done with Sec IV
This commit is contained in:
parent
d22552ab99
commit
be53bd79a2
|
@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ This is a key result of the present study.
|
|||
\label{sec:rsdft-j}
|
||||
%======================================================
|
||||
The data presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:fndmc_mu} evidence that, in a finite basis, RS-DFT can provide
|
||||
trial wave functions with better nodes than FCI wave function.
|
||||
trial wave functions with better nodes than FCI wave functions.
|
||||
As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:SD}, such behavior can be directly compared to the common practice of
|
||||
re-optimizing the multi-determinant part of a trial wave function $\Psi$ (the so-called Slater part) in the presence of the exponentiated Jastrow factor $e^J$. \cite{Umrigar_2005,Scemama_2006,Umrigar_2007,Toulouse_2007,Toulouse_2008}
|
||||
Hence, in the present paragraph, we would like to elaborate further on the link between RS-DFT
|
||||
|
@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ and wave function optimization in the presence of a Jastrow factor.
|
|||
For the sake of simplicity, the molecular orbitals and the Jastrow
|
||||
factor are kept fixed; only the CI coefficients are varied.
|
||||
|
||||
Let us assume a fixed Jastrow factor $J(\br_1, \ldots , \br_\Nelec)$ (where $\br_i$ is the position of the $i$th electron and $\Nelec$ the total number of electrons),
|
||||
Let us then assume a fixed Jastrow factor $J(\br_1, \ldots , \br_\Nelec)$ (where $\br_i$ is the position of the $i$th electron and $\Nelec$ the total number of electrons),
|
||||
and a corresponding Slater-Jastrow wave function $\Phi = e^J \Psi$,
|
||||
where
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
|
@ -597,8 +597,8 @@ 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 $\mu$ 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
|
||||
for different values of $\mu$ using the srPBE functional. This gives the CI expansions of $\Psi^\mu$.
|
||||
Then, within the same set of determinants we optimize the CI coefficients 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}
|
||||
\begin{gather}
|
||||
|
@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ 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 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
|
||||
of the Hamiltonian ($\mathbf{H}$) and overlap ($\mathbf{S}$) matrices in the
|
||||
basis of Jastrow-correlated determinants $e^J D_i$:
|
||||
\begin{subequations}
|
||||
\begin{gather}
|
||||
|
@ -678,17 +678,16 @@ report several quantities related to the one- and two-body densities of
|
|||
$\Psi^J$ and $\Psi^\mu$ with different values of $\mu$. First, we
|
||||
report in the legend of the right panel of Fig~\ref{fig:densities} the integrated on-top pair density
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\expval{ P } = \int d\br \,\,n_2(\br,\br),
|
||||
\expval{ P } = \int d\br \,n_2(\br,\br),
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where $n_2(\br_1,\br_2)$ is the two-body density [normalized to $\Nelec(\Nelec-1)$]
|
||||
obtained for both $\Psi^\mu$ and $\Psi^J$.
|
||||
Then, in order to have a pictorial representation of both the on-top
|
||||
pair density and the density, we report in Fig.~\ref{fig:densities}
|
||||
the plots of the total density $n(\br)$ and on-top pair density
|
||||
$n_2(\br,\br)$ along one of the \ce{O-H} axis of the water molecule.
|
||||
obtained for both $\Psi^\mu$ and $\Psi^J$,
|
||||
where $n_2(\br_1,\br_2)$ is the two-body density [normalized to $\Nelec(\Nelec-1)$].
|
||||
Then, in order to have a pictorial representation of both the one-body density $n(\br)$ and the on-top
|
||||
pair density $n_2(\br,\br)$, we report in Fig.~\ref{fig:densities}
|
||||
the plots of $n(\br)$ and $n_2(\br,\br)$ along one of the \ce{O-H} axis of the water molecule.
|
||||
|
||||
From these data, one can clearly notice several trends.
|
||||
First, the overall on-top pair density decreases when $\mu$ increases,
|
||||
First, the integrated on-top pair density $\expval{ P }$ decreases when $\mu$ increases,
|
||||
which is expected as the two-electron interaction increases in
|
||||
$H^\mu[n]$.
|
||||
Second, Fig.~\ref{fig:densities} shows that the relative variations of the on-top pair density with respect to $\mu$
|
||||
|
@ -709,10 +708,10 @@ and therefore that the operators that produced these wave functions (\ie, $H^\mu
|
|||
Considering the form of $\hat{H}^\mu[n]$ [see Eq.~\eqref{H_mu}],
|
||||
one can notice that the differences with respect to the usual bare Hamiltonian come
|
||||
from the non-divergent two-body interaction $\hat{W}_{\text{ee}}^{\text{lr},\mu}$
|
||||
and the effective one-body potential $\hat{\bar{V}}_{\text{Hxc}}^{\text{sr},\mu}[n]$ which is the functional derivative of the Hartree-exchange-correlation functional.
|
||||
and the effective one-body potential $\hat{\bar{V}}_{\text{Hxc}}^{\text{sr},\mu}[n]$ which is the functional derivative of the Hxc functional.
|
||||
The roles of these two terms are therefore very different: with respect
|
||||
to the exact ground-state wave function $\Psi$, the non-divergent two-body interaction
|
||||
increases the probability to find electrons at short distances in $\Psi^\mu$,
|
||||
increases the probability of finding electrons at short distances in $\Psi^\mu$,
|
||||
while the effective one-body potential $\hat{\bar{V}}_{\text{Hxc}}^{\text{sr},\mu}[n_{\Psi^{\mu}}]$,
|
||||
providing that it is exact, maintains the exact one-body density.
|
||||
This is clearly what has been observed in
|
||||
|
@ -723,7 +722,7 @@ can be non-divergent when a proper two-body Jastrow factor $J_\text{ee}$ is chos
|
|||
There is therefore a clear parallel between $\hat{W}_{\text{ee}}^{\text{lr},\mu}$ in RS-DFT and $J_\text{ee}$ in FN-DMC.
|
||||
Moreover, the one-body Jastrow term $J_\text{eN}$ ensures that the one-body density remain unchanged when the CI coefficients are re-optmized in the presence of $J_\text{ee}$.
|
||||
There is then a second clear parallel between $\hat{\bar{V}}_{\text{Hxc}}^{\text{sr},\mu}[n]$ in RS-DFT and $J_\text{eN}$ in FN-DMC.
|
||||
Thus, one can understand the similarity between the eigenfunctions of $H^\mu$ and the Slater-Jastrow optimization:
|
||||
Thus, one can understand the similarity between the eigenfunctions of $H^\mu$ and the optimization of the Slater-Jastrow wave function:
|
||||
they both deal with an effective non-divergent interaction but still
|
||||
produce a reasonable one-body density.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue