Either accurate singlet-triplet gaps or excited-state structures: Testing and understanding the performance of TD-DFT for TADF emitters

06 September 2022, Version 1
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

The energy gap between the lowest singlet S1 and triplet T1 excited states ∆EST is a key property for thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitters. Time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) is widely used to predict this gap and study TADF in general, despite its well-known shortcomings concerning charge-transfer (CT) states. Furthermore, polar CT states strongly interact with their environment, whose treatment is another issue when in quantum-chemical excited-state methods. Addressing these two major challenges, this work explores the performance of Tamm-Dancoff-approximated (TDA)-DFT for the calculation of a large set of ∆EST values included in the recent STGABS27 benchmark set. To this end, we employ a wide range of approaches to include orbital relaxation, environmental effects, and structural relaxation. Surprisingly, the best-performing approach for the specific task of predicting ∆EST heavily relies on error cancellation to mimic environmental and orbital-relaxation effects, using functionals with a low amount of Fock exchange of ≈ 10 % (e.g., TPSSh) in combination with ground-state structures. Generally, however, this approach is not very useful as it provides systematically wrong excitation energies, excited-state structures and state characters. To some extent, similar issues are observed with all studied TDA-DFT approaches. We thus conclude that for the description of CT states in dielectric environments, TDA-DFT is not competitive with the recently presented ROKS/PCM approach regarding robustness, accuracy, and computational efficiency.

Keywords

Thermally-activated delayed fluorescence
Time-dependent density functional theory
Charge-transfer excited states

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting Information
Description
Detailed description of the computational workflow, methods and used programs; optimal tuning theory with obtained omega values; comparison between system specific and fixed ω values; effects of a D4 dispersion correction; discussion of the determined outliers; dihedral angles of the single-donor linear emitters; functional dependence of geometry optimization for vertical gaps; investigation of the involved state characters; comparison of OT procedure with global hybrids of low Fock exchange; definition of the used statistical measures; all TDA-DFT optimized geometries of both singlet and triplet states; all used input and output files for the presented results;
Actions

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.