Merge branch 'master' of git.irsamc.ups-tlse.fr:scemama/RSDFT-CIPSI-QMC
This commit is contained in:
commit
9b31fd7e16
@ -249,7 +249,15 @@ still an active field of research. The present paper falls
|
||||
within this context.
|
||||
|
||||
The central idea of the present work, and the launch-pad for the remainder of this study, is that one can combine the various strengths of WFT, DFT, and QMC in order to create a new hybrid method with more attractive features and higher accuracy.
|
||||
In particular, we show here that one can combine CIPSI and KS-DFT via the range separation (RS) of the interelectronic Coulomb operator \cite{Sav-INC-96a,Toulouse_2004} to obtain accurate FN-DMC energies with compact multi-determinant trial wave functions.
|
||||
In particular, we show here that one can combine CIPSI and KS-DFT via the range separation (RS) of the interelectronic Coulomb operator \cite{Sav-INC-96a,Toulouse_2004} --- a scheme that we label RS-DFT-CIPSI in the following --- to obtain accurate FN-DMC energies with compact multi-determinant trial wave functions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The present manuscript is organized as follows.
|
||||
In Sec.~\ref{sec:rsdft-cipsi}, we provide theoretical details about the CIPSI algorithm (Sec.~\ref{sec:CIPSI}) and range-separated DFT (Sec.~\ref{sec:rsdft}).
|
||||
Computational details are reported in Sec.~\ref{sec:comp-details}.
|
||||
In Sec.~\ref{sec:mu-dmc}, we discuss the influence of the range-separation parameter on the fixed-node error as well as the link between RS-DFT and Jastrow factors.
|
||||
Section \ref{sec:atomization} examines the performance of the present scheme for the atomization energies of the Gaussian-1 set of molecules.
|
||||
Finally, we draw our conclusion in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
|
||||
Unless otherwise stated, atomic units are used.
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
@ -259,6 +267,7 @@ Unless otherwise stated, atomic units are used.
|
||||
|
||||
%====================
|
||||
\subsection{The CIPSI algorithm}
|
||||
\label{sec:CIPSI}
|
||||
%====================
|
||||
Beyond the single-determinant representation, the best
|
||||
multi-determinant wave function one can wish for --- in a given basis set --- is the FCI wave function.
|
||||
@ -495,7 +504,7 @@ The first question we would like to address is the quality of the
|
||||
nodes of the wave function $\Psi^{\mu}$ obtained for intermediate values of the
|
||||
range separation parameter (\ie, $0 < \mu < +\infty$).
|
||||
For this purpose, we consider a weakly correlated molecular system, namely the water
|
||||
molecule \titou{at its experimental geometry. \cite{Caffarel_2016}}
|
||||
molecule at its experimental geometry. \cite{Caffarel_2016}
|
||||
We then generate trial wave functions $\Psi^\mu$ for multiple values of
|
||||
$\mu$, and compute the associated FN-DMC energy keeping fixed all the
|
||||
parameters impacting the nodal surface, such as the CI coefficients and the molecular orbitals.
|
||||
@ -538,7 +547,7 @@ The take-home message of this first numerical study is that RS-DFT trial wave fu
|
||||
This is a key result of the present study.
|
||||
|
||||
%======================================================
|
||||
\subsection{Link between RS-DFT and Jastrow factors }
|
||||
\subsection{Link between RS-DFT and Jastrow factor}
|
||||
\label{sec:rsdft-j}
|
||||
%======================================================
|
||||
The data presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:fndmc_mu} evidence that, in a finite basis, RS-DFT can provide
|
||||
@ -583,7 +592,7 @@ To do so, we have made the following numerical experiment.
|
||||
First, we extract the 200 determinants with the largest weights in the FCI wave
|
||||
function out of a large CIPSI calculation obtained with the VDZ-BFD basis. Within this set of determinants,
|
||||
we solve the self-consistent equations of RS-DFT [see Eq.~\eqref{rs-dft-eigen-equation}]
|
||||
for different values of $\mu$ \titou{using the srPBE functional}. This gives the CI expansions $\Psi^\mu$.
|
||||
for different values of $\mu$ using the srPBE functional. This gives the CI expansions $\Psi^\mu$.
