Electronic band structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure

In solid-state physics, the electronic band structure (or simply band structure) of a solid describes the range of energy levels that electrons may have within it, as well as the ranges of energy that they may not have (called band gaps or forbidden bands).

Band theory derives these bands and band gaps by examining the allowed quantum mechanical wave functions for an electron in a large, periodic lattice of atoms or molecules. Band theory has been successfully used to explain many physical properties of solids, such as electrical resistivity and optical absorption, and forms the foundation of the understanding of all solid-state devices (transistors, solar cells, etc.).

Why bands and band gaps occur

A hypothetical example of a large number of carbon atoms being brought together to form a diamond crystal, demonstrating formation of the electronic band structure. The right graph shows the energy levels as a function of the spacing between atoms. When far apart (right side of graph) all the atoms have discrete valence orbitals p and s with the same energies. However, when the atoms come closer (left side), their electron orbitals begin to spatially overlap. The orbitals hybridize, and each atomic level splits into N levels with different energies, where N is the number of atoms. Since N is a very large number in a macroscopic sized crystal, the adjacent levels are energetically close together, effectively forming a continuous energy band. At the actual diamond crystal cell size (denoted by a), two bands are formed, called the valence and conduction bands, separated by a 5.5 eV band gap. Decreasing the inter-atomic spacing even more (e.g., under a high pressure) further modifies the band structure.

 

The electrons of a single, isolated atom occupy atomic orbitals each of which has a discrete energy level. When two or more atoms join together to form a molecule, their atomic orbitals overlap and hybridize.

Similarly, if a large number N of identical atoms come together to form a solid, such as a crystal lattice, the atoms' atomic orbitals overlap with the nearby orbitals. Each discrete energy level splits into N levels, each with a different energy. Since the number of atoms in a macroscopic piece of solid is a very large number (N~10²²) the number of orbitals is very large and thus they are very closely spaced in energy (of the order of 10⁻²² eV). The energy of the adjacent levels is so close together that they can be considered as a continuum, an energy band.

This formation of bands is mostly a feature of the outermost electrons (valence electrons) in the atom, which are the ones involved in chemical bonding and electrical conductivity. The inner electron orbitals do not overlap to a significant degree, so their bands are very narrow.

Band gaps are essentially leftover ranges of energy not covered by any band, a result of the finite widths of the energy bands. The bands have different widths, with the widths depending upon the degree of overlap in the atomic orbitals from which they arise. Two adjacent bands may simply not be wide enough to fully cover the range of energy. For example, the bands associated with core orbitals (such as 1s electrons) are extremely narrow due to the small overlap between adjacent atoms. As a result, there tend to be large band gaps between the core bands. Higher bands involve comparatively larger orbitals with more overlap, becoming progressively wider at higher energies so that there are no band gaps at higher energies.

Basic concepts

Assumptions and limits of band structure theory

Band theory is only an approximation to the quantum state of a solid, which applies to solids consisting of many identical atoms or molecules bonded together. These are the assumptions necessary for band theory to be valid:

• Infinite-size system: For the bands to be continuous, the piece of material must consist of a large number of atoms. Since a macroscopic piece of material contains on the order of 10²² atoms, this is not a serious restriction; band theory even applies to microscopic-sized transistors in integrated circuits. With modifications, the concept of band structure can also be extended to systems which are only "large" along some dimensions, such as two-dimensional electron systems.
• Homogeneous system: Band structure is an intrinsic property of a material, which assumes that the material is homogeneous. Practically, this means that the chemical makeup of the material must be uniform throughout the piece.
• Non-interactivity: The band structure describes "single electron states". The existence of these states assumes that the electrons travel in a static potential without dynamically interacting with lattice vibrations, other electrons, photons, etc.

The above assumptions are broken in a number of important practical situations, and the use of band structure requires one to keep a close check on the limitations of band theory:

• Inhomogeneities and interfaces: Near surfaces, junctions, and other inhomogeneities, the bulk band structure is disrupted. Not only are there local small-scale disruptions (e.g., surface states or dopant states inside the band gap), but also local charge imbalances. These charge imbalances have electrostatic effects that extend deeply into semiconductors, insulators, and the vacuum (see doping, band bending).
• Along the same lines, most electronic effects (capacitance, electrical conductance, electric-field screening) involve the physics of electrons passing through surfaces and/or near interfaces. The full description of these effects, in a band structure picture, requires at least a rudimentary model of electron-electron interactions (see space charge, band bending).
• Small systems: For systems which are small along every dimension (e.g., a small molecule or a quantum dot), there is no continuous band structure. The crossover between small and large dimensions is the realm of mesoscopic physics.
• Strongly correlated materials (for example, Mott insulators) simply cannot be understood in terms of single-electron states. The electronic band structures of these materials are poorly defined (or at least, not uniquely defined) and may not provide useful information about their physical state.

