• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Strictly correlated electrons in density functional theory: A general formulation with applications to spherical densities Michael Seidl Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany Paola Gori-Giorgi and Andreas Savin Laboratoire de Chimie Th´eorique, CNRS, Universit´ePierre et Marie Curie, 4 Place Jussieu, F-75252 Paris, France (Dated: August 13, 2018) We reformulate the strong-interaction limit of electronic density functional theory in terms of a classical problem with a degenerate minimum. This allows us to clarify many aspects of this limit, and to write a general solution, which is explicitly calculated for spherical densities. We then compare our results with previous approximate solutions and discuss the implications for density functional theory. I. INTRODUCTION tend to avoid each other in space as the repulsion strength α grows. Thus, the expectation of Vˆee, which is a measure Density functional theory [1–3] (DFT) is by now the for the average inverse distances between the electrons, most popular method for electronic structure calculations must decrease. However, it cannot decrease indefinitely, in condensed matter physics and quantum chemistry, be- since the electrons are forced to stay within the fixed r cause of its unique combination of low computational cost density ρ( ). and reasonable accuracy for many molecules and solids. Schematically, the traditional quantum chemistry ap- In applying DFT to a given electron system, the only proach to electron correlation often consists in trying quantity that must be approximated in practice is the to extrapolate the information on the physical system functional Exc[ρ] for the exchange-correlation energy. (α = 1) from the non-interacting limit (α = 0) by using, An exact expression for this functional is the coupling- e.g., perturbation theory or more sophisticated methods. constant integral, This work, instead, follows the early idea of Wigner [4], further developed in the DFT framework in Refs. 5 and 1 6, in which the information at α = 1 is obtained by in- Exc[ρ] = dα Wα[ρ]. (1) terpolating between the two limits of weak interaction, 0 Z α 0, and infinitely strong interaction, α . In this The integrand is defined as context,→ we carry out a detailed study of the→ limit ∞ ˆ Wα[ρ] = Ψα[ρ] Vee Ψα[ρ] U[ρ]. (2) W [ρ] = lim Wα[ρ]. (5) h | | i− ∞ α →∞ 1 Here, U[ρ] = dr dr′ρ(r)ρ(r′)/ r r′ is the func- 2 | − | Although the limit of Eq. (5) was investigated in previous tional of the Hartree energy and the operator Vˆ de- R R ee work [5, 7–9], the solution presented here was found only scribes the Coulomb repulsion between the N electrons, in the special case of two electrons in a spherical density, N 1 N using physical arguments. For the general case with N − 1 electrons, the point-charge-plus-continuum (PC) model Vˆee = . (3) r r was proposed [5, 8], i=1 j=i+1 i j X X | − | r 2 (Atomic units are used throughout this work.) Even- PC 4/3 ρ( ) arXiv:cond-mat/0701025v2 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 22 Feb 2007 W [ρ] = dr Aρ(r) + B |∇ | . (6) tually, out of all antisymmetric N-electron wave func- ∞ ρ(r)4/3 Z tions Ψ that are associated with the same given electron 9 4π 1/3 3 3 1/3 density ρ = ρ(r), Ψα[ρ] denotes the one that yields the where A = ( ) and B = ( ) . This ap- − 10 3 350 4π minimum expectation of the operator Tˆ + αVˆee. Here, proximation, together with a similar one for the next N Tˆ = 1 2 is the kinetic-energy operator. Notice leading term, W ′ [ρ], describing zero-point motion oscil- − 2 i=1 ∇i ∞ that the parameter α works as an adjustable interaction lations, was used to construct an interpolation for Wα[ρ] strengthP or coupling “constant”. between α = 0 and α = , called interaction strength ∞ At α = 0, Wα[ρ] starts out with the value interpolation (ISI) model [6]. ISI predicts accurate at- omization energies (with a mean absolute error of 3.4 Ex[ρ] = Ψ0[ρ] Vˆee Ψ0[ρ] U[ρ] (4) kcal/mole) [6, 10], showing that the general idea of in- h | | i− terpolating between the weak- and the strong-interaction which is the density functional for the exchange energy. limits in DFT can work. Generally, Wα[ρ] is a monotonically decreasing function It should be emphasized that ISI uses as ingredients GL2 of α, since the electrons in the state Ψα[ρ] increasingly exclusively the two functionals Ex[ρ] and Ec [ρ] (of 2 the second-order correlation energy in G¨orling-Levy per- order of O(α). Therefore, Ψα[ρ] Tˆ Ψα[ρ] has the order turbation theory [11]) from the relatively simple non- of O(√α) and we may writeh in Eq.