add Antoine example and degreenified Hugh comments
This commit is contained in:
parent
77fa6c4dcc
commit
a96a52c464
@ -195,36 +195,36 @@ We refer the interested reader to the excellent book of Moiseyev for a general o
|
|||||||
\label{sec:TDSE}
|
\label{sec:TDSE}
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
Within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the exact molecular Hamiltonian with $\Ne$ electrons and
|
Within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the exact molecular Hamiltonian with $\Ne$ electrons and
|
||||||
$\Nn$ (clamped) nuclei is defined \hugh{for a given nuclear framework} as
|
$\Nn$ (clamped) nuclei is defined for a given nuclear framework as
|
||||||
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ExactHamiltonian}
|
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ExactHamiltonian}
|
||||||
\hugh{\hH(\vb{R})} =
|
\hH(\vb{R}) =
|
||||||
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i}^{\Ne} \grad_i^2
|
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i}^{\Ne} \grad_i^2
|
||||||
- \sum_{i}^{\Ne} \sum_{A}^{\Nn} \frac{Z_A}{\abs{\vb{r}_i-\vb{R}_A}}
|
- \sum_{i}^{\Ne} \sum_{A}^{\Nn} \frac{Z_A}{\abs{\vb{r}_i-\vb{R}_A}}
|
||||||
+ \sum_{i<j}^{\Ne}\frac{1}{\abs{\vb{r}_i-\vb{r}_j}},
|
+ \sum_{i<j}^{\Ne}\frac{1}{\abs{\vb{r}_i-\vb{r}_j}},
|
||||||
\end{equation}
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
where $\vb{r}_i$ defines the position of the $i$-th electron, $\vb{R}_{A}$ and $Z_{A}$ are the position
|
where $\vb{r}_i$ defines the position of the $i$-th electron, $\vb{R}_{A}$ and $Z_{A}$ are the position
|
||||||
and charge of the $A$-th nucleus respectively, \hugh{and $\vb{R} = (\vb{R}_{1}, \dots, \vb{R}_{\Nn})$ is a
|
and charge of the $A$-th nucleus respectively, and $\vb{R} = (\vb{R}_{1}, \dots, \vb{R}_{\Nn})$ is a
|
||||||
collective vector for the nuclear positions.}
|
collective vector for the nuclear positions.
|
||||||
The first term represents the kinetic energy of the electrons, while
|
The first term represents the kinetic energy of the electrons, while
|
||||||
the two following terms account for the electron-nucleus attraction and the electron-electron repulsion.
|
the two following terms account for the electron-nucleus attraction and the electron-electron repulsion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% EXACT SCHRODINGER EQUATION
|
% EXACT SCHRODINGER EQUATION
|
||||||
The exact many-electron wave function \hugh{at a given nuclear geometry} $\Psi(\vb{R})$ corresponds
|
The exact many-electron wave function at a given nuclear geometry $\Psi(\vb{R})$ corresponds
|
||||||
to the solution of the (time-independent) Schr\"{o}dinger equation
|
to the solution of the (time-independent) Schr\"{o}dinger equation
|
||||||
\begin{equation}
|
\begin{equation}
|
||||||
\hugh{\hH(\vb{R})\, \Psi(\vb{R}) = E(\vb{R})\, \Psi(\vb{R}),}
|
\hH(\vb{R})\, \Psi(\vb{R}) = E(\vb{R})\, \Psi(\vb{R}),
|
||||||
\label{eq:SchrEq}
|
\label{eq:SchrEq}
|
||||||
\end{equation}
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
with the eigenvalues $E(\vb{R})$ providing the exact energies.
|
with the eigenvalues $E(\vb{R})$ providing the exact energies.
|
||||||
\hugh{The energy $E(\vb{R})$ can be considered as a ``one-to-many'' function since each input nuclear geometry
|
The energy $E(\vb{R})$ can be considered as a ``one-to-many'' function since each input nuclear geometry
|
||||||
yields several eigenvalues corresponding to the ground and excited states of the exact spectrum.}
|
yields several eigenvalues corresponding to the ground and excited states of the exact spectrum.
