4.6 Article

Comparative performance of different hyperbolic cosine functions and generalized B functions basis sets for atomic systems

Journal

PHYSICA SCRIPTA
Volume 97, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac7588

Keywords

Exponential type orbital; Hyperbolic cosine functions; Generalized bessel functions; Hartree-Fock-Roothaan

Funding

  1. Research Fund of the Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University [FYL-2019-2851]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a new set of Bessel type functions was developed by inserting different hyperbolic cosine functions into the radial part of generalized Bessel functions, to improve the performance of basis sets in Hartree-Fock-Roothaan calculations. The results showed that the new basis sets outperformed conventional approaches in terms of accuracy.
Recently, we reported a new set of Bessel type functions, which include the radial part of generalized Bessel functions r(n-1)e(-zeta r mu) for LCAO calculations of atomic systems. In this study, to achieve further improvement of the performance of generalized Bessel type basis sets in the Hartree-Fock-Roothaan calculations, different hyperbolic cosine functions inserted into the radial part of those generalized Bessel functions. For this purpose, three different generalized hyperbolic cosine functions have been used to construct the generalized Bessel type hyperbolic cosine basis sets. The accuracies of generalized Bessel type hyperbolic cosine functions within the minimal basis sets approach are compared to show their superiority to conventional approaches those in the literature. The performance of the presented basis functions is also compared to the numerical Hartree-Fock results. Our virial ratios are in good agreement to within 8-digits of the -2. It is shown that the results obtained by the new basis sets surpass the quality and accuracy of existing Bessel type basis sets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available