Slater determinants calculation

Conventional spherical shell model calculations have been undertaken to describe 90 88zr and 90 88y in these large scale calculations valence orbitals included If5/2 2P3/2 2Pl/2 and 199/2 The d5/2 orbital was included for 98Y and for high-spin calculations in 98Zr. Restrictions were placed on orbital occupancy so that the basis set amounted to less than 2b,000 Slater determinants. Calculations were done with a local, state independent, two-body interaction with single Yukawa form factor. Predicted excitation energies and electromagnetic transition rates are compared with recent experimental results. 

The coefficients are determined by constmcting four spin orbitals, writing down the appropriate Slater determinant, calculating the energy of the molecule from... 

According to Section 1.6.2, we should make a linear combination of aU possible Slater determinants, calculate the matrix elements, and determine the coefficients in an eigenvalue problem. We will choose a simpler way, however. It is sufficient to note that certain combinations of (Ml,Ms) quantum numbers correspond to one, two, or three Slater determinants. Wave functions with different quantum numbers cannot be mixed. For a given linear combination, the number of states in the boxes in Table 2.2 are the same. Each (L,S)-multiplet must be represented by a single Slater determinant for a given (Ml,Ms) - quantum number. Thus, the following scheme must be possible ... 

To this pom t, th e basic approxmi alien is th at th e total wave I lnic-tion IS a single Slater determinant and the resultant expression of the molecular orbitals is a linear combination of atomic orbital basis functions (MO-LCAO). In other words, an ah miiio calculation can be initiated once a basis for the LCAO is chosen. Mathematically, any set of functions can be a basis for an ah mitio calculation. However, there are two main things to be considered m the choice of the basis. First one desires to use the most efficient and accurate functions possible, so that the expansion (equation (49) on page 222). will require the few esl possible term s for an accurate representation of a molecular orbital. The second one is the speed of tW O-electron integral calculation. 

Ihe one-electron orbitals are commonly called basis functions and often correspond to he atomic orbitals. We will label the basis functions with the Greek letters n, v, A and a. n the case of Equation (2.144) there are K basis functions and we should therefore xpect to derive a total of K molecular orbitals (although not all of these will necessarily 3e occupied by electrons). The smallest number of basis functions for a molecular system vill be that which can just accommodate all the electrons in the molecule. More sophisti- ated calculations use more basis functions than a minimal set. At the Hartree-Fock limit he energy of the system can be reduced no further by the addition of any more basis unctions however, it may be possible to lower the energy below the Hartree-Fock limit ay using a functional form of the wavefunction that is more extensive than the single Slater determinant. 

In order to calculate higher-order wavefunctions we need to establish the form of the perturbation, f. This is the difference between the real Hamiltonian and the zeroth-order Hamiltonian, Remember that the Slater determinant description, based on an orbital picture of the molecule, is only an approximation. The true Hamiltonian is equal to the sum of the nuclear attraction terms and electron repulsion terms ... 

As computational facilities improve, electronic wavefunctions tend to become more and more complicated. A configuration interaction (Cl) calculation on a medium-sized molecule might be a linear combination of a million Slater determinants, and it is very easy to lose sight of the chemistry and the chemical intuition , to say nothing of the visualization of the results. Such wavefunctions seem to give no simple physical picture of the electron distribution, and so we must seek to find ways of extracting information that is chemically useful. 

The remarkable thing is that the HF model is so reliable for the calculation of very many molecular properties, as 1 will discuss in Chapters 16 and 17. But for many simple applications, a more advanced treatment of electron correlation is essential and in any case there are very many examples of spectroscopic states that caimot be represented as a single Slater determinant (and so cannot be treated using the standard HF model). In addition, the HF model can only treat the lowest-energy state of any given symmetry. 

In my discussion of pyridine, I took a combination of these determinants that had the correct singlet spin symmetry (that is, the combination that represented a singlet state). I could equally well have concentrated on the triplet states. In modem Cl calculations, we simply use all the raw Slater determinants. Such single determinants by themselves are not necessarily spin eigenfunctions, but provided we include them all we will get correct spin eigenfunctions on diago-nalization of the Hamiltonian matrix. 

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. 

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. 

This is perhaps the easiest method to understand. It is based on the variational principle (Appendix B), analogous to the HF method. The trial wave function is written as a linear combination of determinants with the expansion coefficients determined by requiring that the energy should be a minimum (or at least stationary), a procedure known as Configuration Interaction (Cl). The MOs used for building the excited Slater determinants are taken from a Hartree-Fock calculation and held fixed. Subscripts S, D, T etc. indicate determinants which are singly, doubly, triply etc. excited relative to the... 

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. 

Since the singly excited determinants effectively relax the orbitals in a CCSD calculation, non-canonical HF orbitals can also be used in coupled cluster methods. This allows for example the use of open-shell singlet states (which require two Slater determinants) as reference for a coupled cluster calculation. 

The subscript S denotes tiiat it is the kinetic energy calculated from a Slater determinant. The A = 1 case corresponds to interacting electrons, and eq. (6.4) is therefore only an approximation to the real kinetic energy, but a substantial improvement over the TF formula (eq. (6.2)). 

Kinetic energy functional, calculated from a Slater determinant Internal energy Unitary matrix... 

More abstractly the condition Tr (p+p ) = iV implies that the part of the Hilbert space defined by the projection operator p should be fully contained in the part defined by the projection operator p+. If we now vary p slightly so that this condition is no longer fulfilled, Eq. II.GO shows that the pure spin state previously described by the Slater determinant becomes mixed up with states of higher quantum numbers S = m+1,. . . . The idea of the electron pairing in doubly occupied orbitals is therefore essential in the Hartree-Fock scheme in order to secure that the Slater determinant really represents a pure spin state. This means, however, that, in the calculation of the best spin orbitals y>k(x), there is a new auxiliary condition of the form... 

Electronic excitation energies can be approximated by differences between filled and empty orbital energies. Again, however, a more accurate treatment requires a separate calculation for the ground and excited state (represented by two different Slater determinants). 

The calculation of the cross matrix elements (6) is somewhat more difficult, because the Slater Determinants involved in them are constructed with two sets of non-orthonormal spinorbitals. This calculation, however, may be greatly simplified, if the two sets are assumed to be corresponding, that is, if they fulfill the following condition [14] ... 

While in principle all of the methods discussed here are Hartree-Fock, that name is commonly reserved for specific techniques that are based on quantum-chemical approaches and involve a finite cluster of atoms. Typically one uses a standard technique such as GAUSSIAN-82 (Binkley et al., 1982). In its simplest form GAUSSIAN-82 utilizes single Slater determinants. A basis set of LCAO-MOs is used, which for computational purposes is expanded in Gaussian orbitals about each atom. Exchange and Coulomb integrals are treated exactly. In practice the quality of the atomic basis sets may be varied, in some cases even including d-type orbitals. Core states are included explicitly in these calculations. 

---