\section{Introduction}

The electronic structure calculations of quantum chemistry, solid-state physics, and material sciences become
enormously
simple since the advent of the Kohn-Sham (KS)~\cite{kohn1965self,hohenberg1964inhomogeneous} density functional
theory (DFT)~\cite{burke2012perspective}. In DFT, the development of efficient yet accurate exchange-correlation
(XC)
functional, which contains all the many-body quantum effects beyond the Hartree method, is one of the main
research topics since the last couple of
decades and continues to be the same in recent times. The accuracy of the ground-state properties
of electronic systems
depends on the XC functional approximation (density functional approximation - DFA). The non-empirical XC
functionals are developed by satisfying many quantum mechanical exact
constraints~\cite{levy2010simple,levy2016mathematical,sun2015strongly,tao2016accurate}
such as:
density scaling rules of xc functionals due to coordinate transformations \cite{levy1985hellmann,
levy2016mathematical,gorling1992requirements,fabiano2013relevance}, second (and fourth) order gradient expansion
of exchange and correlation energies
\cite{svendsenPRB96,antoniewiczPRB85,huPRB86,bruecknerPR68,elliottCJC09,elliottPRL08}, low density and high
density
limit of the correlation energy functional\cite{gorling1994exact,gorling1993correlation,gorling1995hardness},
asymptotic behavior of the XC energy density or
potential \cite{dellasalaPRL02,engelZPD92,horowitz2009position,constantin2011adiabatic,constantin2016semilocal,
niquet2003asymptotic,almbladh1985exact,umrigar1994accurate}, quasi-2D behavior of the
XC energy \cite{pollack2000evaluating,kaplan2018collapse,constantin2016simple,constantin2008dimensional}, and
exact properties of the XC hole ~\cite{tao2016accurate,tao2008exact,pvrecechtvelovaJCP14,pvrecechtvelovaJCP15}.

Different rungs of Jacob's ladder \cite{perdew2001jacob} classification of non-empirical XC approximations
are developed based on the use of various ingredients, from the simple spin densities and their gradients,
until the occupied and unoccupied KS orbitals and energies\cite{grimme2006semiempirical,C8CP03852J,bartlett:2005:abinit2,grabowski2014orbital,SmigaJCP2020,SOSa,seidl2000simulation}.
The first rung of the ladder is the local density approximations (LDA)\cite{kohn1965self}. Next rungs are
represented by semilocal functionals, such as generalized gradient
approximations (GGA)~\cite{perdewPRL96,scuseriaREVIEW05} and meta-GGA ~\cite{taoPRL03,
sun2015strongly,tao2016accurate,jana2019improving,patra2019relevance,jana2021improving,patra2020way,jana2021accurate}. Higher rungs are known as 3.5 rung xc functionals
\cite{janesko2012nonspherical,janesko2013rung,janesko2010rung,janesko2012nonempirical,
janesko2018long,constantin2016hartree,constantin2017modified},
hybrids and hyper-GGAs \cite{perdew2008density,perdew2005prescription,odashima2009nonempirical,
arbuznikov2011advances,jaramillo2003local,kummel2008orbital,becke2005real,becke2007unified,becke2003real,
becke2013density,patra2018long,jana2018efficient,jana2019screened,jana2018cpl,jana2020screened,jana2019long,jana2022solid}, double hybrids~\cite{grimme2007doublehybrid,neil2014construction,scan0,sharkas2011double,
souvi2014double,doi:10.1063/1.3640019},
and adiabatic connection (AC) random-phase approximation (RPA) like methods and
DFT version of the coupled-cluster theory~\cite{toulouse2009adiabatic,ruzsinszky2016kernel,ruzsinszky2010rpa,
bates2017convergence,huPRB86,terentjev2018gradient,constantin2016simple,
corradini1998analytical,erhard2016power,patrick2015adiabatic,bartlett2005exchange,bartlett2005ab,
grabowski2013optimized,grabowski2014orbital}.

Specifically, we recall that the AC formalism \cite{langreth1975exchange,gunnarsson1976exchange,savin2003adiabatic,
cohen2007assessment,ernzerhof1996construction,burke1997adiabatic,colonna1999correlation}, used in various
sophisticated XC functionals ~\cite{savin2003adiabatic,ernzerhof1996construction,burke1997adiabatic,
toulouse2009adiabatic,patrick2015adiabatic,cohen2007assessment,colonna1999correlation,
adamo1998exchange,perdew2001exploring,liu2009adiabatic,magyar2003accurate,
sun2009extension,seidl2010adiabatic,vuckovic2016exchange,fabiano2018investigation,
vuckovic2018restoring,kooi2018local,seidl2018communication,
constantin2019correlation}, is based on the coupling constant (or interaction strength) integral formula~\cite{langreth1975exchange, savin2003adiabatic,cohen2007assessment,ernzerhof1996construction,burke1997adiabatic}
\begin{eqnarray}
& E_{xc}[n]=\int_0^1~d\alpha~W_{\alpha}[n]~, \nonumber \\
& W_{\alpha}[n]=\langle\Psi_\alpha[n]|\hat{V}_{ee}|\Psi_\alpha[n]\rangle-U[n],
 \label{ineq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{V}_{ee}$ is the
Coulomb operator, $U[n]$ is the Hartree energy, $\Psi_\alpha[n]$ is the anti-symmetric
wave function that yields the density $n(\mathbf{r})$ and minimizes
the expectation value $<\hat{T}+\alpha \hat{V}_{ee}>$,
with $\hat{T}$ being the kinetic energy operator, and $\alpha$ the coupling constant.
Eq.~(\ref{ineq1}) can be seen as the exact definition of the XC functional and it connects a non-interacting
single particle system ($\alpha=0$) to a fully
interacting system ($\alpha=1$). Note that the $\alpha\to 0$ limit is known as the weak-interaction limit, where
the perturbative approach is valid.
Thus, the well-known second-order G\"{o}rling-Levy perturbation theory
(GL2)~\cite{gorling1994exact,gorling1993correlation,
gorling1995hardness,gorling1998exact} can be applied in the weak-interaction limit, and $W_{\alpha}[n]$ can be expanded as~\cite{seidl2000simulation}
\begin{equation}
 W{_{\alpha\to 0}}[n] = W_0[n] + W_0'[n]\alpha~ + \dots
 \label{ineq2}
\end{equation}
where $W_0=E_x$ and $W_0'[n]=2E_c^{GL2}[n]$. On the other hand, the
strong-interaction limit of $W_\alpha[n]$ is given as~\cite{seidl2000simulation}
\begin{equation}
 W{_{\alpha\to \infty}}[n] = W_\infty[n] + W_\infty'[n]\alpha^{-1/2},
 \label{ineq3}
\end{equation}
where $W_\infty[n]$ and $W_\infty'[n]$ have a highly non-local density dependence, captured by the strictly-correlated electrons (SCE) limit \cite{seidl07,gorigiorgi09,MalMirCreReiGor-PRB-13}, and their exact evaluation in general cases is a non-trivial problem.

