Cargando…
Are Accelerated and Enhanced Wave Function Methods Accurate to Compute Static Linear and Nonlinear Optical Properties?
[Image: see text] Key components of organic-based electro-optic devices are challenging to design or optimize because they exhibit nonlinear optical responses, which are difficult to model or rationalize. Computational chemistry furnishes the tools to investigate extensive collections of molecules i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2023
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10061658/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36862983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01212 |
Sumario: | [Image: see text] Key components of organic-based electro-optic devices are challenging to design or optimize because they exhibit nonlinear optical responses, which are difficult to model or rationalize. Computational chemistry furnishes the tools to investigate extensive collections of molecules in the quest for target compounds. Among the electronic structure methods that provide static nonlinear optical properties (SNLOPs), density functional approximations (DFAs) are often preferred because of their low cost/accuracy ratio. However, the accuracy of the SNLOPs critically depends on the amount of exact exchange and electron correlation included in the DFA, precluding the reliable calculation of many molecular systems. In this scenario, wave function methods such as MP2, CCSD, and CCSD(T) constitute a reliable alternative to compute SNLOPs. Unfortunately, the computational cost of these methods significantly restricts the size of molecules to study, a limitation that hampers the identification of molecules with significant nonlinear optical responses. This paper analyzes various flavors and alternatives to MP2, CCSD, and CCSD(T) methods that either drastically reduce the computational cost or improve their performance but were scarcely and unsystematically employed to compute SNLOPs. In particular, we have tested RI-MP2, RIJK-MP2, RIJCOSX-MP2 (with GridX2 and GridX4 setups), LMP2, SCS-MP2, SOS-MP2, DLPNO-MP2, LNO-CCSD, LNO-CCSD(T), DLPNO-CCSD, DLPNO-CCSD(T0), and DLPNO-CCSD(T1). Our results indicate that all these methods can be safely employed to calculate the dipole moment and the polarizability with average relative errors below 5% with respect to CCSD(T). On the other hand, the calculation of higher-order properties represents a challenge for LNO and DLPNO methods, which present severe numerical instabilities in computing the single-point field-dependent energies. RI-MP2, RIJK-MP2, or RIJCOSX-MP2 are cost-effective methods to compute first and second hyperpolarizabilities with a marginal average error with respect to canonical MP2 (up to 5% for β and up to 11% for γ). More accurate hyperpolarizabilities can be obtained with DLPNO-CCSD(T1); however, this method cannot be employed to obtain reliable second hyperpolarizabilities. These results open the way to obtain accurate nonlinear optical properties at a computational cost that can compete with current DFAs. |
---|