DOCSLIB.ORG

Origin Invariant Full Optical Rotation Tensor in the Length Dipole Gauge Without London Atomic Orbitals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Origin Invariant Full Optical Rotation Tensor in the Length Dipole Gauge Without London Atomic Orbitals Origin Invariant Full Optical Rotation Tensor in the Length Dipole Gauge without London Atomic Orbitals Marco Caricato1, a) Department of Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 (Dated: 7 April 2021) We present an origin-invariant approach to compute the full optical rotation tensor (Buckingham/Dunn tensor) in the length dipole gauge without recourse to London atomic orbitals, called LG(OI). The LG(OI) approach is simpler and less computationally demanding than the more common LG-London and modified velocity gauge (MVG) approaches and it can be used with any approximate wave function or density functional method. We report an implementation at coupled cluster with single and double excitations level (CCSD), for which we present the first simulations of the origin-invariant Buckingham/Dunn tensor in the length gauge. With this method, we attempt to decouple the effects of electron correlation and basis set incompleteness on the choice of gauge for optical rotation calculations on simple test systems. The simulations show a smooth convergence of the LG(OI) and MVG results with the basis set size towards the complete basis set limit. However, these preliminary results indicate that CCSD may not be close to a complete description of the electron correlation effects on this property even for small molecules, and that basis set incompleteness may be a less important cause of discrepancy between choices of gauge than electron correlation incompleteness. I. INTRODUCTION ing atomic orbitals (GIAOs).6,19,28,29 However, GIAOs cannot be utilized with standard CC methods because Optically active compounds are able to rotate the orbital relaxation is neglected to avoid unphysical poles plane of polarization of impinging light, a phenomenon in the linear response (LR) function due to the reference called optical rotation (OR).1 For isotropic systems (e.g., wave function.21,22 On the other hand, the modified VG a gas or solution phase sample), only a spatially aver- (MVG)17,24 recipe requires the explicit evaluation and aged OR can be measured, often expressed as a normal- removal of the unphysical static limit, and so far it has ized quantity known as specific rotation. However, for been the preferred approach for OR calculations at CC oriented systems such as chiral crystals, one can mea- level.15,16,30,31 sure the OR in a specific direction.2,3 Simulations can in We recently proposed a strategy to overcome the principle provide a direct comparison with experimental origin-dependence issue of LG calculations of specific ro- measurements by evaluating the Buckingham/Dunn op- tation without the complication of London orbitals, an tical activity tensor.4 Such comparison can be used to approach we called LG(OI).32 This is based on a transfor- obtain structure-property relationships, assign the abso- mation of the electric dipole-magnetic dipole polarizabil- lute configuration of the compound, and study the effect ity tensor using the singular value decomposition (SVD) of intermolecular interactions on the optical activity. eigenvectors of the mixed-gauge electric dipole-electric Accurate quantum mechanical (QM) methods based dipole polarizability tensor. The LG(OI) approach is on density functional theory (DFT) and coupled cluster simpler than the LG-GIAOs approach and faster than (CC) theory have been developed for the calculation of the MVG approach, but it shares with the latter the ap- chiroptical properties,5–20 using response theory to eval- plicability to any approximate method. Therefore, we uate the appropriate OR tensor.15,19–24 However, given were able to present the first origin-invariant LG simula- the steep computational scaling of electronic QM calcu- tions of specific rotation with standard CC methods. lations, all of these methods only provide an approxi- In this work, we extend the LG(OI) approach to the mate solution to the Schrödinger equation using an in- calculation of the full Buckingham/Dunn tensor and complete basis expansion for the electron density. Thus, present the first origin-invariant LG-CC simulations of the numerical results depend on the choice of gauge for the full OR tensor. Since we now have two fully origin- the electric dipole and quadrupole operators.15,25–27 Two invariant approaches to evaluate the OR of chiral systems typical choices are the length gauge (LG), which is more at CC level, LG(OI) and MVG, we also explore the ef- intuitive but provides an origin-dependent tensor, and fect of basis set and electron correlation incompleteness. the velocity gauge (VG), with which the OR tensor is We decouple these two sources of approximation using a origin-invariant but has an unphysical static limit.17,24 model system where CC with single and double excita- For the LG and variational methods