Density-Functional Excited-State Gradients and Nonadiabatic Couplings on a Consumer GPU from a Contraction-DAG

Let a scalar molecular property $E$ be computed by a directed acyclic graph whose nodes are elementary operations—arithmetic, and coarse matrix-level operations such as the Coulomb build $J(P)$, exchange $K(P)$, long-range exchange $K_{\mathrm{LR}}(P)$, the exchange-correlation potential $V_{xc}(P)$, and the generalized eigensolve $FC=SCE$. A first derivative of $E$ with respect to any input—a nuclear coordinate $\xi$, an orbital rotation, an amplitude—is a single reverse (adjoint) pass over the same DAG, in which each node $y=f(x)$ contributes its vector–Jacobian product $\bar{x}\mathrel{+}=(\partial f/\partial x)^{\!\top}\bar{y}$. For electronic-structure energies this reproduces exactly the Lagrangian/$Z$-vector machinery of analytic-derivative theory [26, 19], derived mechanically rather than by hand.

Two properties make it exact and practical. First, every two-electron and response operation is self-adjoint with respect to the Frobenius pairing $\langle A,B\rangle=\mathrm{Tr}[A^{\!\top}B]$,

so the adjoint reuses the forward kernel. Second, the self-consistent (SCF/eigenvalue) reference is handled by one adjoint solve: differentiating through the SCF fixed point yields the orbital-relaxation response as a single $Z$-vector (CPHF-transpose),

restricted to the occupied–virtual block, replacing one CPHF solve per perturbation; the Hellmann–Feynman part of a simple eigenvalue $\lambda_{k}$ seeds the cotangent $\partial\lambda_{k}/\partial A=x_{k}x_{k}^{\!\top}$. The engine is implemented once, as a set of graph-optimization passes over a common transposable-DAG protocol, and is reused for ground-state forces, TDDFT, hh-TDA/pp-TDA, and the double-hybrid coupling. A machine-precision cross-check of the engine—analytic versus symbolic differentiation, and transpose-of-transpose versus analytic second derivatives—carries no finite-difference floor.

The conventional route to a correlated gradient forms molecular-orbital (MO) two-electron integrals by an $O(N^{5})$ four-index transformation and stores an $O(o^{2}v^{2})$ tensor. Both are avoided by never leaving the AO basis. Writing an orbital-energy denominator as a Laplace transform [1, 20] and discretizing with a short minimax quadrature [31, 6],

the denominator factorizes over the four orbital indices ($n_{L}\!\sim\!8$–$10$). Each amplitude or pseudo-density is then assembled from energy-scaled orbital coefficients $\tilde{C}^{(k)}_{\mu p}=C_{\mu p}e^{\mp\alpha_{k}\varepsilon_{p}/2}$ and contracted through the ordinary AO $J/K$ build on the same integrals the SCF already uses, at a cost of $n_{L}$ builds and $O(N^{2})$ storage rather than an $O(N^{5})$ transformation [3, 8]. For the CIS(D) doubles the denominator is $D_{ijab}+\Omega_{K}$; the same factorization holds with an $\Omega$-shifted quadrature. This “LT-AO” choice is what makes the $J/K$ build—not a four-index MO transform—the natural and only integral primitive for gradients and couplings alike.

Single-state energy gradients contract a derivative integral with a single density (or a symmetric density pair), so the geometry $J/K$ build is symmetric in its two arguments. Interstate and response quantities are different: they contract a derivative integral with a left weight density from one state and a right density from another. The required primitive is therefore

and analogously for $K^{\xi}$. The novelty is per-argument: the left and right weight densities are independent ($W_{\mathrm{L}}\neq W_{\mathrm{R}}$ in general) and each is itself non-symmetric ($W\neq W^{\!\top}$)—the structural signature of a bra$\,\neq\,$ket contraction (the antisymmetric part of $W$ contributes only through the $K$ channel; $J$ retains its symmetric part). This is not a non-commutativity under argument swap: the fully index-contracted object in Eq. (4) is a scalar, invariant under $W_{\mathrm{L}}\!\leftrightarrow\!W_{\mathrm{R}}$ by the bra–ket symmetry $(\mu\nu|\lambda\sigma)=(\lambda\sigma|\mu\nu)$ that the derivative integral retains. The general primitive is this non-symmetric build; ordinary symmetric $J/K$ is its $W_{\mathrm{L}}=W_{\mathrm{R}}$ (with $W=W^{\!\top}$) special case. Every gradient and coupling here is one of these two cases, fixed entirely by the symmetry of the density pair the response derivation produces: symmetric self-density energy terms use symmetric $J/K$; cross-density terms already present in energy gradients (e.g. the separable correlation force, $J^{\xi}(P^{(2)},D^{\mathrm{SCF}})$) and interstate couplings (bra and ket transition densities, $J^{\xi}(W_{\mathrm{L}}^{(I)},W_{\mathrm{R}}^{(J)})$) use the non-symmetric kernel. The kernel is implemented in the Cholesky-decomposed (RI-free) representation [5, 22, 2], taking independent left/right weight densities. The energy-level non-symmetric CD $J/K$ build—$K=B_{V}^{\!\top}B_{U}$ with distinct left/right half-transforms $B_{U}\!=\!UB$, $B_{V}\!=\!VB$, of which the symmetric build is the $U\!=\!V$ special case—and the per-quartet Head-Gordon–Pople/Obara–Saika recurrence kernel—emitted by the recurrence-relation code-generation framework of Ref. [18]—are the shared device engine of the companion work [17]; here we reuse that engine and add the kernels the geometry derivative and the density functional demand (Sec. IV.1).

