* n* and

*values of complex*T

**calculated by UB3LYP/basis set**1

**1.**I

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Submitted: July 12th, 2017 Reviewed: February 20th, 2018 Published: July 18th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75726

From the Edited Volume

Edited by Takashiro Akitsu

A broken-(spin) symmetry (BS) method is now widely used for systems that involve (quasi) degenerated frontier orbitals because of their lower cost of computation. The BS method splits up-spin and down-spin electrons into two different special orbitals, so that a singlet spin state of the degenerate system is expressed as a singlet biradical. In the BS solution, therefore, the spin symmetry is no longer retained. Due to such spin-symmetry breaking, the BS method often suffers from a serious problem called a spin contamination error, so that one must eliminate the error by some kind of projection method. An approximate spin projection (AP) method, which is one of the spin projection procedures, can eliminate the error from the BS solutions by assuming the Heisenberg model and can recover the spin symmetry. In this chapter, we illustrate a theoretical background of the BS and AP methods, followed by some examples of their applications, especially for calculations of the exchange interaction and for the geometry optimizations.

- quantum chemistry
- ab initio calculation
- orbital degeneracy
- electron correlation
- broken-(spin) symmetry (BS) method
- approximate spin projection (AP) method
- spin polarization
- spin contamination error
- effective exchange integral (Jab) values

For the past few decades, many reports about “polynuclear metal complexes” have been presented actively in the field of the coordination chemistry [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Those systems usually have complicated electronic structures that are constructed by metal–metal (d-d) and metal–ligand (d-p) interactions. Those electronic structures caused by their unique molecular structures often bring many interesting and noble physical functionalities such as a magnetism [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17], a nonlinear optics [18], an electron conductivity [19], as well as their chemical functionalities, e.g., a catalyst and so on. For example, some three-dimensional (3D) metal complexes show interesting magnetic behaviors and are expected to be possible candidates for a single molecule magnet, a quantum dot, and so on [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. On the other hand, one-dimensional (1D) metal complexes are studied for the smallest electric wire, i.e., the nanowire [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19]. In addition, it has been elucidated that the polynuclear metal complexes play an important role in the biosystems [20, 21, 22, 23, 24], e.g., Mn cluster [25, 26] in photosystem II and 4Fe-4S cluster [27, 28, 29, 30] in electron transfer proteins. In this way, the polynuclear metal complexes are widely noticed from a viewpoint of fundamental studies on their peculiar characters and of applications to materials. From those reasons, an elucidation of a relation among electronic structures, molecular structures, and physical properties is a quite important current subject.

Physical properties of molecules are sometimes discussed by using several parameters such as an exchange integrals (_{ab}), on-site Coulomb repulsion, and transfer integrals of Heisenberg and Hubbard Hamiltonians, respectively, in material physics [31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. In recent years, on the other hand, direct predictions of such electronic structures, molecular structure, and physical properties of those metal complexes are fairly realized by the recent progress in computers and computational methods. In this sense, theoretical calculations are now one of the powerful tools for understanding of such systems. However, those systems are, in a sense, still challenging subjects because they are usually large and orbitally degenerated systems with localized electron spins (localized orbitals). The localized spins are caused by an electron correlation effect called a static (or a non-dynamical) correlation [36]. In addition, a dynamical correlation effect of core electrons also must be treated together with the static correlation in the case of the metal complexes. A treatment of both the static correlation and the dynamical correlation in large molecules is still a difficult task and a serious problem in this field. For those systems, a standard method for the static and dynamical correlation corrections is a complete active space (CAS) method [37, 38] or a multi-reference (MR) method [39] that considers all configuration interaction in active valence orbitals, together with the second-order perturbation correction, e.g., CASPT2 or MPMP2 methods. In addition to these methods, recently, other multi-configuration methods such as DDCI [40, 41, 42], CASDFT [43, 44, 45], MRCC [46, 47, 48], and DMRG-CT [49, 50, 51] methods are also proposed for the same purpose. These newer methods are developing and seem to be promising tools in terms of accuracy; however, real molecules such as polynuclear metal complexes are still too large to treat computationally with those methods at this state. An alternative way is a broken-symmetry (BS) method, which approximates the static correlation with a lower cost of computation [52, 53, 54, 55]. The BS method (or commonly known as an unrestricted (U) method) splits up and down spins (electrons) into two different spatial orbitals (it is sometimes called as different orbitals for different spins; DODS), so a singlet spin state of the orbitally degenerated system is expressed as a singlet biradical, namely, the BS singlet [55]. The BS method such as the unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) and the unrestricted DFT (UDFT) methods are now widely used for the first principle calculations of such large degenerate systems. In this sense, the BS method seems to be the most possible quantum chemical approach for the polynuclear metal complexes, although it has a serious problem called the spin contamination error [56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. Therefore one must eliminate the error by some kind of projection method. An approximate spin projection (AP) method, which is one of the spin projection procedures, can eliminate the error from the BS solutions and can recover the spin symmetry. In this chapter, we illustrate a theoretical background of the BS and AP methods, followed by some examples of their applications.

