Effective basis sets

The issue of how to identify an effective basis set of schemas for use in instruction is a thorny one for a number of reasons. At first glance, it might seem that one need only ask experts how they solve arithmetic problems and then extract or abstract their schemas from the responses. This approach has at least three limitations. The first limitation is endemic to all schema research People are not very good at telling us how and what they think. Almost every researcher who studies expertise faces this problem. As Nisbett and Wilson (1977) illustrated in their research, individuals... 

M. Gutowski, G. Chalasinski, and J. van Duijneveldt-van de Rijdt, Int. J. Quantum Chem., 26, 971 (1984). Effective Basis Sets for Calculations of Exchange-Repulsion Energy. 

Figure 3 shows the results with and without including the geometric phase effect for the D + H2 reaction. The basis set is taken as 1,1,1,15,15,15, that is. 

The ordinary BO approximate equations failed to predict the proper symmetry allowed transitions in the quasi-JT model whereas the extended BO equation either by including a vector potential in the system Hamiltonian or by multiplying a phase factor onto the basis set can reproduce the so-called exact results obtained by the two-surface diabatic calculation. Thus, the calculated hansition probabilities in the quasi-JT model using the extended BO equations clearly demonshate the GP effect. The multiplication of a phase factor with the adiabatic nuclear wave function is an approximate treatment when the position of the conical intersection does not coincide with the origin of the coordinate axis, as shown by the results of [60]. Moreover, even if the total energy of the system is far below the conical intersection point, transition probabilities in the JT model clearly indicate the importance of the extended BO equation and its necessity. 

The picture here is of uncoupled Gaussian functions roaming over the PES, driven by classical mechanics. The coefficients then add the quantum mechanics, building up the nuclear wavepacket from the Gaussian basis set. This makes the treatment of non-adiabatic effects simple, as the coefficients are driven by the Hamiltonian matrices, and these elements couple basis functions on different surfaces, allowing hansfer of population between the states. As a variational principle was used to derive these equations, the coefficients describe the time dependence of the wavepacket as accurately as possible using the given... 

The basis sets that we have considered thus far are sufficient for most calculations. However, for some high-level calculations a basis set that effectively enables the basis set limit to be achieved is required. The even-tempered basis set is designed to achieve this each function m this basis set is the product of a spherical harmonic and a Gaussian function multiplied... 

This algorithm alternates between the electronic structure problem and the nuclear motion It turns out that to generate an accurate nuclear trajectory using this decoupled algoritlun th electrons must be fuUy relaxed to the ground state at each iteration, in contrast to Ihe Car-Pairinello approach, where some error is tolerated. This need for very accurate basis se coefficients means that the minimum in the space of the coefficients must be located ver accurately, which can be computationally very expensive. However, conjugate gradient rninimisation is found to be an effective way to find this minimum, especially if informatioi from previous steps is incorporated [Payne et cd. 1992]. This reduces the number of minimi sation steps required to locate accurately the best set of basis set coefficients. 

The second, third, and fourth corrections to [MPd/b-Jl lG(d,p)] are analogous to A (- -). The zero point energy has been discussed in detail (scale factor 0.8929 see Scott and Radom, 1996), leaving only HLC, called the higher level correction, a purely empirical correction added to make up for the practical necessity of basis set and Cl truncation. In effect, thermodynamic variables are calculated by methods described immediately below and HLC is adjusted to give the best fit to a selected group of experimental results presumed to be reliable. 

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... 

Unlike semiempirical methods that are formulated to completely neglect the core electrons, ah initio methods must represent all the electrons in some manner. However, for heavy atoms it is desirable to reduce the amount of computation necessary. This is done by replacing the core electrons and their basis functions in the wave function by a potential term in the Hamiltonian. These are called core potentials, elfective core potentials (ECP), or relativistic effective core potentials (RECP). Core potentials must be used along with a valence basis set that was created to accompany them. As well as reducing the computation time, core potentials can include the effects of the relativistic mass defect and spin coupling terms that are significant near the nuclei of heavy atoms. This is often the method of choice for heavy atoms, Rb and up. 

This results in a population analysis scheme that is less basis set dependent than the Mulliken scheme. Flowever, basis set effects are still readily apparent. This is also a popular technique because it is available in many software packages and researchers find it convenient to use a method that classifies the type of orbital. 

---