Crystalline symmetry and wavevectors

Fig 1. Brillouin zone of a face-centered cubic lattice showing labels for special symmetry points.

 

Fig 2. Band structure plot for Si, Ge, GaAs and InAs generated with tight binding model. Note that Si and Ge are indirect band gap materials, while GaAs and InAs are direct.

 

Main articles: Bloch's theorem and Brillouin zone

See also: Symmetry in physics, Crystallographic point group, and Space group

Band structure calculations take advantage of the periodic nature of a crystal lattice, exploiting its symmetry. The single-electron Schrödinger equation is solved for an electron in a lattice-periodic potential, giving Bloch electrons as solutions

${\displaystyle {\psi }_{n\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{r})=e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{r}}{u}_{n\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{r})}$,

where k is called the wavevector. For each value of k, there are multiple solutions to the Schrödinger equation labelled by n, the band index, which simply numbers the energy bands. Each of these energy levels evolves smoothly with changes in k, forming a smooth band of states. For each band we can define a function E_n(k), which is the dispersion relation for electrons in that band.

The wavevector takes on any value inside the Brillouin zone, which is a polyhedron in wavevector (reciprocal lattice) space that is related to the crystal's lattice. Wavevectors outside the Brillouin zone simply correspond to states that are physically identical to those states within the Brillouin zone. Special high symmetry points/lines in the Brillouin zone are assigned labels like Γ, Δ, Λ, Σ (see Fig 1).

It is difficult to visualize the shape of a band as a function of wavevector, as it would require a plot in four-dimensional space, E vs. k_x, k_y, k_z. In scientific literature it is common to see band structure plots which show the values of E_n(k) for values of k along straight lines connecting symmetry points, often labelled Δ, Λ, Σ, or, respectively. Another method for visualizing band structure is to plot a constant-energy isosurface in wavevector space, showing all of the states with energy equal to a particular value. The isosurface of states with energy equal to the Fermi level is known as the Fermi surface.

Energy band gaps can be classified using the wavevectors of the states surrounding the band gap:

• Direct band gap: the lowest-energy state above the band gap has the same k as the highest-energy state beneath the band gap.
• Indirect band gap: the closest states above and beneath the band gap do not have the same k value.

Asymmetry: Band structures in non-crystalline solids

Although electronic band structures are usually associated with crystalline materials, quasi-crystalline and amorphous solids may also exhibit band gaps. These are somewhat more difficult to study theoretically since they lack the simple symmetry of a crystal, and it is not usually possible to determine a precise dispersion relation. As a result, virtually all of the existing theoretical work on the electronic band structure of solids has focused on crystalline materials.

Density of states

Main article: Density of states

The density of states function g(E) is defined as the number of electronic states per unit volume, per unit energy, for electron energies near E.

The density of states function is important for calculations of effects based on band theory. In Fermi's Golden Rule, a calculation for the rate of optical absorption, it provides both the number of excitable electrons and the number of final states for an electron. It appears in calculations of electrical conductivity where it provides the number of mobile states, and in computing electron scattering rates where it provides the number of final states after scattering.

For energies inside a band gap, g(E) = 0.

Filling of bands

Main articles: Fermi level and Fermi–Dirac statistics

 

Filling of the electronic states in various types of materials at equilibrium. Here, height is energy while width is the density of available states for a certain energy in the material listed. The shade follows the Fermi–Dirac distribution (black: all states filled, white: no state filled). In metals and semimetals the Fermi level E_F lies inside at least one band.

In insulators and semiconductors the Fermi level is inside a band gap; however, in semiconductors the bands are near enough to the Fermi level to be thermally populated with electrons or holes.

At thermodynamic equilibrium, the likelihood of a state of energy E being filled with an electron is given by the Fermi–Dirac distribution, a thermodynamic distribution that takes into account the Pauli exclusion principle:

${\displaystyle f(E)=\frac{1}{1+e^{(E-\mu )/k_{\mathrm{B}}T}}}$

where:

• k_BT is the product of Boltzmann's constant and temperature, and
• µ is the total chemical potential of electrons, or Fermi level (in semiconductor physics, this quantity is more often denoted E_F). The Fermi level of a solid is directly related to the voltage on that solid, as measured with a voltmeter. Conventionally, in band structure plots the Fermi level is taken to be the zero of energy (an arbitrary choice).