In particular, one of the successful attempts to practical usability of the AC DFAs
came through the
interacting strength
interpolation (ISI) method by Seidl and
coworkers~\cite{seidl2000simulation,seidl2000density,perdew2001exploring,seidl2010adiabatic,
 gori2009electronic,gori2010density,fabiano2016interaction,seidl1999strictly,seidl2018communication,
seidl2016challenging}, where the $\alpha \to\infty$ limit is approximated by semilocal gradient expansions (GEA) derived within the point-charge-plus-continuum (PC) model~\cite{seidl2000simulation,seidl2000density,perdew2001exploring,seidl2010adiabatic}.
Based on this form the ISI has been tested for various
applications~\cite{fabiano2016interaction,giarrusso2018assessment,fabiano2018investigation}.
Also, several
modifications of the ISI has been suggested~\cite{mirtschink2012energy,gori2009electronic,liu2009adiabatic, SeiPerLev-PRA-99, NCIISI} as well as the PC model itself such as the hPC\cite{SCFISI} or modified PC (mPC)~\cite{constantin2019correlation} which is more robust for the
quasi-two dimensional (quasi-2D) density regime.

Recently based on the ISI formula, the adiabatic connection semilocal correlation (ACSC) method was introduced\cite{constantin2019correlation}, showing the alternative path of construction of semilocal correlation functionals. The ACSC formula interpolates the high and low-density limit for the given semi-local DFA directly, in contrary to the standard path where the interpolation is done at the local LDA level and then corrected by gradient or meta-GGA corrections\cite{perdewPRL96,taoPRL03}. We recall that in \Ref{constantin2019correlation}, the ACSC functional was built using Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE)\cite{perdewPRL96} high-density formula and mPC model showing similar or improved accuracy over its PBE precursor proving in the same time the evidence for the robustness of ACSC construction.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotUEG.pdf}
\caption{Correlation energy per particle $\epsilon_c$
versus the bulk parameter $r_s$, for the uniform electron gas.}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}

In this paper, we investigate in more detail the ACSC method and provide some new developments in this context. In \Sec{sec-theory}, we briefly overview the ACSC functional construction, showing the importance of high- and low-density limit approximations. Next, we propose an extension of the ACSC method to the meta-GGA level using the high and low-density limits of
the Tao-Perdew-Staroverov-Scuseria (TPSS)~\cite{taoPRL03} DFA. Following that, we apply ACSC correlation energy functionals to some model systems (Hook's atom and H$_2$ molecule) and real calculations (the atomization energies of several small molecules) to show some current limitations of ACSC functional construction.
Lastly, we conclude by discussing the future possible advances of the present construction.

\section{Theory}

\subsection{Background of the Adiabatic Connection Semilocal Correlation (ACSC)}
\label{sec-theory}

Following \Ref{constantin2019correlation}, the ACSC correlation energy per particle is given as,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& n\epsilon_c^{ACSC}(\mathbf{r})=\int_0^1d\alpha\; w_{c,\alpha}(\mathbf{r})  \label{eq1} \\
&& w_{c,\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) = w_\infty(\mathbf{r})-w_0(\mathbf{r}) + \frac{ \mathcal{X}(\mathbf{r})}{\sqrt{1+  \mathcal{Y}(\mathbf{r})\alpha} +  \mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{r})} \label{eq1a}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}
&& n\epsilon_c^{ACSC}(\mathbf{r})= w_\infty(\mathbf{r})-w_0(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber\\
&& +\frac{2\mathcal{X}(\mathbf{r})}{\mathcal{Y}(\mathbf{r})}[\sqrt{1+\mathcal{Y}(\mathbf{r})}-1-\mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{r})
\ln(\frac{\sqrt{1+\mathcal{Y}(\mathbf{r})}+\mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{r})}{1+\mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{r})})]~.\nonumber\\
\label{eq1b}
\end{eqnarray}
The above expression represents a general form for the correlation energy density, derived
from the ISI formula~\cite{seidl2000simulation,seidl2000density,perdew2001exploring,seidl2010adiabatic,
 gori2009electronic,gori2010density,fabiano2016interaction,seidl1999strictly,seidl2018communication,
seidl2016challenging} with %
\begin{eqnarray}
& \mathcal{X}(\mathbf{r})=-2 w'_0(\mathbf{r}) (w'_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^2/ (w_0(\mathbf{r})-w_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^2,\nonumber\\
& \mathcal{Y}(\mathbf{r})=4 (w'_0(\mathbf{r}))^2 (w'_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^2/ (w_0(\mathbf{r})-w_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^4,\nonumber\\
& \mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{r})=-1-2 w'_0(\mathbf{r}) (w'_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^2/ (w_0(\mathbf{r})-w_\infty(\mathbf{r}))^3.\nonumber\\
\label{eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
and where $w_0$, $w'_0$ and $w_\infty$, $w'_\infty$ denote the approximation for energy densities for high- and low-density limits, respectively. The accuracy of \Eq{eq1} depends on three main aspects:
\begin{itemize}
    \item[i)] the interpolation formula used to define the $w_{c,\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ integrand in \Eq{eq1}. In \Ref{constantin2019correlation} (and here \Eq{eq1a}), the ISI interpolation formula was utilized to define ACSC. However, other possibilities also exist\cite{mirtschink2012energy,gori2009electronic,liu2009adiabatic, SeiPerLev-PRA-99}.
    \item[ii)] the approximation for $\alpha \to \infty$ limit. Several possibilities exist e.g., mPC\cite{constantin2019correlation}, hPC\cite{SCFISI} or the ones derived from semi-local DFA via the procedure described in \Ref{seidl2000density}. Note that by choosing different $\alpha \to \infty$ limits, one can incorporate in ACSC DFA different physics, i.e., good performance for the quasi-2D regime.
    \item[iii)]  the approximation for $\alpha \to 0$ limit. In principle, this limit can be taken into account exactly by considering the exact-exchange (EXX) and  second-order GL2 energy densities\cite{kooi2018local,Gauge3}. However,  computation on GL2 energy density on the numerical grid would likely be computationally quite expensive. Hence, in \Ref{constantin2019correlation} the non-local contributions have been substituted by semi-local high-density counterparts obtained from PBE functional\cite{perdewPRL96}.
\end{itemize}

