The effects of different basis sets and computational
methods on calculated isotropic hyperfine couplings
have been investigated for a set of representative small radicals (OH,
H2O+, CN, HCN-,
FCN-, HCCH-,
CH3, CH4
+, NH2,
NO2, and H2CO+).
Particular emphasis has been placed on the performance of the
QCISD
approach, when used in combination with moderately large basis sets.
It is found that the 6-311+G(2df,p)
basis set generally gives good results and that the IGLO-III basis set
performs nearly as well. The cc-pVXZ
and aug-cc-pVXZ basis sets, on the other hand, display large and
unpredictable fluctuations in hyperfine
couplings even at the cc-pVQZ level. As noted previously, the
reason for this erroneous behavior can be
traced to the contraction of the s-shell. The error due
to the unbalanced nature of the pVXZ basis sets is
greatly reduced on going to the core-valence correlated aug-cc-pCVXZ
sets. The calculated hyperfine coupling
constants are very sensitive to changes in geometry. In turn, the
geometries of radical anion systems in
particular are sensitive to level of theory. The
6-311+G(2df,p) basis set has also been tested with
other
spin-unrestricted methods (UHF, UMP2, UQCID, and five DFT functionals),
but none of these are found to
perform comparably to QCISD. Inclusion of triple excitations
(QCISD(T)) leads to hyperfine couplings that
generally lie within 2−3 G of the QCISD results.