|
||||
Then, within the same set of determinants we optimize the CI coefficients $c_I$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:Slater}] in the presence of
|
||||
a simple one- and two-body Jastrow factor $e^J$ with $J = J_\text{eN} + J_\text{ee}$ and
|
||||
\begin{subequations}
|
||||
@ -601,7 +610,7 @@ where the sum over $i < j$ loops over all unique electron pairs.
|
||||
In Eqs.~\eqref{eq:jast-eN} and \eqref{eq:jast-ee}, $r_{iA}$ is the distance between the $i$th electron and the $A$th nucleus while $r_{ij}$ is the interlectronic distance between electrons $i$ and $j$.
|
||||
The parameters $a=1/2$
|
||||
and $b=0.89$ were fixed, and the parameters $\gamma_{\text{O}}=1.15$ and $\gamma_{\text{H}}=0.35$
|
||||
were obtained by energy minimization of a single \titou{HF?} determinant.
|
||||
were obtained by energy minimization of a single determinant.
|
||||
The optimal CI expansion $\Psi^J$ is obtained by sampling the matrix elements
|
||||
of the Hamiltonian ($\mathbf{H}$) and the overlap ($\mathbf{S}$), in the
|
||||
basis of Jastrow-correlated determinants $e^J D_i$:
|
||||
@ -740,16 +749,16 @@ As a conclusion of the first part of this study, we can highlight the following
|
||||
|
||||
Atomization energies are challenging for post-HF methods
|
||||
because their calculation requires a perfect balance in the
|
||||
description of atoms and molecules. Basis sets used in molecular
|
||||
calculations are atom-centered, so they are always better adapted to
|
||||
description of atoms and molecules. The mainstream one-electron basis sets employed in molecular
|
||||
calculations are atom-centered, so they are, by construction, better adapted to
|
||||
atoms than molecules and atomization energies usually tend to be
|
||||
underestimated by variational methods.
|
||||
In the context of FN-DMC calculations, the nodal surface is imposed by
|
||||
the trial wavefunction which is expanded on an atom-centered basis
|
||||
set, so we expect the fixed-node error to be also tightly related to
|
||||
the trial wavefunction which is expanded in an atom-centered basis
|
||||
set, so we expect the fixed-node error to be also intimately related to
|
||||
the basis set incompleteness error.
|
||||
Increasing the size of the basis set improves the description of
|
||||
the density and of electron correlation, but also reduces the
|
||||
the density and of the electron correlation, but also reduces the
|
||||
imbalance in the quality of the description of the atoms and the
|
||||
molecule, leading to more accurate atomization energies.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -761,9 +770,9 @@ An extremely important feature required to get accurate
|
||||
atomization energies is size-consistency (or strict separability),
|
||||
since the numbers of correlated electron pairs in the isolated atoms
|
||||
are different from those of the molecules.
|
||||
The energy computed within density functional theory is size-consistent, and
|
||||
as it is a mean-field method the convergence to the complete basis set
|
||||
(CBS) limit is relatively fast. Hence, DFT methods are very well adapted to
|
||||
The energy computed within DFT is size-consistent, and
|
||||
as it is a mean-field method the convergence to the CBS limit
|
||||
is relatively fast. Hence, DFT methods are very well adapted to
|
||||
the calculation of atomization energies, especially with small basis
|
||||
sets. But going to the CBS limit will converge to biased atomization
|
||||
energies because of the use of approximate density functionals.
|
||||
@ -773,10 +782,10 @@ the FCI energies to the CBS limit is much slower because of the
|
||||
description of short-range electron correlation using atom-centered
|
||||
functions. But ultimately the exact energy will be reached.