such as Hartree- tions (CCSD) is exact and another system where CCSD Fock (HF) and DFT, the origin-dependence issue is re- is not exact but we can use fairly large basis sets and solved using London orbitals, also known as gauge includ- extrapolate to the complete basis set limit. The paper is organized as follows: the theory derivation is presented in section II, details of the calculations are reported in sec- tion III, the results of numerical simulations are discussed a)Electronic mail: [email protected]. in section IV, and concluding remarks are summarized in 2 section V. where β and ! are given in atomic units, h̵ is the reduced Planck’s constant (J s), NA is Avogadro’s number, c is the speed of light (m/s), me is the electron rest mass II. THEORY (kg), and M is the molecular mass (amu). In Eq. 6, we used the fact that the A contribution to B is traceless so In this section, we present the theory for the evalua- that Tr( ) = Tr(B) = Tr(β). Therefore, the A tensor is tion of the full OR tensor with the LG(OI) approach.32 In unnecessary in OR simulations of molecules in isotropic order to do that, it is useful to briefly review the equa- media. B tions for the Buckingham/Dunn optical activity tensor The tensors β and A in Eqs. 3-4 are both origin de- , which is defined as:4,23,33 pendent according to: 1 1 R;P B Bαβ = [Tr(B)δαβ − Bαβ] (1) β (O′) = β (O) + α( )d (7) 2 αβ αβ 2 βγδ αγ δ ⎡ ⎤ 1 ⎢ 1 ⎥ ′ 3 (R;R) B = ⎢β + β + Q ( A + A )⎥ (2) Aα,βγ (O ) =Aα,βγ (O) − α dβ αβ ⎢ αβ βα αγδ γ,δβ βγδ γ,δα ⎥ 2 αγ 2 ⎢ 3 δ,γ ⎥ (8) ⎣ ⎦ 3 − α(R;R)d + α(R;R)d δ where is the Levi-Civita operator, β is the electric 2 αβ γ αδ δ βγ dipole-magnetic dipole polarizability tensor, and A is the electric dipole-electric quadrupole polarizability tensor: where a sum over common indices is implied in the last term on the right-hand side of both equations, O is a particular choice of origin of the coordinate system and ⟨ Sµ S ⟩⟨ Sm S ⟩ β = 2 Im 0 α j j β 0 (3) αβ Q 2 2 ′ j≠0 !j − ! O = O + d (9) is a displaced origin, δ is the Kronecker delta tensor, and ⟨ Sµ S ⟩⟨ SΘ S ⟩ A = 2 ! Re 0 α j j βγ 0 (4) α is the electric dipole-electric dipole polarizability tensor α,βγ Q j 2 2 j≠0 !j − ! expressed with two gauge representations for the dipole operator: the superscript (R; R) in Eq. 8 indicates the We use atomic units throughout the paper, except when length gauge representation for both occurrences of the otherwise specified. Since there has been some confu- dipole operator (shown in Eq. 5), while the superscript sion in the literature for the use of the G′ symbol to (R; P ) in Eq. 7 indicates a mixed representation with the indicate the electric dipole-magnetic dipole polarizabil- length gauge for one occurrence of the dipole operator ity with or without the !−1 factor, we use the notation and the velocity gauge for the other one, β = −!−1G′.23 The multipole operators in Eqs. 3-4 are expressed in the length dipole gauge as: µP = −p: (10) µ = −r where p is the momentum operator including an implicit i summation over the number of electrons in the molecule. m = (r × ∇) (5) 2 In an exact calculation, the individual origin dependent 1 2 terms for the two tensors β and A perfectly cancel out Θβγ = − (3rβrγ − δβγ r ) 2 when they are combined in B in Eq. 2 such that the latter which are respectively the electric dipole, the magnetic is origin invariant. However, this is no longer the case in dipole, and the traceless electric quadrupole operators, approximate calculations and the individual elements of with the position r and gradient ∇ operators implicitly B as well as its trace are origin dependent. summed over all the electrons of the molecule. The Greek There are typically two ways to overcome the origin- indices denote Cartesian coordinates, ! is the frequency dependence issue in approximate calculations. For the of the incident electromagnetic radiation while S j⟩ and length gauge and variational methods (like HF and th DFT), one can use London orbitals6,28 (also known as !j are the j excited state wave function and excita- tion frequency, respectively. These definitions are valid GIAOs), but such strategy is not feasible with conven- tional CC methods because the response of the molecu- for non-resonant optical activity (!j ≈~ !) calculations; resonant optical activity is discussed in greater detail lar orbitals is neglected to avoid unphysical poles in the 21 elsewhere.1,4,34,35 response function. An approach that works with any For isotropic media, the observed optical rotation is approximate method is to express the electric multipoles commonly reported as a normalized quantity in units of in the velocity gauge, see Eq.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free and Open Source Software for Computational Chemistry Education
