2022
DOI: 10.1002/qua.26881
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Δ‐SCF calculations of core electron binding energies in first‐row transition metal atoms

Abstract: Core electron binding energies (CEBE) of nickel and copper atoms have been calculated using single‐configuration energy differences, the so‐called Δ‐self‐consistent field (Δ‐SCF) method. Basis set convergence has been examined for calculated L‐shell and M‐shell core electron binding energies, and a wide array of density functionals have been evaluated. Scalar relativistic corrections have been estimated using the popular Douglas‐Kroll‐Hess (DKH) approximation. While basis set convergence and functional depende… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…415 In several cases, Hartree-Fock theory proves to be more accurate than standard functionals that include correlation, even upon accounting for relativistic corrections. 414,416 This is consistent with other results indicating that the restricted open-shell (RO-)CIS method is a reasonable level of theory for M-and L-edge spectra of solidstate transition metal oxides, despite its lack of correlation effects, provided that spin-orbit corrections are included. 417 Resolution of this apparent paradox remains an open question.…”
Section: Examplessupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…415 In several cases, Hartree-Fock theory proves to be more accurate than standard functionals that include correlation, even upon accounting for relativistic corrections. 414,416 This is consistent with other results indicating that the restricted open-shell (RO-)CIS method is a reasonable level of theory for M-and L-edge spectra of solidstate transition metal oxides, despite its lack of correlation effects, provided that spin-orbit corrections are included. 417 Resolution of this apparent paradox remains an open question.…”
Section: Examplessupporting
confidence: 90%
“…These errors are exposed in ∆SCF calculations of core-level electron binding energies (for x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy), where many functionals afford errors 10 eV for transition metals. 414 Even the SCAN functional, which performs well for core-excited states of second-row atoms (Table 1), affords errors of ∼ 1 eV for core-level binding energies. 415 In several cases, Hartree-Fock theory proves to be more accurate than standard functionals that include correlation, even upon accounting for relativistic corrections.…”
Section: Examplesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…[25][26][27][28] In recent years, ∆SCF has been used in conjunction with maximum overlap methods for computing core excitation energies and core binding energies due to the simplicity of separately optimizing the MOs of two reference states. 29,30 For weakly correlated systems, SCF determinants are often a good approximation for the ground electronic state. The reference orbitals of a good HF wavefunction are a viable guess basis for an excited SCF calculation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25,26 In recent years, ∆SCF has been used in conjunction with maximum overlap methods for computing core excitation energies and core binding energies due to the simplicity of separately optimizing the MOs of two reference states. 27,28 Through ∆SCF, much of the orbital relaxation is accounted for-quite evidently so with core excitations. What remains to be accounted for is dynamical correlation via two (or more) particle interactions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%