Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 1868546

Self-Consistent Field Methods for Excited States in Strong Magnetic Fields: A Comparison Between Energy - and Variance-based Approaches

Also available from

Abstract

An efficient implementation of geometrical derivatives at the Hartree–Fock (HF) and current-density functional theory (CDFT) levels is presented for the study of molecular structure in strong magnetic fields. The required integral derivatives are constructed using a hybrid McMurchie–Davidson and Rys quadrature approach, which combines the amenability of the former to the evaluation of derivative integrals with the efficiency of the latter for basis sets with high angular momentum. In addition to its application to evaluating derivatives of four-center integrals, this approach is also applied to gradients using the resolution-of-the-identity approximation, enabling efficient optimization of molecular structure for many-electron systems under a strong magnetic field. The CDFT contributions have been implemented for a wide range of density functionals up to and including the meta-GGA level with current-density dependent contributions and (range-separated) hybrids for the first time. Illustrative applications are presented to the OH and benzene molecules, revealing the rich and complex chemistry induced by the presence of an external magnetic field. Challenges for geometry optimization in strong fields are highlighted, along with the requirement for careful analysis of the resulting electronic structure at each stationary point. The importance of correlation effects is examined by comparison of results at the HF and CDFT levels. The present implementation of molecular gradients at the CDFT level provides a cost-effective approach to the study of molecular structure under strong magnetic fields, opening up many new possibilities for the study of chemistry in this regime.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David, Gregoire, Irons, Tom J.P., Fouda, Adam E. A., Furness, James W., Teale, Andrew M. 2021-08-16. Self-Consistent Field Methods for Excited States in Strong Magnetic Fields: A Comparison Between Energy - and Variance-based Approaches. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00236

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Comparison of Realizations of the Terrestrial Reference Frame

IGN and DGFI both generated realizations of the terrestrial reference frame under the auspices of the IERS from combination of the same space geodetic data. We compared the IGN and DGFI TRFs with a GSFC CALC/SOLVE TRF. WRMS position and velocity differences for the 40 most frequently observed sites were 2-3 mm and 0.3-0.4 mm/year. There was a scale difference of 0.39/0.09 ppb between the IGN/DGFI realizations and the GSFC solution. When we fixed positions and velocities to either the IGN or DGFI values in CALC/SOLVE solutions, the resulting EOP estimates were not significantly different from the estimates from a standard TRF solution.

Comparison↗

Comparison of Precision of Biomass Estimates in Regional Field Sample Surveys and Airborne LiDAR-Assisted Surveys in Hedmark County, Norway

Airborne scanning LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has emerged as a promising tool to provide auxiliary data for sample surveys aiming at estimation of above-ground tree biomass (AGB), with potential applications in REDD forest monitoring. For larger geographical regions such as counties, states or nations, it is not feasible to collect airborne LiDAR data continuously ("wall-to-wall") over the entire area of interest. Two-stage cluster survey designs have therefore been demonstrated by which LiDAR data are collected along selected individual flight-lines treated as clusters and with ground plots sampled along these LiDAR swaths. Recently, analytical AGB estimators and associated variance estimators that quantify the sampling variability have been proposed. Empirical studies employing these estimators have shown a seemingly equal or even larger uncertainty of the AGB estimates obtained with extensive use of LiDAR data to support the estimation as compared to pure field-based estimates employing estimators appropriate under simple random sampling (SRS). However, comparison of uncertainty estimates under SRS and sophisticated two-stage designs is complicated by large differences in the designs and assumptions. In this study, probability-based principles to estimation and inference were followed. We assumed designs of a field sample and a LiDAR-assisted survey of Hedmark County (HC) (27,390 km2), Norway, considered to be more comparable than those assumed in previous studies. The field sample consisted of 659 systematically distributed National Forest Inventory (NFI) plots and the airborne scanning LiDAR data were collected along 53 parallel flight-lines flown over the NFI plots. We compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming SRS against corresponding estimates assuming two-phase (double) sampling with LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. We also compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming two-stage sampling (the NFI plots being grouped in clusters) against corresponding estimates assuming two-stage sampling with the LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. For each of the two comparisons, the standard errors of the AGB estimates were consistently lower for the LiDAR-assisted designs. The overall reduction of the standard errors in the LiDAR-assisted estimation was around 40-60% compared to the pure field survey. We conclude that the previously proposed two-stage model-assisted estimators are inappropriate for surveys with unequal lengths of the LiDAR flight-lines and new estimators are needed. Some options for design of LiDAR-assisted sample surveys under REDD are also discussed, which capitalize on the flexibility offered when the field survey is designed as an integrated part of the overall survey design as opposed to previous LiDAR-assisted sample surveys in the boreal and temperate zones which have been restricted by the current design of an existing NFI.

Comparison↗