Coupled Cluster Scaling Question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Morberticus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coupled Scaling
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the computational time required for Coupled Cluster calculations, specifically CCSDT and CCSDTQ, using Kallay's MRCC program. It is established that CCSDT is generally less effective than CCSD(T) and that CCSDTQ is significantly more computationally intensive, with scaling factors of N^8 for CCSDT and N^10 for CCSDTQ. The time estimation can vary widely based on the program used and the specific system characteristics, making precise predictions challenging. The consensus is that CCSDT is often not recommended unless part of a basis set extrapolation series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coupled Cluster methods, specifically CCSD and CCSD(T)
  • Familiarity with Kallay's MRCC program for computational chemistry
  • Knowledge of computational scaling laws in quantum chemistry
  • Awareness of the significance of basis set extrapolation in quantum calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the performance differences between CCSD, CCSD(T), and CCSDT(Q)
  • Explore Kallay's MRCC documentation for time estimation features
  • Study Jan Martin's W4 paper for insights on CCSDT discrepancies
  • Investigate alternative computational programs like Molpro and CFOUR for comparison
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for computational chemists, quantum chemists, and researchers involved in high-level electronic structure calculations who seek to optimize their methodologies and understand the implications of different Coupled Cluster techniques.

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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
5K