| 查看: 3456 | 回复: 15 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
wutongshun金虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
用高斯09计算的tddft方法优化激发态出现问题如何解决？
|
|
|
用高斯09计算的tddft方法优化激发态 #p opt=maxcyc=300 td(triplets,nstates=6,root=1) b3lyp/genecp 1 3 出错信息是： You need to solve for more vectors in order to follow this state. Error termination via Lnk1e in /public1/soft/Gauss09/g09/l914.exe at Tue Apr 26 04:00:18 2011. 请教达人，如何解决？ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
高效微纳米储能材料与产业化推进实验室 苏州 招收硕士研究生（含调剂）
已经有0人回复
-
温州大学新能源材料微观溯源课题组招收2026级博士研究生（材料、化学方向）
已经有6人回复
-
物理化学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有299人回复
-
材料与化工 323 英一+数二+物化，一志愿：哈工大 本人本科双一流
已经有5人回复
-
26申博
已经有2人回复
-
山西大学资源与环境工程研究所化工分离/环境功能材料小组招收2026年博士生
已经有2人回复
-
巴黎西岱大学（Université Paris Cité）Fayna MAMMERI 导师寻找CSC公派博士生
已经有9人回复
-
中国散裂中子源诚聘“AI材料计算”方向博士后/职工
已经有77人回复
-
能源环境新材料研究团队 导师介绍 研究生招生
已经有0人回复
-
能源环境新材料研究团队 导师介绍 研究生招生
已经有0人回复
-
能源环境新材料研究团队 导师介绍 研究生招生
已经有0人回复
lihb734
铁杆木虫 (职业作家)
站在计算化学入门的门槛上
- QC强帖: 2
- 应助: 132 (高中生)
- 金币: 7495.4
- 散金: 9378
- 红花: 74
- 帖子: 3107
- 在线: 1177.3小时
- 虫号: 448403
- 注册: 2007-11-01
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
16楼2012-08-16 10:53:52
lihb734
铁杆木虫 (职业作家)
站在计算化学入门的门槛上
- QC强帖: 2
- 应助: 132 (高中生)
- 金币: 7495.4
- 散金: 9378
- 红花: 74
- 帖子: 3107
- 在线: 1177.3小时
- 虫号: 448403
- 注册: 2007-11-01
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
2楼2011-04-26 11:56:19
pwzhou
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- QC强帖: 2
- 应助: 51 (初中生)
- 金币: 7551.4
- 散金: 13
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 412
- 在线: 316.9小时
- 虫号: 56225
- 注册: 2005-01-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 化学动力学
【答案】应助回帖
wutongshun(金币+1): 2011-04-26 12:40:52
|
我再把Gaussian公司的回信附上来，希望这是最后一次有人问这个问题，我实在不记得这已经是多少次有人问这一个同样的问题了。问问题之前搜索一下很难吗？ In the case of "No map to state **, you need to resolve more vectors" messages, this is usually an indication that one did not include enough excited states in the TD or CIS calculation. The "States=N" option to the "TD" or "CIS" keywords tells how many excited states to include in an excited state energy calculation. If this is not specified, the default value will be "States=3". The recommended value is to include a minimum of 2 or 3 more states than the state of interest. Thus, if you want to perform a geometry optimization for excited state 5, for example, I would recommend at least using "States=7" or "States=8". The geometry optimization will be done for one excited state M, selected with "Root=M", and one has to make sure that enough states are included in the CIS or TD expansion by having "States=N" where N is larger than M. It is possible that, at some point during an optimization of an excited state, the order of the excited states changes and the CIS or TD expansion might need to include more states in order to be able to follow correctly the state of interest. This is essentially what that message about including more vectors mean, that is that at that point, the number of states that you originally specified with "States=N" was not enough in order to solve for the state of interest, so a larger number "N" will need to be used for "States=N". Other times, the problem is that the ground state wavefunction becomes unstable, that is one of the states that was an excited at the initial geometry now becomes lower in energy than the state that was the ground state at the initial geometry. This kind of situation, unfortunately, cannot be modeled properly with single determinant expansions such as CIS or TD, and one would need to use CAS in order to be able to deal with the conical intersection or avoided crossing of states. Another thing to note is that one should be much more careful with geometry optimizations on excited states than for the ground state. Typically the energy differences among excited states are smaller than between the ground state and the first excited state. Thus, one can afford to perform larger geometry optimization steps when optimizing the ground state than in the case of optimizing an excited state. A "bad" geometry optimization step in the optimization of the ground state, may take you a bit off track but in following steps the optimization might find the way back and approach the converged structure. In the case of an optimization of an excited state, a "bad" geometry optimization step will also take you off track but, since other electronic states are close in energy, it is possible that at the new geometry the order of the excited states change and now the geometry optimization follows a different electronic state. This is not only a problem because the optimization could be pursuing a different state than the one you were interested in, but also because, if several of these changes occur during a geometry optimization, it may even be hopeless to continue with the optimization because the gradient information and the estimated hessian could be useless (since not all the previous points in the geometry optimization where points from the same potential energy surface). As a first measure to increase the reliability of the geometry optimization of excited states, I recommend to reduce the maximum allowed step size during geometry optimizations. Try "Opt=(MaxStep=10)" to set this value to 0.10 Bohr, or a smaller value if you still have problems. The default value is typically 0.30 Bohr. Reducing the maximum allowed step size will result in the geometry optimization taking more steps to reach convergence than with the default value. This will be true obviously for well-behaved geometry optimizations, but for problematic cases it will be the other way around, i.e. it will take fewer steps (and may even be impossible with the default step size) because it will be easier for the optimizer to follow a particular electronic state if the changes from step to step are not very drastic. |
3楼2011-04-26 12:02:55
wutongshun
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1654.7
- 散金: 49
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 303
- 在线: 116.1小时
- 虫号: 542858
- 注册: 2008-04-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机材料化学
4楼2011-04-26 12:09:21