Here we extend the ACSC DFA to the meta-GGA level by considering all input quantities at the semilocal (SL) level as
\begin{eqnarray}
& w_0(\mathbf{r})=n(\mathbf{r})\epsilon_x^{SL}(n(\mathbf{r}),\nabla n(\mathbf{r}),\nabla^2
n(\mathbf{r}),\tau(\mathbf{r})),\nonumber\\
& w'_0(\mathbf{r})=2n(\mathbf{r})\epsilon_c^{SL-GL2}(n(\mathbf{r}),\nabla n(\mathbf{r}),\nabla^2
n(\mathbf{r}),\tau(\mathbf{r}),\zeta(\mathbf{r})),\nonumber\\
\label{eq6}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau(\mathbf{r})=\sum_{j}^{occ}|\nabla\phi_j(\mathbf{r})|^2/2$ is the KS non-interacting kinetic
energy density, with $\phi_j(\mathbf{r})$ being the one-particle $j$-th occupied KS
orbital. We recall that the Laplacian of the
density ($\nabla^2 n$) contains information that mostly is already included in $\tau$ \cite{smiga2017laplacian},
such that many meta-GGA XC functionals do not consider $\nabla^2 n$ as an ingredient.
Regarding the SL-GL2 correlation energy density ($\epsilon_c^{SL-GL2}(n(\mathbf{r})$), many GL2 correlation energy functionals, such as
PBE-GL2 (and all PBE-like GL2 functionals) and TPSS-GL2 (and all TPSS-like GL2 functionals) have been already constructed~\cite{perdew1996generalized,perdew2008density}. The quantitative comparison of the accuracy of these SL-GL2 models with exact data was reported in \Ref{LUCISI} in Tab. S12. Note that TPSS-GL2 DFA is one electron self-interaction free giving exactly zero for the hydrogen atom, which is not the case for PBE-GL2.

One may note that all these SL-GL2 correlations diverge to $-\infty$ when $s \rightarrow 0$, such as in the case of the uniform electron gas (UEG) model. In this limit,  $w'_0 \rightarrow -\infty$ the ACSC correlation energy density behaves as~\cite{constantin2019correlation}
\begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
         \lim_{w'_0\to -\infty} [n\epsilon^{ACSC}_c]= w_\infty - w_0 +  2 w'_\infty \\
 - \frac{2(w'_\infty)^2}{w_0-w_\infty} \{\ln( 1 + \frac{w_0-w_\infty}{w'_\infty})\}~,
\label{szs1a}
    \end{split}
\end{equation}
which reveals the ACSC accuracy for UEG what was shown in Fig. 3 of \Ref{constantin2019correlation} for PBE-ACSC functional.

In Fig. (\ref{f1}) we show the UEG correlation energies per particle of
the exact LDA (Perdew and Wang parametrization \cite{perdew1992accurate}), ACSC given by
Eq. (\ref{szs1a}) with $w_0 = n\epsilon_x^{PBE}$ (identical picture would be obtained for $w_0 = n\epsilon_x^{TPSS}$). Note, however, that for UEG the reduced gradient $s=0$, thus $w_0$ reduces to LDA exchange energy density. For comparison we also show Lee-Yang-Parr (LYP) \cite{lee1988development}, and Tognetti-Cortona-Adamo (TCA) correlation
\cite{fabiano2015assessment,tognetti2008new,ragot2004correlation} energy densities. One can note that the ACSC formula is accurate in the  low-density limit ($r_s\ge 20$), while in the high-density limit ($r_s\rightarrow 0$) diverges as $\sim r_s^{-1/2}$, faster than the exact behavior ($\sim \ln(r_s)$). Nevertheless, in the high-density limit, the exchange energy dominates over the correlation, such that this failure of the ACSC correlation should be compensated by the proper choice of the exchange part.
This can be considered an essential drawback of ACSC construction cause it might lead to some issues with a lack of compatibility between standard semi-local exchange functionals and the  ACSC correlation functionals (mutual error cancelation effect). We will address this issue in the following.

\subsection{TPSS-ACSC correlation functionals formula}

In order to construct ACSC meta-GGA DFA, we fix the $w_0(\mathbf{r})$ and $w'_0(\mathbf{r})$ (where the energy density $w_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ is defined by $W_\alpha = \int~d\mathbf{r}~ w_\alpha(\mathbf{r})$) in the form of TPSS exchange and TPSS-GL2~\cite{perdew2008density}, respectively. In the case of $w_\infty(\mathbf{r})$ and $w'_\infty(\mathbf{r})$, the choice is not so simple due to various variants available in the literature. As was noted before, the form of $w_\infty(\mathbf{r})$ and $w'_\infty(\mathbf{r})$ implies the incorporation of important physics in the ACSC formula i.e. the quasi-2D regime via mPC\cite{constantin2019correlation} model or very accurate performance for weak and strong-interaction regime via hPC model developed recently\cite{SCFISI}. We note, however, that both mPC and hPC are simple GGA level approximations of SCE formulas, which are not one-electron self-interaction free\cite{SCFISI}. Therefore the utilization of these GGA models might impact the performance of ACSC meta-GGA DFA. To overcome this limitation one can develop the meta-GGA model for TPSS strong-interaction\cite{perdew2004meta} regime as was done in appendix D in \Ref{seidl2000density}. Thus, for clarity of this paper, we recall that for any approximate XC energy DFA ($E^{DFA}_{xc}  = E^{DFA}_{x} + E^{DFA}_{c}$), the corresponding coupling-constant integrand $W^{DFA}_{\alpha}$ can be derived from the following formula
\begin{eqnarray}
  W_{\alpha}^{DFA}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow] =  &&E_{x}^{DFA}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]\nonumber\\
&+& \frac{d}{d\alpha}\Big(\alpha^2 E_{c}^{DFA}[n_{\uparrow,1/\alpha},n_{\downarrow,1/\alpha}] \Big) \; .\nonumber\\
\label{eq4a}
\end{eqnarray}
by considering the  strictly correlated $\alpha \to \infty$ limit. In the case of TPSS XC functional the $W_{\infty}$ and $W'_{\infty}$ read
\begin{eqnarray}
 W_{\infty}^{TPSS}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]&=&E_x^{TPSS}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]+\int~d^3r~n({\bf{r}})~\Big\{\Big(-\frac{d_0(\zeta)}
 {r_s}\nonumber\\
 &+&H_1(r_s,\zeta,t)\Big)\Big[1+C(\zeta,\xi)\Big(\frac{\tau^W}{\tau}\Big)^2\Big]\nonumber\\
 &-&(1+C(\zeta,\xi))
 \Big(\frac{\tau^W}{\tau}\Big)^2\sum_{\sigma}\frac{n_\sigma}{n}
 \Big(-\frac{d_0(1)}{r_{s,\sigma}}\nonumber\\
 &+&H_1(r_{s,\sigma},1,t_\sigma)\Big)\Big\}
 \nonumber\\
 \label{err1}
 \end{eqnarray}
 %

