Spin restricted wave function

Hyperfine couplings, in particular the isotropic part which measures the spin density at the nuclei, puts special demands on spin-restricted wave-functions. For example, complete active space (CAS) approaches are designed for a correlated treatment of the valence orbitals, while the core orbitals are doubly occupied. This leaves little flexibility in the wave function for calculating properties of this kind that depend on the spin polarization near the nucleus. This is equally true for self-consistent field methods, like restricted open-shell Hartree-Fock (ROHF) or Kohn-Sham (ROKS) methods. On the other hand, unrestricted methods introduce spin contamination in the reference (ground) state resulting in overestimation of the spin-polarization. 

Expectation value of the spin-squared operation. Exact value for spin-restricted wave functions = 0.75 for the spin doublet radicals listed here. cSee figures for atom labelling. 

The ESR hyperfine coupling is determined by triplet perturbations. Thus, in principle one should use an unrestricted wave function to describe the reference state. However, it is also possible to use a spin-restricted wave function (Fernandez et al. 1992) and take into account the triplet nature of the perturbation in the definition of the response. Within such a (e.g., SCF or MCSCF) restricted-unrestricted approach, first-order properties are given as the sum of the usual expectation value term and a response correction that takes into account the change of the wave function induced by the perturbation (of the type (0 H° 0)). This restricted-unrestricted approach has also been extended to restricted Kohn-Sham density functional theory (Rinkevicius et al. 2004). 

If spin contamination is small, continue to use unrestricted methods, preferably with spin-annihilated wave functions and spin projected energies. Do not use spin projection with DFT methods. When the amount of spin contamination is more significant, use restricted open-shell methods. If all else fails, use highly correlated methods. 

This is an artefact due to the non-zero probability of the restricted wave-function of finding two electrons of opposite spins at the same spatial position. 

Up to this point, we restricted ourselves to the simple case of determinants involving no more than two orbitals. However, the MO-VB correspondence is general, and in fact, any MO or MO—Cl wave function can be exactly transformed into a VB wave function, provided it is a spin-eigenfunction (i.e., not a spin-unrestricted wave function). While this is a trivial matter for small determinants, larger ones require a bit of algebra and a systematic method is discussed in Chapter 4 for the interested or advanced reader. 

With radicals there is no convenient method like the Hartree-Fock-Roothaan procedure commonly used for closed-shell systems. In contrast, the open-shell theory is typical of a number of methods suggested which differ in accuracy from the viewpoint of true SCF theory, in range of applicability, complexity, and computing feasibility. A critical survey of open-shell SCF methods reported by Berthier D covers the literature up to 1962. We shall not duplicate that review here we propose rather to note some features of open-shell methods relevant to their computation feasibility and to mention procedures published after 1962. The unrestricted treatments that assume different space orbitals for different spins will be disregarded here because the restricted wave functions... 

A sequence of models and associated orthogonality restrictions based on the structural formula of the target molecule was introduced [107]. These models interpolate between the pair function model, which involves the most severe orthogonality, restrictions, and the spin-coupled wave function, in which all orbitals are nonorthog-onal. For example, the pair function description of the ground state of the BeH2 molecule with doubly occupied core orbitals, is based on a spatial function with the form... 

In spite of spin contamination, an unrestricted determinant is often used as a first approximation to the wave function for doublets and triplets because unrestricted wave functions have lower energies than the corresponding restricted wave functions. 

We recall that the Hamiltonian, O Eq. 11.2, does not involve the electron spin. Spin-restricted implementations of electronic structure methods, therefore, only optimize the wave function parameters of the same spin symmetry as the reference wave function. Since operators that change the spin symmetry are known not to contribute to the ground-state energy (at least in the nonrelativistic picture in which spin-orbit effects are ignored), such spin-breaking wave function parameters are left imdefined. This has the consequence that average values of... 

In the closed-shell theory of Section 13.7, we developed a spin-restricted theory in which both of these problems are solved. Thus, for closed-shell systems, we may calculate a singlet coupled-cluster wave function at a fraction of the cost of the corresponding spin-unrestricted wave function. Unfortunately, for open-shell systems, the problems are more complicated and it is no longer obvious how we should best satisfy the Schrbdinger and spin equations in coupled-cluster theory. 

However, although spin-restricted coupled-cluster theory does not provide a spin-adapted wave function, it does afford a description where the expectation value of the spin operator is exact. 

To study the total electronic energy, calculations have been performed at the Hartree-Fock, MP2, CCSD and CCSD(T) levels of theory for the 20 closed-shell molecules in Table 15.1 and their constituent atoms. The molecular calculations were carried out at the spin-restricted all-electron CCSD(T)/cc-pCVQZ geometries. As seen from Tables 15.7 and 15.9, these geometries are close to the true equilibrium geometries. The open-shell atomic calculations were carried out in the same basis sets, using spin-unrestricted wave functions. 

As was shown in the preceding discussion (see also Sections Vin and IX), the rovibronic wave functions for a homonuclear diatomic molecule under the permutation of identical nuclei are symmetric for even J rotational quantum numbers in and E electronic states antisymmeUic for odd J values in and E elecbonic states symmetric for odd J values in E and E electronic states and antisymmeteic for even J values in Ej and E+ electeonic states. Note that the vibrational ground state is symmetric under pemrutation of the two nuclei. The most restrictive result arises therefore when the nuclear spin quantum number of the individual nuclei is 0. In this case, the nuclear spin function is always symmetric with respect to interchange of the identical nuclei, and hence only totally symmeUic rovibronic states are allowed since the total wave function must be symmetric for bosonic systems. For example, the nucleus has zero nuclear spin, and hence the rotational levels with odd values of J do not exist for the ground electronic state f EJ") of Cr. 

