1: % Editor
2: % Physical Review B
3: % 1 Research Road
4: % Box 1000
5: % Ridge, NY 11961
6: %
7: % Dear Editor:
8: %
9: % Please find enclosed a REVTEX compuscript for the submission
10: % of our manuscript
11: %
12: % "Berry-phase treatment of the homogeneous electric field
13: % perturbation in insulators"
14: %
15: % by: R. W. Nunes and Xavier Gonze
16: %
17: % submitted for publication in the Physical Review B
18: %
19: % Future correspondence should be addressed to me at:
20: % --------------------------------------------
21: % Departamento de Fisica - C.P. 702
22: % Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - UFMG
23: % Av. Antonio Carlos 6627 - Belo Horizonte
24: % MG - 30123-970 - Brasil
25: % Tel: +55-31-4995633 (Department Secretary)
26: % +55-31-4995607 (Office)
27: % Fax: +55-31-4995600
28: % email: rwnunes@fisica.ufmg.br
29: % --------------------------------------------
30: %
31: % Four figures will also be sent in separate files.
32: % Thank you for considering this manuscript.
33: %
34: % Sincerely,
35: %
36: % Ricardo Nunes
37: %
38: % === first line of document =========================================
39: %...................................................................
40: %\documentstyle[floats,aps,epsf,prb]{revtex} % PREPRINT format
41: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,prb]{revtex} % PREPRINT format
42: %
43: \begin{document}
44: \draft
45: %...................................................................
46: %
47: %
48: \title{Berry-phase treatment of the homogeneous electric field
49: perturbation in insulators}
50:
51: \author{R. W. Nunes$^1$ and Xavier Gonze$^2$}
52:
53: \address{$^1$Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, C.P. 702, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Av. Ant\^onio Carlos 6627 - Belo Horizonte MG - 30123-970 - Brazil//
54: $^2$Unit\'e de Physico-Chimie et de Physique des Mat\'eriaux, Universit\'e Catholique de Louvain, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium}
55:
56: \date{\today}
57: \maketitle
58: %.....................................................................
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: A perturbation theory of the static response of insulating
62: crystals to homogeneous electric fields, that combines the
63: modern theory of polarization with the variation-perturbation
64: framework is developed, at unrestricted order of perturbation.
65: Conceptual issues involved in the definition of such a
66: perturbative approach are addressed.
67: In particular, we argue that the position
68: operator, ${\hat x}$, can be substituted by the
69: derivative with respect to the wavevector, $\partial/\partial k$,
70: in the definition of an electric-field-dependent energy functional
71: for periodic systems.
72: Moreover, due to the unbound nature of the perturbation, a regularization
73: of the Berry-phase expression for the polarization is needed in order to
74: define a numerically-stable variational
75: procedure. Regularization is achieved by means of a discretization procedure,
76: which can be performed either before or after the perturbation
77: expansion. We compare the two possibilities, show that
78: they are both valid, and analyze their behavior when applied to a
79: model tight-binding Hamiltonian.
80: Lowest-order as well as generic formulas are presented
81: for the derivatives of the total energy, the normalization condition,
82: the eigenequation, and the Lagrange parameters.
83: \end{abstract}
84: %
85: \pacs{77.22.-d,77.22.Ch,78.20.Bh,42.70.Mp}
86: %.......................................................................
87:
88: \narrowtext
89:
90: %\marginparwidth 2.7in
91: %\marginparsep 0.5in
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94: \label{sec:intro}
95:
96: Until the early nineties, the formulation of a quantum-mechanical
97: theoretical framework for the study of the physics of electric
98: polarization in solids had remained a challenging
99: problem.~\cite{footnote1,resta1} Even the definition of the polarization
100: itself as a bulk quantity, independent of surface termination, was the
101: subject of heated debate.~\cite{martin1,tagantsev,baldereschi}
102:
103: This picture changed when King-Smith and Vanderbilt (KS-V)~\cite{ksv}
104: proposed a formulation (the modern theory of polarization - MTP),
105: which resolved the conceptual difficulties associated with the
106: definition of this quantity for continuous, periodic, charge
107: distributions. In their work, the electric polarization of an
108: insulating crystal is related to a Berry phase~\cite{berry} computed
109: from the valence wavefunctions. The existence of a band-structure
110: Berry phase had already been discussed by Zak and
111: coworkers,~\cite{zak1} before its connection with the
112: electronic polarization was established by KS-V. Besides settling the
113: important conceptual question related to the definition of
114: polarization as a bulk quantity, the KS-V theory provided an entirely
115: new framework for the computation of the polarization of a crystal
116: maintained at vanishing homogeneous electric field. Since its
117: formulation, the theory has been examined in greater detail by
118: KS-V~\cite{vks} and by Resta~\cite{resta1}, and extended to many-body
119: systems by Ortiz and Martin~\cite{ortiz1}. The relation between
120: polarization and the phases of the wavefunctions has also led to a
121: reexamination of the role this quantity plays in the Density
122: Functional Theory (DFT)~\cite{hk,ks} formulation of the ground-state
123: properties of extended
124: systems.~\cite{ggg1,ggg3,ggg2,resta2,dhv,martin2}
125:
126: Of no less importance is the conceptual relationship between the
127: spontaneous polarization and the centers of charge of the Wannier
128: functions (WF) of the occupied bands, which was also discussed by
129: KS-V~\cite{ksv} and previously by Zak.~\cite{zak1,zak2} This connection was
130: later generalized by Nunes and Vanderbilt~\cite{nv} (NV) to deal with
131: insulators placed in non-zero external homogeneous electric fields:
132: they introduced field-dependent ``polarized'' WF's and a method for
133: their computation. NV argued that, in the static-response
134: regime, the state of an insulator under an external homogeneous
135: electric field is one in which the periodicity of the charge density
136: is retained, despite the fact that the perturbation lacks the
137: lattice-translational symmetry of the unperturbed crystal. Such state
138: is actually a long-lived resonance of the system, as rigorously
139: demonstrated by Nenciu~\cite{nenciu}.
140:
141: It is well known that within DFT~\cite{hk,ks}, ground-state properties
142: of condensed-matter systems, such as equilibrium lattice parameters,
143: bond lengths and bond angles, among others, can be obtained with an
144: accuracy of a few percent in comparison with experimental
145: results.
146: Within DFT~\cite{hk,ks}, the NV method has recently
147: been applied to the computation of the
148: polarized WF's and the dielectric constant of silicon and gallium
149: arsenide~\cite{fernandez}.
150: The latter quantity is related to the change of polarization due to a
151: change of homogeneous electric field, in the linear regime,
152: or equivalently, to the second-derivative of the total energy
153: with respect to the homogeneous electric field.
154:
155: Specific treatments have been developed (noticeably within DFT) for
156: the study of the response of crystals to ``external'' perturbations,
157: like phonons, stresses or homogeneous electric fields. The latter, on
158: which we focus exclusively, can be taken as a homogeneous field or as
159: the limit of long-wavelength perturbations.
160:
161: In the so-called direct
162: approach~\cite{fleszar}, supercell calculations are employed to study
163: both the unperturbed and perturbed systems, with the response
164: functions being obtained by numerical finite-difference analysis of
165: the changes induced by a long-wavelength perturbation applied to
166: elongated supercells. The non-linear response
167: regime is directly accessible, although it must be disentangled from
168: the linear response of the system. However, because of the use of
169: supercells, the computational cost of this approach
170: is rather high.
171:
172: Alternatively, the specific response to a homogeneous electric field
173: was considered within perturbation theory, already in the sixties. In
174: the Random-Phase Approximation~\cite{adler} (no local-field
175: effects~\cite{footnote3} included), the response of the wavefunctions
176: is obtained through a sum over states, involving matrix elements of
177: the position operator between valence and conduction
178: states~\cite{baroni1}. This technique was generalized to the
179: computation of second- and third-order
180: susceptibilities~\cite{higher_indpt}. The need to compute many
181: unoccupied bands is the bottleneck of this method.
182:
183: Local-field effects can be reintroduced on top of such a sum-over-states
184: approach either in a matrix-inversion framework~\cite{wiser,hybers},
185: or in an iterative approach~\cite{levine_allan}.
186: In their calculation of linear susceptibilities, Levine and Allan
187: included a so-called ``scissor-operator'' correction, that was
188: understood later to compensate some deficiencies of
189: local-density approximation computation of
190: long-wavelength response functions~\cite{ggg1}. Also,
191: Levine and coworkers proposed rather
192: involved expressions for the second-order and
193: third-order DFT susceptibilities~\cite{higher_localfields}.
194:
195: To a large extent, Density Functional Perturbation Theory
196: (DFPT)~\cite{baroni2,giannozzi,zein,gonze1,gonze2,gonze6,gonze3,gonze4}
197: overcome the limitations of the previously mentioned approaches, at
198: the price of non-negligible additional coding. At the lowest order in
199: the homogeneous-electric-field perturbation, this method was
200: introduced by Baroni and collaborators~\cite{baroni2,giannozzi}. It
201: is based on an iterative solution for the first-order change in the
202: wavefunctions, which allows for the self-consistent inclusion of
203: local-field effects, besides eliminating the cumbersome sum over
204: conduction bands. It does not employ supercells, and can be applied to
205: perturbations of arbitrary wavelengths. In the DFPT, the computational
206: workload involved in the computation of linear-response functions is
207: of the same order of that involved in one ground-state calculation.
208:
209: DFPT is part of a class of formalisms in which perturbation
210: theory is applied to a variational principle~\cite{gonze5}.
211: This interesting combination leads to a generic
212: ``2n+1'' theorem~\cite{gonze1,gonze6}, as well as variational
213: properties of even-order derivatives of the energy~\cite{gonze2,gonze6}.
214: For example, one can compute the third-order derivative of the energy from
215: the first-order derivative of wavefunctions, and the fourth-order
216: derivative of the energy is variational with respect to
217: the second-order derivative of wavefunctions.
218: The expressions derived in this framework are surprisingly simple
219: and can be formulated at all order of perturbations.
220:
221: However, the treatment of homogeneous electric fields in this
222: variation-perturbation framework is plagued by
223: difficulties similar to those encountered in the theory of
224: polarization. Shortly after the appearance of the MTP, Dal Corso
225: and Mauri~\cite{dalcorso1}, building upon the NV work, proposed a very
226: concise expression for the second-order susceptibility which was later
227: applied successfully to compute this quantity for a variety of
228: systems~\cite{dalcorso2}.
229:
230: In the present work, we formulate a perturbation theory of the static
231: response of insulating crystals to homogeneous electric fields that
232: combines the conceptual ideas of the MTP
233: with the variation-perturbation theory. A major achievement of our
234: work is the presentation of formulas valid for unrestricted order of
235: perturbation theory. We also examine the low-order expressions in
236: some detail, and recover the expression proposed by Dal Corso and
237: Mauri~\cite{dalcorso1}.
238:
239: The theory is worked out directly in reciprocal space, in terms of the
240: Berry phase associated with the occupied bands of the perturbed
241: crystal, in the manner of the MTP. The
242: conceptual issues involved in the definition of a perturbative
243: approach for the problem are addressed. The Berry phase is argued to
244: remain a valid concept in the presence of the periodicity-breaking
245: electric field. The periodicity of the charge density is assumed to
246: survive the application of the field, and the Berry phase is obtained
247: from the associated polarized periodic wavefunctions. By working out
248: the perturbative approach in terms of these polarized states, we
249: obtain very compact expressions for the high-order dielectric-response
250: functions of the crystal. These can be numerically obtained on the
251: basis of iterative equations for the second- and higher-order terms in
252: the perturbation expansion of the wavefunctions of the system, as in
253: the DFPT approach for other types of perturbation. We will not deal
254: explicitly with the exchange and correlation parts of the DFT
255: functional: the main difficulties that we want to address in this
256: paper are not related to them. The formalism can be extended to
257: include exchange and correlation terms in a self-consistent fashion,
258: in the manner presented in Refs~\onlinecite{baroni2,gonze3}.
259:
260: Any application of the MTP involves a
261: discretization of the Berry-phase expression, in terms of a series of
262: wavevectors for the electronic wavefunctions. We have discovered that
263: such a discretization, that appears naturally also in the present
264: framework, can be performed at two different conceptual levels when
265: merged with perturbation theory: either after the derivation of formal
266: expressions at different orders of perturbation theory, starting from
267: a continuous Hamiltonian, or at the level of the field-dependent
268: Hamiltonian itself, before any perturbation expansion is performed.
269: We will refer to the first approach as the discretization after
270: perturbation expansion (DAPE) formulation, and to the second as the
271: perturbation expansion after discretization (PEAD) formulation.
272:
273: In order to judge the relative merits of these two approaches,
274: and also the correctness of the global framework, we analyze
275: the behavior of a model tight-binding Hamiltonian, for which
276: analytical responses to an electric-field perturbation have been
277: obtained up to the fourth order.
278:
279: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section,
280: we address the conceptual issues
281: associated with the definition of a Hamiltonian and its perturbative
282: expansion for the electric-field problem.
283: Sec.~\ref{sec:VPT} summarizes
284: the main results of the variational perturbation theory which are used
285: in this work. In Sec.~\ref{sec:pt-cont},
286: we work out the continuous formulation of the problem
287: and its perturbation expansion, from which we
288: obtain the DAPE version of our theory. In
289: Sec.~\ref{sec:pt-P}, we work from the start using a discretized
290: expression for the polarization, which leads to the alternative
291: PEAD formulation. The theory is applied to a model
292: one-dimensional system in Sec.~\ref{sec:1d-model}.
293:
294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
295:
296: \section{Insulators in an electric field: conceptual considerations}
297: \label{sec:efp}
298:
299: %.............................................................................
300:
301: \subsection{The modern theory of polarization}
302: \label{sec:mtp}
303:
304: In the MTP~\cite{ksv,vks,resta1}, the
305: change in electric polarization per unit volume induced by an
306: adiabatic change in the crystalline potential (the self-consistent
307: Kohn-Sham potential in the context of DFT) is written
308: %
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: \label{Delta-P}
311: {\bf \Delta P} = \int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}\frac{\partial {\bf P}}{\partial\lambda}
312: ~\! d\lambda = {\bf P}(\lambda_2) - {\bf P}(\lambda_1)\,,
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: %
315: with ${\bf P}(\lambda)$ given in terms of a Berry phase
316: associated with the occupied bands of the system
317: %
318: \begin{eqnarray}
319: \label{P-bphase}
320: {\bf P}(\lambda) = -\frac{2ie}{(2\pi)^3}\sum_n \int_{BZ} d{\bf k}~\!
321: \left\langle u_{n{\bf k}}^{(\lambda)} \left\vert
322: \vphantom{u_N^A}
323: ~\! {\bf \nabla_k} ~\! \right\vert u_{n{\bf k}}^{(\lambda)} \right\rangle \,,
324: \end{eqnarray}
325: %
326: where $-e$ is the electron charge, $\lambda$ is a parameter
327: representing the adiabatic change in the potential, and the factor of
328: 2 in the numerator accounts for spin (in this work we will consider
329: only spin-unpolarized systems).
330:
331: The gauge relation between periodic functions $u_{n{\bf k+G}}({\bf r})
332: = e^{-i{\bf G\cdot r}}u_{n{\bf k}}({\bf r})$ is established by
333: requiring that the Bloch eigenstates be periodic in reciprocal space,
334: i.e. $\psi_{n{\bf k}} = \psi_{n{\bf k}+{\bf G}}$, where ${\bf G}$ is a
335: reciprocal-lattice vector. With this choice of gauge, the polarization
336: changes given by Eq.~\ref{Delta-P} are defined to within a factor of
337: $(2 e / \Omega) {\bf R}$, where ${\bf R}$ is a lattice
338: vector.~\cite{ksv} Eq.~\ref{P-bphase} was derived under the
339: restriction that the macroscopic electric field inside the crystal
340: vanishes. Moreover, it also requires that the set
341: of wavefunctions be differentiable with respect to {\bf k}.~\cite{blount}
342:
343: The actual evaluation of the polarization in Eq.~\ref{P-bphase} is
344: carried out on a discrete mesh of points in reciprocal space. Because
345: this expression depends on the phase relationships of wavefunctions at
346: different {\bf k}-points, the following discretized version was
347: proposed by KS-V:
348: %
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: \label{P-discr}
351: P_{\parallel}(\lambda) = \frac{e}{4\pi^3}\int d{\bf k}_\perp
352: \sum_{j = 1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}\left\{ \ln \det \left[
353: \left. \left\langle ~\!u_{n{\bf k}_j}^{(\lambda)}~\!\right|~\!u_{m{\bf
354: k}_{j+1}}^{(\lambda)}~\! \right\rangle\right]\right\}\;;
355: \end{eqnarray}
356: %
357: where $P_{\parallel}$ is the component of the polarization along the
358: direction of a short reciprocal-lattice vector, ${\bf G}_\parallel$,
359: and $N_k$ is the number of {\bf k}-points sampling the Brillouin zone
360: along that direction for each value of ${\bf k}_\perp$, with ${\bf
361: k}_j = {\bf k}_\perp + j{\bf G}_\parallel/N_k$.
362:
363: From a calculational point of view, this discretized expression
364: ensures that the final result is unaffected by random numerical phases
365: which may be introduced in the wave functions at different {\bf
366: k}-points, when these are independently determined by the
367: diagonalization routine. However, Resta has taken the view that the
368: discretized expression is to be regarded as more fundamental than the
369: continuous form.~\cite{resta3} For the formulation of the
370: electric-field response that we develop in the present work,
371: discretization is crucial in order to define a numerically-stable
372: minimization procedure. We will come back to this point in
373: Sec.~\ref{cutoff}.
374:
375: The Berry-phase expression can be transformed into a real-space
376: integral involving the Wannier functions of the occupied bands,
377: leading to a physically-transparent expression for the polarization in
378: terms of the centers-of-charge of the Wannier
379: functions:~\cite{ksv,zak1,zak2,vks,blount}
380: %
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: \label{P-wannier}
383: {\bf P}(\lambda) = -\frac{2e}{\Omega}~\!\sum_n \int {\bf r}~\!
384: \left|~\! w_n^{(\lambda)}~\! \right|^2 d{\bf r}\,,
385: \end{eqnarray}
386: %
387: where $\Omega$ is the unit-cell volume.
388:
389: In principle, the above expressions are valid only at vanishing
390: electric field. However, it was soon realized~\cite{nv,dalcorso1} that
391: Eq.~\ref{P-wannier} could be extended to the non-zero field problem,
392: by introducing the so-called polarized Wannier functions. Polarization
393: effects were then related to the field-induced shifts in the
394: Wannier-function centers of charge. In the present work,
395: Eq.~\ref{P-bphase} is argued to apply to the non-zero-field problem,
396: thus defining a field-dependent Berry phase containing the
397: polarization effects. This allows us to work out a perturbative
398: approach for the finite-field problem.
399:
400: %.............................................................................
401:
402: \subsection{Definition of the energy}
403:
404: The study of the problem of insulators under an external electric
405: field has traditionally met with conceptual difficulties, related to
406: the non-analyticity of the perturbation, as discussed in detail by
407: Nenciu~\cite{nenciu}. Upon the application of the external field, the
408: spectrum of electronic states changes non-analytically, with the band
409: structure of the insulator at zero field being replaced by a continuum
410: of eigenvalues spanning the entire energy axis (from $-\infty $ to
411: $+\infty $), even for a field of infinitesimal strength. From a
412: mathematical point of view, the unbound nature of the perturbation
413: term, $e~\!{\bf \cal E}{\bf \cdot r}$ (hereafter, we use $\cal E$ for
414: the magnitude of the electric field), hinders the straightforward
415: application of perturbation theory, since the diagonal elements of the
416: position operator in the basis of the unperturbed Bloch states are
417: ill-defined~\cite{martin2,nenciu,resta4}. Strictly speaking, an
418: infinite crystal in the presence of an external electric field does
419: not have a ground state~\cite{ggg3,nv}.
420:
421: From the physical point of view, in the limit of weak to moderate
422: fields, the tunneling currents (which destroy the insulating state at
423: sufficiently high fields) can be neglected, and only the polarization
424: of the electronic states by the external field is considered.
425: One is left with a picture of the problem in which the insulating
426: state of the unperturbed crystal is preserved, hence the band
427: structure and the periodicity of the charge density are
428: retained. The problem is thus physically well defined. The theory we
429: develop below will concern this periodic polarized insulating state,
430: resulting from the application of the electric field. Avron and
431: Zak~\cite{avron} have discussed the stability of the band structure in
432: the present context, while, as mentioned in the introduction,
433: Nenciu~\cite{nenciu} has rigorously shown
434: such state to be a long-lived resonance of the problem, in the regime
435: of weak fields.
