2022
DOI: 10.1080/00268976.2022.2089605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A ΔSCF model for excited states within a polarisable embedding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The CT states were described using ΔSCF coupled with AMOEBA . Initial guesses were obtained by moving one electron from the π Tyr to the π FMN * orbital.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The CT states were described using ΔSCF coupled with AMOEBA . Initial guesses were obtained by moving one electron from the π Tyr to the π FMN * orbital.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 Thus, ΔSCF is a promising strategy for dealing with ES dynamics that occur on a single diabatic surface, but extensions to nonadiabatic dynamics have been presented as well. 19,20 Recently we have presented the coupling of ΔSCF methods to a polarizable MM embedding 21 using the popular AMOEBA force field. 22 The latter employs fixed charges, dipoles, and quadrupoles to describe the electrostatics and an inducedpoint-dipole (IPD) model to describe polarization.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is sometimes tacitly assumed that the difference between LR and SS excitation energies already present in vacuum cancels when calculating the solvent shift so that any observed difference in the shift must be solely due to the effect of the dynamical polarization of the environment, described by eqs and . For example, in a recent paper comparing LR-DFT and ΔSCF (an SS formulation of DFT) shifts of a dark state of dimethylaminobenzonitrile, a discrepancy between the calculated difference between LR and SS shifts and the difference expected from the application of eqs and was ascribed to the perturbative nature of these equations. It is possible that the discrepancy can instead be explained by the different reactions of LR and SS excitation energies to the static part of the environment potential.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when combined with polarizable environment models, LR and SS methods will generally predict different transition energies, even if the corresponding QM equations could be solved exactly. In previous studies, much attention has been paid to this difference, which is caused by the different couplings of the LR and SS methods to the polarizable part of the environment potential (see eqs and and the accompanying discussion below).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%