 \begin{eqnarray}
 W_{\infty}^{'TPSS}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]&=&\frac{1}{2}\int~d^3r~n({\bf{r}})~\Big\{\Big(\frac{d_1(\zeta)}
 {r_s^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
 &+&H_2(r_s,\zeta,t)\Big)\Big[1+C(\zeta,\xi)\Big(\frac{\tau^W}{\tau}\Big)^2\Big]\nonumber\\
 &-&(1+C(\zeta,\xi))
 \Big(\frac{\tau^W}{\tau}\Big)^2\sum_{\sigma}\frac{n_\sigma}{n}
 \Big(\frac{d_1(1)}{r_{s,\sigma}^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
 &+&H_2(r_{s,\sigma},1,t_\sigma)\Big)\Big\}~,
 \nonumber\\
 \label{eer}
 \end{eqnarray}
where $d_1(\zeta) = 1.5$ (spin-independent) was fixed using the same reasoning as in \Ref{seidl2000density} and $E_x^{TPSS}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]$ is the spin-resolved TPSS exchange \cite{taoPRL03}. $H_1$ and $H_2$ are same as given by Eq. (D11) and Eq. (D12) of \Ref{seidl2000density}. $C(\zeta,\xi)$ is given in Eq. (14) of \Ref{taoPRL03}. We recall that
$W_{\infty}^{TPSS}[n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow]$ was already reported in
\Ref{perdew2004meta}.
For the details of the parameters and terms see \Ref{seidl2000density} and \Ref{taoPRL03}.
Based on the above consideration, we
construct the TPSS-ACSC correlation functional (ACSC formula given by Eq.~(\ref{eq1a}) by replacing into \Eq{eq6}, $\epsilon_x^{SL}$ with $\epsilon_x^{TPSS}$ and $\epsilon_c^{SL-GL2}$ with
$\epsilon_c^{TPSS-GL2}$, respectively.
For $w_{\infty}$ and $w'_{\infty}$, in turn,
we use Eq.~(\ref{err1}) and Eq.~(\ref{eer}) which incorporate all physically meaningful features i.e. canceling one-electron self-interaction, proper behavior for the quasi-2D regime (shown later).
Thus the final TPSS-ACSC formula recovers at  $w'_0 \rightarrow -\infty$  \Eq{szs1a} and for $w'_0\rightarrow 0$ it behaves as
\begin{equation}
\lim_{w'_0\to 0} [n\epsilon^{ACSC}_c]=
\frac{1}{2}w'_0+\frac {1}{3}\frac{1}{(w_0-w_\infty)}(w'_0)^2+\mathcal{O}((w'_0)^3),
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
such that $E_c^{TPSS-ACSC}=0$ whenever $E_c^{TPSS-GL2}=0$.
The TPSS meta-GGA GL2 correlation energy densities vanish whenever $\tau=\tau^W$, and $\zeta=1$, where
$\tau^W$ is the von Weizs\"{a}cker kinetic energy density \cite{weizsacker1935theorie,della2015kohn}.
Thus, for one-electron systems, the TPSS-GL2  total correlation energy is exact ($E_c^{TPSS-GL2}=0$), and this is used to make the TPSS-ACSC one-electron
self-correlation free.

\section{Numerical Results}

In order to test the accuracy of $W_{\infty}^{TPSS}$ and $W_{\infty}^{'TPSS}$ expressions first, we report in Table~\ref{tab1} their values obtained for real atoms. For comparison, we present also the values obtained for the exact SCE method, PC, mPC, hPC as well as PBE ($W_{\infty}^{PBE}$,  $W_{\infty}^{'PBE}$) formulas from \Ref{seidl2000density}. In the case of $W_{\infty}$ the TPSS approximation gives the best performance measured w.r.t. SCE values being almost three times better than the one obtained for hPC model. This is due to the fact that the former correctly removes one-electron self-interaction in $W_{\infty}^{TPSS}$ which is taken into account in all GGA $W_{\infty}$ approximations. In the case of $W'_{\infty}$ the overall performance of the TPSS model is worse than the one observed for hPC, being in line with the results reported for PC. This can be due to the fact that $W_{\infty}^{'TPSS}$ in the slowly varying density limit does not recover correctly the gradient expansion of PC model, what is the case for $W_{\infty}^{TPSS}$. The problem lies in $H_2$ function (Eq.~\ref{eer}) which when $t \to 0$ gives rise to the term proportional to $t^6$ in comparison to PC model which yields $t^2$. One important difference, however, can be noted for the TPSS formula that for the H atom it correctly recovers the SCE value which is not possible by any GGA variant.

An additional assessment of all models is provided in Table \ref{tab2} and Fig. \ref{fig1h}, where we present results obtained for the Hooke atom at different confinement strengths $\omega$. Turning first our attention to Table \ref{tab2} we see similar trends to those presented in \Tab{tab1} for all values of $\omega$ where exact SCE values are available. Moreover, Fig. \ref{fig1h} shows that in the small $\omega$ range (strong-interaction limit of the Hooke's atom) hPC and TPSS yield the best estimation of the XC energy $E_{xc} = W_{\infty}  + 2 W'_{\infty}$, being slightly better than PC, while the mPC and PBE methods fail completely. Actually, mPC and PBE $W_{\infty}$ and $W'_{\infty}$ perform very similarly in all investigated cases giving rise to large errors.

Further, we perform the comparison of $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ behaviors for all studied models for an IBM quasi-2D electron gas of fixed 2D electron density ($r_s^{2D} = 4$) as a function of
the quantum-well thickness $L$ as was done also in \Ref{constantin2019correlation}. This is reported in \Fig{figibm}. One can note that PC and hPC models change signs even for a mild quasi-2D regime. This feature is not allowable cause can lead to non-physical positive correlation energy or total failure of ISI or ACSC correlation energy expressions in quasi-2D regimes. On the other hand, the mPC, PBE and TPSS  $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ give correct behavior for a whole range of quantum-well thickness $L$.

