From:	Ulrike Salzner <salzner()at()feryal.fen.bilkent.edu.tr>
Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:52:40 +0300 (EET)
Subject:	Re: CCL:DFT MO energies

Dear Georg,
I have testet DFT orbital energies for some small and medium sized
organic systems with pi-bonds (acetylene oligomers, thiophene monomer
through trimer, pyrrole and similar systems). There are significant
differences between LSDA and hybrid methods. The paper will soon appear
in the Journal of Computational Chemistry.

 To summarize: The IPs (negative HOMO energies) are closer to experiment
with hybrid functionals than at LSDA. The P86 correlation functional
seems to work better than the LYP correlation functional. All IPs with
DFT are smaller than experimental values (about 0.5 - 1 eV) and smaller than
at HF with the same basis set which are quite close to experiment. In my
limited data set it looks like there is little depenedence of the quality
of IP on the size of the system.

 The negative LUMO energies used as EAs are by far superior with all DFT
methods than with HF. LSDA works slightly better than hybrid
functionals. Again the P86 correlation functional works better than LYP.
I obtained the "experimental EAs" using experimental IPs and excitation
energies. So they have to be treated with some caution. It looks like the
agreement improves as the systems get larger. But the data are more than
insecure.

According to this, DFT corrects for the main deficiency of HF theory and
brings the LUMO down. I reasoned that this must have to do with the error
in the Coulomb terms in HF which seems to be absent in DFT. I was pleased
to see that Baerends et al. came to a similar conclusion in their feature
article in J. Phys. Chem.

 The main error in DFT seems to be due to the IP and not to the EA. Taking the
difference between the two, I got very nice excitation energies. These
improve as the systems get larger. The agreement is pretty poor for
monomers but with trimers of purrole and thiophene the excitation
energies become good.

I also tried what happens when the weight of the HF exchange is
increased. I got the best HOMO-LUMO gaps with 30% HF exchange instead of
20%. Geometries were not changed by this. For ethylene I increased the HF
exchange stepwise up to 100%. There is no convergence. With 100% HF
exchange the gap is as bad as with HF but the orbital levels are shifted
compared to those at HF. So all this fudging is empirical and can - at
least for now - not be put on solid theoretical ground.

As for my personel interest in the band gaps of conducting polymers this
is good enough. Needless to say that I had major problems to publish
this. It took 1 1/2 years and one reviewer said it was not interesting
enough for rapid publication.  But the first paper is in press now as
mentioned above. There will be two more papers extending these findings
to band gaps of polymers by extrapolation. These are submitted to J.
Phys. Chem. and Synth. Met. Maybe in two years you can read them.

By the way. You're right I am German. I keep writing in English so more
people can read it.

 Cheers,

Dr. Ulrike Salzner
e-mail: salzner %! at !% fen.bilkent.edu.tr
Tel.: (312) 2664000 ext.2122

Department of Chemistry
Bilkent University
06533 Bilkent, Ankara
Turkey

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Georg Schreckenbach wrote:

> Dear CCL readers,
>
> is anybody aware of papers that study DFT orbital energies?
> More precisely, I would like to learn how those orbital energies
> (Kohn-Sham eigenvalues) are different in hybrid methods like
> B3LYP as compared to GGAs like BP86 or PW91, or also as
> compared to the LDA. If there are systematic differences (which
> I am sure is the case) then I would like to know how they can
> be understood.
>     There was recently some discussion on the
> list about the possible physical meaning of the Kohn-Sham
> eigenvalues. While this is an interesting subject in itself,
> it is, this time, *not* my question.
>
> Best regards, Georg
>
> P.S. I will summarize to the CCL as usual.
>
> --
> Dr. Georg Schreckenbach           Tel:     (USA)-505-667 7605
> Theoretical Chemistry T-12        FAX:     (USA)-505-665 3909
> M.S. B268, Los Alamos National      E-mail:  schrecke \\at// t12.lanl.gov
> Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545, USA
> Internet:    http://www.t12.lanl.gov/~schrecke/
>
>
>
> -------This is added Automatically by the Software--------
> -- Original Sender Envelope Address: schrecke $#at#$ t12.lanl.gov
> -- Original Sender From: Address: schrecke $#at#$ t12.lanl.gov
> CHEMISTRY(-(at)-)www.ccl.net: Everybody | CHEMISTRY-REQUEST(-(at)-)www.ccl.net:
Coordinator
> MAILSERV &$at$& www.ccl.net: HELP CHEMISTRY or HELP SEARCH | Gopher:
www.ccl.net 73
> Anon. ftp: www.ccl.net   | CHEMISTRY-SEARCH.,at,.www.ccl.net -- archive search
>              Web: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry.html
>
>


Similar Messages
10/15/1997:  summary: DFT MO energies
10/10/1997:  DFT MO energies
05/03/1995:  Summary: DFT functionals
02/14/1995:  Warning - possibly undelivered mail.
08/01/1996:  Re: CCL:M:Heat of formation calculation using MOPAC.
06/08/1993:  undergrad computational chem
05/15/1997:  Re: CCL:G:Summary: Chemical Softness by DFT 
10/01/1993:  torsion of conjugated systems -- summary
03/27/1996:  meaning of eigenvalues in dft
05/08/1995:  AM1 vs. PM3


Raw Message Text