The two-electron term of the assembled gradient $E^{\xi}=\sum P_{\mu\nu}h^{\xi}_{\mu\nu}+\sum W_{\mu\nu}S^{\xi}_{\mu\nu}+\sum\Gamma_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}(\mu\nu|\lambda\sigma)^{\xi}$ is the single point at which every symbolic response equation meets the nuclear gradient. When the relaxed two-particle density factorizes over a pair of one-particle weight densities—as it does for each response block generated by the reverse pass— the contraction with the derivative integrals is a Laplace $J/K$ build,

The symbolic response term lists are generated with a second-quantization algebra tool and cross-checked against the numerical densities at machine precision; each object maps to one contraction of Eq. (5) with $W_{\mathrm{L}}$ (bra) and $W_{\mathrm{R}}$ (ket) identified term by term (Supp. Mat.).

The hh-TDA states are eigenvectors $X_{I}$ of a Hermitian matrix $A^{hh}$ built on an $(N\!+\!2)$-electron (dianion) range-separated-hybrid reference [36, 39, 4]; the $N$-electron ground and excited states are two eigenvectors of the same problem, reached by double annihilation over the occupied space. pp-TDA is the mirror on an $(N\!-\!2)$ (dication) reference, with $A^{pp}$ over the virtual (particle) space [38, 37]. Because $S_{0}$ and $S_{1}$ are eigenvectors of one Hermitian problem, their coupling does not structurally vanish and the conical-intersection seam has the correct $F\!-\!2$ dimensionality. The excited-state eigenvalue gradient is a Rayleigh quotient derivative, $\mathrm{d}\lambda_{k}/\mathrm{d}R=\langle X_{k}|\,\mathrm{d}A/\mathrm{d}R\,|X_{k}\rangle$, and reduces (Sec. II.1) to a geminal skeleton term $J^{\xi}/K^{\xi}(P^{X},P^{X})$ plus a single combined $Z$-vector whose relaxed density $P^{\mathrm{eff}}$ and energy-weighted density $W^{\mathrm{eff}}$ contract the Fock and overlap derivatives—one CPHF engine, no per-state hand derivation [26, 19, 42]. The interstate coupling $\tau_{IJ}=\langle\Psi_{I}|\partial/\partial R|\Psi_{J}\rangle$ factorizes through a two-hole (two-particle) Löwdin/Slater–Condon reduction into an amplitude-response and an orbital-connection term, both built from the same non-symmetric $J/K$ primitive [24, 9]. The range-separated exchange (wB97X) enters through the long-range $K_{\mathrm{LR}}$ channel, evaluated device-resident.

The double-hybrid capability that distinguishes this work from prior efficient excited-state implementations rests on a first-principles derivation of the doubles-sector derivative coupling, which we give here in full because it is both new and subtle. The reference is the B2PLYP Kohn–Sham determinant [16], whose exchange mixes $53\%$ exact (HF) exchange with $47\%$ B88 and whose correlation mixes $73\%$ LYP with a second-order perturbative (PT2) contribution scaled by $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}=0.27$; the singles enter through TDA on this hybrid part, and the PT2 scaling $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$ multiplies the entire doubles-sector correction derived below. A double-hybrid excited state adds to the CIS/TDA root a first-order Rayleigh–Schrödinger doubles correction [21, 29],

with the doubles coefficient carrying the CIS(D) numerator over a shifted denominator,

