Ab initio quantum chemistry methods

Ab initio quantum chemistry methods are computational chemistry methods based on quantum chemistry.[1] The term ab initio was first used in quantum chemistry by Robert Parr and coworkers, including David Craig in a semiempirical study on the excited states of benzene.[2][3] The background is described by Parr.[4] In its modern meaning ('from first principles of quantum mechanics') the term was used by Chen[5] (when quoting an unpublished 1955 MIT report by Allen and Nesbet), by Roothaan[6] and, in the title of an article, by Allen and Karo,[7] who also clearly define it.

Almost always the basis set (which is usually built from the LCAO ansatz) used to solve the Schrödinger equation is not complete, and does not span the Hilbert space associated with ionization and scattering processes (see continuous spectrum for more details). In the Hartree–Fock method and the configuration interaction method, this approximation allows one to treat the Schrödinger equation as a "simple" eigenvalue equation of the electronic molecular Hamiltonian, with a discrete set of solutions.

Accuracy and scaling

Ab initio electronic structure methods have the advantage that they can be made to converge to the exact solution, when all approximations are sufficiently small in magnitude and when the finite set of basis functions tends toward the limit of a complete set. In this case, configuration interaction, where all possible configurations are included (called "Full CI"), tends to the exact non-relativistic solution of the electronic Schrödinger equation (in the Born–Oppenheimer approximation). The convergence, however, is usually not monotonic, and sometimes the smallest calculation gives the best result for some properties.

One needs to consider the computational cost of ab initio methods when determining whether they are appropriate for the problem at hand. When compared to much less accurate approaches, such as molecular mechanics, ab initio methods often take larger amounts of computer time, memory, and disk space, though, with modern advances in computer science and technology such considerations are becoming less of an issue. The HF method scales nominally as N4 (N being a relative measure of the system size, not the number of basis functions)  e.g., if you double the number of electrons and the number of basis functions (double the system size), the calculation will take 16 (24) times as long per iteration. However, in practice it can scale closer to N3 as the program can identify zero and extremely small integrals and neglect them. Correlated calculations scale less favorably, though their accuracy is usually greater, which is the trade off one needs to consider: Secondorder manybody perturbation theory (MBPT(2)), or when the HF reference is used, Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) scales as N4 or N5, depending on how it is implemented, MP3 scales as N6 and coupled cluster with singles and doubles (CCSD) scales iteratively as N6, MP4 scales as N7 and CCSD(T) and CR-CC(2,3) scale iteratively as N6, with one noniterative step which scales as N7. Density functional theory (DFT) methods using functionals which include HartreeFock exchange scale in a similar manner to HartreeFock but with a larger proportionality term and are thus more expensive than an equivalent HartreeFock calculation. DFT methods that do not include HartreeFock exchange can scale better than HartreeFock.

Linear scaling approaches

The problem of computational expense can be alleviated through simplification schemes.[8] In the density fitting scheme, the four-index integrals used to describe the interaction between electron pairs are reduced to simpler two- or three-index integrals, by treating the charge densities they contain in a simplified way. This reduces the scaling with respect to basis set size. Methods employing this scheme are denoted by the prefix "df-", for example the density fitting MP2 is df-MP2[9] (many authors use lower-case to prevent confusion with DFT). In the local approximation,[10][11][12] the molecular orbitals are first localized by a unitary rotation in the orbital space (which leaves the reference wave function invariant, i.e., is not an approximation) and subsequently interactions of distant pairs of localized orbitals are neglected in the correlation calculation. This sharply reduces the scaling with molecular size, a major problem in the treatment of biologically-sized molecules.[13][14] Methods employing this scheme are denoted by the prefix "L", e.g. LMP2.[9][11] Both schemes can be employed together, as in the df-LMP2[9] and df-LCCSD(T0) methods. In fact, df-LMP2 calculations are faster than df-HartreeFock calculations and thus are feasible in nearly all situations in which also DFT is.

