OK up to Sec IIIF
This commit is contained in:
parent
f8d2fc2d99
commit
1f0b1759d2
@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ to identify and remains an open question.
|
|||||||
% CLASSIFICATIONS BY GOODSOON AND SERGEEV
|
% CLASSIFICATIONS BY GOODSOON AND SERGEEV
|
||||||
To further develop the link between the critical point and types of MP convergence, Sergeev and Goodson investigated
|
To further develop the link between the critical point and types of MP convergence, Sergeev and Goodson investigated
|
||||||
the relationship with the location of the dominant singularity that controls the radius of convergence.\cite{Goodson_2004}
|
the relationship with the location of the dominant singularity that controls the radius of convergence.\cite{Goodson_2004}
|
||||||
They demonstrated that the dominant singularity in class A systems corresponds to a EP with a positive real component,
|
They demonstrated that the dominant singularity in class A systems corresponds to an EP with a positive real component,
|
||||||
where the magnitude of the imaginary component controls the oscillations in the signs of successive MP
|
where the magnitude of the imaginary component controls the oscillations in the signs of successive MP
|
||||||
terms.\cite{Goodson_2000a,Goodson_2000b}
|
terms.\cite{Goodson_2000a,Goodson_2000b}
|
||||||
In contrast, class B systems correspond to a dominant singularity on the negative real $\lambda$ axis representing
|
In contrast, class B systems correspond to a dominant singularity on the negative real $\lambda$ axis representing
|
||||||
@ -1159,7 +1159,7 @@ While a finite basis can only predict complex-conjugate branch point singulariti
|
|||||||
by a cluster of sharp avoided crossings between the ground state and high-lying excited states.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
by a cluster of sharp avoided crossings between the ground state and high-lying excited states.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
||||||
Alternatively, Sergeev \etal\ demonstrated that the inclusion of a ``ghost'' atom also
|
Alternatively, Sergeev \etal\ demonstrated that the inclusion of a ``ghost'' atom also
|
||||||
allows the formation of the critical point as the electrons form a bound cluster occupying the ghost atom orbitals.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
allows the formation of the critical point as the electrons form a bound cluster occupying the ghost atom orbitals.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
||||||
This effect explains the origin of the divergence in the \ce{HF} molecule as the fluorine valence electrons jump to hydrogen at
|
This effect explains the origin of the divergence in the \ce{HF} molecule as the fluorine valence electrons jump to \titou{the} hydrogen at
|
||||||
a sufficiently negative $\lambda$ value.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
a sufficiently negative $\lambda$ value.\cite{Sergeev_2005}
|
||||||
Furthermore, the two-state model of Olsen and collaborators \cite{Olsen_2000} was simply too minimal to understand the complexity of
|
Furthermore, the two-state model of Olsen and collaborators \cite{Olsen_2000} was simply too minimal to understand the complexity of
|
||||||
divergences caused by the MP critical point.
|
divergences caused by the MP critical point.
|
||||||
@ -1368,8 +1368,8 @@ radius of convergence (see Fig.~\ref{fig:RadConv}).
|
|||||||
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{fig9a}
|
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{fig9a}
|
||||||
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{fig9b}
|
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{fig9b}
|
||||||
\caption{\label{fig:PadeRMP}
|
\caption{\label{fig:PadeRMP}
|
||||||
RMP ground-state energy as a function of $\lambda$ obtained using various resummation
|
RMP ground-state energy as a function of $\lambda$ obtained using various \titou{truncated Taylor series and approximants}
|
||||||
techniques at $U/t = 3.5$ (left) and $U/t = 4.5$ (right).}
|
at $U/t = 3.5$ (left) and $U/t = 4.5$ (right).}
|
||||||
\end{figure*}
|
\end{figure*}
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -1467,7 +1467,7 @@ a convergent series.
|
|||||||
\begin{figure}[t]
|
\begin{figure}[t]
|
||||||
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig10}
|
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig10}
|
||||||
\caption{\label{fig:QuadUMP}
|
\caption{\label{fig:QuadUMP}
|
||||||
UMP energies as a function of $\lambda$ obtained using various resummation techniques at $U/t = 3$.}
|
UMP energies as a function of $\lambda$ obtained using various \titou{approximants} at $U/t = 3$.}
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -1538,7 +1538,7 @@ The remedy for this problem involves applying a suitable transformation of the c
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{table}[b]
|
\begin{table}[b]
|
||||||
\caption{Estimate for the distance of the closest singularity (pole or branch point) to the origin $\abs{\lc}$
|
\caption{Estimate for the distance of the closest singularity (pole or branch point) to the origin $\abs{\lc}$
|
||||||
in the UMP energy function provided by various resummation techniques at $U/t = 3$ and $7$.
|
in the UMP energy function provided by various \titou{truncated Taylor series and approximants} at $U/t = 3$ and $7$.
|
||||||
The truncation degree of the Taylor expansion $n$ of $E(\lambda)$ and the number of branch
|
The truncation degree of the Taylor expansion $n$ of $E(\lambda)$ and the number of branch
|
||||||
points $n_\text{bp} = \max(2d_p,d_q+d_r)$ generated by the quadratic approximants are also reported.
|
points $n_\text{bp} = \max(2d_p,d_q+d_r)$ generated by the quadratic approximants are also reported.
|
||||||
\label{tab:QuadUMP}}
|
\label{tab:QuadUMP}}
|
||||||
@ -1758,6 +1758,7 @@ the cost of larger denominators is an overall slower rate of convergence.
|
|||||||
Comparison of the scaled RMP10 Taylor expansion with the exact RMP energy as a function
|
Comparison of the scaled RMP10 Taylor expansion with the exact RMP energy as a function
|
||||||
of $\lambda$ for the symmetric Hubbard dimer at $U/t = 4.5$.
|
of $\lambda$ for the symmetric Hubbard dimer at $U/t = 4.5$.
|
||||||
The two functions correspond closely within the radius of convergence.
|
The two functions correspond closely within the radius of convergence.
|
||||||
|
\titou{T2: are we keeping this?}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
\label{fig:rmp_anal_cont}
|
\label{fig:rmp_anal_cont}
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user