saving work
This commit is contained in:
parent
fcad72919f
commit
b5063a4d88
@ -116,6 +116,7 @@
|
|||||||
\newcommand{\hhp}{\text{2h1p}}
|
\newcommand{\hhp}{\text{2h1p}}
|
||||||
\newcommand{\pph}{\text{2p1h}}
|
\newcommand{\pph}{\text{2p1h}}
|
||||||
\newcommand{\dRPA}{\text{dRPA}}
|
\newcommand{\dRPA}{\text{dRPA}}
|
||||||
|
\newcommand{\TDA}{\text{TDA}}
|
||||||
\newcommand{\RPAx}{\text{RPAx}}
|
\newcommand{\RPAx}{\text{RPAx}}
|
||||||
\newcommand{\QP}{\textsc{quantum package}}
|
\newcommand{\QP}{\textsc{quantum package}}
|
||||||
\newcommand{\Hxc}{\text{Hxc}}
|
\newcommand{\Hxc}{\text{Hxc}}
|
||||||
|
@ -590,22 +590,24 @@ The TDA IPs are now underestimated unlike their RPA counterparts.
|
|||||||
For both static self-energies, the TDA leads to a slight increase of the absolute error.
|
For both static self-energies, the TDA leads to a slight increase of the absolute error.
|
||||||
This trend will be investigated in more details in the next subsection.
|
This trend will be investigated in more details in the next subsection.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Before going to the statistical study, the behavior of three particular molecules is investigated.
|
Now the flow parameter dependence of the SRG-qs$GW$ method will be investigated in three less well-behaved molecular systems.
|
||||||
The Lithium dimer \ce{Li2} will be considered as a case where HF actually underestimate the IP.
|
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} shows the results for the Lithium dimer, \ce{Li2} is an interesting case because the HP IP is actually underestimated .
|
||||||
The Lithium hydrid will also be investigated because in this case the usual qs$GW$ IP is worst than the HF one.
|
On the other hand, the qs-$GW$ and SRG-qs$GW$ IPs are overestimated
|
||||||
Finally, the Beryllium oxyde will be studied as a prototypical example of a molecular system difficult to converge because of intruder states. \cite{vanSetten_2015,Veril_2018,Forster_2021}
|
Indeed, we can see that the positive increase of the SRG-qs$GW$ IP is proportionally more important than for water.
|
||||||
|
In addition, the plateau is reached for larger values of $s$ in comparison to Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.
|
||||||
|
Both TDA results are worse than their RPA counterparts but in this case the SRG-qs$GW_\TDA$ is more accurate than the qs$GW_\TDA$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Now turning to the Lithium hydrid heterodimer, see middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}.
|
||||||
|
In this case the qs$GW$ IP is actually worse than the HF one which is already pretty accurate.
|
||||||
|
However, the SRG-qs$GW$ can improve slightly the accuracy with respect to HF.
|
||||||
|
Finally, the Beryllium oxyde is considered as a prototypical example of a molecular system difficult to converge because of intruder states. \cite{vanSetten_2015,Veril_2018,Forster_2021}
|
||||||
|
The SRG-qs$GW$ could be converged without any problem even for large values of $s$.
|
||||||
|
Once again, a plateau is attained and the corresponding value is slightly more accurate than its qs$GW$ counterpart.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Note that for \ce{LiH} and \ce{BeO} the TDA actually improves the accuracy compared to RPA-based qs$GW$ schemes.
|
Note that for \ce{LiH} and \ce{BeO} the TDA actually improves the accuracy compared to RPA-based qs$GW$ schemes.
|
||||||
However, as we will see in the next subsection these are just particular molecular systems and in average the RPA polarizability performs better than the TDA one.
|
However, as we will see in the next subsection these are just particular molecular systems and in average the RPA polarizability performs better than the TDA one.
|
||||||
|
Also the SRG-qs$GW_\TDA$ is better than qs$GW_\TDA$ in the three cases of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} but this is the other way around.
|
||||||
% \ANT{Maybe we should add GF(2) because it allows us to explain the behavior of the SRG curve using perturbation theory.}
|
Therefore, it seems that the effect of the TDA can not be systematically predicted.
|
||||||
% The behavior of the SRG-qsGF2 IPS is similar to the SRG-qs$GW$ one.
|
|
||||||
% Add sentence about $GW$ better than GF2 when the results will be here.
|
|
||||||
% The decrease and then increase behavior of the IPs can be rationalised using results from perturbation theory for GF(2).
|
|
||||||
% We refer the reader to the chapter 8 of Ref.~\onlinecite{Schirmer_2018} for more details about this analysis.
|
|
||||||
% The GF(2) IP admits the following perturbation expansion... \ANT{Remove GF2 and try matrix perturbation theory on $GW$, cf Evangelista's talk.}
|
|
||||||
% Because $GW$ relies on an infinite resummation of diagram such a perturbation analysis is difficult to make in this case.
|
|
||||||
% But the mechanism causing the increase/decrease of the $GW$ IPs as a function of $s$ should be closely related to the GF(2) one exposed above.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%%% FIG 2 %%%
|
%%% FIG 2 %%%
|
||||||
\begin{figure*}
|
\begin{figure*}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user