|
||||||
However, exact solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:SchrEq} are only possible in the simplest of systems, such as
|
However, exact solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:SchrEq} are only possible in the simplest of systems, such as
|
||||||
the one-electron hydrogen atom and some specific two-electron systems with well-defined mathematical
|
the one-electron hydrogen atom and some specific two-electron systems with well-defined mathematical
|
||||||
properties.\cite{Taut_1993,Loos_2009b,Loos_2010e,Loos_2012}
|
properties.\cite{Taut_1993,Loos_2009b,Loos_2010e,Loos_2012}
|
||||||
\hugh{In practice, approximations to the exact Schr\"{o}dinger equation must be introduced, including
|
In practice, approximations to the exact Schr\"{o}dinger equation must be introduced, including
|
||||||
the perturbation theories and Hartree--Fock approximation considered in this review
|
the perturbation theories and Hartree--Fock approximation considered in this review
|
||||||
In what follows, we will drop the parametric dependence on the nuclear geometry and,
|
In what follows, we will drop the parametric dependence on the nuclear geometry and,
|
||||||
unless otherwise stated, atomic units will be used throughout.}
|
unless otherwise stated, atomic units will be used throughout.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%===================================%
|
%===================================%
|
||||||
\subsection{Exceptional Points in the Hubbard Dimer}
|
\subsection{Exceptional Points in the Hubbard Dimer}
|
||||||
@ -249,10 +249,8 @@ unless otherwise stated, atomic units will be used throughout.}
|
|||||||
\end{figure*}
|
\end{figure*}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To illustrate the concepts discussed throughout this article, we consider the symmetric Hubbard dimer at half filling, \ie\ with two opposite-spin fermions.
|
To illustrate the concepts discussed throughout this article, we consider the symmetric Hubbard dimer at half filling, \ie\ with two opposite-spin fermions.
|
||||||
Analytic\trashHB{ally solvable} model systems are essential in theoretical chemistry and physics as their \hugh{mathematical} simplicity \trashHB{of the
|
Analytically solvable models are essential in theoretical chemistry and physics as their mathematical simplicity compared to realistic systems (e.g., atoms and molecules) allows new concepts and methods to be
|
||||||
mathematics} compared to realistic systems (e.g., atoms and molecules) allows new concepts and methods to be
|
easily tested while retaining the key physical phenomena.
|
||||||
easily \trashHB{illustrated and} tested while retaining the key physical phenomena.
|
|
||||||
\hugh{(HGAB: This sentence felt too long to me. Feel free to re-instate words if you think they are neccessary)}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Using the (localised) site basis, the Hilbert space of the Hubbard dimer comprises the four configurations
|
Using the (localised) site basis, the Hilbert space of the Hubbard dimer comprises the four configurations
|
||||||
\begin{align}
|
\begin{align}
|
||||||
@ -274,12 +272,11 @@ where $t$ is the hopping parameter and $U$ is the on-site Coulomb repulsion.
|
|||||||
We refer the interested reader to Refs.~\onlinecite{Carrascal_2015,Carrascal_2018} for more details about this system.
|
We refer the interested reader to Refs.~\onlinecite{Carrascal_2015,Carrascal_2018} for more details about this system.
|
||||||
The parameter $U$ controls the strength of the electron correlation.
|
The parameter $U$ controls the strength of the electron correlation.
|
||||||
In the weak correlation regime (small $U$), the kinetic energy dominates and the electrons are delocalised over both sites.
|
In the weak correlation regime (small $U$), the kinetic energy dominates and the electrons are delocalised over both sites.
|
||||||
In the large-$U$ (or strong correlation) regime, the electron repulsion term \hugh{becomes dominant} \trashHB{drives the physics}
|
In the large-$U$ (or strong correlation) regime, the electron repulsion term becomes dominant
|
||||||
and the electrons localise on opposite sites to minimise their Coulomb repulsion.
|
and the electrons localise on opposite sites to minimise their Coulomb repulsion.
|
||||||
This phenomenon is often referred to as Wigner crystallisation. \cite{Wigner_1934}
|
This phenomenon is often referred to as Wigner crystallisation. \cite{Wigner_1934}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To illustrate the formation of an EP, we scale the off-diagonal coupling strength by introducing the complex parameter $\lambda$ through the transformation $t\rightarrow \lambda t$
|
To illustrate the formation of an EP, we scale the off-diagonal coupling strength by introducing the complex parameter $\lambda$ through the transformation $t\rightarrow \lambda t$ to give the parameterised Hamiltonian $\hH(\lambda)$.
