Antonio Prlj1, María Eugenia Sandoval-Salinas2, David Casanova2,3, Denis Jacquemin4,5, Clémence Corminboeuf1. 1. Institut des Sciences et Ingénierie Chimiques, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne , CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Kimika Fakultatea, Euskal Herriko Unibersitatea & Donostia International Physics Center, Paseo Manuel de Lardiazabal, 4, 20018 Donostia, Spain. 3. IKERBASQUE - Basque Foundation for Science, 48013 Bilbao, Spain. 4. Chimie Et Interdisciplinarité, Synthèse, Analyse, Modélisation (CEISAM), UMR CNRS 6320, BP 92208, Université de Nantes , 2, Rue de la Houssinière, 44322 Nantes Cedex 3, France. 5. Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), 1 rue Descartes, 75005 Paris Cedex 05, France.
Abstract
The description of low-lying ππ* states of linear acenes by standard electronic structure methods is known to be challenging. Here, we broaden the framework of this problem by considering a set of fused heteroaromatic rings and demonstrate that standard electronic structure methods do not provide a balanced description of the two (typically) lowest singlet state (La and Lb) excitations. While the Lb state is highly sensitive to correlation effects, La suffers from the same drawbacks as charge transfer excitations. We show that the comparison between CIS/CIS(D) can serve as a diagnostic for detecting the two problematic excited states. Standard TD-DFT and even its spin-flip variant lead to inaccurate excitation energies and interstate gaps, with only a double hybrid functional performing somewhat better. The complication inherent to a balanced description of these states is so important that even CC2 and ADC(2) do not necessarily match the ADC(3) reference.
The description of low-lying ππ* states of linear acenes by standard electronic structure methods is known to be challenging. Here, we broaden the framework of this problem by considering a set of fused heteroaromatic rings and demonstrate that standard electronic structure methods do not provide a balanced description of the two (typically) lowest singlet state (La and Lb) excitations. While the Lb state is highly sensitive to correlation effects, La suffers from the same drawbacks as charge transfer excitations. We show that the comparison between CIS/CIS(D) can serve as a diagnostic for detecting the two problematic excited states. Standard TD-DFT and even its spin-flip variant lead to inaccurate excitation energies and interstate gaps, with only a double hybrid functional performing somewhat better. The complication inherent to a balanced description of these states is so important that even CC2 and ADC(2) do not necessarily match the ADC(3) reference.
The extensive computational
investigations of (hetero)aromatic
systems were prompted by the importance and broad applications of
these compounds in organic electronics. In particular, the investigations
of electronically excited states with theoretical tools should allow
not only an in-depth understanding of the properties of known molecules
but also the efficient design of new compounds. In this context, time-dependent
density functional theory (TD-DFT)[1,2] within its
standard approximations (i.e., the linear-response, adiabatic approximation)
has become the primary framework,[3] mainly
due to its good compromise between accuracy and computational efficiency.
Out of the many distinct types of molecular excitations present in
conjugated molecules, local ππ* states (with prevailing
single excitation character) are typically considered as the least
problematic for TD-DFT. In π-conjugated systems, these states
are of great relevance for both absorption and emission properties,[4−7] and they play a major role in determining available decay channels.[8−11]Despite the general reliability of TD-DFT, several investigations
uncovered sizable errors in the description of low-lying ππ*
states of fairly simple organic compounds. For instance, in 2001 Grimme
et al.[12] reported an imbalanced description
of the two lowest singlet states of oligoacenes, La and
Lb. The La and Lb notation[13] was originally introduced for polycyclic alternant
hydrocarbons with La corresponding to the bright state
of dominant HOMO → LUMO character and Lb corresponding
to the dark state encompassing nearly equal contributions from the
HOMO–1 → LUMO and HOMO → LUMO+1 transitions.