436:
437: Building on the conceptual framework set by the MTP, NV introduced a
438: practical real-space method to handle the problem on the basis of the
439: WF formulation of the polarization. They noted that this polarized insulating
440: state can be represented in real space by a set of
441: field-dependent polarized WF's. In this way, the relationship between
442: the WF's centers of charge and polarization can be extended to the
443: non-zero field situation, and an energy functional is defined as
444: follows
445: %
446: \begin{equation}
447: \label{E-nv}
448: E\left [\{w^{\cal E}\},\bf {\cal E}\right ] = E^{(0)}\left [\{w^{\cal E}\}\right ]
449: -\Omega\,{\bf {\cal E} \cdot}{\bf P}\left [\{w^{\cal E}\}\right ]\;,
450: \end{equation}
451: %
452: where $\{w^{\cal E}\}$ is the set of field-dependent Wannier functions.
453:
454: Because the state underlying the above expression is not a
455: ground-state, rather a resonance, the energy functional is only well
456: defined for WF's of finite range.~\cite{nv} The truncation of the WF's
457: provides a mathematical procedure for the regularization of the
458: problem. We will come back to this pathology in section~\ref{cutoff}
459:
460: As a corollary of the existence of polarized WF's, we consider now the
461: representation of the system in terms of polarized Bloch orbitals. In
462: the following sections, we develop two alternative formulations in which
463: the $k$-space MTP expressions for the electronic polarization,
464: Eqs.~\ref{P-bphase} and \ref{P-discr}, are extended to the
465: non-zero-field problem. We will also have to
466: regularize the ensuing expressions, which is possible by means of
467: discretization of the $k$-space integrals in such a way that
468: polarized valence bands are stable against mixing with the conduction
469: bands.
470:
471: For simplicity, we concentrate on a one-dimensional non-interacting
472: spin-unpolarized system. The Hamiltonian for the unperturbed periodic
473: insulator is given by
474: %
475: \begin{eqnarray}
476: H^{(0)} = K + V_0\;,
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: %
479: where $K$ is the kinetic-energy operator, and $V_0$ is a periodic
480: potential, i.e., $\left[V_0,T_\ell\right] = 0$, where $T_\ell$ denotes a
481: translation by a lattice vector. The zero-field function
482: $u_{nk}^{(0)}$ is the periodic part of the unperturbed Bloch-orbital,
483: obeying the eigenvalue equation $H^{(0)}_k \left. \left| u^{(0)}_{nk}
484: \right.\right\rangle = \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk}\left. \left| u^{(0)}_{nk} \right.\right\rangle $, where
485: %
486: \begin{eqnarray}
487: H^{(0)}_k = e^{-i k{\hat x}}H^{(0)}e^{i k{\hat x}}
488: \end{eqnarray}
489: %
490: is the unperturbed cell-periodic Hamiltonian.
491:
492: Under the action of an external electric field, the Hamiltonian
493: becomes
494: %
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: H = H^{(0)} + e{\cal E} {\hat x} \;.
497: \end{eqnarray}
498: %
499: As discussed above, this Hamiltonian is not amenable to a conventional
500: perturbation treatment. We can arrive at an expression that is
501: applicable to extended periodic systems, from the following
502: considerations.
503:
504: First, let us assume that we can define a set of field-dependent
505: cell-periodic functions, representing the polarized state of the
506: system. These are the Fourier transform of the field-dependent
507: Wannier functions introduced by NV. Eq.~\ref{P-bphase} is thus
508: extended to the non-zero field problem, with
509: %
510: \begin{eqnarray}
511: \label{P-ef}
512: P\left({\cal E}\right) = -\frac{ie}{\pi}\sum_n \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}
513: dk~\!\left\langle u^{\cal E}_{nk}\left|~\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
514: ~\right|u^{\cal E}_{nk}\right\rangle\;.
515: \end{eqnarray}
516: %
517: defining a field-dependent polarization, including the spontaneous and
518: induced parts of this quantity.
519:
520: Next, combining this definition with Eq.~\ref{E-nv} we write
521: %
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: \label{E-def}
524: E = E^{(0)} - a P\left({\cal E}\right){\cal E} = \frac{a}{\pi}
525: \int_{0}^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N \left[
526: \left\langle u^{\cal E}_{nk}\left|H^{(0)}_k \right| u^{\cal E}_{nk}\right\rangle\ +
527: {\cal E}\left\langle u^{\cal E}_{nk}\left|
528: \left(ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\right)
529: \right|u_{nk}^{\cal E}\right\rangle\right]\;,
530: \end{eqnarray}
531: %
532: for the total energy in terms of field-dependent cell-periodic
533: functions, with the unit-cell volume $\Omega = a$ for our 1D system.
534:
535: Consider now the expansion of the set $\{u^{\cal E}_{nk}\}$ in terms of
536: the complete set of zero-field periodic functions:
537: %
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: \label{u-expand}
540: \left.\left| u^{\cal E}_{nk}\right\rangle \right. = \sum_{m=1}^\infty
541: C^{\cal E}_{nm}(k) \left.\left| u^{(0)}_{mk}\right\rangle\right. \;.
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: %
544: In terms of this expansion, Eq.~\ref{E-def} is written
545: %
546: \begin{eqnarray}
547: \label{E-def-expand}
548: E = \frac{a}{\pi}
549: \int_{0}^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{m,m^\prime =1}^\infty
550: C^{\cal E\ast}_{nm}(k) C^{\cal E}_{nm^\prime}(k) \left[
551: \left\langle u^{(0)}_{mk}\left|H^{(0)}_k \right| u^{(0)}_{m^\prime k}\right\rangle\ +
552: {\cal E}\left\langle u^{(0)}_{mk}\left|
553: \left(ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\right)
554: \right|u^{(0)}_{m^\prime k}\right\rangle\right]\;.
555: \end{eqnarray}
556:
557: This expression is in the form of the matrix representation, in the
558: basis $\{u^{(0)}_{mk}\}$, of the expectation value of the
559: following ``operator'':
560: %
561: \begin{eqnarray}
562: \label{h-ansatz}
563: H_k = H^{(0)}_k +{\cal E}\left(ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\right)\;.
564: \end{eqnarray}
565: %
566: This suggests Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz} as an {\it ansatz} for the cell-periodic
567: Hamiltonian, now including the perturbation term $U^{pert}_k =
568: i\!~e{\cal E}\frac{\partial}{\partial k}$.
569:
570: In subsection~\ref{subsec:position}, we show
571: that the perturbation Hamiltonian operator
572: given in Eq.~\ref{E-def-expand} by its matrix representation,
573: %
574: \begin{eqnarray}
575: \label{U-matrix}
576: {\cal U}_{mn}(k) = \left\langle u^{(0)}_{mk}\left|
577: \left(i\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\right)
578: \right|u^{(0)}_{nk}\right\rangle\;,
579: \end{eqnarray}
580: %
581: is the {\it periodic} part of the $\hat{x}$ operator.
582:
583: Another way of arriving at this ansatz is by the following
584: argument. Consider the first-order change in the total energy which
585: can be obtained, without postulating the existence of the
586: field-dependent functions, by combining Eqs.~\ref{P-bphase} and
587: \ref{E-nv}, as follows:
588: %
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: \label{E1-def}
591: E^{(1)} = - a P^{(0)} {\cal E} = \frac{a}{\pi}
592: \int_{0}^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N {\cal E}
593: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(0)}\left|
594: \left(ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\right)\right| u_{nk}^{(0)}
595: \right\rangle\;.
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: %
598: This is simply the coupling of the spontaneous polarization of the
599: system to the external field. From textbook perturbation theory, the
600: first order change in the energy is given by the diagonal matrix
601: elements of the perturbation term, leading again to the form of the
602: Hamiltonian in Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz}.
603:
604: Some remarks are needed about the application of perturbation theory
605: to this Hamiltonian. Strictly speaking, ${\cal U}_{mn}(k)$ is not an
606: operator (its transformation properties under unitary transformations
607: will be discussed in subsection~\ref{subsec:position}).
608: However, it can be
609: shown~\cite{nunes} that this is reflected only in the first-order
610: change of the single-particle eigenvalues, when we analyze
611: single-particle quantities obtained in the perturbation expansion of
612: Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz}. All other single-particle quantities, such as
613: wave-function derivatives and higher-order eigenvalue derivatives are
614: actually gauge-invariant, and thus well defined. More importantly, in
615: the following developments we will be interested only in quantities
616: that are {\it integrated} over the Brillouin zone
617: (the derivatives of the total-energy with
618: respect to the applied field), which will be shown to be
619: gauge invariant. As a final observation, it can also be
620: shown~\cite{nunes} that under unitary transformations, the first-order
621: eigenvalue acquires a change which, when integrated over the Brillouin
622: zone, leads to a first-order energy derivative which is defined modulo
623: the quantity $-e{\cal E} \ell$, where $\ell = N a$ is a lattice vector
624: ($N$ is an integer). This is consistent with the fact that, in the
625: MTP, the zero-field polarization itself is defined modulo $-e\ell$.
626:
627: The continuous formulation of our theory is based on the application
628: of a variational perturbation treatment to Eqs.~\ref{E-def} and
629: \ref{h-ansatz}. Alternatively, the PEAD formulation is derived by applying
630: the variational principle to the total energy written in terms of the
631: discretized form of the polarization. In this case, we combine
632: Eqs.~\ref{P-discr} and \ref{E-nv} to write
633: %
634: \begin{eqnarray}
635: \label{E-def-P}
636: E\left[\left\{u_{nk_j}\right\};{\cal E}\right] = \frac{2}{N_k}
637: \left\{\sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \left\langle u_{nk_j}
638: \left| H^{(0)}_{k_j} \right| u_{nk_j} \right\rangle
639: - \frac{e{\cal E}}{\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im} \left\{
640: \ln \det \left[ S_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \right] \right\}\right\}\;,
641: \end{eqnarray}
642: %
643: where $j$ runs over the $N_k$ $k$-vectors in the discretized Brillouin
644: zone, $\Delta k = 2\pi/a N_k$, and
645: %
646: \begin{eqnarray}
647: \label{S-matrix}
648: S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) = \left\langle u_{nk_j} \left|~\!
649: u_{mk_{j+1}}\right\rangle\right.
650: \end{eqnarray}
651: %
652: is the overlap matrix between states at adjacent points in the
653: reciprocal-space mesh.
654:
655: %.............................................................................
656:
657: \subsection{Position operator for periodic systems}
658: \label{subsec:position}
659:
660: In view of the above discussion, we examine now the action of the
661: position operator in a space of periodic functions. Keeping in
662: mind that we wish to retain the periodicity of the charge density, we
663: seek to arrive at a consistent definition for the action of ${\hat{x}}$
664: in that space. This problem has been recently tackled by
665: Resta~\cite{resta4}, who suggested an intrinsically many-body
666: redefinition of ${\hat{x}}$, in the context of periodic systems. In
667: the spirit of retaining a single-particle picture, here we only offer
668: a heuristic justification for the form of the perturbation term given
669: in Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz}. For this, we use the crystal momentum
670: representation (CMR), following the discussion in
671: the paper by Blount.~\cite{blount}
672:
673: Let $f(x)$ denote a square-integrable
674: function. The full set of zero-field Bloch eigenstates of a
675: periodic Hamiltonian forms a complete basis to expand $f(x)$:
676: %
677: \begin{equation}
678: \label{fx}
679: f(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk \sum_n \psi_{nk}^{(0)}(x) f_n(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi}
680: \int dk\,e^{i kx} \sum_n u_{nk}^{(0)}(x) f_n(k) \;.
681: \end{equation}
682: %
683:
684: The action of ${\hat{x}}$ on $f(x)$ is given in the CMR by the
685: expression
686: %
687: \begin{equation}
688: \label{x_op}
689: {\hat{x}}f(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk\,e^{i kx} \sum_n u_{nk}^{(0)}(x) \left[
690: i \frac{\partial f_n(k)}{\partial k} + \sum_{n^\prime} {\cal
691: U}_{n n^\prime}(k) f_{n^\prime}(k) \right]\;.
692: \end{equation}
693: %
694: where ${\cal U}_{n n^\prime}$ is defined in Eq.~\ref{U-matrix}.
695:
696: Blount examined the transformation properties of the two terms
697: appearing in Eq.~\ref{x_op}, with respect to the choice of the phases
698: of the Bloch orbitals. Consider the following CMR decomposition of ${\hat{x}}$:
699: %
700: \begin{equation}
701: \label{xdecomp}
702: {\hat{x}} = i \frac{\partial }{\partial k} + {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k) =
703: x_d + {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k)\;,
704: \end{equation}
705: %
706: where $x_d = i \frac{\partial }{\partial k}$ is diagonal in the band
707: index. He showed that when the Bloch orbitals are multiplied by a
708: phase factor $e^{i\phi_n(k)}$, the term $x_d$ transforms as
709: $x_d^\prime = x_d -\delta_{n n^\prime} \partial\phi_n(k)/\partial k$,
710: while a compensatory change occurs in the diagonal term ${\cal
711: U}_{nn}$. So, the two terms in Eq.~\ref{xdecomp} do not transform
712: separately like operators, while their sum does. In our formulation,
713: we use the second term on the right, ${\cal U}_{nn^\prime}$, to define
714: a periodic Hamiltonian for the electric-field problem which, from this
715: discussion, is not by itself an operator in the strict sense.
716:
717: We show now that ${\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k)$ is translationally
718: invariant, while $x_d$ (like ${\hat x}$) is not. Consider a
719: translation $T_\ell$ by a lattice vector $\ell$. The commutation
720: relation for ${\hat{x}}$ and $T_\ell$ is written.
721: %
722: \begin{equation}
723: \label{xcommut}
724: \left[{\hat{x}},T_\ell\right] = \ell T_\ell\;.
725: \end{equation}
726: %
727:
728: To obtain the commutation relation of the perturbation term in
729: Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz}, we expand Eq.~(\ref{xcommut}) in the CMR
730: representation. Let $g(x) = T_\ell f(x) = f(x-\ell)$. From
731: Eq.~(\ref{fx}) and $u_{nk}^{(0)}(x-\ell) = u_{nk}^{(0)}(x)$ we get
732: %
733: \begin{equation}
734: \label{gx}
735: g(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk\,e^{i k(x-\ell)} \sum_n u_{nk}^{(0)}(x)
736: f_n(k)\;.
737: \end{equation}
738: %
739:
740: From this expression, it follows that
741: %
742: \begin{equation}
743: \label{gk}
744: g_n(k) = e^{-i k\ell} f_n(k).
745: \end{equation}
746: %
747:
748: Further, from Eq.~(\ref{x_op}) we obtain
749: %
750: \begin{equation}
751: \label{tlxf}
752: T_\ell \hat{x}f(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk\,e^{i k(x-\ell)} \sum_n
753: u_{nk}^{(0)}(x) \left[ i \frac{\partial f_n(k)}{\partial k} +
754: \sum_{n^\prime} {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k) f_{n^\prime}(k) \right]\;;
755: \end{equation}
756: %
757: while from Eqs.~(\ref{x_op})~and~(\ref{gk}) we get
758: %
759: \begin{eqnarray}
760: \label{xtlf}
761: \hat{x} T_\ell f(x) = \hat{x} g(x) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk\,e^{i kx}
762: \sum_n u_{nk}^{(0)}(x) \left[ i\frac{\partial g_n(k)}{\partial k} +
763: \sum_{n^\prime} {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k) g_{n^\prime}(k) \right]\;
764: \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk\,e^{i k(x-\ell)} \sum_n
765: u_{nk}^{(0)}(x) \left[ \ell f_n(k) + i\frac{\partial f_n(k)}{\partial
766: k} + \sum_{n^\prime} {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k) f_{n^\prime}(k)
767: \right]\;;
768: \end{eqnarray}
769: %
770: where, in the last step, we use the result $i {\partial \over \partial
771: k} g_n(k) = e^{-i k\ell} \left[\ell f_n(k) + i {\partial \over
772: \partial k} f_n(k) \right]$. Combining
773: Eqs.~(\ref{tlxf})~and~(\ref{xtlf}) we arrive at the CMR expansion of
774: the commutation relation in Eq.~(\ref{xcommut}). Moreover, the above
775: development immediately shows that
776: %
777: \begin{eqnarray}
778: &\left[ x_d,T_\ell \right] = \ell T_\ell \nonumber \\
779: &\left[ {\cal U}_{n n^\prime}(k),T_\ell \right] = 0\,.
780: \end{eqnarray}
781: %
782:
783: From the above, we observe that the perturbation term in
784: Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz} is invariant under lattice translations.
785:
786: %.............................................................................
787:
788: \subsection{Wannier-function cutoff in real space}
789: \label{cutoff}
790:
791: The definition of an energy functional at finite fields requires
792: careful analysis. Because the problem does not have a ground state, a
793: regularization procedure is required for the definition of a
794: numerically-stable functional capturing the physics of the state of
795: the system after the electric field is turned on.
796:
797: In the NV treatment of the problem in real-space, regularization is
798: achieved with the introduction of truncated Wannier functions, which
799: are constrained to zero beyond a real-space cutoff $R_c$.~\cite{nv} As
800: discussed by NV, in the limit $R_c \rightarrow \infty$ the functional
801: becomes pathological, with the property that a state having an
802: arbitrary value for the polarization can be constructed without
803: changing the value of the energy, when working at fixed polarization,
804: or conversely with the development of a growing (infinitely many in
805: the $R_c \rightarrow \infty$ limit) false local minima when working at fixed
806: electric field.
807:
808: In order to develop this analysis on a sound mathematical basis,
809: one performs a Legendre transformation~\cite{Zeidler86},
810: from the ${\cal E}$-dependent total energy
811: $E[{\cal E}]$ to the $P$-dependent electric enthalpy
812: $\tilde E[P]$:
813: %
814: \begin{equation}
815: \tilde E[P]= \inf_{\cal E} \left\{ E[{\cal E}] + a P {\cal E} \right\}.
816: \end{equation}
817: %
818: The total energy was obtained previously [see Eq.(5)] thanks to the trial
819: Wannier functions,
820: %
821: \begin{equation}
822: E[{\cal E}] = \inf_{\{w\}} \left\{ E[\{w\};{\cal E}] \right\}
823: = \inf_{\{w\}} \left\{ E^{(0)}[\{w\}] - a {\cal E} P[\{w\}] \right\},
824: \end{equation}
825: %
826: while a constrained search alternatively gives its Legendre transform,
827: %
828: \begin{equation}
829: \tilde E[P] =
830: \inf_{\{w\} {\rm such \, that} P[\{w\}]=P} \left\{ E^{(0)}[\{w\}] \right\}.
831: \end{equation}
832: %
833: The zero-electric field total energy functional of the Wannier functions
834: is $E^{(0)}[\{w\}] = \sum_i \left\langle w_i \left| H^{(0)} \right| w_i
835: \right\rangle$.
836:
837: We aim at understanding the pathologies of $E[{\cal E}]$ by examining its expression
838: as the inverse Legendre transform of $\tilde E[P]$,
839: %
840: \begin{equation}
841: E[{\cal E}]= \inf_P \left\{ \tilde E[P] - a P {\cal E} \right\},
842: \end{equation}
843: %
844: for which we need to characterize the minima
845: of $\tilde E[P]$, as well as their local behavior.
846:
847: We consider, for simplicity, the case of a single occupied
848: band. For a given finite value of $R_c$, the electric enthalpy is a periodic
849: function of $P$, and $\tilde E[P_0] = E^{(0)}[\{w_0\}] = E_0$ is
850: the zero-field ground-state
851: energy ($w_0$ is the zero-field valence-band Wannier function). For
852: large values of $R_c$, it becomes possible to build a set of
853: $\ell$-dependent functions (to be normalized),
854: %
855: \begin{equation}
856: \left.\vert w \right\rangle = \left.\vert w_0 \right\rangle +
857: P^{1/2} \ell^{-1/2}
858: \left.\left| w_0^{cb}(\ell) \right\rangle\right.\;,
859: \end{equation}
860: %
861: with arbitrary value of $P$, where $w_0$ is a
862: zero-field valence-band Wannier function centered at the origin, and
863: $w_0^{cb}(\ell)$ is an empty conduction-band function centered at the
864: site $\ell$ within the range of $R_c$, whose coefficient is on the order
865: of $\ell^{-1/2}$. We consider the lattice constant $a$ to be the unit of length.
866: The energy for these states is
867: %
868: \begin{equation}
869: \frac
870: {\left\langle w \left| H^{(0)} \right| w \right\rangle }
871: {\left\langle w \left| w \right. \right\rangle }
872: =
873: \frac
874: {\left\langle w_0 \left| H^{(0)} \right| w_0 \right\rangle +
875: P \ell^{-1} \left\langle w_0^{cb}(\ell)
876: \left| H^{(0)} \right| w_0^{cb}(\ell) \right\rangle }
877: {1 + P \ell^{-1} }
878: = E_0 + P \ell^{-1} (E_{cb}-E_0)\;,
879: \end{equation}
880: %
881: where $E_{cb}$ is the expectation value of the energy for the conduction band
882: Wannier function.
