HF calculations

The second approximation in HF calculations is due to the fact that the wave function must be described by some mathematical function, which is known exactly for only a few one-electron systems. The functions used most often are linear combinations of Gaussian-type orbitals exp(—nr ), abbreviated GTO. The wave function is formed from linear combinations of atomic orbitals or, stated more correctly, from linear combinations of basis functions. Because of this approximation, most HF calculations give a computed energy greater than the Hartree-Fock limit. The exact set of basis functions used is often specified by an abbreviation, such as STO—3G or 6—311++g. Basis sets are discussed further in Chapters 10 and 28. 

One of the limitations of HF calculations is that they do not include electron correlation. This means that HF takes into account the average affect of electron repulsion, but not the explicit electron-electron interaction. Within HF theory the probability of finding an electron at some location around an atom is determined by the distance from the nucleus but not the distance to the other electrons as shown in Figure 3.1. This is not physically true, but it is the consequence of the central field approximation, which defines the HF method. 

A number of types of calculations begin with a HF calculation and then correct for correlation. Some of these methods are Moller-Plesset perturbation theory (MPn, where n is the order of correction), the generalized valence bond (GVB) method, multi-conhgurational self-consistent held (MCSCF), conhgu-ration interaction (Cl), and coupled cluster theory (CC). As a group, these methods are referred to as correlated calculations. 

Semiempirical calculations are set up with the same general structure as a HF calculation in that they have a Hamiltonian and a wave function. Within this framework, certain pieces of information are approximated or completely omitted. Usually, the core electrons are not included in the calculation and only a minimal basis set is used. Also, some of the two-electron integrals are omitted. In order to correct for the errors introduced by omitting part of the calculation, the method is parameterized. Parameters to estimate the omitted values are obtained by fitting the results to experimental data or ah initio calculations. Often, these parameters replace some of the integrals that are excluded. 

Several basis schemes are used for very-high-accuracy calculations. The highest-accuracy HF calculations use numerical basis sets, usually a cubic spline method. For high-accuracy correlated calculations with an optimal amount of computing effort, correlation-consistent basis sets have mostly replaced ANO... 

The Onsager model describes the system as a molecule with a multipole moment inside of a spherical cavity surrounded by a continuum dielectric. In some programs, only a dipole moment is used so the calculation fails for molecules with a zero dipole moment. Results with the Onsager model and HF calculations are usually qualitatively correct. The accuracy increases significantly with the use of MP2 or hybrid DFT functionals. This is not the most accurate method available, but it is stable and fast. This makes the Onsager model a viable alternative when PCM calculations fail. 

Ah initio methods are accurate and can be reliably applied to unusual structures and inorganic compounds. In most cases, HF calculations are fairly good for organic molecules. Large basis sets should be used. 

Fig. 3.36. Experimental, Fe-related HF- calculated according to [3.74] from plasma SNMS sensitivity factors S(pe)x Ref [3.71] (salts) [3.72] alloys, [3.73] with elements X ordered according to round robins (r.r.). their post-ionization probabilities...

We ve chosen a restricted (R) Hartree-Fock (HF) calculation using the 6-31G(d) basis set(6-31G(d)). 

Exact solutions to the electronic Schrodinger equation are not possible for many-electron atoms, but atomic HF calculations have been done both numerically and within the LCAO model. In approximate work, and for molecular applications, it is desirable to use basis functions that are simple in form. A polyelectron atom is quite different from a one-electron atom because of the phenomenon of shielding", for a particular electron, the other electrons partially screen the effect of the positively charged nucleus. Both Zener (1930) and Slater (1930) used very simple hydrogen-like orbitals of the form... 

At the other end of the spectrum are the ab initio ( from first principles ) methods, such as the calculations already discussed for H2 in Chapter 4. I am not trying to imply that these calculations are correct in any strict sense, although we would hope that the results would bear some relation to reality. An ab initio HF calculation of the potential energy curve for a diatomic Aj will generally give incorrect dissociation products, and so cannot possibly be right in the absolute sense. The phrase ab initio simply means that we have started with a certain Hamiltonian and a set of basis functions, and then done all the intermediate calculations with full rigour and no appeal to experiment. 

There has been a resurgence of interest in atomic HF calculations because astrophysicists want to study highly ionized atomic species in the interstellar medium. They look to theory for their energy-level data rather than earth-bound experiments where the species are hard to prepare and study. 