|
||||||
\hugh{to give the parameterised Hamiltonian $\hH(\lambda)$.}
|
|
||||||
When $\lambda$ is real, the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:H_FCI} is Hermitian with the distinct (real-valued) (eigen)energies
|
When $\lambda$ is real, the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:H_FCI} is Hermitian with the distinct (real-valued) (eigen)energies
|
||||||
\begin{subequations}
|
\begin{subequations}
|
||||||
\begin{align}
|
\begin{align}
|
||||||
@ -321,7 +318,7 @@ As a result, completely encircling an EP leads to the interconversion of the two
|
|||||||
Additionally, the wave functions pick up a geometric phase in the process, and four complete loops are required to recover their starting forms.\cite{MoiseyevBook}
|
Additionally, the wave functions pick up a geometric phase in the process, and four complete loops are required to recover their starting forms.\cite{MoiseyevBook}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% LOCATING EPS
|
% LOCATING EPS
|
||||||
\hugh{To locate EPs in practice, one must simultaneously solve
|
To locate EPs in practice, one must simultaneously solve
|
||||||
\begin{subequations}
|
\begin{subequations}
|
||||||
\begin{align}
|
\begin{align}
|
||||||
\label{eq:PolChar}
|
\label{eq:PolChar}
|
||||||
@ -336,15 +333,15 @@ Equation \eqref{eq:PolChar} is the well-known secular equation providing the (ei
|
|||||||
If the energy is also solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DPolChar}, then this energy value is at least two-fold degenerate.
|
If the energy is also solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DPolChar}, then this energy value is at least two-fold degenerate.
|
||||||
These degeneracies can be conical intersections between two states with different symmetries
|
These degeneracies can be conical intersections between two states with different symmetries
|
||||||
for real values of $\lambda$,\cite{Yarkony_1996} or EPs between two states with the
|
for real values of $\lambda$,\cite{Yarkony_1996} or EPs between two states with the
|
||||||
same symmetry for complex values of $\lambda$.}
|
same symmetry for complex values of $\lambda$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%============================================================%
|
%============================================================%
|
||||||
\subsection{Rayleigh-Schr\"odinger Perturbation Theory}
|
\subsection{Rayleigh-Schr\"odinger Perturbation Theory}
|
||||||
%============================================================%
|
%============================================================%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hugh{One of the most common routes to approximately solving the Schr\"odinger equation
|
One of the most common routes to approximately solving the Schr\"odinger equation
|
||||||
is to introduce a perturbative expansion of the exact energy.}
|
is to introduce a perturbative expansion of the exact energy.
|
||||||
% SUMMARY OF RS-PT
|
% SUMMARY OF RS-PT
|
||||||
Within Rayleigh-Schr\"odinger perturbation theory, the time-independent Schr\"odinger equation
|
Within Rayleigh-Schr\"odinger perturbation theory, the time-independent Schr\"odinger equation
|
||||||
is recast as
|
is recast as
|
||||||
@ -401,10 +398,12 @@ However, this series diverges for $x \ge 1$.
|
|||||||
This divergence occurs because $f(x)$ has four singularities in the complex
|
This divergence occurs because $f(x)$ has four singularities in the complex
|
||||||
($\e^{\i\pi/4}$, $\e^{-\i\pi/4}$, $\e^{\i3\pi/4}$, and $\e^{-\i3\pi/4}$) with a modulus equal to $1$, demonstrating
|
($\e^{\i\pi/4}$, $\e^{-\i\pi/4}$, $\e^{\i3\pi/4}$, and $\e^{-\i3\pi/4}$) with a modulus equal to $1$, demonstrating
|
||||||
that complex singularities are essential to fully understand the series convergence on the real axis.\cite{BenderBook}
|
that complex singularities are essential to fully understand the series convergence on the real axis.\cite{BenderBook}
|
||||||
\titou{Include Antoine's example $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda^n/n$ which is divergent at $\lambda = 1$ but convergent at $\lambda = -1$.}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The radius of convergence for the perturbation series Eq.~\eqref{eq:E_expansion} is therefore dictated by the magnitude \titou{$\abs{\lambda_0}$} of the
|
The radius of convergence for the perturbation series Eq.~\eqref{eq:E_expansion} is therefore dictated by the magnitude $\abs{\lambda_c}$ of the
|
||||||
singularity in $E(\lambda)$ that is closest to the origin.
