loos/eDFT_FUEG
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Manu: done with my revisions.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Emmanuel Fromager 2020-05-08 11:29:40 +02:00
parent 82bcb031b5
commit 0e916b170c
1 changed files with 16 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex
View File

@ -186,12 +186,11 @@ that the deviation from linearity of the ensemble energy would be zero.}
\\ \\
\alert{The legend of Fig.~2 was incorrect (the curves were mislabeled), but this has now been corrected. \alert{The legend of Fig.~2 was incorrect (the curves were mislabeled), but this has now been corrected.
In the corrected Fig.~2 (which is now Fig.~4 in the revised In the corrected Fig.~2 (which is now Fig.~4 in the revised
manuscript), the crossover point occurs for two different states that manuscript), the crossover point occurs for two different states in
belong to two different ensembles. In other words, this point is not two different ensembles. In other words, this point is not
interesting anymore. The discussion of this Figure has become much more fluid: interesting anymore. The discussion of this Figure has become much more fluid:
when the weight of a state increases, this state is stabilized when the weight of a state increases, this state is stabilized
while the two others increase in energy (as it should). \manu{Well, the while the two others increase in energy (as it should).
energy of the first excited state still decreases when $w_2$ increases}
The discussion regarding this figure has been modified accordingly.} The discussion regarding this figure has been modified accordingly.}
% \alert{It is clear from our derivations that the individual % \alert{It is clear from our derivations that the individual
%correlation energies should vary with both the density {\it %correlation energies should vary with both the density {\it
@ -221,10 +220,20 @@ manuscrit before commenting on the plots.}
If not, why not? } If not, why not? }
\\ \\
\alert{Yes, as readily seen from the data provided in the \alert{Yes, as readily seen from the data provided in the
supplemental material, similar issues appear for excited states. supplemental material, similar issues appear for excited states.\manu{I
would remove your sentence and be more optimistic (see what follows). Do
you agree?}\\
Interestingly, increasing the ensemble weights (which of course cannot Interestingly, increasing the ensemble weights (which of course cannot
be done in conventional ground-state DFT) seems to reduce be done in conventional ground-state DFT calculations) leads to a
errors} significant improvement of the ground-state energy while either
improving or not deteriorating too much the excited-state energies, at
least in the weak correlation regime. The main reason is the
destabilization of the ground state that occurs when increasing the
weights assigned to the excited states. This major difference between
practical
conventional DFT (where the correlation energy would be overestimated)
and GOK-DFT calculations is a promising result that is
now highlighted in the revised manuscript.}
%\manu{We need to check the tables in the SI} %\manu{We need to check the tables in the SI}
\item \item