Classes of methods

The most popular classes of ab initio electronic structure methods:

HartreeFock methods

Post-HartreeFock methods

Multi-reference methods

Methods in detail

HartreeFock and post-HartreeFock methods

The simplest type of ab initio electronic structure calculation is the Hartree–Fock (HF) scheme, in which the instantaneous Coulombic electron-electron repulsion is not specifically taken into account. Only its average effect (mean field) is included in the calculation. This is a variational procedure; therefore, the obtained approximate energies, expressed in terms of the system's wave function, are always equal to or greater than the exact energy, and tend to a limiting value called the HartreeFock limit as the size of the basis is increased.[15] Many types of calculations begin with a HartreeFock calculation and subsequently correct for electron-electron repulsion, referred to also as electronic correlation. Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MPn) and coupled cluster theory (CC) are examples of these post-Hartree–Fock methods.[16][17] In some cases, particularly for bond breaking processes, the HartreeFock method is inadequate and this single-determinant reference function is not a good basis for post-HartreeFock methods. It is then necessary to start with a wave function that includes more than one determinant such as multi-configurational self-consistent field (MCSCF) and methods have been developed that use these multi-determinant references for improvements.[16] However, if one uses coupled cluster methods such as CCSDT, CCSDt, CR-CC(2,3), or CC(t;3) then single-bond breaking using the single determinant HF reference is feasible. For an accurate description of double bond breaking, methods such as CCSDTQ, CCSDTq, CCSDtq, CR-CC(2,4), or CC(tq;3,4) also make use of the single determinant HF reference, and do not require one to use multi-reference methods.

Is the bonding situation in disilyne Si2H2 the same as in acetylene (C2H2)?

A series of ab initio studies of Si2H2 is an example of how ab initio computational chemistry can predict new structures that are subsequently confirmed by experiment. They go back over 20 years, and most of the main conclusions were reached by 1995. The methods used were mostly post-Hartree–Fock, particularly configuration interaction (CI) and coupled cluster (CC). Initially the question was whether disilyne, Si2H2 had the same structure as ethyne (acetylene), C2H2. In early studies, by Binkley and Lischka and Kohler, it became clear that linear Si2H2 was a transition structure between two equivalent trans-bent structures and that the ground state was predicted to be a four-membered ring bent in a 'butterfly' structure with hydrogen atoms bridged between the two silicon atoms.[18][19] Interest then moved to look at whether structures equivalent to vinylidene (Si=SiH2) existed. This structure is predicted to be a local minimum, i. e. an isomer of Si2H2, lying higher in energy than the ground state but below the energy of the trans-bent isomer. Then a new isomer with an unusual structure was predicted by Brenda Colegrove in Henry F. Schaefer, III's group.[20] It requires post-Hartree–Fock methods to obtain a local minimum for this structure. It does not exist on the Hartree–Fock energy hypersurface. The new isomer is a planar structure with one bridging hydrogen atom and one terminal hydrogen atom, cis to the bridging atom. Its energy is above the ground state but below that of the other isomers.[21] Similar results were later obtained for Ge2H2.[22] Al2H2 and Ga2H2 have exactly the same isomers, in spite of having two electrons less than the Group 14 molecules.[23][24] The only difference is that the four-membered ring ground state is planar and not bent. The cis-mono-bridged and vinylidene-like isomers are present. Experimental work on these molecules is not easy, but matrix isolation spectroscopy of the products of the reaction of hydrogen atoms and silicon and aluminium surfaces has found the ground state ring structures and the cis-mono-bridged structures for Si2H2 and Al2H2. Theoretical predictions of the vibrational frequencies were crucial in understanding the experimental observations of the spectra of a mixture of compounds. This may appear to be an obscure area of chemistry, but the differences between carbon and silicon chemistry is always a lively question, as are the differences between group 13 and group 14 (mainly the B and C differences). The silicon and germanium compounds were the subject of a Journal of Chemical Education article.[25]

Valence bond methods

Valence bond (VB) methods are generally ab initio although some semi-empirical versions have been proposed. Current VB approaches are:[1]-

Quantum Monte Carlo methods

A method that avoids making the variational overestimation of HF in the first place is Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC), in its variational, diffusion, and Green's function forms. These methods work with an explicitly correlated wave function and evaluate integrals numerically using a Monte Carlo integration. Such calculations can be very time-consuming. The accuracy of QMC depends strongly on the initial guess of many-body wave-functions and the form of the many-body wave-function. One simple choice is Slater-Jastrow wave-function in which the local correlations are treated with the Jastrow factor.

