Re-modifs toto

Response_Letter/ResponseLetter.tex

@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ To clarify this point, we have added a sentence to the paper:
 finite projecting time are smaller than the error bars.''
 }
 
+\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
+\bibliography{ResponseLetter}
 
 %%% REVIEWER 2 %%%
 \textbf{\large Reviewer \#2}
@@ -103,139 +105,12 @@ We have shown that this problem can be alleviated with the here-proposed method
 We believe that applying the RS-DFT-CIPSI scheme to strongly
 correlated systems is indeed an interesting topic, but it clearly goes
 beyond the scope of the present manuscript.
-Consequently, we prefer to leave the study RS-DFT-CIPSI trial wave functions on strongly correlated systems for a future study.
+Consequently, we prefer to leave the study of RS-DFT-CIPSI trial wave functions on strongly correlated systems for a future work.
 This has been mentioned in the concluding section of the revised manuscript.
 }
 
 
 
-\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
-\bibliography{ResponseLetter}
-\end{letter}
-\end{document}
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-\documentclass[10pt]{letter}
-\usepackage{UPS_letterhead,color,mhchem,mathpazo,ragged2e}
-\newcommand{\alert}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
-
-\makeatletter
-\newenvironment{thebibliography}[1]
-     {\list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
-           {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
-            \leftmargin\labelwidth
-            \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
-            \usecounter{enumiv}%
-            \let\p@enumiv\@empty
-            \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
-      \sloppy
-      \clubpenalty4000
-      \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
-      \widowpenalty4000%
-      \sfcode`\.\@m}
-     {\def\@noitemerr
-       {\@latex@warning{Empty `thebibliography' environment}}%
-      \endlist}
-\newcommand\newblock{\hskip .11em\@plus.33em\@minus.07em}
-\makeatother
-
-
-\begin{document}
-
-\begin{letter}%
-{To the Editors of the Journal of Chemical Physics}
-
-\opening{Dear Editors,}
-
-\justifying
-Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript entitled 
-{\it ``Taming the fixed-node error in diffusion Monte Carlo via range separation''}.
-We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments.
-Our detailed responses to their comments can be found below.
-For convenience, all modifications and changes are highlighted in red in the revised version of the manuscript. 
-We hope that you will agree that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in JCP.
-
-We look forward to hearing from you.
-
-\closing{Sincerely, the authors.}
-
-\newpage
-
-%%% REVIEWER 1 %%%
-\noindent \textbf{\large Reviewer \#1}
-
-It is assumed that the non-variational mixed estimator is used for the
-FN-DMC energy. How adequate is the discussion on the error using a
-lower energy in this case? Please elaborate this in detail.
-
-\alert{\textbf{Response:} 
-The non-variational mixed estimator is not used for the FN-DMC energy
-in this work.
-We have used the variant of Assaraf, Caffarel and
-Khelif\cite{Assaraf_2000} (ref 112 in the paper) of the Stochastic
-Reconfiguration (SR) algorithm developped by Hetherington and
-Sorella.\cite{Sorella_Hetherington_1984,1998,Sorella_2000}
-It is smart algorithm mixing pure diffusion Monte Carlo (PDMC) and DMC
-and taking the best of those 2 methods~: the DMC algorithm is stable
-at the cost of the introduction of a finite population bias, and the
-PDMC algorithm is stabilized by introducing a finite projecting time.
-The SR algorithm has 2 limits: with a single walker it falls back to
-PDMC, and with an infinite population the DMC is recovered. The mixing
-of the 2 methods does not introduce the population control bias of
-DMC, and requires a much shorter projecting time than PDMC. In
-practice, it is quite easy to reach a regime where the number of
-walkers and the projecting time are such that the simulation is
-stable, the bias due to the finite projecting time is negligible and
-the fluctuations introduced by the projection are small.
-}
-
-\alert{
-To clarify this point, we have added a sentence to the paper:
-\quote{
-With such parameters, both the time-step error and the bias due to the
-finite projecting time are smaller than the error bars.
-}
-}
-
-
-%%% REVIEWER 2 %%%
-\textbf{\large Reviewer \#2}
-
-	
-The only criticism I have is about the examples reported. Despite the
-importance of the G1 test set, for which the atomization energies have
-been computed, I would like to see an example where the ground state
-has a true multi-reference character. Indeed, as the authors pointed out,
-the G1 set is only weakly correlated, and RS-DFT-CIPSI does not show its
-best performances, and does not pay off. Indeed, in the G1 set, basis-set
-effects on the nodal surface quality seem to be more important than the
-effect of dealing with a multi-reference wave function.
-
-
-\alert{\textbf{Response:} 
-We totally agree with the reviewer, CIPSI trial wave functions can
-handle very well multi-configurational effects. In cases such as
-the G1 set, although the total FN-DMC energies are extremely low the
-energy differences are difficult to control, especially for large
-systems. This was a limit of the use of CIPSI wave functions for
-QMC. Here, we have shown that this gap can be filled with the proposed
-method. We believe that using RS-DFT-CIPSI in the context of strongly
-correlated systems is indeed an interesting topic, but it goes a bit
-beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Of course, we intend to
-study RS-DFT-CIPSI trial wave functions on strongly correlated systems
-in a near future.
-}
-
-
-
-\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
-\bibliography{ResponseLetter}
 \end{letter}
 \end{document}