Implementation of density matrix tight-binding (PTB) for quantum crystallographic refinement in NoSpherA2

Ben Ebel, Daniel Brüx, Florian Kleemiss

Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, RWTH Aachen University, Landoltweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
e-mail: ben.ebel@ac.rwth-aachen.de

The computational cost associated with simulations of large or electron-rich systems, coupled with the potential for an unlimited number of combinations for the chosen level of theory, presents a significant challenge to the adoption of quantum crystallographic refinement as a standard refinement tool. A possibility to improve computational time, without sacrificing much accuracy is the use of semiempirical methods, which use empirical parameters to approximate the ab-initio approach. One method is the tight-binding (TB) approach[1], which assumes that electrons are tightly bound to the core instead of acting as a free electron gas, an assumption quite suitable for molecular crystals. Energetic contributions of a given chemical system are split into approximate contributions leading to a large decrease in computational steps. Errors from this are then accounted for through empirical parameters introduced in the method.

Comparison of the different methods for Co110[8] (Level: 0.330 eÅ^-3).

PTB[2] is a method developed by Grimme et al. to reproduce the density matrix P of the high-level range-separated hybrid density functional with an integrated double ξ basis set ωB97X-3c[3]. This matrix can then be partitioned into atomic contributions e.g. using Hirshfeld’s stockholder partition scheme to yield more accurate non-spherical atomic form factors[4–6]. We herein present the implementation of the method into NoSpherA2[7], the non-spherical refinement suite within Olex2[8] and present first results.

References:

[1] M. Elstner, G. Seifert, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014, 372, 20120483.

[2] S. Grimme, M. Müller, A. Hansen, J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 124111.

[3] M. Müller, A. Hansen, S. Grimme, J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 014103.

[4] F. L. Hirshfeld, Isr. J. Chem. 1977, 16, 198–201.

[5] D. Jayatilaka, B. Dittrich, Acta Cryst A 2008, A64, 383–393.

[6] S. C. Capelli, H.-B. Bürgi, et.al, IUCrJ 2014, 1, 361–379.

[7] F. Kleemiss, O. V. Dolomanov, et.al., Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 1675–1692.

[8] O. V. Dolomanov, L. J. Bourhis, R. J. Gildea, et.al., J. Appl. Cryst. 2009, 42, 339–341.

Related Posts

X-ray restrained/constrained wave function: milestones and perspectives

Today, the X-ray restrained wavefunction (XRW) method (also known as X-ray constrained wavefunction (XCW) approach) stands as one of the cornerstone techniques in modern quantum crystallography. First introduced by Dylan Jayatilaka in 1998, the strategy has undergone a steady and continuous methodological development…

Read More

Quantum crystallography and NMR crystallography

A weakness of current NMR crystallography for organic solids is the relatively poor positioning of H by independent atom modelling in XRD refinement. In order to obtain reasonable agreement with NMR data

Read More
Hirshfeld Atom Refinement for Spin State Investigations on Transition Metal Complexes

Hirshfeld Atom Refinement for Spin State Investigations on Transition Metal Complexes

The spin states of transition metal complexes have been extensively studied using both theoretical and analytical methods. Here, we demonstrate an alternative method utilising Hirshfeld Atom Refinement…

Read More