Basis functions, choice

We now show what happens if we set up tire Hamiltonian matrix using basis functions i ), tiiat are eigenfiinctions of Fand with eigenvalues given by ( equation A1.4.5) and (equation Al.4.6). We denote this particular choice of basis fiinctions as ij/" y. From (equation Al.4.3). (equation A1.4.5) and the fact that F is a Hemiitian operator, we derive... 

Apparently, the most natural choice for the electronic basis functions consist of the adiabatic functions / and tli defined in the molecule-bound frame. By making use of the assumption that A" is a good quantum number, we can write the complete vibronic basis in the form... 

To this pom t, th e basic approxmi alien is th at th e total wave I lnic-tion IS a single Slater determinant and the resultant expression of the molecular orbitals is a linear combination of atomic orbital basis functions (MO-LCAO). In other words, an ah miiio calculation can be initiated once a basis for the LCAO is chosen. Mathematically, any set of functions can be a basis for an ah mitio calculation. However, there are two main things to be considered m the choice of the basis. First one desires to use the most efficient and accurate functions possible, so that the expansion (equation (49) on page 222). will require the few esl possible term s for an accurate representation of a molecular orbital. The second one is the speed of tW O-electron integral calculation. 

Another approach is spin-coupled valence bond theory, which divides the electrons into two sets core electrons, which are described by doubly occupied orthogonal orbitals, and active electrons, which occupy singly occupied non-orthogonal orbitals. Both types of orbital are expressed in the usual way as a linear combination of basis functions. The overall wavefunction is completed by two spin fimctions one that describes the coupling of the spins of the core electrons and one that deals with the active electrons. The choice of spin function for these active electrons is a key component of the theory [Gerratt ef al. 1997]. One of the distinctive features of this theory is that a considerable amount of chemically significant electronic correlation is incorporated into the wavefunction, giving an accuracy comparable to CASSCF. An additional benefit is that the orbitals tend to be... 

To solve the Kohn-Sham equations a number of different approaches and strategies have been proposed. One important way in which these can differ is in the choice of basis set for expanding the Kohn-Sham orbitals. In most (but not all) DPT programs for calculating the properties of molecular systems (rather than for solid-state materials) the Kohn-Sham orbitals are expressed as a linear combination of atomic-centred basis functions ... 

Unlike semiempirical methods that are formulated to completely neglect the core electrons, ah initio methods must represent all the electrons in some manner. However, for heavy atoms it is desirable to reduce the amount of computation necessary. This is done by replacing the core electrons and their basis functions in the wave function by a potential term in the Hamiltonian. These are called core potentials, elfective core potentials (ECP), or relativistic effective core potentials (RECP). Core potentials must be used along with a valence basis set that was created to accompany them. As well as reducing the computation time, core potentials can include the effects of the relativistic mass defect and spin coupling terms that are significant near the nuclei of heavy atoms. This is often the method of choice for heavy atoms, Rb and up. 

We must now consider the choice of a basis set. I have already made reference to hydrogenic orbitals and Slater orbitals without any real explanation. I have also hinted at the integrals problem variational calculations almost always involve the calculation of a number of two-electron integrals over the basis functions... 

These integrals can be terrifyingly difficult they involve the spatial coordinates of a pair of electrons and so are six-dimensional. They are singular, in the sense that the integrand becomes infinite as the distance between the electrons tends to zero. Each basis function could be centred on a different atom, and there is no obvious choice of coordinate origin in such a case. 

In standard quantum-mechanical molecular structure calculations, we normally work with a set of nuclear-centred atomic orbitals Xi< Xi CTOs are a good choice for the if only because of the ease of integral evaluation. Procedures such as HF-LCAO then express the molecular electronic wavefunction in terms of these basis functions and at first sight the resulting HF-LCAO orbitals are delocalized over regions of molecules. It is often thought desirable to have a simple ab initio method that can correlate with chemical concepts such as bonds, lone pairs and inner shells. A theorem due to Fock (1930) enables one to transform the HF-LCAOs into localized orbitals that often have the desired spatial properties. 

The principal distinction between various computational techniques reduces eventually to the choice of basis functions [Pg.140]

Among the usual advantages of such expressions as Eq. (7-80) and (7-81), one is salient they show forth the invariance of p and w with respect to the choice of the basis functions, u, in terms of which p, a, and P are expressed. The trace, as will be recalled, is invariant against unitary transformations, and the passage from one basis to another is performed by such transformations. The trace is also indifferent to an exchange of the two matrix factors, which is convenient in calculations. Finally, the statistical matrix lends itself to a certain generalization of states from pure cases to mixtures, required in quantum statistics and the theory of measurements we turn to this question in Section 7.9. 

The six-term radial distribution function (Fig. 1) has a broad peak at about 1.24 A., a sharper peak at 2.21 A., and another at 3.32 A. These are compatible with the models discussed below, but provide no basis for choice among them. 

For practical implementations it is necessary to represent the molecular electronic wave functions as a linear combination of some convenient set of basis functions. In principle any choice of basis set is permissible although the basis set must span any electronic configuration of the molecule. This implies that the basis must form a complete set. 

To understand the criteria for basis set choice, then, we need consider only the behavior of the primitive integrals. The primitive integrals over the basis functions can be expressed in terms of Hermite polynomials... 

In addition, it is possible that differences in the BSR may arise due to choice of the s-basis from which the higher angular momentum basis functions are constructed. However, on comparison of the Bethe sum rule for basis C, with the sum rule generated by the same method described above, from another energy optimized, frequently used basis (that of van Duijneveldt [16]), we find only small differences in the BSR, and only at large q values. 

Linear PCR can be modified for nonlinear modeling by using nonlinear basis functions 0m that can be polynomials or the supersmoother (Frank, 1990). The projection directions for both linear and nonlinear PCR are identical, since the choice of basis functions does not affect the projection directions indicated by the bracketed term in Eq. (22). Consequently, the nonlinear PCR algorithm is identical to that for the linear PCR algorithm, except for an additional step used to compute the nonlinear basis functions. Using adaptive-shape basis functions provides the flexibility to find the smoothed function that best captures the structure of the unknown function being approximated. 

We have used various integrators (e.g., Runga-Kutta, velocity verlet, midpoint) to propagate the coupled set of first-order differential equations Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9) for the parameters of the Gaussian basis functions and Eq. (2.11) for the complex amplitudes. The specific choice is guided by the complexity of the problem and/or the stiffness of the differential equations. 

The immediate question is where (in phase space) to place the newly spawned basis functions. The optimal choice will maximize the absolute value of the coupling matrix element between the existing basis function (i.e., the... 

Note that the choice of non-orthogonal versus orthogonal basis functions has no consequence for the numerical variational solutions (cf. Coulson s treatment of He2, note 76), but it undermines the possibility of physical interpretation in perturbative terms. While a proper Rayleigh-Schrodinger perturbative treatment of the He- He interaction can be envisioned, it would not simply truncate at second order as assumed in the PMO analysis of Fig. 3.58. Note also that alternative perturbation-theory formulations that make no reference to an... 

---