$\Omega_{K}$ the CIS excitation energy and $u^{K}=\mathcal{L}[R^{K}]$ the denominator-free, antisymmetrized numerator—linear in the singles amplitude and in the molecular two-electron integrals, $u_{ijab}=\sum_{c}(\langle ab\|cj\rangle R_{ic}-\langle ab\|ci\rangle R_{jc})+\sum_{k}(\langle ka\|ij\rangle R_{kb}-\langle kb\|ij\rangle R_{ka})$. Because $\langle\Psi_{I}|\Psi_{J}\rangle=0$ at a single geometry, $1/\sqrt{N_{I}N_{J}}$ (with $N_{K}=\tfrac{1}{2}+\sum(c^{K})^{2}$) is an exact constant prefactor, and the doubles-sector coupling separates into three physically distinct contributions,

The doubles coefficient of Eq. (7) is the unscaled CIS(D) form: the PT2 weight $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$ appears nowhere in $u^{K}$, in $D_{ijab}$, or in $c^{K}$. In a double hybrid $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$ is the single empirical prefactor multiplying the entire second-order correlation correction to the energy, $\Omega^{\mathrm{DH}}_{K}=\Omega^{\mathrm{TDA}}_{K}+c_{\mathrm{PT2}}\,\Delta E^{(2)}_{K}$, exactly as $E^{\mathrm{DH}}=E^{\mathrm{hyb}}+c_{\mathrm{PT2}}E^{(2)}$ for the ground state. The doubles-sector contribution to every property therefore carries this single prefactor $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$, which pulls through the auxiliary-ansatz (Send–Furche/Ou) construction of the coupling, so the coupling is exactly affine in $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$, $d_{IJ}=d^{\mathrm{ref}}_{IJ}+c_{\mathrm{PT2}}\,d^{(D)}_{IJ}$ with $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}=0.27$, a single, uniform $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$ on the whole $d^{(D)}=d^{[\mathrm{sd}]}+d^{[\mathrm{ds}]}+d^{[\mathrm{dd}]}$—without the coupling being a derivative of the energy. Here $d^{\mathrm{ref}}$ is the TDA (CIS-like) coupling of the B2PLYP hybrid reference—built from the B2PLYP Kohn–Sham orbitals and the hybrid-kernel TDA response ($53\%$ exact exchange, $47\%$ B88, $73\%$ LYP), not an HF-based CIS coupling. The differing homogeneity of the blocks in the doubles coefficient $c^{K}$—$d^{[\mathrm{sd}]},d^{[\mathrm{ds}]}$ linear in $c$, $d^{[\mathrm{dd}]}$ bilinear—does not translate into differing powers of $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$: this structure is intrinsic to the plain CIS(D) ansatz, which contains no $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$, and $c^{K}$ is itself $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$-independent. A block-dependent weighting such as $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}(d^{[\mathrm{sd}]}+d^{[\mathrm{ds}]})+c_{\mathrm{PT2}}^{2}d^{[\mathrm{dd}]}$ would not be the geometric derivative of the B2PLYP energy and is excluded. The oracle validation of Sec. V.5 targets the unscaled $d^{(D)}$ and is therefore independent of the value of $c_{\mathrm{PT2}}$. Which term dominates flips between state pairs, so all three are required; a naive gradient-Lagrangian ansatz reproduces none, because the CIS(D) doubles are a non-variational first-order correction with no eigenvalue stationarity and hence no numerator-over-gap form (this is what the oracle of Sec. III exposed). The nearest prior doubles-sector excited-state derivative is the SOS-CIS(D₀) analytic gradient of Rhee and co-workers [28]; the object here is instead the doubles-sector derivative coupling between two states, generated by the graph transpose rather than a hand-coded Lagrangian. The closest existing analytic derivative coupling of a doubles-corrected wavefunction is that of Teh and Subotnik [33] for CIS plus a single double, which the double-hybrid CIS(D) coupling generalizes.

The energy-level non-symmetric CD $J/K$ build and the per-quartet HGP–OS recurrence kernel are the shared engine of the companion EOM-CC work [17]; two kernel families are new here (Fig. 1).

The split derivative-Fock build. The two-electron geometry derivative of a coupling would naively loop the non-symmetric build of Eq. (4) over all $n_{\rm ov}$ orbital pairs. Instead a single “split” kernel emits the full derivative Fock tensor $H[\text{atom},\xi,\mu,\nu]=\partial_{\xi}(2J-a_{x}K)[P_{0}]$ in $O(N_{\rm atom})$ device launches, from which the coupling’s occupied–virtual projection $g_{ia}=C_{o}^{\!\top}HC_{v}$ is a pair of cuBLAS GEMMs (Fig. 1a). The profile-guided collapse of its dominant two-center metric term—$65{,}268$ single-column micro-launches at $\sim\!2\%$ streaming-multiprocessor throughput rebuilt as $196$ full-occupancy launches—is the final $3.9\times$ stage of the $\sim\!133\times$ cascade quantified in Sec. V.6, FP64 bit-identical throughout.

