Time-dependent density functional theory study of the X-ray emission spectroscopy of amino acids and proteins

Benchmarking Basis Sets for Density Functional Theory Thermochemistry Calculations: Why Unpolarized Basis Sets and the Polarized 6-311G Family Should Be Avoided

Basis sets are a crucial but often largely overlooked choice in setting up quantum chemistry calculations. The choice of the basis set can be critical in determining the accuracy and calculation time of your quantum chemistry calculations. Clear recommendations based on thorough benchmarking are essential but not readily available currently. This study investigates the relative quality of basis sets for general properties by benchmarking basis set performance for a diverse set of 139 reactions (from the diet-150-GMTKN55 data set). In our analysis, we find the distributions of errors are often significantly non-Gaussian, meaning that the joint consideration of median errors, mean absolute errors, and outlier statistics is helpful to provide a holistic understanding of basis set performance. Our direct comparison of performance between most modern basis sets provides quantitative evidence for basis set recommendations that broadly align with the established understanding of basis set experts and is evident in the design of modern basis sets. For example, while zeta is a good measure of quality, it is not the only determining factor for an accurate calculation with unpolarized double- and triple-ζ basis sets (like 6-31G and 6-311G) having very poor performance. Appropriate use of polarization functions (e.g., 6-31G*) is essential to obtain the accuracy offered by double- or triple-ζ basis sets. In our study, the best performances for double- and triple-ζ basis sets are 6-31++G** and pcseg-2, respectively. However, the performances of singly polarized double-ζ and doubly polarized triple-ζ basis sets are quite similar with one key exception: the polarized 6-311G basis set family has poor parametrization, which means its performance is more like a double-ζ than a triple-ζ basis set. All versions of the 6-311G basis set family should be avoided entirely for valence chemistry calculations moving forward.

Self-Consistent Field Methods for Excited States in Strong Magnetic Fields: a Comparison between Energy- and Variance-Based Approaches

Self-consistent field methods for excited states offer an attractive low-cost route to study not only excitation energies but also properties of excited states. Here, we present the generalization of two self-consistent field methods, the maximum overlap method (MOM) and the σ-SCF method, to calculate excited states in strong magnetic fields and investigate their stability and accuracy in this context. These methods use different strategies to overcome the well-known variational collapse of energy-based optimizations to the lowest solution of a given symmetry. The MOM tackles this problem in the definition of the orbital occupations to constrain the self-consistent field procedure to converge on excited states, while the σ-SCF method is based on the minimization of the variance instead of the energy. To overcome the high computational cost of the variance minimization, we present a new implementation of the σ-SCF method with the resolution of identity approximation, allowing the use of large basis sets, which is an important requirement for calculations in strong magnetic fields. The accuracy of these methods is assessed by comparison with the benchmark literature data for He, H₂, and CH⁺. The results reveal severe limitations of the variance-based scheme, which become more acute in large basis sets. In particular, many states are not accessible using variance optimization. Detailed analysis shows that this is a general feature of variance optimization approaches due to the masking of local minima in the optimization. In contrast, the MOM shows promising performance for computing excited states under these conditions, yielding results consistent with available benchmark data for a diverse range of electronic states.