Advertisement
## 2. Theoretical background of AP method

### 2.1. Broken-symmetry (BS) solution and approximate spin projection (AP) methods for the (two-spin) biradical state

ψ HOMO BS = cos θψ HOMO + sin θψ LUMO , E1ψ ¯ HOMO BS = cos θψ HOMO − sin θψ LUMO , E2Ψ BS Singlet = co s 2 θ ψ HOMO ψ ¯ HOMO + si n 2 θ ψ LUMO ψ ¯ LUMO − 2 cos θ sin θ Ψ Triplet , E3H ̂ = − 2 J ab S ̂ a ⋅ S ̂ b , E4H ̂ = − 2 J ab − S ̂ 2 + S ̂ a 2 + S ̂ b 2 . E5E HH Singlet = J ab − S ̂ 2 Singlet + S ̂ a 2 Singlet + S ̂ b 2 Singlet . E6E HH Triplet = J ab − S ̂ 2 Triplet + S ̂ a 2 Triplet + S ̂ b 2 Triplet . E7J ab = E HH Singlet − E HH Triplet S ̂ 2 Triplet − S ̂ 2 Singlet = E BS Singlet − E Triplet S ̂ 2 Triplet − S ̂ 2 BS Singlet . E8E Exact Singlet − E Exact Triplet = 2 J ab . E9E BS Singlet − E Triplet = 2 J ab − J ab S ̂ 2 BS Singlet . E10J ab = E BS LS − E HS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS . E11### 2.2. Approximate spin projection for BS energy and energy derivatives

J ab = E BS LS − E HS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS = E AP LS − E HS S ̂ 2 exact HS − S ̂ 2 ecact LS . E12E AP LS = α E BS LS − β E HS , E13α = S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 exact LS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS and β = α − 1 E14E AP LS R AP LS = E AP LS R + X T G AP LS R + 1 2 X T F AP LS R X , E15G AP LS R = ∂ E AP LS R ∂ R = α R G BS LS R − β R G HS R + ∂α R ∂ R E BS LS R − E HS R , E16∂α R ∂ R = S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 exact LS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS 2 ∂ S ̂ 2 BS LS ∂ R . E17+ 2 ∂α R ∂ R G BS LS R − G HS R + ∂ 2 α R ∂ 2 R E BS LS R − E HS R , E18∂ 2 α R ∂ R 2 = 2 S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 exact LS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS 3 ∂ S ̂ 2 BS LS ∂ R 2 + S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 exact LS S ̂ 2 HS − S ̂ 2 BS LS 2 ∂ S ̂ 2 BS LS ∂ R . E19### 2.3. Relationship between the BS and projected wavefunctions

T = ψ HOMO BS ψ ¯ HOMO BS = co s 2 θ − si n 2 θ = cos 2 θ . E20T = cos 2 θ = n − 1 E21Ψ PUHF Singlet = 2 1 + cos 2 θ 2 1 + cos 2 θ 2 ψ HOMO ψ ¯ HOMO − 1 − cos 2 θ 2 ψ LUMO ψ ¯ LUMO = 2 1 + T 2 1 + T 2 ψ HOMO ψ ¯ HOMO − 1 − T 2 ψ LUMO ψ ¯ LUMO . E22W D = 2 1 + T 2 1 − T 2 2 = 1 2 1 − 2 T 1 + T 2 E23y = 2 W D = n 2 − 4 n + 4 n 2 − 2 n + 2 . E24b = n − n ∗ 2 E25b AP = 1 – y E26S ̂ 2 SA = S S + 1 , where S = S a + S b E27S ̂ 2 BS = S ̂ 2 exact + N down − ∑ ij T ij ≅ 1 − T E28S ̂ 2 BS ≅ 2 − n E29

In this section, the theoretical background of the BS and AP methods for the biradical systems is explained with the simplest two-spin model (e.g., a dissociated H_{2}) as illustrated in Figure 1(a).

