Suppose I am given some geometry data (say, of a water dimer) from CCSD(T).
If I were to do a single-point energy calculation to generate orbitals for the system, wouldn't CCSD give something more representative of the correlation in the system than DFT?
I see "CCSD(T) orbitals don't exist - used DFT orbitals instead" kind of statements in papers (quotations below), and wasn't sure why they don't even mention CCSD. Perhaps it's just due to speed/availability, but that would lead to another question "why is it not worth it to use CCSD orbitals with CCSD(T) geometry".
The same question can be asked for DFT orbitals being used with MP2 geometries, but MP2 perturbs about HF ... so clearly DFT is needed to capture correlation.
[edit: more context]
What I'm trying to do is "export" these orbitals to a diffusion quantum Monte Carlo (DMC) calculation which doesn't do geometry optimization by itself but augments the imported orbitals with explicit correlations (eg. something that depends directly on electron pair distances). Usually the final DMC energy is not very sensitive to whether the orbitals are from CC or DFT (I have outputs from both), but I was checking here to make sure I wasn't missing any "deeper" reason.
From ChemPhysChem 2018, 19 (15), 1886–1894:
Since MP2 orbitals are nonexistent, the charge-transfer interactions were computed using the B3LYP functional with the aug'-cc-pVTZ basis set at the MP2/aug'-cc-pVTZ geometries, so that at least some electron correlation effects could be included.
and J. Phys. Chem. A 2017, 121 (49), 9544–9556:
Due to the nonexistence of CCSD(T) orbitals, ΔE(del) was calculated with ωB97XD/aug-cc-pVTZ.