Newton-Raphson formalism

The acetic acid solution is composed of 0.1 M acetate (71) and 0.1 M H+ (H). The sodium hydroxide solution is defined as -0.1 M H. A negative total concentration is of course only a formal notation. The Newton-Raphson routine interprets any negative [H+]tot correctly and computes the free [H+] and [OH-]. 

There are a few points with respect to this procedure that merit discussion. First, there is the Hessian matrix. With elements, where n is the number of coordinates in the molecular geometry vector, it can grow somewhat expensive to construct this matrix at every step even for functions, like those used in most force fields, that have fairly simple analytical expressions for their second derivatives. Moreover, the matrix must be inverted at every step, and matrix inversion formally scales as where n is the dimensionality of the matrix. Thus, for purposes of efficiency (or in cases where analytic second derivatives are simply not available) approximate Hessian matrices are often used in the optimization process - after aU, the truncation of the Taylor expansion renders the Newton-Raphson method intrinsically approximate. As an optimization progresses, second derivatives can be estimated reasonably well from finite differences in the analytic first derivatives over the last few steps. For the first step, however, this is not an option, and one typically either accepts the cost of computing an initial Hessian analytically for the level of theory in use, or one employs a Hessian obtained at a less expensive level of theory, when such levels are available (which is typically not the case for force fields). To speed up slowly convergent optimizations, it is often helpful to compute an analytic Hessian every few steps and replace the approximate one in use up to that point. For really tricky cases (e.g., where the PES is fairly flat in many directions) one is occasionally forced to compute an analytic Hessian for every step. 

---