|
singularity in $E(\lambda)$ that is closest to the origin.
|
||||||
|
Note that when $\lambda = \lambda_c$, one cannot \textit{a priori} predict if the series is convergent or not.
|
||||||
|
For example, the series $\sum_{k=1}^\infty \lambda^k/k$ diverges at $\lambda = 1$ but converges at $\lambda = -1$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Like the exact system in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}, the perturbation energy $E(\lambda)$ represents
|
Like the exact system in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}, the perturbation energy $E(\lambda)$ represents
|
||||||
a ``one-to-many'' function with the output elements representing an approximation to both the ground and excited states.
|
a ``one-to-many'' function with the output elements representing an approximation to both the ground and excited states.
|
||||||
The most common singularities on $E(\lambda)$ therefore correspond to non-analytic EPs in the complex
|
The most common singularities on $E(\lambda)$ therefore correspond to non-analytic EPs in the complex
|
||||||
@ -423,7 +422,7 @@ This Slater determinant is defined as an antisymmetric combination of $\Ne$ (rea
|
|||||||
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FockOp}
|
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FockOp}
|
||||||
\Hat{f}(\vb{x}) \phi_p(\vb{x}) = \qty[ \Hat{h}(\vb{x}) + \Hat{v}_\text{HF}(\vb{x}) ] \phi_p(\vb{x}) = \epsilon_p \phi_p(\vb{x}).
|
\Hat{f}(\vb{x}) \phi_p(\vb{x}) = \qty[ \Hat{h}(\vb{x}) + \Hat{v}_\text{HF}(\vb{x}) ] \phi_p(\vb{x}) = \epsilon_p \phi_p(\vb{x}).
|
||||||
\end{equation}
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
Here the \hugh{(one-electron)} core Hamiltonian is
|
Here the (one-electron) core Hamiltonian is
|
||||||
\begin{equation}
|
\begin{equation}
|
||||||
\label{eq:Hcore}
|
\label{eq:Hcore}
|
||||||
\Hat{h}(\vb{x}) = -\frac{\grad^2}{2} + \sum_{A}^{M} \frac{Z_A}{\abs{\vb{r}-\vb{R}_A}}
|
\Hat{h}(\vb{x}) = -\frac{\grad^2}{2} + \sum_{A}^{M} \frac{Z_A}{\abs{\vb{r}-\vb{R}_A}}
|
||||||
@ -566,8 +565,8 @@ Time-reversal symmetry dictates that this UHF wave function must be degenerate w
|
|||||||
by swapping $\ta^{\text{UHF}}$ and $\tb^{\text{UHF}}$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ta_uhf} and \eqref{eq:tb_uhf}.
|
by swapping $\ta^{\text{UHF}}$ and $\tb^{\text{UHF}}$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ta_uhf} and \eqref{eq:tb_uhf}.
|
||||||
This type of symmetry breaking is also called a spin-density wave in the physics community as the system
|
This type of symmetry breaking is also called a spin-density wave in the physics community as the system
|
||||||
``oscillates'' between the two symmetry-broken configurations. \cite{GiulianiBook}
|
``oscillates'' between the two symmetry-broken configurations. \cite{GiulianiBook}
|
||||||
\hugh{Symmetry breaking can also occur in RHF theory when a charge-density wave is formed from an oscillation
|
Symmetry breaking can also occur in RHF theory when a charge-density wave is formed from an oscillation
|
||||||
between the two closed-shell configurations with both electrons localised on one site or the other.\cite{StuberPaldus,Fukutome_1981}}
|
between the two closed-shell configurations with both electrons localised on one site or the other.\cite{StuberPaldus,Fukutome_1981}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%============================================================%
|
%============================================================%
|
||||||
\subsection{Self-Consistency as a Perturbation} %OR {Complex adiabatic connection}
|
\subsection{Self-Consistency as a Perturbation} %OR {Complex adiabatic connection}
|
||||||
@ -580,7 +579,7 @@ Alternatively, the non-linear terms arising from the Coulomb and exchange operat
|
|||||||
be considered as a perturbation from the core Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hcore} by introducing the
|
be considered as a perturbation from the core Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hcore} by introducing the
|
||||||
transformation $U \rightarrow \lambda\, U$, giving the parametrised Fock operator
|
transformation $U \rightarrow \lambda\, U$, giving the parametrised Fock operator
|
||||||
\begin{equation}
|
\begin{equation}
|
||||||
\Hat{f}(\vb{x} \hugh{; \lambda}) = \Hat{h}(\vb{x}) + \lambda\, \Hat{v}_\text{HF}(\vb{x}).
