Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

General implementation of the resolution-of-the-identity and Cholesky representations of electron repulsion integrals within coupled-cluster and equation-of-motion methods: Theory and benchmarks

Epifanovsky, Evgeny, Zuev, Dmitry, Feng, Xintian, Khistyaev, Kirill, Shao, Yihan, Krylov, Anna I.·2013·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

We present a general implementation of the resolution-of-the-identity (RI) and Cholesky decomposition (CD) representations of electron repulsion integrals within the coupled-cluster with single and double substitutions (CCSD) and equation-of-motion (EOM) family of methods. The CCSD and EOM-CCSD equations are rewritten to eliminate the storage of the largest four-index intermediates leading to a significant reduction in disk storage requirements, reduced I/O penalties, and, as a result, improved parallel performance. In CCSD, the number of rate-determining contractions is also reduced; however, in EOM the number of operations is increased because the transformed integrals, which are computed once in the canonical implementation, need to be reassembled at each Davidson iteration. Nevertheless, for large jobs the effect of the increased number of rate-determining contractions is surpassed by the significantly reduced memory and disk usage leading to a considerable speed-up. Overall, for medium-size examples, RI/CD CCSD calculations are approximately 40% faster compared with the canonical implementation, whereas timings of EOM calculations are reduced by a factor of two. More significant speed-ups are obtained in larger bases, i.e., more than a two-fold speed-up for CCSD and almost five-fold speed-up for EOM-EE-CCSD in cc-pVTZ. Even more considerable speedups (6-7-fold) are achieved by combining RI/CD with the frozen natural orbitals approach. The numeric accuracy of RI/CD approaches is benchmarked with an emphasis on energy differences. Errors in EOM excitation, ionization, and electron-attachment energies are less than 0.001 eV with typical RI bases and with a 10−4 threshold in CD. Errors with 10−2 and 10−3 thresholds, which afford more significant computational savings, are less than 0.04 and 0.008 eV, respectively.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.4820484

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Metadata

Authors
Epifanovsky, E., Zuev, D., Feng, X., Khistyaev, K., Shao, Y., & Krylov, A. I.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
2013-10-02
Volume
139
Issue
13
Pages
134105-134105
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2050036547
Cited by
159
References
2
FWCI
4.80
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: General implementation of the resolution-of-the-identity and Cholesky representations of electron repulsion integrals within coupled-cluster and equation-of-motion methods: Theory and benchmarks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.4820484
The paper
Epifanovsky, E., Zuev, D., Feng, X., Khistyaev, K., Shao, Y., & Krylov, A. I. (2013). General implementation of the resolution-of-the-identity and Cholesky representations of electron repulsion integrals within coupled-cluster and equation-of-motion methods: Theory and benchmarks. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4820484

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.