The density of electrons in the material is simply the integral of the Fermi–Dirac distribution times the density of states:

${\displaystyle N/V={\int }_{-\mathrm{\infty }}^{\mathrm{\infty }}g(E)f(E)dE}$

Although there are an infinite number of bands and thus an infinite number of states, there are only a finite number of electrons to place in these bands. The preferred value for the number of electrons is a consequence of electrostatics: even though the surface of a material can be charged, the internal bulk of a material prefers to be charge neutral. The condition of charge neutrality means that N/V must match the density of protons in the material. For this to occur, the material electrostatically adjusts itself, shifting its band structure up or down in energy (thereby shifting g(E)), until it is at the correct equilibrium with respect to the Fermi level.

Names of bands near the Fermi level (conduction band, valence band)

A solid has an infinite number of allowed bands, just as an atom has infinitely many energy levels. However, most of the bands simply have too high energy, and are usually disregarded under ordinary circumstances. Conversely, there are very low energy bands associated with the core orbitals (such as 1s electrons). These low-energy core bands are also usually disregarded since they remain filled with electrons at all times, and are therefore inert. Likewise, materials have several band gaps throughout their band structure.

The most important bands and band gaps—those relevant for electronics and optoelectronics—are those with energies near the Fermi level. The bands and band gaps near the Fermi level are given special names, depending on the material:

• In a semiconductor or band insulator, the Fermi level is surrounded by a band gap, referred to as the band gap (to distinguish it from the other band gaps in the band structure). The closest band above the band gap is called the conduction band, and the closest band beneath the band gap is called the valence band. The name "valence band" was coined by analogy to chemistry, since in semiconductors (and insulators) the valence band is built out of the valence orbitals.
• In a metal or semimetal, the Fermi level is inside of one or more allowed bands. In semimetals the bands are usually referred to as "conduction band" or "valence band" depending on whether the charge transport is more electron-like or hole-like, by analogy to semiconductors. In many metals, however, the bands are neither electron-like nor hole-like, and often just called "valence band" as they are made of valence orbitals. The band gaps in a metal's band structure are not important for low energy physics, since they are too far from the Fermi level.

Theory in crystals

The ansatz is the special case of electron waves in a periodic crystal lattice using Bloch's theorem as treated generally in the dynamical theory of diffraction. Every crystal is a periodic structure which can be characterized by a Bravais lattice, and for each Bravais lattice we can determine the reciprocal lattice, which encapsulates the periodicity in a set of three reciprocal lattice vectors (b₁, b₂, b₃). Now, any periodic potential V(r) which shares the same periodicity as the direct lattice can be expanded out as a Fourier series whose only non-vanishing components are those associated with the reciprocal lattice vectors. So the expansion can be written as:

${\displaystyle V(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{\mathbf{K}}{V}_{\mathbf{K}}{e}^{i\mathbf{K}\cdot \mathbf{r}}}$

where K = m₁b₁ + m₂b₂ + m₃b₃ for any set of integers (m₁, m₂, m₃).

From this theory, an attempt can be made to predict the band structure of a particular material, however most ab initio methods for electronic structure calculations fail to predict the observed band gap.

Nearly free electron approximation

Main articles: Nearly free electron model, Free electron model, and pseudopotential

In the nearly free electron approximation, interactions between electrons are completely ignored. This approximation allows use of Bloch's Theorem which states that electrons in a periodic potential have wavefunctions and energies which are periodic in wavevector up to a constant phase shift between neighboring reciprocal lattice vectors. The consequences of periodicity are described mathematically by the Bloch's theorem, which states that the eigenstate wavefunctions have the form

${\displaystyle {\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{r})=e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{r}}{u}_n(\mathbf{r})}$

where the Bloch function ${\displaystyle u_n(\mathbf{r})}$ is periodic over the crystal lattice, that is,

${\displaystyle u_n(\mathbf{r})=u_n(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})}$.

Here index n refers to the n-th energy band, wavevector k is related to the direction of motion of the electron, r is the position in the crystal, and R is the location of an atomic site.

The NFE model works particularly well in materials like metals where distances between neighbouring atoms are small. In such materials the overlap of atomic orbitals and potentials on neighbouring atoms is relatively large. In that case the wave function of the electron can be approximated by a (modified) plane wave. The band structure of a metal like aluminium even gets close to the empty lattice approximation.

Tight binding model

Main article: Tight binding

The opposite extreme to the nearly free electron approximation assumes the electrons in the crystal behave much like an assembly of constituent atoms. This tight binding model assumes the solution to the time-independent single electron Schrödinger equation ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }}$ is well approximated by a linear combination of atomic orbitals ${\displaystyle {\psi }_n(\mathbf{r})}$.

