Basis set accuracy

This section gives a listing of some basis sets and some notes on when each is used. The number of primitives is listed as a simplistic measure of basis set accuracy (bigger is always slower and usually more accurate). The contraction scheme is also important since it determines the basis set flexibility. Even two basis sets with the same number of primitives and the same contraction scheme are not completely equivalent since the numerical values of the exponents and contraction coefficients determine how well the basis describes the wave function. 

Basis Set Accuracy Symmetry Used Initial Guess Geometry ... 

The relative cost of ab initio calculations depends on many variables, such as the Hamiltonian, basis set, accuracy requirement, size, and density of the system (see Appendix 2). The Fock or KS matrix diagonalization step during the solution of Eq. [25] can become the calculation bottleneck with a large basis set, when, for example, more than 1000 basis functions are used. Such a number of functions may correspond to about 100 atoms per cell, when a local basis set is used, but this is the usual size of plane wave calculations, even with a small unit cell. As many crystalline systems are highly symmetric, taking advantage of symmetry is, therefore, important for reducing computational time. 

The LMTO method [58, 79] can be considered to be the linear version of the KKR teclmique. According to official LMTO historians, the method has now reached its third generation [79] the first starting with Andersen in 1975 [58], the second connnonly known as TB-LMTO. In the LMTO approach, the wavefimction is expanded in a basis of so-called muffin-tin orbitals. These orbitals are adapted to the potential by constmcting them from solutions of the radial Scln-ddinger equation so as to fomi a minimal basis set. Interstitial properties are represented by Hankel fiinctions, which means that, in contrast to the LAPW teclmique, the orbitals are localized in real space. The small basis set makes the method fast computationally, yet at the same time it restricts the accuracy. The localization of the basis fiinctions diminishes the quality of the description of the wavefimction in die interstitial region. 

Any set of one-eleelrori ftinctions can be a basis set in the IjCAO approximation. However, a well-defined basis set will predict electron ic properties using fewer leriii s th an a poorly-defiri ed basis set. So, choosin g a proper basis set in ah inilio calculation s is critical to the rcliabililv and accuracy of the calculated results. 

A basis set is a set of functions used to describe the shape of the orbitals in an atom. Molecular orbitals and entire wave functions are created by taking linear combinations of basis functions and angular functions. Most semiempirical methods use a predehned basis set. When ah initio or density functional theory calculations are done, a basis set must be specihed. Although it is possible to create a basis set from scratch, most calculations are done using existing basis sets. The type of calculation performed and basis set chosen are the two biggest factors in determining the accuracy of results. This chapter discusses these standard basis sets and how to choose an appropriate one. 

A second issue is the practice of using the same set of exponents for several sets of functions, such as the 2s and 2p. These are also referred to as general contraction or more often split valence basis sets and are still in widespread use. The acronyms denoting these basis sets sometimes include the letters SP to indicate the use of the same exponents for s andp orbitals. The disadvantage of this is that the basis set may suffer in the accuracy of its description of the wave function needed for high-accuracy calculations. The advantage of this scheme is that integral evaluation can be completed more quickly. This is partly responsible for the popularity of the Pople basis sets described below. 

Choosing a standard GTO basis set means that the wave function is being described by a finite number of functions. This introduces an approximation into the calculation since an infinite number of GTO functions would be needed to describe the wave function exactly. Dilferences in results due to the quality of one basis set versus another are referred to as basis set effects. In order to avoid the problem of basis set effects, some high-accuracy work is done with numeric basis sets. These basis sets describe the electron distribution without using functions with a predefined shape. A typical example of such a basis set might... 

SBKJC VDZ Available for Li(4.v4/>) through Hg(7.v7/ 5d), this is a relativistic basis set created by Stevens and coworkers to replace all but the outermost electrons. The double-zeta valence contraction is designed to have an accuracy comparable to that of the 3—21G all-electron basis set. Hay-Wadt MB Available for K(5.v5/>) through Au(5.v6/ 5r/), this basis set contains the valence region with the outermost electrons and the previous shell of electrons. Elements beyond Kr are relativistic core potentials. This basis set uses a minimal valence contraction scheme. These sets are also given names starting with LA for Los Alamos, where they were developed. 

