Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Hartree–Fock — where it appears

The best description of a system by a single arrangement of electrons in orbitals, found self-consistently. Its error grows without limit as the repulsion rises, because a product of one-electron densities cannot correlate two coordinates.

Named by 11 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Orbitals at the 90 per cent contour. Several orbitals drawn at the same enclosed fraction and, unless stated otherwise, at the same scale — so the sizes on the page are the sizes. Each contour was solved for separately by integrating that orbital's own density. Contours drawn: 1s at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 3.94e-2; 2s at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 7.40e-3; 2pz at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 9.48e-3.

Orbitals are not where the electron is

A many-electron atom has no exact orbitals at all. The orbital picture is a basis for an approximation — an extremely good one — and treating it as a description of reality is the source of most of the confusion in this subject.

wrong · Approximation How far the ground state is from being one determinant. The occupations of the two natural orbitals of the Hubbard dimer against the repulsion. At zero they are two and nothing, which is a single determinant exactly. As the repulsion grows they converge on one and one, which is a state no single determinant has — the failure is in the description rather than in the number. The entropy of the occupations rises to ln 2, one bit: the two determinants of the singlet.

Two kinds of correlation, and only one is small

Correlation energy is defined as a subtraction, and the definition hides that the thing subtracted is not one thing. In the two-site model the local power of the correlation energy in the interaction falls from two to one — and at every interaction strength it equals, exactly, the occupation of the bonding natural orbital.

beyond · Correlation Three answers to one question. The energy to remove an electron from a half-filled four-site system, computed three ways against the repulsion: exactly, by solving a self-consistent field twice — once for the molecule and once for the ion — and by reading the highest occupied orbital energy straight off the molecule, which is Koopmans' theorem. All three agree exactly at zero repulsion. The theorem always sits above the two-calculation answer, because letting the ion relax can only lower it; the exact answer sits above both, because the molecule is more correlated than its ion. The two errors have opposite signs and do not cancel: the residue grows to 6.03.

Koopmans' theorem is exact for nothing

Reading an ionisation energy off an orbital energy neglects two things that pull in opposite directions, and the cancellation between them is quoted as the reason it works. Compute all three energies in a model where the exact answer is available and the cancellation is real, partial, and gone by the time the repulsion is twice the hopping.

wrong · Photoelectron 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 correction computed at 3 bohr and used everywhere. Three binding curves for H₂⁺ in 2 Gaussians a centre: uncorrected, properly counterpoise corrected at every separation, and corrected once at 3 bohr with that value subtracted throughout. The frozen curve is the uncorrected one shifted down by a constant, so its minimum sits at 2.2270 bohr — exactly where the uncorrected minimum is, and 4.2 millibohr from where the full correction puts it. The depth moves and the structure does not.

A correction computed at one length

The counterpoise correction is expensive, so it is evaluated once at a reference geometry and subtracted across a whole potential surface. A constant does not move a minimum — so a frozen correction returns the uncorrected bond length exactly, at every reference geometry and in every basis, and everything the correction does to a structure is the part that has just been thrown away.

orbitals · Basis 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 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

Named alongside it

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

Exact diagonalisationHubbard modelModel limitCorrelation energyElectron correlationOn-site repulsionReference stateMany-electron wavefunctionsSymmetry breakingApproximationOpen-shell configurationsDouble occupancy

All concepts