The low oscillator strength of the Lb state was explained
by the cancellation of the transition dipole moments associated with
these two contributions.[14] As emphasized
in ref (12), the La excitations are significantly underestimated by standard
local and semilocal functionals (such as the popular PBE[15] and B3LYP[16]), with
a state order inversion in the case of naphthalene and a large excitation
energy downshift for larger acenes. Due to the fundamental importance
of oligoacenes, the conundrum has gained significant interest in the
literature.[5,17−31] Large improvements of the La excitation energies were
later reported with the use of range-separated hybrid functionals,[19−21,24] however at the expense of deteriorating
the Lb excitation energy values.[21] The difficulty to provide a balanced description was attributed
to the significant impact of contributions from double-excitation
(mainly for Lb), that cannot be properly described with
the standard adiabatic TD-DFT implementations.[25] Therefore, the La-Lb problem originates
from the description of both states. Indole (a building block of tryptophan
amino acid) and several structurally related compounds were found
to behave similarly.[32−34] Indeed, it was shown[33] that both hybrid and meta-GGA functionals predict
a wrong ordering of the La and Lb ππ*
states, whereas range-separated hybrid functionals, despite providing
a qualitatively correct ordering of the states, predict much too small
energy gaps compared to the experimental values. The inversion of
the La and Lb states was also spotted for 9H-adenine[35] by comparing TD-DFT estimates to high level
reference values obtained with wave function-based approaches, such
asEOM-CCSD(T)[36] (equation of motion-coupled
cluster singles and doubles with perturbative triples) or CASPT2[37] (complete active space second-order perturbation
theory), even though the ambiguity still remains in this case.[35] More recently, two of us have unraveled similar
discrepancies for the low-lying ππ* states of thiophene
and thienoacenes,[38] which constitute popular
building blocks in organic electronics. Regardless of the exchange-correlation
functional used, we found not only a spurious state inversion but
also a wrong distribution of oscillator strengths and erroneous potential
energy surfaces. In contrast to TD-DFT, the performances of the several
correlated single reference methods including contributions from double
excitations such as CC2[39] (approximate
coupled cluster singles and doubles) and ADC(2)[40] (algebraic diagrammatic construction up to second-order)
were found rather satisfying.[10,38]The present contribution
explores La- and Lb-like excitations in a large
and diverse set of fused aromatic and
heteroaromatic compounds (Scheme ). These are typically the lowest ππ* excited
states in the spectrum and are consequently of huge chemical and physical
relevance. In contrast to earlier case studies, dealing mostly with
oligoacenes and occasionally with specific compounds relevant to applications,
here we generalize the problem to a broader class of heteroaromatic
molecules and propose a simple diagnostic for identifying these challenging
excited states. Our objective is to pinpoint the excited state methods
providing a properly balanced description of the two states. We critically
examine the performance of standard TD-DFT, using several functionals
and wave function based approaches (ADC(2) and CC2) as well as nonstandard
TD-DFT based (spin flip (SF),[41] double
hybrid[42]) methods, that are all likely
to be used for “real-life” applications due to their
reasonable computational costs. The paper is organized as follows.
In Section , we provide
computational details. In Section , the naphthalene example is used as an illustrative
case, followed by the examination of three exemplary heteroaromatic
systems and the overall analysis of the excitation energy trends for
ten different compounds. Concluding remarks are given in Section .