883: Due to the exponential decay
884: of Wannier functions for insulators, the value of the
885: polarization is
886: %
887: \begin{equation}
888: \frac
889: {\left\langle w \vert x \vert w \right\rangle}
890: {\left\langle w \left| w \right. \right\rangle }
891: \approx
892: \frac
893: {
894: \left\langle w_0 \vert x \vert
895: w_0 \right\rangle + P \ell^{-1} \left.\left\langle w_0^{cb}(\ell)
896: \right| x \left|
897: w_0^{cb}(\ell) \right\rangle\right. }
898: {1 + P \ell^{-1} }
899: = P_0 + P \;,
900: \end{equation}
901: %
902: since $\left.\left\langle w_0^{cb}(\ell) \right| x \left|
903: w_0^{cb}(\ell) \right\rangle\right.=\ell+P_0^{cb}$.
904: %
905: In the limit $\ell \rightarrow \infty$, these wavefunctions have
906: an arbitrary value of $P$, and an energy infinitesimally close to $E_0$.
907: The $\tilde E[P]$ curve becomes
908: flat in this limit, and only derivatives in an infinitesimal region
909: around the ground-state solution remain well defined. The development
910: of multiple minima at finite fields corresponds to the same situation,
911: as a growing number of minima with energies that become degenerate in
912: the $R_c \rightarrow \infty$ are associated to states with different
913: values of polarization. No global minimum as a function of
914: polarization can be found. In the next subsection, we analyze the
915: behavior of the energy functional for a model system in reciprocal
916: space. We will show that the same pathology manifests itself in the limit
917: $\Delta k \rightarrow 0$, where $\Delta k$ is the discretization
918: of the mesh of $k$-points in the Brillouin zone.
919:
920: \subsection{Reciprocal-space analysis of a model system}
921: \label{model1}
922:
923: For the present analysis, as well as for the application of the
924: perturbation expansions to be developed in the following sections, we
925: chose a one-dimensional (1D) two-site periodic model defined by two
926: parameters, the hoping integral $t$, and the on-site term which we
927: choose as $-\Delta/2$ and $\Delta/2$, for sites $1$ and $2$,
928: respectively. The Hamiltonian can be rescaled by $\Delta$ to become a
929: one-parameter (${t \over \Delta} \rightarrow t$) model, defined as
930: %
931: \begin{eqnarray}
932: \label{1d-ham}
933: H = \sum_l \left\{ \frac{1}{2} c_{2,l}^\dagger c_{2,l} -
934: \frac{1}{2} c_{1,l}^\dagger c_{1,l} + t~\left[c_{1,l}^\dagger c_{2,l} +
935: c_{2,l}^\dagger c_{1,l+1} + h.c.\right]\right\}\;,
936: \end{eqnarray}
937: %
938: where $l$ runs over unit cells. Whenever we are concerned with the 1D
939: model, we will consider all distances to be rescaled by the unit-cell
940: period (i.e. we set $a=1$ in the present section, in
941: Sec.~\ref{sec:1d-model}, and in Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel}), such that
942: on each cell, denoted by the integer $l$, we have the basis functions
943: $\phi_{1}(l)$ and $\phi_2(l+1/2)$.
944:
945: We apply Bloch's theorem to write the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for the
946: cell-periodic functions:
947: %
948: \begin{eqnarray}
949: \label{1d-schrd}
950: \left. H_k^{(0)} \right| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle =
951: \varepsilon_{nk}^{(0)} \left.\left| u_{nk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \;,
952: \end{eqnarray}
953: %
954: where $H_k^{(0)}$ is the zero-field cell-periodic Hamiltonian. In the
955: basis of periodic functions $\chi_1 = \sum_l \phi_{1}(l)$ and $\chi_2
956: = \sum_l \phi_{2}(l+1/2)$ we have
957: %
958: \begin{eqnarray}
959: \label{1d-hmtrx}
960: H_k^{(0)} = \left(
961: \begin{array}{cc} \displaystyle -\frac{1}{2} &2t\cos\frac{k}{2}
962: \\[0.08in] 2t\cos\frac{k}{2} &\frac{1}{2}%
963: \end{array}
964: \right) \;.
965: \end{eqnarray}
966: %
967: The corresponding secular equation, $\det \left[ H_k^{(0)} -
968: \varepsilon_k^{(0)} {\rm 1} \right] = 0$, is easily solved for the
969: eigenvalues
970: %
971: \begin{eqnarray}
972: \label{1d-eigval}
973: \varepsilon_k^{(0)}
974: = {\Huge \vphantom{a}^+_-}\left[ \frac{1}{4} +
975: 4t^2\cos^2{k \over 2} \right]^{1 \over 2}
976: = {\Huge \vphantom{a}^+_-}\frac{1}{2}\left[ 1 +
977: A^2\cos^2{k \over 2} \right]^{1 \over 2},
978: \end{eqnarray}
979: %
980: where $A=4t$. Negative and positive eigenvalues correspond to valence and
981: conduction bands, respectively. Because the Hamiltonian is real, we
982: can use the following parameterization for the corresponding
983: eigenstates
984: %
985: \begin{eqnarray}
986: \label{1d-eigstate}
987: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle &=& \left(
988: \begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
989: \cos\Theta_k \\[0.05in]
990: \sin\Theta_k
991: \end{array}
992: \right) {\rm e}^{i\alpha_{vk}} \nonumber\\
993: \left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right. \right\rangle &=& \left(
994: \begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
995: ~\sin\Theta_k \\[0.05in]
996: \!\!-\cos\Theta_k
997: \end{array}
998: \right) {\rm e}^{i\alpha_{ck}}\;,
999: \end{eqnarray}
1000: %
1001: where $\alpha_{vk}$ and $\alpha_{ck}$ are real numbers, with no lack
1002: of generality. Coming back to the eigenvalue equation $H_k^{(0)}
1003: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle = \varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)}
1004: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)}\right.
1005: \right\rangle$, we obtain
1006: %
1007: \begin{eqnarray}
1008: \label{theta}
1009: \tan\Theta_k = \frac{\varepsilon^{(0)}_{vk} +
1010: \frac{1}{2}}{2t\cos{k \over 2}}\;.
1011: \end{eqnarray}
1012: %
1013:
1014: Integrating Eq.~\ref{1d-eigval} over the Brillouin zone gives the
1015: energy per unit cell:
1016: %
1017: \begin{eqnarray}
1018: \label{1d-E0}
1019: E_0 = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} dk\!~\varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)} =
1020: -\frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^\frac{\pi}{2} dy \left[ 1+ A^2 \cos^2 y
1021: \right]^\frac{1}{2}\;.
1022: \end{eqnarray}
1023: %
1024:
1025: In order to discuss the pathology of the finite electric-field
1026: functional in $k$-space, we consider a set of trial
1027: cell-periodic functions
1028: %
1029: \begin{eqnarray}
1030: \left.\left| u_k \right\rangle\right. = \left(
1031: \begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
1032: \cos\Theta_k~\!e^{i\alpha_k}\\[0.05in]
1033: \sin\Theta_k~\!e^{i\beta_k}
1034: \end{array} \right)\;
1035: \end{eqnarray}
1036: %
1037: for $k \in [-\pi,\pi]$, where $\Theta_k$, $\alpha_k$, and $\beta_k$
1038: are real numbers. Imposing the condition $\left.\left| u_{k+G}\right\rangle\right. = e^{iGr}\left.\left| u_k \right\rangle\right.$,~\cite{ksv} we obtain
1039: %
1040: \begin{eqnarray}
1041: \cos\Theta_{k+2\pi}~\! e^{i\alpha_{k+2\pi}} &=& \cos\Theta_{k}~\!
1042: e^{i\alpha_k} \nonumber\\
1043: \sin\Theta_{k+2\pi}~\! e^{i\beta_{k+2\pi}} &=& -\sin\Theta_{k}~\!
1044: e^{i\beta_k}\,,
1045: \end{eqnarray}
1046: %
1047: which leads to $\alpha_{2\pi} - \alpha_0 = N_\alpha \pi$ and
1048: $\beta_{2\pi} - \beta_0 = N_\beta \pi$.
1049:
1050: The expectation value of the zero-field Hamiltonian in the set of
1051: trial wave-functions gives
1052: %
1053: \begin{eqnarray}
1054: \label{e0uk}
1055: E^{(0)}[\{u_k\}] =\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} dk
1056: ~\!\left\langle u_k \left| H_k^{(0)}
1057: \right| u_k \right\rangle
1058: = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} dk \left[ -\frac{1}{2}
1059: \cos\left(2\Theta_k\right) + 2t
1060: \cos\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)\sin\left(2\Theta_k\right)
1061: \cos\gamma_k\right]\;,
1062: \end{eqnarray}
1063: %
1064: where $\gamma_k = \alpha_k - \beta_k$.
1065:
1066: The polarization for the trial state is
1067: %
1068: \begin{eqnarray}
1069: \label{puk}
1070: P[\{u_k\}] = \frac{ie}{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} dk ~\!\left\langle u_k
1071: \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_k \right\rangle =
1072: -\frac{e}{2\pi}\left\{ \left[\vphantom{\sum_a^b}\alpha_k +
1073: \beta_k\right]_0^{2\pi} + \int_0^{2\pi} dk~\!
1074: \cos\left(2\Theta_k\right) \frac{\partial\gamma_k}{\partial
1075: k}\right\}\;.
1076: \end{eqnarray}
1077: %
1078:
1079: Minimization of $E^{(0)}[\{u_k\}]$ with respect to $\Theta_k$ and
1080: $\gamma_k$, by setting $\partial E^{(0)}_{k}/\partial \Theta_k = 0$ and
1081: $\partial E_k^{(0)}/\partial \gamma_k = 0$, with
1082: $E_k^{(0)} = \left\langle u_k \left| H_k^{(0)} \right| u_k \right\rangle$,
1083: leads to
1084: %
1085: \begin{eqnarray}
1086: \label{min1}
1087: &&\tan (2\Theta_k) = - 4t \cos\left(\frac{k}{2}\right) \cos \gamma_k \;; \\
1088: \label{min2}
1089: &&\left\{
1090: \begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
1091: \sin\gamma_k = 0 \\[0.02in]
1092: {\rm or} \\[0.02in]
1093: 2t\cos\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)\sin \left( 2\Theta_k \right) = 0 \;.
1094: \end{array}
1095: \right.
1096: \end{eqnarray}
1097: %
1098: At $\cos(k/2) = 0$, the solution of Eqs.~\ref{min1} and \ref{min2} leads to
1099: $\sin(2\Theta_k) = 0$ and also implies that $\gamma_k$ is {\it undefined}.
1100: At $\cos(k/2) \ne 0$, a minimum solution is obtained by setting
1101: %
1102: \begin{eqnarray}
1103: \label{min3}
1104: &&\left\{
1105: \begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
1106: \sin\gamma_k = 0 \Rightarrow \gamma_k = N_\gamma\times 2\pi\;,\\[0.02in]
1107: {\rm and} \\[0.02in]
1108: \tan (2\Theta_k) = - 4t \cos\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)\;.
1109: \end{array}
1110: \right.
1111: \end{eqnarray}
1112: %
1113:
1114: The ground-state solution is given by $\gamma_k = 0$
1115: (i.e., $\alpha_k = \beta_k$ as in Eq.~\ref{1d-eigstate}) for all
1116: values of $k$, with $\Theta_k$ defined by Eq.~\ref{min3}. Note that a
1117: solution where $\gamma_k$ jumps by a multiple of $2\pi$ at $k = {\Huge
1118: \mbox{}^+_-}\pi$ is also consistent with
1119: Eqs.~\ref{min1}-\ref{min3}, but not with the restriction that $u_k$ be
1120: differentiable with respect to $k$. Note also that, due to inversion
1121: symmetry, the zero-field ground-state polarization must vanish (modulo
1122: $-e$). This is what is obtained from Eq.~\ref{puk}, by setting
1123: $\partial \gamma_k/\partial k = 0$, $\alpha_k = \beta_k$, and
1124: $\alpha_{2\pi} - \alpha_0 = N_\alpha \pi$.
1125:
1126: We consider now a trial wavefunction where $\Theta_k$ is the same as
1127: in the ground-state solution, while $\gamma_k$ behaves as shown in
1128: Fig.~\ref{gamma-k}, where it jumps by a value of $2\pi$ over an
1129: interval $\Delta k$ centered at an arbitrary value of $k$. We show now
1130: that in the $\Delta k \rightarrow 0$ limit this function can be
1131: tailored to give an arbitrary value of the polarization, while its
1132: energy differs from the ground-state by an infinitesimal amount, of
1133: order $\Delta k$.
1134:
1135: The change in polarization for this state, with respect to the
1136: ground-state solution, is given by
1137: %
1138: \begin{eqnarray}
1139: \Delta P = \frac{-e}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} dk~\!\cos\left(2\Theta_k\right)
1140: \frac{\partial \gamma_k}{\partial k}\approx
1141: -e \cos \left(2\Theta_{\left\langle k\right\rangle}\right).
1142: \end{eqnarray}
1143: %
1144: $\Delta P$ in the above equation assumes values between $-e$ and
1145: $-e/(1+16t^2)^{1/2}$. By adding another kink in the definition of
1146: $\gamma_k$, where this function changes by $-2\pi$, we can build a solution
1147: having any arbitrary value of $P$ in the interval $-e~\![0,1]$.
1148:
1149: Let us consider the change in energy of the trial state. The function
1150: $\cos\gamma_k$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{cos-gamma}, differs from one
1151: over a small interval of the order of $\Delta k$. The change in energy
1152: with respect to the ground state is then
1153: %
1154: \begin{eqnarray}
1155: \Delta E = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} dk~\!
1156: 2t\cos\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)
1157: \sin \left(2\Theta_k\right) \left(\cos\gamma_k -1\right)\approx
1158: -\frac{2t}{\pi}\cos\left(\frac{\left\langle k\right\rangle}{2}\right)
1159: \sin \left(2\Theta_{\left\langle k\right\rangle}\right)\times \Delta k.
1160: \end{eqnarray}
1161: %
1162:
1163: So, for the trial state $\Delta E \rightarrow 0 $ when $\Delta k
1164: \rightarrow 0$. The $E^{(0)}(P)$ curve becomes flat in this
1165: limit. This is the same pathology as the one discussed by NV in the
1166: real-space case. Discretization of the $k$-space mesh in the Brillouin
1167: zone is thus essential for the numerical stability of the energy
1168: functional.
1169:
1170: Now, we show that for the discretized version of the formulation, a
1171: change in $P$ implies a finite change in the energy. The discretized
1172: polarization is written
1173: %
1174: \begin{eqnarray}
1175: P\left[{u_{k_j}}\right] &=& \frac{e}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
1176: \left[ \ln
1177: \left.\left\langle u_{k_j} \right| u_{k_{j+1}}\right\rangle\right]
1178: \nonumber\\
1179: &=& \frac{e}{\pi}\left\{\Delta N_\beta + {\rm Im} \sum_{k=1}^{N_k}
1180: \ln \left[ \cos\Theta_{k_j}\cos\Theta_{k_{j+1}}
1181: e^{i\left(\gamma_{k_{j+1}} -\gamma_{k_j}\right)} +
1182: \sin\Theta_{k_j}\sin\Theta_{k_{j+1}}\right]\right\}\;;
1183: \end{eqnarray}
1184: %
1185: with the energy given by
1186: %
1187: \begin{eqnarray}
1188: E^{(0)}\left[{u_{k_j}}\right] = \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \left\langle
1189: u_{k_j} \left| H_{k_j}^{(0)}\right| u_{k_{j+1}}\right\rangle
1190: = \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\left[ -\frac{1}{2}
1191: \cos \left(2\Theta_{k_j}\right) +
1192: 2t\cos\left(\frac{k_j}{2}\right)\sin \left(2\Theta_{k_j}\right)
1193: \cos\gamma_{k_j}\right]\;.
1194: \end{eqnarray}
1195: %
1196:
1197: Again we consider the ground-state solution $\gamma_{k_j} = 0$, with
1198: $\Theta_{k_j}$ given by Eq.~\ref{min3}. An arbitrary change in
1199: polarization can be introduced by setting $\gamma_{k_j} \neq 0$ at a
1200: given $k_j$, while keeping the values of $\Theta$ and $\gamma$ at all
1201: the other $k$-points unchanged. In this case, it can be immediately
1202: seen that a {\it finite} change $\Delta E_0 = (4t/N_k) \cos
1203: \left(\frac{k_j}{2}\right) \sin \left(2 \Theta_{k_j}\right)
1204: (\cos\gamma_{k_j}-1)$ is introduced in the discretized energy.
1205:
1206:
1207: %.............................................................................
1208:
1209: \subsection{Summary}
1210: \label{sec2-summ}
1211:
1212: The theoretical treatment of a periodic insulator placed in an
1213: homogeneous electric field is plagued by severe conceptual
1214: difficulties: (1) the potential associated with an electric field is
1215: non-periodic and unbounded; (2) for that reason the spectrum of
1216: electronic states changes non-analytically upon the application of a
1217: homogeneous electric field; (3) the quantity conjugated to the
1218: electric field, namely the polarization, cannot be computed as the
1219: expectation value of the position (or any other) operator; (4) local
1220: minima of the energy functional can be defined only in an
1221: infinitesimally small region as a function of the polarization, the
1222: energy functional being perfectly flat otherwise.
1223:
1224: In order to address problems 1 and 2, following Nenciu, we restrict
1225: ourselves to periodic-polarized-insulating states, of which the lowest
1226: in energy is a long-lived resonance of the unrestricted system.
1227: Keeping this restriction in mind, we show that the position operator
1228: can be decomposed, in the crystal momentum representation, into a
1229: non-periodic part and a periodic part. The latter can be
1230: introduced in an ansatz Hamiltonian acting on the periodic part of
1231: the Bloch functions, from which the Berry phase formulation of the
1232: polarization is recovered, solving problem 3 as well.
1233:
1234: We are aware that this line of thought does not yet justify rigorously
1235: the use of this Hamiltonian: a more careful derivation, in the spirit
1236: of the mathematical work of Nenciu, would be needed. However, this
1237: rather simple Hamiltonian allows to recover all the previously known
1238: lowest-order expressions for the polarization and its derivatives, and
1239: to derive other low-order expressions as well as generic expressions
1240: to all orders, as we shall see in the coming sections.
1241:
1242: Problem 4 is solved by introducing a regularization procedure in
1243: reciprocal space, similar in spirit to the real-space cutoff radius
1244: introduced by NV. For the regularized energy functional, the local
1245: minima have a finite basin of attraction as a function of the
1246: polarization.
1247:
1248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1249:
1250: \section{Perturbation theory applied to a variational total-energy functional}
1251: \label{sec:VPT}
1252:
1253: In view of the application of perturbation theory to Eq.~\ref{E-def},
1254: we summarize now the variational formulation of DFPT, as presented in Ref.
1255: ~\onlinecite{gonze6}. We
1256: consider the formalism at its non-self-consistent level, without including
1257: the Hartree and exchange-correlation terms of the perturbative
1258: expressions.
1259:
1260: One considers a perturbative expansion of a variational
1261: principle applied to the electronic total-energy functional.
1262: In terms of the small
1263: parameter $\lambda$ associated with the perturbation, the
1264: perturbation series reads
1265: %
1266: \begin{eqnarray}
1267: \label{series}
1268: {\cal O} (\lambda) &=& {\cal O}^{(0)} + \lambda {\cal O}^{(1)} +
1269: \lambda^2 {\cal O}^{(2)} + \lambda^3 {\cal O}^{(3)} + ...\;,
1270: \nonumber\\ {\cal O}^{(n)} &=& \left. \frac{1}{n!}\frac{d^n {\cal
1271: O}(\lambda)}{d\lambda^n}~\!
1272: \right|_{~\!\lambda = 0}
1273: \end{eqnarray}
1274: for a generic observable ${\cal O}$.
1275: The system Hamiltonian is $H = K + v_{ext}$, and the total-energy functional is
1276: %
1277: \begin{eqnarray}
1278: E = \sum_{\alpha=1}^N \left\langle
1279: \varphi_{\alpha} \left| \left( K + v_{ext}\right) \right| \varphi_{\alpha}
1280: \right\rangle\;,
1281: \end{eqnarray}
1282: %
1283: where $K$ and $v_{ext}$ are the kinetic-energy and external-potential
1284: operators. The total-energy functional is to be minimized under the
1285: orthonormality constraints for the occupied wavefunctions
1286: %
1287: \begin{eqnarray}
1288: \label{ortho}
1289: \left\langle \varphi_{\alpha} \left| \varphi_{\beta} \right\rangle \right. =
1290: \delta_{\alpha\beta}.