Based on these investigations, a brief summary of features of all strong-interaction models is given in Table~\ref{tab3}. One can note that TPSS $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ reproduce reference SCE data with quite a good accuracy and also some other important features e.g. good performance in quasi-2D regime possibly indicating that the description of non-local features of SCE model can be done only by the utilization of non-local ingredients such as $\tau$. Nonetheless, we see that at the meta-GGA level there is still much space for improvement, especially in the case of the $W'_\infty$  model.

\begin{table}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab1} The values of $W_{\infty}$ and $W'_{\infty}$ for the H, He, Be, and Ne atoms obtained from different models and using EXX densities. We use atomic units. The results which agree best with SCE values\cite{seidl07,gorigiorgi09} are highlighted in bold. The last line of each panel reports the mean absolute relative error (MARE) [for $W'_\infty$ the H results are excluded]. {The $W'^{SCE}_{\infty}$ reference data are reported with the same precision as in the \Ref{gorigiorgi09}.} The PC, hPC, and mPC data are taken from \Ref{SCFISI}.}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\hline \hline
 & SCE & PC & hPC & mPC & PBE && TPSS \\
 \hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{$W_\infty$} \\
H & -0.3125 & {-0.3128} & -0.3293 & -0.4000 & -0.4169 && \textbf{-0.3125} \\
He & -1.500 & -1.463 & \textbf{-1.492} & -1.671 & -1.6888 && -1.5122 \\
Be & {-4.021} & -3.943 & {-3.976} & -4.380 & -4.4203 && \textbf{-3.9803} \\
Ne & -20.035 & \textbf{-20.018} & -20.079 & -21.022 & -21.2983 && -19.9792\\
MARE & & 1.15\% & 1.81\% & 13.31\% & 15.55 \% && \textbf{0.53\%} \\
& & & & & & &\\
\multicolumn{8}{c}{$W'_\infty$} \\
H & 0 & 0.0426 & {0.0255} & 0.2918  & 0.243 && \textbf{0} \\
He & 0.621 & 0.729 & \textbf{0.646} & 1.728 & 1.517 && 0.728 \\
Be & 2.59 & 2.919 & \textbf{2.600} & 6.167 & 5.442 && 2.713 \\
Ne & 22 & 24.425 & \textbf{23.045} & 38.644 & 35.307 && 23.835 \\
MARE & & 13.71\% & \textbf{3.05\%}& 130.67\% & 104.94\% && 10.10\%\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\end{table}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hook2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig1h} Comparison of the leading term of the XC energy ($E_{xc} = W_{\infty}  + 2 W'_{\infty}$) in the strong interaction regime of the Hooke's atom calculated using different models with FCI data\cite{LUCISI}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[hbt]
\caption{\label{tab2} The $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ energies (in Ha) for three values of $\omega$  for which the Hooke's atom has analytical solutions\cite{Tau-PRA-93} and exact SCE reference data are available\cite{kooi2018local}. The last line of each panel reports the mean absolute relative error (MARE).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\hline \hline
 & SCE & PC & hPC & mPC & PBE && TPSS \\
 \hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{$W_\infty$} \\
0.0365373 & -0.170 & -0.156 & -0.167 & -0.191 &  -0.191 && \textbf{-0.170}\\
0.1 & -0.304 & -0.284 & \textbf{-0.303} & -0.344 & -0.344 && -0.308 \\
0.5 & -0.743 & -0.702 & \textbf{-0.743} & -0.841 & -0.843 && -0.754 \\
MARE & & 6.78\% & \textbf{0.70\%} & 12.90\% & 12.98\% && 0.96\% \\
& & & & \\
\multicolumn{8}{c}{$W'_\infty$} \\
0.0365373 & 0.022 & \textbf{0.021} & \textbf{0.021} & 0.060 & 0.053 && 0.026 \\
0.1 & 0.054 & \textbf{0.054} & 0.053 & 0.146 & 0.130 && 0.062 \\
0.5 & 0.208 & 0.215 & \textbf{0.208} & 0.562 & 0.501 && 0.240 \\
MARE & & 2.64\% & \textbf{2.13\%} & 171.10\% & 139.81\% && 14.70\%\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\end{table}

\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{w_wp.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{figibm}  Comparison of $W_\infty$ (solid line) and $W'_\infty$ (dashed line) behaviors for an IBM quasi-2D electron gas of fixed 2D electron density ($r_s^{2D} = 4$) as a function of
the quantum-well thickness $L$. Also shown is the exact exchange  $W_0$. PC and mPC are obtained from PBE and results are taken from ref.~\cite{constantin2019correlation}. For PBE the $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ expression from ref.~\cite{seidl2000density}. For TPSS, $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ expression are given in Eq.~\ref{err1} and Eq.~\ref{eer}, respectively. }
\end{figure}

\begingroup
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{\label{tab3} Brief summarize of properties of $w_\infty(\mathbf{r})$ and $w'_\infty(\mathbf{r})$ from various semi-local models. }

\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
&PC~\cite{seidl2000simulation,seidl2000density} & mPC~\cite{constantin2019correlation} &  hPC~\cite{SCFISI} & PBE ~\cite{seidl2000density} & TPSS\cite{perdew2004meta} \\
\hline
level of theory & GEA & GGA & GGA & GGA & meta-GGA\\
accurate for the strictly correlated regime & $\checkmark$ & $\times$ & $\checkmark$ & $\times$ & $\checkmark$ \\
quasi-2D regime & $\times$ & $\checkmark$ & $\times$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ \\
self-consisted calculations & $\times$ &  $\checkmark$ &  $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$&  $\checkmark$ \\
one-electron self interaction free & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ &$\times$ &$\checkmark$
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
}
\end{table*}
\endgroup

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tax}
The TPSS and TPSS-ACSC correlation energies (mHa) divided by the number of electrons ($N_e$) for $10$ atoms  (computed using Hartree-Fock analytic orbitals and densities~\cite{davidson1991ground,chakravorty1993ground,clementi1997note}) and 8 molecules (computed using Hartree-Fock orbitals and densities obtained with uncontracted cc-pVTZ\cite{dunning:1989:bas} basis sets).}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
Atoms&$N_e$	&	TPSS	&	TPSS-ACSC	&	Ref.~\cite{davidson1991ground,chakravorty1993ground,clementi1997note}	\\
	\hline
H	&	1	&	\textbf{0.0}	&	\textbf{0.0}	&	0	\\
He	&	2	&	\textbf{-21.5}	&	-20.2	&	-21	\\
Li	&	3	&	-16.5	&	\textbf{-15.9}	&	-15.1	\\
Be	&	4	&	\textbf{-21.7}	&	-20.8	&	-23.6	\\
N	&	7	&	\textbf{-26.5}	&	-25.9	&	-26.9	\\
Ne	&	10	&	\textbf{-35.4}	&	-35.3	&	-39.1	\\
Ar	&	18	&	-39.5	&	\textbf{-39.8}	&	-40.1	\\
Kr	&	36	&	-49.2	&	\textbf{-49.9}	&	-57.4	\\
Zn	&	30	&	-47.0	&	\textbf{-47.8}	&	-56.2	\\
Xe	&	54	&	-54.1	&	\textbf{-55.3}	&	-57.2	\\
MAE$_{atm}$	&		&	2.6		&     \textbf{2.5}	&		\\ \hline
Molecules\footnote{the geometries has been taken from \Ref{grabowski2014orbital,SmigaJCP2020}}		&$N_e$&	TPSS	&	TPSS-ACSC     	& 	Ref.\footnote{correlation energies obtained at CCSD(T) with uncontracted cc-pVTZ level of theory}	\\ \hline
H$_2$ &	2	&	-21.1		&    \textbf{-19.9} 	&	-19.8	\\
LiH &	4	&	-21.5		&   \textbf{-20.2}  	&	-18.5	\\
Li$_2$ &	6	&	-21.0		& \textbf{-20.0}    	&	-17.9	\\
H$_2$O & 10		&	-33.2		& \textbf{-33.1}    	&	-32.9	\\
NH$_3$ & 10		&	\textbf{-31.9}		& -32.1    	&	-30.6	\\
HF &	10	&	-34.3		&  \textbf{-34.1}   	&	-33.7	\\
CO &	14	&	\textbf{-32.4}		&  \textbf{-32.4}   	&	-34.0	\\
N$_2$ &	14	&	-32.7		&  \textbf{-32.1}   	&	-30.6	\\
MAE$_{mol}$ &		&	1.7		&  \textbf{1.2}   	&		\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