Scheme 1
Investigated Heteroaromatic
Compounds
Computational
Details
The optimized structures and corresponding transition
energies
are listed in the Supporting Information (SI). If not stated otherwise, the aug-cc-pVTZ[43] atomic basis set was used throughout.Ground state geometries were optimized at the MP2 level (employing
the resolution of identity, RI)[44] using
the Turbomole 6.5 package.[45] Excited state
computations with TD-DFT (PBE and PBE0[46] functionals), CC2, and ADC(2) (which can be seen as an approximation
to CC2)[47] were performed with Turbomole
6.5. The latter two methods were employed using the frozen core approximation
and the RI approach (with an auxiliary aug-cc-pVTZ
basis set taken from the Turbomole library).[48]TD-DFT computations with the M06-2X,[49] M06-HF,[50] BHHLYP,[51,52] ωB97X-D,[53] and LC-PBE*[54] functionals, as well asTD-HF calculations,[55] were performed with Gaussian09 (version D.01).[56] For both M06-2X and M06-HF, the ultrafine integration grid was employed to ensure numerical stability. Note
that the long-range corrected LC-PBE functional was optimally tuned
(here notation LC-PBE*) according to the nonempirical procedure described
in ref (57). As such,
the range separation parameter γ was optimized to minimize the
function |εHγ(N)+IPγ(N)| + |εHγ(N+1)+IPγ(N+1)|, where εHγ is the
energy of the HOMO orbital and IPγ is the vertical
ionization potential of the neutral (N) and anionic
(N+1) system, N being the number
of electrons. For those systems (I, III, VI, VIII, and IX in Scheme ) where the HOMO
level of the anion was close to zero or positive (indicating an unbound
electron), the tuning was solely based on the HOMO of the neutral
system, i.e., the function |εHγ(N)+IPγ(N)| was minimized
by varying γ. For some systems, the default SCF convergence
parameters led to higher energy solutions for the cation, typically
resulting in large IPs and large optimal γ values. The Stable
= Opt approach implemented in Gaussian was then used to ensure the
convergence to the lower energy solution.CIS/CIS(D)[58] and B2LYP/B2PLYP[42] (within the Tamm-Dancoff approximation[59]) computations were performed with the Orca 3.0.2
software.[60] Here B2LYP denotes a global
hybrid functional (53% of exact exchange) that is underlying the B2PLYP
double hybrid.In addition, low-lying transitions were computed
with the spin-flip
(SF) version of TD-DFT (SF-DFT)[41] in combination
with BHHLYP,[51,52] i.e., SF-BHHLYP.[41] Excitation energies were also computed with the algebraic
diagrammatic construction up to third-order (ADC(3)).[61] Due to the steep computational scaling of this method (M6) and large memory requirements (M4), where M is the number of basis functions,
the ADC(3) computations were converged with a smaller aug-cc-pVDZ[43] atomic basis set. To obtain
our ADC(3) best estimates, basis set corrections based on ADC(2) computations
(i.e., E(aug-cc-pVTZ)-E(aug-cc-pVDZ))
were added to the ADC(3)/aug-cc-pVDZ values. Due
to the generally weak basis set dependence of the ππ*
states, these ADC(3) best estimates are expected to be close to the
actual ADC(3)/aug-cc-pVTZ values. SF-BHHLYP and ADC(3)
computations were performed with the Q-Chem 4.3 package.[62]The spectral simulations of acridine (compound
VII in Scheme ) were
performed
with the Newton-X package.[63] The nuclear
configurations used for the spectral simulations were sampled by an
uncorrelated Wigner distribution[64,65] in the ground
state (the Hessian was obtained by reoptimizing the structure at the
PBE0/aug-cc-pVDZ[43] level
with the Turbomole package). 200 structures were taken, and the vertical
excitation energies and oscillator strengths were computed at both
the TD-PBE0 and ADC(2) levels using the aug-cc-pVDZ
atomic basis set. The transitions were broadened by a Lorentzian using
a phenomenological width of 0.05 eV.
Results
and Discussion
The Case of Naphthalene
La and
Lb States
We selected naphthalene, an intensively
studied example, to serve as a prototype example for the excitation
energy trends found in fused (hetero)aromatic compounds. Naphthalene
allows for the illustration of the major issues regarding the imbalanced
description of the two lowest ππ* states. First, let us
provide an overview of the main conclusions raised in the literature.
