly more accurate with the selected basis set; and (iv) the better overall performance of CAM-B3LYP for the two considered excited-state properties. Finally, for all investigated properties, both the accuracy and consistency obtained with the second-order wave function approaches, ADC(2) and CC2, do not clearly outperform those of TD-DFT, hinting that assessing the accuracy of the latter (or selecting a specific functional) on the basis of the results of the former is not systematically a well-settled strategy.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01228?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01228</a>.Additional reference data for five compounds; raw values for transition energies; oscillator strengths; dipole moments; excited state dipoles; basis set effects for water; and Cartesian coordinates (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01228/suppl_file/ct0c01228_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Post-CCSD(T) corrections to bond distances and vibrational frequencies: the power of $Λ$

Post-CCSD(T) corrections in the S66 noncovalent interactions benchmark

Performance of EOM-CCSD(T)(a)*-Based Quartic Force Fields in Computing Fundamental, Anharmonic Vibrational Frequencies of Molecular Electronically Excited States with Application to the Ã 1 A ′′ State of :CCH 2 (Vinylidene)

Exploring Alternate Methods to High-Level Vibrational Correction Calculations of NMR Spin-Spin Coupling Constants

Polishing the Gold Standard: The Role of Orbital Choice in CCSD(T) Vibrational Frequency Prediction

Basis set convergence of post-CCSD contributions to molecular atomization energies

Benchmarking TD-DFT and Wave Function Methods for Oscillator Strengths and Excited-State Dipole Moments

Is CCSD(T) a proper standard for dipole moment calculations? An analysis considering diverse diatomic species

Does basis set superposition error significantly affect post-CCSD(T) corrections?

Correlations beyond CCSD(T) for accurate study of Hg$_2$ and Cp$_2$

Prospects for rank-reduced CCSD(T) in the context of high-accuracy thermochemistry

Explicitly correlated intermolecular distances and interaction energies of hydrogen bonded complexes

Do Practical Standard Coupled Cluster Calculations Agree Better than Kohn-Sham Calculations with Currently Available Functionals When Compared to the Best Available Experimental Data for Dissociation Energies of Bonds to 3d Transition Metals?

Exploring non-covalent interactions in excited states: beyond aromatic excimer models

Simulation of Vibrational Circular Dichroism Spectra Using Second-Order Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory and Configuration Interaction Doubles

Potential energy surfaces and dynamic properties via ab initio composite and density functional approaches

Effect of XC functionals and dispersion corrections on the DFT‐computed structural and vibrational properties of SrCl2–NaCl and ZrF4–LiF

Toward a W4-F12 approach: Can explicitly correlated and orbital-based ab initio CCSD(T) limits be reconciled?

Franck-Condon Simulation of Vibrationally-Resolved X-ray Spectra for Diatomic Systems: Validation of Harmonic Approximation and Density Functional Theory

Coupled Cluster with Singles, Doubles, and Partial Higher-Order Excitations Based on the Corresponding Orbitals: the Formulation and Test Applications for Bond Breaking Processes

A (T) Correction for Multicomponent Coupled-Cluster Theory