Coupling Molecular Density Functional Theory with Converged Selected Configuration Interaction Methods to Study Excited states in Aqueous Solution
Abstract: This paper presents the first implementation of a coupling between advanced wave function theories and molecular density functional theory (MDFT). This method enables the modeling of solvent effect into quantum mechanical (QM) calculations by incorporating an electrostatic potential generated by solvent charges into the electronic Hamiltonian. Solvent charges are deduced from the spatially and angularly dependent solvent particle density. Such density is obtained through the minimization of the functional associated to the molecular mechanics (MM) Hamiltonian describing the interaction between the fluid particles. The introduced QM/MDFT framework belongs to QM/MM family of methods but its originality lies in the use of MDFT as the MM solver, offering two main advantages. Firstly, its functional formulation makes it competitive with respect to sampling-based molecular mechanics. Secondly, it preserves a molecular-level description lost in macroscopic continuum approaches. Excited states properties of water and formaldehyde molecules solvated into water have been computed at the selected configuration interaction (SCI) level. Excitation energies and dipole moment have been compared with experimental data and previous theoretical work. A key finding is that using the Hartree-Fock method to describe the solute allows for predicting the solvent charge around the ground-state with sufficient precision for the subsequent SCI calculations of excited-states. This significantly reduces the computational cost of the described procedure, paving the way for the study of more complex molecules.
- E. D. Hughes and C. K. Ingold, J Chem Soc , 244 (1935).
- V. G. Machado and C. Machado, Journal of Chemical Education 78, 649 (2001).
- P. L. Silvestrelli and M. Parrinello, Phys Rev Lett 82, 3308 (1999).
- H. Lin and D. G. Truhlar, Theor Chem Acc 117, 185 (2007).
- N. D. Mermin, Physical Review 137, A1441 (1965).
- R. Evans, Advances in Physics 28, 143 (1979).
- J. Lischner and T. A. Arias, Physical Review B 84, 125143 (2011).
- M. Karelson and M. C. Zerner, J Am Chem Soc 112, 9405 (1990).
- M. M. Karelson and M. C. Zerner, J Phys Chem 96, 6949 (1992).
- J. Tomasi and M. Persico, Chem Rev 94, 2027 (1994).
- M. Cossi and V. Barone, J Chem Phys 112, 2427 (2000).
- P. Bandyopadhyay and M. S. Gordon, J Chem Phys 113, 1104 (2000).
- J.-L. Fattebert and F. Gygi, J Comput Chem 23, 662 (2002a).
- J.-L. Fattebert and F. Gygi, Int J Quantum Chem 93, 139 (2003).
- J. B. Schriber and F. A. Evangelista, J Chem Theory Comput 13, 5354 (2017).
- M. Caricato, J Chem Phys 139 (2013), 10.1063/1.4816482.
- D. Frenkel and B. Smit, Understanding molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications, second edition ed. (Academic Press, 2002).
- J.-P. Hansen and I. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids, Third Edition, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, 2006).
- Freindorf Marek and Gao Jiali, Journal of Computational Chemistry 17, 386 (1998).
- L. Belloni, The Journal of Chemical Physics 147, 164121 (2017).
- J.-L. Fattebert and F. Gygi, Journal of Computational Chemistry 23, 662 (2002b), _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.10069.
- J. A. Rackers and J. W. Ponder, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 084104 (2019).
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.