Although most of the qualitative results shown in Figure have been described previously,[12,19−21,24,25] they were recomputed here to minimize the impact of using different
ground state geometries and diverse atomic basis sets. Additional
insights are also obtained from the CIS/CIS(D), SF-BHHLYP, and ADC(3)
results.
Figure 2
Computed
excitation energies of the La (red) and Lb (blue)
excited states of a) acridine, b) 3,1,3-benzooxadiazole,
and c) benzo[2,1-b:3,4-b′]dithiophene
with the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set; see Computational Details for ADC(3).
As pointed out in Grimme’s seminal study,[12] local and semilocal functionals such as PBE
(generalized gradient approximation, GGA functional, 0% of exact exchange)
and PBE0 (global hybrid functional, 25% of exact exchange) severely
underestimate the La excitation energies and provide incorrect
state ordering (left, Figure ). As a side note, we remind that some improvements were reported
when Tamm-Dancoff approximation (TDA) was used (it fixes the state
order when combined with PBE0 although the energy gap remains rather
inaccurate).[66] While TDA was found beneficial
in some studies,[26,66,67] in others the improvements were attributed to a fortuitous cancellation
of errors.[21] We will return to TDA later
in the text. The inclusion of a larger portion of exact exchange as
in M06-2X (meta-GGA hybrid, 54% of exact exchange) or in range-separated
hybrid functionals such as ωB97X-D and LC-PBE* not only upshifts
the HOMO → LUMO (La) state toward the reference
value but also overshoots the energy of the Lb state. Consistently
with its accurate description by range-separated functionals, the
La state shows some similarities with charge transfer states
and was called “charge transfer in disguise”[21] or “charge transfer-like excitation”.[24] Nevertheless, according to standard analysis
tools, such as the Tozer Λ diagnostic based on the overlap between
the MOs,[19] there is no net charge transfer,[21] and both states can be characterized as local
ππ* excitations. Alternatively, the valence bond picture
describes La and Lb as ionic and covalent states,
respectively.[17,68] The CIS/CIS(D) excitation energies
bring up a relevant trend. Unlike La, the Lb state is highly sensitive to the differential correlation effects
introduced by the perturbative correction for contribution from double
excitations. We note that, in contrast, the CASSCF analysis of the
Lb state wave function shows the dominant contributions
from single excitations,[68] but it still
misses important contributions from the dynamic correlation. A more
detailed analysis with a high level post-Hartree–Fock method
(CC3, coupled cluster singles, doubles, and triples[69]) reveals 15% of nonsingles, compared to the 10% in La.[5] Therefore, it is not surprising
that the description of the Lb state is rather problematic
at the TD-DFT level. This issue was already recognized by Grimme et
al.[25] who applied double hybrid functionals
to the series of linear and nonlinear acenes, obtaining significant
improvements over standard TD-DFT computations. As shown in Figure , B2PLYP indeed produces
excitation energies comparable to correlated single reference methods
with explicit contributions from the doubles, such as CC2 and ADC(2).
Figure 1
Computed
excitation energies of the La (red) and Lb (blue)
excited states of naphthalene compared to the experimental
estimates taken from ref (12). The aug-cc-pVTZ basis set was used; see Computational Details for ADC(3).