1291: \end{eqnarray}
1292: %
1293:
1294: Using the Lagrange-multiplier method, the functional
1295: %
1296: \begin{eqnarray}
1297: \label{F-ener}
1298: F = \sum_{\alpha=1}^N \left\langle \varphi_{\alpha}
1299: \left| \left( T + v_{ext}\right) \right| \varphi_{\alpha}\right\rangle
1300: -\sum_{\alpha,\beta = 1}^N \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}
1301: \left[ \left\langle~\!\varphi_\alpha~\!\left|
1302: ~\!\varphi_\beta~\!\right\rangle \right.
1303: - \delta_{\alpha\beta} \right]
1304: \end{eqnarray}
1305: %
1306: is minimized with respect to the wavefunctions. The minimum condition,
1307: $\delta F/\delta\varphi_\alpha^\ast = 0$, leads to the Euler-Lagrange
1308: equation
1309: %
1310: \begin{eqnarray}
1311: \label{EL}
1312: \left. H\left.\right| \varphi_\alpha~\!\right\rangle =
1313: \sum_{\beta = 1}^N \left. \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}\left.
1314: \right| ~\!\varphi_\beta~\!\right\rangle\;.
1315: \end{eqnarray}
1316: %
1317:
1318: Eq.~\ref{EL} represents a set of generalized eigenvalue equations
1319: which assume the form of the usual eigenvalue equations when the
1320: so-called diagonal gauge is chosen to fix the phase arbitrariness of
1321: the wavefunctions.~\cite{gonze6} Here, we keep the generalized form, as
1322: needed for the choice of gauge to be used in our
1323: theory. An expression for the Lagrange-multiplier
1324: matrix is obtained by multiplying Eq.~\ref{EL} by an occupied
1325: wavefunction, leading to
1326:
1327: %
1328: \begin{eqnarray}
1329: \label{LM}
1330: \Lambda_{\beta\alpha} =
1331: \left\langle \varphi_\beta \left| H \right|
1332: \varphi_\alpha \right\rangle\;.
1333: \end{eqnarray}
1334:
1335: We consider now the perturbation expansion of
1336: Eqs.~\ref{ortho}-\ref{LM}.
1337: The orthonormalization condition becomes
1338: %
1339: \begin{eqnarray}
1340: \label{ortho-pert}
1341: \sum_{j = 0}^i \left. \left\langle \varphi_{\alpha}^{(j)} \right|
1342: \varphi_{\beta}^{(i-j)} \right\rangle = 0 ~\;\;\;~{\rm for} ~\;\;\;~i\geq
1343: 1\;.
1344: \end{eqnarray}
1345: %
1346:
1347: The expansion of Eq.~\ref{EL} gives the generalized Sternheimer equation
1348: %
1349: \begin{eqnarray}
1350: \label{EL-pert}
1351: \sum_{j =0}^i H^{(j)}~\!\left.\left|\varphi_\alpha^{(i-j)}~\!\right\rangle\right.
1352: = \sum_{j=0}^i\sum_{\beta = 1}^N \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}^{(j)}
1353: \left.\left|~\!\varphi_\beta^{(i-j)}~\!\right\rangle\right.\;,
1354: \end{eqnarray}
1355: %
1356: where $H^{(i)} = T^{(i)} + v_{ext}^{(i)}$ is the $ith$-order term in
1357: the expansion of the Hamiltonian.
1358: %
1359:
1360: The expansion of the Lagrange-multiplier matrix is given by
1361: %
1362: \begin{eqnarray}
1363: \label{LM-pert}
1364: \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}^{(i)} = \sum_{j = 0}^i \sum_{k =0}^i
1365: \left\langle~\!\varphi_\beta^{(j)}~\!\left|~\! H^{(i-j-k)}~\!
1366: \right|~\!\varphi_\alpha^{(k)}~\!\right\rangle \;.
1367: \end{eqnarray}
1368:
1369: Finally, a generic term in the perturbative expansion of the
1370: total-energy functional in Eq.~\ref{F-ener} is written
1371: %
1372: \begin{eqnarray}
1373: \label{E-pert}
1374: E^{(i)} &=& \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \sum_{l = 0}^j\sum_{k =0}^{i}
1375: \sum_{l^\prime = 0}^j \delta (i - l - k - l^\prime)
1376: \left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(l)}\left|H^{(k)}\right|
1377: \varphi_\alpha^{(l^\prime)}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
1378: &-& \sum_{\alpha , \beta = 1}^N \sum_{l = 0}^j\sum_{k=0}^{i-j-1}
1379: \sum_{l^\prime = 0}^j \delta (i - l - k - l^\prime)
1380: \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}^{(k)} \left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(l)}\left|
1381: \varphi_\beta^{(l^\prime)}\right\rangle\right.\;,
1382: \end{eqnarray}
1383: %
1384: where $i = 2 j$ or $i = 2 j + 1$. We remark that only
1385: wavefunctions derivatives up to order $\lambda^j$ appear in the
1386: $i$th-order term of the energy, as a result of the $2n+1$-theorem.
1387: Moreover, a minimum principle holds for $E^{(2j)}$ with respect to the
1388: $j$th-order variations of the wave functions, i.e., $\delta E^{(2
1389: j)}/\delta \varphi_\alpha^{(j)} = 0$.
1390:
1391: A particularly useful result derived in Ref.~\onlinecite{gonze6} is a set of
1392: non-variational expressions for the second-order derivative of the
1393: energy. In the present work, the Hamiltonian is of first-order in
1394: the perturbation ($v^{(i)}_{ext}=0\;{\rm for}\; i\ge 2$),
1395: in which case the non-variational expressions are given by
1396: %
1397: \begin{eqnarray}
1398: \label{E2-nv}
1399: E^{(2)} &=& \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N
1400: \left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(1)}\left|v_{ext}^{(1)}\right|
1401: \varphi_\alpha^{(0)}\right\rangle = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N
1402: \left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(0)}\left|v_{ext}^{(1)}\right|
1403: \varphi_\alpha^{(1)}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
1404: &=& \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N
1405: \frac{1}{2}\left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(1)}\left|v_{ext}^{(1)}\right|
1406: \varphi_\alpha^{(0)}\right\rangle +
1407: \frac{1}{2}\left\langle\varphi_{\alpha}^{(0)}\left|v_{ext}^{(1)}\right|
1408: \varphi_\alpha^{(1)}\right\rangle\,.
1409: \end{eqnarray}
1410: %
1411:
1412: The zeroth-order wave functions are chosen to obey the unperturbed eigenvalue
1413: equation $H^{(0)}\left.\left| \varphi^{(0)}_{\alpha} \right.\right\rangle =
1414: \varepsilon^{(0)}_{\alpha}\left.\left| \varphi^{(0)}_{\alpha} \right.\right\rangle $. From
1415: Eq.~\ref{LM-pert}, the zeroth-order Lagrange-multiplier matrix is
1416: given by
1417: %
1418: \begin{eqnarray}
1419: \label{lambda0}
1420: \Lambda_{\beta\alpha}^{(0)} = \delta_{\beta\alpha}\varepsilon_\alpha^{(0)}\;.
1421: \end{eqnarray}
1422: %
1423:
1424: In the present work, we use the so-called ``parallel-transport''
1425: gauge, as discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{gonze6}. In this gauge,
1426: the following condition is imposed on the derivatives of the
1427: wave functions
1428: %
1429: \begin{eqnarray}
1430: \label{diag-gauge}
1431: \left.\left\langle~\!\varphi_\alpha^{(0)}~\!\right|~\!\varphi_\beta^{(i)}~\!\right\rangle
1432: -\left.\left\langle~\!\varphi_\alpha^{(i)}~\!\right|~\!\varphi_\beta^{(0)}~\!\right\rangle
1433: = 0\;;
1434: \end{eqnarray}
1435: %
1436: which allows us to rewrite the expansion of the orthonormalization
1437: condition as
1438: %
1439: \begin{eqnarray}
1440: \label{ortho-pert1}
1441: \left.\left\langle~\!\varphi_\alpha^{(0)}~\!\right|~\!\varphi_\beta^{(i)}
1442: ~\!\right\rangle = \left\{
1443: \begin{array}{lcc} \displaystyle -\frac{1}{2}
1444: \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left. \left\langle~\!\varphi_{\alpha}^{(j)}~\!\right|
1445: ~\!\varphi_{\beta}^{(i-j)}\right\rangle &{\rm for} &i > 1\;;\\[0.2in] ~\;~0
1446: &{\rm for} &i = 1\;. \end{array}
1447: \right.
1448: \end{eqnarray}
1449:
1450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1451:
1452:
1453: \section{Perturbation theory applied to the continuous form}
1454: \label{sec:pt-cont}
1455:
1456: %.............................................................................
1457:
1458: \subsection{Perturbation expansion and proof of gauge invariance}
1459: \label{expan-cont}
1460:
1461: Following the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:efp}, we can develop a
1462: perturbation expansion for the electric-field problem. In this
1463: section, we discuss the continuous form of the theory. The
1464: cell-periodic Hamiltonian, including the perturbation term, is given
1465: in Eq.~\ref{h-ansatz}. We apply the machinery of the variational DFPT
1466: to this Hamiltonian, by postulating that the
1467: expression
1468: %
1469: \begin{eqnarray}
1470: \label{E0}
1471: E\left[\left\{u_{nk}\right\};{\cal E}\right] = {a \over
1472: \pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \left[ \sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}
1473: \left| H_k^{(0)} + i e {\cal E} \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
1474: u_{nk}\right\rangle \right]\;
1475: \end{eqnarray}
1476: %
1477: is to be minimized with respect to the $\left\{u_{nk}\right\}$, under
1478: the constraints
1479: %
1480: \begin{equation}
1481: \label{ortho0}
1482: \left.\left\langle u_{mk} \right| u_{nk}\right\rangle = \delta_{mn}\;.
1483: \end{equation}
1484: %
1485: A local minimum will exist for the functional in Eq.~\ref{E0} provided
1486: that a discretization of the $k$-space integrals is performed. The
1487: continuum formulation which is considered in this section is valid only at
1488: infinitesimal fields.
1489:
1490: Applying Eq.~\ref{F-ener}, we write
1491: %
1492: \begin{equation}
1493: \label{E1}
1494: F\left[ \left\{u_{nk}\right\};{\cal E}\right] = {a \over
1495: \pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \left[ \sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}
1496: \left|
1497: H_k^{(0)} + i e {\cal E} \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
1498: u_{nk}\right\rangle - \sum_{m,n=1}^N \left\{
1499: \left.\left\langle u_{nk} \right| u_{mk}\right\rangle
1500: - \delta_{nm}\right\} \Lambda_{mn}(k) \right]\;.
1501: \end{equation}
1502: %
1503: The unconstrained minimization of this functional is obtained by
1504: setting $\delta F\left[ \left\{u_{nk}\right\}\right]/\delta u_{nk}$ =
1505: 0, leading to the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation
1506: %
1507: \begin{eqnarray}
1508: \label{stern0}
1509: \left( H_k^{(0)} +i e {\cal E} \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1510: \right) \left.\left| u_{nk}\right\rangle \right.
1511: - \sum_{m=1}^N \Lambda_{mn}(k) \left.
1512: \left| u_{mk}\right\rangle\right. = 0\;.
1513: \end{eqnarray}
1514:
1515: Next, we consider separately the perturbation expansions of
1516: Eqs.~\ref{E1} and \ref{stern0}. In both cases, we will demonstrate
1517: explicitly that the general expansion term transforms properly under a
1518: general unitary transformation of the occupied orbitals.
1519:
1520: %.............................................................................
1521:
1522: \subsubsection{Lagrange multipliers and orthonormalization constraints}
1523:
1524: In the present case, Eq.~\ref{ortho-pert1} for the orthonormalization
1525: constraints reads
1526: %
1527: \begin{eqnarray}
1528: \label{u-ortho}
1529: \left.\left\langle u_{m k}^{(0)} \right| u_{n k}^{(i)} \right\rangle
1530: = \left\{ \begin{array}{lc}
1531: \displaystyle
1532: -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(j)}
1533: \right| u_{nk}^{(i-j)}
1534: \right\rangle\;,\;\;\;\;&i > 1\;;\\[0.2in]
1535: \;\;\;0\;, &i = 1\;; \end{array}
1536: \right.
1537: \end{eqnarray}
1538: %
1539: giving the occupied-subspace projection of $u_{n k}^{(i)}$ in
1540: terms of the lower-order solutions for the periodic functions.
1541:
1542: Since $H^{(i)}_k\equiv 0$ for all $i \ge 2$, and $H^{(1)}_k =
1543: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}$, the expansion of the
1544: Lagrange multipliers becomes
1545: %
1546: \begin{eqnarray}
1547: \label{LM_exp}
1548: \Lambda_{mn}^{(i)}(k) =\sum_{j=0}^i \left\langle u_{mk}^{(j)} \left|
1549: H_k^{(0)} \right| u_{nk}^{(i-j)}\right\rangle + \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}
1550: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(j)} \left| ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
1551: u_{nk}^{(i-j-1)}\right\rangle\;.
1552: \end{eqnarray}
1553:
1554: In the following development, we will make explicit use of the
1555: expressions for $\Lambda_{mn}^{(0)}(k)$, $\Lambda_{mn}^{(1)}(k)$, and
1556: $\Lambda_{mn}^{(2)}(k)$. From Eq.~\ref{lambda0},
1557: $\Lambda_{mn}^{(0)}(k) = \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk}\delta_{mn}$.
1558: Since $\left.\left\langle
1559: u_{mk}^{(0)} \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle = 0$ from Eq.~\ref{u-ortho},
1560: and $\left. H_k^{(0)} \right| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle =
1561: \left.\varepsilon_{nk}^{(0)} \right|
1562: \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle$, $\Lambda_{mn}^{(1)}(k)$ is given by
1563: %
1564: \begin{eqnarray}
1565: \label{LM1}
1566: \Lambda_{mn}^{(1)}(k) = \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left|
1567: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \;.
1568: \end{eqnarray}
1569: %
1570: The second-order term reads
1571: \begin{eqnarray}
1572: \label{LM2}
1573: \Lambda_{mn}^{(2)}(k) &=&
1574: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right| u_{nk}^{(2)}\right\rangle +
1575: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(2)} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle +
1576: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(1)} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle \nonumber\\
1577: && +~\!\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1578: \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle +
1579: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(1)} \left| ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1580: \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \;.
1581: \end{eqnarray}
1582: %
1583:
1584: %.............................................................................
1585:
1586: \subsubsection{Energy}
1587: \label{pt-cont-energy}
1588:
1589: The perturbation expansion for the energy is obtained from
1590: Eq.~\ref{E-pert}. We analyze even and odd
1591: terms separately. For the even-order terms we write
1592: \begin{eqnarray}
1593: \label{E-even}
1594: E^{(2i)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi}\int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}} dk
1595: \left[\sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right|
1596: u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle + \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i-1)} \left|
1597: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle +
1598: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)} \left| ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
1599: u_{nk}^{(i-1)}\right\rangle\right. \nonumber \\ &&\left.- \sum_{m,n=1}^N
1600: \sum_{j,j^\prime=1}^i \sum_{l=0}^{i-1} \delta(2i-j-j^\prime-l)
1601: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k) \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left|
1602: u_{mk}^{(j^\prime)}\right\rangle\right.\right] \;,
1603: \end{eqnarray}
1604: %
1605: while the odd terms are given by
1606: %
1607: \begin{equation}
1608: \label{E-odd}
1609: E^{(2i+1)} = \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk
1610: \left[\sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)} \left|
1611: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle -
1612: \sum_{n,m=1}^N \sum_{j,j^\prime,l=1}^i \delta(2i+1-j-j^\prime-l)
1613: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k) \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left|
1614: u_{mk}^{(j^\prime)}\right\rangle\right.\right] \;.
1615: \end{equation}
1616: %
1617:
1618: An important aspect concerns the invariance of these expressions with
1619: respect to the choice of phases of the Bloch orbitals. More
1620: generally, we must consider unitary transformations that keep the
1621: subspace of occupied states invariant. We show in Appendix~\ref{app:gauge} that
1622: Eqs.~\ref{E-even} and \ref{E-odd} can be rewritten in such a way as to
1623: display the required gauge-invariance property explicitly. The
1624: lower-order derivatives are usually of more practical interest, and
1625: for that reason the invariant form of the energy terms up to fourth
1626: order are written explicitly here, along with the general
1627: expansion term.
1628:
1629: The second-order energy derivative is obtained by setting $i=1$ in
1630: Eq.~\ref{E-even}. After some manipulation, this quantity can be
1631: written in the following form:
1632: %
1633: \begin{eqnarray}
1634: \label{E2-invar}
1635: E^{(2)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N
1636: \left[
1637: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
1638: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk}\right)
1639: \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle +
1640: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)}\right. \right|
1641: \left(
1642: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1643: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
1644: \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1645: \right)
1646: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \right.
1647: \right.
1648: \nonumber \\
1649: &~& - \left.
1650: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(0)}\right. \right|
1651: \left(
1652: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1653: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
1654: \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1655: \right)
1656: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle \right.
1657: \right]\,.
1658: \end{eqnarray}
1659: %
1660: As expected, our formula for $E^{(2)}$ is identical to the
1661: linear-response expression.~\cite{gonze5}
1662:
1663: The non-variational expression for $E^{(2)}$ (see Eq.~\ref{E2-nv}) is given by
1664: \begin{eqnarray}
1665: \label{E2-invar-nv}
1666: E^{(2)} &=& -\frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk
1667: \sum_{n=1}^N
1668: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
1669: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk} \right)
1670: \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle \nonumber\\
1671: &=& \frac{a}{2\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk
1672: \sum_{n=1}^N
1673: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)}\right. \right|
1674: \left(
1675: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1676: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
1677: \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1678: \right)
1679: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \right. \nonumber\\
1680: &~&- \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(0)}\right. \right|
1681: \left(
1682: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1683: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
1684: \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1685: \right)
1686: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle \right.\,.
1687: \end{eqnarray}
1688: %
1689:
1690: The fourth-order energy term is written
1691: %
1692: \begin{eqnarray}
1693: \label{E4-invar}
1694: E^{(4)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N
1695: \left[ \left\langle u_{nk}^{(2)}
1696: \left| \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk}
1697: \right) \right| u_{nk}^{(2)}\right\rangle +
1698: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(2)}\right. \right| \left(
1699: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N \left|
1700: \left. u_{mk}^{(1)}\right\rangle\right. \left.\left\langle
1701: u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1702: \right) \left|
1703: u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \right. \nonumber \\
1704: &~& - \left.
1705: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(0)}\right. \right| \left(
1706: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N \left|
1707: \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right. \left.\left\langle
1708: u_{mk}^{(1)} \right|\right.
1709: \right) \left. \left|
1710: u_{nk}^{(2)}\right\rangle \right.
1711: \right] \,.
1712: \end{eqnarray}
1713: %
1714: It is worth pointing out the simplicity of the expression for
1715: $E^{(4)}$, which mirrors that of $E^{(2)}$ almost exactly.
1716:
1717: The general even-order energy term for $i>2$ is written
1718: %
1719: \begin{eqnarray}
1720: \label{E-even-invar}
1721: E^{(2i)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N
1722: \left\{
1723: \left\langle u^{(i)}_{nk} \left|
1724: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk} \right)
1725: \right| u^{(i)}_{nk} \right\rangle
1726: + \left. \left\langle u^{(i)}_{nk} \right. \right|
1727: \left(
1728: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1729: \left. \left| u^{(i-1)}_{mk} \right. \right\rangle
1730: \left. \left\langle u^{(0)}_{mk} \right. \right|
1731: \right)
1732: \left. \left| u^{(0)}_{nk} \right. \right\rangle
1733: \right. \nonumber \\
1734: &~& - \left. \left\langle u^{(0)}_{nk} \right. \right|
1735: \left(
1736: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1737: \left. \left| u^{(0)}_{mk} \right. \right\rangle
1738: \left. \left\langle u^{(i-1)}_{mk} \right. \right|
1739: \right)
1740: \left. \left| u^{(i)}_{nk} \right. \right\rangle
1741: + \sum_{j,j^{\prime}=1}^i \sum_{l=2}^{i-1} \delta(2i-j-j^\prime-l)
1742: \times \nonumber\\
1743: &~&
1744: \left. \left[
1745: \sum_{l^\prime=0}^{l} \sum_{m=1}^N
1746: \left\langle u^{(l^\prime)}_{mk} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right|
1747: u^{(l-l^\prime)}_{nk} \right\rangle
1748: \left\langle u^{(j)}_{nk} \left| u^{(j^\prime)}_{mk} \right. \right\rangle
1749: - \sum_{l^\prime=0}^{l-1} \left\langle \left. u^{(j)}_{nk} \right| \right.
