Impact of Structure on Excitation Energies and <scp> S <sub>1</sub> </scp> ‐ <scp> T <sub>1</sub> </scp> Energy Gaps of Asymmetrical Systems of Interest for Inverted Singlet‐Triplet Gaps

Computational investigations of Inverted Singlet-Triplet (INVEST) emitters often rely on ADC(2) and TD-DFT excitation energies (EEs) obtained with the vertical approximation. Here, we first considered several cyclazine derivatives and examine the sensitivity of vertical EEs (VEEs) as well as singlet-triplet gaps, ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps, to the level at which the ground state (S<sub>0</sub>) structure was optimized. For cyclazine, VEEs and vertical gaps from ADC(2) or TD-DFT are spread over a narrow range (< 0.064 eV) whether the S<sub>0</sub> structure is optimized with various DFT, CCSD, and RI-MP2 methods. However, for asymmetric cyclazines, depending on the protocol for optimizing S<sub>0</sub> structures, not only are VEEs spread over a substantially wider range (up to 0.75 eV) but so are vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps (up to 0.30 eV), leading to cases where, with different S<sub>0</sub> structures, one obtains positive vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps or significantly negative gaps. We relate this behavior to the introduction of significant asymmetry and bond-length variations in the cyclazine derivatives, formed by ligand functionalization or modification of the cyclazine core. On a more positive note, adiabatic EEs (AEEs) and adiabatic ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps display significantly lower sensitivity (7-30× less) to the geometry optimization protocols than their vertical analogs. Crucially, for cyclazine, the M06-HF functional with 100% non-local exchange provides the closest S<sub>0</sub> geometry to available CCSD(T) data. We show that this effect exists also for other frameworks (e.g., azulene, pentaazaphenalene, and non-alternant polycyclic hydrocarbons) that have been considered for the INVEST property, with VEEs spread over a broader range of up to 1.19 eV and vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps over a range of 0.62 eV. For INVEST emitters, it is therefore extremely important to judiciously choose the computational protocol for optimizing ground state geometries, in computing VEEs and vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Published
2025-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.70090
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Organic Electronics and Photovoltaics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of Structure on Excitation Energies and S 1 ‐ T 1 Energy Gaps of Asymmetrical Systems of Interest for Inverted Singlet‐Triplet Gaps

Samuel O. Odoh, Gideon Odonkor
5 citations
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Organic Electronics and Photovoltaics
3.65
article

Impact of Structure on Excitation Energies and S 1 ‐ T 1 Energy Gaps of Asymmetrical Systems of Interest for Inverted Singlet‐Triplet Gaps

Samuel O. Odoh, Gideon Odonkor
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Computational investigations of Inverted Singlet-Triplet (INVEST) emitters often rely on ADC(2) and TD-DFT excitation energies (EEs) obtained with the vertical approximation. Here, we first considered several cyclazine derivatives and examine the sensitivity of vertical EEs (VEEs) as well as singlet-triplet gaps, ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps, to the level at which the ground state (S<sub>0</sub>) structure was optimized. For cyclazine, VEEs and vertical gaps from ADC(2) or TD-DFT are spread over a narrow range (< 0.064 eV) whether the S<sub>0</sub> structure is optimized with various DFT, CCSD, and RI-MP2 methods. However, for asymmetric cyclazines, depending on the protocol for optimizing S<sub>0</sub> structures, not only are VEEs spread over a substantially wider range (up to 0.75 eV) but so are vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps (up to 0.30 eV), leading to cases where, with different S<sub>0</sub> structures, one obtains positive vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps or significantly negative gaps. We relate this behavior to the introduction of significant asymmetry and bond-length variations in the cyclazine derivatives, formed by ligand functionalization or modification of the cyclazine core. On a more positive note, adiabatic EEs (AEEs) and adiabatic ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps display significantly lower sensitivity (7-30× less) to the geometry optimization protocols than their vertical analogs. Crucially, for cyclazine, the M06-HF functional with 100% non-local exchange provides the closest S<sub>0</sub> geometry to available CCSD(T) data. We show that this effect exists also for other frameworks (e.g., azulene, pentaazaphenalene, and non-alternant polycyclic hydrocarbons) that have been considered for the INVEST property, with VEEs spread over a broader range of up to 1.19 eV and vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps over a range of 0.62 eV. For INVEST emitters, it is therefore extremely important to judiciously choose the computational protocol for optimizing ground state geometries, in computing VEEs and vertical ΔE<sub>S1T1</sub> gaps.

Journal of Computational ChemistryVol. 46(8)
University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Organic Electronics and Photovoltaics
3.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.