| | (7) i interacting limit α 0 (with single-particle orbitals), → 1 plus the two functionals W [ρ] and W ′ [ρ] from the op- W [ρ]+ U[ρ] = lim Ψα[ρ] Tˆ + Vˆee Ψα[ρ] ∞ ∞ ∞ α posite α limit of infinitely strong repulsion, which →∞ α are, so far,→ not ∞ known exactly (as said, except for W [ρ] D 1 E ∞ = lim min Ψ Tˆ + Vˆee Ψ . (10) in the special case of two electrons in a spherical density α Ψ ρ α →∞ → D E [7]). In this work we reformulate the α limit of DFT In the second step we have applied the definition of the → ∞ wave function Ψ [ρ]; the constraint “Ψ ρ” addresses in terms of a classical problem with a degenerate mini- α → mum. This allows us to construct the general solution all those wave functions Ψ that are associated with the same given density ρ. Provided that the limit α for W [ρ], and to clarify many aspects of this limit. As → ∞ α> 0∞ grows beyond its real-world value α = 1, the con- can be applied directly to the operators in Eq. (10) (there cept of single-particle orbitals becomes completely mean- is no rigorous proof for this reasonable conjecture – see ingless. When α , however, an entirely new type also the Appendix), it is simplified to of simplicity with so-called→ ∞ “co-motion” functions arises, W [ρ]+ U[ρ] = min Ψ Vˆee Ψ . (11) as we shall see in Secs. II-IV. The “co-motion” func- ∞ Ψ ρh | | i tions, which entirely determine W [ρ], can be directly → constructed from the one-electron density∞ ρ(r). In this case, the expectation of Vˆee alone is to be mini- The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we first mized, regardless of the kinetic-energy operator Tˆ. This give a general overview of the problem, anticipating the apparently purely classical problem corresponds to the solution on intuitive physical grounds, and leaving the quantum-mechanical limit of infinitely large masses. mathematical details in Secs. III and IV. We then use If Eq. (9) holds, that is if the density ρ(r) is both our formalism to explicitly evaluate the limit of Eq. (5) in N- and v-representable also in the very α limit, the case of spherical densities, with applications to atoms the minimizing Ψ in Eq. (11) is the ground→ state ∞ of the (Sec. V). In Sec. VI we compare our solution with the ap- pure multiplicative operator Vˆee +Vˆ . The local one-body proximation of Eq. (6), and we discuss the implications potential Vˆ is the Lagrange multiplier for the constraint for the ISI functional. The last Sec. VII is devoted to “Ψ ρ”, and can be found via the Legendre-transform conclusions and perspectives. In the Appendix we also formulation→ of Eq. (11) [12], consider the simple case of harmonic forces, in order to analyze how the nature of the electron-electron interac- ˆ ˆ tion affects the solution. W [ρ]+ U[ρ] = max min Ψ Vee + V Ψ ρ v . ∞ v Ψ h | | i− Z (12) To start to address the problem of N-representability II. SMOOTH DENSITIES FROM A CLASSICAL PROBLEM in the α limit, we write the minimizing wavefunc- tion Ψ in→ Eq. ∞ (12) as the product r For a given N-electron density ρ = ρ( ) we generally Ψ= ψ(r1, ..., rN )χ(σ1, ..., σN ), (13) wish to find the limit (5) or, equivalently, where ψ is a spatial wavefunction and χ is a chosen eigen- W [ρ]+ U[ρ] = lim Ψα[ρ] Vˆee Ψα[ρ] . (7) ˆ2 ˆ ∞ α h | | i state of the total spin S and its projection Sz. InSec. III →∞ we analyze the N-representability problem in more de- If the density ρ is both N- and v-representable for ev- tail, showing that, in the special α case, we can al- ery α, there exists an α-dependent external potential ways construct an antisymmetric Ψ→ of ∞ the form (13), and ˆ α N α r Vext[ρ]= i=1 vext([ρ], i) such that Ψα[ρ] is the ground that the choice of the spin eigenfunction χ does not af- state of the Hamiltonian fect the square of the spatial wavefunction ψ(r , ..., r ) 2 P 1 2 and thus, as shown by Eq. (15) below, the| energy. For| Hˆ α[ρ]= Tˆ + αVˆ + Vˆ α [ρ]. (8) ee ext this reason, in what follows we only consider the spatial α r wavefunction ψ(r , ..., r ). As α , the binding external potential vext([ρ], ) in 1 N the Hamiltonian→ ∞ (8) must compensate the strong repul- As said, sion O(α) between the electrons. Therefore, we expect Vˆee + Vˆ Epot([v]; r1, ..., rN ) (14) vα ([ρ], r) ≡ lim ext = v([ρ], r), (9) α α is a pure multiplicative operator, so that, after integrat- →∞ ing out the spin variables, the unconstrained minimiza- r r with v([ρ], ) a smooth function of .

Load more

  12

Copy Link