- Posts: 11
- Thank you received: 1
If you have problems during the execution of MRCC, please attach the output with an adequate description of your case as well as the followings:
This information really helps us during troubleshooting
- the way mrcc was invoked
- the way build.mrcc was invoked
- the output of build.mrcc
- compiler version (for example: ifort -V, gfortran -v)
- blas/lapack versions
- as well as gcc and glibc versions
This information really helps us during troubleshooting
Possible bug in properties module ?
- SBehnle
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
Less
More
7 years 6 days ago #467
by SBehnle
Possible bug in properties module ? was created by SBehnle
Dear all,
i tried to compute an analytical geometry optimization at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVDZ level for the tetrahydroborate anion (see the attached input and output). Unfortunately, the calculation didn't go as expected. The problems started when prop was called the first time. The SCF moments are all fine but the CC dipole moment is unequal to zero which is unexpected for a perfectly tetrahedral input geometry. The computed nuclear gradients are also weird, specifically, the gradient at the boron atom is unequal to zero. The molecule subsequently gets distorted (which shouldn't happen) and the optimization doesn't converge within 100 cycles.
The problem occurs irrespecive whether symmetry is used or not. Setting OMP_NUM_THREADS to 1 doesn't solve the problem.
On the other hand, at the B2PLYP/cc-pVDZ level, the tetrahedral structure is a minimum (not the input structure but the tetrahedron).
All occupied orbital energies are below 0 so IMHO there is no obvious reason why this shouldn't work.
Used MRCC version: precompiled binaries from 2017/09/25
glibc: 2.11.3 on Debian squeeze
What am i doing wrong?
Best regards,
Stefan
i tried to compute an analytical geometry optimization at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVDZ level for the tetrahydroborate anion (see the attached input and output). Unfortunately, the calculation didn't go as expected. The problems started when prop was called the first time. The SCF moments are all fine but the CC dipole moment is unequal to zero which is unexpected for a perfectly tetrahedral input geometry. The computed nuclear gradients are also weird, specifically, the gradient at the boron atom is unequal to zero. The molecule subsequently gets distorted (which shouldn't happen) and the optimization doesn't converge within 100 cycles.
The problem occurs irrespecive whether symmetry is used or not. Setting OMP_NUM_THREADS to 1 doesn't solve the problem.
On the other hand, at the B2PLYP/cc-pVDZ level, the tetrahedral structure is a minimum (not the input structure but the tetrahedron).
All occupied orbital energies are below 0 so IMHO there is no obvious reason why this shouldn't work.
Used MRCC version: precompiled binaries from 2017/09/25
glibc: 2.11.3 on Debian squeeze
What am i doing wrong?
Best regards,
Stefan
Attachments:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- kallay
- Offline
- Administrator
- Mihaly Kallay
7 years 6 days ago #468
by kallay
Best regards,
Mihaly Kallay
Replied by kallay on topic Possible bug in properties module ?
Dear Stefan,
Unfortunately, we do not have CCSD(T) gradients (please see Sect. 6.2 of the manual for the list of available methods). Of course, the program should stop in this case with an error message, we will fix this.
Unfortunately, we do not have CCSD(T) gradients (please see Sect. 6.2 of the manual for the list of available methods). Of course, the program should stop in this case with an error message, we will fix this.
Best regards,
Mihaly Kallay
The following user(s) said Thank You: SBehnle
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SBehnle
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
Less
More
- Posts: 11
- Thank you received: 1
7 years 6 days ago #469
by SBehnle
Replied by SBehnle on topic Possible bug in properties module ?
Dear Prof. Kallay,
thank you very much for the quick reply. I erroneously thought that this includes perturbatively corrected methods (as they are not explicitly excluded; my bad). In this case, i have to stick to numerical gradients.
Anyway: Great program!
Best regards,
Stefan
thank you very much for the quick reply. I erroneously thought that this includes perturbatively corrected methods (as they are not explicitly excluded; my bad). In this case, i have to stick to numerical gradients.
Anyway: Great program!
Best regards,
Stefan
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.040 seconds