In the BS method, the spin-polarized orbitals are obtained from HOMO-LUMO mixing [55, 56]. For example, HOMO orbitals for up-spin (_{2} molecule are expressed as follows (Figure 1(b)):

where 0 ≤ * θ* ≤ 45° and

where * θ* = 0, the BS wavefunction corresponds to the closed shell, i.e., SA wavefunctions, while if

We often regard such spin densities as an existence of localized spins. An interaction between localized spins can be expressed by using Heisenberg Hamiltonian:

where _{ab} is an effective exchange integral. Using a total spin operator of the system

Operating Eq. (5) to Eq. (3), the singlet state energy in Heisenberg Hamiltonian (

Similarly, for triplet state

The energy difference between singlet (* i* (

If the method is exact and the spin contamination error is not found in both singlet and triplet states (i.e.,

The spin contamination in the triplet state is usually negligible (i.e.,

A second term in a right side of Eq. (10) indicates the spin contamination error in the S-T gap, and consequently, a second term in a denominator of Eq. (8) eliminates the spin contamination in the BS singlet solution. In this way, Eq. (8) gives approximately spin-projected (AP) _{ab} values. Eq. (8) can be easily expanded into any spin dimers, namely, the lowest spin (LS) state and the highest spin (HS) state, e.g., singlet-quintet for _{a} = _{b} = 2/2 pairs, singlet-sextet for _{a} = _{b} = 3/2 pairs, and so on, as follows:

Eq. (11) is the so-called Yamaguchi equation to calculate _{ab} values with the AP procedure, which is simply denoted by _{ab} here. The calculated _{ab} value can explain an interaction between two spins. If a sign of calculated _{ab} value is positive, the HS, i.e., ferromagnetic coupling state, is stable, while if it is negative, the LS, i.e., antiferromagnetic coupling state is stable. Therefore, one can discuss the magnetic interactions in a given system.

Because _{ab} calculated by Eq. (11) is a value that the spin contamination error is approximately eliminated, it should be equal to _{ab} value calculated by the approximately spin-projected LS energy (

Here, we assume

where

Then, we explain about derivatives of this spin-projected energy (

where are a stationary point of

where

By using Eqs. (16) and (17), the AP optimization can be carried out. In addition, one can also calculate the spin-projected Hessian (AP Hessian;

where

By using Eqs. (18) and (19), the spin-projected vibrational frequencies are also calculated. The AP optimization can be carried out based on Eq. (16) with

As well as a calculated energy and its derivatives, the BS wavefunction itself has also vital information. Here let us go back to Eq. (3). From the equation, an overlap between up-spin (so-called alpha) and down-spin (so-called beta) orbitals (* T*) becomes

And because occupation number (* n*) of natural orbital (NO) for the corresponding orbital is expressed as

On the other hand, we can define projected wavefunction (PUHF) by eliminating triplet species from BS singlet wavefunction from Eq. (3) as follows:

If we focus on the second term, which is related to double (two-electron) excitation, its weight (_{D}) can be obtained from Eqs. (21) and (22) as follows:

This is the weight of double excitation calculated by the BS wavefunction. By applying Eq. (21)–Eq. (23), the _{D} is related to the occupation number of the corresponding NO as follows:

This * y* value is called an instability value of a chemical bond (or diradical character). In the case of the spin-restricted (or spin-adapted (SA)) calculations, the

Different from the * y* value, the

Those indices show how the BS and AP wavefunctions are connected. In addition, one can utilize the indices to estimate the contribution of double excitation for very large systems that CAS and MR methods cannot be applied.

