Benchmarking magnetizabilities with recent density functionals Susi Lehtola,∗,y,z Maria Dimitrova,∗,y Heike Fliegl,∗,{ and Dage Sundholm∗,y yUniversity of Helsinki, Department of Chemistry, P.O. Box 55 (A.I. Virtanens plats 1), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland zMolecular Sciences Software Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, United States {KIT, Institute of Nanotechnology, Hermann-von-Helmholtz Platz 1, D-76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany E-mail: [email protected].fi; maria.dimitrova@helsinki.fi; heike.fl[email protected]; dage.sundholm@helsinki.fi Abstract mented this approach as a new feature in the gauge-including magnetically induced current We have assessed the accuracy for magnetic method (Gimic). Magnetizabilities can be cal- properties of a set of 51 density functional culated from magnetically induced current den- approximations, including both recently pub- sity susceptibilities within this approach even lished as well as already established function- when analytical approaches for magnetizabili- als. The accuracy assessment considers a se- ties as the second derivative of the energy have ries of 27 small molecules and is based on com- not been implemented. The magnetizability paring the predicted magnetizabilities to liter- density can also be visualized, providing addi- ature reference values calculated using coupled tional information that is not otherwise easily cluster theory with full singles and doubles and accessible on the spatial origin of the magneti- perturbative triples [CCSD(T)] employing large zabilities. basis sets. The most accurate magnetizabili- ties, defined as the smallest mean absolute er- ror, were obtained with the BHandHLYP func- 1 Introduction tional. Three of the six studied Berkeley func- tionals and the three range-separated Florida Computational methods based on density- functionals also yield accurate magnetizabili- functional theory (DFT) are commonly used ties. Also some older functionals like CAM- in quantum chemistry, because DFT calcu- B3LYP, KT1, BHLYP (BHandH), B3LYP and lations are rather accurate despite their rel- PBE0 perform rather well. In contrast, unsat- atively modest computational costs. Older arXiv:2011.06560v3 [physics.chem-ph] 19 Jan 2021 1,2 isfactory performance was generally obtained functionals such as the Becke'88{Perdew'86 1,3 with Minnesota functionals, which are therefore (BP86), Becke'88{Lee{Yang{Parr (BLYP) 4,5 not recommended for calculations of magnet- and Perdew{Burke{Ernzerhof (PBE) func- ically induced current density susceptibilities, tionals at the generalized gradient approxima- 6 7,8 and related magnetic properties such as mag- tion (GGA) as well as the B3LYP and PBE0 netizabilities and nuclear magnetic shieldings. hybrid functionals are still often employed, even We also demonstrate that magnetizabilities though newer functionals with improved accu- can be calculated by numerical integration of racy for energies and electronic properties have the magnetizability density; we have imple- been developed. The accuracy and reliability of various den- 1 sity functional approximations (DFAs) has been tion about the origin of the corresponding com- assessed in a huge number of applications and ponents of the magnetizability tensor. Similar benchmark studies.9{17 It is important to note approaches have been used in the literature for that functionals that are accurate for energet- studying spatial contributions to nuclear mag- ics may be less suited for calculations of other netic shielding constants.46{53 molecular properties.16 In specific, the accu- We will describe our methods for numerical racy of magnetic properties calculated within integration of magnetizabilities using the cur- DFAs has been benchmarked by comparing rent density susceptibility in sections2 and3. magnetizabilities and nuclear magnetic shield- Then, in section4, we will list the studied set ings to those obtained from coupled-cluster cal- of density functionals, and present the results culations using large basis sets,18,19 although in section5: the functional benchmark is dis- modern DFAs have been less systematically in- cussed in section 5.1, and magnetizability densi- vestigated.16,20{23 The same also holds for nu- ties and spatial contributions to magnetizabil- clear independent chemical shifts24{28 and mag- ities are analyzed in section 5.2. The conclu- netically induced current density susceptibili- sions of the study are summarized in section6. ties,29{36 which have been studied for a large Atomic units are used throughout the text, un- number of molecules, but whose accuracy has less stated otherwise, and summation over re- never been benchmarked properly. peated indices is assumed. Magnetizabilities are usually calculated as the second derivative of the electronic energy with respect to the external magnetic pertur- 2 Theory bation,37{41 The current density JB(r) in equation (2) is for- @2E mally defined as the real part (R) of the me- ξαβ = − : (1) chanical momentum density, @Bα@Bβ B=0 JB(r) = −R Ψ∗(r) p − AB(r) Ψ(r) ; (3) Such analytic implementations