Atoms, quantum Monte Carlo calculations

In this way Filippi, Umrigar and Gonze [27] have recently calculated the exchange potentials corresponding to the exact (not the x-only) densities of some atoms where the exact densities were determined in a quantum Monte-Carlo calculation. Likewise, for any given approximate functional Ec[ g>i ], the corresponding correlation potential... 

Bohm and Schiitt presented quantum Monte Carlo calculations for the r-systems of these compounds. Electronic degrees of freedom are restricted by two quantum constrains. The first is the Pauli antisymmetry principle (PAP) which requires that many electron wave functions must change sign when the ordering of two electrons with the same spin is changed. The second is the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) that prevents conformations with more than one electron of the same spin in the same atomic orbital. They carried out two sets of calculations. First, the Pauli exclusion principle was retained but the Pauli antisymmetry principle was not required, and in the second both principles were applied. 

Most of the present discussion has been concerned with applications of REPs within the framework of otherwise essentially orbital-based calculations. On the other hand, a recent application 110) involved a quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) procedure. [A useful overview of Monte Carlo electronic structure work has been given by Ceperly and Alder 111). ] Currently, QMC offers little, if any, competition for conventional calculations in that the computer time required to reduce statistical errors to acceptable limits increases rapidly as a function of atomic number and is excessive for all but the smallest systems. Recent fluorine calculations required nearly 100 hours of supercomputer time 112). Although, on the surface, it would appear totally impractical, the appeal of this approach in the context of heavy-element work is its avoidance of extensive basis sets and enormous configuration expansions that plague present studies. 

Two coupling modes are considered for the Pdj CO cluster the first mode (denoted as h) represents vibration of the rigid CO molecule with respect to the transition metal surface. The second mode is either the Pd-Pd vibration wi in the plane of Pd surface atoms (r) or out-of-plane stretch of the surface/sub-surface Pd-Pd bond (z). The total energy surfaces (h,r) and (h,z) are calculated for discrete points and then fitted to a fourth order polynomial. Variational and Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods were subsequently applied to calculate the ground and first excited vibrational states of each two-dimensional potential surfaces. The results of the vibrational frequences (o using both the variational and QMC approach are displayed in Table II. 

In the early days of the work, this phase transition was mainly analyzed from the structures of Ar7 including the conformation change of the isomers, the various energy profiles, and the fluctuation of these properties [1-9,11]. Among these analyses, Lindemann s 8 was often used to monitor the phase transition. Most of these calculations carried out in these days are the Molecular Dynamics and the Monte Carlo calculations since the quantum effect was expected to be small for argon atoms [21,22,26]. These types of analyses can be categorized as the analysis of the potential energy features from the various directions. 

In recent years, there have been many attempts to combine the best of both worlds. Continuum solvent models (reaction field and variations thereof) are very popular now in quantum chemistry but they do not solve all problems, since the environment is treated in a static mean-field approximation. The Car-Parrinello method has found its way into chemistry and it is probably the most rigorous of the methods presently feasible. However, its computational cost allows only the study of systems of a few dozen atoms for periods of a few dozen picoseconds. Semiempirical cluster calculations on chromophores in solvent structures obtained from classical Monte Carlo calculations are discussed in the contribution of Coutinho and Canuto in this volume. In the present article, we describe our attempts with so-called hybrid or quantum-mechanical/molecular-mechanical (QM/MM) methods. These concentrate on the part of the system which is of primary interest (the reactants or the electronically excited solute, say) and treat it by semiempirical quantum chemistry. The rest of the system (solvent, surface, outer part of enzyme) is described by a classical force field. With this, we hope to incorporate the essential influence of the in itself uninteresting environment on the dynamics of the primary system. The approach lacks the rigour of the Car-Parrinello scheme but it allows us to surround a primary system of up to a few dozen atoms by an environment of several ten thousand atoms and run the whole system for several hundred thousand time steps which is equivalent to several hundred picoseconds. 

