mirror of
https://github.com/QuantumPackage/qp2.git
synced 2024-12-23 12:55:37 +01:00
notes
This commit is contained in:
parent
7e3e2b9db9
commit
5418ed0f1c
@ -1,6 +1,28 @@
|
||||
|
||||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
current:
|
||||
h_apply.irp.f
|
||||
push/pull_pt2
|
||||
pt2,norm_pert,h_pert_diag
|
||||
types?
|
||||
if complex, do we need to keep imag part? (should imag sum to zero?)
|
||||
h_apply_{,{,no}zmq}.template.f
|
||||
see generate_h_apply.py script
|
||||
may need to modify
|
||||
selectors
|
||||
(looks like nothing in e_corr_selectors.irp.f is used elsewhere?)
|
||||
(only e_corr_per_sel outside of src (provided in h apply gen script))
|
||||
coef_hf_selector (inv, invsquared)
|
||||
for real, is sign important, or just magnitude?
|
||||
e_corr_per_selectors (is this used anywhere?)
|
||||
provided in generate_h_apply.py?
|
||||
<Di|H|HF> * c(Di) / c(HF)
|
||||
complex, but does this matter?
|
||||
is magnitude important or just real part?
|
||||
i_H_HF_per_selectors
|
||||
<Di|H|HF>
|
||||
not used anywhere else, so no additional concerns other than for e_corr_per_selectors
|
||||
delta_E_per_selector
|
||||
|
||||
general:
|
||||
check for dependence on psi_det_sorted, clean up providers
|
||||
@ -30,10 +52,8 @@ determinants:
|
||||
(****) h_apply_nozmq.template.f
|
||||
(****) h_apply.template.f
|
||||
(****) h_apply_zmq.template.f
|
||||
(****) occ_pattern.irp.f
|
||||
mostly done?
|
||||
might need to change calls to fill_h_apply_buffer_no_selection?
|
||||
check again after modifying h_apply for complex
|
||||
(done) occ_pattern.irp.f
|
||||
(might need to change if we change h_apply)
|
||||
(done) prune_wf.irp.f
|
||||
(done) psi_cas{,_complex}.irp.f
|
||||
might be able to combine some providers??
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user