In \Fig{fighh} relative error (RE) on XC energy computed for Hooke's atoms model for various values of confinement strength $\omega$ ($\omega \in [0.03, 1000]$) with respect Full Configuration Interaction (FCI) results. The calculations have been performed using an identical computational setup as in our previous study\cite{LUCISI, PRBSub, jana2021szs} using EXX reference orbitals. We recall that for small values of confinement strength $\omega$, the system is strongly correlated, whereas for large values of $\omega$ we enter a weak-interaction regime. Thus harmonium atom provides an excellent tool for testing functional performance in these two regimes. The utilization at this point of the self-interaction free EXX orbitals and densities allows testing the error specifically related to the functional construction itself, namely the functional driven error\cite{BurkeFD_DD}.

A first observation is that there is a huge qualitative difference between TPSS-GL2 (TPSSx + TPSS-GL2) and PBE-GL2 (PBEx + PBE-GL2) XC energies for weak-interaction regimes. The PBE-GL2 RE yield here is almost 4\%, which indicates some serious problems with the PBE-GL2 correlation functional. The issue is solved in TPSS-GL2 correlation, which behaves more qualitatively correct to XC energy obtained from EXX + GL2 (denotes on \Fig{fighh} as GL2).

One may also note that TPSS has been constructed to be accurate for one- and two-electron systems (where $\tau=\tau^W$), then TPSS-GL2 is more accurate than PBE-GL2 for two-electron systems.
However, for many-electron systems, TPSS-GL2 and PBE-GL2 will be close to each other.
The PBE-GL2 problems transfer directly on the performance of PBE and PBE-ACSC (PBEx + PBE-ACSC) functionals which differ slightly for small values of $\omega$, which can be a consequence of different functional construction.
In the case of PBE-ACSC, the strong-interaction regime is governed mostly by choice of $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$. The TPSS and TPSS-ACSC (TPSSx + TPSS-ACSC) functionals for medium and large values of $\omega$ perform very similarly giving in the weak interacting region very small RE similarly to GL2 (EXX + GL2) and ISI (EXX + ISI) functionals. In a strong-interaction regime, in turn, the TPSS-ACSC improves over its TPSS precursor.
In a strong-interaction regime, TPSS-ACSC functional should go asymptotically to \Eq{szs1a} with $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ in the form of  \Eq{err1} and \Eq{eer}. A similar situation should also be visible for ISI functional in which we also employed \Eq{err1} and \Eq{eer} to describe $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$. Although qualitatively, they behave very similarly, there is much difference between the two curves, which is a consequence of the large impact of GL2 terms in a strongly interacting regime. Even for $\omega = 0.03$, the HOMO-LUMO gap (-0.47 eV) is still wide open, meaning that the GL2 term yet influences the behavior correlation energy of ISI-like and ACSC-like functionals.

Now we turn attention to  another example of where we  encounter a strong-interaction limit, namely, the potential energy surface for the dissociation of the H$_2$ molecule, in a restricted formalism \cite{cohen12}, which is one of the main DFT challenges \cite{cohen12,science21}. This is reported in Fig. \ref{figh2}. For the same reasons as previously, also here, all energies have been obtained using EXX orbitals and densities. One can note that, in general, TPSS-ACSC functional performs very similarly to TPSS, especially near equilibrium distance. More visible differences between these two DFAs can be seen for larger distances $R/R_0 > 3$. Asymptotically, the TPSS-ACSC energy goes almost to the same value as the ISI method with \Eq{err1} and \Eq{eer} employed to describe $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$. This is a very interesting finding, possibly suggesting the dominant role of strong-interaction limit (see \Eq{szs1a}) for large separation of hydrogen atoms. We note, however, that the TPSS-GL2 total 1energy (TPSSx + TPSS-GL2) in comparison to the exact GL2 (EXX + GL2) curve, which diverges due to closing HOMO-LUMO gap, gives much more stable results in the asymptotic region. This indicates that the proper behavior of investigated here ISI and TPSS-ACSC DFAs have a different origin. In the former, the exact GL2 diverges ( $E_{GL2}\rightarrow -\infty$) leading in the asymptotic limit to $E_{xc}^{ISI} \rightarrow W_{\infty} + 2W'_{\infty} (1-\frac{1}{q}\ln(1+q))$ with $q=(E_x-W_{\infty})/W'_{\infty}$ \cite{fabiano2016interaction,SCFISI}. In the latter, in turn, the asymptotic limit is governed rather by the mutual error cancellation effect in TPSS-ACSC energy expression. This is due to the fact that TPSS-GL2 energy expressions do not diverge for large $R/R_0$, meaning that at the asymptotic region \Eq{szs1a} do not hold.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Hook_RE.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fighh} Relative error on XC energies of harmonium atoms for various values of $\omega$ computed at @EXX orbitals for several functional using computational setup from \Ref{LUCISI}. The errors have been computed with respect to FCI data obtained in the same basis set\cite{B926389F,LUCISI}. For all TPSS-like functional the exchange energy is calculated with TPSS exchange. A similar situation is for PBE-like functional where we have used PBE exchange. The GL2 and ISI(TPSS) XC correlation results are obtained with the exact GL2\cite{gorling1994exact} formula and ISI\cite{seidl2000simulation} combined with EXX energy expression. The ISI formula utilizes the $W_\infty$ and $W'_\infty$ given by \Eq{err1} and \Eq{eer}.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{H2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{figh2}The total energy of the stretched H$_2$ molecule as it is calculated with the various methods. The insets present the same data around the equilibrium distance  ($R/R_0 = 1$) and large $R/R_0 > 10$ values. }
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotArEcTPSSbis.pdf}
\caption{Correlation energy per particle $\epsilon_c$
versus the radial distance from the nucleus $r$, for the Ar atom.
(computed using Hartree-Fock analytic orbitals and densities~\cite{davidson1991ground,chakravorty1993ground,clementi1997note}).
In the inset, we show the reduced gradient $s$.}
\label{f2}
\end{figure}