|
||||
|
||||
In the context of selected CI calculations, when the variational energy is
|
||||
extrapolated to the FCI energy\cite{Holmes_2017} there is no
|
||||
In the context of SCI calculations, when the variational energy is
|
||||
extrapolated to the FCI energy \cite{Holmes_2017} there is no
|
||||
size-consistency error. But when the truncated SCI wave function is used
|
||||
as a reference for post-Hartree-Fock methods such as SCI+PT2
|
||||
as a reference for post-HF methods such as SCI+PT2
|
||||
or for QMC calculations, there is a residual size-consistency error
|
||||
originating from the truncation of the wave function.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -800,12 +809,12 @@ $a$ is determined by cusp conditions, and $b$ is obtained by energy
|
||||
or variance minimization.\cite{Coldwell_1977,Umrigar_2005}
|
||||
One can easily see that this parameterization of the two-body
|
||||
interaction is not size-consistent: the dissociation of a
|
||||
diatomic molecule $AB$ with a parameter $b_{AB}$
|
||||
diatomic molecule \ce{AB} with a parameter $b_{\ce{AB}}$
|
||||
will lead to two different two-body Jastrow factors, each
|
||||
with its own optimal value $b_A$ and $b_B$. To remove the
|
||||
size-consistency error on a PES using this ansätz for $J_\text{ee}$,
|
||||
with its own optimal value $b_{\ce{A}}$ and $b_{\ce{B}}$. To remove the
|
||||
size-consistency error on a PES using this ans\"atz for $J_\text{ee}$,
|
||||
one needs to impose that the parameters of $J_\text{ee}$ are fixed:
|
||||
$b_A = b_B = b_{AB}$.
|
||||
$b_A = b_B = b_{\ce{AB}}$.
|
||||
|
||||
When pseudopotentials are used in a QMC calculation, it is common
|
||||
practice to localize the non-local part of the pseudopotential on the
|
||||
@ -906,7 +915,7 @@ impacted by this spurious effect, as opposed to FCI.
|
||||
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 pseudopotentials and the corresponding double-zeta basis
|
||||
with BFD pseudopotentials and the corresponding double-$\zeta$ basis
|
||||
set. The calculation was done with $m_s=1$ (3 spin-up electrons
|
||||
and 1 spin-down electrons) and with $m_s=0$ (2 spin-up and 2
|
||||
spin-down electrons).
|
||||
@ -971,18 +980,18 @@ The 55 molecules of the benchmark for the Gaussian-1
|
||||
theory\cite{Pople_1989,Curtiss_1990} were chosen to test the
|
||||
performance of the RS-DFT-CIPSI trial wave functions in the context of
|
||||
energy differences. Calculations were made in the double-, triple-
|
||||
and quadruple-zeta basis sets with different values of $\mu$, and using
|
||||
natural orbitals of a preliminary CIPSI calculation.
|
||||
and quadruple-$\zeta$ basis sets with different values of $\mu$, and using
|
||||
NOs from a preliminary CIPSI calculation \titou{as a starting point}.
|
||||
For comparison, we have computed the energies of all the atoms and
|
||||
molecules at the DFT level with different density functionals, and at
|
||||
molecules at the KS-DFT level with various semi-local and hybrid density functionals [PBE, BLYP, PBE0, and B3LYP], and at
|
||||
the CCSD(T) level. Table~\ref{tab:mad} gives the corresponding mean
|
||||
absolute errors (MAE), mean signed errors (MSE) and standard
|
||||
deviations (RMSD). For FCI (RS-DFT-CIPSI, $\mu=\infty$) we have
|
||||
given extrapolated values at $\EPT\rightarrow 0$, and the error bars
|
||||
correspond to the difference between the energies computed with a
|
||||
two-point and with a three-point linear extrapolation.
|
||||
provided the extrapolated values at $\EPT \to 0$, and the error bars
|
||||
correspond to the difference between the energies \titou{computed with a
|
||||
two-point and with a three-point linear extrapolation}. \cite{Loos_2018a,Loos_2019,Loos_2020b,Loos_2020c}
|
||||
|
||||
In this benchmark, the great majority of the systems are well
|
||||
In this benchmark, the great majority of the systems are weakly correlated and are then well
|
||||
described by a single determinant. Therefore, the atomization energies
|
||||
calculated at the DFT level are relatively accurate, even when
|
||||
the basis set is small. The introduction of exact exchange (B3LYP and
|
||||
@ -994,27 +1003,28 @@ and FCI energies.