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{n,\mathbf{R}}{b}_{n,\mathbf{R}}{\psi }_n(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})}$,

where the coefficients ${\displaystyle b_{n,\mathbf{R}}}$ are selected to give the best approximate solution of this form. Index n refers to an atomic energy level and R refers to an atomic site. A more accurate approach using this idea employs Wannier functions, defined by:

${\displaystyle a_n(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})=\frac{V_C}{(2\pi {)}^3}{\int }_{\text{BZ}}d\mathbf{k}{e}^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot (\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r})}{u}_{n\mathbf{k}}}$;

in which ${\displaystyle u_{n\mathbf{k}}}$ is the periodic part of the Bloch's theorem and the integral is over the Brillouin zone. Here index n refers to the n-th energy band in the crystal. The Wannier functions are localized near atomic sites, like atomic orbitals, but being defined in terms of Bloch functions they are accurately related to solutions based upon the crystal potential. Wannier functions on different atomic sites R are orthogonal. The Wannier functions can be used to form the Schrödinger solution for the n-th energy band as:

${\displaystyle {\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n,\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{\mathbf{R}}{e}^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot (\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r})}{a}_n(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})}$.

The TB model works well in materials with limited overlap between atomic orbitals and potentials on neighbouring atoms. Band structures of materials like Si, GaAs, SiO₂ and diamond for instance are well described by TB-Hamiltonians on the basis of atomic sp³ orbitals. In transition metals a mixed TB-NFE model is used to describe the broad NFE conduction band and the narrow embedded TB d-bands. The radial functions of the atomic orbital part of the Wannier functions are most easily calculated by the use of pseudopotential methods. NFE, TB or combined NFE-TB band structure calculations, sometimes extended with wave function approximations based on pseudopotential methods, are often used as an economic starting point for further calculations.

KKR model

Main article: Multiple scattering theory

The KKR method, also called "multiple scattering theory" or Green's function method, finds the stationary values of the inverse transition matrix T rather than the Hamiltonian. A variational implementation was suggested by Korringa, Kohn and Rostocker, and is often referred to as the Korringa–Kohn–Rostoker method. The most important features of the KKR or Green's function formulation are (1) it separates the two aspects of the problem: structure (positions of the atoms) from the scattering (chemical identity of the atoms); and (2) Green's functions provide a natural approach to a localized description of electronic properties that can be adapted to alloys and other disordered system. The simplest form of this approximation centers non-overlapping spheres (referred to as muffin tins) on the atomic positions. Within these regions, the potential experienced by an electron is approximated to be spherically symmetric about the given nucleus. In the remaining interstitial region, the screened potential is approximated as a constant. Continuity of the potential between the atom-centered spheres and interstitial region is enforced.

Density-functional theory

Main article: Density functional theory

See also: Kohn–Sham equations

In recent physics literature, a large majority of the electronic structures and band plots are calculated using density-functional theory (DFT), which is not a model but rather a theory, i.e., a microscopic first-principles theory of condensed matter physics that tries to cope with the electron-electron many-body problem via the introduction of an exchange-correlation term in the functional of the electronic density. DFT-calculated bands are in many cases found to be in agreement with experimentally measured bands, for example by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). In particular, the band shape is typically well reproduced by DFT. But there are also systematic errors in DFT bands when compared to experiment results. In particular, DFT seems to systematically underestimate by about 30-40% the band gap in insulators and semiconductors.

It is commonly believed that DFT is a theory to predict ground state properties of a system only (e.g. the total energy, the atomic structure, etc.), and that excited state properties cannot be determined by DFT. This is a misconception. In principle, DFT can determine any property (ground state or excited state) of a system given a functional that maps the ground state density to that property. This is the essence of the Hohenberg–Kohn theorem. In practice, however, no known functional exists that maps the ground state density to excitation energies of electrons within a material. Thus, what in the literature is quoted as a DFT band plot is a representation of the DFT Kohn–Sham energies, i.e., the energies of a fictive non-interacting system, the Kohn–Sham system, which has no physical interpretation at all. The Kohn–Sham electronic structure must not be confused with the real, quasiparticle electronic structure of a system, and there is no Koopmans' theorem holding for Kohn–Sham energies, as there is for Hartree–Fock energies, which can be truly considered as an approximation for quasiparticle energies. Hence, in principle, Kohn–Sham based DFT is not a band theory, i.e., not a theory suitable for calculating bands and band-plots. In principle time-dependent DFT can be used to calculate the true band structure although in practice this is often difficult. A popular approach is the use of hybrid functionals, which incorporate a portion of Hartree–Fock exact exchange; this produces a substantial improvement in predicted bandgaps of semiconductors, but is less reliable for metals and wide-bandgap materials.