Finally, a relationship between the BS wavefunction and

However, in the case of the BS singlet state of H_{2} molecule, it becomes

where ^{down} and * T* are number of down electrons and the overlap between spin-polarized up-spin and down-spin orbitals in Eq. (21). Therefore

Here we explain another aspect of the spin projection method. As depicted in Figure 1(c), the BS wavefunction indicates only one spin-polarized configuration, e.g., BS1 in the figure. However, in order to obtain a pure singlet wavefunction, which satisfies the spin symmetry, the opposite spin-polarized state (BS2) must be included. The projection method can give a linear combination of the both BS states, and therefore it can give an appropriate quantum state for the singlet state.

Advertisement
## 3. Application of BS and AP methods to several biradical systems

### 3.1. Hydrogen molecule: comparison among SA, BS, and AP methods by simple biradical system

### 3.2. Dichromium (II) complex: effectiveness of hybrid DFT method for calculation of J value

### 3.3. Singlet methylene molecule: Spin contamination error in optimized geometry by BS method and its elimination by AP method

In this section, we briefly illustrate how the BS and AP methods approximate a dissociation of a hydrogen molecule. Figure 2(a) shows potential energy curves of Hartree-Fock and full CI methods. In the case of the spin-adapted (SA) HF, i.e., the spin-restricted (R) HF method, the curve does not converge to the dissociation limit. On the other hand, the BS HF, i.e., spin-unrestricted (U) HF calculation, successfully reproduces the dissociation limit of full CI method. This result indicates that the static correlation is included in the BS procedure. Around 1.2 Å, there is a bifurcation point between RHF and UHF methods. Within the closed shell (i.e., SA) region, where _{H-H} < 1.2 Å, the UHF solution does not appear, and the singlet state is described by RHF (single slater determinant). In this region, the energy gap between full CI and RHF that is known as correlation energy indicates a necessity of the dynamical correlation correction as discussed later.

In order to elucidate how the double-excitation state is included in the BS solution, the occupation numbers of the highest occupied natural orbital (HONO) are plotted along the H-H distance in Figure 2(b). The figure indicates that the occupation number is 2.0 in the closed shell region, while it suddenly decreases at the bifurcation point. And it finally closes to 1.0 at the dissociation limit. In Figure 2(c), calculated * y/2* values from the occupation numbers are compared with the weight of the double excitation (W

Next, we illustrate results of calculated effective exchange integral (* J*) values of the hydrogen molecule by Eq. (11). The calculated

Next, the BS and AP methods are applied for Cr_{2}(O_{2}CCH_{3})_{4}(OH_{2})_{2} (** 1**) complex [1] as illustrated in Figure 3(a). This complex involves a quadruple Cr(II)-Cr(II) bond (σ, π

As depicted in Figure 3(b), there are eight magnetic orbitals, i.e., bonding and antibonding σ, π _{//}, π_{⊥}, and δ orbitals that concern about the direct bond between Cr(II) ions. The NO analysis clarifies the nature of the Cr-Cr bond. If d-orbitals of two Cr(II) ions have sufficient overlap to form the stable covalent bond, the occupation numbers of each occupied orbital will be almost 2.0 (i.e., * T* is close to 1.0). As summarized in Table 1, however, those bonds show much smaller values. The occupation numbers of all of occupied σ, π, and δ orbitals are close to 1.0, indicating that electronic structure of the complex

Orbital | Occupation number () | Overlap () |
---|---|---|

δ | 1.148 | 0.148 |

π_{ave}2 | 1.242 | 0.242 |

σ | 1.625 | 0.625 |

By substituting the obtained energies and _{ab} values of the complex ** 1** are calculated as summarized in Table 2. In comparison with the experimental value, HF method underestimates the effective exchange interaction, while B3LYP method overestimates it. This result is quite similar to a tendency of the

Method | _{ab} values |
---|---|

B3LYP | −734 |

BH and HLYP | −520 |

HF | −264 |

Expt | −490 |

Finally, we examine the spin contamination error in the optimized structure. Here we focus on a singlet methylene (CH_{2}). As illustrated in Figure 4(a), the methylene molecule has two valence orbitals (_{1} and _{2}) and two spins in those orbitals. Those two orbitals are orthogonal and energetically quasi-degenerate each other. The ground state of the molecule is ^{3}B_{1} (triplet) state, and ^{1}A_{1} (singlet) state is the first excited state. Components of the wavefunction of ^{1}A_{1} state obtained by BS method as illustrated in Figure 4(b) have been graphically explained [36]. The spin-restricted method such as RHF considers only single component (the first term of Figure 4(b)) although the BS wavefunction involves three components as illustrated in Figure 4(b). The existence of the triplet component is the origin of the spin contamination error in this system.

