The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Approximated electron repulsion integrals: Cholesky decomposition versus resolution of the identity methods
Abstract
We compare two procedures to gain efficiency by approximating two-electron integrals in molecular electronic structure calculations. The first one is based on a Cholesky decomposition (CD) of two-electron integrals, the second one on the use of preoptimized auxiliary or fitting basis sets employed in a “resolution of the identity” (RI) technique. We present and test auxiliary bases for approximating the Coulomb term, which further improves accuracy over previously proposed fitting bases. It is shown that RI methods lead to insignificant errors only, which are partly comparable to or even better than that of CD treatments; but RI procedures are superior in speed. CD methods have certain advantages, however, particularly for extended basis sets.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Møller–Plesset perturbation theory: from small molecule methods to methods for thousands of atoms
Cremer, D. (2011) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.58 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Weigend, F., Kattannek, M., & Ahlrichs, R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2009-04-22
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 164106-164106
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W2007886414
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Approximated electron repulsion integrals: Cholesky decomposition versus resolution of the identity methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.3116103
- The paper
- Weigend, F., Kattannek, M., & Ahlrichs, R. (2009). Approximated electron repulsion integrals: Cholesky decomposition versus resolution of the identity methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3116103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