The DFT grid stack. A double-hybrid excited-state coupling needs the exchange-correlation grid at three derivative orders, none of which exists in a wavefunction engine: the Kohn–Sham potential $V_{xc}$, its first functional derivative $f_{xc}$ (the CPHF/response Fock), and its second $g_{xc}$ (the transition-density force), all on a device-resident Stratmann–Scuseria–Frisch (SSF) quadrature (Fig. 1b). The SSF partition weights are themselves a new kernel: the textbook host build materializes an $O(N_{\rm atom}^{2}\,n_{g})$ array ($\sim\!27$ TB for an illustrative $94$-atom system) and cannot run at scale, so each weight is computed with $O(1)$ memory per grid point—one thread per point, the partition product accumulated on the fly with an early cull exploiting SSF locality—FP32-safe to $2\times 10^{-4}$. On this grid $V_{xc}$ is a persistent per-iteration operator: the geometry-fixed inputs (grid, primitive tables, screened pair lists) are baked into a shared library compiled once, then driven each SCF step by the density alone through a three-pass density-gather $\to$ functional $\to$  potential-scatter pipeline. The response operator $f_{xc}$ reuses that same gather and scatter verbatim; the transition-density force $g_{xc}$ adds the moving-grid nuclear derivative—a Pulay AO-derivative term, a grid-point-motion term, and a weight-response term contracting the SSF weight derivative—carrying the third functional derivatives. Because $V_{xc}$’s functional kernel is nvcc-compiled once per geometry, it is the single component evaluated outside the ahead-of-time-frozen library (a one-time per-geometry compile, disclosed; the $J/K$ and derivative-Fock kernels are fully frozen).

Before extending hh-TDA we confirm the device engine is hh-TDA. On the local subset of the Thiel gas-phase benchmark set (MP2/6-31G* geometries), the same molecules and states for which Bannwarth et al. [4] tabulate their own hh-TDA-$\omega$B97X statistics, the device excitations reproduce Bannwarth’s published error statistics ($\mathrm{MD}/\mathrm{MAD}/\mathrm{RMSD}/\mathrm{SD}$: device $0.40/0.57/0.75/0.65$ eV vs. reference $0.40/0.59/0.77/0.67$ eV over $N=30$ states) to within $0.03$ eV in every statistic—a Cartesian-versus-spherical basis-convention shift, not a method difference. The two error distributions (Fig. 2) and the $\pi\pi^{*}$/$n\pi^{*}$ splittings, including the characteristic hh-TDA over-splitting of the azine $\pi\pi^{*}$ states (Fig. 3), coincide with the reference.

Notably, the device even reproduces the reference’s systematic deviations—the azine $\pi\pi^{*}$ over-splitting is present at the same magnitude (Fig. 3, s-tetrazine and pyridazine)—which is the strongest possible parity check: the engine tracks not just where hh-TDA is right but where it is characteristically wrong. Having certified that the device engine reproduces hh-TDA where it is right and, more tellingly, where it is characteristically wrong, we now build on it the analytic derivative couplings it was constructed to deliver—beginning with the two topology-correct manifolds.

The hh-TDA and pp-TDA excited-state eigenvalue gradients and the $S_{0}/S_{1}$ through-CI derivative couplings are obtained from the same reverse-mode $Z$-vector and non-symmetric $J/K$ primitive as the double-hybrid coupling—one engine, three formalisms. The eigenvalue-gradient core is validated against finite differences to $\sim\!10^{-6}\,E_{h}/a_{0}$ on pure-exchange dication/dianion anchors across two basis sets, and the full range-separated-hybrid device gradient and NACME are validated against an independent explicit-$U$ (CPHF) reference and a many-electron two-hole/two-particle cofactor finite-difference overlap oracle: all four device gates—hh-TDA and pp-TDA gradient and NACME—pass at both L$\leq$2 and $f$-shell ($L=3$), with device gradients matching the host reference to $\leq\!10^{-6}$, interstate couplings to $\leq\!10^{-4}$ against the overlap oracle, and exact translational invariance ($\sum_{A}\tau_{A}\sim 10^{-14}$). The through-CI couplings, computed exactly where couplings matter (at and near the seam), close the arc for the manifolds that carry the correct conical-intersection topology.

