From m10!frisch@uunet.UU.NET Wed Jan 13 11:52:12 1993 Message-Id: <9301132205.AA14390@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 16:52:12 EST From: m10!frisch@uunet.UU.NET (Michael Frisch) Subject: Re: Cartesian vs Internal coordinates To: chemistry@ccl.net Dear All, I have always assumed that given the same starting geometry any program that has a choice as to how one enters it should (in the end) produce the same optimised final geometry. Is this true or false ? Without wishing to embarasses anyone I have at least one program genearally available where different final geometries are obtained. Any comments (apart form use internal coordinates) ? john upham John Upham, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Reading, Berks., RG6 2AD, UK. Email: scsupham%susssys1.rdg.ac.uk@uk.ac (BITnet), scsupham@rdg.susssys1 (Janet) Voice: +44 734 875123 x7441 (day), Fax: +44 734 311610 If all calculations were done to infinite precision and all geometry optimizations were continued until the forces were exactly zero, and all optimizations used analytic first AND SECOND derivatives then optimizations starting from the same structure but using different coordinate systems would go to exactly the same place. In a practical calculation, there are two major sources of differing answers: 1. Unless you do analytic second derivatives at every point in your optimization (e.g., OPT=CALCALL in Gaussian) then the optimization algorithm will start with a guess for the Hessian and update it based on the forces at each point during the optimization. Whether the initial guess for the Hessian is different for different coordinate systems but the same initial structure is program-dependant. (It differed in Gaussian 88 and earlier, but not in Gaussian 90 and 92. I can't comment on other packages.) Even if the starting Hessians are effectively the same for the two coordinate systems (e.g. are produced from cartesian force constants determined from the initial structure and converted to each of the two coordinate systems) the Hessians will be different later in the optimization, after being updated using any of the popular update methods. 2. The optimization is stopped when some convergence criteria are reached. These typically require that both the forces and estimated next step size are sufficiently small. Since the next step depends on the current approximate Hessian, a point might be considered close enough with the approximate Hessian produced by one set of coordinates and update method and not with either different coordinates or update method. (This again is not a problem if analytic second derivatives are used at every point). Also, if the test on whether the forces are small enough involves quantities such as the maximum and/or RMS values, these depend on the coordinate system, and so one point might have small enough forces to be considered optimized in one coordinate system but not another. (The resulting structures from the two optimization should be pretty close if the convergence criteria are reasonable, but coordinates might differ by a couple of times the convergence criterion if the two approximate minima located are on opposite sides of the exact minimum. Gaussian has an option Opt=Tight to make sure things are adequately converged for very flat surfaces, on which this problem is more likely to occur.) In fact, because of the differences in the Hessians, two optimizations with different coordinates started at the same point far from any minimum might fall down into different wells and to different minima. (This will not be the case if the two optimizations use analytic rather than approximated second derivatives at every point -- then every step should be the same regardless of coordinate system.) All of these considerations apply to comparing cartesian with internal coordinates and also to comparing two different sets of internal coordinates. Mike Frisch -------