See also


  1. 1 2 Levine, Ira N. (1991). Quantum Chemistry. Englewood Cliffs, New jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 455–544. ISBN 0-205-12770-3.
  2. Parr, Robert G. "History of Quantum Chemistry".
  3. Parr, Robert G.; Craig D. P.; Ross, I. G (1950). "Molecular Orbital Calculations of the Lower Excited Electronic Levels of Benzene, Configuration Interaction included". Journal of Chemical Physics. 18 (12): 1561–1563. doi:10.1063/1.1747540.
  4. Parr, R. G. (1990). "On the genesis of a theory". Int. J. Quantum Chem. 37 (4): 327–347. doi:10.1002/qua.560370407.
  5. Chen, T. C. (1955). "Expansion of Electronic Wave Functions of Molecules in Terms of 'United‐Atom' Wave Functions". J. Chem. Phys. 23 (11): 2200–2201. doi:10.1063/1.1740713.
  6. Roothaan, C. C. J. (1958). "Evaluation of Molecular Integrals by Digital Computer". J. Chem. Phys. 28 (5): 982–983. doi:10.1063/1.1744313.
  7. Allen, L. C.; Karo, A. M. (1960). "Basis Functions for Ab Initio Calculations". Revs. Mod. Phys. 32 (2): 275–. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.32.275.
  8. Jensen, Frank (2007). Introduction to Computational Chemistry. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-470-01187-4.
  9. 1 2 3 Werner, H-J; Manby, F. R.; Knowles, P. J. (2003). "Fast linear scaling second-order Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) using local and density fitting approximations". Journal of Chemical Physics. 118 (18): 8149–8161. doi:10.1063/1.1564816.
  10. Saebø, S.; Pulay, P. (1987). "Fourth-order Møller–Plessett perturbation theory in the local correlation treatment. I. Method". Journal of Chemical Physics. 86 (2): 914–922. doi:10.1063/1.452293.
  11. 1 2 Schütz, M.; Hetzer, G.; Werner, H-J (1999). "Low-order scaling local electron correlation methods. I. Linear scaling local MP2". Journal of Chemical Physics. 111 (13): 5691–5705. doi:10.1063/1.479957.
  12. "Ab initio study of phase stability in doped TiO2". Computational Mechanics. 50 (2): 185–194. 2012. doi:10.1007/s00466-012-0728-4.
  13. Alireza Mashaghi et al., Hydration strongly affects the molecular and electronic structure of membrane phospholipids. J. Chem. Phys. 136, 114709 (2012) http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v136/i11/p114709_s1
  14. Mischa Bonn et al., Interfacial Water Facilitates Energy Transfer by Inducing Extended Vibrations in Membrane Lipids, J Phys Chem, 2012 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp302478a
  15. Cramer, Christopher J. (2002). Essentials of Computational Chemistry. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 153–189. ISBN 0-471-48552-7.
  16. 1 2 Cramer, Christopher J. (2002). Essentials of Computational Chemistry. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 191–232. ISBN 0-471-48552-7.
  17. Jensen, Frank (2007). Introduction to Computational Chemistry. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 98–149. ISBN 0-470-01187-4.
  18. Binkley, J. S. (1983). "Theoretical studies of the relative stability of C2H2 of Si2H2". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 106 (3): 603. doi:10.1021/ja00315a024.
  19. Lischka, H.; H-J Kohler (1983). "Ab initio investigation on the lowest singlet and triplet state of Si2H2". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 105 (22): 6646. doi:10.1021/ja00360a016.
  20. Colegrove, B. T.; Schaefer, Henry F. III (1990). "Disilyne (Si2H2) revisited". Journal of Physical Chemistry. 94 (14): 5593. doi:10.1021/j100377a036.
  21. Grev, R. S.; Schaefer, Henry F. III (1992). "The remarkable monobridged structure of Si2H2". Journal of Chemical Physics. 97 (11): 7990. doi:10.1063/1.463422.
  22. Palágyi, Zoltán; Schaefer, Henry F. III; Kapuy, Ede (1993). "Ge2H2: A Molecule with a low-lying monobridged equilibrium geometry". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 115 (15): 6901–6903. doi:10.1021/ja00068a056.
  23. Stephens, J. C.; Bolton, E. E.; Schaefer H. F. III; Andrews, L. (1997). "Quantum mechanical frequencies and matrix assignments to Al2H2". Journal of Chemical Physics. 107 (1): 119–223. doi:10.1063/1.474608.
  24. Palágyi, Zoltán; Schaefer, Henry F. III; Kapuy, Ede (1993). "Ga2H2: planar dibridged, vinylidene-like, monobridged and trans equilibrium geometries". Chemical Physics Letters. 203 (2-3): 195–200. doi:10.1016/0009-2614(93)85386-3.
  25. DeLeeuw, B. J.; Grev, R. S.; Schaefer, Henry F. III (1992). "A comparison and contrast of selected saturated and unsaturated hydrides of group 14 elements". Journal of Chemical Education. 69 (6): 441. doi:10.1021/ed069p441.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/27/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.