1750: \left(
1751: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1752: \left| \left. u^{(j^\prime)}_{mk} \right\rangle \right.
1753: \left\langle u^{(l^\prime)}_{mk}\right.
1754: \right)
1755: \left| \left. u^{(l-l^\prime-1)}_{nk} \right\rangle \right.
1756: \right] \right\}\,.\nonumber\\
1757: \end{eqnarray}
1758: %
1759:
1760: In the above and the following expressions, we use the notation
1761: $\left(ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \left| \left. u_{mk} \right.
1762: \right\rangle \left. \left\langle u_{mk} \right. \right| \right)$ to
1763: indicate that $\partial/\partial k$ acts only on the
1764: quantities embraced in parenthesis. In order to demonstrate that the
1765: energy derivatives fulfill the gauge-invariance requirement, we
1766: consider a general gauge transformation~\cite{resta1} among the
1767: occupied states at each k-point:
1768: %
1769: \begin{eqnarray}
1770: \label{gauge}
1771: \left.\left| {\tilde u}_{n k} \right.\right\rangle =
1772: \sum_{m} U_{mn}(k) \left.\left| u_{n k} \right. \right\rangle\;,
1773: \end{eqnarray}
1774: %
1775: where $U$ is an unitary transformation, i.e.,
1776: $U U^{\dagger} = 1$.
1777: It follows immediately that
1778: %
1779: \begin{eqnarray}
1780: \label{gauge-invar}
1781: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1782: \left(
1783: \sum_n
1784: \left.\left| {\tilde u}_{nk}^{(i)} \right. \right\rangle
1785: \left\langle \left. {\tilde u}_{nk}^{(j)} \right| \right.
1786: \right)
1787: =\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1788: \left(
1789: \sum_{lm} \sum_n U_{nl}(k) U^{\ast}_{nm}(k)
1790: \left.\left| u_{lk}^{(i)} \right. \right\rangle
1791: \left\langle \left. u_{mk}^{(j)} \right| \right.
1792: \right)
1793: = \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1794: \left(
1795: \sum_{n} \left.\left| u_{nk}^{(i)} \right. \right\rangle
1796: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(j)} \right| \right.
1797: \right)\;.
1798: \end{eqnarray}
1799: %
1800:
1801: Since $\frac{\partial}{\partial k}$ acts only on gauge-invariant
1802: quantities, Eqs.~\ref{E2-invar}-\ref{E-even-invar} are themselves
1803: gauge-invariant. The same argument holds for the odd-order
1804: derivatives we derive below.
1805:
1806: Turning now to the odd-order derivatives of the energy, we set $i=1$
1807: in Eq.~\ref{E-odd} to write the third-order term as
1808: %
1809: \begin{eqnarray}
1810: \label{E3-invar}
1811: E^{(3)} = \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N
1812: \left.\left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)}\right. \right|
1813: \left(
1814: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1815: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(1)} \right\rangle \right.
1816: \left.\left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \right.\right|
1817: \right)
1818: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \right. \,.
1819: \end{eqnarray}
1820: %
1821: This expression for $E^{(3)}$ is identical to the one previously
1822: derived by Dal Corso and Mauri.~\cite{dalcorso1}
1823:
1824: The general odd-order term for $i>1$ is written
1825: %
1826: \begin{eqnarray}
1827: \label{E-odd-invar}
1828: E^{(2i+1)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk \sum_{n=1}^N
1829: \left\{
1830: \left. \left\langle u^{(i)}_{nk} \right. \right|
1831: \left(
1832: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1833: \left. \left| u^{(i)}_{mk} \right. \right\rangle
1834: \left. \left\langle u^{(0)}_{mk} \right. \right|
1835: \right)
1836: \left. \left| u^{(0)}_{nk} \right. \right\rangle
1837: \right. \nonumber \\
1838: &~& + \sum_{j,j^{\prime}=1}^i \sum_{l=2}^{i}
1839: \delta(2i+1-j-j^\prime-l)
1840: \left[
1841: \sum_{l^\prime=0}^{l} \sum_{m=1}^N
1842: \left\langle u^{(l^\prime)}_{mk}
1843: \left| H_k^{(0)} \right|
1844: u^{(l-l^\prime)}_{nk} \right\rangle
1845: \left\langle u^{(j)}_{nk} \left| u^{(j^\prime)}_{mk} \right. \right\rangle
1846: \right.
1847: \nonumber\\
1848: &~&-\left.\left. \sum_{l^\prime=0}^{l-1}
1849: \left\langle \left. u^{(j)}_{nk} \right| \right.
1850: \left(
1851: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1852: \left| \left. u^{(j^\prime)}_{mk} \right\rangle \right.
1853: \left\langle u^{(l^\prime)}_{mk}\right.
1854: \right)
1855: \left| \left. u^{(l-l^\prime-1)}_{nk} \right\rangle \right.
1856: \right] \right\}\,.
1857: \end{eqnarray}
1858: %
1859: In appendix~\ref{app:gauge}, we demonstrate how
1860: Eqs.~\ref{E2-invar}-\ref{E-even-invar}, \ref{E3-invar}, and
1861: \ref{E-odd-invar} are obtained from Eqs.~\ref{E-even} and
1862: \ref{E-odd}.
1863:
1864: %.............................................................................
1865:
1866: \subsubsection{Sternheimer equation}
1867: \label{pt-cont-stern}
1868:
1869: The projection of the wave functions on the subspace of occupied
1870: unperturbed states is given by Eq.~\ref{u-ortho}. The projection onto
1871: the subspace of unoccupied states is given by the projection of the
1872: Sternheimer equation in that subspace.
1873: The perturbation series for the Sternheimer equation can be obtained
1874: either by expanding Eq.~\ref{stern0}, or more directly from
1875: Eq.~\ref{E-even} above, by setting $\delta E^{(2i)}/\delta u_{n
1876: k}^{\ast(i)} = 0$. The general expansion term is written
1877: %
1878: \begin{eqnarray}
1879: \label{stern.i}
1880: P_{c k} \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{n k}^{(0)}\right)
1881: P_{c k} \left.\left|
1882: u_{n k}^{(i)} \right. \right\rangle =
1883: - i e P_{c k} \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
1884: \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(i-1)}\right. \right\rangle
1885: + \sum_{m=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
1886: \Lambda_{mn}^{(j)}(k)
1887: P_{c k} \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(i-j)}\right. \right\rangle\;.
1888: \end{eqnarray}
1889: %
1890: where $P_{ck}$ is the projector onto the subspace of unoccupied
1891: unperturbed states. This equation can be solved for
1892: $u_{n k}^{(i)}$, once the lower-order derivatives of $u_{n k}$ and
1893: $\Lambda_{mn}(k)$ have been obtained.
1894:
1895: Using the invariant form for the even terms of the energy,
1896: Eqs.~\ref{E2-invar}-\ref{E-even-invar}, we set $\delta E^{(2i)}/\delta
1897: u_{n k}^{\ast(i)} = 0$ to obtain the explicitly invariant form of
1898: the Sternheimer equation. For the $i=1$ and $i=2$ terms we obtain
1899: %
1900: \begin{eqnarray}
1901: \label{stern1-invar}
1902: P_{c k} \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{n k}^{(0)}\right)
1903: P_{c k} \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(1)}\right. \right\rangle = - P_{c k}
1904: \left(
1905: i e \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1906: \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle
1907: \left\langle \left. u_{m k}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1908: \right)
1909: \left|\left. u_{n k}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right. \,,\\
1910: \nonumber\\
1911: \label{stern2-invar}
1912: P_{c k} \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{n k}^{(0)}\right)
1913: P_{c k} \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(2)}\right. \right\rangle = - P_{c k}
1914: \left(
1915: i e \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1916: \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(1)}\right. \right\rangle
1917: \left\langle \left. u_{m k}^{(0)} \right|\right.
1918: \right)
1919: \left|\left. u_{n k}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right. \,.
1920: \end{eqnarray}
1921: %
1922:
1923: For the complete specification of $u_{nk}^{(1)}$ and $u_{nk}^{(2)}$,
1924: the projections onto the unperturbed occupied subspace are obtained
1925: from Eq.~\ref{u-ortho}:
1926: %
1927: \begin{eqnarray}
1928: \label{Pv-u1}
1929: P_{vk}\left.\left| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle &=& 0 \;,\\
1930: \label{Pv-u2}
1931: P_{vk}\left.\left| u_{nk}^{(2)}\right.\right\rangle &=&
1932: -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^N
1933: \left.\left| u_{mk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle
1934: \left\langle\left. u_{mk}^{(1)} \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle\;;
1935: \end{eqnarray}
1936: %
1937: where $P_{vk}$ is the projection operator for the occupied states.
1938:
1939: The higher-order terms for the Sternheimer equation are given by
1940: %
1941: \begin{eqnarray}
1942: \label{stern-invar}
1943: P_{c k}
1944: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{n k}^{(0)} \right)
1945: P_{c k}
1946: \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(i)}\right.\right\rangle
1947: = &-& P_{c k}
1948: \left[
1949: \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \sum_{l=0}^{j-1}
1950: \left(
1951: i e \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \sum_{m=1}^N
1952: \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(i-j)}\right. \right\rangle
1953: \left\langle \left. u_{m k}^{(l)} \right|\right.
1954: \right)
1955: \left|\left. u_{n k}^{(j-l-1)} \right\rangle \right.
1956: \right.
1957: \nonumber\\
1958: &-& \left.\sum_{j=2}^{i-1} \sum_{l=0}^j \sum_{m=1}^N
1959: \left.\left| u_{mk}^{(i-j)}\right.\right\rangle
1960: \left\langle u_{m k}^{(l)} \left| H_k^{(0)} \right|
1961: u_{nk}^{(j-l)} \right\rangle
1962: \right]\;\;\;,\;\;\;i>2.
1963: \end{eqnarray}
1964: %
1965:
1966: The valence-band component of $\left.\left| u_{n
1967: k}^{(i)}\right.\right\rangle$ is given by
1968: %
1969: \begin{eqnarray}
1970: \label{Pv-uvi}
1971: P_{vk} \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(i)}\right.\right\rangle =
1972: -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
1973: \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle
1974: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(j)} \left| u_{nk}^{(i-j)}\right.\right\rangle\;.
1975: \end{eqnarray}
1976: %
1977: As in the case of the energy terms, in Eqs.~\ref{stern1-invar},
1978: \ref{stern2-invar}, and \ref{stern-invar} the derivative $\partial/\partial
1979: k$ acts only on gauge-invariant quantities. This completes our
1980: development of the perturbation expansion, and the proof of gauge
1981: invariance of the continuous formulation.
1982:
1983: %.............................................................................
1984:
1985: \subsection{Discretized form of lower-order expressions}
1986: \label{discr}
1987: We examine now
1988: the discretized form of the lower-order terms for the energy and
1989: the Sternheimer equation.
1990: In practical calculations,
1991: it is mandatory to use a discrete set of $k$-points
1992: to evaluate the Brillouin-zone integrals.
1993: However, when the focus is on $E^{(2)}$,
1994: the discretization of the $\frac{\partial}{\partial k}$ operation
1995: can be avoided, as the projection on the conduction
1996: bands of the derivative of the
1997: wavefunctions versus $k$ can be computed from
1998: a Sternheimer equation~\cite{gonze5}. This has the disadvantage
1999: to add a significant coding and computational step
2000: in the whole procedure.
2001:
2002: We choose the following symmetric finite-difference expansion for the
2003: derivatives with respect to $k$:
2004: %
2005: \begin{eqnarray}
2006: \label{k-discr}
2007: \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \left.\left| u_{nk} \right.\right\rangle
2008: \left\langle\left. u_{nk} \right| \right.
2009: \rightarrow \frac{1}{2\Delta k}
2010: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2011: \left.\left| u_{nk_{j+1}}\right.\right\rangle
2012: \left\langle \left. u_{nk_{j+1}}\right| \right.
2013: - \left.\left| u_{nk_{j-1}}\right.\right\rangle
2014: \left\langle\left. u_{nk_{j-1}}\right|\right.
2015: \right)\;,
2016: \end{eqnarray}
2017: %
2018: where $\Delta k = k_{j+1} - k_j = (2\pi/a N_k)$. Clearly, this
2019: expression retains the gauge invariance of the continuous form. Next,
2020: Eq.~\ref{k-discr} is used in the derivation of explicit discretized
2021: expressions for the energy derivatives up to the fourth-order, and
2022: for the Sternheimer equation up
2023: to the second order.
2024:
2025:
2026: %.............................................................................
2027:
2028:
2029: \subsubsection{Energy}
2030:
2031: From Eqs.~\ref{E2-invar} and \ref{k-discr} we obtain the discretized formula
2032: for $E^{(2)}$:
2033: %
2034: \begin{eqnarray}
2035: \label{E2-discr}
2036: E^{(2)} &=& \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2037: \left\{
2038: \sum_{n=1}^N
2039: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left|
2040: \left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right)
2041: \right| u_{nk_j}^{(1)}\right\rangle
2042: \right. \nonumber \\
2043: &&+\frac{ie}{2 \Delta k}\sum_{n,m=1}^N
2044: \left[
2045: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2046: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2047: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right.
2048: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2049: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2050: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2051: \right)
2052: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2053: \right.\nonumber \\
2054: &&-\left.\left.
2055: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2056: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2057: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right.
2058: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2059: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2060: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2061: \right)
2062: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2063: \right]\right\} \;.
2064: \end{eqnarray}
2065: %
2066:
2067: The non-variational expression for $E^{(2)}$ is written
2068: %
2069: \begin{eqnarray}
2070: \label{E2-discr-nv}
2071: E^{(2)} &=& -\frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2072: \sum_{n=1}^N
2073: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left|
2074: \left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right)
2075: \right| u_{nk_j}^{(1)}\right\rangle
2076: \nonumber \\
2077: &=& \frac{ie}{2 \Delta k}\sum_{n,m=1}^N
2078: \left[
2079: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2080: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2081: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right.
2082: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2083: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2084: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2085: \right)
2086: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2087: \right.\nonumber \\
2088: &&-\left.
2089: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2090: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2091: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right.
2092: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2093: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2094: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2095: \right)
2096: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2097: \right]\;.
2098: \end{eqnarray}
2099: %
2100:
2101: The discretized versions of Eqs.~\ref{E3-invar} and \ref{E4-invar} are
2102: %
2103: \begin{eqnarray}
2104: \label{E3-discr}
2105: E^{(3)}&=&\frac{ie}{N_k\Delta k}
2106: \sum_{n,m=1}^N \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2107: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2108: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right\rangle \right.
2109: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2110: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(1)} \right \rangle\right.
2111: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2112: \right)
2113: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2114: \;.\\
2115: \nonumber\\
2116: \label{E4-discr}
2117: E^{(4)}&=& \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2118: \left\{
2119: \sum_{n=1}^N
2120: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(2)} \left|
2121: \left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right)
2122: \right| u_{nk_j}^{(2)}\right\rangle
2123: \right. \nonumber \\
2124: &&+\frac{ie}{2 \Delta k}\sum_{n,m=1}^N
2125: \left[
2126: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(2)}\right| \right.
2127: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2128: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right\rangle \right.
2129: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2130: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(1)} \right\rangle\right.
2131: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2132: \right)
2133: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.
2134: \right.\nonumber \\
2135: &&-\left.\left.
2136: \left\langle \left. u_{n k_{j}}^{(0)}\right| \right.
2137: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^n}
2138: \left| \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right.
2139: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right| \right.
2140: - \left| \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2141: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(1)}\right| \right.
2142: \right)
2143: \left| \left. u_{nk_{j}}^{(2)}\right\rangle\right.
2144: \right] \vphantom{\sum_n^N}\right\} \;.
2145: \end{eqnarray}
2146: %.............................................................................
2147:
2148: \subsubsection{Sternheimer equation}
2149:
2150: The discretized expressions for the $i=1$ and $i=2$ terms of the
2151: Sternheimer equation are given by
2152: %
2153: \begin{eqnarray}
2154: \label{stern1-discr}
2155: P_{ck_j}\left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right) P_{ck_j}
2156: \left.\left| u_{nk_j}^{(1)}\right. \right\rangle =
2157: -\frac{ie}{2 \Delta k}
2158: P_{ck_j}\sum_{m=1}^N
2159: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2160: \left.\left| u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle
2161: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2162: - \left. \left| u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right. \right\rangle
2163: \left\langle \left. u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2164: \right)
2165: \left.\left| u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle\;,\\
2166: \nonumber\\
2167: \label{stern2-discr}
2168: P_{ck_j}\left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right) P_{ck_j}
2169: \left.\left| u_{nk_j}^{(2)}\right. \right\rangle =
2170: -\frac{ie}{2 \Delta k}
2171: P_{ck_j}\sum_{m=1}^N
2172: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2173: \left.\left| u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right. \right\rangle
2174: \left\langle \left. u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right| \right.
2175: - \left. \left| u_{m k_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right. \right\rangle
2176: \left\langle \left. u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(1)} \right| \right.
2177: \right)
2178: \left.\left| u_{nk_{j}}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle\;.
2179: \end{eqnarray}
2180: %
2181: The required gauge invariance of the expansion terms is preserved in
2182: the discretized expressions. Note that the solutions at a given
2183: k-point are now coupled to the first-neighbor k-points in the
2184: reciprocal-space grid.
2185:
2186:
2187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2188:
2189: \section{Perturbation theory applied to the discretized polarization}
2190: \label{sec:pt-P}
2191:
2192: \subsection{General perturbation expansion}
2193: \label{expan-P}
2194:
2195: Let us consider now the perturbation treatment of the problem on the
2196: basis of the energy functional given in Eq.~\ref{E-def-P}, where the
2197: polarization is written in a discretized form. This formulation can be
2198: viewed as the reciprocal-space analog of the NV~\cite{nv} real-space
2199: functional. In this approach the gauge-invariance of the energy is
2200: guaranteed by the fact that Eq.~\ref{P-discr} is itself gauge
2201: invariant.~\cite{resta1,ksv,vks}
2202:
2203: We seek a minimum for Eq.~\ref{E-def-P} with respect to the occupied
2204: orbitals $\left\{ u_{nk_j}\right\}$, under the constraints
2205: $\left\langle u_{nk_j} \left| u_{mk_j}\right\rangle \right. =
2206: \delta_{mn}$. Lagrange multipliers are introduced to write the
2207: unconstrained functional
2208: %
2209: \begin{eqnarray}
2210: \label{E1-P}
2211: {\cal F}\left[\left\{u_{nk_j}\right\};{\cal E}\right]
2212: &=& \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \left[ \sum_{n,m=1}^N
2213: \left\langle u_{mk_j} \left| H^{(0)}_{k_j} \right| u_{nk_j}
2214: \right\rangle~\delta_{mn} - \left( \left\langle u_{nk_j}
2215: \left| u_{mk_j}\right\rangle\right.
2216: - \delta_{mn} \right)\Lambda_{mn}(k_j)\right. \nonumber \\
2217: &-& \left. \left( \frac{e{\cal E}}{\Delta k}\right)
2218: {\rm Im} \left\{ \ln \det \left[ S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \right]
2219: \right\}\vphantom{\sum_n^N}\right]\;.
2220: \end{eqnarray}
2221: %
2222:
2223: In Appendix~\ref{app:S-series}, we prove the following result:
2224: %
2225: \begin{eqnarray}
2226: \frac{\delta \sum_j {\rm Im}\left\{\ln \det \left[
2227: S_{m^\prime m}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \right] \right\}} {\delta u_{nk_j}^\ast} =
2228: -\frac{i}{2} \sum_{m=1}^N \left[
2229: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}\right. \right\rangle
2230: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2231: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}}\right. \right\rangle
2232: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j-1}) \right]\;,
2233: \end{eqnarray}
2234: %
2235: which can be used to derive the Euler-Lagrange
2236: equation from Eq.~\ref{E1-P}, as follows:
2237: %
2238: \begin{eqnarray}
2239: \label{stern0-P}
2240: \frac{\delta {\cal F}}{\delta u^\ast_{nk_j}} &=& \frac{2}{N_k}
2241: \left\{
2242: H_{k_j}^{(0)} \left.\left| u_{nk_j}\right.\right\rangle -
2243: \sum_{m=1}^N
2244: \left.\left| u_{mk_j} \right.\right\rangle
2245: \Lambda_{mn}(k_j)
2246: \right. \nonumber \\
2247: &+& \left.
2248: \left(\frac{i e{\cal E}}{2\Delta k}\right)
2249: \sum_{m=1}^N
2250: \left[
2251: \left. \left| u_{mk_{j+1}} \right. \right\rangle
2252: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2253: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}} \right. \right\rangle
2254: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j-1})
2255: \right]
2256: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}\right\} = 0\;.
