Targeting spectroscopic accuracy for dispersion bound systems from ab initio techniques: translational eigenstates of Ne@C$_{70}$

TL;DR

This study constructs and compares potential energy surfaces for Ne@C70 using various electronic structure methods, revealing significant discrepancies and highlighting the need for experimental validation to accurately describe dispersion-bound systems.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of multiple ab initio methods for modeling Ne@C70, demonstrating their inconsistencies and limitations in reproducing the PES and eigenstates.

Findings

Electronic structure methods show inconsistent barrier heights and minima.

Lennard-Jones potential cannot accurately reproduce the PES.

More experimental data is needed for validation.

Abstract

We investigate the endofullerene system Ne@C$_{70}$, by constructing a three-dimensional Potential Energy Surface (PES) describing the translational motion of the Ne atom. We compare a plethora of electronic structure methods including: MP2, SCS-MP2, SOS-MP2, RPA@PBE, C(HF)-RPA, which were previously used for He@C$_{60}$ in J. Chem. Phys. 160, 104303 (2024), alongside B86bPBE-25X-XDM and B86bPBE-50X-XDM. The reduction in symmetry moving from C$_{60}$ to C$_{70}$ introduces a double well potential along the anisotropic direction, which forms a test of the sensitivity and effectiveness of the methods. Due to the large cost of these calculations, the PES is interpolated using Gaussian Process Regression due to its effectiveness with sparse training data. The nuclear Hamiltonian is diagonalised using a symmetrised double minimum basis set outlined in J. Chem. Phys. 159, 164308 (2023), with translational energies having error bars $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ cm$^{-1}$. We quantify the shape of the ground state wavefunction by considering its prolateness and kurtosis, and compare the eigenfunctions between electronic structure methods from their Hellinger distance. We find no consistency between electronic structure methods as they find a range of barrier heights and minima positions of the double well, and different translational eigenspectra which also differ from the Lennard-Jones (LJ) PES given in J. Chem. Phys. 101, 2126,2140 (1994). We find that generating effective LJ parameters for each electronic structure method cannot reproduce the full PES, nor recreate the eigenstates and this suggests that the LJ form of the PES, while simple, may not be best suited to describe these systems. Even though MP2 and RPA@PBE performed best for He@C$_{60}$, due to the lack of concordance between all electronic structure methods we require more experimental data in order to properly validate the choice.