Table 1 collects the four device gates. That a single reverse-mode engine—one $Z$-vector solve and one non-symmetric $J/K$ primitive—passes the gradient check against both finite differences and an independent CPHF reference, and the NACME check against a two-hole/two-particle cofactor overlap oracle, for both manifolds and at $f$-shell ($L=3$), is the concrete evidence that the derivation is not per-method: hh-TDA and pp-TDA differ only in which $(N\!\pm\!2)$ reference the same machinery is transposed through. Concretely, pp-TDA shares identical machinery with hh-TDA—only the $(N\!-\!2)$ dication (rather than $(N\!+\!2)$ dianion) reference differs—and is gated on formaldehyde: the $S_{0}/S_{1}$ NACME on the $\text{H}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}_{\smash[t]{\text{2}}}\text{CO}$ $(N\!-\!2)$ reference and the eigenvalue gradient on the $\text{H}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}_{\smash[t]{\text{2}}}\text{CO}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}^{\text{2+}}$ dication; the conical-intersection physics is showcased on the hh-TDA manifold (Sec. V.4). The vanishing coupling sum $\sum_{A}\tau_{A}\sim 10^{-14}$ confirms exact translational invariance of the interstate coupling, a nontrivial check that the electron-translation-factor/overlap-derivative term is assembled correctly. Because the couplings are evaluated exactly at and near the intersection seam—not extrapolated from an away-from-degeneracy region—the manifolds that carry the correct $F\!-\!2$ topology come with couplings valid precisely where nonadiabatic dynamics needs them.

Figure 4 reproduces on consumer hardware the twisted-ethylene $S_{0}/S_{1}$ conical-intersection topology that Ref. [4] established for hh-TDA: the rigid torsion$\,\times\,$pyramidalization scan of $90^{\circ}$-twisted ethylene (hh-TDA-$\omega$B97X/def2-SVP) yields the characteristic double cone and the minimum-energy $S_{0}/S_{1}$ crossing that adiabatic linear-response TDDFT structurally cannot produce. The distinction is not adiabaticity but manifold membership: because the hh-TDA ground and excited states are eigenvectors of one Hermitian matrix, $S_{0}$ lies inside the response manifold, the $S_{0}$-involving intersection retains the correct $F\!-\!2$ branching-space dimensionality, and $\langle S_{0}|\partial_{R}|S_{1}\rangle$ does not vanish by construction—whereas ph-TDDFT, with $S_{0}$ outside its manifold, gives $\tau\!\equiv\!0$ at an $S_{0}$-involving crossing in every basis [23, 14]. What we add to Ref. [4] on this canonical system is the fully device-resident analytic machinery—the $(N\!+\!2)$ reference SCF, the $A^{\mathrm{hh}}$ eigenproblem, and the analytic energy gradients (finite-difference- and translational-invariance-validated to the Cholesky-factor floor, Table 1)—the on-surface ingredients a nonadiabatic propagation requires, all produced by one reverse-mode engine on a single RTX 4060. The quantitative analytic derivative coupling is reported separately, at the covalent ammonia $n\!\rightarrow\!\sigma^{*}$/$\tilde{X}$ conical intersection where $|\tau|=|\langle S_{0}|\partial_{R}|S_{1}\rangle|/\Delta E$ rides on a physical gap (Sec. V.4); the twisted-ethylene coupling magnitude, put on trial at that ammonia seam, is deferred to a forthcoming dedicated study, ethylene here establishing the $F\!-\!2$ topology and the device-resident gradients on the canonical benchmark.¹¹1The twisted-ethylene seam is not a clean magnitude test: the ionic ($\pi\pi^{*}$/$V$) character of $S_{1}$ makes its energetics—and hence the closing gap that enters $|\tau|$—sensitive to dynamic correlation beyond the range-separated-hybrid reference. The forthcoming study analyzes the hh-TDA coupling magnitude on that ionic seam, including its comparison to the purpose-built treatment of Filatov, Lee, and Choi [10].

The scan is device-computed: the $(N\!+\!2)$ dianion $\omega$B97X reference SCF (device $J/K/K_{\mathrm{LR}}$, DeviceVxc, cuSOLVER eigensolve), the $A^{\mathrm{hh}}$ built from device occupied-MO exchange integrals and diagonalized on the device, the term(c) connection, and every geometry-derivative integral of the frame-covariant numerator $\langle X_{I}|\partial_{R}A|X_{J}\rangle$ all run on the RTX 4060 (peak $99\%$ utilization, $1045$ MiB resident). The last of these closes a subtlety: the numerator is contracted from the derivative overlap, core-Hamiltonian, and $2J-a_{x}K$ (full- and long-range) skeleton matrices, each a device kernel validated against its host reference to the Cholesky-factor floor including the $f$-shell (Table 4). These are now fused into a single device-resident, AO-direct path—the production NACME forms no four-index host tensor and reproduces both the host analytic coupling and the determinant oracle—so what remains is only a certified codegen-free (aot_frozen) end-to-end wall-clock, which awaits capturing the long-range kernels in the ahead-of-time-compiled library.

