Can the second order multireference perturbation theory be considered a reliable tool to study mixed-valence compounds?

Abstract

In this paper, the problem of the calculation of the electronic structure of mixed-valence compounds is addressed in the frame of multireference perturbation theory (MRPT). Using a simple mixed-valence compound (the 5,5(') (4H,4H('))-spirobi[ciclopenta[c]pyrrole] 2,2('),6,6(') tetrahydro cation), and the n-electron valence state perturbation theory (NEVPT2) and CASPT2 approaches, it is shown that the ground state (GS) energy curve presents an unphysical "well" for nuclear coordinates close to the symmetric case, where a maximum is expected. For NEVPT, the correct shape of the energy curve is retrieved by applying the MPRT at the (computationally expensive) third order. This behavior is rationalized using a simple model (the ionized GS of two weakly interacting identical systems, each neutral system being described by two electrons in two orbitals), showing that the unphysical well is due to the canonical orbital energies which at the symmetric (delocalized) conformation lead to a sudden modification of the denominators in the perturbation expansion. In this model, the bias introduced in the second order correction to the energy is almost entirely removed going to the third order. With the results of the model in mind, one can predict that all MRPT methods in which the zero order Hamiltonian is based on canonical orbital energies are prone to present unreasonable energy profiles close to the symmetric situation. However, the model allows a strategy to be devised which can give a correct behavior even at the second order, by simply averaging the orbital energies of the two charge-localized electronic states. Such a strategy is adopted in a NEVPT2 scheme obtaining a good agreement with the third order results based on the canonical orbital energies. The answer to the question reported in the title (is this theoretical approach a reliable tool for a correct description of these systems?) is therefore positive, but care must be exercised, either in defining the orbital energies or by resorting to the third order using for them the standard definition.