Manu: some polishing in V.
This commit is contained in:
parent
b531ef9ed0
commit
951ace381f
@ -1277,16 +1277,25 @@ length $L$ in the case of 5-boxium.\\
|
|||||||
evaluate the importance of the ensemble correlation derivatives you
|
evaluate the importance of the ensemble correlation derivatives you
|
||||||
should only remove the following contribution from the $K$th KS-eLDA
|
should only remove the following contribution from the $K$th KS-eLDA
|
||||||
excitation energy:
|
excitation energy:
|
||||||
\beq
|
\beq\label{eq:DD_term_to_compute}
|
||||||
\int \n{\bGam{\bw}}{}(\br{})
|
\int \n{\bGam{\bw}}{}(\br{})
|
||||||
\left. \pdv{\e{c}{\bw}(\n{}{})}{\ew{K}} \right|_{\n{}{}=\n{\bGam{\bw}}{}(\br{})} d\br{}
|
\left. \pdv{\e{c}{\bw}(\n{}{})}{\ew{K}} \right|_{\n{}{}=\n{\bGam{\bw}}{}(\br{})} d\br{}
|
||||||
\eeq
|
\eeq
|
||||||
%rather than $E^{(I)}_{\rm HF}$
|
%rather than $E^{(I)}_{\rm HF}$
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
The influence of the derivative discontinuity is clearly more important in the strong correlation regime.
|
The influence of the ensemble correlation derivative is clearly more important in the strong correlation regime.
|
||||||
Its contribution is also significantly larger in the case of the single excitation; the derivative discontinuity hardly influences the double excitation.
|
Its contribution is also significantly larger in the case of the single
|
||||||
Importantly, one realizes that the magnitude of the derivative discontinuity is much smaller in the case of state-averaged calculations (as compared to the zero-weight calculations).
|
excitation; the ensemble correlation derivative hardly influences the double excitation.
|
||||||
This could explain why equiensemble calculations are clearly more accurate as it reduces the influence of the derivative discontinuity: for a given method, state-averaged orbitals partially remove the burden of modeling properly the derivative discontinuity.
|
Importantly, one realizes that the magnitude of the ensemble correlation
|
||||||
|
derivative is much smaller in the case of equal-weight calculations (as compared to the zero-weight calculations).
|
||||||
|
This could explain why equiensemble calculations are clearly more
|
||||||
|
accurate as it reduces the influence of the ensemble correlation derivative:
|
||||||
|
for a given method, equiensemble orbitals partially remove the burden
|
||||||
|
of modeling properly the ensemble correlation derivative.\manu{Manu: well, we
|
||||||
|
would need the exact derivative value to draw such a conclusion. We can
|
||||||
|
only speculate. Let us first see how important the contribution in
|
||||||
|
Eq.~\eqref{eq:DD_term_to_compute} is. What follows should also be
|
||||||
|
updated in the light of the new results.}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%%% FIG 5 %%%
|
%%% FIG 5 %%%
|
||||||
\begin{figure}
|
\begin{figure}
|
||||||
@ -1294,13 +1303,20 @@ This could explain why equiensemble calculations are clearly more accurate as it
|
|||||||
\caption{
|
\caption{
|
||||||
\label{fig:EvsN_HF}
|
\label{fig:EvsN_HF}
|
||||||
Error with respect to FCI in single and double excitation energies for $\nEl$-boxium (with a box length of $L=8\pi$) as a function of the number of electrons $\nEl$ at the KS-eLDA (solid lines) and eHF (dashed lines) levels.
|
Error with respect to FCI in single and double excitation energies for $\nEl$-boxium (with a box length of $L=8\pi$) as a function of the number of electrons $\nEl$ at the KS-eLDA (solid lines) and eHF (dashed lines) levels.
|
||||||
Zero-weight (\ie, $\ew{1} = \ew{2} = 0$, black and red lines) and state-averaged (\ie, $\ew{1} = \ew{2} = 1/3$, blue and green lines) calculations are reported.
|
Zero-weight (\ie, $\ew{1} = \ew{2} = 0$, black and red lines) and
|
||||||
|
equal-weight (\ie, $\ew{1} = \ew{2} = 1/3$, blue and green lines) calculations are reported.
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
%%% %%% %%%
|
%%% %%% %%%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsN_HF}, we report the same quantities as a function of the electron number for a box of length $8\pi$ (\ie, in the strong correlation regime).
|
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsN_HF}, we report the same quantities as a function of the electron number for a box of length $8\pi$ (\ie, in the strong correlation regime).
|
||||||
The difference between the eHF and KS-eLDA excitation energies undoubtedly show that, even in the strong correlation regime, the derivative discontinuity has a small impact on the double excitations with a slight tendency of worsening the excitation energies in the case of state-averaged weights, and a rather large influence on the single excitation energies obtained in the zero-weight limit, showing once again that the usage of state-averaged weights has the benefit of significantly reducing the magnitude of the derivative discontinuity.
|
The difference between the eHF and KS-eLDA excitation energies
|
||||||
|
undoubtedly show that, even in the strong correlation regime, the
|
||||||
|
ensemble correlation derivative has a small impact on the double
|
||||||
|
excitations with a slight tendency of worsening the excitation energies
|
||||||
|
in the case of equal weights, and a rather large influence on the single
|
||||||
|
excitation energies obtained in the zero-weight limit, showing once
|
||||||
|
again that the usage of equal weights has the benefit of significantly reducing the magnitude of the ensemble correlation derivative.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
\section{Concluding remarks}
|
\section{Concluding remarks}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user