new figure

Manuscript/eDFT.tex

@@ -670,8 +670,7 @@ and curvature~\cite{} will be introduced in the Hx energy:
 	& + \sum_{L>K\geq 0} \ew{K} \ew{L}\Tr[\bGam{(K)} \bG \bGam{(L)}].
 \end{split}
 \eeq
-These errors will be removed when computing individual energies
-according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:exact_ind_ener_rdm}.    
+These errors will be removed when computing individual energies according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:exact_ind_ener_rdm}.    
 
 Turning to the density-functional ensemble correlation energy, the following eLDA will be employed:  
 \beq\label{eq:eLDA_corr_fun}
@@ -850,6 +849,20 @@ In order to test the influence of correlation effects on excitation energies, we
 \section{Results and discussion}
 \label{sec:res}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+\titou{The discussion of Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsW} comes here.}
+
+%%% FIG 1 %%%
+\begin{figure}
+	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{EvsW_2_pi}
+	\caption{
+	\label{fig:EvsW}
+	Weight dependence of the ensemble energy with and without ghost interaction correction (GIC) for 2-boxium with a box length $L = \pi$.
+	}
+\end{figure}
+%%% %%% %%%
+
+
 In Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsL}, we report the excitation energies (multiplied by $L^2$) for various methods and box sizes in the case of 5-boxium (\ie, $\Nel = 5$).
 Similar graphs are obtained for the other $\Nel$ values and they can be found in the {\SI} alongside the numerical data associated with each method.
 In the weakly correlated regime (\ie, small $L$), all methods provide accurate estimates of the excitation energies.
@@ -863,7 +876,7 @@ The effect on the double excitation is less pronounced.
 Overall, one clearly sees that, with state-averaged weights, the eLDA functional yields accurate excitation energies for both single and double excitations.
 This conclusion is verified for smaller and larger number of electrons (see {\SI}).
 
-%%% FIG 1 %%%
+%%% FIG 2 %%%
 \begin{figure}
 	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{EvsL_5}
 	\caption{
@@ -880,7 +893,7 @@ Again, the graph for $L=\pi$ is quite typical and we draw similar conclusions as
 As a rule of thumb, we see that eLDA single excitations are of the same quality as the ones obtained in the linear response formalism (such as TDHF or TDLDA), while double excitations only deviates from the FCI values by a few tenth of percent for $L=\pi$.
 Even for larger boxes, the discrepancy between FCI and eLDA for double excitations is only few percents.
 
-%%% FIG 2 %%%
+%%% FIG 3 %%%
 \begin{figure}
 	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{EvsN_1}
 	\caption{