for magnetiz- abilities exist in several quantum chemistry pro- where p = −ir is the momentum opera- grams. However, since the magnetic interaction tor. Substituting equation (2) into equation (1) energy in equation (2) can also be written as an straightforwardly leads to integral over the magnetic interaction energy density ρB(r) that is given by the scalar prod- 2 Z @ 1 B B 3 uct of the magnetically induced current density ξαβ = A (r)·J (r) d r : (4) @Bα@Bβ 2 JB(r) with the vector potential AB(r) of the B=0 30,31,42{45 external magnetic field B The current density susceptibility tensor29{31 Z Z (CDT) is defined as the first derivative of the B 3 1 B B 3 E = ρ (r) d r = − A (r) · J (r) d r; magnetically induced current density with re- 2 (2) spect to the components of the external mag- an approach based on quadrature is also pos- netic field in the limit of a vanishing magnetic field,32{35 sible. As will be seen in section2, the nu- B merical integration approach for the magneti- Bβ @Jγ Jγ = : (5) zability provides additional information about @Bβ B=0 its spatial origin that is not available with the B analytic approach based on second derivatives: The vector potential A (r) of an external static the tensor components of the magnetizability homogeneous magnetic field is expressed as density defined in section2 are scalar functions 1 AB(r) = B × (r − R ); (6) that can be visualized, and the integration ap- 2 O proach can be used to provide detailed informa- 2 (0) where RO is the chosen gauge origin. The αβ where i is the imaginary unit and χµ (r) is a component of the magnetizability tensor can standard atomic-orbital basis function centered then be obtained from equations (4), (5) and (6) at Rµ. GIAOs eliminate the gauge origin from as Z the expression used for calculating the CDT; ξ 3 the expression we use is given in the supporting ξαβ = ραβ(r)d r; (7) information (SI). Since the expression for the where the magnetizability density is defined as magnetizability density in equations (7) and (8) can be computed by quadrature, magnetizabil- ξ 1 X Bβ ρ (r) = r Jγ (r) (8) ities can be obtained from the CDT even if the αβ 2 αδγ δ δγ corresponding analytical calculation of magne- tizabilities as the second derivative of the en- where αδγ is the Levi{Civita symbol, α, β, ergy has not been implemented. γ, and δ are one of the Cartesian directions (x; y; z), and rδ also denotes one of (x; y; z). The components of the magnetizability density 3 Implementation ξ tensor ραβ(r) are scalar functions that can be visualized to obtain information about the spa- The present implementation is based on the 56 57 tial contributions to the corresponding element Gimic program and the Numgrid library, of the magnetizability tensor ξαβ. which are both freely available open-source soft- As the isotropic magnetizability (ξ) is ob- ware. Gauge-independent CDTs can be cal- 32{35 tained as the average of the diagonal elements culated with Gimic using the density ma- of the magnetizability tensor trix, the magnetically perturbed density matri- ces and information about the basis set. 1 Z ξ = Tr ξ = ρξ(r)d3r; (9) In order to evaluate equation (7), a molecular 3 integration grid is first generated from atom- centered grids with the Numgrid library, as we introduce the isotropic magnetizability den- described by Becke 58. In Numgrid, the grid sity ρξ(r) defined as weights are scaled according to the Becke par- 58 1 titioning scheme using a Becke hardness of 3; ρξ(r) = Tr ρξ(r); (10) 3 the atom-centered grids are determined by a radial grid generated as suggested by Lindh which yields information about the spatial ori- et al. 59, and angular grids due to Lebedev 60 gin of the isotropic magnetizability, as we will are used. demonstrate in section 5.2. Given the quadrature grid, the diagonal ele- Although there is freedom with regard to the ments of the magnetizability tensor are calcu- B choice of the gauge origin of A (r), the mag- lated in Gimic from the Cartesian coordinates netic flux density B is uniquely defined via of the n grid points multiplied with the CDT equation (6), because B = r × (A(r) + rf(r)) calculated in the grid points. For example, the holds for any differentiable scalar function f(r). ξxx element of the magnetizability tensor is ob- The exact solution of the Schr¨odingerequation tained from equation (7) as should also be gauge invariant. However, the n use of finite one-particle basis sets introduces X ξ gauge dependence in quantum chemical calcula- ξxx = ρi;xx (12) tions of magnetic properties. The CDT can be i=1 made gauge-origin independent by using gauge- where the xx component of the magnetizability including atomic orbitals (GIAOs), also known density tensor at grid point i is as London atomic orbitals (LAOs),32,54,55 1 h i ξ J Bx − J Bx −i(B×[Rµ−RO]·r)=2 (0) ρi;xx = y z i z y i (13) χµ(r) = e χµ (r) ; (11) 2 3 J Bx J Bx where y z i and z y i are the product of (with aug-cc-pVQZ on the hydrogen atoms) the z and y components of the CDT calculated and benchmark quality integration grids were in grid point i with the Cartesian coordinates y employed in all calculations.