|
||||
The imbalance of the quality of description of molecules compared
|
||||
to atoms is exhibited by a very negative value of the MSE for
|
||||
CCSD(T) and FCI/VDZ-BFD, which is reduced by a factor of two
|
||||
when going to the triple-zeta basis, and again by a factor of two when
|
||||
going to the quadruple-zeta basis.
|
||||
when going to the triple-$\zeta$ basis, and again by a factor of two when
|
||||
going to the quadruple-$\zeta$ basis.
|
||||
|
||||
This large imbalance at the double-zeta level affects the nodal
|
||||
This large imbalance at the VDZ-BFD level affects the nodal
|
||||
surfaces, because although the FN-DMC energies obtained with near-FCI
|
||||
trial wave functions are much lower than the single-determinant FN-DMC
|
||||
energies, the MAE obtained with FCI (7.38~$\pm$ 1.08~kcal/mol) is
|
||||
larger than the single-determinant MAE (4.61~$\pm$ 0.34 kcal/mol).
|
||||
energies, the MAE obtained with FCI ($7.38\pm1.08$ kcal/mol) is
|
||||
larger than the single-determinant MAE ($4.61\pm 0.34$ kcal/mol).
|
||||
Using the FCI trial wave function the MSE is equal to the
|
||||
negative MAE which confirms that all the atomization energies are
|
||||
underestimated. This confirms that some of the basis-set
|
||||
incompleteness error is transferred in the fixed-node error.
|
||||
|
||||
Within the double-zeta basis set, the calculations could be done for the
|
||||
Within the double-$\zeta$ basis set, the calculations could be performed for the
|
||||
whole range of values of $\mu$, and the optimal value of $\mu$ for the
|
||||
trial wave function was estimated for each system by searching for the
|
||||
minimum of the spline interpolation curve of the FN-DMC energy as a
|
||||
function of $\mu$.
|
||||
This corresponds the the line of the table labelled by the \emph{Opt}
|
||||
value of $\mu$. Using the optimal value of $\mu$ clearly improves the
|
||||
MAE, the MSE an the RMSD compared the the FCI wave function. This
|
||||
This corresponds the line of Table~\ref{tab:mad} labelled as ``Opt.''
|
||||
\titou{The optimal $\mu$ value for each system is reported in the \SI.}
|
||||
Using the optimal value of $\mu$ clearly improves the
|
||||
MAE, the MSE an the RMSD compared to the FCI wave function. This
|
||||
result is in line with the common knowledge that re-optimizing
|
||||
the determinantal component of the trial wave function in the presence
|
||||
of electron correlation reduces the errors due to the basis set incompleteness.
|
||||
@ -1022,8 +1032,8 @@ These calculations were done only for the smallest basis set
|
||||
because of the expensive computational cost of the QMC calculations
|
||||
when the trial wave function is expanded on more than a few million
|
||||
determinants.
|
||||
At the RS-DFT-CIPSI level, we can remark that with the triple-zeta
|
||||
basis set the MAE are larger for $\mu=1$~bohr$^{-1}$ than for the
|
||||
At the RS-DFT-CIPSI level, one can see that with the VTZ-BFD
|
||||
basis the MAEs are larger for $\mu=1$~bohr$^{-1}$ than for the
|
||||
FCI. For the largest systems, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:g2-ndet}
|
||||
there are many systems which did not reach the threshold
|
||||
$\EPT<1$~m\hartree{}, and the number of determinants exceeded
|
||||
@ -1031,7 +1041,7 @@ $\EPT<1$~m\hartree{}, and the number of determinants exceeded
|
||||
small size-consistency error originating from the imbalanced
|
||||
truncation of the wave functions, which is not present in the
|
||||
extrapolated FCI energies. The same comment applies to
|
||||
$\mu=0.5$~bohr$^{-1}$ with the quadruple-zeta basis set.
|
||||
$\mu=0.5$~bohr$^{-1}$ with the quadruple-$\zeta$ basis set.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%% FIG 5 %%%
|
||||
@ -1048,13 +1058,13 @@ $\mu=0.5$~bohr$^{-1}$ with the quadruple-zeta basis set.
