ok with Sec III
This commit is contained in:
parent
08ccb0bef9
commit
327d151f2d
@ -488,9 +488,13 @@ and
|
||||
% \end{align}
|
||||
%\end{subequations}
|
||||
Equation \eqref{eq:F0_C0} implies
|
||||
\begin{subequations}
|
||||
\begin{align}
|
||||
\bF^{(1)}(s) &= \bF^{(1)}(0) = \bO, & \bC^{(1)}(s) &= \bC^{(1)}(0) = \bO,
|
||||
\bF^{(1)}(s) &= \bF^{(1)}(0) = \bO, &
|
||||
\\
|
||||
\bC^{(1)}(s) &= \bC^{(1)}(0) = \bO,
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
\end{subequations}
|
||||
and, thanks to the diagonal structure of $\bF^{(0)}$ (which is a consequence of the HF starting point) and $\bC^{(0)}$, the differential equation for the coupling block in Eq.~\eqref{eq:W1} is easily solved and yields
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
W_{pq}^{\nu(1)}(s) = W_{pq}^{\nu} e^{-(\Delta_{pq}^{\nu})^2 s}
|
||||
@ -499,7 +503,7 @@ At $s=0$, $W_{pq}^{\nu(1)}(s)$ reduces to the screened two-electron integrals de
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\lim_{s\to\infty} W_{pq}^{\nu(1)}(s) = 0.
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
Therefore, $W_{pq}^{\nu(1)}(s)$ are genuine renormalized two-electron screened integrals.
|
||||
Therefore, $W_{pq}^{\nu(1)}(s)$ is a genuine renormalized two-electron screened integral.
|
||||
It is worth noting the close similarity of the first-order elements with the ones derived by Evangelista in Ref.~\onlinecite{Evangelista_2014b} in the context of single- and multi-reference perturbation theory (see also Ref.~\onlinecite{Hergert_2016}).
|
||||
|
||||
%///////////////////////////%
|
||||
@ -620,7 +624,7 @@ The convergence properties and the accuracy of both static approximations are qu
|
||||
To conclude this section, we briefly discussed the case of discontinuities mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}.
|
||||
Indeed, it has been previously mentioned that intruder states are responsible for both the poor convergence of qs$GW$ and discontinuities in physical quantities. \cite{Loos_2018b,Veril_2018,Loos_2020e,Berger_2021,DiSabatino_2021,Monino_2022,Scott_2023}
|
||||
Is it then possible to rely on the SRG machinery to remove discontinuities?
|
||||
Not directly because discontinuities are due to intruder states in the dynamic part of the quasiparticle equation, while, as we have seen just above, a finite $s$ values are suitable to avoid intruder states in its static part.
|
||||
Not directly because discontinuities are due to intruder states in the dynamic part of the quasiparticle equation, while, as we have seen just above, a finite value of $s$ is suitable to avoid intruder states in its static part.
|
||||
However, performing the following bijective transformation
|
||||
\titou{\begin{align}
|
||||
e^{-s} &= 1-e^{-t}, & 1 - e^{-s} &= e^{-t},
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user