Both ^{1}A_{1} and ^{3}B_{1} methylene molecules have bent structures, but the experimental data indicates a large structural difference between them. For example, as summarized in Table 3, experimental HCH angles (θ_{HCH}) of ^{1}A_{1} and ^{3}B_{1} states are 102.4° and 134.0°, respectively [66, 67]. There have also been many reports of the SA results as summarized in Ref. [68]. On the other hand, the BS method is a convenient substitute for CI and CAS method, so here we examined the optimized geometry of the ^{1}A_{1} methylene by SA and BS methods. In order to elucidate a dependency of the spin contamination error on the calculation methods, HF, configuration interaction method with all double substitutions (CID), coupled-cluster method with double substitutions (CCD), several levels of Møller-Plesset energy correction methods (MP2, MP3, and MP4(SDQ)), and a hybrid DFT (B3LYP) method are also examined. In the case of ^{1}A_{1} state, all SA results are in good agreement with the experimental values; however, it is reported that energy gap between the singlet and triplet (S-T gap) value is too much underestimated [65]. On the other hand, all BS results overestimate the HCH angle. The difference in HCH angle between the BS values and experimental one is about 10–20°. The HCH angles of UCI and UCC methods are especially larger than MP and DFT methods, indicating that the post-HF methods even require some correction for such systems if the BS procedure is utilized. Therefore it is difficult to use the BS solution for ^{1}A_{1} state without some corrections. On the other hand, by applying the AP method to the BS solution, the error is drastically improved, and the optimized structural parameters became in good agreement with experimental ones. The difference in the optimized _{HCH} values between the BS and the AP method, i.e., the spin contamination error in the optimized geometry, is about 10–20°. Those results strongly indicate that the spin contamination sometimes becomes a serious problem in the structural optimization of spin-polarized systems and the AP method can work well for its elimination. On the other hand, the optimized structure with the AP-UHF method almost corresponds to CASSCF(2,2) result. This means that the AP method approximates two-electron excitation in the (2,2) active space well. The _{HCH} values become smaller by including higher electron correlation with the larger CAS space such as CASSCF(6,6) or with the dynamical correlation correction such as MRMP2(2,2) and MRMP2(6,6). The result of the spin-projected MP4 (AP MP4(SDQ)) successfully reproduced the MRMP2(6,6) result, indicating that the AP method plus dynamical correlation correction is a promising approach.

Method | _{CH}a | _{HCH}b | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

SA | BS | AP | (^{3}B_{1}) | SA | BS | AP | (^{3}B_{1}) | ||

HF | 1.097 | 1.083 | 1.098 | 1.071 | 103.1 | 115.5 | 102.9 | 130.7 | |

CID | 1.114 | 1.091 | 1.112 | 1.081 | 101.6 | 119.7 | 101.9 | 131.8 | |

CCD | 1.116 | 1.087 | 1.113 | 1.082 | 101.7 | 125.1 | 102.4 | 132.0 | |

MP2 | 1.109 | 1.091 | 1.109 | 1.077 | 102.0 | 114.7 | 100.9 | 131.6 | |

MP3 | 1.109 | 1.094 | 1.112 | 1.080 | 102.0 | 114.9 | 101.0 | 131.8 | |

MP4(SDQ) | 1.117 | 1.096 | 1.114 | 1.081 | 101.2 | 115.0 | 101.0 | 131.9 | |

B3LYP | 1.120 | 1.100 | 1.113 | 1.082 | 100.3 | 112.9 | 103.2 | 133.1 | |

CASSCF(2,2) | 1.097 | 102.9 | |||||||

CASSCF(6,6) | 1.124 | 100.9 | |||||||

MRMP2(2,2) | 1.109 | 102.0 | |||||||

MRMP2(6,6) | 1.122 | 101.1 | |||||||

Expt.d | 1.107 | 1.077 | 102.4 | 134.0 |

By calculating Hessian, one can also obtain frequencies of the normal modes. In Table 4, the calculated frequencies of the normal mode singlet methylene are summarized. The significant difference between the BS and AP methods can be found in a bending mode. The BS result underestimates the binding mode frequency by the contamination of the triplet state. On the other hand, the AP result gives close to the experimental result of ^{1}A_{1} species. In this way, the AP method is also effective for the normal mode analysis as well as the geometry optimization.