    Free and Open Source Software for Computational Chemistry Education Susi Lehtola∗,y and Antti J. Karttunenz yMolecular Sciences Software Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, United States zDepartment of Chemistry and Materials Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland E-mail: [email protected].fi Abstract Long in the making, computational chemistry for the masses [J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 104] is finally here. We point out the existence of a variety of free and open source software (FOSS) packages for computational chemistry that offer a wide range of functionality all the way from approximate semiempirical calculations with tight- binding density functional theory to sophisticated ab initio wave function methods such as coupled-cluster theory, both for molecular and for solid-state systems. By their very definition, FOSS packages allow usage for whatever purpose by anyone, meaning they can also be used in industrial applications without limitation. Also, FOSS software has no limitations to redistribution in source or binary form, allowing their easy distribution and installation by third parties. Many FOSS scientific software packages are available as part of popular Linux distributions, and other package managers such as pip and conda. Combined with the remarkable increase in the power of personal devices—which rival that of the fastest supercomputers in the world of the 1990s—a decentralized model for teaching computational chemistry is now possible, enabling students to perform reasonable modeling on their own computing devices, in the bring your own device 1 (BYOD) scheme. In addition to the programs’ use for various applications, open access to the programs’ source code also enables comprehensive teaching strategies, as actual algorithms’ implementations can be used in teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Basis Sets Running a Calculation • in Performing a Computational
    Session 2: Basis Sets • Two of the major methods (ab initio and DFT) require some understanding of basis sets and basis functions • This session describes the essentials of basis sets: – What they are – How they are constructed – How they are used – Significance in choice 1 Running a Calculation • In performing a computational chemistry calculation, the chemist has to make several decisions of input to the code: – The molecular geometry (and spin state) – The basis set used to determine the wavefunction – The properties to be calculated – The type(s) of calculations and any accompanying assumptions 2 Running a calculation •For ab initio or DFT calculations, many programs require a basis set choice to be made – The basis set is an approx- imate representation of the atomic orbitals (AOs) – The program then calculates molecular orbitals (MOs) using the Linear Combin- ation of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO) approximation 3 Computational Chemistry Map Chemist Decides: Computer calculates: Starting Molecular AOs determine the Geometry AOs O wavefunction (ψ) Basis Set (with H H ab initio and DFT) Type of Calculation LCAO (Method and Assumptions) O Properties to HH be Calculated MOs 4 Critical Choices • Choice of the method (and basis set) used is critical • Which method? • Molecular Mechanics, Ab initio, Semiempirical, or DFT • Which approximation? • MM2, MM3, HF, AM1, PM3, or B3LYP, etc. • Which basis set (if applicable)? • Minimal basis set • Split-valence • Polarized, Diffuse, High Angular Momentum, ...... 5 Why is Basis Set Choice Critical? • The
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Hartree-Fock Molecular Orbital Theory
    An Introduction to Hartree-Fock Molecular Orbital Theory C. David Sherrill School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology June 2000 1 Introduction Hartree-Fock theory is fundamental to much of electronic structure theory. It is the basis of molecular orbital (MO) theory, which posits that each electron's motion can be described by a single-particle function (orbital) which does not depend explicitly on the instantaneous motions of the other electrons. Many of you have probably learned about (and maybe even solved prob- lems with) HucÄ kel MO theory, which takes Hartree-Fock MO theory as an implicit foundation and throws away most of the terms to make it tractable for simple calculations. The ubiquity of orbital concepts in chemistry is a testimony to the predictive power and intuitive appeal of Hartree-Fock MO theory. However, it is important to remember that these orbitals are mathematical constructs which only approximate reality. Only for the hydrogen atom (or other one-electron systems, like He+) are orbitals exact eigenfunctions of the full electronic Hamiltonian. As long as we are content to consider molecules near their equilibrium geometry, Hartree-Fock theory often provides a good starting point for more elaborate theoretical methods which are better approximations to the elec- tronic SchrÄodinger equation (e.g., many-body perturbation theory, single-reference con¯guration interaction). So...how do we calculate molecular orbitals using Hartree-Fock theory? That is the subject of these notes; we will explain Hartree-Fock theory at an introductory level. 2 What Problem Are We Solving? It is always important to remember the context of a theory.
