{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031746031746031744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006984126984126984, 'mean_word_length': 4.880597014925373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of composite schemes for CCSDT(Q) calculations of interaction energies of noncovalent complexes.

Recently, it has become possible to apply higher-order coupled-cluster methods to polyatomic systems including molecular noncovalent complexes. Due to the steep scaling of the complexity of these calculations, the size of the basis set becomes a critical factor and larger systems can be calculated only in small basis sets. To obtain the most accurate results, it is necessary to use composite schemes where the higher-order terms are added to a baseline calculation for which a larger basis set can be used. In this work, we have examined the accuracy of composite schemes where CCSDT(Q) correction calculated in a smaller basis set is added to CCSD(T), CCSD[T] and CCSDT calculations. As a benchmark, we have used CCSDT(Q)/aug-cc-pVTZ interaction energies calculated in a set of 18 small noncovalent complexes. We have found that the differences between the studied schemes are small and that it is safe to make the correction in a single step starting from the CCSD(T) baseline. The basis set dependence of the correction is strongly affected by the nature of the interaction. For dispersion-bound complexes, the correction calculated in a basis set as small as 6-31G**(0.25,0.15) improves the results consistently. On the other hand, description of polar complexes and especially hydrogen bonds is more difficult and the CCSDT(Q) correction has an incorrect sign until a rather large basis set is used; even the aug-cc-pVDZ result is not reliable in rare cases.