Advertisement
## 4. Summary

In this chapter, we explain how the BS method breaks the spin symmetry and AP method recover it. In addition, we also demonstrate how those methods work the biradical systems. The theoretical studies of the large biradical and polyradical systems such as polynuclear metal complexes have been fairly realized by the BS HDFT methods in this decade. The BS method is quite powerful for the large degenerate systems, but one must be careful about the spin contamination error. Therefore the AP method would be important for those studies. For example, it is suggested that the spin contamination error misleads a reaction path that involves biradical transition states (TS) or intermediate state (IM) [73]. In addition, in the case of the more larger systems, e.g., metalloproteins, some kind of semiempirical approach combined with the AP hybrid DFT method by ONIOM method will be effective [74]. By using the method, the mechanisms of the long-distance electron transfers and so on will be elucidated. In such cases, one also must be careful about the parameter of the semiempirical approach to fit the spin-polarized systems. Recently, some improvements for PM6 method have been proposed [75, 76]. Because the PM6 calculation can be utilized for the outer region in ONIOM approach, therefore the AP method is also the effective method for the larger systems. In addition, the BS wavefunction can be applied for other molecular properties by combining with other theoretical procedures. For example, it was reported that the electron conductivity of spin-polarized systems could be simulated by using the BS wavefunction together with elastic Green’s function method [77], and some applications for one-dimensional complexes have reported [78, 79]. The results indicate that the BS wavefunctions can be applied for calculations of the physical properties of the strong electron correlation systems as well as their electronic structures. The spin-projected wavefunctions seem to be effective for such simulations of the physical properties. From those points of view, the BS and AP methods have a great potential to clarify chemical and physical phenomena that are still open questions.