    [Show full text]
  • User Manual for the Uppsala Quantum Chemistry Package UQUANTCHEM V.35
    User manual for the Uppsala Quantum Chemistry package UQUANTCHEM V.35 by Petros Souvatzis Uppsala 2016 Contents 1 Introduction 6 2 Compiling the code 7 3 What Can be done with UQUANTCHEM 9 3.1 Hartree Fock Calculations . 9 3.2 Configurational Interaction Calculations . 9 3.3 M¨ollerPlesset Calculations (MP2) . 9 3.4 Density Functional Theory Calculations (DFT)) . 9 3.5 Time Dependent Density Functional Theory Calculations (TDDFT)) . 10 3.6 Quantum Montecarlo Calculations . 10 3.7 Born Oppenheimer Molecular Dynamics . 10 4 Setting up a UQANTCHEM calculation 12 4.1 The input files . 12 4.1.1 The INPUTFILE-file . 12 4.1.2 The BASISFILE-file . 13 4.1.3 The BASISFILEAUX-file . 14 4.1.4 The DENSMATSTARTGUESS.dat-file . 14 4.1.5 The MOLDYNRESTART.dat-file . 14 4.1.6 The INITVELO.dat-file . 15 4.1.7 Running Uquantchem . 15 4.2 Input parameters . 15 4.2.1 CORRLEVEL ................................. 15 4.2.2 ADEF ..................................... 15 4.2.3 DOTDFT ................................... 16 4.2.4 NSCCORR ................................... 16 4.2.5 SCERR .................................... 16 4.2.6 MIXTDDFT .................................. 16 4.2.7 EPROFILE .................................. 16 4.2.8 DOABSSPECTRUM ............................... 17 4.2.9 NEPERIOD .................................. 17 4.2.10 EFIELDMAX ................................. 17 4.2.11 EDIR ..................................... 17 4.2.12 FIELDDIR .................................. 18 4.2.13 OMEGA .................................... 18 2 CONTENTS 3 4.2.14 NCHEBGAUSS ................................. 18 4.2.15 RIAPPROX .................................. 18 4.2.16 LIMPRECALC (Only openmp-version) . 19 4.2.17 DIAGDG ................................... 19 4.2.18 NLEBEDEV .................................. 19 4.2.19 MOLDYN ................................... 19 4.2.20 DAMPING ................................... 19 4.2.21 XLBOMD ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to DFT and the Plane-Wave Pseudopotential Method
    Introduction to DFT and the plane-wave pseudopotential method Keith Refson STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chilton, Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX 23 Apr 2014 Parallel Materials Modelling Packages @ EPCC 1 / 55 Introduction Synopsis Motivation Some ab initio codes Quantum-mechanical approaches Density Functional Theory Electronic Structure of Condensed Phases Total-energy calculations Introduction Basis sets Plane-waves and Pseudopotentials How to solve the equations Parallel Materials Modelling Packages @ EPCC 2 / 55 Synopsis Introduction A guided tour inside the “black box” of ab-initio simulation. Synopsis • Motivation • The rise of quantum-mechanical simulations. Some ab initio codes Wavefunction-based theory • Density-functional theory (DFT) Quantum-mechanical • approaches Quantum theory in periodic boundaries • Plane-wave and other basis sets Density Functional • Theory SCF solvers • Molecular Dynamics Electronic Structure of Condensed Phases Recommended Reading and Further Study Total-energy calculations • Basis sets Jorge Kohanoff Electronic Structure Calculations for Solids and Molecules, Plane-waves and Theory and Computational Methods, Cambridge, ISBN-13: 9780521815918 Pseudopotentials • Dominik Marx, J¨urg Hutter Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics: Basic Theory and How to solve the Advanced Methods Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521898633 equations • Richard M. Martin Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods: Basic Theory and Practical Density Functional Approaches Vol 1 Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521782856
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Presentation