2257: \end{eqnarray}
2258: %
2259:
2260: Below, we consider the perturbation expansions of the Lagrange
2261: multipliers, the energy, and the Sternheimer equation. The expansion
2262: of the orthonormalization condition was already developed in the
2263: previous section, and remains unaltered in the present case.
2264:
2265: %.............................................................................
2266:
2267: \subsubsection{Lagrange multipliers}
2268: We multiply Eq.~\ref{stern0-P} on the left by $u^\ast_{mk_j}$ to write the
2269: Lagrange multipliers
2270: %
2271: \begin{eqnarray}
2272: \label{LM-P}
2273: \Lambda_{mn}(k_j) = \left\langle u_{mk_j}
2274: \left| H_{k_j}^{(0)} \right| u_{nk_j} \right\rangle\;.
2275: \end{eqnarray}
2276: %
2277: It can be readily seen that the terms involving the overlap matrix
2278: cancel out, since
2279: %
2280: \begin{eqnarray}
2281: &&\sum_l \left[
2282: \left\langle u_{mk_j} \left| u_{l k_{j+1}} \right\rangle \right.
2283: S^{-1}_{l n}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2284: - \left\langle u_{m k_j} \left| u_{l k_{j-1}} \right\rangle \right.
2285: S^{-1}_{l n}(k_j,k_{j-1}) \right] \nonumber \\
2286: &~& ~= \sum_l
2287: \left[ S_{ml}(k_j,k_{j+1}) S^{-1}_{l n}(k_j,k_{j+1}) -
2288: S_{ml}(k_j,k_{j-1}) S^{-1}_{l n}(k_j,k_{j-1}) \right]
2289: = 0\;.
2290: \end{eqnarray}
2291: %
2292:
2293: The perturbation expansion of Eq.~\ref{LM-P} takes the
2294: simple form
2295: %
2296: \begin{eqnarray}
2297: \label{LM1-P}
2298: \Lambda_{mn}^{(i)}(k_j) = \sum_{j=0}^i
2299: \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(i-j)} \left|
2300: H_{k_j}^{(0)} \right| u_{nk_j}^{(j)} \right\rangle\;.
2301: \end{eqnarray}
2302:
2303: %.............................................................................
2304:
2305: \subsubsection{Energy}
2306: \label{Energy-P}
2307:
2308: In order to write the perturbation expansion of Eq.~\ref{E1-P}, we
2309: need the expansion of the polarization on the basis of the $2n+1$
2310: theorem. The variation-perturbation framework allows us to focus on
2311: the part of $E_{pol}^{(2i)}$ or $E_{pol}^{(2i+1)}$ that comes from
2312: variation of the wavefunctions up to order $i$ only. For these
2313: quantities, we introduce the notation $E_{pol}^{(2i,i)}$ or
2314: $E_{pol}^{(2i+1,i)}$. The even terms are written
2315: %
2316: \begin{eqnarray}
2317: \label{P-even-discr}
2318: E_{pol}^{(2i,i)} &=& -\left[{\cal E} P\left(\sum_{j=0}^i
2319: {\cal E}^j u_{nk_j}^{(j)} \right) \right] ^{(2i)} = \left.
2320: -\frac{1}{(2i)!} \frac{\partial^{2i}}{\partial {\cal
2321: E}^{2i}} \left[{\cal E} P\left(\sum_{j=0}^i {\cal E}^j
2322: u_{nk_j}^{(j)} \right) \right] \right|_{{\cal E}=0} \nonumber\\
2323: &=& -\left[P\left(\sum_{j=0}^i {\cal E}^j u_{nk_j}^{(j)}
2324: \right) \right]^{(2i-1)}\;.
2325: \end{eqnarray}
2326: %
2327:
2328: By the same token, for the odd terms we obtain
2329: \begin{eqnarray}
2330: \label{P-odd-discr}
2331: E_{pol}^{(2i+1,i)} = -\left[{\cal E} P\left(\sum_{j=0}^i
2332: {\cal E}^j u_{nk_j}^{(j)} \right) \right]^{(2i+1)}
2333: =-\left[P\left(\sum_{j=0}^i {\cal E}^j u_{nk_j}^{(j)}
2334: \right) \right]^{(2i)}\;.
2335: \end{eqnarray}
2336: %
2337:
2338: In these expressions, the $2n+1$-theorem implies that only the
2339: contributions of order $\leq i$ from the perturbed wave functions will
2340: appear, when we consider the contribution of the polarization term to
2341: the total-energy derivatives. More explicit formulas for computing
2342: these polarization derivatives will be given below.
2343:
2344: With these results, we can expand Eq.~\ref{E1-P}. From
2345: Eqs.~\ref{E-pert} and \ref{P-even-discr} we obtain the even terms
2346: %
2347: \begin{eqnarray}
2348: \label{E-even-P}
2349: E^{(2i)} &=&
2350: E_{pol}^{(2i,i)} + \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2351: \sum_{m,n=1}^N
2352: \left[
2353: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}\left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(i)}
2354: \left| H_{k_j}^{(0)} \right|
2355: u_{nk_j}^{(i)}\right\rangle~\delta_{mn} \right. \nonumber\\
2356: &&\left.
2357: -\sum_{l^\prime,l^{\prime\prime}=1}^i
2358: \sum_{l=0}^{i-1} \delta(2i-l-l^\prime-l^{\prime\prime})~
2359: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k_j)
2360: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(l^\prime)} \left|
2361: u_{mk_j}^{(l^{\prime\prime)}}\right.\right\rangle
2362: \right]\;,
2363: \end{eqnarray}
2364: %
2365: while from Eqs.~\ref{E-pert} and \ref{P-odd-discr}, the odd terms are written
2366: %
2367: \begin{eqnarray}
2368: \label{E-odd-P}
2369: E^{(2i+1)} = E_{pol}^{(2i+1,i)} + \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \sum_{m,n=1}^N
2370: \sum_{l^\prime,l^{\prime\prime}=1}^i
2371: \sum_{l=1}^{i} \delta(2i+1-l-l^\prime-l^{\prime\prime})~
2372: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k_j)
2373: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(l^\prime)} \left| u_{mk_j}^{(l^{\prime\prime)}}
2374: \right\rangle\right.\;.
2375: \end{eqnarray}
2376: %
2377:
2378: %.............................................................................
2379:
2380: \subsubsection{Sternheimer equation}
2381: The perturbation expansion of Eq.~\ref{stern0-P} yields the
2382: Sternheimer equation
2383: %
2384: \begin{eqnarray}
2385: \label{stern.i-P}
2386: &&P_{ck_j} \left( H^{(0)}_{k_j} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right) P_{ck_j}
2387: \left.\left| u_{nk_j}^{(i)} \right.\right\rangle =
2388: \sum_{m=1}^{N}
2389: \left\{
2390: \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} P_{c {k_j}}
2391: \left.\left| u_{m {k_j}}^{(i-l)}\right.\right\rangle
2392: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k_j)
2393: \right. \nonumber \\
2394: &~& \left.
2395: - \frac{i e}{2\Delta k} \sum_{l=0}^{i-1} P_{c {k_j}}
2396: \left[
2397: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2398: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(i-l-1)} \right.\right\rangle
2399: S_{mn}^{-1(l)}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2400: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(i-l-1)} \right.\right\rangle
2401: S_{mn}^{-1(l)}(k_j,k_{j-1})
2402: \right]
2403: \right\} = 0\;.
2404: \end{eqnarray}
2405: %
2406:
2407: The conduction-band projector $P_{ck}$ in Eqs.~\ref{stern.i} and
2408: \ref{stern.i-P} appears due the fact that the Lagrange multipliers in
2409: these two equations may be different, due to $k$-gauge freedom. Thus,
2410: only conduction-band contributions can be identified while comparing
2411: the two formulations.
2412:
2413: By comparing Eqs.~\ref{stern.i} and
2414: \ref{stern.i-P}, we see that in the
2415: present formulation the term $ie~\!P_{ck}\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
2416: \left.\left| u_{nk} \right. \right\rangle$ is approximated by the
2417: finite-difference formula
2418: %
2419: \begin{eqnarray}
2420: \label{k-P}
2421: D(\Delta k)=
2422: \frac{i e}{2\Delta k} \sum_{m=1}^N P_{ck_j}
2423: \left[
2424: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2425: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}\right.\right\rangle
2426: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2427: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}} \right.\right\rangle
2428: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j-1})
2429: \right]\;.
2430: \end{eqnarray}
2431: %
2432:
2433: The theory of finite-difference approximations to derivatives
2434: could now be applied to Eq.~\ref{k-P}, as a function of $\Delta k$.
2435: Note that this expression is invariant under $\Delta k \rightarrow -\Delta k$,
2436: as it induces simultaneous exchange of $k_{j+1}$ and $k_{j-1}$.
2437: Thus
2438: %
2439: \begin{eqnarray}
2440: D(\Delta k)=D(0)+{\cal O}(\Delta k)^2.
2441: \end{eqnarray}
2442: %
2443: One can now define
2444: %
2445: \begin{eqnarray}
2446: \label{2k-P}
2447: D(2 \Delta k)=
2448: \frac{i e}{2.2\Delta k} \sum_{m=1}^N P_{ck_j}
2449: \left[
2450: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2451: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+2}}\right.\right\rangle
2452: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+2})
2453: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-2}} \right.\right\rangle
2454: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j-2})
2455: \right]\;,
2456: \end{eqnarray}
2457: %
2458: giving a higher-order approximation of $D(0)$ as
2459: %
2460: \begin{eqnarray}
2461: D^{higher-order}=\left[ 4 D(\Delta k) - D(2 \Delta k)\right]/3=D(0)+{\cal O}(\Delta k)^4\;.
2462: \end{eqnarray}
2463: %
2464:
2465: This improved expression also derives from a total energy functional.
2466: Instead of Eq.~\ref{E-def-P}, one must start from
2467: %
2468: \begin{eqnarray}
2469: \label{Ehigh-def-P}
2470: E^{higher-order}\left[\left\{u_{nk_j}\right\};{\cal E}\right] &=&
2471: \frac{2}{N_k}
2472: \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \left\langle u_{nk_j}
2473: \left| H^{(0)}_{k_j} \right| u_{nk_j} \right\rangle
2474: \nonumber \\
2475: &-&
2476: \frac{2e{\cal E}}{N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im} \left\{
2477: \frac{4}{3} \ln \det \left[ S_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \right]
2478: - \frac{1}{6} \ln \det \left[ S_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+2}) \right]
2479: \right\}\;.
2480: \end{eqnarray}
2481: %
2482: Despite its interest, we will not explore
2483: this topics further in the present paper.
2484:
2485: %.............................................................................
2486:
2487:
2488: \subsection{Lower-order expressions}
2489: \label{lower-P}
2490: In Appendix~\ref{app:S-series}, we derive the Taylor expansion of
2491: Eq.~\ref{P-discr} for the polarization, which allows us to obtain
2492: explicit expressions for Eqs.~\ref{P-even-discr} and
2493: \ref{P-odd-discr}. Here, we look at the lower-order expressions for
2494: the energy and the Sternheimer equation.
2495:
2496: %.............................................................................
2497:
2498: \subsubsection{Energy}
2499: From Appendix~\ref{app:S-series}, the second-order polarization term is
2500: given by
2501: %
2502: \begin{eqnarray}
2503: \label{Epol-2}
2504: E_{pol}^{(2,1)} &=& - \left[ P\left( \left\{ u_{nk_j}^{(0)} + {\cal E}
2505: u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \right\} \right) \right]^{(1)}
2506: = -\frac{2 e}{N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2507: {\rm Im} \left\{ {\rm Tr}\left[
2508: S^{(1)}(k_j,k_{j+1}) Q(k_j,k_{j+1})
2509: \right] \right\}\nonumber\\
2510: &=& -\frac{2 e}{N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k}
2511: {\rm Im} \left\{ \sum_{m,n=1}^N \left[
2512: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)}
2513: \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right. +
2514: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(0)}
2515: \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right\rangle \right.
2516: \right] Q_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1})\right\} \;,
2517: \end{eqnarray}
2518: %
2519: where $Q(k_j,k_{j+1})$, obeying
2520: %
2521: \begin{equation}
2522: \sum_l Q_{ml}(k_j,k_{j+1}) S^{(0)}_{l n}(k_j,k_{j+1}) = \delta_{mn}\,,
2523: \end{equation}
2524: %
2525: is the inverse of the
2526: zeroth-order overlap matrix $S^{(0)}_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) = \left\langle
2527: u_{nk_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.\;.$
2528:
2529:
2530: The second-order expression for the energy is then given by
2531: the $i=1$ term in Eq.~\ref{E-even-P}
2532: %
2533: \begin{eqnarray}
2534: \label{E2-P}
2535: E^{(2)} &=& \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \sum_{n=1}^N
2536: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left|
2537: \left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{nk_j}^{(0)} \right)
2538: \right| u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \right\rangle
2539: \nonumber\\
2540: &&-\frac{e}{\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
2541: \left\{
2542: \sum_{m,n=1}^N
2543: \left(
2544: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.
2545: + \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right\rangle\right.
2546: \right)
2547: Q_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1})
2548: \right\}\;.
2549: \end{eqnarray}
2550: %
2551:
2552: The third-order derivative of the energy is given by by the $i=1$ in
2553: Eq.~\ref{E-odd-P}. The first-order contribution to the Lagrange
2554: multipliers vanishes, since from Eqs.~\ref{u-ortho} and \ref{LM1-P} we
2555: have $\Lambda_{mn}^{(1)}(k_j) = \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(1)} \left|
2556: H_{k_j}^{(0)} \right| u_{nk_j}^{(0)} \right\rangle + \left\langle
2557: u_{mk_j}^{(0)} \left| H_{k_j}^{(0)} \right| u_{nk_j}^{(1)}
2558: \right\rangle = \varepsilon_{nk_j}^{(0)} \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(1)}
2559: \left| u_{nk_j}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right. + \varepsilon_{mk_j}^{(0)}
2560: \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{nk_j}^{(1)}
2561: \right\rangle\right. = 0$, which leads to $E^{(3)} =
2562: E_{pol}^{(3,1)}$. From the results in Appendix~\ref{app:S-series}
2563: %
2564: \begin{eqnarray}
2565: \label{E3-P}
2566: E^{(3)} &=& -
2567: \left[
2568: P\left(
2569: \left\{u_{nk_j}^{(0)} + F~u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \right\}
2570: \right)
2571: \right]^{(2)} \nonumber\\
2572: &=& -\frac{e}{N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
2573: \left\{
2574: {\rm Tr}
2575: \left[
2576: 2S^{(2)}(k_j,k_{j+1})~Q(k_j,k_{j+1})
2577: \right.\right.\nonumber\\
2578: &&- \left.\left.
2579: S^{(1)}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right) Q\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2580: S^{(1)}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right) Q\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2581: \right]\right\}\nonumber\\
2582: &=&-\frac{e}{N_k\Delta k}\sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
2583: \left\{
2584: \sum_{m,n=1}^N
2585: 2\left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle
2586: Q_{mn}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2587: \right.\nonumber\\
2588: &&- \sum_{m,n,l,l^\prime=1}^N
2589: \left[
2590: \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(1)}\left| u_{n k_{j+1}}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right. +
2591: \left\langle u_{mk_j}^{(0)}\left| u_{n k_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right\rangle\right.
2592: \right]
2593: Q_{nl}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right) \nonumber \\
2594: && \left. \left[
2595: \left\langle u_{l k}^{(1)} \left|
2596: u_{l^\prime k_{j+1}}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle +
2597: \left\langle u_{l k}^{(0)} \left|
2598: u_{l^\prime k_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle
2599: \right]
2600: Q_{l^\prime m}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2601: \vphantom{\sum_{m}^N}\right\}\;.
2602: \end{eqnarray}
2603:
2604: For the fourth- and higher-order energy derivatives, the expansion
2605: yields very involved expressions. We end this section by considering
2606: the fourth-order term for the energy in a more compact notation [we
2607: drop the $\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)$ matrix arguments]:
2608: %
2609: \begin{eqnarray}
2610: \label{Epol-4}
2611: E_{pol}^{(4,2)} &=& -
2612: \left[
2613: P\left(
2614: \left\{
2615: u_{nk_j}^{(0)} + F~u_{nk_j}^{(1)} + F^2~u_{nk_j}^{(2)}
2616: \right\}
2617: \right)
2618: \right]^{(3)} \nonumber\\
2619: &=& -\frac{2 e}{3 N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
2620: \left\{
2621: {\rm Tr}
2622: \left[
2623: 3~\!S^{(3)} Q - 3~\! S^{(2)}~Q~S^{(1)}~Q +
2624: S^{(1)}~Q~S^{(1)}~Q~S^{(1)}~Q
2625: \right] \right\}\nonumber\\
2626: &=&-\frac{2 e}{3 N_k\Delta k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\rm Im}
2627: \left\{
2628: 3\sum_{m,n=1}^N
2629: \left[
2630: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(2)}\right.\right\rangle
2631: +\left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(2)} \left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle
2632: \right]
2633: Q_{mn}
2634: \right. \nonumber\\
2635: &-& 3 \sum_{m,n=1}^N
2636: \left[
2637: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(0)}\left| u_{n k_{j+1}}^{(2)}\right.\right\rangle +
2638: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(1)}\left| u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle +
2639: \left\langle u_{nk_j}^{(2)}\left| u_{m k_{j+1}}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle
2640: \right]
2641: \left( Q S^{(1)} Q\right)_{mn}
2642: \nonumber\\
2643: &+&\left. S^{(1)}~Q~S^{(1)}~Q~S^{(1)}~Q\vphantom{\sum_{m}^N}
2644: \right\}
2645: \end{eqnarray}
2646: %
2647: In this expression, we write explicitly only the terms containing
2648: $u_{nk_j}^{(2)}$, which will determine the second-order term of the
2649: Sternheimer equation. The corresponding fourth-order energy is given
2650: by
2651: %
2652: \begin{eqnarray}
2653: \label{E4-P}
2654: E^{(4)} = \frac{2}{N_k} \sum_{k=1}^{N_k} \sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle
2655: u_{nk_j}^{(2)} \left| \left( H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{nk_j}^{(0)} \right)
2656: \right| u_{nk_j}^{(2)} \right\rangle + E_{pol}^{(4,2)}\;.
2657: \end{eqnarray}
2658: %.............................................................................
2659:
2660: \subsubsection{Sternheimer equation}
2661:
2662: From Eq.~\ref{stern.i-P}, the first-order term for the Sternheimer
2663: equation reads
2664: %
2665: \begin{eqnarray}
2666: \label{stern1-P}
2667: &&P_{ck_j} \left( H^{(0)}_{k_j} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right) P_{ck_j}
2668: \left.\left| u_{nk_j}^{(1)} \right. \right\rangle =
2669: - \frac{i e}{2\Delta k} P_{c k} \sum_{m=1}^N
2670: \left[
2671: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
2672: Q_{mn}\left(k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2673: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(0)}\right. \right\rangle
2674: Q_{mn}\left(k_j,k_{j-1}\right)
2675: \right]\;;\nonumber\\
2676: \end{eqnarray}
2677: %
2678: while the second-order derivative is written
2679: %
2680: \begin{eqnarray}
2681: \label{stern2-P}
2682: &&P_{ck_j} \left( H^{(0)}_{k_j} - \varepsilon^{(0)}_{nk_j}\right) P_{ck_j}
2683: \left.\left| u_{nk_j}^{(2)} \right. \right\rangle =
2684: - \frac{i e}{2\Delta k} P_{c k} \left\{\sum_{m=1}^N
2685: \left[
2686: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right. \right\rangle
2687: Q_{mn}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2688: - \left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle
2689: Q_{mn}\left( k_j,k_{j-1}\right)
2690: \right] \right. \nonumber\\
2691: &&-\sum_{m,l,l^\prime=1}^N
2692: \left[
2693: \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
2694: Q_{m l}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2695: S^{(1)}_{l,l^\prime}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2696: Q_{l^\prime n}\left( k_j,k_{j+1}\right)
2697: \right.\nonumber\\
2698: &&\left.\left. -\left.\left| u_{mk_{j-1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
2699: Q_{m l}\left( k_j,k_{j-1}\right)
2700: S^{(1)}_{l,l^\prime}\left( k_j,k_{j-1}\right)
2701: Q_{l^\prime n}\left( k_j,k_{j-1}\right)
2702: \right]
2703: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}
2704: \right\}\;.
2705: \end{eqnarray}
2706: %
2707: These two expressions can also be consistently obtained by taking the
2708: conduction-band projection of the corresponding terms in the expansion of
2709: $\delta E^{(2i)}/\delta u^{\ast(i)}_{nk_j} = 0$.
