SOS-DFT method

There has been much recent progress in the application of density functional theory (DFT) to the calculation of shift tensors, and several methods are presently available. The sum-over-state (SOS) DFT method developed by Malkin et al. (70) does not explicitly include the current density, but it has been parametrized to improve numerical accuracy. Ziegler and coworkers have described a GIAO-DFT method (71) that is available as part of the Amsterdam density functional package (72). An alternate method developed by Cheeseman and co-workers (73) is implemented in Gaussian 94 (74). 

To use direct dynamics for the study of non-adiabatic systems it is necessary to be able to efficiently and accurately calculate electronic wave functions for excited states. In recent years, density functional theory (DFT) has been gaining ground over traditional Hartree-Fock based SCF calculations for the treatment of the ground state of large molecules. Recent advances mean that so-called time-dependent DFT methods are now also being applied to excited states. Even so, at present, the best general methods for the treatment of the photochemistry of polyatomic organic molecules are MCSCF methods, of which the CASSCF method is particularly powerful. 

In the last few years, methods based on Density Functional Theory have gained steadily in popularity. The best DFT methods achieve significantly greater accuracy than Harttee-Fock theory at only a modest increase in cost (far less than MP2 for medium-size and larger molecular systems). They do so by including some of the effects of electron correlation much less expensively than traditional correlated methods. 

In general, DFT calculations proceed in the same way as Hartree-Fock calculations, with the addition of the evaluation of the extra term, This term cannot be evaluated analytically for DFT methods, so it is computed via numerical integration. 

It is a truism that in the past decade density functional theory has made its way from a peripheral position in quantum chemistry to center stage. Of course the often excellent accuracy of the DFT based methods has provided the primary driving force of this development. When one adds to this the computational economy of the calculations, the choice for DFT appears natural and practical. So DFT has conquered the rational minds of the quantum chemists and computational chemists, but has it also won their hearts To many, the success of DFT appeared somewhat miraculous, and maybe even unjust and unjustified. Unjust in view of the easy achievement of accuracy that was so hard to come by in the wave function based methods. And unjustified it appeared to those who doubted the soundness of the theoretical foundations. There has been misunderstanding concerning the status of the one-determinantal approach of Kohn and Sham, which superficially appeared to preclude the incorporation of correlation effects. There has been uneasiness about the molecular orbitals of the Kohn-Sham model, which chemists used qualitatively as they always have used orbitals but which in the physics literature were sometimes denoted as mathematical constructs devoid of physical (let alone chemical) meaning. 

Of the many quantum chemical approaches available, density-functional theory (DFT) has over the past decade become a key method, with applications ranging from interstellar space, to the atmosphere, the biosphere and the solid state. The strength of the method is that whereas conventional ah initio theory includes electron correlation by use of a perturbation series expansion, or increasing orders of excited state configurations added to zero-order Hartree-Fock solutions, DFT methods inherently contain a large fraction of the electron correlation already from the start, via the so-called exchange-correlation junctional. 

Simply to look at the literature is to convince yourself of the importance that density functional theory (DFT) methods have attained in molecular calculations. But there is among the molecular physics community, it seems to me, a widespread sense of unease about their undoubted successes. To many it seems quite indecent that such a cheap and cheerful approach (to employ Peter Atkins s wonderful phrase) should work at all, let alone often work very well indeed. I think that no-one in the com-mimity any longer seriously doubts the Hohenberg-Kohn theo-rem(s) and anxiety about this is not the source of the unease. As Roy reminded us at the last meeting, the N— representability problem is still imsolved. This remains true and, even though the problem seems to be circumvented in DFT, it is done so by making use of a model system. He pointed out that the connection between the model system and the actual system remains obscure and in practice DFT, however successful, still appears to contain empirical elements And I think that is the source of our present unease. 

Now I should stress that I do not think that it is failure of DFT methods sometimes to get the right answer which is so unsettling, rather it is that not yet can we silways be sure that we are using a functional that is suitable for the problem that we have in hand. Unless we have some way of deciding this, then a DFT approach has some of the same characteristics of general semi-empirical approaches. Namely, one has to establish their utility on a class of problems and one s confidence in the results depends strongly on how closely the problem in hand fits into the relevant class structure. 

In general, then, DFT methods provide the best combination of accuracy and efficiency so long as overdelocalization effects do not poison their performance. The MP2 level of theory also provides a reasonably efficient way of carrying out h.f.s. calculations at a correlated level of theory. More highly correlated levels of MO theory are generally more accurate, but can be prohibitively expensive in large systems. 

Relativistic effects cannot be neglected if heavier systems are studied we have discussed the major relativistic effects on calculated NMR shieldings and chemical shifts in this chapter. Besides relativistic effects, electron correlation has to be included for even a qualitatively correct treatment of transition metal or actinide complexes. So far, DFT based methods are about the only approaches that can handle both relativity and correlation, and DFT is, for the time being, the method of choice for these heavy element compounds. In this chapter, we have presented results from two relativistic DFT methods, the Pauli- (QR-) and ZORA approaches. 

---