Basis sets described

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... 

The Ha,a Hamiltonian is represented in the basis set described, and the resulting matrix is diagonalized using standard diagonafization techniques, obtaining the eigenvalues and the C ... 

The basis sets described here in most detail are those developed by Pople3 and coworkers [40], which are probably the most popular now, but most general-purpose (those not used just on small molecules or on atoms) basis sets utilize some sort of contracted Gaussian functions to simulate Slater orbitals. A brief discussion of basis sets and references to many, including the widely-used Dunning... 

For Fig. 7.1 and Tables 7.1 and 7.2, for comparison with the presentations in Chapters 5 and 6, values from MP2/6-31G calculations (the standard post-Hartree Fock ab initio method Section 5.4.2) and from experiment (Fig. 7.1 [69], Fig. 7.2 [70]) were clearly necessary. This choice of the relatively small 6-31G basis is discussed below. The choice of DFT functionals required some consideration. B3LYP is retained from the first edition of this book because it continues to be very widely used. The pBP/DN functional/basis set (described in [68]) that was a feature of Spartan [71] and was used in the first edition of this book showed certain problems and is no longer available, and its replacement required some deliberation. The remaining choice was now narrowed to three functionals ... 

Table 16 The isotropic hyperfine values of H2CO+ in its ground state (X2B2) using different methods (in MHz). The QCISD(T)/6-31G optimized geometry (Rco = 121.1 pm, Ren = 111.4 pm, Lhcn =122.0) was used throughout. All calculations were performed with the AO basis set described in table 15.

The ab initio approach includes all a- and 71-electrons and seeks to use either analytical or numerical solutions to the integrals that occur in the quantum mechanical problem. This procedure was initially carried out within the framework of the one electron HF-SCF method using the basis sets described above. Subsequently it has been implemented using density functional theory (DFT). If the electron density in the ground state of the system is known, then in principle this knowledge can be used to determine the physical properties of the system. For instance, the locations of the nuclei are revealed by discontinuities in the electron density gradient, while the integral of the density is directly related to the number of electrons present. Ab initio methods are obviously computationally intensive. 

Ab initio calculations are defined in terms of a method or level of theory and the basis set that is used. The methods differ in how interactions between electrons are treated while the basis sets describe the shape of the orbitals. For comprehensive discussions of ab initio calculations see the texts by Hehre et al. [14], Leach [15], and Young [16],... 

The basis sets described above are small and intended for qualitative or semiquantitative, rather than quantitative, work. They are used mostly for simple wave functions consisting of one or a few Slater determinants such as the Hartree-Fock wave function, as discussed in Sec. 3. For the more advanced wave functions discussed in Sec. 4, it has been proven important to introduce hierarchies of basis sets. New AOs are introduced in a systematic manner, generating not only more accurate Hartree-Fock orbitals but also a suitable orbital space for including more and more Slater determinants in the n-electron expansion. In terms of these basis sets, determinant expansions (Eq. (14)) that systematically approach the exact wave function can be constructed. The atomic natural orbital (ANO) basis sets of Almlof and Taylor [23] were among the first examples of such systematic sequences of basis sets. The ANO sets have later been modified and extended by Widmark et al. [24],... 

Pseudopotentials40,41. This represents a different approach to the computational problem. Here the inner shells, which are believed to be less important than the valence shells in determining the bonding properties of the atoms, are not included explicitly in the calculations. Instead, the inner shells are replaced by a model potential (the pseudopotential) that represents them. The valence shells can be represented by any of the basis sets described above. 

Often, in the discussion of photodissociation phenomena, a Hund s case (e) basis set is used to describe the dissociation products. However that basis set is in fact an atomic basis set (Band, et al., (1987)) and is distinct from the molecular case (e) basis set described in Section 3.2.1. 

Two coordinate systems and basis sets describing to the collision of two identical atoms in states S and P are employed. Following Wataiiabe [27], first we introduce the standard space-fixed coordinate system with axis along the relative nuclear angular momentum 1, i.e., axis perpendicular to the collision plane, axis (, in the direction opposite to the asymptotic velocity vector v, and axis ij normal to and (. The following notation is used for the diabatic electronic basis states ... 

Transform useful for representing the Hartree-Fock operator for solving large chemical systems [3,10,11]. They chose the discrete wavelet basis sets described by Daubechies [12] ... 

Recently correlation consistent basis sets for the Ca atom have been reported by Koput and Peterson [28]. Analogous to adding p-type functions to the Mg sets at the HP level of theory, additional HP d-type functions were included and optimized for the 4s 3d excited state of Ca. Affer confracfion, these functions played a very similar role in molecular calculations as the tight d functions in the cc-pV(n + d)Z basis sets described above for fhe 3p main group atoms. 

Split-valence basis sets are a simplification to the double, triple, and quadruple zeta basis sets described above. Since the inner shell orbitals are not usually involved in bonding, and their energies are reasonably independent of their molecular environment, it is usually only necessary to include the extra basis functions for the valence orbitals. Basis sets that include different numbers of basis fimctions for the inner shell and valence electrons are known as split-valence basis sets. 

Thus, at large / , there are two separate basis sets describing each a monomer, while at short distances r the union of the two basis sets... 

This overview of the ECP derivation process highlights some issues that arise in derivation of the potentials and their attendant valence basis sets. Lanthanides are used to illustrate the process. The discussion is based on the derivation of lanthanide ECPs and valence basis sets described by Cundari and Stevens3= which follows the same scheme used by Stevens et al. in their ECP implementation for the transition metals, and is similar to the processes used by other ECP researchers.3- The ECP derivation process is depicted schematically in Chart 1. Differences are noted where appropriate. Szasz has reviewed some of the earlier ECP derivation processes. ... 

We briefly mention that, for the SRLS model described above, up to three additional basis indices are needed to represent motion of the solvent cage, namely, L, KP, and These indices are specified by truncation parameters and have the same general physical meaning (in the context of cage diffusion) as the L, K, and M indices in Table 5. The different approaches to optimizing basis sets described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 also apply to the cage indices however, for the sake of simplicity, the SRLS model in these sections will not be considered. 

The STO basis set of the DZ type ean be approximated by split polynomials of the Gaussian-type functions M-NP G. Each inner AO is replaced by M GTO orbitals, the valence 2s orbital—by AT, while the p orbital—by P GTO functions. For example, the 4-31 G basis set describes every inner (Is) orbital by four GTO s, every valence 2s AO by three GTO s and every valence p AO by one GTO. It is important to point out that whereas in the case of the minimal basis set of the NG type the accuracy level of the minimal STO basis set cannot be attained even at great values of N, the use of the split-valence GTO M-NPG basis sets allows the Slater basis set level to be exceeded. 

The increase in the total energy of a supersystem (the system formed by noncovalent interaction between two or more molecular entities, e.g., a hydrogen bonded system) resulting from too small a basis set describing the supersystem and subsystems differently. The BSSE is an artificial mathematical effect causing an overestimation of the interaction energy. 

Because of the FFT, the scaling of this procedure is 0(N logN), and we see that it is simpler and more elegant than the methods for localized basis sets described in Section 4.1. 

Using the 18sl3pl Id9f7g5h basis set described in the text. 

Gaussian geminals result obtained by Bukowski et al. Using the Li 15sllp8d7f6g/H 15sl Ip8d7f6g basis set described in the text. ... 

Levy-Leblond Hamiltonian as the unperturbed operator. It turns out that when so-called kinetic balance is obeyed (roughly speaking, when the basis set describing the small component is represented by functions derived from the large-component basis functioas xl by xs = the same results... 

---