Perturbation theory functionals

Kierlik E and Rosinberg M L 1993 Perturbation density functional theory for polyatomic fluids III application to hard chain molecules in slitlike pores J Chem. Phys. 100 1716... 

The expression for the force on the nuclei, Eq. (89), has the same form as the BO force Eq. (16), but the wave function here is the time-dependent one. As can be shown by perturbation theory, in the limit that the nuclei move very slowly compared to the electrons, and if only one electronic state is involved, the two expressions for the wave function become equivalent. This can be shown by comparing the time-independent equation for the eigenfunction of H i at time t... 

The amount of computation for MP2 is determined by the partial tran si ormatioii of the two-electron integrals, what can be done in a time proportionally to m (m is the u umber of basis functions), which IS comparable to computations involved m one step of(iID (doubly-excitcil eon figuration interaction) calculation. fo save some computer time and space, the core orbitals are frequently omitted from MP calculations. For more details on perturbation theory please see A. S/abo and N. Ostlund, Modem Quantum (. hern-isir > Macmillan, Xew York, 198.5. 

Highest occupied molecular orbital Intermediate neglect of differential overlap Linear combination of atomic orbitals Local density approximation Local spin density functional theory Lowest unoccupied molecular orbital Many-body perturbation theory Modified INDO version 3 Modified neglect of diatomic overlap Molecular orbital Moller-Plesset... 

Most of the techniques described in this Chapter are of the ab initio type. This means that they attempt to compute electronic state energies and other physical properties, as functions of the positions of the nuclei, from first principles without the use or knowledge of experimental input. Although perturbation theory or the variational method may be used to generate the working equations of a particular method, and although finite atomic orbital basis sets are nearly always utilized, these approximations do not involve fitting to known experimental data. They represent approximations that can be systematically improved as the level of treatment is enhanced. 

Correlation can be added as a perturbation from the Hartree-Fock wave function. This is called Moller-Plesset perturbation theory. In mapping the HF wave function onto a perturbation theory formulation, HF becomes a hrst-order perturbation. Thus, a minimal amount of correlation is added by using the second-order MP2 method. Third-order (MP3) and fourth-order (MP4) calculations are also common. The accuracy of an MP4 calculation is roughly equivalent to the accuracy of a CISD calculation. MP5 and higher calculations are seldom done due to the high computational cost (A time complexity or worse). 

A second method is to use a perturbation theory expansion. This is formulated as a sum-over-states algorithm (SOS). This can be done for correlated wave functions and has only a modest CPU time requirement. The random-phase approximation is a time-dependent extension of this method. 

Ah initio methods are applicable to the widest variety of property calculations. Many typical organic molecules can now be modeled with ah initio methods, such as Flartree-Fock, density functional theory, and Moller Plesset perturbation theory. Organic molecule calculations are made easier by the fact that most organic molecules have singlet spin ground states. Organics are the systems for which sophisticated properties, such as NMR chemical shifts and nonlinear optical properties, can be calculated most accurately. 

Free energy calculations rely on the following thermodynamic perturbation theory [6-8]. Consider a system A described by the energy function = 17 + T. 17 = 17 (r ) is the potential energy, which depends on the coordinates = (Fi, r, , r ), and T is the kinetic energy, which (in a Cartesian coordinate system) depends on the velocities v. For concreteness, the system could be made up of a biomolecule in solution. We limit ourselves (mostly) to a classical mechanical description for simplicity and reasons of space. In the canonical thermodynamic ensemble (constant N, volume V, temperature T), the classical partition function Z is proportional to the configurational integral Q, which in a Cartesian coordinate system is... 

We would like to recall that Xa p) is the fraction of molecules not bonded at an associative site now it is a function of the averaged density p(r). A generalization of the perturbational theory allows us to define Xa p) similar to the case of bulk associating fluids. Namely... 

In their classic review on Continuous Distributions of the Solvent , Tomasi and Persico (1994) identify four groups of approaches to dealing with the solvent. First, there are methods based on the elaboration of physical functions this includes approaches based on the virial equation of state and methods based on perturbation theory with particularly simple reference systems. For many years... 

MNDOC has the same functional form as MNDO, however, electron correlation is explicitly calculated by second-order perturbation theory. The derivation of the MNDOC parameters is done by fitting the correlated MNDOC results to experimental data. Electron correlation in MNDO is only included implicitly via the parameters, from fitting to experimental results. Since the training set only includes ground-state stable molecules, MNDO has problems treating systems where the importance of electron comelation is substantially different from normal molecules. MNDOC consequently performs significantly better for systems where this is not the case, such as transition structures and excited states. 

There are three main methods for calculating electron correlation Configuration Interaction (Cl), Many Body Perturbation Theory (MBPT) and Coupled Cluster (CC). A word of caution before we describe these methods in more details. The Slater determinants are composed of spin-MOs, but since the Hamilton operator is independent of spin, the spin dependence can be factored out. Furthermore, to facilitate notation, it is often assumed that the HF determinant is of the RHF type. Finally, many of the expressions below involve double summations over identical sets of functions. To ensure only the unique terms are included, one of the summation indices must be restricted. Alternatively, both indices can be allowed to run over all values, and the overcounting corrected by a factor of 1/2. Various combinations of these assumptions result in final expressions which differ by factors of 1 /2, 1/4 etc. from those given here. In the present book the MOs are always spin-MOs, and conversion of a restricted summation to an unrestricted is always noted explicitly. 

Up to this point we are still dealing with undetermined quantities, energy and wave funetion corrections at each order. The first-order equation is one equation with two unknowns. Since the solutions to the unperturbed Schrddinger equation generates a complete set of functions, the unknown first-order correction to the wave function can be expanded in these functions. This is known as Rayleigh-Schrddinger perturbation theory, and the equation in (4.32) becomes... 

In developing perturbation theory it was assumed that the solutions to the unpermrbed problem formed a complete set. This is general means that there must be an infinite number of functions, which is impossible in actual calculations. The lowest energy solution to the unperturbed problem is the HF wave function, additional higher energy solutions are excited Slater determinants, analogously to the Cl method. When a finite basis set is employed it is only possible to generate a finite number of excited determinants. The expansion of the many-electron wave function is therefore truncated. 

Ho is the normal electronic Hamilton operator, and the perturbations are described by the operators Pi and P2, with A determining the strength. Based on an expansion in exact wave functions, Rayleigh-Schrddinger perturbation theory (section 4.8) gives the first- and second-order energy collections. 

In such cases the expression from fii st-order perturbation theory (10.18) yields a result identical to the first derivative of the energy with respect to A. For wave functions which are not completely optimized with respect to all parameters (Cl, MP or CC), the Hellmann-Feynman theorem does not hold, and a first-order property calculated as an expectation value will not be identical to that obtained as an energy derivative. Since the Hellmann-Feynman theorem holds for an exact wave function, the difference between the two values becomes smaller as the quality of an approximate wave function increases however, for practical applications the difference is not negligible. It has been argued that the derivative technique resembles the physical experiment more, and consequently formula (10.21) should be preferred over (10.18). 

If the pertiubation is a change in geometry, the basis set is clearly perturbation dependent since the functions move along with the nuclei. Standard perturbation theory is therefore not suitable for calculating molecular gradients. 

---