Computed
excitation energies of the La (red) and Lb (blue)
excited states of naphthalene compared to the experimental
estimates taken from ref (12). The aug-cc-pVTZ basis set was used; see Computational Details for ADC(3).While SF-BHHLYP provides a rather balanced description
of the La/Lb states in naphthalene, these results
deserve
a closer analysis. The transition energy to La is slightly
overestimated. On the other hand, SF-BHHLYP underestimates the Lb energy, i.e., it shows the behavior opposite compared to
TD-DFT when similar exchange-correlation functionals are used. To
understand this difference, one should stress that the SF excitation
scheme is best suited for the study of small HOMO to LUMO gaps and
for the computation of states with the main contributions coming from
HOMO → LUMO and (HOMO)2→ (LUMO)2 transitions. Although other electronic transitions can be computed
with SF-DFT, the final expression for these states is not spin complete.[70] This is precisely the situation for the Lb state, for which SF-BHHLYP generates a broken-symmetry solution,
that is, the mixing between the singlet and triplet Lb states.Regarding the experimental values, it is important to note that
as the computed vertical excitation energies are not experimental
observables, they should not be compared to the experimental band
maxima directly but preferably to the results obtained with higher
levels of theory.[71] The experimental estimates
of vertical excitation energies shown in Figure were back corrected[12] from the accurate measures of adiabatic excitation energies. The
resulting energies values (4.13 eV for Lb and 4.66 eV for
La) compare very well with our ADC(3) estimates (4.11 eV
for Lb, 4.70 eV for La) as well as with earlier
CASPT2 computations (4.03[72]/4.24[5]/4.06[73]eV for Lb, 4.56[72]/4.77[5]/4.49[73] eV for La).
Predictions from other high level methods include CR-EOM-CCSD(T) (4.13
eV for Lb and 4.79 eV for La)[23] and CC3 (4.27 eV for Lb and 5.03 eV for La; a triple-ζ atomic basis set with no diffuse functions
was used).[5] Despite some spread of excitation
energies, each of these methods predict relatively large interstate
gaps, which is not the case for the lower level methods. Overall,
TD-DFT energies are clearly dependent upon the extent of exact exchange,
but none of the functionals provides a simultaneous good description
of both states. Moderate improvements are achieved with wave function
based (ADC(2), CC2) and more sophisticated TD-DFT based (double hybrid,
spin flip) methods, but even these results suffer from significant
errors. In the upcoming sections, we rely on ADC(3) reference values
to evaluate the systematic shortcomings of different excited state
methods on a larger number of heteroaromatic compounds. However, given
the variations observed among high-level methods (as evident from
the naptahlene example), we will restrict the forthcoming discussions
to large quantitative deviations (i.e., > 0.2 eV) as well as clear
trends.
Criteria for La- and Lb-like States
A preliminary step necessary for the assessment
of the performances of the different excited state methods is to distinguish
the two states (i.e., La- and Lb-like states)
on the set of small and middle sized fused heteroaromatic systems.
However, the definition of such states in terms of quasiparticle levels
appears somewhat arbitrary, as in practice orbitals obtained from
Hartree–Fock or generalized Kohn–Sham methods may be
largely distorted when large and diffuse basis sets are used, giving
rise to multiple contributions of orbital excitations with sizable
coefficients.[74] This is why we relied on
natural transition orbitals (NTO) to distinguish between the states
(see the SI; also note that the NTO analysis
is rather qualitative due to the neglect of correlation effects, the
proper treatment of which is important for excitation energies and
excited state properties). La is typically well described
by a single pair of NTO, while Lb consists of two major
configurations, which generally do not have equal weights. Also, in
contrast to the oligoacenes, the Lb-like state can have
oscillator strength as large as, or even larger than, the corresponding
La state. Compounds with permanent dipole moment are characterized
by a Lb state presenting a dipole of a magnitude similar
to its ground state counterpart, while the values for the “ionic”
La are typically larger (the exceptions are compounds VII
and IX due to the more symmetric charge distribution).The patterns
of the La and Lb states for the set of Scheme are less systematic
than in the oligoacene series. The presence of heteroatom(s) induces
some variations on the nature of the ππ* transitions,
such as character mixing with nearby πσ* and nπ*
states, or between the La and Lb states.[34] For compound VIII, a moiety frequently found
in organic electronics, there is even an ambiguity in determining
the character of La and Lb since both states
belong to the same irreducible representation and, therefore, mix
(see the SI for the assignment used herein).