Another way of constructing wave functions for open-shell molecules is the restricted open shell Hartree-Fock method (ROHF). In this method, the paired electrons share the same spatial orbital thus, there is no spin contamination. The ROHF technique is more difficult to implement than UHF and may require slightly more CPU time to execute. ROHF is primarily used for cases where spin contamination is large using UHF. 

When it has been shown that the errors introduced by spin contamination are unacceptable, restricted open-shell calculations are often the best way to obtain a reliable wave function. 

Many transition metal systems are open-shell systems. Due to the presence of low-energy excited states, it is very common to experience problems with spin contamination of unrestricted wave functions. Quite often, spin projection and annihilation techniques are not sufficient to correct the large amount of spin contamination. Because of this, restricted open-shell calculations are more reliable than unrestricted calculations for metal system. Spin contamination is discussed in Chapter 27. 

A UHF wave function may also be a necessary description when the effects of spin polarization are required. As discussed in Differences Between INDO and UNDO, a Restricted Hartree-Fock description will not properly describe a situation such as the methyl radical. The unpaired electron in this molecule occupies a p-orbital with a node in the plane of the molecule. When an RHF description is used (all the s orbitals have paired electrons), then no spin density exists anywhere in the s system. With a UHF description, however, the spin-up electron in the p-orbital interacts differently with spin-up and spin-down electrons in the s system and the s-orbitals become spatially separate for spin-up and spin-down electrons with resultant spin density in the s system. 

So far there have not been any restrictions on the MOs used to build the determinantal trial wave function. The Slater determinant has been written in terms of spinorbitals, eq. (3.20), being products of a spatial orbital times a spin function (a or /3). If there are no restrictions on the form of the spatial orbitals, the trial function is an Unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) wave function. The term Different Orbitals for Different Spins (DODS) is also sometimes used. If the interest is in systems with an even number of electrons and a singlet type of wave function (a closed shell system), the restriction that each spatial orbital should have two electrons, one with a and one with /3 spin, is normally made. Such wave functions are known as Restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF). Open-shell systems may also be described by restricted type wave functions, where the spatial part of the doubly occupied orbitals is forced to be the same this is known as Restricted Open-shell Hartree-Fock (ROHF). For open-shell species a UHF treatment leads to well-defined orbital energies, which may be interpreted as ionization potentials. Section 3.4. For an ROHF wave function it is not possible to chose a unitary transformation which makes the matrix of Lagrange multipliers in eq. (3.40) diagonal, and orbital energies from an ROHF wave function are consequently not uniquely defined, and cannot be equated to ionization potentials by a Koopman type argument. 

Wigner s study of the correlation effects for high-electron densities is closely connected to the standard methods described in Section III.E., and the main errors come from the restricted form of the wave function (Eq. III.7) and the fact that this function does not represent a pure spin state. Hence, Wigner obtains only an upper bound for the correlation energy in this case. 

In the ordinary Hartree-Fock scheme, the total wave function is approximated by a single Slater determinant and, if the system possesses certain symmetry properties, they may impose rather severe restrictions on the occupied spin orbitals see, e.g., Eq. 11.61. These restrictions may be removed and the total energy correspondingly decreased, if instead we approximate the total wave function by means of the first term in the symmetry adapted set, i.e., by the projection of a single determinant. Since in both cases,... 

The existing SCF procedures are of two types in restricted methods, the MO s, except for the hipest (singly) occupied MO, are filled by two electrons with antiparallel spin, while in unrestricted methods, the variation procedure is performed with individual spin orbitals. In the latter, a total wave function is not an eigenvalue of the spin operator S, which is disadvantageous in many applications because of a necessary annihilation of higher multiplets by the projection operator. Since in practical applications the unrestricted methods have not proved to be remarkably superior, we shall call our attention in this review mainly to the restricted methods. 

Among the many ways to go beyond the usual Restricted Hartree-Fock model in order to introduce some electronic correlation effects into the ground state of an electronic system, the Half-Projected Hartree-Fock scheme, (HPHF) proposed by Smeyers [1,2], has the merit of preserving a conceptual simplicity together with a relatively straigthforward determination. The wave-function is written as a DODS Slater determinant projected on the spin space with S quantum number even or odd. As a result, it takes the form of two DODS Slater determinants, in which all the spin functions are interchanged. The spinorbitals have complete flexibility, and should be determined from applying the variational principle to the projected determinant. 

In the HF scheme, the first origin of the correlation between electrons of antiparallel spins comes from the restriction that they are forced to occupy the same orbital (RHF scheme) and thus some of the same location in space. A simple way of taking into account the basic effects of the electronic correlation is to release the constraint of double occupation (UHF scheme = Unrestricted HF) and so use Different Orbitals for Different Spins (DODS scheme which is the European way of calling UHF). In this methodology, electrons with antiparallel spins are not found to doubly occupy the same orbital so that, in principle, they are not forced to coexist in the same spatial region as is the case in usual RHF wave functions. 

The expressions (4.22)-(4.23) found in chap. 4 for the isomer shift 5 in nonrelativ-istic form may be applied to lighter elements up to iron without causing too much of an error. In heavier elements, however, the wave function j/ is subject to considerable modification by relativistic effects, particularly near the nucleus (remember that the spin-orbit coupling coefficient increases with Z ). Therefore, the electron density at the nucleus l /(o)P will be modified as well and the aforementioned equations for the isomer shift require relativistic correction. This has been considered [1] in a somewhat restricted approach by using Dirac wave functions and first-order perturbation theory in this approximation the relativistic correction simply consists of a dimensionless factor S (Z), which is introduced in the above equations for S,... 

---