Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
Scalar fields provide an intuitive picture of chemical bonding. In particular, the electron localization function (ELF) has proven to be highly valuable in interpreting a broad range of bonding patterns. The discrimination between enhanced or reduced electron (de) localization within cyclic pi-conjugated systems remains, however, challenging for ELF. In order to clearly distinguish between the local properties of ten highly and weakly pi-(de) localized prototype systems, we compare the ELFs of both the canonical wave functions and electron-localized states (diabatic) with those of two closely related scalar fields: the electron localizability indicator (ELI-D) and the localized orbital locator (LOL). The simplest LOL function distinguishes enhanced from weak p-(de) localization in an insightful and reliable manner. LOL offers the finest contrast between annulenes with 4n/4n + 2 pi electrons and their inorganic analogues as well as between hyperconjugated cyclopentadiene derivatives. LOL pi also gives an appealing and intuitive picture of the pi-bond. In contrast, the most popular ELF fails to capture subtle contrasting local electronic properties and suffers from the arbitrariness of the sigma/pi dissection. The orbital separation of the most recent ELI-D is clear-cut but the interpretations sometime less straightforward in the present context.