III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6 Table I reports our calculated density functional term energies for ground and excited states of Li − and Be $^{−}$. We consider 4 states for the former, viz., [He]2s $^{2 1}$S $^{e}$, 1s2s2p $^{2 5}$P $^{e}$, [He]2p $^{3 5}$S $^{o}$, 1s2s2p3p $^{5}$P $^{e}$; and 3 for the latter, [He]2s2p $^{2 4}$P $^{e}$, [He]2p $^{3 4}$S $^{o}$, 1s2s2p $^{3 6}$S $^{o}$. For each of these states, two sets of energies are given; viz., X-only (noncorrelated) and XC (correlated). All of these states have been quite extensively studied, except the core- excited even-parity 1s2s2p3p $^{5}$P of Li $^{−}$, which has been reported only lately. The latter is also the only case for which HF result is unavailable. Existing literature data are given for comparison. To put results in proper perspective, in parentheses the respective per cent deviations are given; for X-only case these are relative to the lone literature results in column 4; for XC case, these are with respect to the recent variational Monte Carlo (VMC) [8] values except for the 4th states of Li $^{−}$, where such a result does not exist; and this is given in reference to the recent saddle-point calculation of [7]. In VMC approach the authors employed explicitly correlated wave functions having a Jastraw factor and a multideterminant model wave function to account for the dynamical and nondynamical correlation effects respectively. Present X-only result of ground state of Li − is higher from the accurate HF calculation of [32] by only 0.0004 a.u. Our XC energy value is in fairly good agreement (slightly above) with the accurate correlated results reported through MCHF- n expansion considering all expansions [32], as well as the VMC method [8]. However the earlier result of [14] seems to be in considerable disagreement with these two and ours. The present X-only results for the next core-excited high-spin even-parity $^{5}$P e and odd-parity $^{5}$S o states of Li − again show excellent agreement with the recent HF estimates of [8], while the XC energies match well with the VMC [8], extensive CI [3], variational multiconfiguration calculation [6], saddle-point [7], MCHF [5], etc. Note that the present XC energies for these two states are lower than all of these reference results by 0.171 and 0.137%, respectively and constitute the two instances giving maximum deviations in our calculation. Since our X-only results are virtually of HF quality, this overestimation is presumably caused by the correlation potential employed. It is worth noting here that even though a KS equation is solved with the work-function exchange and LYP correlation potential, the procedure is not subject to a variational bound [23, 24]. We note that some of these correlated calculations are highly elaborate and extensive; for example, [6] used a 45 angular component 1004-term