Semiempirical wave functions function

CIS calculations from the semiempirical wave function can be used for computing electronic excited states. Some software packages allow Cl calculations other than CIS to be performed from the semiempirical reference space. This is a good technique for modeling compounds that are not described properly by a single-determinant wave function (see Chapter 26). Semiempirical Cl... 

Mulliken analysis is most often used with semiempirical wave functions. 

V arious semiempirical methods of solving the quantum-mechanical problem of the interaction between atoms in a crystal are also of great interest. In these methods, the atomic distances, energies, and interactions are calculated by invoking the mathematical apparatus of quantiun mechanics in conjunction with empirical or semiempirical wave functions (including those found experimentally). In spite of its well-known inaccuracies and inconsistencies, the semiempirical method for the quantum-mechanical solution of the problem of chemical bonding in crystals provides the most accurate results for a given amount of work. 

An alternative approach for predicting optical properties of larger molecular systems is to employ semiempirical methods which can be used to calculate large polymeric systems. As mentioned above, the description of the nonlinear molecular optical parameters strongly depends on the level of accounting for the electron correlation effects. Thus, the semiempirical wave function has to include these effects in... 

Granucci, G., Persico, M., 8c Toniolo, A. (2001). Direct semiclassical simulation of photochemical processes with semiempirical wave functions. Journal of Chemical Physics, 114(24), 10608-10615. 

Population analysis in semiempirical methods fall into two categories. Methods including overlap in the Fock equations use the Mulliken population analysis. The majority of semiempirical methods uses the ZDO approximation, and the net charges are interpreted on the basis of symmetrically orthog-onalized AOs. It is pointed out that this interpretation is not exactly valid, because of truncation and empirical adjustment. But the corresponding nonsymmetrical orthogonalization is not uniquely defined. Charge models based on semiempirical wave functions play an important role in the calculation of molecular electrostatic potentials for reactivity. 

Direct dynamics attempts to break this bottleneck in the study of MD, retaining the accuracy of the full electronic PES without the need for an analytic fit of data. The first studies in this field used semiclassical methods with semiempirical [66,67] or simple Hartree-Fock [68] wave functions to heat the electrons. These first studies used what is called BO dynamics, evaluating the PES at each step from the elech onic wave function obtained by solution of the electronic structure problem. An alternative, the Ehrenfest dynamics method, is to propagate the electronic wave function at the same time as the nuclei. Although early direct dynamics studies using this method [69-71] restricted themselves to adiabatic problems, the method can incorporate non-adiabatic effects directly in the electionic wave function. 

Jones et al. [144,214] used direct dynamics with semiempirical electronic wave functions to study electron transfer in cyclic polyene radical cations. Semiempirical methods have the advantage that they are cheap, and so a number of trajectories can be run for up to 50 atoms. Accuracy is of course sacrificed in comparison to CASSCF techniques, but for many organic molecules semiempirical methods are known to perform adequately. 

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. 

A basis set is a set of functions used to describe the shape of the orbitals in an atom. Molecular orbitals and entire wave functions are created by taking linear combinations of basis functions and angular functions. Most semiempirical methods use a predehned basis set. When ah initio or density functional theory calculations are done, a basis set must be specihed. Although it is possible to create a basis set from scratch, most calculations are done using existing basis sets. The type of calculation performed and basis set chosen are the two biggest factors in determining the accuracy of results. This chapter discusses these standard basis sets and how to choose an appropriate one. 

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. 

Another related issue is the computation of the intensities of the peaks in the spectrum. Peak intensities depend on the probability that a particular wavelength photon will be absorbed or Raman-scattered. These probabilities can be computed from the wave function by computing the transition dipole moments. This gives relative peak intensities since the calculation does not include the density of the substance. Some types of transitions turn out to have a zero probability due to the molecules symmetry or the spin of the electrons. This is where spectroscopic selection rules come from. Ah initio methods are the preferred way of computing intensities. Although intensities can be computed using semiempirical methods, they tend to give rather poor accuracy results for many chemical systems. 

Semiempirical programs often use the half-electron approximation for radical calculations. The half-electron method is a mathematical technique for treating a singly occupied orbital in an RHF calculation. This results in consistent total energy at the expense of having an approximate wave function and orbital energies. Since a single-determinant calculation is used, there is no spin contamination. 

There are several ways in which to compute polarizabilities and hyperpolari-zabilities from semiempirical or ah initio wave functions. One option is to take... 

The ah initio methods available are RHF, UHF, ROHE, GVB, MCSCF along with MP2 and Cl corrections to those wave functions. The MNDO, AMI, and PM3 semiempirical Hamiltonians are also available. Several methods for creating localized orbitals are available. 

T vo main streams of computational techniques branch out fiom this point. These are referred to as ab initio and semiempirical calculations. In both ab initio and semiempirical treatments, mathematical formulations of the wave functions which describe hydrogen-like orbitals are used. Examples of wave functions that are commonly used are Slater-type orbitals (abbreviated STO) and Gaussian-type orbitals (GTO). There are additional variations which are designated by additions to the abbreviations. Both ab initio and semiempirical calculations treat the linear combination of orbitals by iterative computations that establish a self-consistent electrical field (SCF) and minimize the energy of the system. The minimum-energy combination is taken to describe the molecule. 

How well can continuum solvation models distinguish changes in one or another of these solvent properties This is illustrated in Table 2, which compares solvation energies for three representative solutes in eight test solvents. Three of the test solvents are those shown in Table 1, one is water, and the other four were selected to provide useful comparisons on the basis of their solvent descriptors, which are shown in Table 3. Notice that all four solvents in Table 3 have no acidity, which makes them more suitable, in this respect, than 1-octanol or chloroform for modeling biomembranes. Table 2 shows that the SM5.2R model, with gas-phase geometries and semiempirical molecular orbital theory for the wave function, does very well indeed in reproducing all the trends in the data. 

In a more complex situation than that of two electrons occupying each its orbital one can expect much more sophisticated interconnections between the total spin and two-electron densities than those demonstrated above. The general statement follows from the theorem given in [72] which states that no one-electron density can depend on the permutation symmetry properties and thus on the total spin of the wave function. For that reason the difference between states of different total spin is concentrated in the cumulant. If there is no cumulant there is no chance to describe this difference. This explains to some extent the failure of almost 40 years of attempts to squeeze the TMCs into the semiempirical HFR theory by extending the variety of the two-electron integrals included in the parameterization. 

The TMCs electronic wave function formalizing the CFT ionic model is one with a fixed number of electrons in the d-shell. In the EHCF method it is used as a zero approximation. The interactions responsible for electron transfers between the d-shell and the ligands are treated as perturbations. Following the standards semiempirical setting we restrict the AO basis for all atoms of the TMC by the valence orbitals. All the AOs of the TMC are... 

However, most wave function based calculations also contain a semiempirical component. For example, the primitive Gaussian functions in all commonly used basis sets (e.g., the six Gaussian functions used to represent a li orbital on each first row atom in the 6-3IG basis set) are contracted into sums of Gaussians with fixed coefficients and each of these linear combinations of Gaussians is used to represent one of the independent basis functions that contribute to each AO. The sizes of the primitive Gaussians (compact versus diffuse) and the coefficient of each Gaussian in the contracted basis functions, are obtained by optimizing the basis set in calculations on free atoms or on small molecules." ... 

---