Green's function methods and the ab initio GW approximation

Main articles: Green's function (many-body theory) and Green–Kubo relations

To calculate the bands including electron-electron interaction many-body effects, one can resort to so-called Green's function methods. Indeed, knowledge of the Green's function of a system provides both ground (the total energy) and also excited state observables of the system. The poles of the Green's function are the quasiparticle energies, the bands of a solid. The Green's function can be calculated by solving the Dyson equation once the self-energy of the system is known. For real systems like solids, the self-energy is a very complex quantity and usually approximations are needed to solve the problem. One such approximation is the GW approximation, so called from the mathematical form the self-energy takes as the product Σ = GW of the Green's function G and the dynamically screened interaction W. This approach is more pertinent when addressing the calculation of band plots (and also quantities beyond, such as the spectral function) and can also be formulated in a completely ab initio way. The GW approximation seems to provide band gaps of insulators and semiconductors in agreement with experiment, and hence to correct the systematic DFT underestimation.

Dynamical mean-field theory

Main article: Dynamical mean-field theory

Although the nearly free electron approximation is able to describe many properties of electron band structures, one consequence of this theory is that it predicts the same number of electrons in each unit cell. If the number of electrons is odd, we would then expect that there is an unpaired electron in each unit cell, and thus that the valence band is not fully occupied, making the material a conductor. However, materials such as CoO that have an odd number of electrons per unit cell are insulators, in direct conflict with this result. This kind of material is known as a Mott insulator, and requires inclusion of detailed electron-electron interactions (treated only as an averaged effect on the crystal potential in band theory) to explain the discrepancy. The Hubbard model is an approximate theory that can include these interactions. It can be treated non-perturbatively within the so-called dynamical mean-field theory, which attempts to bridge the gap between the nearly free electron approximation and the atomic limit. Formally, however, the states are not non-interacting in this case and the concept of a band structure is not adequate to describe these cases.

Others

Calculating band structures is an important topic in theoretical solid state physics. In addition to the models mentioned above, other models include the following:

• Empty lattice approximation: the "band structure" of a region of free space that has been divided into a lattice.
• k·p perturbation theory is a technique that allows a band structure to be approximately described in terms of just a few parameters. The technique is commonly used for semiconductors, and the parameters in the model are often determined by experiment.
• The Kronig–Penney model, a one-dimensional rectangular well model useful for illustration of band formation. While simple, it predicts many important phenomena, but is not quantitative.
• Hubbard model

The band structure has been generalised to wavevectors that are complex numbers, resulting in what is called a complex band structure, which is of interest at surfaces and interfaces.

Each model describes some types of solids very well, and others poorly. The nearly free electron model works well for metals, but poorly for non-metals. The tight binding model is extremely accurate for ionic insulators, such as metal halide salts (e.g. NaCl).

Band diagrams

To understand how band structure changes relative to the Fermi level in real space, a band structure plot is often first simplified in the form of a band diagram. In a band diagram the vertical axis is energy while the horizontal axis represents real space. Horizontal lines represent energy levels, while blocks represent energy bands. When the horizontal lines in these diagram are slanted then the energy of the level or band changes with distance. Diagrammatically, this depicts the presence of an electric field within the crystal system. Band diagrams are useful in relating the general band structure properties of different materials to one another when placed in contact with each other.

Hartree–Fock method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartree%E2%80%93Fock_method 

In computational physics and chemistry, the Hartree–Fock (HF) method is a method of approximation for the determination of the wave function and the energy of a quantum many-body system in a stationary state.

The Hartree–Fock method often assumes that the exact N-body wave function of the system can be approximated by a single Slater determinant (in the case where the particles are fermions) or by a single permanent (in the case of bosons) of N spin-orbitals. By invoking the variational method, one can derive a set of N-coupled equations for the N spin orbitals. A solution of these equations yields the Hartree–Fock wave function and energy of the system.

Especially in the older literature, the Hartree–Fock method is also called the self-consistent field method (SCF). In deriving what is now called the Hartree equation as an approximate solution of the Schrödinger equation, Hartree required the final field as computed from the charge distribution to be "self-consistent" with the assumed initial field. Thus, self-consistency was a requirement of the solution. The solutions to the non-linear Hartree–Fock equations also behave as if each particle is subjected to the mean field created by all other particles (see the Fock operator below), and hence the terminology continued. The equations are almost universally solved by means of an iterative method, although the fixed-point iteration algorithm does not always converge. This solution scheme is not the only one possible and is not an essential feature of the Hartree–Fock method.

