Basis sets computational issues

This section summarizes the TDDFT linear response approach to compute optical rotation and circular dichroism. For reasons of brevity, assume a closed shell system, real orbitals, and a complete basis set (see Sect. 2.4 for comments regarding basis set incompleteness issues). From solving the canonical ground state Kohn-Sham (KS) equations,... 

While the general features of halogen bonding are now well known, it has proven challenging to develop models with sufficient accuracy to predict spectroscopic features and bond energies. This is particularly problematic with iodine, where high quality basis sets are not readily available and are computationally expensive. There have been numerous approaches taken to address this issue during the past decade, many of which are discussed below. 

The corrections for basis set superposition errors (BSSE) with the counterpoise correction are still a controversial issue [120-122], However, some type of correction is needed for calculations on systems with weak interactions. It has been proved that only considering the BSSE meaningful results can be obtained on large systems [122], Of course, by using good quality basis sets the BSSE is less troublesome and the results obtained can be accepted, readily, as reliable. The BSSE in DFT calculations is less important than in conventional ab-initio calculations. We compute the counterpoise correction as ... 

In the next section, we recapitulate the derivation of the Cauchy moment expressions for CC wavefunction models and give the CC3-specific formulas we also outline an efficient implementation of the CCS Cauchy moments. Section 3 contains computational details. In Section 4, we report the Cauchy moments calculated for the Ne, Ar, and Kr gases using the CCS, CC2, CCSD, CCS hierarchy and correlation-consistent basis sets augmented with diffuse functions. In particular, we consider the issues of one- and A-electron convergence and compare with the Cauchy moments obtained from the DOSD approach and other experiments. 

A review of the Journal of Physical Chemistry A, volume 110, issues 6 and 7, reveals that computational chemistry plays a major or supporting role in the majority of papers. Computational tools include use of large Gaussian basis sets and density functional theory, molecular mechanics, and molecular dynamics. There were quantum chemistry studies of complex reaction schemes to create detailed reaction potential energy surfaces/maps, molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics studies of larger chemical systems, and conformational analysis studies. Spectroscopic methods included photoelectron spectroscopy, microwave spectroscopy circular dichroism, IR, UV-vis, EPR, ENDOR, and ENDOR induced EPR. The kinetics papers focused on elucidation of complex mechanisms and potential energy reaction coordinate surfaces. 

A separate basis set issue is associated with calculations for molecules including heavy atoms. If the core electrons of the heavy atom are represented by an ECP, then it is not in general possible to predict the chemical shift for that nucleus, since the remaining basis functions will have incorrect behavior at the nuclear position (note that it is mostly the tails of the valence orbitals at the nucleus that influence the chemical shift, not the core orbitals themselves, since they are filled shells). However, ECPs may be an efficient choice if the only chemical shifts of interest are computed for other nuclei. 

A technique for direct computations of the eigenvalues Er —zT/2 of H(6 = 0) with the outgoing-wave boundary condition is reviewed in detail in a chapter in Part I of this two-volume special issue of Advances in Quantum Chemistry on Unstable States in the Continuous Spectra [27]. Determination of the wavefunction of Eq. (2) with a real eigenvalue EQ using a judiciously chosen real, square-integrable basis set, followed by diagonalization of a complex Hamiltonian matrix for the whole Hq + H constructed in terms of basis functions of complex-rotated coordinates, is shown to be quite useful. 

An important issue of the application of electronic structure theory to polyatomic systems is the selection of the appropriate basis set. As usual in quantum chemistry, a compromise between precision and computational cost has to be achieved. It is generally accepted that in order to obtain qualitatively correct theoretical results for valence excited states of polyatomic systems, a Gaussian basis set of at least double-zeta quality with polarization functions on all atoms (or at least on the heavy atoms) is necessary. For a correct description of Rydberg-type excited states, the basis set has to be augmented with additional diffuse Gaussian functions. Such basis sets were used in the calculations discussed below. 

Aspects of the relativistic theory of quantum electrodynamics are first reviewed in the context of the electronic structure theory of atoms and molecules. The finite basis set parametrization of this theory is then discussed, and the formulation of the Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Breit procedure presented with additional detail provided which is specific to the treatment of atoms or molecules. Issues concerned with the implementation of relativistic mean-field methods are outlined, including the computational strategies adopted in the BERTHA code. Extensions of the formalism are presented to include open-shell cases, and the accommodation of some electron correlation effects within the multi-configurational Dirac-Hartree-Fock approximation. We conclude with a survey of representative applications of the relativistic self-consistent field method to be found in the literature. 

Obviously, there is much room for further development of the basic concepts of the SSEA and for improvement of its methodology, as well as for additional applications to new and challenging TDMEPs. In all cases, the fundamental issue is how to identify and construct the wavefunctions that are considered relevant to each problem. For example, the possibility of treating correctly the contribution from two-electron continue is an open question. Even if two-electron products of energy-normalized scattering states are used as basis sets, the computational requirements of this (multichannel in general) problem are huge, and so its solution would require dedicated effort and powerful computers. 

Similar inputs are needed for other molecules. The initial geometry is to some extent arbitrary, and therefore in fact it cannot be considered as real input data. The only true information is the number and charge (kind) of the nuclei, the total molecular charge (i.e., we know how many electrons are in the system), and the multiplicity of the electronic state to be computed. The basis set issue (STO-3G) is purely technical and gives information about the quality of the results. 

---