Hartree-Fock calculations electron correlation

Post-Hartree-Fock Calculations Electron Correlation... 

At this point, it should be noted that the above extensions of the minimal STO sets - the addition of more basis functions of the same type as those already present - are appropriate only for atomic Hartree-Fock calculations. For correlated calculations and for molecular (rather than atomic) calculations, we must consider also basis functions of symmetries that do not occur in the uncorrelated atomic calculations. The purpose of these functions is twofold to allow for a distortion of the atomic charge distribution in a molecular environment of lower symmetry and to allow for a description of electronic correlation. We shall return to this subject in our discussion of Gaussian basis sets in Chapter 8. 

A Hbasis functions provides K molecular orbitals, but lUJiW of these will not be occupied by smy electrons they are the virtual spin orbitals. If u c were to add an electron to one of these virtual orbitals then this should provide a means of calculating the electron affinity of the system. Electron affinities predicted by Konpman s theorem are always positive when Hartree-Fock calculations are used, because fhe irtucil orbitals always have a positive energy. However, it is observed experimentally that many neutral molecules will accept an electron to form a stable anion and so have negative electron affinities. This can be understood if one realises that electron correlation uDiild be expected to add to the error due to the frozen orbital approximation, rather ihan to counteract it as for ionisation potentials. 

DFT methods are attractive because they include the effects of electron correlation—the fact that electrons in a molecular system react to one another s motion and attempt to keep out of one another s way—in their model. Hartree-Fock calculations consider this effect only in an average sense—each electron sees and... 

As a final note, be aware that Hartree-Fock calculations performed with small basis sets are many times more prone to finding unstable SCF solutions than are larger calculations. Sometimes this is a result of spin contamination in other cases, the neglect of electron correlation is at the root. The same molecular system may or may not lead to an instability when it is modeled with a larger basis set or a more accurate method such as Density Functional Theory. Nevertheless, wavefunctions should still be checked for stability with the SCF=Stable option. ... 

We can compute all of the results except those in the first row by running just three jobs QCISD(T,E4T] calculations on HF and fluorine and a Hartree-Fock calculation on hydrogen (with only one electron, the electron correlation energy is zero). Note that the E4T option to the QCISDfT) keyword requests that the triples computation be included in the component MP4 calculation as well as in the QCISD calculation (they are not needed or computed by default). 

How does a rigorously calculated electrostatic potential depend upon the computational level at which was obtained p(r) Most ab initio calculations of V(r) for reasonably sized molecules are based on self-consistent field (SCF) or near Hartree-Fock wavefunctions and therefore do not reflect electron correlation in the computation of p(r). It is true that the availability of supercomputers and high-powered work stations has made post-Hartree-Fock calculations of V(r) (which include electron correlation) a realistic possibility even for molecules with 5 to 10 first-row atoms however, there is reason to believe that such computational levels are usually not necessary and not warranted. The Mpller-Plesset theorem states that properties computed from Hartree-Fock wave functions using one-electron operators, as is T(r), are correct through first order (Mpller and Plesset 1934) any errors are no more than second-order effects. 

Duncanson and Coulson [242,243] carried out early work on atoms. Since then, the momentum densities of aU the atoms in the periodic table have been studied within the framework of the Hartree-Fock model, and for some smaller atoms with electron-correlated wavefunctions. There have been several tabulations of Jo q), and asymptotic expansion coefficients for atoms [187,244—251] with Hartree-Fock-Roothaan wavefunctions. These tables have been superseded by purely numerical Hartree-Fock calculations that do not depend on basis sets [232,235,252,253]. There have also been several reports of electron-correlated calculations of momentum densities, Compton profiles, and momentum moments for He [236,240,254-257], Li [197,237,240,258], Be [238,240,258, 259], B through F [240,258,260], Ne [239,240,258,261], and Na through Ar [258]. Schmider et al. [262] studied the spin momentum density in the lithium atom. A review of Mendelsohn and Smith [12] remains a good source of information on comparison of the Compton profiles of the rare-gas atoms with experiment, and on relativistic effects. 

---