Finally, considering the numerical results of TPSS and TPSS-ACSC, we test the constructed correlation functionals for the small atoms and molecules, which are presented in Table \ref{tax}.
For atoms, the calculations are performed using the Hartree-Fock (HF) analytic orbitals of Clementi and Roetti~\cite{clementi1974roothaan}. For molecules, we have performed the HF calculations in ACESII program using the uncontracted cc-pVTZ\cite{dunning:1989:bas} basis sets and geometries taken from \Ref{grabowski2014orbital,SmigaJCP2020}. We recall that the utilization of self-interaction free HF orbitals allows to test the error specifically related to the functional construction itself, namely the functional driven error\cite{BurkeFD_DD}. We note that both considered correlation functionals are one-electron self-interaction-free,
being exact for the H atom. Moreover, the TPSS-ACSC correlations slightly overestimate than TPSS, becomes better for most of the atoms and molecules as shown in Table~\ref{tax}.

To visualize the correlation densities, in Fig. \ref{f2}, we show a comparison between $\epsilon_c^{TPSS}$, $\epsilon_c^{TPSS-GL2}$, and $\epsilon_c^{TPSS-ACSC}$ for Ar atom. Whenever $s$ is small, $\epsilon_c^{TPSS-GL2}$ starts to depart from $\epsilon_c^{TPSS}$, diverging when $s=0$.
However, $\epsilon_c^{TPSS-ACSC}$ is well-behaved everywhere.

As to the molecules, we note that TPSS-ACSC performs very well for the majority of systems, being slightly better than TPSS functional. This indicated the robustness of correlation functional construction.

Let us turn our attention to self-consistent results (@SCF) obtained within the generalized KS (gKS) scheme. As a
example, we report in \Tab{ta-ae6} AE6~\cite{lynch2003small,haunschild2012theoretical} atomization energies of $6$ small size molecules, obtained using SCF orbitals and densities. One can note that TPSS-ACSC functional, in general, gives results that are twice worse (MAE = 18.4 kcal/mol) than for TPSS counterpart, which yields MAE of 7.6 kcal/mol. The same trend for AE6 benchmark occurs when we feed TPSS-ACSC and TPSS total energy expressions  with HF orbitals. This indicates three things:

i) the major part of the error for the TPSS-ACSC functional is related to functional-driven error\cite{BurkeFD_DD}. This is most possibly related to the ACSC model itself, which was not designed to be accurate in high-density limit where most of the chemical application takes place;

ii) because both TPSS and TPSS-ACSC utilize the same semi-local TPSS exchange, the much larger error observed in the latter might suggest the lack of compatibility between exchange and correlation functionals (there is no error cancellation effect). The correlation energies themselves are quite accurate as shown in \Tab{tax}. Thus, a slight modification of the exchange part of the functional might improve the results. To test this possibility, we have modified the $\mu$ parameter in the TPSS exchange to improve the performance of the TPSS-ACSC XC functional. For $\mu = 0.40$ we have observed a significant reduction of MAE for AE6 obtained at @SCF densities to  6.63 kcal/mol. This indicates that proper behavior of TPSS-ACSC can be restored by proper design of compatible exchange functional;

iii) the density-driven error related to the relaxation of orbitals in the presence of TPSS-ACSC correlation potentials causes an increase of MAE of about 3 kcal/mol. This possibly might indicate an overestimation of the correlation effect in the SCF density.

In order to investigate the last point, in \Tab{ta-dipole} we report the error statistics of 152 dipole moments~\cite{hait2018dipole} calculated using SCF densities for both methods. We underline that the quality of the dipole moments gives a direct picture of the behavior of total SCF densities obtained within all approaches.
One can note that TPSS-ACSC dipole moments are a bit overestimated
than those reported by TPSS DFA.  This can also be an artifact of a lack of compatibility with TPSS exchange functional.
To confirm that issue in Fig.~\ref{cofig} we report the correlated densities\cite{Jankowski:2009:DRD,Jankowski:2010:DRD,grabowski:2011:jcp,MolSzs} defined as  $\Delta \rho_c^{method} = \rho^{method}-\rho^{\text{HF}}$ calculated for a given \textit{method} with respect HF density for CO molecule. Additionally, in the same Fig., we report the correlated density differences defined as $\delta \rho_c^{method} = \Delta \rho^{method} - \delta \rho^{\text{TPSSx}}$ to check the mutual error cancellation effect between exchange and correlation effects included in the DFAs.  One can note that $\Delta \rho_c$ obtained for TPSSx and TPSS functionals are almost identical. Hence the impact of correlation functional in this case is only marginal (see $\delta \rho_c^{\text{TPSS}}$ curve). In turn, for TPSS-ACSC case, one can observe a large overestimation of correlated densities, especially visible near atomic nuclei. The origin of overestimation is definitely related to TPSS-ACSC correlation part of functional which is confirmed by the $\delta \rho_c^{\text{TPSS-ACSC}}$ curve. This can be due to the fact that near nuclei the reduced gradient is quite small ($s < 1$) implying that the TPSS-ASCS functional tends to \Eq{eq5} (TPSS-GL2 dominates in the expression) which might explain the visible overestimation. These findings confirm the observation made for the dipole moment test set.