Ethylene fixes the intersection topology; the coupling magnitude is put on trial where it is physically trustworthy. The ammonia $n\!\rightarrow\!\sigma^{*}$ photodissociation seam is the complement to the twisted-ethylene case in exactly the way the coupling demands: it is a covalent $S_{0}/S_{1}$ intersection with no low-lying ionic manifold, so the closing gap that enters $|\tau|=|\langle S_{0}|\partial_{R}|S_{1}\rangle|/\Delta E$ is set by valence physics the range-separated-hybrid reference already describes well, not by the dynamic correlation of an ionic $\pi\pi^{*}$/$V$ state. Here the analytic derivative coupling is a quantitative result, not a diagnostic. Figure 5 shows the device hh-TDA-$\omega$B97X/def2-SVP scan of a planar single-N–H dissociation on the RTX 4060: the $S_{0}/S_{1}$ gap closes from $1.26$ eV to a genuine cusp of $0.031$ eV at $R_{\mathrm{N-H}}=2.50$ Å and reopens to $0.63$ eV toward the $\text{NH}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}_{\smash[t]{\text{2}}}$ fragment (panel a), and the interstate coupling tracks $1/\Delta E$, rising from $0.37$ to a seam spike of $39.5\,a_{0}^{-1}$ (panel b). At this $S_{0}$-involving crossing adiabatic linear-response TD-DFT gives $\tau\!\equiv\!0$ by construction [23, 14]; the hh-TDA coupling does not vanish, and because it rides a physically correct gap at a covalent intersection it is quantitatively trustworthy here—not the structural zero of linear response.

This pair also exposes—and lets us resolve cleanly—a translational-invariance subtlety that the momentum-free $\text{H}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}_{\smash[t]{\text{2}}}\text{CO}$ and ethylene pairs never raise. The exact center-of-mass sum rule is $\sum_{A}\tau_{A}=-\langle S_{0}|\nabla|S_{1}\rangle$, which is finite whenever the transition carries electronic momentum; the out-of-plane $n_{z}\!\rightarrow\!\sigma^{*}$ character here does ($\sum_{A}\tau_{A,z}\!\approx\!0.08$–$0.12$ across the scan), so the strict $\sum_{A}\tau_{A}\!\to\!0$ certificate that holds automatically for the symmetric pairs does not apply to the raw coupling. The gauge-invariant determinant oracle confirms the raw coupling is nonetheless correct—it reproduces the same physical momentum to $\sim\!0.3\%$ (rising to $1.55\%$ at the exact $R=2.50$ Å seam, a finite-difference truncation of the $0.031$ eV near-degeneracy). To report the strictly translation-invariant coupling that nonadiabatic dynamics requires, we attach electron-translation factors [9]: a partition-of-unity envelope that removes the net interstate momentum, driving $\sum_{A}\tau_{A}$ to machine zero while changing the peak coupling by $\leq\!0.2\%$ at the seam and leaving the momentum-free pairs untouched (their gates unchanged); the $f$-shell (def2-TZVP, $L=3$) check passes with the factors on. The per-atom partition freedom—the literal antisymmetric-overlap (E1) versus population-partition (E2) forms, which remove the same net momentum but distribute it differently per atom—and the physical criterion that selects E2 are derived and quantified in the Supporting Information.

The hh-/pp-TDA couplings of the preceding sections reproduce and extend, on consumer hardware, a capability the field already possesses. The doubles-sector double-hybrid coupling is the object no prior implementation supplies. We validate it against the same class of literal determinant-overlap oracle, and then show the double-hybrid energy it necessarily brings with it.

The doubles-sector double-hybrid coupling $d^{(D)}$ is the central result of this work and the object no prior implementation supplies; we validate it against the same class of literal determinant-overlap oracle. The first-principles double-hybrid coupling $d^{(D)}=d^{[\mathrm{sd}]}+d^{[\mathrm{ds}]}+d^{[\mathrm{dd}]}$ reproduces the literal determinant oracle to $\sim\!10^{-4}$ relative on every state pair at a generic (distorted $C_{1}$) geometry (Table 2); the STO-3G B2PLYP setting there is a validation-tractability vehicle that keeps the many-electron overlap oracle affordable, not a production recommendation. At the symmetric $C_{2v}$ reference one state pair is $14\%$ off—not a method error but a step-size-independent eigenvector discontinuity at the symmetry point, which the analytic method (using the reference amplitude) is immune to; re-running at $C_{1}$, where the pair is no longer degenerate, restores agreement to $1.9\times 10^{-4}$. Each of the three contributions passes its own per-contribution sub-oracle at $\leq\!10^{-4}$. A subtlety we flag: the near-degenerate pair required correcting a silent under-convergence of the iterative CIS eigensolver, which returned a non-eigenvector as a “state”; a dense eigensolve is the fix, and is essential for any eigenvector-response quantity.

