Is the choice of a standard zeroth‐order hamiltonian in CASPT2 ansatz optimal in calculations of excitation energies in protonated and unprotonated schiff bases of retinal?

To account for systematic error of CASPT2 method empirical modification of the zeroth‐order Hamiltonian with Ionization Potential‐Electron Affinity (IPEA) shift was introduced. The optimized IPEA value (0.25 a.u.), called standard IPEA (S‐IPEA), was recommended but due to its unsatisfactory performance in multiple metallic and organic compounds it has been questioned lately as a general parameter working properly for all molecules under CASPT2 study. As we are interested in Schiff bases of retinal, an important question emerging from this conflict of choice, to use or not to use S‐IPEA, is whether the introduction of the modified zeroth‐order Hamiltonian into CASPT2 ansatz does really improve their energetics. To achieve this goal, we assessed an impact of the IPEA shift value, in a range of 0–0.35 a.u., on vertical excitation energies to low‐lying singlet states of two protonated (RPSBs) and two unprotonated (RSBs) Schiff bases of retinal for which experimental data in gas phase are available. In addition, an effect of geometry, basis set, and active space on computed VEEs is also reported. We find, that for these systems, the choice of S‐IPEA significantly overestimates both S 0 → S 1 and S 0 → S 2 energies and the best theoretical estimate, in reference to the experimental data, is provided with either unmodified zeroth‐order Hamiltonian or small value of the IPEA shift in a range of 0.05–0.15 a.u., depending on active space and basis set size, equilibrium geometry, and character of the excited state. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.