PTEROSOR/sfBSE
10
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

blablabla

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
EnzoMonino 2021-01-14 15:12:27 +01:00
parent e13c8c5766
commit 4ecf3f7cff
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
Manuscript/sfBSE.tex
View File

@ -755,6 +755,8 @@ In the left part of Fig.~\ref{fig:Be} we have results for the SF-TD-DFT, where f
\subsection{Hydrogen molecule}
\label{sec:H2}
%===============================
BLABLABLA
The second system of interest is the \ce{H2} molecule where we stretch the bond. The ground state of the \ce{H2} molecule is a singlet with $(1\sigma_g)^2$ configuration. Three excited states are investigated during the stretching: the singly excited state B${}^1 \Sigma_u^+$ with $(1\sigma_g )~ (1\sigma_u)$ configuration, the singly excited state E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ with $(1\sigma_g )~ (2\sigma_g)$ configuration and the doubly excited state F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ with $(1\sigma_u )~ (1\sigma_u)$ configuration. Three methods with and without spin-flip are used to study these states. These methods are CIS, TD-BHHLYP and BSE and are compared to the reference, here the EOM-CCSD method. %that is equivalent to the FCI for the \ce{H2} molecule.
Left panel of Fig ~\ref{fig:H2} shows results of the CIS calculation with and without spin-flip. We can observe that both SF-CIS and CIS poorly describe the B${}^1 \Sigma_u^+$ state, especially at the dissociation limit with an error of more than 1 eV. The same analysis can be done for the F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state at the dissociation limit. EOM-CSSD curves show us an avoided crossing between the E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ and F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ states due to their same symmetry. SF-CIS does not represent well the E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state before the avoided crossing. But the E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state is well describe after this avoided crossing. SF-CIS describes better the F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state before the avoided crossing than at the dissociation limit. In general, SF-CIS does not give a good description of the double excitation. As expected CIS does not find the double excitation to the F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state. The rigth panel gives results of the TD-BHHLYP calculation with and without spin-flip. TD-BHHLYP shows bad results for all the states of interest with and without spin-flip. Indeed, for the three states we have a difference in the excitation energy at the dissociation limit of several eV with and without spin-flip.
In the last panel we have results for BSE calculation with and without spin-flip. SF-BSE gives a good representation of the B${}^1 \Sigma_u^+$ state with error of 0.05-0.3 eV. However SF-BSE does not describe well the E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state with error of 0.5-1.6 eV. SF-BSE shows a good agreement with the EOM-CCSD reference for the double excitation to the F${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state, indeed we have an error of 0.008-0.6 eV. BSE results for the B${}^1 \Sigma_u^+$ state are close to the reference until 2.0 \AA and the give bad agreement for the dissociation limit. For the E${}^1 \Sigma_g^+$ state BSE gives closer results to the reference than SF-BSE. However BSE does not retrieve the double excitation as it was pointed out in the theoretical section.