    Session 2 Basis Sets CCCE 2008 1 Session 2: Basis Sets • Two of the major methods (ab initio and DFT) require some understanding of basis sets and basis functions • This session describes the essentials of basis sets: – What they are – How they are constructed – How they are used – Significance in choice CCCE 2008 2 Running a Calculation • In performing ab initio and DFT computa- tional chemistry calculations, the chemist has to make several decisions of input to the code: – The molecular geometry (and spin state) – The basis set used to determine the wavefunction – The properties to be calculated – The type(s) of calculations and any accompanying assumptions CCCE 2008 3 Running a calculation • For ab initio or DFT calculations, many programs require a basis set choice to be made – The basis set is an approx- imate representation of the atomic orbitals (AOs) – The program then calculates molecular orbitals (MOs) using the Linear Combin- ation of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO) approximation CCCE 2008 4 Computational Chemistry Map Chemist Decides: Computer calculates: Starting Molecular AOs determine the Geometry AOs O wavefunction (ψ) Basis Set (with H H ab initio and DFT) Type of Calculation LCAO (Method and Assumptions) O Properties to HH be Calculated MOs CCCE 2008 5 Critical Choices • Choice of the method (and basis set) used is critical • Which method? • Molecular Mechanics, Ab initio, Semiempirical, or DFT • Which approximation? • MM2, MM3, HF, AM1, PM3, or B3LYP, etc. • Which basis set (if applicable)? • Minimal basis set • Split-valence
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Efficient Data Exchange and Sharing for Big-Data Driven Materials Science: Metadata and Data Formats
    www.nature.com/npjcompumats PERSPECTIVE OPEN Towards efficient data exchange and sharing for big-data driven materials science: metadata and data formats Luca M. Ghiringhelli1, Christian Carbogno1, Sergey Levchenko1, Fawzi Mohamed1, Georg Huhs2,3, Martin Lüders4, Micael Oliveira5,6 and Matthias Scheffler1,7 With big-data driven materials research, the new paradigm of materials science, sharing and wide accessibility of data are becoming crucial aspects. Obviously, a prerequisite for data exchange and big-data analytics is standardization, which means using consistent and unique conventions for, e.g., units, zero base lines, and file formats. There are two main strategies to achieve this goal. One accepts the heterogeneous nature of the community, which comprises scientists from physics, chemistry, bio-physics, and materials science, by complying with the diverse ecosystem of computer codes and thus develops “converters” for the input and output files of all important codes. These converters then translate the data of each code into a standardized, code- independent format. The other strategy is to provide standardized open libraries that code developers can adopt for shaping their inputs, outputs, and restart files, directly into the same code-independent format. In this perspective paper, we present both strategies and argue that they can and should be regarded as complementary, if not even synergetic. The represented appropriate format and conventions were agreed upon by two teams, the Electronic Structure Library (ESL) of the European Center for Atomic and Molecular Computations (CECAM) and the NOvel MAterials Discovery (NOMAD) Laboratory, a European Centre of Excellence (CoE). A key element of this work is the definition of hierarchical metadata describing state-of-the-art electronic-structure calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • APW+Lo Basis Sets
    Computer Physics Communications 179 (2008) 784–790 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computer Physics Communications www.elsevier.com/locate/cpc Force calculation for orbital-dependent potentials with FP-(L)APW + lo basis sets ∗ Fabien Tran a, , Jan Kuneš b,c, Pavel Novák c,PeterBlahaa,LaurenceD.Marksd, Karlheinz Schwarz a a Institute of Materials Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/165-TC, A-1060 Vienna, Austria b Theoretical Physics III, Center for Electronic Correlations and Magnetism, Institute of Physics, University of Augsburg, Augsburg 86135, Germany c Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Cukrovarnická 10, CZ-162 53 Prague 6, Czech Republic d Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA article info abstract Article history: Within the linearized augmented plane-wave method for electronic structure calculations, a force Received 8 April 2008 expression was derived for such exchange–correlation energy functionals that lead to orbital-dependent Received in revised form 14 May 2008 potentials (e.g., LDA + U or hybrid methods). The forces were implemented into the WIEN2k code and Accepted 27 June 2008 were tested on systems containing strongly correlated d and f electrons. The results show that the Availableonline5July2008 expression leads to accurate atomic forces. © PACS: 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 61.50.