Coupled Cluster Scaling Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Morberticus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coupled Scaling
Click For Summary
CCSDT calculations can take significantly longer than CCSDT, with estimates varying widely based on the computational program used and the specific system's characteristics. The scaling for CCSDT is N^8, while CCSDTQ scales as N^10, making it difficult to predict exact computation times. It's noted that CCSDT often yields less accurate results compared to CCSD(T), and CCSDT(Q) or CCSDTQ are generally preferred for better accuracy. Using Kallay's MRCC can provide rough time estimates for iterations. Overall, unless part of a specific series, performing CCSDT may not be advisable.
Morberticus
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a relatively small system. It takes 10 minutes to perform a CCSDT calculation. I know scaling is notoriously bad, but does anyone have a rough idea of how long a CCSDTQ calculation would take on the same system? Are we talking days or months?

Thomas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First: Depends on the program. For these kinds of things you should use Kallay's MRCC. It will even give you a coarse estimation of the time per iteration. Like in CCSD(T) (which you probably want to do in Molpro or CFOUR), different programs can differ by one or two orders of magnitude in calculation time. (While producing exactly the same number to 12 digits precision)

Second: Depends on the system (symmetries, ratio of occupied to virtual orbitals). So it's hard to tell. In principle, CCSDT is N^8 and CCSDTQ is N^10, but that does not translate well into the factors for *the same system*. It is very hard to estimate.

Also note that CCSDT is generally not a very useful method, because in a large majority of cases it gives worse results than CCSD(T) (see e.g., Jan Martin's W4 paper). Generally, the next thing better than CCSD(T) is CCSDT(Q) (N^9) or CCSDTQ; so unless you are doing the CCSDT as part of a basis set extrapolation series, it is better to not do it at all.
 
cgk said:
First: Depends on the program. For these kinds of things you should use Kallay's MRCC. It will even give you a coarse estimation of the time per iteration. Like in CCSD(T) (which you probably want to do in Molpro or CFOUR), different programs can differ by one or two orders of magnitude in calculation time. (While producing exactly the same number to 12 digits precision)

Second: Depends on the system (symmetries, ratio of occupied to virtual orbitals). So it's hard to tell. In principle, CCSDT is N^8 and CCSDTQ is N^10, but that does not translate well into the factors for *the same system*. It is very hard to estimate.

Also note that CCSDT is generally not a very useful method, because in a large majority of cases it gives worse results than CCSD(T) (see e.g., Jan Martin's W4 paper). Generally, the next thing better than CCSD(T) is CCSDT(Q) (N^9) or CCSDTQ; so unless you are doing the CCSDT as part of a basis set extrapolation series, it is better to not do it at all.

You have no idea how useful this is to me. Tearing my hair out over explaining CCSDT discrepancies when the answer was right in the W4 paper. Thanks!
 
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K