- 1.
Cotton FA, Walton RA. Multiple Bonds Between Metal Atoms. Oxford: Clarrendon Press; 1993 - 2.
Bera JK, Dunbar KR. Angewandte Chemie, International Edition. 2002; 41 :23 - 3.
Mashima K, Tanaka M, Tani T, Nakamura A, Takeda S, Mori W, Yamaguchi WK. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1997; 119 :4307 - 4.
Mashima K. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan. 2010; 83 :299 - 5.
Murahashi T, Mochizuki E, Kai Y, Kurosawa H. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1999; 121 :10660 - 6.
Wang C-C, Lo W-C, Chou C-C, Lee G-H, Chen J-M, Peng S-M. Inorganic Chemistry. 1998; 37 :4059 - 7.
Lai S-Y, Lin T-W, Chen Y-H, Wang C-C, Lee G-H, Yang M-H, Leung M-K, Peng S-M. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1999; 121 :250 - 8.
Gatteschi D, Kahn O, Miller JS, Palacio F, editors. Magnetic Molecular Materials. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991 - 9.
Kahn O, editor. Magnetism: A Supermolecular Function; NATO ASI Series C. Vol. 484. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996 - 10.
Coronado E, Dekhais P, Gatteschi D, Miller JS, editors. Molecular Magnetism: From Molecular Assemblies to the Devices, NATO ASI Series E. Vol. 321. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996 - 11.
Müller A, Kögerler P, Dress AWM. Coordination Chemistry Reviews. 2001; 222 :193 - 12.
Sessoli R, Gatteschi D, Aneschi A, Novak MA. Nature. 1993; 365 :141 - 13.
Taft KL, Delfs CD, Papaefthymiou GC, Foner S, Gatteschi D, Lippard SJ. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1994; 116 :823 - 14.
Oshio H, Hoshino N, Ito T, Nakano M. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2004; 126 :8805 - 15.
Hoshino N, Nakano M, Nojiri H, Wernsdorfer W, Oshio H. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2009; 131 :15100 - 16.
Clerac R, Miyasaka H, Yamashita M, Coulon C. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2002; 124 :12837 - 17.
Peng S-M, Wang C-C, Jang Y-L, Chen Y-H, Li F-Y, Mou C-Y, Leung M-K. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 2000; 209 :80 - 18.
Kisida H, Matsuzaki H, Okamoto H, Manabe T, Yamashita M, Taguchi Y, Tokura Y. Nature. 2000; 405 :929 - 19.
S-Y Lin, Chen I-WP, Chen C-H, Hsieh M-H, Yeh C-Y, Lin T-W, Chen Y-H, Peng S-M. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2004; 108 :959 - 20.
Messerschmidt A, Huber R, Poulos T, Wieghardt K, editors. Handbook of Metalloproteins. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001 - 21.
Siegbahn PEM. Chemical Reviews. 2000; 100 :4211 - 22.
Inoue T, Shiota Y, Yoshizawa K. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2008; 130 :16890 - 23.
Nakatani N, Nakao Y, Sato H, Sakaki S. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B; 113 :4826 - 24.
Noodleman L, Lovell T, Han W-G, Li J, Himo F. Chemical Reviews. 2004; 104 :459 - 25.
Siegbahn PEM. Inorganic Chemistry. 2000; 39 :2923 - 26.
Yamanaka S, Takeda R, Yamaguchi K. Polyhedron. 2003; 22 :2013 - 27.
Torres RA, Lovell T, Noodleman L, Case DA. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2003; 125 :1923 - 28.
Day A, Jenney J FE, Adams MWW, Babini E, Takahashi Y, Fukuyama K, Hodgson KO, Hedman B, Solomon EI. Science. 2007; 318 :1464 - 29.
Shoji M, Koizumi K, Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. Lecture Series on Computer and Computational Sciences. 2006; 7 :499 - 30.
Kitagawa Y, Shoji M, Saito T, Nakanishi Y, Koizumi K, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2008; 108 :2881 - 31.
Carbo R, Klobukowski Ed M. Self-Consistent Field Theory and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1990. p. 727 - 32.
Yamaguchi K, Kawakami T, Takano Y, Kitagawa Y, Yamashita Y, Fujita H. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2002; 90 :370 - 33.
Yamaguchi K, Yamanaka S, Kitagawa Y. The nature of effective exchange interactions. In: Palacio F et al., editors. Carbon Magnet. Elsevier; 2006. pp. 201-228 - 34.
Yamaguchi K, Kitagawa Y, Yamanaka S, Yamaki D, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Nagao H, Kruchinin SK. In: Scharnburg K, editor. First Principle Calculations of Effective Exchange Integrals for Copper Oxides and Isoelectronic Species, in NATO Series. Elsevier; 2006 - 35.
Caneschi A, Gatteschi D, Sangregorio C, Sessoli R, Sorace L, Cornia A, Novak MA, Paulsen C, Wernsdorfer W. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 1999; 200 :182 - 36.
Cremer D. Molecular Physics. 2001; 99 :1899 - 37.
Roos BO, Taylor PR, Siegbahn PEM. Chemical Physics. 1980; 48 :157 - 38.
Andersson K, Malmqvist P-Å, Roos BO, Sadlej SJ, Wolinski K. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1990; 94 :5483 - 39.
Hirao K. Chemical Physics Letters. 1992; 190 :374 - 40.
Miralles J, Castell O, Cabollol R, Malrieu JP. Chemical Physics. 1993; 172 :33 - 41.