2710:
2711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2712:
2713: \section{Numerical tests}
2714: \label{sec:1d-model}
2715:
2716: In this section, we illustrate the present theory by applying it the
2717: two-band 1D-TB Hamiltonian introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:efp}. For this
2718: model, exact analytical expressions can be written for the continuous
2719: formulation. Our purpose in this simple application is to demonstrate
2720: consistency between the continuous and the discretized versions of the
2721: theory, and also to make a preliminary assessment of the convergence
2722: of the energy derivatives obtained in the two discretized
2723: formulations, with respect to $k$-point sampling in the Brillouin
2724: zone. Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel} contains the detailed derivations of
2725: the results presented here. As such, it presents a step-by-step
2726: example of the use of the formalism developed in the present paper.
2727:
2728: \subsection{Response to a homogeneous electric field}
2729: In the continuous formulation, the first-order change of the valence
2730: state is obtained from the corresponding term in the Sternheimer
2731: equation. By setting $i=1$ in Eq.~\ref{stern.i}, this is given by
2732: %
2733: \begin{eqnarray}
2734: \label{1d-str1}
2735: P_{ck} \left( H_k^{(0)} -
2736: \varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)} \right) P_{ck}
2737: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle =
2738: - P_{ck} i \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
2739: \left. \left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle\;.
2740: \end{eqnarray}
2741: %
2742: The solution to this equation is given in Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel}.
2743:
2744: Having solved Eq.~\ref{1d-str1}, $E^{(2)}$ can then be obtained from
2745: the simplest non-variational expression Eq.~\ref{E2-invar-nv} as
2746: %
2747: \begin{eqnarray}
2748: \label{1d-E2}
2749: E^{(2)} = - {1 \over \pi} \int_0^{2\pi} dk {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_k}
2750: \left({\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k}\right)^2\;,
2751: \end{eqnarray}
2752: %
2753: where $\Delta\varepsilon_k = \varepsilon_{ck}^{(0)} -
2754: \varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)}$, and $\partial \Theta_k / \partial k$ is
2755: obtained from Eqs.~\ref{1d-eigval} and \ref{theta} (see
2756: Eq.~\ref{dthetadk}).
2757:
2758: The second-order change of the valence state is obtained from the
2759: $i=2$ term in Eq.~\ref{stern.i} and from Eq.~\ref{Pv-u2}. In our 1D
2760: model, the Sternheimer equation for the conduction-band projection
2761: reads
2762: %
2763: \begin{eqnarray}
2764: \label{1d-str2}
2765: P_{ck} \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)} \right) P_{ck}
2766: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle = - P_{ck}
2767: \left[ i \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
2768: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(1)}\right. \right\rangle
2769: - \Lambda_k^{(1)} \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(1)}
2770: \right\rangle \right.\right] \;.
2771: \end{eqnarray}
2772: %
2773:
2774: Using the solution for $\left.\left| u_{vk}^{(2)}
2775: \right.\right\rangle$ given in Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel}, we can now
2776: arrive at the expression for the fourth-order energy. Applying
2777: Eq.~\ref{E4-invar}, we write
2778: %
2779: \begin{eqnarray}
2780: \label{1d-E4}
2781: E^{(4)} = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} dk \left[
2782: \left( \frac{1}{\Delta \varepsilon_k}\right)^3
2783: \left( {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k} \right)^4
2784: - \left( {1 \over \Delta \varepsilon_k}\right)
2785: \left\{ {\partial \over \partial k} \left( {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_k}
2786: {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k} \right) \right\}^2 \right]\;.
2787: \end{eqnarray}
2788: (Expressions for $E^{(2)}$ and $E^{(4)}$ in terms of elliptic
2789: integrals of the second kind are given in Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel}.)
2790:
2791: Turning now to the discretized expressions, using the non-variational
2792: Eq.~\ref{E2-invar-nv}
2793: we compute the DAPE expression for the second-order energy:
2794: %
2795: \begin{eqnarray}
2796: \label{1d-E2-discr}
2797: E^{(2)} = - {2 \over N_k} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {1 \over \Delta
2798: \varepsilon_{k_j}} \left[ {1 \over 2\Delta k} \sin\left(\Theta_{j+1} -
2799: \Theta_{j-1} \right) \cos\left(2\Theta_j -\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j-1}
2800: \right) \right]^2\;.
2801: \end{eqnarray}
2802: %
2803: The PEAD second-order energy expression takes a different form:
2804: \begin{eqnarray}
2805: \label{P1d-E2}
2806: E^{(2)} = - {2 \over N_k} \sum_{k=1}^{N_k} {1 \over \Delta \varepsilon_j}
2807: \left\{ {1 \over 2\Delta k} \left[\vphantom{\frac{}{}}
2808: \tan\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_j \right)
2809: -\tan\left(\Theta_{j-1} - \Theta_j \right)
2810: \right] \right\}^2\;.
2811: \end{eqnarray}
2812:
2813: With the results in Appendix~\ref{app:1dmodel}, we have all the
2814: ingredients to write analytical expressions for the discretized
2815: versions of $E^{(4)}$, but these are quite cumbersome and
2816: will not be reproduced here. The numerical results obtained using
2817: these expressions are discussed below.
2818:
2819: %.............................................................................
2820:
2821: \subsection{Numerical results}
2822: \label{numerical}
2823: In order to test the consistency between the three formulations, we
2824: checked that by sufficiently increasing the number of $k$-points used
2825: in the evaluation of the discretized energy derivatives, we obtain an
2826: agreement between continuous and discretized expressions within
2827: stringent degrees of accuracy. For example, for $t=1$, 80 $k$-points
2828: in the full Brillouin zone are needed for the three expressions for
2829: $E^{(2)}$ (Eqs.~\ref{1d-E2}, ~\ref{1d-E2-discr}, and ~\ref{P1d-E2}) to
2830: agree within $\sim 1$\%, while 240 $k$-points are needed to get the
2831: same level of agreement for the $E^{(4)}$ expressions.
2832:
2833: By decreasing the number of $k$-points, thus worsening the level of
2834: accuracy of the discretized expressions, the differences between them
2835: become more apparent. In Fig.~\ref{e2fig}, we show the quantity
2836: $\left[ E^{(2)}_{discr.} - E^{(2)}_{exact}\right]/E^{(2)}_{exact}$
2837: giving the percentual error in the evaluation of $E^{(2)}$ for the two
2838: discretized formulations, using 20 $k$-points, with the hoping
2839: parameter varying over the [0,1] interval. In Fig.~\ref{e4fig} the
2840: corresponding quantity for $E^{(4)}$, $\left[ E^{(4)}_{discr} -
2841: E^{(4)}_{exact}\right]/E^{(4)}_{exact}$, is shown for a sampling of 80
2842: $k$-points.
2843:
2844: It is clear from Figs.~\ref{e2fig} and \ref{e4fig} that the energy
2845: derivatives obtained from the PEAD converge faster with respect to the
2846: number of $k$-points, at least for the present 1D model. However, it
2847: must be borne in mind that this formulation involves the calculation
2848: of the inverse of the zero-field overlap matrix, and in practical
2849: applications the additional cost associated with this operation could
2850: offset the gain in $k$-point convergence, specially when the two
2851: formulations are applied to systems with large numbers of atoms in the
2852: unit cell. This point remains to be further addressed when the theory
2853: is applied in the context of realistic tight-binding and {\it ab
2854: initio} calculations.
2855:
2856: We also computed the norm of the first- and second-order wavefunction
2857: derivatives $\left[ \left\langle u_{vk}^{(i)} \left| u_{vk}^{(i)}
2858: \right\rangle\right. \right]^{1/2}\;$ as a function of $k$, for the
2859: continuous solutions and the two discretized forms, with a value of
2860: $t=1$ for the hoping parameter and samplings of 20 and 80
2861: $k$-points. As expected from the above results for $E^{(2)}$ and
2862: $E^{(4)}$, we observe that the wavefunctions in the PEAD are better
2863: approximations to the exact ones from the continuous formulation.
2864:
2865: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2866:
2867: \section{Summary}
2868: \label{sum}
2869: The goal of this work was to obtain second- and higher-order derivatives
2870: of the total energy of periodic insulators, with respect to an applied
2871: homogeneous electric field. Related physical properties are the linear
2872: and non-linear dielectric susceptibilities (connected to linear and
2873: non-linear optical constants).
2874:
2875: Although a variation-perturbation framework had been formulated
2876: earlier for the computation of derivatives of the total energy with
2877: respect to many different perturbations, several formal and technical
2878: difficulties must be addressed when considering the specific case of a
2879: homogeneous-electric-field perturbation.
2880:
2881: At the level of the electric-field-dependent energy functional, we
2882: proposed a basic expression, Eq.~\ref{E-def}, that we argue to be valid
2883: in the space of states possessing a periodic density. It is directly
2884: linked to the modern theory of polarization, proposed by King-Smith
2885: and Vanderbilt nearly a decade ago, and allows to recover easily the Berry
2886: phase polarization formula, central to this theory.
2887:
2888: Unfortunately, when the polarization is varied, this energy functional
2889: leads to local minima with a basin of attraction of {\it infinitesimal}
2890: extent. A regularization procedure, based on a $k$-point
2891: discretization of the reciprocal-space integrals, must be used in
2892: order to lead to a finite size basin. This is the reciprocal-space
2893: analog of the real-space cut-off introduced by Nunes and Vanderbilt in
2894: their treatment of polarized Wannier functions.
2895:
2896: Having thus defined a suitable energy functional, that depends on the
2897: applied homogeneous electric field, we were allowed to proceed with the
2898: application of the variation-perturbation machinery. Interestingly,
2899: the derivation of the canonical formulas at all orders of perturbation
2900: can be done either on the basis of the energy functional already
2901: regularized, or on the basis of the unregularized one, followed by
2902: regularization at each order. The formulas derived in the two cases
2903: differ from each other. Working with the regularized energy functional
2904: gives more cumbersome expressions, however perfectly consistent with
2905: an energy functional, while the a posteriori application of the
2906: regularization at each order is not consistent with the regularized
2907: energy functional. The two procedures will tend to the same limit when the
2908: discretization is refined further and further. The expression for the
2909: third-order derivative of the total energy, previously proposed by
2910: Mauri and Dal Corso, is recovered, as an instance of the "a
2911: posteriori" application of the regularization technique.
2912:
2913: We applied this formalism to a model one-dimensional two-band
2914: Hamiltonian, showing explicitly the pathology of a non-regularized
2915: energy functional and its cure, as well as the differences related to
2916: the order in which the perturbation expansion and the discretization
2917: procedure are applied. The two discretized formulations are shown to
2918: agree in the continuum limit, although the ``perturbation
2919: expansion after discretization'' (PEAD) formulation seems to be closer
2920: to the exact answer than the ``discretization after perturbation
2921: expansion'' (DAPE) formulation, for an equivalent grid.
2922:
2923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2924:
2925: \begin{references}
2926:
2927: \bibitem{footnote1} Some solid-state textbooks define the electric
2928: polarization of a crystalline solid as the average over the unit cell
2929: of the dipole moment per unit volume of the electronic-charge
2930: distribution, ${\bf P} = {1\over\Sigma}\int_\Sigma {\bf r}\rho({\bf
2931: r}) d{\bf r}$. This definition is only valid in the so-called
2932: Clausius-Mosotti limit in which the electronic charge distribution can
2933: be uniquely partioned into non-overlapping units belonging to each
2934: unit cell. In most cases, the quantum-mechanical charge density of a
2935: solid is a continuous function of space, and this definition is
2936: actually {\it invalid} (see Refs.~\onlinecite{resta1,martin1}).
2937:
2938: \bibitem{resta1} R.~Resta, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 66}, 899 (1994).
2939:
2940: \bibitem{martin1} R.~M.~Martin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 5}, 1607 (1972);
2941: B {\bf 9}, 1998 (1974).
2942:
2943: \bibitem{tagantsev} A.~K.~Tagantsev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 389 (1992).
2944:
2945: \bibitem{baldereschi} A.~Baldereschi, M.~Posternack, and R.~Resta,
2946: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 390 (1992).
2947:
2948: \bibitem{ksv} R.~D.~King-Smith and D.~Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
2949: 47}, 1651 (1993).
2950:
2951: \bibitem{berry} M.~V.~Berry, Proc.~R.~Soc.~London Ser. A {\bf 392}, 45 (1984).
2952:
2953: \bibitem{zak1} J.~Zak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2747 (1989);
2954: L.~Michel and J.~Zak, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 18}, 239 (1992).
2955:
2956: \bibitem{zak2} J.~Zak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 48}, 359 (1982).
2957:
2958: \bibitem{vks} D.~Vanderbilt and R.~D.~ Kingh-Smith, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
2959: 48}, 4442 (1993).
2960:
2961: \bibitem{ortiz1} G.~Ortiz and R.~M.~Martin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 14202 (1994).
2962:
2963: \bibitem{hk} P.~Hohenberg and W.~Kohn, Phys. Rev. {\bf 136}, B864 (1964).
2964:
2965: \bibitem{ks} W.~Kohn and L.~Sham, Phys. Rev. {\bf 140}, A1133 (1965).
2966:
2967: \bibitem{ggg1} X.~Gonze, Ph.~Ghosez, and R.~W.~Godby, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
2968: 74}, 4035 (1995).
2969:
2970: \bibitem{ggg3} X.~Gonze, Ph.~Ghosez, and R.~W.~Godby, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
2971: 78}, 2029 (1997).
2972:
2973: \bibitem{ggg2} X.~Gonze, Ph.~Ghosez, and R.~W.~Godby, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
2974: 78}, 294 (1997);
2975: Ph.~Ghosez, X.~Gonze, and R.~W.~Godby, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
2976: 56}, 12811 (1997).
2977:
2978: \bibitem{resta2} R.~Resta, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2265 (1996).
2979:
2980: \bibitem{dhv} D.~Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3966 (1997).
2981:
2982: \bibitem{martin2} R.~M.~Martin and G.~Ortiz, Solid State Commun. {\bf
2983: 104}, 121 (1997).
2984:
2985: \bibitem{nv} R.~W.~Nunes and D.~Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 712 (1994).
2986:
2987: \bibitem{nenciu} G.~Nenciu, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 63}, 91 (1991).
2988:
2989: \bibitem{fernandez} P. ~Fernandez, A.~Dal~Corso, and A. ~Baldereschi,
2990: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, R7480 (1998).
2991:
2992: \bibitem{fleszar} A. ~Fleszar and R. ~Resta,
2993: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 31}, 5305 (1985).
2994:
2995: \bibitem{adler} S. ~L. ~Adler, Phys. Rev. {\bf 126}, 413 (1962).
2996:
2997: \bibitem{footnote3} Local-field effects are associated with the Umklapp
2998: terms in the dielectric response: a macroscopic electric field
2999: induces modifications of the density at the atomic scale, that induce
3000: modifications of the potential at the atomic scale, that induce
3001: modifications of the macroscopic polarization.
3002: In a more formal approach, they arise
3003: because the macroscopic
3004: dielectric constant is the inverse of the
3005: ``head'' (G=0,G'=0) of the inverse
3006: dielectric matrix (see Ref. ~\onlinecite{hybers}),
3007: and not simply the ``head'' of the dielectric matrix.
3008:
3009: \bibitem{baroni1} S.~Baroni and R.~Resta, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 7017 (1986).
3010:
3011: \bibitem{higher_indpt} We list a few entry points to the literature
3012: dealing with the independent-particle (without local-field)
3013: computation of higher-order susceptibilities :
3014: M.-Z. ~Huang and W.~Y.~Ching, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 9464 (1993);
3015: M.-Z. ~Huang and W.~Y.~Ching, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 9479 (1993);
3016: J.~E.~Sipe and Ed.~Ghahramani, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 11705 (1993);
3017: J.~L.~P. Hughes and J.~E.~Sipe, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 10751 (1996).
3018:
3019: \bibitem{wiser} N. ~Wiser, Phys. Rev. {\bf 129}, 62 (1963).
3020:
3021: \bibitem{hybers} M.~S. ~Hybertsen and S. ~Louie, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35}, 5585 (1987).
3022:
3023: \bibitem{levine_allan} Z.~H.~Levine and D.~C.~Allan,
3024: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 1719 (1989).
3025:
3026: \bibitem{higher_localfields} See for example:
3027: Z.~H.~Levine and D.~C.~Allan, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 12781 (1991);
3028: Z.~H.~Levine and D.~C.~Allan, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 7783 (1993);
3029: Z.~H.~Levine, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 4532 (1994).
3030:
3031:
3032: \bibitem{baroni2} S.~Baroni, P. ~Giannozzi and A.~Testa,
3033: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 1861 (1987).
3034:
3035: \bibitem{giannozzi} P. ~Giannozzi, S.~de~Gironcoli, P.~Pavone, and S.~Baroni,
3036: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 7231 (1991).
3037:
3038: \bibitem{zein} N.~E. ~Zein, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) {\bf 26},
3039: 3024 (1984) [Sov. Phys. Solid State {\bf 26}, 1825 (1984)]
3040:
3041: \bibitem{gonze1} X.~Gonze and J.~P.~Vigneron, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51},
3042: 13120 (1989).
3043:
3044: \bibitem{gonze2} X.~Gonze, M. ~P. ~Allan and M.~P.~Teter,
3045: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 3603 (1992).
3046:
3047: \bibitem{gonze6} X.~Gonze, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 1096 (1995).
3048:
3049: \bibitem{gonze3} X.~Gonze,
3050: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 10337 (1997).
3051:
3052: \bibitem{gonze4} X.~Gonze and C. ~Lee,
3053: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 10355 (1997).
3054:
3055: \bibitem{gonze5} X.~Gonze, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 1086 (1995).
3056:
3057: \bibitem{dalcorso1} A.~Dal~Corso and F.~Mauri, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50},
3058: 5756 (1994).
3059:
3060: \bibitem{dalcorso2} A.~Dal~Corso, F.~Mauri, and A.~Rubio, Phys. Rev. B
3061: {\bf 53}, (1996).
3062:
3063: \bibitem{resta3} R. ~Resta,
3064: {\it Berry's Phase and Geometric Quantum Distance:
3065: Macroscopic Polarization and Electron Localization},
3066: Lectures Notes for the ``Troisi\'eme Cycle de la Physique
3067: en Suisse Romande'' (Lausanne, 2000). Available online (376K)
3068: at the URL:
3069: http://www-dft.ts.infn.it/~resta/publ/notes2000.ps.gz .
3070:
3071: \bibitem{blount} E.~I.~Blount, in {\it Solid State Physics}, edited by
3072: F.~Seitz and D.~Turnbull (Academic, New York, 1962), Vol. 13, p. 305.
3073:
3074: \bibitem{Zeidler86} E.~Zeidler,
3075: {\it Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications,
3076: vol. I-III} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986).
3077:
3078: \bibitem{resta4}
3079: R.~Resta, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 1800 (1998).
3080:
3081: \bibitem{avron} J.~Avron and J.~Zak, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 9}, 658 (1974).
3082:
3083: \bibitem{nunes} R.~W.~Nunes, {\it unpublished}.
3084:
3085: \bibitem{footnote-gauge} Eq.~\ref{gauge-invar} expresses the fact that
3086: these quantities are actually the perturbation expansion of the
3087: projector onto the occupied space of the problem, thus being gauge
3088: invariant by definition.
3089:
3090: \bibitem{mathfis} {\it Handbook of Mathematical Functions},
3091: Eds. M. ~Abramowitz and I. ~A. ~Stegun, Dover Publ. Inc. (New-York, 1965),
3092: p. 590 .
3093:
3094: \end{references}
3095:
3096:
3097: % -------------------------------------------------------------------
3098: \appendix
3099: % -------------------------------------------------------------------
3100:
3101: \section{}
3102: \label{app:gauge}
3103:
3104: In this appendix, we describe the algebraic manipulations needed to
3105: transform Eqs~\ref{E-even}, \ref{E-odd}, and \ref{stern.i} into their
3106: gauge-invariant forms presented in Secs.~\ref{pt-cont-energy} and \ref{pt-cont-stern}. We will use the following
3107: result:
3108: %
3109: \begin{eqnarray}
3110: \label{a1}
3111: \left\langle x \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| y \right\rangle
3112: \left.\left| z \right.\right\rangle =
3113: \left\langle x \left| y \right.\right\rangle \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3114: \left. \left| z \right.\right\rangle +
3115: \left. \left| z \right.\right\rangle
3116: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3117: \left\langle x \left| y \right. \right\rangle
3118: - \left(
3119: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}\left. \left| z \right. \right\rangle
3120: \left\langle \left. x \right|\right\rangle
3121: \right) \left. \left| y \right.\right\rangle\;.