-f 71.15.Mb 71.27.+a Keywords: Computational materials science Density functional theory Forces Structure optimization Strongly correlated materials 1. Introduction The majority of present day electronic structure calculations on periodic solids are performed with the Kohn–Sham (KS) formulation [1] of density functional theory [2] using the local density (LDA) or generalized gradient approximations (GGA) for the exchange–correlation energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 8 Gaussian Basis Sets CHEM6085: Density Functional
    CHEM6085: Density Functional Theory Lecture 8 Gaussian basis sets C.-K. Skylaris CHEM6085 Density Functional Theory 1 Solving the Kohn-Sham equations on a computer • The SCF procedure involves solving the Kohn-Sham single-electron equations for the molecular orbitals • Where the Kohn-Sham potential of the non-interacting electrons is given by • We all have some experience in solving equations on paper but how we do this with a computer? CHEM6085 Density Functional Theory 2 Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO) • We will express the MOs as a linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) • The strength of the LCAO approach is its general applicability: it can work on any molecule with any number of atoms Example: B C A AOs on atom A AOs on atom B AOs on atom C CHEM6085 Density Functional Theory 3 Example: find the AOs from which the MOs of the following molecules will be built CHEM6085 Density Functional Theory 4 Basis functions • We can take the LCAO concept one step further: • Use a larger number of AOs (e.g. a hydrogen atom can have more than one s AO, and some p and d AOs, etc.). This will achieve a more flexible representation of our MOs and therefore more accurate calculated properties according to the variation principle • Use AOs of a particular mathematical form that simplifies the computations (but are not necessarily equal to the exact AOs of the isolated atoms) • We call such sets of more general AOs basis functions • Instead of having to calculate the mathematical form of the MOs (impossible on a computer) the problem
    [Show full text]
  • Systematically Improvable Tensor Hypercontraction: Interpolative Separable Density-Fitting for Molecules Applied to Exact Exchan
    Systematically Improvable Tensor Hypercontraction: Interpolative Separable Density-Fitting for Molecules Applied to Exact Exchange, Second- and Third-Order Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory , , Joonho Lee,∗ y Lin Lin,z and Martin Head-Gordon∗ y Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA y Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA z Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] arXiv:1911.00470v1 [physics.chem-ph] 1 Nov 2019 1 Abstract We present a systematically improvable tensor hypercontraction (THC) factoriza- tion based on interpolative separable density fitting (ISDF). We illustrate algorith- mic details to achieve this within the framework of Becke's atom-centered quadra- ture grid. A single ISDF parameter cISDF controls the tradeoff between accuracy and cost. In particular, cISDF sets the number of interpolation points used in THC, N = c N with N being the number of auxiliary basis functions. In con- IP ISDF × X X junction with the resolution-of-the-identity (RI) technique, we develop and investigate the THC-RI algorithms for cubic-scaling exact exchange for Hartree-Fock and range- separated hybrids (e.g., !B97X-V) and quartic-scaling second- and third-order Møller- Plesset theory (MP2 and MP3). These algorithms were evaluated over the W4-11 thermochemistry (atomization energy) set and A24 non-covalent interaction bench- mark set with standard Dunning basis sets (cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ, aug-cc-pVDZ, and aug-cc-pVTZ). We demonstrate the convergence of THC-RI algorithms to numerically exact RI results using ISDF points.