There are several types of basis functions listed below. Over the past several decades, most basis sets have been optimized to describe individual atoms at the EIF level of theory. These basis sets work very well, although not optimally, for other types of calculations. The atomic natural orbital, ANO, basis sets use primitive exponents from older EIF basis sets with coefficients obtained from the natural orbitals of correlated atom calculations to give a basis that is a bit better for correlated calculations. The correlation-consistent basis sets have been completely optimized for use with correlated calculations. Compared to ANO basis sets, correlation consistent sets give a comparable accuracy with significantly fewer primitives and thus require less CPU time. 

There have been a few basis sets optimized for use with DFT calculations, but these give little if any increase in efficiency over using EIF optimized basis sets for these calculations. In general, DFT calculations do well with moderate-size HF basis sets and show a significant decrease in accuracy when a minimal basis set is used. Other than this, DFT calculations show only a slight improvement in results when large basis sets are used. This seems to be due to the approximate nature of the density functional limiting accuracy more than the lack of a complete basis set. 

Several basis schemes are used for very-high-accuracy calculations. The highest-accuracy HF calculations use numerical basis sets, usually a cubic spline method. For high-accuracy correlated calculations with an optimal amount of computing effort, correlation-consistent basis sets have mostly replaced ANO... 

MAXI—i and MIDI Are higher-accuracy basis sets derived from the MIDI basis set. 

WTBS Well-tempered basis set for high-accuracy results. Available for He(17.v) through Rn(28.v24/ 18dl2/). 

Castro Jorge universal Available for H(20.v) through Lr(32.v25/)20r/15/). For actually reaching the inhnite basis set limit to about seven digits of accuracy. 

Some of the basis sets discussed here are used more often than others. The STO—3G set is the most widely used minimal basis set. The Pople sets, particularly, 3—21G, 6—31G, and 6—311G, with the extra functions described previously are widely used for quantitative results, particularly for organic molecules. The correlation consistent sets have been most widely used in recent years for high-accuracy calculations. The CBS and G2 methods are becoming popular for very-high-accuracy results. The Wachters and Hay sets are popular for transition metals. The core potential sets, particularly Hay-Wadt, LANL2DZ, Dolg, and SBKJC, are used for heavy elements, Rb and heavier. 

For many projects, a basis set cannot be chosen based purely on the general rules of thumb listed above. There are a number of places to obtain a much more quantitative comparison of basis sets. The paper in which a basis set is published often contains the results of test calculations that give an indication of the accuracy of results. Several books, listed in the references below, contain extensive tabulations of results for various methods and basis sets. Every year, a bibliography of all computational chemistry papers published in the previous... 

For relative reaction rates, ah initio calculations with moderate-size basis sets usually give sulficient accuracy. 

Changing the constants in the SCF equations can be done by using a dilferent basis set. Since a particular basis set is often chosen for a desired accuracy and speed, this is not generally the most practical solution to a convergence problem. Plots of results vs. constant values are the bifurcation diagrams that are found in many explanations of chaos theory. 

Likewise, a basis set can be improved by uncontracting some of the outer basis function primitives (individual GTO orbitals). This will always lower the total energy slightly. It will improve the accuracy of chemical predictions if the primitives being uncontracted are those describing the wave function in the middle of a chemical bond. The distance from the nucleus at which a basis function has the most significant effect on the wave function is the distance at which there is a peak in the radial distribution function for that GTO primitive. The formula for a normalized radial GTO primitive in atomic units is... 

Ah initio methods can yield reliable, quantitatively correct results. It is important to use basis sets with diffrise functions and high-angular-momentum polarization functions. Hyperpolarizabilities seem to be relatively insensitive to the core electron description. Good agreement has been obtained between ECP basis sets and all electron basis sets. DFT methods have not yet been used widely enough to make generalizations about their accuracy. 

---