$\newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\left|#1\right>}$ $\newcommand{\Bra}[1]{\left<#1\right|}$ $\newcommand{\BraKet}[2] { {\left<#1} \left|#2 \right>}$
In spin adaptation (common in electronic structure theory) we approximate that the spin-up and spin-down spin orbitals (herein assumed to be real and represented by $\chi$ with some placeholder spin coordinate $\vec{s}$ and spatial coordinates $\vec{x}$) have the same spatial orbitals (represented by $\phi$ with spatial coordinates $\vec{x}$). This allows us to eliminate the spin components of the molecular orbitals (MOs) in exchange for an 8-fold speed-up of two-electron integral calculation and storage:
$\chi(\vec{x_1})=\phi(\vec{r_1})*\omega(\vec{s_1}) \rightarrow \phi(\vec{r_1})$
I am trying to spin-adapt the spin-orbital, second-order MP2 energy correction (using canonical MOs):
$E^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab}^{SO} \frac{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}^{2}}{\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$
(where $\Delta _{ab}^{ij}=\epsilon{_i}+\epsilon{_j}-\epsilon{_a}-\epsilon{_b}$, where i and j represent occupied MOs in the reference solution, where a and b represent unoccupied MOs in the reference solution, and where $\epsilon_m$ denotes the orbital energy of the $m^{th}$ molecular orbital) to arrive at the closed-shell (spin-adapted) expression:
$E^{(2)}=\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{2\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>^{2}-\Bra{ij}{ba}\left.\right>\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>}{\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

Below is my attempted derivation (I use SO and SF to denote whether the indices i,j,a,b denote spin-orbital or spin-free MOs, respectively):

$E^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab}^{SO} \frac{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}^{2}}{\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$
$=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{i_\alpha j_\alpha}\Ket{a_\alpha b_\alpha}^{2} +\Bra{i_\alpha j_\beta}\Ket{a_\alpha b_\beta}^{2} +\Bra{i_\alpha j_\beta}\Ket{a_\beta b_\alpha}^{2} +\Bra{i_\beta j_\alpha}\Ket{a_\alpha b_\beta}^{2} +\Bra{i_\beta j_\alpha}\Ket{a_\beta b_\alpha}^{2} +\Bra{i_\beta j_\beta}\Ket{a_\beta b_\beta}^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$
(note: there are other possible terms, but they equate to zero due to orthonormality of spin component. Also note that I have assumed spin-up and spin-down MO energies are equivalent, allowing me to write only one denominator)
We now expand the anti-symmetrized two electron integrals using $\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}=\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right> - \Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>$ and the orthonormality of the spin component, $\Bra{i_{\omega_{1}}}\left.i_{\omega_{2}}\right>=\delta_{\omega_{1},\omega_{2}}$, keeping only non-zero terms:

$E^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}}^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} +{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}}^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

Where I have kept the ordering of terms to facilitate term-by-term comparison to the previous energy expression. We can, of course, combine these terms:

$E^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {2{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}}^{2} +2\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} +2\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {{\Bra{ij}\Ket{ab}}^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

Almost there! Now we expand the anti-symmetrized two electron integrals to get:

$E^{(2)}= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} -2\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

Which, upon combining terms and factoring out a 2, yields:

$E^{(2)}= \sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} -\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

This is SO close, but not equal, to the spin-adapted energy expression for MP2 (reproduced below):

$E^{(2)}=\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{2\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>^{2}-\Bra{ij}{ba}\left.\right>\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>}{\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

But we're in trouble, as $\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>^{2} \neq \Bra{ij}{ba}\left.\right>^{2}$, so the above expressions apparently do not equate. Additionally, two-electron integral symmetries do not help us out. At the time of writing, I had not found the solution. But in the nick of time, I found the workaround, and have posted it below.


2 Answers 2


$\newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\left|#1\right>}$ $\newcommand{\Bra}[1]{\left<#1\right|}$ $\newcommand{\BraKet}[2] { {\left<#1} \left|#2 \right>}$
It turns out the trick is not a matter of exploiting symmetry or alternate derivations, but rather a simple bookkeeping trick!