The Hartree–Fock method finds its typical application in the solution of the Schrödinger equation for atoms, molecules, nanostructures and solids but it has also found widespread use in nuclear physics. (See Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov method for a discussion of its application in nuclear structure theory). In atomic structure theory, calculations may be for a spectrum with many excited energy levels and consequently the Hartree–Fock method for atoms assumes the wave function is a single configuration state function with well-defined quantum numbers and that the energy level is not necessarily the ground state.

For both atoms and molecules, the Hartree–Fock solution is the central starting point for most methods that describe the many-electron system more accurately.

The rest of this article will focus on applications in electronic structure theory suitable for molecules with the atom as a special case. The discussion here is only for the Restricted Hartree–Fock method, where the atom or molecule is a closed-shell system with all orbitals (atomic or molecular) doubly occupied. Open-shell systems, where some of the electrons are not paired, can be dealt with by either the restricted open-shell or the unrestricted Hartree–Fock methods.

Brief history

Early semi-empirical methods

The origin of the Hartree–Fock method dates back to the end of the 1920s, soon after the discovery of the Schrödinger equation in 1926. Douglas Hartree's methods were guided by some earlier, semi-empirical methods of the early 1920s (by E. Fues, R. B. Lindsay, and himself) set in the old quantum theory of Bohr.

In the Bohr model of the atom, the energy of a state with principal quantum number n is given in atomic units as ${\displaystyle E=-1/n^2}$. It was observed from atomic spectra that the energy levels of many-electron atoms are well described by applying a modified version of Bohr's formula. By introducing the quantum defect d as an empirical parameter, the energy levels of a generic atom were well approximated by the formula ${\displaystyle E=-1/(n+d{)}^2}$, in the sense that one could reproduce fairly well the observed transitions levels observed in the X-ray region (for example, see the empirical discussion and derivation in Moseley's law). The existence of a non-zero quantum defect was attributed to electron–electron repulsion, which clearly does not exist in the isolated hydrogen atom. This repulsion resulted in partial screening of the bare nuclear charge. These early researchers later introduced other potentials containing additional empirical parameters with the hope of better reproducing the experimental data.

Hartree method

Main article: Hartree equation

In 1927, D. R. Hartree introduced a procedure, which he called the self-consistent field method, to calculate approximate wave functions and energies for atoms and ions. Hartree sought to do away with empirical parameters and solve the many-body time-independent Schrödinger equation from fundamental physical principles, i.e., ab initio. His first proposed method of solution became known as the Hartree method, or Hartree product. However, many of Hartree's contemporaries did not understand the physical reasoning behind the Hartree method: it appeared to many people to contain empirical elements, and its connection to the solution of the many-body Schrödinger equation was unclear. However, in 1928 J. C. Slater and J. A. Gaunt independently showed that the Hartree method could be couched on a sounder theoretical basis by applying the variational principle to an ansatz (trial wave function) as a product of single-particle functions.

In 1930, Slater and V. A. Fock independently pointed out that the Hartree method did not respect the principle of antisymmetry of the wave function. The Hartree method used the Pauli exclusion principle in its older formulation, forbidding the presence of two electrons in the same quantum state. However, this was shown to be fundamentally incomplete in its neglect of quantum statistics.

Hartree–Fock

A solution to the lack of anti-symmetry in the Hartree method came when it was shown that a Slater determinant, a determinant of one-particle orbitals first used by Heisenberg and Dirac in 1926, trivially satisfies the antisymmetric property of the exact solution and hence is a suitable ansatz for applying the variational principle. The original Hartree method can then be viewed as an approximation to the Hartree–Fock method by neglecting exchange. Fock's original method relied heavily on group theory and was too abstract for contemporary physicists to understand and implement. In 1935, Hartree reformulated the method to be more suitable for the purposes of calculation.

The Hartree–Fock method, despite its physically more accurate picture, was little used until the advent of electronic computers in the 1950s due to the much greater computational demands over the early Hartree method and empirical models. Initially, both the Hartree method and the Hartree–Fock method were applied exclusively to atoms, where the spherical symmetry of the system allowed one to greatly simplify the problem. These approximate methods were (and are) often used together with the central field approximation, to impose the condition that electrons in the same shell have the same radial part, and to restrict the variational solution to be a spin eigenfunction. Even so, calculating a solution by hand using the Hartree–Fock equations for a medium-sized atom was laborious; small molecules required computational resources far beyond what was available before 1950.

Hartree–Fock algorithm

The Hartree–Fock method is typically used to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a multi-electron atom or molecule as described in the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. Since there are no known analytic solutions for many-electron systems (there are solutions for one-electron systems such as hydrogenic atoms and the diatomic hydrogen cation), the problem is solved numerically. Due to the nonlinearities introduced by the Hartree–Fock approximation, the equations are solved using a nonlinear method such as iteration, which gives rise to the name "self-consistent field method".