Calzado CJ, Cabrero J, Malrieu JP, Caballol R. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2002; 116 :2728 - 42.
Calzado CJ, Cabrero J, Malrieu JP, Caballol R. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2002; 116 :3985 - 43.
Miehlich B, Stoll H, Savin A. Molecular Physics. 1997; 91 :527 - 44.
Grafenstein J, Cremer D. Chemical Physics Letters. 2000; 316 :569 - 45.
Takeda R, Yamanaka S, Yamaguchi K. Chemical Physics Letters. 2002; 366 :321 - 46.
Laidig WD, Bartlett RJ. Chemical Physics Letters. 1983; 104 :424 - 47.
Jeziorski B, Paldus JJ. Chemical Physics. 1988; 88 :5673 - 48.
Mahapatra US, Datta B, Mukherjee D. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A. 1999; 103 :1822 - 49.
Yanai T, Chan GK-L. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2006; 124 :19416 - 50.
Kurashige Y, Yanai T. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2009; 130 :234114 - 51.
Yanai T, Kurashige Y, Neuscamman E, Chan GK-L. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2010; 132 :024105 - 52.
Löwdin P-O. Physics Review. 1955; 97 :1509 - 53.
Lykos P, Pratt GW. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1963; 35 :496 - 54.
Yamaguchi K, Yamanaka S, Nishino M, Takano Y, Kitagawa Y, Nagao H, Yoshioka Y. Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 1999; 102 :328 - 55.
Szabo A, Ostlund NS. Modern Quantum Chemistry. New York: Dover Publications, Inc; 1996. ch. 3. pp. 205-230 - 56.
Sonnenberg JL, Schlegel HB, Hratchian HP. In: Solomon IE, Scott RA, King RB, editors. Computational Inorganic and Bioinorganic Chemistry (EIC Books). UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2009. p. 173 - 57.
Mayer I. In: Löwdin P-O, editor. Advances in Quantum Chemistry. Vol. vol. 12. New York: Academic Press, Inc; 1980. p. 189 - 58.
Löwdin P-O. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1964; 36 :966 - 59.
(a) Yamaguchi K, Takahara Y, Fueno T, Houk KN. Theoretica Chimica Acta. 1988; 73 :337; (b) Takahara Y, Yamaguchi, K, Fueno T, Chemical Physics. Letters. 1989;157 :211; (c) Yamaguchi K, Toyoda Y, Fueno T. Chemical Physics. Letters. 1989;159 :459 - 60.
Yamaguchi K, Okumura M, Mori W. Chemical Physics Letters. 1993; 210 :201 - 61.
Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Nakano M, Yamaguchi K. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM. 1994; 310 :205 - 62.
Kitagawa Y, Saito T, Ito M, Shoji M, Koizumi K, Yamanaka S, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. Chemical Physics Letters. 2007; 442 :445 - 63.
Saito T, Nishihara S, Kataoka Y, Nakanishi Y, Matsui T, Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. Chemical Physics Letters. 2009; 483 :168 - 64.
Kitagawa Y, Saito T, Nakanishi Y, Kataoka Y, Shoji M, Koizumi K, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2009; 109 :3641 - 65.
Kitagawa Y, Saito T, Nakanishi Y, Kataoka Y, Matsui T, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A. 2009; 113 :15041 - 66.
Petek H, Nesbitt DJ, Darwin DC, Ogilby PR, Moore CB, Ramsay DA. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1989; 91 :6566 - 67.
Bunker PR, Jensen P, Kraemer WP, Beardsworth R. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1986; 85 :3724 - 68.
Hargittai M, Schults G, Hargittai I. Russian Chemical Bulletin, International Edition. 2001; 50 :1903 - 69.
Kitagawa Y, Soda T, Shigeta Y, Yamanaka S, Yoshioka Y, Yamaguchi K. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2001; 84 :592 - 70.
Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Yamaguchi K. Molecular Physics. 2002; 100 :1829 - 71.
Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Yoshioka Y, Yamaguchi K. Polyhedron. 2001; 20 :1189 - 72.
Kitagawa Y, Yasuda N, Hatake H, Saito T, Kataoka Y, Matsui T, Kawakami T, Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2013; 113 :290 - 73.
Saito T, Nishihara S, Kataoka Y, Nakanishi Y, Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A. 2010; 114 :12116 - 74.
Kitagawa Y, Yasuda N, Hatake H, Saito T, Kataoka Y, Matsui T, Kawakami T, Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2013; 113 :290 - 75.
Saito T, Kitagawa Y, Takano Y. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A. 2016; 120 :8750 - 76.
Saito T, Kitagawa Y, Kawakami T, Yamanaka S, Okumura M, Takano Y. Polyedeon. 2017; 136 :52 - 77.
Nakanishi Y, Matsui T, Kitagawa Y, Shigeta Y, Saito T, Kataoka Y, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan. 2011; 84 :366 - 78.
Kitagawa Y, Matsui T, Nakanishi Y, Shigeta Y, Kawakami T, Okumura M, Yamaguchi K. Dalton Transactions. 2013; 42 :16200 - 79.
Kitagawa Y, Asaoka M, Natori Y, Miyagi K, Teramoto R, Matsui T, Shigeta Y, Okumura M, Nakano M. Polyhedron. 2017; 136 :125

Submitted: July 12th, 2017 Reviewed: February 20th, 2018 Published: July 18th, 2018

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.