Basis multiconfiguration

Once the requisite one- and two-electron integrals are available in the MO basis, the multiconfigurational wavefunction and energy calculation can begin. Each of these methods has its own approach to describing tlie configurations d),. j included m the calculation and how the C,.] amplitudes and the total energy E are to be... 

Some details of END using a multiconfigurational electronic wave function with a complete active space (CASMC) have been introduced in terms of an orthonormal basis and for a fixed nuclear framework [25], and were recently [26] discussed in some detail for a nonoithogonal basis with electron translation factors. 

If the PES are known, the time-dependent Schrbdinger equation, Eq. (1), can in principle be solved directly using what are termed wavepacket dynamics [15-18]. Here, a time-independent basis set expansion is used to represent the wavepacket and the Hamiltonian. The evolution is then carried by the expansion coefficients. While providing a complete description of the system dynamics, these methods are restricted to the study of typically 3-6 degrees of freedom. Even the highly efficient multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) method [19,20], which uses a time-dependent basis set expansion, can handle no more than 30 degrees of freedom. 

These single reference-based methods are limited to cases where the reference function can be written as a single determinant. This is most often not the case and it is then necessary to use a multiconfigurational approach. Multrreference Cl can possibly be used, but this method is only approximately size extensive, which may lead to large errors unless an extended reference space is used. For example, Osanai et al. [8] obtained for the excitation energy in Mn 2.24 eV with the QCISD(T) method while SDCI with cluster corrections gave 2.64 eV. Extended basis sets were used. The experimental value is 2.15 eV. 

However, until today no systematic comparison of methods based on MpUer-Plesset perturbation (MP) and Coupled Cluster theory, the SOPPA or multiconfigurational linear response theory has been presented. The present study is a first attempt to remedy this situation. Calculations of the rotational g factor of HF, H2O, NH3 and CH4 were carried out at the level of Hartree-Fock (SCF) and multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock (MCSCF) linear response theory, the SOPPA and SOPPA(CCSD) [40], MpUer-Plesset perturbation theory to second (MP2), third (MP3) and fourth order without the triples contributions (MP4SDQ) and finally coupled cluster singles and doubles theory. The same basis sets and geometries were employed in all calculations for a given molecule. The results obtained with the different methods are therefore for the first time direct comparable and consistent conclusions about the performance of the different methods can be made. 

We have already presented [17,18] the SCF-Ml (Self Consistent Field for Molecular Interactions) method, based on the idea that BSSE can be avoided a priori provided the MOs of each fragment are expanded only using basis functions located on each subsystem. In the present work we propose a multiconfiguration extension (MCSCF-MI) of the same technique, particularly suited to deal with systems for which proton transfer processes must be considered. 

The calculations are not all at exactly the same bond length R. The basis set is indicated after the slash in the method. R, L, C, and T are basis sets of Slater-type functions. The aug-cc-pVDZ and aug-cc-pVTZ basis sets [360] are composed of Gaussian functions. SCF stands for self-consistent-field MC, for multiconfiguration FO, for first-order Cl, for configuration interaction MR, for multireference MPn, for nth-order Mpller-Plesset perturbation theory and SDQ, for singles, doubles, and quadruples. 

Once the requisite one- and two-electron integrals are available in the molecular orbital basis, the multiconfigurational wavefunction and energy calculation can begin. 

Inclusion of Electron Correlation. HF calculations, performed with basis sets so large that the calculations approach the HF limit for a particular molecule, still calculate total energies rather poorly. The reason is that, as already discussed, HF wave functions include no correlation between electrons of opposite spins. In order to include this type of correlation, multiconfigurational (MC) wave functions, like that in Eq. 5, must be used. 

Figure 9.1 displays the computed J(t), and 2(0 for the first 100 fs, according to Ref. [30]. The J(t) plot is in excellent agreement with the equivalent multiconfiguration time- dependent Hartree results shown in Figure 6 of Ref [58], with any small differences arising from the use of only 176 basis states in the Q-space, for the reasons discussed earlier. 

The standard method for selecting the 4>j is to ask for the <)>i which maximize the importance of one or more terms in the sum. This gives the self-consistent-field (SCF) or multiconfiguration SCF (MC-SCF) equations. If each < >. is expanded as a linear combination of some fixed set of basis functions f - the coefficients can be found by an extension of the Roothaan SCF equations. 

In the preceding sections, the occupation vectors were defined by the occupation of the basis orbitals jJ>. In many cases it is necessary to study occupation number vectors where the occupation numbers refer to a set of orbitals cfe, that can be obtained from by a unitary transformation. This is, for example, the case when optimizing the orbitals for a single or a multiconfiguration state. The unitary transformation of the orbitals is obtained by introducing operators that carry out orbital transformations when working on the occupation number vectors. We will use the theory of exponential mapping to develop operators that parameterizes the orbital rotations such that i) all sets of orthonormal orbitals can be reached, ii) only orthonormal sets can be reached and iii) the parameters are independent variables. 

---