Approximations

The Hartree–Fock method makes five major simplifications in order to deal with this task:

• The Born–Oppenheimer approximation is inherently assumed. The full molecular wave function is actually a function of the coordinates of each of the nuclei, in addition to those of the electrons.
• Typically, relativistic effects are completely neglected. The momentum operator is assumed to be completely non-relativistic.
• The variational solution is assumed to be a linear combination of a finite number of basis functions, which are usually (but not always) chosen to be orthogonal. The finite basis set is assumed to be approximately complete.
• Each energy eigenfunction is assumed to be describable by a single Slater determinant, an antisymmetrized product of one-electron wave functions (i.e., orbitals).
• The mean-field approximation is implied. Effects arising from deviations from this assumption are neglected. These effects are often collectively used as a definition of the term electron correlation. However, the label "electron correlation" strictly spoken encompasses both Coulomb correlation and Fermi correlation, and the latter is an effect of electron exchange, which is fully accounted for in the Hartree–Fock method. Stated in this terminology, the method only neglects the Coulomb correlation. However, this is an important flaw, accounting for (among others) Hartree–Fock's inability to capture London dispersion.

Relaxation of the last two approximations give rise to many so-called post-Hartree–Fock methods.

Variational optimization of orbitals

Algorithmic flowchart illustrating the Hartree–Fock method

The variational theorem states that for a time-independent Hamiltonian operator, any trial wave function will have an energy expectation value that is greater than or equal to the true ground-state wave function corresponding to the given Hamiltonian. Because of this, the Hartree–Fock energy is an upper bound to the true ground-state energy of a given molecule. In the context of the Hartree–Fock method, the best possible solution is at the Hartree–Fock limit; i.e., the limit of the Hartree–Fock energy as the basis set approaches completeness. (The other is the full-CI limit, where the last two approximations of the Hartree–Fock theory as described above are completely undone. It is only when both limits are attained that the exact solution, up to the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, is obtained.) The Hartree–Fock energy is the minimal energy for a single Slater determinant.

The starting point for the Hartree–Fock method is a set of approximate one-electron wave functions known as spin-orbitals. For an atomic orbital calculation, these are typically the orbitals for a hydrogen-like atom (an atom with only one electron, but the appropriate nuclear charge). For a molecular orbital or crystalline calculation, the initial approximate one-electron wave functions are typically a linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO).

The orbitals above only account for the presence of other electrons in an average manner. In the Hartree–Fock method, the effect of other electrons are accounted for in a mean-field theory context. The orbitals are optimized by requiring them to minimize the energy of the respective Slater determinant. The resultant variational conditions on the orbitals lead to a new one-electron operator, the Fock operator. At the minimum, the occupied orbitals are eigensolutions to the Fock operator via a unitary transformation between themselves. The Fock operator is an effective one-electron Hamiltonian operator being the sum of two terms. The first is a sum of kinetic-energy operators for each electron, the internuclear repulsion energy, and a sum of nuclear–electronic Coulombic attraction terms. The second are Coulombic repulsion terms between electrons in a mean-field theory description; a net repulsion energy for each electron in the system, which is calculated by treating all of the other electrons within the molecule as a smooth distribution of negative charge. This is the major simplification inherent in the Hartree–Fock method and is equivalent to the fifth simplification in the above list.

Since the Fock operator depends on the orbitals used to construct the corresponding Fock matrix, the eigenfunctions of the Fock operator are in turn new orbitals, which can be used to construct a new Fock operator. In this way, the Hartree–Fock orbitals are optimized iteratively until the change in total electronic energy falls below a predefined threshold. In this way, a set of self-consistent one-electron orbitals is calculated. The Hartree–Fock electronic wave function is then the Slater determinant constructed from these orbitals. Following the basic postulates of quantum mechanics, the Hartree–Fock wave function can then be used to compute any desired chemical or physical property within the framework of the Hartree–Fock method and the approximations employed.

Mathematical formulation

The Fock operator

Main article: Fock matrix

Because the electron–electron repulsion term of the molecular Hamiltonian involves the coordinates of two different electrons, it is necessary to reformulate it in an approximate way. Under this approximation (outlined under Hartree–Fock algorithm), all of the terms of the exact Hamiltonian except the nuclear–nuclear repulsion term are re-expressed as the sum of one-electron operators outlined below, for closed-shell atoms or molecules (with two electrons in each spatial orbital). The "(1)" following each operator symbol simply indicates that the operator is 1-electron in nature.