    [Show full text]
  • VASP: Basics (DFT, PW, PAW, … )
    VASP: Basics (DFT, PW, PAW, … ) University of Vienna, Faculty of Physics and Center for Computational Materials Science, Vienna, Austria Outline ● Density functional theory ● Translational invariance and periodic boundary conditions ● Plane wave basis set ● The Projector-Augmented-Wave method ● Electronic minimization The Many-Body Schrödinger equation Hˆ (r1,...,rN )=E (r1,...,rN ) 1 1 ∆i + V (ri)+ (r1,...,rN )=E (r1,...,rN ) 0−2 ri rj 1 i i i=j X X X6 | − | @ A For instance, many-body WF storage demands are prohibitive: N (r1,...,rN ) (#grid points) 5 electrons on a 10×10×10 grid ~ 10 PetaBytes ! A solution: map onto “one-electron” theory: (r ,...,r ) (r), (r),..., (r) 1 N ! { 1 2 N } Hohenberg-Kohn-Sham DFT Map onto “one-electron” theory: N (r ,...,r ) (r), (r),..., (r) (r ,...,r )= (r ) 1 N ! { 1 2 N } 1 N i i i Y Total energy is a functional of the density: E[⇢]=T [ [⇢] ]+E [⇢]+E [⇢] + E [⇢]+U[Z] s { i } H xc Z The density is computed using the one-electron orbitals: N ⇢(r)= (r) 2 | i | i X The one-electron orbitals are the solutions of the Kohn-Sham equation: 1 ∆ + V (r)+V [⇢](r)+V [⇢](r) (r)=✏ (r) −2 Z H xc i i i ⇣ ⌘ BUT: Exc[⇢]=??? Vxc[⇢](r)=??? Exchange-Correlation Exc[⇢]=??? Vxc[⇢](r)=??? • Exchange-Correlation functionals are modeled on the uniform-electron-gas (UEG): The correlation energy (and potential) has been calculated by means of Monte- Carlo methods for a wide range of densities, and has been parametrized to yield a density functional. • LDA: we simply pretend that an inhomogeneous electronic density locally behaves like a homogeneous electron gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Probing the Basis Set Limit for Thermochemical Contributions of Inner-Shell Correlation: Balance of Core-Core and Core- Valence Contributions1
    Probing the basis set limit for thermochemical contributions of inner-shell correlation: Balance of core-core and core- valence contributions1 Nitai Sylvetsky and Jan M. L. Martin Department of Organic Chemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Reḥovot, Israel a)Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract. The inner-shell correlation contributions to the total atomization energies (TAEs) of the W4-17 computational thermochemistry benchmark have been determined at the CCSD(T) level near the basis set limit using several families of core correlation basis sets, such as aug-cc-pCVnZ (n=3-6), aug-cc-pwCVnZ (n=3-5), and nZaPa-CV (n=3-5). The three families of basis sets agree very well with each other (0.01 kcal/mol RMS) when extrapolating from the two largest available basis sets: however, there are considerable differences in convergence behavior for the smaller basis sets. nZaPa- CV is superior for the core-core term and awCVnZ for the core-valence term. While the aug-cc-pwCV(T+d)Z basis set of Yockel and Wilson is superior to aug-cc-pwCVTZ, further extension of this family proved unproductive. The best compromise between accuracy and computational cost, in the context of high-accuracy computational thermochemistry methods such as W4 theory, is CCSD(T)/awCV{T,Q}Z, where the {T,Q} notation stands for extrapolation from the awCVTZ and awCVQZ basis set pair. For lower-cost calculations, a previously proposed combination of CCSD-F12b/cc- pCVTZ-F12 and CCSD(T)/pwCVTZ(no f) appears to ‘give the best bang for the buck’.
    [Show full text]