Three Illustrative Compounds
Figure provides
the detailed analysis of three individual cases, e.g.,
acridine, 2,1,3-benzooxadiazole, and benzo[2,1-b:3,4-b′]dithiophene (respectively VII, V, and IX in Scheme ), that manifest
the problem illustrated for naphthalene. The reference ADC(3) relative
and absolute excitation energies of La and Lb differ significantly in these three compounds, which makes them
interesting study cases. In particular, IX and V possess their lowest
lying states at a similar energy and a similar energy gap, but the
state ordering is reversed. In VII, both states are computed to be
nearly degenerate at the ADC(3) level. As can be seen in Figure , the three distinct
functionals, PBE, PBE0, and ωB97X-D, fail to reproduce both
the absolute excitation energies and the excitation energy gaps predicted
by ADC(3). There is a characteristic dependence of excitation energies
on the amount of exact exchange, with a similar upshift for both La and Lb. For the three systems, ωB97X-D predicts
the La state very close to ADC(3), illustrating its remarkable
performance for states of dominant HOMO → LUMO character. On
the other hand, the same functional severely overestimates Lb (0.3 to 0.5 eV). The comparison between CIS and CIS(D) uncovers
an essential trend: the perturbative double correction has a large
impact on on Lb but a much smaller impact on La. Considering the significant double excitation character of Lb, the apparent “good” performance of PBE and
PBE0 for this state is most probably fortuitous. The double hybrid,
B2PLYP, which incorporates a CIS(D)-like correction, improves upon
standard TD-DFT and provides excitation energies comparable to ADC(2).
Alternatively, the SF-BHHLYP results are rather unsatisfactory due
to the dramatic underestimation of the Lb excitation energy
and the inconsistent description of La. Finally, ADC(2)
(and similarly CC2), although being the closest to the reference,
shows some lack of systematic behavior. Both La and Lb are slightly overestimated, though the trends are not perfectly
equivalent for all compounds. While Lb is overestimated
for VII, La is too high in V, whereas in IX the energy
gap of ADC(3) is well reproduced due to the similar upshift for both
states. In fact, this clearly shows that ADC(2)/CC2 might not be a
sufficiently accurate benchmark to assess the quality of TD-DFT as
already discerned in previous benchmark studies.[5,75] Along
this line, the performance of range-separated hybrid functionals might
be even superior for excited states of HOMO → LUMO character.Computed
excitation energies of the La (red) and Lb (blue)
excited states of a) acridine, b) 3,1,3-benzooxadiazole,
and c) benzo[2,1-b:3,4-b′]dithiophene
with the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set; see Computational Details for ADC(3).To further demonstrate that the discrepancies shown in Figure have a major impact
on the theoretical prediction of absorption properties, we computed
the absorption spectra of acridine at two illustrative levels (Figure ). Unlike anthracene,
which has an optically dark Lb state, the oscillator strength
of Lb in the widely used acridine dye is similar to La. Because of the large gap between the two states, PBE0 predicts
two distinct peaks, while ADC(2) predicts two overlapping peaks, which
is consistent with the experiment.[76]
Figure 3
Photoabsorption
spectra of acridine computed from the Wigner distribution,
employing PBE0 and ADC(2) combined with aug-cc-pVDZ.
Photoabsorption
spectra of acridine computed from the Wigner distribution,
employing PBE0 and ADC(2) combined with aug-cc-pVDZ.
