Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Correlation energy — where it appears

The exact energy less the best single-determinant one, which is a difference rather than a property. Its magnitude grows without limit with the repulsion, because a mean field cannot stop paying for coincidences a spread-out density forces.

Named by 13 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two is the ordinary answer, and one is a different kind of correlation. The local exponent of the correlation energy in the repulsion, against the repulsion, for three systems at half filling. The two closed-shell systems tend to two as the repulsion vanishes, which is ordinary perturbation theory. The ring of four tends to one, at repulsions fifty times smaller than the hopping.

A third kind of correlation

The two-site model gave an exact identity — the power of the correlation energy in the repulsion equals the occupation of the bonding natural orbital — and asked whether anything like it survives with more orbitals. It does not, and the way it fails is better than the identity was: a ring of four gives a power of one where every closed-shell system gives two, at repulsions fifty times weaker than the hopping, because its reference was never a single state.

beyond · Correlation The error, against the repulsion it is an error about. The energy a mean field misses, for two electron counts on 4 sites, against the strength of the repulsion. Each is a straight line at large repulsion and the dashed line through it is not a fit: its slope is the count of coincidences a uniform density forces, computed from the electron number and the site number alone.

A mean field cannot get out of the way

The energy a mean field misses grows without limit as the repulsion rises — 27.82 at U = 32 for four electrons on four sites, against an exact energy of −0.2946, so the error is ninety-four times the answer. The rate it grows at is not an energy at all: it is n²/4N, a count of the coincidences a spread-out density cannot avoid.

beyond · Correlation One exact state, two correlation energies. The energy each of two mean fields misses, against the repulsion, for one system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below U = 2 the unrestricted search returns the restricted answer and the two definitions agree to the last bit. Above it they part: at U = 32 the restricted reference reports -27.82 and the unrestricted one -0.11, a factor of 259.43, and one is growing while the other falls.

The reference decides the correlation

The correlation energy of one exact state, measured against two references that are both called Hartree–Fock, is −27.82 and −0.107 at the same repulsion — a factor of 259, on a system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below the instability at U = 2 the two agree to the last bit; above it one grows without limit while the other falls, and the reference that reports almost no correlation has ⟨S²⟩ = 1.99 where a singlet is zero.

beyond · Correlation Nearly all of the error cancels, and the answer gets worse. For each repulsion: the error a spin-paired mean field makes in the total energy of one four-site system and of two two-site ones with the same number of electrons, and the error left in the difference between them. The cancellation improves from 83 to 97 per cent along the axis. The residue as a share of the quantity being computed goes the other way, from 1 to 423 per cent, because the reaction energy shrinks faster than what survives.

Two wrong numbers and a right difference

A mean field gets the total energy of a four-site system wrong by 12.11 and of two two-site systems wrong by 12.49, and 96.9 per cent of that error cancels out of the difference between them. The residue is 0.38 — and the reaction energy it is a residue of is 0.09, so the cancellation improves and the answer gets worse at the same time. Change the pair being compared to a singlet and a triplet and nothing cancels at all: the sign goes.

wrong · Approximation A correction that stops belonging to the system it is added to. The exact ground state of a four-site Hubbard ring, the unrestricted mean field's, and the composite: the mean field plus the correlation correction computed on the symmetric molecule. At ε = 0 the two systems are the same one and the composite is exact. As the sites are made unlike, the transferred correction stops being the right one — the exact correlation energy shrinks towards nothing while the transferred number does not — and the last rows are the recipe adding a correction almost as large as the error it is meant to remove.

The correction that was computed somewhere else

Every composite method rests on one assumption: that an expensive correction computed on a small case can be added to a cheap calculation on a large one. Tested on four sites where both answers are exact, it removes 99.74 per cent of the cheap method's error near the reference and −1450 per cent of it further away — at which point the recipe is fifteen times as wrong as the calculation it was improving.

wrong · Approximation A cheap number that predicts an expensive failure. Thirty-two systems. Along the bottom, how far the mean field's own symmetry breaking has moved between the reference and the target — a quantity available before any exact calculation. Up the side, how wrong the transferred correction turns out to be. They rank together at 0.902, and the open marks are the systems whose broken solution has collapsed entirely, which is where the diagnostic stops being a scale and becomes a warning.

The warning a cheap calculation gives

A correlation correction computed on one system and carried to another works until it does not, and nothing in the scheme says in advance which. The mean field's own symmetry breaking says: it collapses at a definite field, and the transfer fails where it goes. Across thirty-two systems the two rank together at 0.90.

wrong · Approximation Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything. The opposite-spin pair distribution of a half-filled ring of 6 at six repulsions, by separation, each divided by what uncorrelated electrons of the same density would give. At no repulsion it is one everywhere; at a repulsion of 16 the chance of finding two electrons on one site is 0.0430 of that, and what is missing has turned up next door. Nothing here is a difference between two calculations.

Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything

A correlation energy is an exact energy less a mean-field one, so the answer depends on which mean field was picked — by a factor of 259. The pair distribution says the same thing with no subtraction in it, and two systems matched to the same correlation energy turn out to have electrons in visibly different places.

beyond · Correlation The same hole, priced three ways. The correlation hole of a ring of 6 at a repulsion of 8, weighted by three interactions. With an on-site interaction the answer is 100 per cent at separation zero — as an identity, since the interaction is zero everywhere else. With one that reaches a neighbour, the enhancement at separation one costs rather than pays, and gives back 44.0 per cent of the on-site saving; with a Coulomb tail, 46.9. Everything beyond one neighbour is worth under a twentieth of the on-site term.

Half of it is given back at one bond

The correlation hole of a ring removes 1.2653 pairs from zero separation and puts 1.1126 of them one site away. With an on-site repulsion that second number costs nothing, because the interaction is zero there — but with anything that reaches a neighbour it costs 44 per cent of what the hole saved, and with a Coulomb tail 46.9.

beyond · Correlation A ring of 6 as the neighbour repulsion is turned up. At an on-site repulsion of 8, three quantities against the nearest-neighbour repulsion: the alternating structure factor, the double occupancy, and the nearest-neighbour opposite-spin pair distribution. The rise is steepest at V = 4.5, which is 0.563 times the on-site repulsion. Far past it the ring is charge ordered — nearly every electron paired on alternate sites, which is what a double occupancy approaching a half means.

The give-back that turned into a saving

Take a wavefunction optimised for an on-site repulsion, weight its correlation hole with an interaction that reaches one neighbour, and the enhancement at one bond gives back forty-four per cent of the on-site saving. Putting that neighbour term into the Hamiltonian and solving exactly does not shrink the give-back. It reverses its sign.

beyond · Correlation Where the broken solution appears. The mean field's spin polarisation against the on-site repulsion, at half filling and no site-energy modulation, for three systems. Two of them are symmetric below a threshold and polarised above it — 1.672 for a chain of four and 2.355 for a ring of six. The third is polarised at every repulsion tested, because its half-filled shell is degenerate and the symmetric solution is unstable however small the repulsion is.

The half of the square a ring of four cannot show

There is a warning that says in advance whether a transferred correction will hold: the mean field's own symmetry breaking, which collapses at a definite site-energy modulation and takes the transfer with it. The other axis of the same square has a threshold too — on the other side — and the ring of four it was all measured on is the one system with no threshold to find.

wrong · Approximation One sign change is a root and the other is not. The solved give-back against the neighbour repulsion on a ring of 6 at U = 8. It crosses zero at V = 3.895, where the price of everything beyond contact really is nothing, and changes sign again at V = 4.159, where the quantity it is a fraction of has vanished instead. The curve is broken at the second because it is an asymptote and not a crossing; four of the 12 points fall outside the band drawn here.

A sign change is not always a zero

The solved give-back changes sign somewhere between a neighbour repulsion of two and one of four, and a bisection looks like the way to find the value where the structure beyond contact contributes exactly nothing. It changes sign twice. One crossing is that value; at the other the quantity the fraction is a fraction of has vanished instead, and a bisection reports the two in identical words.

beyond · Correlation The second number is the first one, rearranged. The composite's error against the change in the correlation energy, at every point on both axes of the square. They lie on the diagonal because they are the same quantity: the composite is the target's mean field plus the reference's correlation energy, so its error is the reference's correlation energy minus the target's. The largest departure across 20 points is 2.2e-16, which is the arithmetic's own precision and not a measurement.

The second number is the error, rearranged

A cheap diagnostic for a composite method leaves a scatter it cannot explain, and the number that ought to close it is the change in the correlation energy, already computed at every point, so the test is arithmetic rather than a calculation. It is arithmetic, and the arithmetic is the answer. The composite's error is that change with a sign on it.

wrong · Approximation Five candidates, five failures, five different places. Every point of the square, with each cheap diagnostic's failing pair joined by a line. The five tested candidates fail on five different pairs involving 10 different points — no line shares an end with another. Had they all failed on one corner the lines would have converged on it, and the honest conclusion would have been that composites are safe away from that corner.

Five failures in five different places

Seven quantities a mean field produces for nothing have been tried as diagnostics, and none of them is usable. The question left is whether that is one finding or seven — whether the same awkward corner of the square breaks every candidate, or each is broken somewhere else. Each is broken somewhere else. Five candidates, five failing pairs, ten systems, and not one of them appearing twice.

wrong · Approximation

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Exact diagonalisationHubbard modelReference stateElectron correlationModel limitOn-site repulsionHartree–FockSymmetry breakingMany-electron wavefunctionsOpen-shell configurationsDouble occupancyApproximation

All concepts