|
\Hat{f}(\vb{x} ; \lambda) = \Hat{h}(\vb{x}) + \lambda\, \Hat{v}_\text{HF}(\vb{x}).
|
||||||
\end{equation}
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
The orbitals in the reference problem $\lambda=0$ correspond to the symmetry-pure eigenfunctions of the one-electron core
|
The orbitals in the reference problem $\lambda=0$ correspond to the symmetry-pure eigenfunctions of the one-electron core
|
||||||
Hamiltonian, while self-consistent solutions at $\lambda = 1$ represent the orbitals of the true HF solution.
|
Hamiltonian, while self-consistent solutions at $\lambda = 1$ represent the orbitals of the true HF solution.
|
||||||
@ -700,9 +699,9 @@ i) the Epstein-Nesbet (EN) partitioning which consists in taking the diagonal el
|
|||||||
%Hence, the off-diagonal elements of $\hH$ are the perturbation operator,
|
%Hence, the off-diagonal elements of $\hH$ are the perturbation operator,
|
||||||
ii) the weak correlation partitioning in which the one-electron part is consider as the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hH^{(0)}$ and the two-electron part is the perturbation operator $\hV$, and
|
ii) the weak correlation partitioning in which the one-electron part is consider as the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hH^{(0)}$ and the two-electron part is the perturbation operator $\hV$, and
|
||||||
iii) the strong coupling partitioning where the two operators are inverted compared to the weak correlation partitioning. \cite{Seidl_2018}
|
iii) the strong coupling partitioning where the two operators are inverted compared to the weak correlation partitioning. \cite{Seidl_2018}
|
||||||
\hugh{While an in-depth comparison of these different approaches can offer insight into
|
While an in-depth comparison of these different approaches can offer insight into
|
||||||
their relative strengths and weaknesses for various situations, we will restrict our current discussion
|
their relative strengths and weaknesses for various situations, we will restrict our current discussion
|
||||||
to the convergence properties of the MP expansion.}
|
to the convergence properties of the MP expansion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%=====================================================%
|
%=====================================================%
|
||||||
\subsection{M{\o}ller-Plesset Convergence in Molecular Systems}
|
\subsection{M{\o}ller-Plesset Convergence in Molecular Systems}
|
||||||
@ -928,7 +927,6 @@ To do so, they analysed the relation between the dominant singularity (\ie, the
|
|||||||
\begin{quote}
|
\begin{quote}
|
||||||
\textit{``In the limit of large order, the series coefficients become equivalent to the Taylor series coefficients of the singularity closest to the origin. ''}
|
\textit{``In the limit of large order, the series coefficients become equivalent to the Taylor series coefficients of the singularity closest to the origin. ''}
|
||||||
\end{quote}
|
\end{quote}
|
||||||
\titou{T2: should we move this theorem earlier?}
|
|
||||||
Following the result of this theorem, the convergence patterns of the MP series can be explained by looking at the dominant singularity.
|
Following the result of this theorem, the convergence patterns of the MP series can be explained by looking at the dominant singularity.
|
||||||
A singularity in the unit circle is designated as an intruder state, more precisely as a front-door (respectively back-door) intruder state if the real part of the singularity is positive (respectively negative).
|
A singularity in the unit circle is designated as an intruder state, more precisely as a front-door (respectively back-door) intruder state if the real part of the singularity is positive (respectively negative).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user