\begingroup
\begin{table
\caption{\label{ta-ae6} AE6 atomization energies (in kcal/mol) computed using
self-consistent (@SCF) and Hartree-Fock (@HF) orbitals and densities, and TPSSx semi-local exchange and TPSS or TPSS-ACSC correlation functionals.  The mean absolute
error (MAE, in kcal/mol) is shown in the last row. The def2-QZVP basis set is used. All calculations are performed using
Q-Chem code~\cite{qchem}.}

\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}
        &TPSS@SCF &TPSS-ACSC@SCF &Ref.~\cite{haunschild2012theoretical}  \\
\hline
SiH$_4$	&	\textbf{334.2}	&	337.9	&	323.1	\\
SiO	&	187.1	&	\textbf{189.4}	&	191.5	\\
S$_2$	&	\textbf{109.0}	&	114.6	&	101.9	\\
C$_3$H$_4$	&	\textbf{707.8}	&	724.0	&	701	\\
C$_2$H$_2$O$_2$	&	\textbf{634.1}	&	648.8	&	630.4	\\
C$_4$H$_8$	&	\textbf{1155.8}	&	1182.8	&	1143.4	\\
\hline
	MAE&	7.6	&	18.4	&		\\
	&		&		&		\\
       &TPSS@HF &TPSS-ACSC@HF &Ref.~\cite{haunschild2012theoretical}  \\
\hline
SiH$_4$	&	\textbf{331.9}	&	337.0	&	323.1	\\
SiO	&	179.7	&	\textbf{182.2}	&	191.5	\\
S$_2$	&	\textbf{103.5}	&	109.5	&	101.9	\\
C$_3$H$_4$	&	\textbf{702.0}	&	719.9	&	701	\\
C$_2$H$_2$O$_2$	&	\textbf{621.1}	&	637.2	&	630.4	\\
C$_4$H$_8$	&	\textbf{1148.3}	&	1179.0	&	1143.4	\\
\hline
	MAE &	6.2 &	15.3	&		\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
}
\end{table}
\endgroup

\begin{comment}
\begingroup
\squeezetable
\begin{table*
\caption{\label{tasjana} Exchange and correlation energies of AE6 molecules (in Hartree) as computed
self-consistently using semilocal exchange together
with several correlations. The def2-QZVP basis set is used. The CCSD(T) results are also shown. All calculations are performed using
Q-Chem code~\cite{qchem}.
}

\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}
\multicolumn{5}{c}{TPSS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{TPSS-ACSC}&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{CCSD(T)}\\
\cline{2-4}\cline{5-7}\cline{8-10}

        &X&C&XC&X&C&XC&X&C&XC  \\
\hline
SiH$_4$	&-21.805&-0.615&-22.420&-21.827&-0.622&-22.449&-21.784&-0.387&-22.171		\\
SiO	&-28.684&-0.782&-29.466&-28.689&-0.786&-29.475&-28.555&-0.608&-29.163	\\
S$_2$&-50.158&-1.230&-51.388&-50.152&-1.247&-51.399&-50.057&-0.814&-50.871	\\
C$_3$H$_4$&-17.030&-0.693&-17.724&-17.028&-0.715&-17.743&-16.895&-0.631&-17.527	\\
C$_2$H$_2$O$_2$&-27.729&-0.995&-28.724&-27.733&-1.014&-28.747&-27.469&-0.967&-28.435		\\
C$_4$H$_8$&-23.751&-1.036&-24.787&-23.752&-1.073&-24.824&-23.646&-0.905&-24.551		\\
	&		&		&		&		&		&		&		&		&		&		\\
\hline
H	&-0.311&0.0&-0.311&-0.311&0.0&-0.311&-0.313
&0.0&-0.313		\\
C&-5.093&-0.148&-5.240&-5.097&-0.146&-5.243&-5.077&-0.114&-5.191	\\
O	&-8.250&-0.237&-8.487&-8.255&-0.236&-8.491&-8.218&-0.200&-8.417	\\
Si&-20.339&-0.488&-20.827&-20.339&-0.489&-20.828	&-20.304&-0.280&-20.585\\
S&-25.061&-0.588&-25.649&-25.059&-0.592&-25.651&-25.035&-0.367&-25.402		\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
}
\end{table*}
\endgroup
\end{comment}

\begingroup
\begin{table
\caption{\label{ta-dipole} Mean error (ME) and mean-absolute error (MAE) in dipole moments (in Debye) of 152 molecules  as computed
self-consistently using a semilocal exchange. The def2-QZVP basis set is used. All calculations are performed using
Q-Chem code~\cite{qchem}. The reference CCSD(T) values are taken from ref.~\cite{hait2018dipole}.}

\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}

        &TPSS&TPSS-ACSC \\
\hline
ME&-0.048&-0.076\\
MAE&0.124&0.135	\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
}
\end{table}
\endgroup

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{CO.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{cofig}Correlation densities $\Delta \rho_c = \rho^{method}-\rho^{\text{HF}}$ and correlated density differences $\delta \rho_c^{method} = \Delta \rho^{method} - \delta \rho^{\text{TPSSx}}$ for the  CO molecule for various methods. }
\end{figure*}

\section{Conclusions}

In this work, we have constructed a meta-GGA correlation energy functional, using the ACSC method, applied to the high- and low-density limits of the popular TPSS correlation energy functional. The functional, denoted as TPSS-ACSC, is non-empirical, one electron self-interaction free, accurate for strictly correlated and quasi-2D regimes, as well as for small atoms and molecules. We provide a careful assessment of ACSC functional base on some model systems (the uniform electron gas, Hooke’s atom, stretched H$_2$ molecule) and real-life calculations (atomization enrgies, dipole moments) showing some advantages and disadvantages of ACSC construction.

Although our numerical tests suggest the strong-interaction limit of semilocal TPSS-ACSC
correlation is well represented (by $W_{\infty}^{TPSS}$ and $W_{\infty}^{'TPSS}$), the semilocal GL2 part may need rectifications. This is evident from the atomization energies and dipole moments test cases, where the lack of good error compensation effect between the exchange and correlation part of the functional leads to large overestimation of both quantities.

From this broad perspective, we see that in ACSC approach for the construction of correlation energy functional it is still in its infancy, which implies that there is still much space for improvement.
For instance, we expect that the ACSC method can be further improved by combining the ACSC correlation functional with a compatible exchange counterpart. The improvement can also be made by the construction of better semilocal approximations for GL2 correlation energy or the strictly-correlated electrons limit (especially in the case of meta-GGA  $W'_\infty$). This could also be also interesting in the context of the construction of other types of functional such as double-hybrids\cite{grimme2007doublehybrid,THszs} or AC functionals\cite{mirtschink2012energy,gori2009electronic,liu2009adiabatic, SeiPerLev-PRA-99,LUCISI}.

We will address some of these directions in future projects.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was funded in part by National Science Centre, Poland
(grant no. 2021/42/E/ST4/00096). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

\section*{Data Availability}

The data that support the findings of this study are available
within the article.

\begin{comment}

\section*{Author Contributions}

 Conceptualization-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Data curation-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Formal analysis-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Funding acquisition (S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal),  P.S. (equal)), Investigation-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Methodology-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Project administration-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Resources-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Software-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Validation-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Visualization-(S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Writing - original draft (S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal)), Writing - review & editing (S.J. (equal), S.\'S. (equal), L.C. (equal), P.S. (partial))
\end{comment}

\twocolumngrid