Polarizable Continuum Models and Green's Function $\bf{GW}$ Formalism: On the Dynamics of the Solvent Electrons
Ivan Duchemin, David Amblard, Xavier Blase

TL;DR
This paper investigates the impact of simplifying the solvent dielectric response in $GW$ calculations for water, showing that a static approximation introduces minimal errors and proposing a single-pole model for efficient, accurate dynamical simulations.
Contribution
It introduces a single-pole model to accurately mimic the full frequency-dependent dielectric response of water in $GW$ calculations, enabling efficient dynamical solvent effects modeling.
Findings
Static dielectric approximation causes less than a few percent error in energy shifts.
Single-pole model accurately reproduces the full dielectric response in the visible-UV range.
Method enables fully dynamical $GW$ calculations with minimal computational effort.
Abstract
The many-body formalism, for the calculation of ionization potentials or electronic affinities, relies on the frequency-dependent dielectric function built from the electronic degrees of freedom. Considering the case of water as a solvent treated within the polarizable continuum model, we explore the impact of restricting the full frequency-dependence of the solvent electronic dielectric response to a frequency-independent optical dielectric constant. For solutes presenting small to large highest-occupied to lowest-unoccupied molecular orbital energy gaps, we show that such a restriction induces errors no larger than a few percent on the energy level shifts from the gas to the solvated phase. We further introduce a remarkably accurate single-pole model for mimicking the effect of the full frequency dependence of the water dielectric function in the visible-UV…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