Statistical
Analysis of Excitation Energy
Trends
The mean signed deviation for each excited state method
(Figure ) best illustrates
the overall performances and general trends associated with the set
of compounds represented in Scheme . The corresponding mean absolute deviations can be
found in the SI. In line with the individual
molecular cases, the most striking feature is the difference between
CIS and CIS(D). CIS severely overestimates the excitation energies
of both La and Lb, and the Lb state
energy goes down by a large amount (ca. 0.8 eV) when including the
correction for the contribution of the doubles. In contrast, La is rather constant. Given that this effect is characteristic
for all the investigated compounds, the CIS/CIS(D) computations ideally
serve as a simple diagnostic for identifying the La- and
Lb-like states in real life applications: the excitation
energies of Lb states are much more sensitive to the dynamical
correlation effects, that are absent in CIS. In addition, the overestimation
of the ionic La state is rationalized by the well-documented
CIS large positive bias for charge transfer states.[77] The introduction of the second order perturbative corrections
clearly improves the description but remains insufficient to provide
well-balanced excitation energies. A more balanced picture is achieved
with CC2 and ADC(2). The two methods give practically the same energies
in line with earlier studies.[78,79] The averaged overestimations
of both the La and Lb states are around 0.15
and 0.20 eV, respectively, indicating the reliability of both methods
for practical applications on medium-sized organic molecules. Nevertheless,
the shifts of each state are not systematic (see for instance the
naphthalene example in Figure , where La is well positioned but Lb is overestimated, and the irregular deviations for the individual
compounds in Figure ), and the similar mean signed deviation for the two states are somewhat
misleading. These scattered results illustrate that the treatment
of correlation is still incomplete in ADC(2) and CC2. The correlation
effects are albeit crucial (as it is apparent from CIS results) to
obtain accurate energies for both states.
Figure 4
Mean signed deviations
of the La (red) and Lb (blue) states of compounds
in Scheme obtained
by comparison of a) wave function and b)
TD-DFT based methods to ADC(3) reference. Bars with dashed lines correspond
to the results with TDA, while dotted lines on top of the CIS correspond
to TD-HF. The aug-cc-pVTZ atomic basis set was systematically
used.
Mean signed deviations
of the La (red) and Lb (blue) states of compounds
in Scheme obtained
by comparison of a) wave function and b)
TD-DFT based methods to ADC(3) reference. Bars with dashed lines correspond
to the results with TDA, while dotted lines on top of the CIS correspond
to TD-HF. The aug-cc-pVTZ atomic basis set was systematically
used.From the TD-DFT perspective, Figure b confirms that none
of the tested functionals provides
a balanced picture of the two relevant states. PBE severely undershoots
the excitation energy of La, and the more accurate description
of Lb is fortuitous. PBE0, which contains a moderate fraction
of exact exchange, underestimates the excitation energies of the La states but to a smaller extent. Global hybrids with large
amount of exact exchange (M06-2X and BHHLYP) as well as range-separated
hybrids (ωB97X-D and LC-PBE*) improve the description of La, owning to its charge transfer-like character, but overshoot
significantly the energy of Lb. This is valid for the optimally
tuned variant, LC-PBE*, which does not improve the results in comparison
with the range-separated hybrid functional with fixed γ, such
as ωB97X-D (0.20 bohr–1). The improvement
of the HOMO → LUMO excitation within the range-separation framework
goes along with the more accurate quasiparticle energies. However,
the amount of exact exchange that is optimal for La is
not necessarily optimal for multiconfigurational Lb. It
is of course possible to tune parameters to specifically minimize
the Lb errors, but this is neither a practical nor satisfying
solution. As noted earlier, frequency independent (i.e., adiabatic)
TD-DFT does not perform well for excited states with strong configuration
mixing.[80] Alternatively a functional with
100% of exact exchange, M06-HF, severely overestimates the transition
energies of both states. These results generally indicate that the
TD-DFT errors for the La and Lb excitation energies
are rather systematic and depend mainly upon the treatment of exact
exchange.Excitation energies obtained with TDA are systematically
blue-shifted
with respect to full TD-DFT (Figure b). The shift is similar for different functionals
but somewhat larger when higher fractions of exact exchange are included.
