4-component approach/formalism

A comment regarding nomenclature is now in order. We distinguish between a one-component approach and a mixture-model approach to water. Within the latter, we further distinguish between continuous and discrete mixture-model approaches, according to the nature of the parameter used for the classification procedure (for instance, v and K in Chapter 5). All of these are equivalent and formally exact. The various ad hoc mixture rnodels for water may be viewed as approximate versions of the general mixture-model approach. This will be discussed in Section 6.9. 

Since the X matrix is directly evaluated from the electronic solutions of the four-component Fock operator, which must therefore be diagonalized, the same pathologies regarding the negative-energy states discussed in chapters 8 and 10 pose a caveat. However, if a four-component calculation must be carried out before the two-dimensional operator can be evaluated (as in the X2C case), the projection to electronic states by elimination of the small component in an exact two-component approach has no valid formal advantage (as the four-component variational solution for the 4-spinors already required (implicit) projection to the electronic solutions). 

This section collects results obtained with the three exact-decoupling methods within the same implementation and follows the discussion in Ref. [647]. The number of matrix operations necessary for the implementation of different two-component approaches has been collected in Table 14.2. The multiplication of a general matrix with a diagonal matrix requires O(m ) multiplications of floating-point numbers, where m is the dimension of the matrix identical to the number of (scalar) basis functions in this context. The multiplication of two general matrices scales formally as If m is large, the cost of the... 

CASPT2 calculation. Spin-orbit interaction, when necessary, can be included a posteriori as a perturbation. This intrinsically one-component formalism allows one to treat molecules of extended size compared to the four-component approach. As an alternative to CASSCF/CASPT2, truncated MRCI calculations can be envisaged. Limitations arise at the horizon when spin-orbit splitting of atomic one-electron shells starts to become large. Then, a spin-averaged orbital picture will no longer be sufficient. It can be expected that this will be the case for the heavy open-shell p-block elements Bi, Po, and At. 

In ECP theory an effective model Hamiltonian only acting on the explicitly treated valence electrons is searched. There are several choices for the formulation of such a valence-only model Hamiltonian, i.e., four-, two-, or one-component approaches and explicit or implicit relativistic treatment [20], Nonrelativistic, scalar-relativistic, and quasirelativistic ECPs use a formally nonrelativistic valence-only model Hamiltonian implicitly including relativistic effects [19]... 

The numerical methods in this book can be applied to all components in the system, even inerts. When the reaction rates are formulated using Equation (2.8), the solutions automatically account for the stoichiometry of the reaction. We have not always followed this approach. For example, several of the examples have ignored product concentrations when they do not affect reaction rates and when they are easily found from the amount of reactants consumed. Also, some of the analytical solutions have used stoichiometry directly to ease the algebra. This section formalizes the use of stoichiometric constraints. 

The valence DOS has been computed for Ni and Ag clusters within the CNDO formalism. Blyholder [54] examined the Nis and M13 clusters. In both cases of s- and p-orbitals are occupied and lie well below the d-orbitals. Most of the intensity is near the middle of the d-orbitals with a fall-off in intensity as the HOMO is approached. Density of states for Agv, Agio, Agi3, and Agig clusters shows a strong d-component cc. 3.5 eV wide. The... 

---