The coupling does not arrive alone. The same CIS(D) doubles amplitude that corrects the coupling dresses the excitation energy; its effect on the energies is a direct, independently checkable corollary of the object just validated. The CIS(D)-type correction [21, 28] that dresses the TD-B2PLYP excitations with second-order dynamic correlation should tighten the excitation energies just as it tightens the couplings—where the double-hybrid buys accuracy bare hh-TDA cannot reach. Figure 6 verifies this on the ten states shared between the benchmark and the double-hybrid evaluation. Moving from bare hh-TDA to the TD-B2PLYP substrate to the (D)-corrected result, the accuracy improves monotonically in the aggregate: $\mathrm{MAD}$ falls $0.86\rightarrow 0.55\rightarrow 0.47$ eV and $\mathrm{RMSD}$ falls $1.09\rightarrow 0.68\rightarrow 0.61$ eV, while the substrate’s systematic bias collapses from $\mathrm{MD}=+0.53$ eV to $+0.05$ eV—the (D) correction removes the over-excitation almost entirely. These ten (D)-evaluated states are the harder valence subset of the local set, so bare hh-TDA’s MAD here ($0.86$ eV) is larger than its $0.57$ eV over the full $N=30$ set. The improvement is not universal: it helps seven of the ten states, and on strongly ionic/doubly-excited $\pi\pi^{*}$ states the CIS(D) doubles amplitude over-corrects (formaldehyde $\pi\pi^{*}$ swings to $-1.14$ eV, pyridazine $\pi\pi^{*}$ to $-0.81$ eV, s-tetrazine $\pi\pi^{*}$ to $-0.90$ eV), consistent with the known breakdown of a perturbative doubles treatment where the reference is multiconfigurational. We report this honestly rather than trimming it: the net gain is real and the failure mode is the expected one. The correction is device-resident through the $f$-shell—the formaldehyde/def2-TZVP ($L=3$) $\pi\pi^{*}$ state moves $4.22\rightarrow 4.02$ eV under (D), evaluated with the same device kernels validated in Table 4.

The doubles-sector coupling is device-resident: the two-electron derivative work is a single “split” kernel that emits the full derivative Fock matrix $H[\text{atom},\xi,\mu,\nu]=\partial_{\xi}(2J-a_{x}K)[P_{0}]$ in $O(N_{\mathrm{atom}})$ device launches, replacing an $O(N_{\mathrm{ov}})$ loop of per-orbital-pair builds; the $O(N_{\mathrm{ov}})$ projection $C_{o}^{\!\top}HC_{v}$ is a pair of cuBLAS matrix products. At $f$-shell ($\text{H}{\vphantom{\text{X}}}_{\smash[t]{\text{2}}}\text{O}$, cc-pVTZ, $N_{\mathrm{ov}}=225$) this replaces an estimated $2835$ s of per-pair builds with $83.7$ s—a $33.9\times$ reduction—while the projection is machine-exact against a host reference ($7\times 10^{-14}$).

A profile-guided optimization then attacks the derivative-Fock build itself. Nsight Compute attribution showed the dominant cost was the two-center metric term of the exchange channel, built as $6.5\times 10^{4}$ single-column kernel launches each at $\sim\!2\%$ streaming-multiprocessor throughput: the card appeared busy while $\sim\!98\%$ of its throughput sat idle. Rebuilding that tensor in one full-occupancy pass ($196$ launches at $55$–$72\%$ throughput), fusing two kernels that redundantly evaluated the same vertical recurrence, and deriving one channel from the other by a matrix product together take the warm build from $83.7$ s to $21.4$ s—a further $3.9\times$. Figure 7 shows the throughput recovery behind that gain—the streaming-multiprocessor occupancy climbing from $\sim\!2\%$ to $55$–$72\%$ as $65{,}268$ micro-launches collapse to $196$—and Fig. 8 the resulting three-stage wall-clock cascade, $\sim\!133\times$ cumulative over the per-pair reference. Every optimization is bit-identical: in double precision the full $2J-a_{x}K$ derivative-Fock matrix agrees with the per-pair reference to $2.2\times 10^{-13}$ at $f$-shell ($L=3$), block-independent to $5\times 10^{-14}$; the production single-precision substrate floor is $\sim\!10^{-5}$, inside the $\sim\!10^{-4}$ achieved analytic-vs-oracle agreement—itself an order of magnitude inside the $10^{-3}$ acceptance gate (Table 3)—and the assembled NACME output is byte-identical run to run. Table 3 reads as the safety margin of the optimization: the double-precision substrate certifies that the launch collapse changed only the kernel’s launch geometry and not its arithmetic, while the single-precision production floor sits an order of magnitude inside the tolerance the physics actually demands. That single-kernel tuning is only half the performance story; we now step back from the one optimized kernel to the whole production Cholesky-decomposed (CD) $J/K$ engine, measured across a set of real chromophores (Figs. 9–11).