Figure 3.1 Size dependence of cohesive energies per atom (CE/n) of mercury clusters Hgn from calculations using a large-core EC-PP and CPP for Hg. Valence correlation is accounted for either within die hybrid model approach (HM) by a pair-potential adjusted for Hg2 or by pure-diffusion quantum Monte Carlo (PDMC) calculations (Wang etal 2000).

Joslin and Goldman [105] in 1992 studied this problem by using the Diffusive Quantum Monte Carlo Methods. By resorting to the hard spherical box model, they performed calculations, not only on the ground state of helium atom, but also for H- and Li+. In this method the Schrodinger equation is... 

This review is a brief update of the recent progress in the attempt to calculate properties of atoms and molecules by stochastic methods which go under the general name of quantum Monte Carlo (QMC). Below we distinguish between basic variants of QMC variational Monte Carlo (VMC), diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC), Green s function Monte Carlo (GFMC), and path-integral Monte Carlo (PIMC). 

In this short review we have pointed out only very few of the basic issues involving the simulation of chemical systems with Quantum Monte Carlo. What has been achieved in the last few years is remarkable very precise calculations of small molecules, the most accurate calculations of the electron gas, silicon and carbon clusters, solids, and simulations of hydrogen at temperatures when bonds are forming. New methods have been developed as well high-accuracy trial wavefunctions for atoms, molecules, and solids, treatment of atomic cores, and the generalization of path-integral Monte Carlo to treat many-electron systems at positive temperatures. 

Buendia et al. calculated many states of the iron atom with VMC using orbitals obtained from the parametrized optimal effective potential method with all electrons included. Iron is a particularly difficult system, and the VMC results are only moderately accurate. The same authors also pubhshed VMC and Green s functions quantum Monte Carlo (GFMQ calculations on the first transition-row atoms with all electrons. GFMC is a variant of DMC where intermediate steps are used to remove the time step error. Cafiarel et al. presented a very careful study on the role of electron correlation and relativistic effects in the copper atom using all-electron DMC. Relativistic effects were calculated with the Dirac-Fock model. Several states of the atom were evaluated and an accuracy of about 0.15 eV was achieved with a single determinant. ... 

Table 5.2. Experimental vibrational redshifts for DF and HF with sequential addition of argon solvent atoms. Also shown are redshifts calculated using diffusion quantum Monte Carlo techniques from Ref. 66 and bound state variational calculations by Ernesti and Hutson from Refs. 9,11. The two columns reflect the values calculated within the approximation of pairwise additivity, and including the corrective three-body terms as described more fully in the text. 

A chapter in an earlier volume in this series devoted to quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods noted that there are many ways to skin a cat this chapter discusses yet another In quantum chemistry, the dominant theme over many decades has been basis set calculations. The basis sets consist of localized Slater-type orbitals or Gaussian functions that are adapted to provide accurate representations of the electron states in atoms. The main advantage of this approach is that the basis sets typically do not have to be terribly large in size since they already contain a lot of the detailed atomic information. A disadvantage is that it can be difficult to obtain an unambiguously converged result due to factors such as basis set superposition errors. " ... 

Another branch of computational quantum mechanics, quantum Monte Carlo, is described in Chapter 3 by Professor James B. Anderson. Quantum Monte Carlo techniques, such as variational, diffusion, and Green s function, are explained, along with applications to atoms, molecules, clusters, liquids, and solids. Quantum Monte Carlo is not as widely used as other approaches to solving the Schrodinger equation for the electronic structure of a system, and the programs for running these calculations are not as user friendly as those based on the Hartree-Fock approach. This chapter sheds much needed light on the topic. 

As with atomic EAs, comparisons to higher-level calculations suggest that correlation effects on VDEs beyond the CCSD(T) level are quite small for molecular anions.Consider, for example, the notoriously challenging HNC and HCN anions, " whose binding energies are only 0.004 eV and w 0.002 eV, respectively, with the VDE for HCN arising almost entirely from electron correlation effects. For these two species, VDEs computed at the CCSD(T) level and the CCSDT level agree to within 0.001 eV. The (H20) anion provides another example here, the VDE computed at the CCSD(T) leveP lies within the statistical error bars of a quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) calculation, the latter of which is free of basis-set artifacts and does not require truncation of the excitation level. 

---