Adrian Lange & John M. Herbert Department of Chemistry Ohio State University Molecular Spectroscopy Symposium, 6/21/07 Spurious charge-transfer contamination.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Uv spectroscopy.
Advertisements

Experimental Characterization of the He + I 35 Cl(E,v † =11,12) and He + I 35 Cl( ,v † =0-2) Intermolecular Potential Energy Surfaces Joshua P. Darr and.
Early Quantum Theory and Models of the Atom
Water Hexamer Anion Electron attachment and detachment ?
Solvation Models. Many reactions take place in solution Short-range effects Typically concentrated in the first solvation sphere Examples: H-bonds,
Theoretical Predictions of the Structures and Energetics of ClF n +/- (n =1-6) Ions: Extended Studies of Hypervalent Species Using the Recoupled Pair Bonding.
P461 - Molecules 21 MOLECULAR ENERGY LEVELS Have Schrod. Eq. For H 2 (same ideas for more complicated). For proton and electron 1,2 real solution: numeric.
Atomic and Molecular Orbitals l The horizontal rows of the periodic table are called Periods. l Each period represents a different quantum energy level.
Chemistry 6440 / 7440 Electron Correlation Effects.
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.  Permission required.
Simulation of X-ray Absorption Near Edge Spectroscopy (XANES) of Molecules Luke Campbell Shaul Mukamel Daniel Healion Rajan Pandey.
Infrared spectroscopy of Li(methylamine) n (NH 3 ) m clusters Nitika Bhalla, Luigi Varriale, Nicola Tonge and Andrew Ellis Department of Chemistry University.
John E. McMurry Paul D. Adams University of Arkansas Atomic and Molecular Orbitals.
Density Functional Theory And Time Dependent Density Functional Theory
Shanshan Wu 1 Aug 1st, 2012 Advisor: James Glimm 1,2 Collaborators: Michael McGuigan 2, Stan Wong 1,2, Amanda Tiano 1 1.Stony Brook University 2.Brookhaven.
Spectroscopic Analysis Part 4 – Molecular Energy Levels and IR Spectroscopy Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand January 2012 Dr Ron Beckett Water.
VSEPR Model And Hybridization. VSEPR Model Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Model a simple model that allows for the prediction of the approximate.
68th International Symposium on Molecular Spectroscopy Ohio State University June 17-21, 2013 Wei-Li Li, Tian Jian, Gary V. Lopez, and Lai-Sheng Wang Department.
1.Solvation Models and 2. Combined QM / MM Methods See review article on Solvation by Cramer and Truhlar: Chem. Rev. 99, (1999)
Frank Lee Emmert III, Stephanie Thompson, and Lyudmila V. Slipchenko Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
1 Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization.
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.  Permission required.
Dipole Moments and Polar Molecules 10.2 H F electron rich region electron poor region    = Q x r Q is the charge r is the distance between charges.
Chapter 8. Two Simple Theories of Covalent Bonding  Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Theory __________ R. J. Gillespie ’s  Valence Bond Theory.
Chapter 8 – Covalent Bonding
Sequential Oxidation of Group 6 Transition Metal Suboxide Clusters Caroline Chick Jarrold Department of Chemistry, Indiana University November 30, 2015.
Valence Electrons. Electrons Electrons are found in orbitals within energy levels The regions in an atom where electrons are found are called orbitals.
Molecular Orbital Theory (What is it??)  Better bonding model than valence bond theory  Electrons are arranged in “molecular orbitals”  Dealing with.
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Chemical Bonding II – Molecular Geometry and Hybridisation of Atomic Orbitals General Chemistry I CHM 111 Dr Erdal OnurhanSlide 1 Molecular Geometry of.
A polarizable QM/MM model for the global (H 2 O) N – potential surface John M. Herbert Department of Chemistry Ohio State University IMA Workshop “Chemical.
Molecular Geometry and Bonding Theories
Covalent Bonding. Covalent Bond Chemical bond formed by the sharing of a pair of electrons.
BASICS OF SEMICONDUCTOR
Hydrogen-bond between the oppositely charged hydrogen atoms It was suggested by crystal structure analysis. A small number of spectroscopic studies have.
John Herbert Department of Chemistry The Ohio State University Anion–water vs. electron–water hydrogen bonds 61 st Molecular Spectroscopy Symposium 6/23/06.
Advanced methods of molecular dynamics 1.Monte Carlo methods 2.Free energy calculations 3.Ab initio molecular dynamics 4.Quantum molecular dynamics 5.Trajectory.
VSEPR Theory. Molecular Structure Molecular structure – the three- dimensional arrangement of atoms in a molecule.
4.6 Quantum Mechanics and Bonding Hybridization We need next to examine the relationship between: isolated atoms (with valence e’s in s,p, and d orbitals.
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required.
1 Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals.
Implications of QM for chemistry
Fine Structure and Finer Details
Electrical Engineering Materials
1.9 Hybridized Atomic Orbitals
Chapter 9 Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Bonding Theories
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.  Permission required.
Chemical Bonding.
66th International Molecular Spectroscopy Symposium June 24, 2011
Chemistry 141 Monday, November 6, 2017 Lecture 26
Molecular Orbital Theory
Chemistry 141 Monday, November 27, 2017 Lecture 33 Pi bonding and MOs
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.  Permission required.
UV-VIS Spectroscopy By Dr.Jagadeesh.
Polarity, Water and Biological Molecules
Chemistry-Part 2 Notes Chemical Bonding
Chemistry-Part 2 Notes Chemical Bonding
Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Theory
Chapter 9 Valence Bond Theory.
Unit 4 Bonding Theories.
Electronic Structure Theory
Experiments show O2 is paramagnetic
Chemistry 141 Wednesday, November 8, 2017 Lecture 27
Drawing Lewis Structures
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.  Permission required.
Molecular Orbital Theory
Chemical Bonding II: Molecular Geometry and Hybridization of Atomic Orbitals Chapter 10.
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
TDDFT Prof. Dr. E.K.U. Gross Prof. Dr. Mark Casida.
Presentation transcript:

Adrian Lange & John M. Herbert Department of Chemistry Ohio State University Molecular Spectroscopy Symposium, 6/21/07 Spurious charge-transfer contamination in large-scale TDDFT calculations: A public service announcement

JMH group Leif Jacobson Dr. Chris Williams Adrian Lange Shoumik Chatterjee

The long-range CT problem in TDDFT *Except those who don’t Everyone* knows that TDDFT woefully underestimates long- range CT excitation energies But just what, precisely, constitutes “long range” ?

The long-range CT problem in TDDFT *Except those who don’t e–e– ~1.0/R ~0.5/R ~0.2/R CIS (100% HF exchange) LDA (0% HF exchange) BHLYP (50% HF exchange) B3LYP (20% HF exchange) R / Å [ E(R) – E(4.0Å) ] / eV ~1.0/R ~0.5/R ~0.2/R R / Å Ex. energy / eV Long-range intermolecular CT Dreuw et al., JCP (2003) Everyone* knows that TDDFT woefully underestimates long- range CT excitation energies But just what, precisely, constitutes “long range” ?

The long-range CT problem in TDDFT Long-range intramolecular CT Everyone* knows that TDDFT woefully underestimates long- range CT excitation energies But just what, precisely, constitutes “long range” ? Dreuw & Head-Gordon JACS (2004) Magyar & Tretiak JCTC (2007) ET

Okay, so long-range ET is out of bounds But perhaps the theory is otherwise okay. After all, it works great* for small, gas-phase molecules. * Typically 0.2–0.3 eV accuracy, for the lowest few valence-type excitations potential energy / eV N1–H bond length / Å uracil singlet excited states

Okay, so long-range ET is out of bounds But perhaps the theory is otherwise okay. After all, it works great* for small, gas-phase molecules. Unfortunately, no. Spurious CT states have been observed for acetone/formamide in liquid water and clusters: – Bernasconi, Sprik, Hutter (JPC-B 2003; CPL 2004) – CPMD – Besley (CPL 2004) – Q-Chem – Neugebauer, Gritsenko, Baerends (JCP 2005) – ADF * Typically 0.2–0.3 eV accuracy, for the lowest few valence-type excitations

Okay, so long-range ET is out of bounds But perhaps the theory is otherwise okay. After all, it works great* for small, gas-phase molecules. Unfortunately, no. Spurious CT states have been observed for acetone/formamide in liquid water and clusters. Bernasconi, Sprik, Hutter CPL (2004) BUT... popular hybrid functionals like B3LYP and PBE0 push these states up by ~1 eV, above the lowest valence bands. Intensity  / eV BLYP B3LYP PBE0 n*n* CT

Okay, so long-range ET is out of bounds But perhaps the theory is otherwise okay. After all, it works great* for small, gas-phase molecules. Unfortunately, no. Spurious CT states have been observed for acetone/formamide in liquid water and clusters. Bernasconi, Sprik, Hutter CPL (2004) BUT... popular hybrid functionals like B3LYP and PBE0 push these states up by ~1 eV, above the lowest valence bands. How robust are these hybrids?

