The hardness profile as a tool to detect spurious stationary points in the potential energy surface

The energy and hardness profile for a series of inter and intramolecular conformational changes at several levels of calculation were computed. The hardness profiles were found to be calculated as the difference between the vertical ionization potential and electron affinity. The hardness profile shows the correct number of stationary points independently of the basis set and methodology used. It was found that the hardness profiles can be used to check the reliability of the energy profiles for those chemical system

Estimation of electronic coupling in π -stacked donor-bridge-acceptor systems: correction of the two-state model

Comparison of donor-acceptor electronic couplings calculated within two-state and three-state models suggests that the two-state treatment can provide unreliable estimates of Vda because of neglecting the multistate effects. We show that in most cases accurate values of the electronic coupling in a π stack, where donor and acceptor are separated by a bridging unit, can be obtained as Ṽ da = (E2 - E1) μ12 Rda + (2 E3 - E1 - E2) 2 μ13 μ23 Rda2, where E1, E2, and E3 are adiabatic energies of the ground, charge-transfer, and bridge states, respectively, μij is the transition dipole moments between the states i and j, and Rda is the distance between the planes of donor and acceptor. In this expression based on the generalized Mulliken-Hush approach, the first term corresponds to the coupling derived within a two-state model, whereas the second term is the superexchange correction accounting for the bridge effect. The formula is extended to bridges consisting of several subunits. The influence of the donor-acceptor energy mismatch on the excess charge distribution, adiabatic dipole and transition moments, and electronic couplings is examined. A diagnostic is developed to determine whether the two-state approach can be applied. Based on numerical results, we showed that the superexchange correction considerably improves estimates of the donor-acceptor coupling derived within a two-state approach. In most cases when the two-state scheme fails, the formula gives reliable results which are in good agreement (within 5%) with the data of the three-state generalized Mulliken-Hush model