The orbitals and orbital energies produced by an atomic HF-Xa calculation differ in several ways from those produced by standard HF calculations. First of all, the Koopmans theorem is not valid and so the orbital energies do not give a direct estimate of the ionization energy. A key difference between standard HF and HF-Xa theories is the way we eoneeive the occupation number u. In standard HF theory, we deal with doubly oecupied, singly occupied and virtual orbitals for which v = 2, 1 and 0 respectively. In solid-state theory, it is eonventional to think about the oecupation number as a continuous variable that can take any value between 0 and 2. 

If we used perturbation theory to estimate the expansion coefficients c etc., then all the singly excited coefficients would be zero by Brillouin s theorem. This led authors to make statements that HF calculations of primary properties are correct to second order of perturbation theory , because substitution of the perturbed wavefunction into... 

In any case, the argument ignores the fact that molecular HF calculations are invariably done at the HF-LCAO level and the choice of basis set often turns out to be the dominant source of error. 

An ab initio HF calculation with a minimum basis set is rarely able to give more than a qualitative picture of the MOs, it is of very limited value for predicting quantitative features. Introduction of the ZDO approximation decreases the quality of the (already poor) wave function, i.e. a direct employment of the above NDDO/INDO/CNDO schemes is not useful. To repair the deficiencies due to the approximations, parameters are introduced in place of some or all of the integrals. 

The parameterization of MNDO/AM1/PM3 is performed by adjusting the constants involved in the different methods so that the results of HF calculations fit experimental data as closely as possible. This is in a sense wrong. We know that the HF method cannot give the correct result, even in the limit of an infinite basis set and without approximations. The HF results lack electron correlation, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, but the experimental data of course include such effects. This may be viewed as an advantage, the electron correlation effects are implicitly taken into account in the parameterization, and we need not perform complicated calculations to improve deficiencies in fhe HF procedure. However, it becomes problematic when the HF wave function cannot describe the system even qualitatively correctly, as for example with biradicals and excited states. Additional flexibility can be introduced in the trial wave function by adding more Slater determinants, for example by means of a Cl procedure (see Chapter 4 for details). But electron cori elation is then taken into account twice, once in the parameterization at the HF level, and once explicitly by the Cl calculation. 

We have so far been careful to used the wording formal scaling . As already discussed, HF is formally an method but in practice the scaling may be reduced all the way down to Similarly, MP2 is formally an method. However, an MP2 calculation consists of three main parts the HF calculation, the AO to MO integral... 

In a segmented contraction each primitive as a rule is only used in one contracted function. In some cases it may be necessary to duplicate one or two PGTOs in two adjacent CGTOs. The contraction coefficients can be determined by a variational optimization, for example from an atomic HF calculation. 

The HF error depends only on the size of the basis set. The energy, however, behaves asymptotically as exp(—L),L being the highest angular momentum in the basis set, i.e. already, with a basis set of TZ(2df) (4s3p2dlf) quality the results are quite stable. Combined witii the fact that an HF calculation is the least expensive ab initio method, this means that tire HF error is not the limiting factor. 

In practice a DFT calculation involves an effort similar to that required for an HF calculation. Furthermore, DFT methods are one-dimensional just as HF methods are increasing the size of the basis set allows a better and better description of the KS orbitals. Since the DFT energy depends directly on the electron density, it is expected that it has basis set requirements similar to those for HF methods, i.e. close to converged with a TZ(2df) type basis. 

Since HF calculations have a tendency to underestimate the N—N and the C—N bond lengths in triazoles [98JPC(A)620, 98JPC(A) 10348], the structural parameters should be computed at least at the DFT or MP2 levels. This is particularly true if electron-donating substituents are attached to the ring. Nitrogen NMR shielding tensors were computed for a set of methylated triazoles and tetrazoles but will be discussed in the context of tetrazoles (cf. Section IV,B). 

As can be seen from Table I, the C-C bond distance as described by LDF is closer to experiment than the corresponding HF value obtained with a 6-3IG basis. Including correlation via second and third order Moller-Plesset perturbation theory and via Cl leads to very close agreement with experiment. The C-H bond length is significantly overestimated in the LDF calculations by almost 2%. The HCH bond angle is reasonably well described and lies close to all the HF and post-HF calculations. Still, all the theoretical values are too small by more than one degree compared with experiment the deviation from experiment is particularly pronounced for the semi-empirical MNDO calculation. 

---