La is typically shifted more (∼0.2 eV) than Lb (∼0.1 eV). As seen earlier, CIS, being a Tamm-Dancoff
approximation of the TD-HF scheme (dotted line in Figure a), also leads to an upshift
of the computed excitation energies. In short, no general improvement
originating from TDA can be identified as the accuracy is improved
for the functionals underestimating the excitation energies but is
deteriorated for the others (such as range-separated hybrids for La and Lb).In comparison with standard TD-DFT,
the double hybrid approach
certainly delivers a more balanced treatment of La and
Lb in heteroaromatic molecules. B2PLYP gives results similar
to both CC2 and ADC(2), highlighting once again the importance of
accounting for double excitations, for the Lb state. The
SF-BHHLYP energies follow the behavior already observed for the individual
compounds, that is a slight overestimation of La for the
same magnitude as non-SF TD-DFT energies with a similar amount of
exact exchange and an underestimation of the Lb excitation
energy.The overall performance of the different approximations
for the
calculation of the energy gaps between the two states (see the mean
absolute deviations in Figure ) is also relevant given that the relative position of the
excited states is sometimes more important than the absolute transition
energies. Despite the uncertainty intrinsic to any excited state method,
and also to the ADC(3) reference, the gap obtained from TD-DFT is
systematically away from the reference values (∼0.4 eV). Unbalanced
gaps result, for various cases, in qualitatively incorrect state ordering.
TDA reduces the errors for the gap between the two states, essentially
because the shifts for La and Lb are not equivalent.
CIS provides incorrect gaps, and significant improvements are achieved
by CIS(D). The smallest (although still relatively large) deviations
from the reference are obtained with (TDA-)B2PLYP, ADC(2), and CC2
methods.
Figure 5
Mean absolute deviations of energy gaps (La-Lb) compared to the ADC(3) reference. Dashed lines correspond to the
results with TDA, while dotted lines on top of the CIS correspond
to TDHF. All results are obtained with the aug-cc-pVTZ
atomic basis set.
Mean absolute deviations of energy gaps (La-Lb) compared to the ADC(3) reference. Dashed lines correspond to the
results with TDA, while dotted lines on top of the CIS correspond
to TDHF. All results are obtained with the aug-cc-pVTZ
atomic basis set.
Conclusions
We demonstrated and generalized the problem of the imbalanced description
of La and Lb, which is well-known for oligoacenes,
to a set of heteroaromatic-fused systems. A CIS/CIS(D) computational
check was proposed as a simple diagnostic for identifying these two
problematic (typically lowest) excited states, with Lb being
highly sensitive to the correlation effects introduced by the doubles
(D) correction. A pronounced difference between the CIS/CIS(D) excitation
energies is expected to foretell significant difficulties when employing
the most widely used excited state methods. As a matter of fact, TD-DFT
(within its standard approximations) does not provide balanced excitation
energies nor accurate interstate gaps, which occasionally results
in the spurious inversion of the states. Yet, TD-DFT outperforms CIS,
thanks to the approximate treatment of correlation, absent in CIS.
Pure DFT functionals and those with a small amount of exact exchange
tend to underestimate the excitation energies of La. Functionals
with a larger amount of Hartree–Fock-like exchange as well
as range-separated hybrid functionals describe La very
accurately but overestimate the energy of Lb. The benchmarking
of such functionals exclusively on excited states with dominant HOMO
→ LUMO character is therefore somewhat biased. Since changing
the functional does not solve the overall issue, it is likely that
the approximations used in
standard TD-DFT (i.e., adiabatic approximation) are at the origin
of the problem. Some improvements over standard TD-DFT are achieved
by using a double hybrid functional in which part of the correlation
is described by a posteriori (D)-like correction. Spin-flip DFT, which
is generally a very good approach for the description of low-lying
energy states in molecules with diradical or triradical character,
is not able to accurately reproduce the relative energies between
La and Lb in heteroaromatic molecules. Better
performances are obtained with ADC(2) and CC2 albeit higher levels
of theory are necessary to reach high and robust accuracy.
Authors: Hugo A López Peña; Jacob M Shusterman; Derrick Ampadu Boateng; Ka Un Lao; Katharine Moore Tibbetts Journal: Front Chem Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 5.545