$E^{(2)}= \sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} -\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> +\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$ can be broken into three sums:

$E^{(2)}= \sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} -\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} +\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

The beauty is that the indices of each summation are independent of the indices of the other summations. As such, I am free to rename a as b and b as a in the third summation:

$\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}= \sum_{ijba}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ba}^{ij}}$

Which, because a and b behave the same in the summation (both over unoccupied MOs) and in the denominator (both represent the energy of an unoccupied MO), can be rearranged as:

$\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

(In pseudo math, $\sum_{ijba}^{SF} = \sum_{ijab}^{SF}$ and ${\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}= {\Delta _{ba}^{ij}}$). Putting it all together, we get

$E^{(2)}= \sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} -\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} +\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2} } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} = 2\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac {\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>^{2}} {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} -\sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{\Bra{ij}\left.ab\right>\Bra{ij}\left.ba\right> } {\Delta _{ab}^{ij}} = \sum_{ijab}^{SF} \frac{2\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>^{2}-\Bra{ij}{ba}\left.\right>\Bra{ij}{ab}\left.\right>}{\Delta _{ab}^{ij}}$

Which proves the equality.


Spin adaptation is certainly a valuable thing in correlation calculations. Unfortunately, I only know of simple schemes for 2 different cases: (1) closed-shell singlets ($S = 0$, $m_S = 0$) and (2) closed shell triplets ($S = 1$, $m_S = 0$). The formula you have cited is closed-shell singlet adaptation. Since the above answers prove the result algebraically, I thought I could show the same result using diagrams which are a very useful tool for, among other things, deriving MPn energy and wavefunction corrections. The Hamiltonian used in post-Hartree Fock correlation calculations is the normally-ordered form

$$H_N = F_N + V_N = \sum_{p,q = 1}^{\#\,\mathrm{spinorbitals}} \langle p | f | q \rangle N[a^p a_q] + \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{p,q,r,s = 1}^{\#\,\mathrm{spinorbitals}} \langle pq | rs \rangle N[a^p a^q a_s a_r] $$

where $a^p_{(p)}$ are the fermionic creation (annhiliation) operators, $H_N = H - \langle \Phi_0 | H | \Phi_0 \rangle$, $|\Phi_0\rangle$ is the Hartree-Fock reference Slater determinant, $N[\ldots]$ denotes normal ordering with respect to the Fermi vacuum $|\Phi_0\rangle$, and $\langle p | f | q \rangle$ and $\langle pq | rs \rangle$ denote the usual Fock and 2-electron integral matrix elements in the MO basis. The expectation value $\langle \Phi_0 | H | \Phi_0 \rangle$ is simply the Hartree-Fock electronic energy. In the usual MP partitioning of the Hamiltonian, where $F_N$ is the unperturbed part and $V_N$ is the perturbation, the MP2 energy correction is given by

$$\Delta E_{MP2} = \langle \Phi_0 | V_N R^{(0)} V_N | \Phi_0 \rangle$$

where $R^{(0)} = \sum_{n\neq 0} \dfrac{|\Phi_n\rangle \langle \Phi_n |}{-\Delta_n}$ is the reduced resolvent operator for the unperturbed Hamiltonian and $\Delta_n \equiv \Delta_{a_1\ldots a_n}^{i_1\ldots i_n} = \sum_{\gamma = 1}^n (\epsilon_{a_\gamma} - \epsilon_{i_\gamma})$ is the usual MP energy denominator. Using the diagrammatic rules of many-body perturbation theory, we have the following Goldstone diagrams which I've drawn and evaluated on paper using the usual notation that $i,j,k,\ldots$ denote occupied MOs while $a,b,c,\ldots$ denote unoccupied MOs (the rules can be found in books like Szabo & Ostlund):

enter image description here

Spin-adaptation diagrammatically is done by associated a weight factor of $2^l$ where $l$ is the number of closed loops in the Goldstone orbital diagrams. Hence this kind of spin-adaptation can only be done with Goldstones. In the following, we will denote $h$ as the number of internally-contracted hole (occupied) lines, $w$ as the topological weight of the diagram, and $s$ as the sign of the diagram. I'll also show explicitly how this $2^l$ factor can be seen by breaking up of spinorbital states $|p\rangle = |P\rangle \otimes |\sigma_P\rangle$ where $P$ is a spatial orbital index and $\sigma_P = \pm \frac{1}{2}$ is the spin projection.

