The ionization potential of aqueous hydroxide computed using many-body perturbation theory

2014 ◽  
Vol 141 (3) ◽  
pp. 034501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Opalka ◽  
Tuan Anh Pham ◽  
Michiel Sprik ◽  
Giulia Galli
Keyword(s):  
Perturbation Theory ◽  
Ionization Potential ◽  
Many Body ◽  
Many Body Perturbation Theory

scholarly journals Surface chemistry effects on work function, ionization potential and electronic affinity of Si(100), Ge(100) surfaces and SiGe heterostructures

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (44) ◽  
pp. 25593-25605
Author(s):  
Ivan Marri ◽  
Michele Amato ◽  
Matteo Bertocchi ◽  
Andrea Ferretti ◽  
Daniele Varsano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perturbation Theory ◽  
Surface Chemistry ◽  
Work Function ◽  
Ionization Potential ◽  
Many Body ◽  
Many Body Perturbation Theory ◽  
The Many ◽  
Electronic Affinity

Surface chemistry effects are calculated within the many body perturbation theory for Si(100), Ge(100) and SiGe surfaces.

scholarly journals The GW Miracle in Many-Body Perturbation Theory for the Ionization Potential of Molecules

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabien Bruneval ◽  
Nike Dattani ◽  
Michiel J. van Setten
Keyword(s):  
Perturbation Theory ◽  
Ionization Potential ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Many Body ◽  
Hybrid Functional ◽  
Hartree Fock ◽  
Screened Exchange ◽  
Many Body Perturbation Theory ◽  
High Level

We use the GW100 benchmark set to systematically judge the quality of several perturbation theories against high-level quantum chemistry methods. First of all, we revisit the reference CCSD(T) ionization potentials for this popular benchmark set and establish a revised set of CCSD(T) results. Then, for all of these 100 molecules, we calculate the HOMO energy within second and third-order perturbation theory (PT2 and PT3), and, GW as post-Hartree-Fock methods. We found GW to be the most accurate of these three approximations for the ionization potential, by far. Going beyond GW by adding more diagrams is a tedious and dangerous activity: We tried to complement GW with second-order exchange (SOX), with second-order screened exchange (SOSEX), with interacting electron-hole pairs (WTDHF), and with a GW density-matrix (γGW). Only the γGW result has a positive impact. Finally using an improved hybrid functional for the non-interacting Green’s function, considering it as a cheap way to approximate self-consistency, the accuracy of the simplest GW approximation improves even more. We conclude that GW is a miracle: Its subtle balance makes GW both accurate and fast.

Divergence of Many-Body Perturbation Theory for Noncovalent Interactions of Large Molecules

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Nguyen ◽  
Guo P Chen ◽  
Matthew M. Agee ◽  
Asbjörn M. Burow ◽  
Matthew Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perturbation Theory ◽  
System Size ◽  
State Density ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Binding Energies ◽  
Basis Set ◽  
Many Body ◽  
Many Body Perturbation Theory ◽  
Relative Errors ◽  
Ground State Density

Prompted by recent reports of large errors in noncovalent interaction (NI) energies obtained from many-body perturbation theory (MBPT), we compare the performance of second-order Møller–Plesset MBPT (MP2), spin-scaled MP2, dispersion-corrected semilocal density functional approximations (DFA), and the post-Kohn–Sham random phase approximation (RPA) for predicting binding energies of supramolecular complexes contained in the S66, L7, and S30L benchmarks. All binding energies are extrapolated to the basis set limit, corrected for basis set superposition errors, and compared to reference results of the domain-based local pair-natural orbital coupled-cluster (DLPNO-CCSD(T)) or better quality. Our results confirm that MP2 severely overestimates binding energies of large complexes, producing relative errors of over 100% for several benchmark compounds. RPA relative errors consistently range between 5-10%, significantly less than reported previously using smaller basis sets, whereas spin-scaled MP2 methods show limitations similar to MP2, albeit less pronounced, and empirically dispersion-corrected DFAs perform almost as well as RPA. Regression analysis reveals a systematic increase of relative MP2 binding energy errors with the system size at a rate of approximately 1‰ per valence electron, whereas the RPA and dispersion-corrected DFA relative errors are virtually independent of the system size. These observations are corroborated by a comparison of computed rotational constants of organic molecules to gas-phase spectroscopy data contained in the ROT34 benchmark. To analyze these results, an asymptotic adiabatic connection symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (AC-SAPT) is developed which uses monomers at full coupling whose ground-state density is constrained to the ground-state density of the complex. Using the fluctuation–dissipation theorem, we obtain a nonperturbative “screened second-order” expression for the dispersion energy in terms of monomer quantities which is exact for non-overlapping subsystems and free of induction terms; a first-order RPA-like approximation to the Hartree, exchange, and correlation kernel recovers the macroscopic Lifshitz limit. The AC-SAPT expansion of the interaction energy is obtained from Taylor expansion of the coupling strength integrand. Explicit expressions for the convergence radius of the AC-SAPT series are derived within RPA and MBPT and numerically evaluated. Whereas the AC-SAPT expansion is always convergent for nondegenerate monomers when RPA is used, it is found to spuriously diverge for second-order MBPT, except for the smallest and least polarizable monomers. The divergence of the AC-SAPT series within MBPT is numerically confirmed within RPA; prior numerical results on the convergence of the SAPT expansion for MBPT methods are revisited and support this conclusion once sufficiently high orders are included. The cause of the failure of MBPT methods for NIs of large systems is missing or incomplete “electrodynamic” screening of the Coulomb interaction due to induced particle–hole pairs between electrons in different monomers, leaving the effective interaction too strong for AC-SAPT to converge. Hence, MBPT cannot be considered reliable for quantitative predictions of NIs, even in moderately polarizable molecules with a few tens of atoms. The failure to accurately account for electrodynamic polarization makes MBPT qualitatively unsuitable for applications such as NIs of nanostructures, macromolecules, and soft materials; more robust non-perturbative approaches such as RPA or coupled cluster methods should be used instead whenever possible.<br>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document