Spin invariance
This commit is contained in:
parent
d16d37656e
commit
3aa3f3d230
@ -607,31 +607,77 @@ Ref.~\onlinecite{Scemama_2015}).
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
In this section, we make a numerical verification that the produced
|
||||
wave functions are size-consistent. We have computed the energy of the
|
||||
dissocited fluorine dimer, where the two atoms are at a distance of 50~\AA.
|
||||
We expect that the energy of this system is equal to twice the energy
|
||||
of the fluorine atom.
|
||||
The data in table~\ref{tab:size-cons} shows that the proposed scheme
|
||||
provides size-consistent FN-DMC energies for all values of $\mu$.
|
||||
wave functions are size-consistent for a given range-separation
|
||||
parameter.
|
||||
We have computed the energy of the dissocited fluorine dimer, where
|
||||
the two atoms are at a distance of 50~\AA. We expect that the energy
|
||||
of this system is equal to twice the energy of the fluorine atom.
|
||||
The data in table~\ref{tab:size-cons} shows that it is indeed the
|
||||
case, so we can conclude that the proposed scheme provides
|
||||
size-consistent FN-DMC energies for all values of $\mu$.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Spin-invariance}
|
||||
|
||||
Closed-shell molecules usually dissociate into open-shell
|
||||
Closed-shell molecules often dissociate into open-shell
|
||||
fragments. To get reliable atomization energies, it is important to
|
||||
have a theory which is of comparable quality for open-shell and
|
||||
closed-shell systems.
|
||||
closed-shell systems. A good test is to check that all the components
|
||||
of a spin multiplet are degenerate.
|
||||
FCI wave functions are invariant with respect to the spin quantum
|
||||
number $m_s$, but the introduction of a
|
||||
Jastrow factor breaks this spin-invariance if the parameters
|
||||
Jastrow factor introduces spin contamination if the parameters
|
||||
for the same-spin electron pairs are different from those
|
||||
for the opposite-spin pairs.\cite{Tenno_2004}
|
||||
Again, using pseudo-potentials this error is transferred in the DMC
|
||||
calculation unless the determinant localization approximation is used.
|
||||
Again, when pseudo-potentials are used this tiny error is transferred
|
||||
in the FN-DMC energy unless the determinant localization approximation
|
||||
is used.
|
||||
|
||||
Within DFT, the common density functionals make a difference for
|
||||
same-spin and opposite-spin interactions. As DFT is a
|
||||
single-determinant theory, the functionals are designed to work in
|
||||
with the highest value of $m_s$, and therefore different
|
||||
values of $m_s$ lead to different energies.
|
||||
So in the context of RS-DFT, the determinantal expansions will be
|
||||
impacted by this spurious effect, as opposed to FCI.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}
|
||||
\caption{FN-DMC Energies of the triplet carbon atom (BFD-VDZ) with
|
||||
different values of $m_s$.}
|
||||
\label{tab:spin}
|
||||
\begin{ruledtabular}
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
|
||||
$\mu$ & $m_s=1$ & $m_s=0$ & Spin-invariance error \\
|
||||
\hline
|
||||
0.00 & $-5.416\,8(1)$ & $-5.414\,9(1)$ & $+0.001\,9(2)$ \\
|
||||
0.25 & $-5.417\,2(1)$ & $-5.416\,5(1)$ & $+0.000\,7(1)$ \\
|
||||
0.50 & $-5.422\,3(1)$ & $-5.421\,4(1)$ & $+0.000\,9(2)$ \\
|
||||
1.00 & $-5.429\,7(1)$ & $-5.429\,2(1)$ & $+0.000\,5(2)$ \\
|
||||
2.00 & $-5.432\,1(1)$ & $-5.431\,4(1)$ & $+0.000\,7(2)$ \\
|
||||
5.00 & $-5.431\,7(1)$ & $-5.431\,4(1)$ & $+0.000\,3(2)$ \\
|
||||
$\infty$ & $-5.431\,6(1)$ & $-5.431\,3(1)$ & $+0.000\,3(2)$ \\
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\end{ruledtabular}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
In this section, we investigate the impact of the spin contamination
|
||||
due to the short-range density functional on the FN-DMC energy. We have
|
||||
computed the energies of the carbon atom in its triplet state
|
||||
with BFD pseudo-potentials and the corresponding double-zeta basis
|
||||
set. The calculation was done with $m_s=1$ (3 $\uparrow$ electrons
|
||||
and 1 $\downarrow$ electrons) and with $m_s=0$ (2 $\uparrow$ and 2
|
||||
$\downarrow$ electrons).
|
||||
|
||||
The results are presented in table~\ref{tab:spin}.
|
||||
Although using $m_s=0$ the energy is higher than with $m_s=1$, the
|
||||
bias is relatively small, more than one order of magnitude smaller
|
||||
than the energy gained by reducing the fixed-node error going from the single
|
||||
determinant to the FCI trial wave function. The highest bias, close to
|
||||
2~m\hartree, is obtained for $\mu=0$, but the bias decreases quickly
|
||||
below 1~m\hartree when $\mu$ increases. As expected, with $\mu=\infty$
|
||||
there is no bias (within the error bars), and the bias is not
|
||||
noticeable with $\mu=5$~bohr$^{-1}$.
|
||||
|
||||
To check that the RSDFT-CIPSI are spin-invariant, we compute the
|
||||
FN-DMC energies of the ?? dimer with different values of the spin
|
||||
quantum number $m_s$.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user