Figure 9 reports the practical speedup of the device CD $J{+}K$ Fock build over a conventional single-thread PySCF FP64 four-index get_jk, at the same xTB-optimized geometry and converged density, for seven calculations across six systems—five chromophores plus an alkane $f$-shell reference—spanning $236$–$472$ atomic orbitals and three basis sets (def2-SVP, pcseg-0, def2-TZVP). The device build is $32$–$849\times$ faster (geometric mean $313\times$); across the larger systems ($\geq\!335$ AO) the range is $323$–$849\times$. The floor of the range is ferrocene at def2-SVP ($32\times$, $236$ AO, $f$-shell $L=3$), where the CPU reference is only $792$ ms and the small absolute work leaves little to amortize; the advantage grows with system size—the same molecule at def2-TZVP ($472$ AO) reaches $849\times$. Two disclosures keep this honest. First, the device CD $J/K$ reproduces PySCF’s exact four-index $J/K$ to $\sim\!10^{-6}$ ($J$) and $\sim\!10^{-5}$ ($K$): this is a time-to-the-same-result speedup, not an accuracy shortcut. Second, it is a combined method-and-hardware advantage—Cholesky-decomposed ERIs on the GPU against conventional four-index ERIs on the CPU—and is the speedup a user actually obtains, not a pure-hardware claim; the baseline is conventional PySCF (not density-fitted), single-threaded (a verified $1$-vs-$6$-thread control gives only $4.8$–$6.0\times$), and the device $K$ runs in FP64, so the reported factors are a conservative lower bound.

Figure 10 places the twelve production CD-DFT kernels on the RTX 4060 (AD107, sm_89) roofline—the eight two-electron kernels and the four XC-grid kernels of Fig. 1(b)—showing that the engine is well-placed against the hardware ceilings across its whole footprint, not only at the single kernel of Fig. 7. The two-electron kernels populate the bandwidth region: the exchange ($K$) kernels ride $67$–$80\%$ of the FP32 DRAM-bandwidth roof; the Coulomb ($J$) build is bandwidth-bound at $\sim\!94\%$; and the FP64 $\Gamma$-density build reaches $82\%$ of the FP64 compute peak—the compute wall that motivates the mixed-precision (FP32) production substrate. The four grid-based XC kernels sit instead in the compute region at high arithmetic intensity, as expected for grid-pointwise work: the FP32 $V_{xc}$ scatter and $f_{xc}$ response reach $6\%$ and $14\%$ of the FP32 roof, and the mostly-FP64 $g_{xc}$ transition-density force and SSF weight-response reach $37\%$ and $16\%$ of the FP64 peak (the $g_{xc}$ force being the strongest FP64 fraction, saturating the scalar FP64 pipe). Each kernel sits against its relevant ceiling, so the measured throughput is close to what the hardware allows rather than an artifact of an under-resolved workload.

Figure 11 fits the device $J{+}K$ wall-clock across the series to $t\propto N^{2.02}$ ($J$: $N^{2.04}$; $K$: $N^{2.00}$, both near-quadratic), close to the $\sim\!N^{2.0}$ reported for the efficient hh-TDA of Bannwarth and co-workers [4]. Because the series deliberately spans three basis sets of differing maximum angular momentum, this exponent is a practical size-scaling of the production workload, not a fixed-basis asymptote. All series numbers were collected under the ahead-of-time-compiled kernel library with zero just-in-time compilation (generator modules $0$, new cubins $0$), and the $f$-shell case (ferrocene, $L=3$) is included per our standing gate rule, so the $f$-shell blind spot is exercised at production scale.

These performance numbers are for the shared two-electron engine—the CD $J/K$ Fock build through which every method in this work is expressed. The excited-state objects that headline the paper—the hh-TDA/pp-TDA gradients and NACMEs and the double-hybrid derivative coupling—now run device-resident and AO-direct on this same engine (Table 4): the frame-covariant numerators, the relaxed-density gradient assembly, and the double-hybrid response are assembled on the device without forming a four-index host tensor, each validated against its determinant- or finite-difference oracle. We nonetheless quote no end-to-end device wall-clock for these paths: the range-separated ($K_{\mathrm{LR}}$) kernels they invoke are not yet captured in the ahead-of-time-compiled library, so a codegen-free aot_frozen end-to-end time—the only kind our standing rule permits—awaits that infrastructure extension. The device cost meanwhile reduces to the aot_frozen CD $J/K$/$2e$-gradient primitives timed in the roofline (Fig. 10).

The author has no conflicts to disclose.