Analytic Energy Gradients for Open-Shell Restricted-Hartree-Fock, Limited Multiconfiguration Scf, and Large Scale Configuration Interaction Wavefunctions.
Analytic derivatives of the energy with respect to nuclear coordinates are exceedingly useful in the optimization of equilibrium and transition state geometries and in the characterization of the stationary points on potential energy surfaces via vibrational analyses (1). However, until quite recently the use of such gradients was somewhat restricted as the gradient method had been developed in detail for only closed-shell single determinant SCF (2) or open-shell unrestricted Hartree-Fock wavefunctions (3). The restriction to these methods would not allow even a qualitatively correct treatment of many reactions such as those for which orbital symmetry considerations suggest a “forbiddenness” due to an orbital crossing or of many unusual free radicals of interest in physical organic chemistry. Within the last two years, the analytic energy gradient approach has been extended to the open-shell restricted Hartree-Fock method (4) to avoid difficulties sometimes encountered with the UHE approach in which the wavefunction is not an eigenfunction of S2 . Certain limited multiconfigu-ration self-consistent-field gradient methods (4,5) have also been developed and applied which allow for a qualitatively correct description of Woodward-Hoffmann forbidden processes and of radicals such as trimethylene.
KeywordsAnalytic Gradient Transition State Structure Transition State Geometry Abelian Point Group Unitary Group Approach
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. Pulay in Modem Theoretical Chemistry, edited by H.F. Schae-fer III (Plenum, New York, 1977), Vol. 4, pp. 153–185.Google Scholar
- 3.For example: P. Botschwina: 1974, Chem. Phys. Lett., 29, pp. 98.Google Scholar
- 7.B.R. Brooks, W.D. Laidig, P. Saxe, J.D. Goddard and H.F. Schaefer III in Proceedings of the Conference on the Unitary Group for the Evaluation of Electronic Energy Matrix Elements. Bielefeld, W. Germany (1979). J. Hinge, editor, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes Series.Google Scholar
- 10.F.W. Bobscowicz and W.A. Goddard III in Modern Theoretical Chemistry edited by H.F. Schaefer III (Plenum, New York, 1977), Vol. 3, pp. 79–129.Google Scholar
- 11.Reference 10, p. 91.Google Scholar
- 13.For example: P. Pulay, TEXAS. An Ab Initio Gradient (Force) Program, Austin, Texas, 1976.Google Scholar
- 15.See also the article by H.B. Schlegel in this volume.Google Scholar
- 18.Although not discussed in this article, the two-particle density matrix also plays a central role in a scheme for large scale MCSCF computations. See: B.R. Brooks, W.D. Laidig, P. Saxe, and H.F. Schaefer III: 1980, J. Chem. Phys., 72, pp. 3837.Google Scholar
- 19.For example: M. Moshinsky Group Theory and the Many-Body Problem (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
- 20.J. Paldus in Theoretical Chemistry: Advances and Perspectives. Vol. 2, H. Eyring and D.J. Henderson, eds. (Academic, New York, 1976), pp. 131.Google Scholar
- 21.I. Shavitt: 1977, Int. J. Quantum Chem. Symp., 11, pp. 131.Google Scholar
- I. Shavitt: 1978, Int. J. Quantum Chem. Symp., 12, pp. 5.Google Scholar
- I. Shavitt: 1979, Chem. Phys. Lett., 63, pp. 421.Google Scholar
- 24.R. McWeeny and B.T. Sutcliffe. Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechanics. (Academic Press, London, 1969).Google Scholar
- 25.J.A. Pople, R. Krishnan, H.B. Schlegel and J.S. Binkley: 1979, Int. J. Quantum Chem. Symp., 13, pp. 225.Google Scholar
- 27.Y. Yamaguchi and H.F. Schaefer III: J. Chem. Phys., in press.Google Scholar
- 28.J.D. Goddard, Y. Yamaguchi and H.F. Schaefer III: J. Chem. Phys., in press.Google Scholar
- 33.E.R. Davidson, in The World of Quantum Chemistry, edited by R. Daudel and B. Pullman (Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1974).Google Scholar