${\displaystyle \hat{F}[\{{\varphi }_j\}](1)={\hat{H}}^{\text{core}}(1)+\sum _{j=1}^{N/2}[2{\hat{J}}_j(1)-{\hat{K}}_j(1)],}$

where

${\displaystyle \hat{F}[\{{\varphi }_j\}](1)}$

is the one-electron Fock operator generated by the orbitals ${\displaystyle {\varphi }_j}$, and

${\displaystyle {\hat{H}}^{\text{core}}(1)=-\frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{\nabla }}_1^2-\sum _{\alpha }\frac{Z_{\alpha }}{r_{1\alpha }}}$

is the one-electron core Hamiltonian. Also

${\displaystyle {\hat{J}}_j(1)}$

is the Coulomb operator, defining the electron–electron repulsion energy due to each of the two electrons in the j-th orbital. Finally,

${\displaystyle {\hat{K}}_j(1)}$

is the exchange operator, defining the electron exchange energy due to the antisymmetry of the total N-electron wave function. This "exchange energy" operator ${\displaystyle \hat{K}}$ is simply an artifact of the Slater determinant. Finding the Hartree–Fock one-electron wave functions is now equivalent to solving the eigenfunction equation

${\displaystyle \hat{F}(1){\varphi }_i(1)={ϵ}_i{\varphi }_i(1),}$

where ${\displaystyle {\varphi }_i(1)}$ are a set of one-electron wave functions, called the Hartree–Fock molecular orbitals.

Linear combination of atomic orbitals

Main article: Basis set (chemistry)

Typically, in modern Hartree–Fock calculations, the one-electron wave functions are approximated by a linear combination of atomic orbitals. These atomic orbitals are called Slater-type orbitals. Furthermore, it is very common for the "atomic orbitals" in use to actually be composed of a linear combination of one or more Gaussian-type orbitals, rather than Slater-type orbitals, in the interests of saving large amounts of computation time.

Various basis sets are used in practice, most of which are composed of Gaussian functions. In some applications, an orthogonalization method such as the Gram–Schmidt process is performed in order to produce a set of orthogonal basis functions. This can in principle save computational time when the computer is solving the Roothaan–Hall equations by converting the overlap matrix effectively to an identity matrix. However, in most modern computer programs for molecular Hartree–Fock calculations this procedure is not followed due to the high numerical cost of orthogonalization and the advent of more efficient, often sparse, algorithms for solving the generalized eigenvalue problem, of which the Roothaan–Hall equations are an example.

Numerical stability

Numerical stability can be a problem with this procedure and there are various ways of combatting this instability. One of the most basic and generally applicable is called F-mixing or damping. With F-mixing, once a single-electron wave function is calculated, it is not used directly. Instead, some combination of that calculated wave function and the previous wave functions for that electron is used, the most common being a simple linear combination of the calculated and immediately preceding wave function. A clever dodge, employed by Hartree, for atomic calculations was to increase the nuclear charge, thus pulling all the electrons closer together. As the system stabilised, this was gradually reduced to the correct charge. In molecular calculations a similar approach is sometimes used by first calculating the wave function for a positive ion and then to use these orbitals as the starting point for the neutral molecule. Modern molecular Hartree–Fock computer programs use a variety of methods to ensure convergence of the Roothaan–Hall equations.

Weaknesses, extensions, and alternatives

Of the five simplifications outlined in the section "Hartree–Fock algorithm", the fifth is typically the most important. Neglect of electron correlation can lead to large deviations from experimental results. A number of approaches to this weakness, collectively called post-Hartree–Fock methods, have been devised to include electron correlation to the multi-electron wave function. One of these approaches, Møller–Plesset perturbation theory, treats correlation as a perturbation of the Fock operator. Others expand the true multi-electron wave function in terms of a linear combination of Slater determinants—such as multi-configurational self-consistent field, configuration interaction, quadratic configuration interaction, and complete active space SCF (CASSCF). Still others (such as variational quantum Monte Carlo) modify the Hartree–Fock wave function by multiplying it by a correlation function ("Jastrow" factor), a term which is explicitly a function of multiple electrons that cannot be decomposed into independent single-particle functions.

An alternative to Hartree–Fock calculations used in some cases is density functional theory, which treats both exchange and correlation energies, albeit approximately. Indeed, it is common to use calculations that are a hybrid of the two methods—the popular B3LYP scheme is one such hybrid functional method. Another option is to use modern valence bond methods.

Software packages

For a list of software packages known to handle Hartree–Fock calculations, particularly for molecules and solids, see the list of quantum chemistry and solid state physics software.