A sequence of uracil–water clusters R = 1.5 Å N water = 0 R = 2.0 Å N water = 4 R = 3.0 Å N water = 15 R = 2.5 Å N water = 7 R = 3.5 Å N water = 18 R = 4.0 Å N water = 25 R = 4.5 Å N water = 37 Extracted from a single MD snapshot (T=298 K,  =1.0 g/cm 3 )

TD-PBE0 results vs. cluster size Ex. energies below 6 eV40th excitation energy QM region: PBE0/6-31+G*

TD-PBE0 results vs. cluster size QM region: PBE0/6-31+G* MM region: TIP3P charges out to 20 Å Ex. energies below 6 eV40th excitation energy

Typical CT excited states 4.5 eV 5.6 eV 4.3 eV 4.5 eV blue = detachment density purple = attachment density

TDDFT/TDA working equations Solve eigenvalue eqn. Ax =  x for excitation energies , where x = (x ia ) is a vector of occupied (|i>) to virtual (|a>) excitation amplitudes If |i> and |a> are spatially distant, then [Dreuw et al. JCP (2003)] TIP3P charges stabilize water lone pairs on the edge of the cluster, pushing water-to-uracil CT excitations to higher energy A ia,jb = (  a –  i )  ij  ab – c HF (ij|ab)

QM/MM: Pure vs. hybrid functionals QM cluster radius / Å Ex. energies below 6 eV 40th excitation energy QM cluster radius / Å B3LYP (c HF = 0.2) behaves much the same as PBE0 (c HF = 0.25) (c HF = 0) (c HF =0.25) (c HF =0)

QM/MM electronic absorption spectra B3LYPPBE0Size of QM region R = 1.5 Å (uracil only) R = 2.5 Å (“microhydrated”) R = 4.5 Å (full solvation shell) 40 excited states req’d to reach 6.8 eV

Spurious intensity stealing Excitation energies (  i ) and oscillator strengths (ƒ i ) from QM/MM blue = detachment density purple = attachment density

Spurious intensity stealing TDDFT/TDA Excitation Energies Excited state 1: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 1: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(154) --> V( 2) amplitude = Excited state 7: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 7: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(151) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(152) --> V( 1) amplitude = D(152) --> V( 2) amplitude = Excited state 8: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 8: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(151) --> V( 1) amplitude = D(151) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(152) --> V( 1) amplitude = D(152) --> V( 2) amplitude = Excited state 9: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 9: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(147) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(149) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(151) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(152) --> V( 2) amplitude = Excited state 10: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 10: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(140) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(147) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(149) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(151) --> V( 2) amplitude = Excited state 11: excitation energy (eV) = Total energy for state 11: Multiplicity: Singlet Trans. Mom.: X Y Z Strength : D(151) --> V( 2) amplitude = D(154) --> V( 5) amplitude = D(154) --> V( 6) amplitude =

Another small system with long-range problems black = attachment density TD-PBE0/6-31+G* calculations on a gas-phase GC base pair

Summary: Long-range CT in TDDFT “Long range” is any time (squares of) orbitals do not overlap. Uracil–(H 2 O) 4 is large enough.

Summary: Long-range CT in TDDFT “Long range” is any time (squares of) orbitals do not overlap. Uracil–(H 2 O) 4 is large enough. Spurious states impose a major memory bottleneck: N words ~ 2 N O N V N roots N iter / 1.5

Summary: Long-range CT in TDDFT “Long range” is any time (squares of) orbitals do not overlap. Uracil–(H 2 O) 4 is large enough. Spurious states impose a major memory bottleneck: N words ~ 2 N O N V N roots N iter / 1.5 QM/MM absorption spectra look okay below 6 eV, even with > 120 QM atoms, but watch out for spurious intensity stealing.

Summary: Long-range CT in TDDFT “Long range” is any time (squares of) orbitals do not overlap. Uracil–(H 2 O) 4 is large enough. Spurious states impose a major memory bottleneck: N words ~ 2 N O N V N roots N iter / 1.5 QM/MM absorption spectra look okay below 6 eV, even with > 120 QM atoms, but watch out for spurious intensity stealing. This is a work in progress. Long-range K, subspace truncation, asymptotic correction, etc., are required to make TDDFT a robust method.

Long list of spurious charge-transfer states Gaussian user Just because it came from B3LYP doesn’t make it right... Thanks:

Spectra from gas-phase clusters Absorption spectrum (Gas-phase QM region) Absorption spectrum (QM/MM) Density of states (Gas-phase QM region) 40 excited states to reach 5.4 eV microhydrated full solvation shell