|
||||
\end{figure*}
|
||||
%%% %%% %%% %%%
|
||||
|
||||
Searching for the optimal value of $\mu$ may be too costly, so we have
|
||||
computed the MAD, MSE and RMSD for fixed values of $\mu$. The results
|
||||
are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:g2-dmc}. As seen on the figure and
|
||||
in Table~\ref{tab:mad}, the best choice for a fixed value of $\mu$ is
|
||||
Searching for the optimal value of $\mu$ may be too costly and time consuming, so we have
|
||||
computed the MAD, MSE and RMSD for fixed values of $\mu$.
|
||||
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:g2-dmc} and Table \ref{tab:mad},
|
||||
the best choice for a fixed value of $\mu$ is
|
||||
0.5~bohr$^{-1}$ for all three basis sets. It is the value for which
|
||||
the MAE (3.74(35), 2.46(18) and 2.06(35) kcal/mol) and RMSD (4.03(23),
|
||||
3.02(06) and 2.74(13)~kcal/mol) are minimal. Note that these values
|
||||
the MAE [$3.74(35)$, $2.46(18)$, and $2.06(35)$ kcal/mol] and RMSD [$4.03(23)$,
|
||||
$3.02(06)$, and $2.74(13)$ kcal/mol] are minimal. Note that these values
|
||||
are even lower than those obtained with the optimal value of
|
||||
$\mu$. Although the FN-DMC energies are higher, the numbers show that
|
||||
they are more consistent from one system to another, giving improved
|
||||
@ -1077,32 +1087,33 @@ The number of determinants in the trial wave functions are shown in
|
||||
Fig.~\ref{fig:g2-ndet}. As expected, the number of determinants
|
||||
is smaller when $\mu$ is small and larger when $\mu$ is large.
|
||||
It is important to remark that the median of the number of
|
||||
determinants when $\mu=0.5$~bohr$^{-1}$ is below 100~000 determinants
|
||||
with the quadruple-zeta basis set, making these calculations feasilble
|
||||
with such a large basis set. At the double-zeta level, compared to the
|
||||
determinants when $\mu=0.5$~bohr$^{-1}$ is below $100\,000$ determinants
|
||||
with the VQZ-BFD basis, making these calculations feasible
|
||||
with such a large basis set. At the double-$\zeta$ level, compared to the
|
||||
FCI trial wave functions the median of the number of determinants is
|
||||
reduced by more than two orders of magnitude.
|
||||
Moreover, going to $\mu=0.25$~bohr$^{-1}$ gives a median close to 100
|
||||
determinants at the double-zeta level, and close to 1~000 determinants
|
||||
at the quadruple-zeta level for only a slight increase of the
|
||||
determinants at the VDZ-BFD level, and close to $1\,000$ determinants
|
||||
at the quadruple-$\zeta$ level for only a slight increase of the
|
||||
MAE. Hence, RS-DFT-CIPSI trial wave functions with small values of
|
||||
$\mu$ could be very useful for large systems to go beyond the
|
||||
single-determinant approximation at a very low computational cost
|
||||
while keeping the size-consistency.
|
||||
while ensuring size-consistency.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that when $\mu=0$ the number of determinants is not equal to one because
|
||||
we have used the natural orbitals of a first CIPSI calculation, and
|
||||
we have used the natural orbitals of a preliminary CIPSI calculation, and
|
||||
not the srPBE orbitals.
|
||||
So the Kohn-Sham determinant is expressed as a linear combination of
|
||||
determinants built with natural orbitals. It is possible to add
|
||||
an extra step to the algorithm to compute the natural orbitals from the
|
||||
RS-DFT/CIPSI wave function, and re-do the RS-DFT/CIPSI calculation with
|
||||
determinants built with NOs. It is possible to add
|
||||
an extra step to the algorithm to compute the NOs from the
|
||||
RS-DFT-CIPSI wave function, and re-do the RS-DFT-CIPSI calculation with
|
||||
these orbitals to get an even more compact expansion. In that case, we would
|
||||
have converged to the Kohn-Sham orbitals with $\mu=0$, and the
|
||||
have converged to the KS orbitals with $\mu=0$, and the
|
||||
solution would have been the PBE single determinant.
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section{Conclusion}
|
||||
\label{sec:conclusion}
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
||||
In the present work, we have shown that introducing short-range correlation via
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user