4.6 Article

Distinguishing artificial and essential symmetry breaking in a single determinant: approach and application to the C60, C36, and C20 fullerenes

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 4763-4778

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8cp07613h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-ACO2-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a thorough analysis of symmetry breaking observed in Hartree-Fock (HF) solutions of the C-60, C-36, and C-20 fullerenes in order to characterize the nature of electron correlation in them. Our analysis is based on (1) the critical regularization strength to restore symmetry breaking in the recently developed regularized orbital optimized second-order MOller-Plesset perturbation theory (-OOMP2), (2) singlet-triplet gaps from various MP2 methods, and (3) natural orbital occupation numbers from restricted coupled-cluster with singles and doubles (RCCSD) and coupled-cluster valence bond with singles and doubles (CCVB-SD). Based on these three independent probes, we conclude that C-36 (D-6h) exhibits genuine strong correlation and symmetry breaking whereas C-60 exhibits artificial HF symmetry breaking and is not strongly correlated. Investigating the critical regularization strength, we discuss strong correlation in C-20 at the Jahn-Teller distorted geometries (C-2h, D-2h, C-i, and D-3h) and the I-h geometry. Only C-20 (I-h) was found to be strongly correlated while others exhibit artificial HF symmetry breaking. This analysis highlights a useful feature of the recommended -OOMP2 method. It is an electronic structure method that describes dynamic correlation, and attenuates strong correlation in MP2 towards zero by regularization. Therefore, -OOMP2 will exhibit symmetry breaking in its reference determinant only when correlation is strong (i.e., essential symmetry breaking). Artificial symmetry breaking (arising in HF due to neglect of dynamic correlation) thus appears to be removed in -OOMP2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据