Diagram I: $w = \frac{1}{2}$, $h = 2$, $l = 2$, $s = (-)^{l+h} = 1$

$2^l$ Rule:

$$\dfrac{1}{2}2^2\sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{\langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle}{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B} = 2\sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{\langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle}{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B}$$

Explicitly integrating out spins:

$$\sum_{ijab} \langle ij|ab\rangle \langle ab|ij\rangle = \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_A \sigma_B \sigma_I \sigma_J}\langle \sigma_I | \sigma_A \rangle \langle \sigma_J | \sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_A | \sigma_I \rangle \langle \sigma_B | \sigma_J \rangle $$

Switching the middle two inner products (since they're scalars)

$$ = \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_A \sigma_B \sigma_I \sigma_J}\langle \sigma_I | \sigma_A \rangle \langle \sigma_A | \sigma_I \rangle \langle \sigma_J | \sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_B | \sigma_J \rangle $$

and using resolution of identity in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ space $\sum_{\sigma_A} |\sigma_A \rangle \langle \sigma_A | = \sum_{\sigma_B} |\sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_B| = 1$

$$ = \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_I \sigma_J}\langle \sigma_I | \sigma_I \rangle \langle \sigma_J | \sigma_J \rangle = (2)^2 \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|AB\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle$$

Diagram II: $w = \frac{1}{2}$, $h = 2$, $l = 1$, $s = (-)^{l+h} = -1$

$2^l$ Rule:

$$-\dfrac{1}{2}2\sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{\langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle}{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B} = -\sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{\langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle}{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B}$$

Explicitly integrating out spins:

$$\sum_{ijab} \langle ij|ba\rangle \langle ab|ij\rangle = \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_A \sigma_B \sigma_I \sigma_J} \langle \sigma_I | \sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_J | \sigma_A \rangle \langle \sigma_A | \sigma_I \rangle \langle \sigma_B | \sigma_J \rangle $$

and using resolution of identity again to set $\sum_{\sigma_A} |\sigma_A \rangle \langle \sigma_A | = 1$

$$= \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_B \sigma_I \sigma_J} \langle \sigma_I | \sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_J | \sigma_I \rangle \langle \sigma_B | \sigma_J \rangle $$

using $\langle \sigma_I | \sigma_J \rangle = \delta_{IJ}$

$$= \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_B \sigma_I} \langle \sigma_I | \sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_B | \sigma_I \rangle $$

using $\sum_{\sigma_B} |\sigma_B \rangle \langle \sigma_B | = 1$

$$= \sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|BA\rangle \langle AB|IJ\rangle \sum_{\sigma_I} \langle \sigma_I | \sigma_I \rangle = 2\sum_{IJAB} \langle IJ|BA\rangle$$

So we can see that the $2^l$ rule really works (and of course, there is a more general proof that covers all cases)

Thus, the total MP2 correction in closed-shell singlet spin-adapted form is: $$\Delta E_{MP2} = \sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{2\langle IJ| AB\rangle \langle AB | IJ\rangle - \langle IJ | BA \rangle \langle AB | IJ \rangle }{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B}$$

Only in the case of real orbitals (usual case), we can write this as the more compact $$\Delta E_{MP2} = \sum_{IJAB} \dfrac{2\langle IJ| AB\rangle ^2 - \langle IJ | BA \rangle \langle AB | IJ \rangle }{\epsilon_I - \epsilon_A + \epsilon_J - \epsilon_B}$$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.