3122: \end{eqnarray}
3123: %
3124:
3125: Furthermore, from Eq.~\ref{ortho-pert} we have
3126: %
3127: \begin{eqnarray}
3128: \label{a2}
3129: \sum_{l=0}^{i} \left\langle u_{mk}^{(l)} \left|
3130: u_{nk}^{(i-l)} \right.\right\rangle = 0 ~\; ; \;~i\geq 1\;.
3131: \end{eqnarray}
3132: %
3133:
3134: With the help of Eq.~\ref{a1} and $\delta_{mn} = \left\langle
3135: u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| u_{nk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle$ , it is
3136: straightforward to show that
3137: %
3138: \begin{eqnarray}
3139: \label{a3}
3140: \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\delta_{mn} - \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)}
3141: \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial_k} \right|
3142: u_{n k}^{(0)} \right\rangle \right]
3143: \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(i)} \right.\right\rangle =
3144: \left(
3145: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3146: \left.\left| u_{mk}^{(i)} \right.\right\rangle
3147: \left\langle \left. u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
3148: \right)
3149: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)} \right\rangle\right.\;.
3150: \end{eqnarray}
3151: %
3152: We recall that the notation ``$\left( \partial_k \left| \left. u
3153: \right.\right\rangle \left\langle \left. u \right|\right. \right)$''
3154: indicates that $\partial_k$ acts only on the expression in
3155: parenthesis.
3156:
3157: Now, for reference we repeat Eqs.~\ref{E-even} and \ref{E-odd} here:
3158: \begin{eqnarray}
3159: \label{a4}
3160: E^{(2i)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi}\int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}} dk
3161: \left[\sum_{n=1}^N
3162: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)}
3163: \left| H_k^{(0)} \right|
3164: u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle +
3165: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i-1)} \left|
3166: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle +
3167: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)} \left| ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
3168: u_{nk}^{(i-1)}\right\rangle\right.
3169: \nonumber \\
3170: &&\left.- \sum_{m,n=1}^N
3171: \sum_{j,j^\prime=1}^i \sum_{l=0}^{i-1} \delta(2i-j-j^\prime-l)
3172: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k_j) \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left|
3173: u_{mk}^{(j^\prime)}\right.\right\rangle\right] \;.
3174: \end{eqnarray}
3175: %
3176: \begin{eqnarray}
3177: \label{a5}
3178: E^{(2i+1)} = \frac{a}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}}dk
3179: \left[\sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}^{(i)} \left|
3180: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(i)}\right\rangle -
3181: \sum_{n,m=1}^N \sum_{j,j^\prime,l=1}^i \delta(2i+1-j-j^\prime-l)
3182: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k_j) \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left|
3183: u_{mk}^{(j^\prime)}\right.\right\rangle\right] \;.\nonumber\\
3184: \end{eqnarray}
3185: %
3186:
3187: Let us examine the $i=1$ and $i=2$ terms in Eq.~\ref{a4}, and the $i=1$
3188: term in Eq.~\ref{a5}.
3189: We use Eq.~\ref{LM1} to write
3190: %
3191: \begin{eqnarray}
3192: \label{a6}
3193: E^{(2)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi}\int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}} dk
3194: \sum_{n=1}^N \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
3195: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{nk}^{(0)}\right) \right|
3196: u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle +
3197: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(0)} \left|
3198: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3199: \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle +
3200: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
3201: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3202: \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle.
3203: \end{eqnarray}
3204:
3205: Eq.~\ref{u-ortho} and the orthonormality relation $\left\langle
3206: u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle = \delta_{mn}$
3207: allow us to rewrite the last two terms in this equation in the
3208: explicit gauge-invariant form of Eq.~\ref{E2-invar}, as follows:
3209: %
3210: \begin{eqnarray}
3211: \label{a7}
3212: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(1)} \right|\right.
3213: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3214: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \right.
3215: &=& \sum_{m}
3216: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(1)} \right|\right.
3217: \partial_k \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right\rangle
3218: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle +
3219: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle
3220: \left\langle \partial_k
3221: u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right.\nonumber\\
3222: &=&
3223: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(1)} \right|\right.
3224: \left(
3225: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3226: \sum_m \left.\left| u_{mk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle
3227: \left\langle \left. u_{mk}^{(0)} \right|\right.
3228: \right)
3229: \left| \left. u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\right. \,,
3230: \end{eqnarray}
3231: %
3232: where we use the notation $\left.\left| \partial_k
3233: u_{mk}\right.\right\rangle \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3234: \left.\left| u_{mk} \right.\right\rangle$. The second term in Eq.~\ref{a6}
3235: is obtained simply as the hermitian conjugate of this latter equation.
3236:
3237: For the third and fourth-order terms, we have
3238: %
3239: \begin{eqnarray}
3240: \label{a8}
3241: E^{(3)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi}\int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}} dk
3242: \sum_{n=1}^N
3243: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
3244: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle
3245: -\sum_{m,n=1}^N
3246: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle
3247: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left| ie \frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right|
3248: u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle \,,
3249: \end{eqnarray}
3250: %
3251: and
3252: %
3253: \begin{eqnarray}
3254: \label{a9}
3255: E^{(4)} &=& \frac{a}{\pi}\int_0^{\frac{2\pi}{a}} dk
3256: \sum_{n=1}^N
3257: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(2)} \left|
3258: \left( H_k^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{nk}^{(0)}\right)
3259: \right| u_{nk}^{(2)} \right\rangle +
3260: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
3261: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3262: \right| u_{nk}^{(2)}\right\rangle +
3263: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(2)} \left|
3264: ie\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3265: \right| u_{nk}^{(1)}\right\rangle
3266: \nonumber\\
3267: &&-\sum_{m,n=1}^N
3268: \left(\vphantom{\sum_n^N}
3269: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk}^{(2)}\right.\right\rangle
3270: +\left\langle u_{nk}^{(2)} \left| u_{mk}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle
3271: \right)
3272: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left|
3273: ie \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3274: \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\,.
3275: \end{eqnarray}
3276: %
3277:
3278: We now apply Eq.~\ref{a3} to recombine terms in
3279: these two expressions as follows:
3280: \begin{eqnarray}
3281: \label{a10}
3282: &\mbox{}&\sum_{n=1}^N
3283: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left|
3284: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3285: \right| u_{nk}^{(j)}\right\rangle
3286: -\sum_{m,n=1}^N
3287: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(1)} \left| u_{mk}^{(j)}\right.\right\rangle
3288: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(0)} \left|
3289: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3290: \right| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right\rangle\nonumber\\
3291: &=& \sum_{n=1}^N
3292: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(1)} \right|\right.
3293: \left(
3294: \frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3295: \sum_{m=1}^N \left.\left| u_{mk}^{(j)}\right.\right\rangle
3296: \left\langle \left. u_{mk}^{(0)}\right|\right.
3297: \right)
3298: \left.\left| u_{nk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle\,;
3299: \end{eqnarray}
3300: %
3301: where $j\!=\!1$ applies to $E^{(3)}$ and $j\!=\!2$ to $E^{(4)}$. This
3302: leads to the gauge-invariant expressions for these quantities,
3303: Eqs.~\ref{E3-invar} and \ref{E4-invar}, respectively.
3304:
3305: For the general energy derivative, besides the terms corresponding to
3306: those above for $E^{(3)}$ and $E^{(4)}$, we must also consider terms
3307: of the form
3308: %
3309: \begin{eqnarray}
3310: \label{a11}
3311: \Lambda_{mn}^{(l)}(k) \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left|
3312: u_{m k}^{(j^\prime)}\right. \right\rangle
3313: &=& \sum_{l^\prime = 0}^l
3314: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(l^\prime)} \left|
3315: H_k^{(0)}
3316: \right| u_{n k}^{(l - l^\prime)} \right\rangle
3317: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left| u_{m k}^{(j^\prime)}\right.\right\rangle
3318: + \sum_{l^\prime = 0}^{l-1}
3319: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(l^\prime)} \left|
3320: i~e\frac{\partial}{\partial_k}
3321: \right| u_{n k}^{(l-l^\prime-1)} \right\rangle
3322: \left\langle u_{nk}^{(j)} \left| u_{m k}^{(j^\prime)}\right.\right\rangle \;.\nonumber\\
3323: \end{eqnarray}
3324: %
3325:
3326: For the second term on the right, we use Eqs.~\ref{a1} and \ref{a2} to write
3327: %
3328: \begin{eqnarray}
3329: \label{a12}
3330: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(j)} \right|\right.
3331: \left(
3332: \sum_{l^\prime = 0}^{l-1}
3333: \left\langle u_{mk}^{(l^\prime)} \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial_k}
3334: \right| u_{n k}^{(l-l^\prime-1)} \right\rangle
3335: \right)
3336: \left.\left| u_{m k}^{(j^\prime)} \right.\right\rangle
3337: = -\sum_{l^\prime = 0}^{l-1}
3338: \left\langle \left. u_{nk}^{(j)} \right|\right.
3339: \left(
3340: \frac{\partial}{\partial_k}
3341: \left| \left. u_{mk}^{(j^\prime)}\right.\right\rangle
3342: \left\langle \left. u_{mk}^{(l^\prime)}\right|\right.
3343: \right)
3344: \left.\left| u_{n k}^{(l-l^\prime-1)} \right.\right\rangle\;.
3345: \end{eqnarray}
3346: %
3347:
3348: These results demonstrate the gauge invariance of the general
3349: expansion terms for the energy. The proper gauge-transformation
3350: properties of the Sternheimer equation can also be proven explicitly along the
3351: same lines, but it follows more simply from the invariance of the
3352: even-order terms for the energy.
3353:
3354: \section{}
3355: \label{app:S-series}
3356: In order to develop the PEAD formulation, we examine the following
3357: expression appearing in Eqs.~\ref{P-discr} and \ref{E-def-P}:
3358: %
3359: \begin{eqnarray}
3360: \label{b1}
3361: ln~det\left[S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) ({\cal E})\right] &=&
3362: ln~det\left[S^{(0)}_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) + {\cal E}
3363: S^{(1)}_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) + ...\right] \nonumber\\
3364: &=& ln~det\left[S^{(0)}_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1})\right] +
3365: \int_0^{\cal E}d{\cal E}\frac{\partial}{\partial{\cal E}}
3366: ln~det\left[S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1})({\cal E})\right]\;,
3367: \end{eqnarray}
3368: %
3369: where the perturbation expansion of $S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) ({\cal E})$ is defined
3370: according to Eq.~\ref{series}. With the help of the ``magic'' formula
3371: %
3372: \begin{eqnarray}
3373: \label{b2}
3374: \frac{\partial}{\partial
3375: \lambda}\left\{{\vphantom{\frac{a}{b}}}ln~det\left[A(\lambda)\right]\right\}
3376: = tr\left[A^{-1}\frac{\partial A}{\partial\lambda}\right] =
3377: \sum_{m,n}A^{-1}_{mn}\frac{\partial A_{nm}}{\partial\lambda}\,,
3378: \end{eqnarray}
3379: %
3380: we can rewrite Eq.~\ref{b1} (to simplify the notation, in the
3381: following equations we drop the $k$-point arguments) as follows:
3382: %
3383: \begin{eqnarray}
3384: \label{b3}
3385: ln~det\left[S_{nm} ({\cal E})\right] =
3386: ln~det\left[S^{(0)}_{nm}\right] + \int_0^{\cal E}d{\cal E}
3387: \sum_{mn}\frac{\partial S_{nm} ({\cal E})}{\partial{\cal E}}
3388: S^{-1}_{mn}({\cal E})\;.
3389: \end{eqnarray}
3390: %
3391:
3392: To proceed further, we let $\Delta S({\cal E}) = S({\cal E}) - S^{(0)}
3393: = {\cal E} S^{(1)}({\cal E}) + {\cal E}^2 S^{(2)}({\cal E}) + {\cal E}^3
3394: S^{(3)}({\cal E}) + ...$, and the inverse overlap matrix can be written
3395: as
3396: %
3397: \begin{eqnarray}
3398: \label{b4}
3399: S^{-1}({\cal E}) = \left\{ S^{(0)}\left[
3400: I + Q\Delta S({\cal E})\right]\right\}^{-1} =
3401: \left\{ I + \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(-1)^i\left[{\vphantom \sum}Q
3402: \Delta S({\cal E})\right]^i\right\}Q\;,
3403: \end{eqnarray}
3404: %
3405: where, following the notation introduced in Sec.~\ref{lower-P}, we
3406: use $Q = [S^{(0)}]^{-1}$ for the inverse of the zeroth-order overlap
3407: matrix.
3408:
3409: To obtain the lower-order terms in the expansion of Eq.~\ref{b1}, we
3410: write the terms up to third-order explicitly:
3411: %
3412: \begin{eqnarray}
3413: \label{b5}
3414: S^{-1}({\cal E}) &=& Q - {\cal E} Q S^{(1)} Q
3415: + {\cal E}^2\left[ - Q S^{(2)} Q +
3416: Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q \right] \nonumber \\
3417: &+&
3418: {\cal E}^3\left[ - Q S^{(3)} Q +
3419: Q S^{(2)} Q S^{(1)} Q +
3420: Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(2)} Q \right.\nonumber \\
3421: &-&\left. Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q \right]
3422: + {\cal O}({\cal E}^4)\;.
3423: \end{eqnarray}
3424:
3425: Combining Eqs.~\ref{b3}, \ref{b5} and $\partial S({\cal E})/
3426: \partial{\cal E} = S^{(1)} + 2{\cal E}S^{(2)} + 3{\cal E}^2S^{(3)} +
3427: 4{\cal E}^3S^{(4)} + {\cal O}({\cal E}^4)$, we arrive at
3428: %
3429: \begin{eqnarray}
3430: \label{b6}
3431: ln~det\left[S({\cal E})\right] &=& ln~det\left[S^{(0)}\right]
3432: + {\cal E} tr\left[ S^{(1)}Q\right] +
3433: \frac{{\cal E}^2}{2} {\rm Tr} \left[ 2 S^{(2)} Q -
3434: S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q \right] \nonumber \\
3435: &+&
3436: \frac{{\cal E}^3}{3} tr\left[ 3 S^{(3)} Q -
3437: 3 S^{(2)} Q S^{(1)} Q +
3438: S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q \right] \nonumber \\
3439: &+&\frac{{\cal E}^4}{4} tr\left[ 4 S^{(4)} Q
3440: - 4 S^{(3)} Q S^{(1)} Q
3441: -2 S^{(2)} Q S^{(2)} Q \right.\nonumber \\
3442: &+&\left. 4 S^{(2)} Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q
3443: -S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q S^{(1)} Q
3444: \right] + {\cal O}({\cal E}^5)\;.
3445: \end{eqnarray}
3446: %
3447:
3448: Finally, we note that the magic formula may also be used to derive the
3449: Euler-Lagrange equation given in Eq.~\ref{stern0-P}, as follows:
3450: %
3451: \begin{eqnarray}
3452: \frac{\delta\left\{\ln\det\!~\!\left[\frac{\vphantom{}}{\vphantom{}}
3453: S_{nm}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \right]\right\}} {\delta u_{nk}^\ast}
3454: = {\rm Tr}\left[ S^{-1}\frac{\delta S}{\delta u_{nk}^\ast}\right]
3455: = \sum_{m=1}^N \left.\left| u_{mk_{j+1}} \right.\right\rangle
3456: S^{-1}_{mn}(k_j,k_{j+1}) \;.
3457: \end{eqnarray}
3458: %
3459:
3460:
3461: %\vfill\newpage
3462: %
3463: %
3464: %\begin{figure}
3465: %\label{}
3466: %\caption{}
3467: %\end{figure}
3468:
3469: %\end{document}
3470:
3471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3472:
3473: \section{}
3474: \label{app:1dmodel}
3475: In this appendix, we provide all the steps for the derivation of the
3476: energy derivatives for the 1D-TB model, given in
3477: Sec.~\ref{sec:1d-model}. The expressions for the discretized versions of
3478: $E^{(4)}$ are not written explicitly.
3479:
3480: Eq.~\ref{1d-E0} for the unperturbed total energy is a
3481: complete elliptic integral of the second kind~\cite{mathfis}, which is given in
3482: its general form by
3483: %
3484: \begin{eqnarray}
3485: \label{ellipt}
3486: {\cal I}_{n \over 2} = \int_0^{\pi \over 2} dy \left( 1 + A^2 \cos^2
3487: y \right)^{n \over 2}\;,
3488: \end{eqnarray}
3489: where $n$ is a positive or negative integer, and $A = 4 t$. Several such
3490: integrals will be encountered in the course of our derivation.
3491:
3492: %.......................................................................
3493:
3494: \subsection{Continuous formulation}
3495: \label{app:1dmodel.1}
3496: We begin by developing some useful preliminary results. For our 1D-TB
3497: model, the derivatives with respect to $k$ of the unperturbed valence
3498: and conduction states (Eq.~\ref{1d-eigstate}) are written analytically
3499: as
3500: %
3501: \begin{eqnarray}
3502: \label{dudk}
3503: i\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3504: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle = -
3505: \frac{\partial \alpha_{vk}}{\partial k}
3506: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3507: -i \frac{\partial \Theta_k}{\partial k} e^{-i\Delta\alpha_k}
3508: \left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \nonumber \\
3509: i\frac{\partial}{\partial k}
3510: \left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle = -
3511: \frac{\partial \alpha_{ck}}{\partial k}
3512: \left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3513: +i \frac{\partial \Theta_k}{\partial k} e^{i\Delta\alpha_k}
3514: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \;,
3515: \end{eqnarray}
3516: %
3517: where $\Delta\alpha_k =\alpha_{ck}-\alpha_{vk}$.
3518:
3519: Recalling that $\left\langle u_{vk}^{(0)} \left| u_{vk}^{(1)}
3520: \right.\right\rangle = 0 $, hence \mbox{$P_{vk} \left.\left|
3521: u_{vk}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle = 0$}, the solution of
3522: Eq.~\ref{1d-str1} gives the first-order change of the valence state
3523: %
3524: \begin{eqnarray}
3525: \label{1d-v1}
3526: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(1)}\right.\right\rangle =
3527: P_{ck} \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle = {i
3528: \over \Delta\varepsilon_k} {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k}
3529: e^{-i\Delta\alpha_k}\left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \;,
3530: \end{eqnarray}
3531: %
3532: where $\Delta\varepsilon_k = \varepsilon_{ck}^{(0)} -
3533: \varepsilon_{vk}^{(0)} = \left[ 1 + A^2 \cos^2 \left( {k \over 2}
3534: \right) \right]^2$. From Eqs.~\ref{1d-eigval} and \ref{theta}, the
3535: partial derivative appearing in this expression is simply
3536: %
3537: \begin{eqnarray}
3538: \label{dthetadk}
3539: {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k} = \frac{t~\!sin \left( {k \over 2}
3540: \right)}{\left[ 1 + A^2 \cos^2 \left( {k \over 2} \right) \right]
3541: }\;.
3542: \end{eqnarray}
3543: %
3544:
3545: Using Eq.~\ref{dthetadk}, the second-order energy term
3546: (Eq.~\ref{1d-E2}) is written
3547: %
3548: \begin{eqnarray}
3549: \label{1d-E2.a}
3550: E^{(2)} = {1 \over 4 \pi} \left[ {\cal I}_{-{3 \over 2}} - \left(1 +
3551: A^2\right) {\cal I}_{-{5 \over 2}} \right]\;.
3552: \end{eqnarray}
3553:
3554: The second-order change of the valence state is obtained from
3555: Eqs.~\ref{stern2-invar} and \ref{Pv-u2}. The first-order Lagrange
3556: multiplier in Eq.~\ref{stern2-invar} is obtained from
3557: Eqs.~\ref{1d-eigstate}, \ref{LM1}, and \ref{dudk}:
3558: %
3559: \begin{eqnarray}
3560: \label{1d-lagr1}
3561: \Lambda_k^{(1)} = \left\langle u_{vk}^{(0)} \left|
3562: i\frac{\partial}{\partial k} \right| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right\rangle
3563: = - \frac{\partial \alpha_{vk}}{\partial k}\;.
3564: \end{eqnarray}
3565: %
3566: Simple algebraic manipulations involving Eqs.~\ref{dudk},~\ref{1d-v1},
3567: and \ref{1d-lagr1}, combined with Eqs.~\ref{stern2-invar} and
3568: \ref{Pv-u2}, yield the second-order wave-function derivatives
3569: %
3570: \begin{eqnarray}
3571: \label{1d-u2}
3572: P_{ck} \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=& {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_k }
3573: \left[ {\partial \over
3574: \partial k} \left( {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_k}
3575: {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k} \right)\right]
3576: e^{-i \Delta \alpha_k}\left. \left| u_{ck}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle\,,
3577: \nonumber \\
3578: P_{vk} \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=& -{1 \over 2}
3579: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3580: \left\langle u_{vk}^{(1)} \left| u_{vk}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle =
3581: -{1 \over 2} \left( {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_k}
3582: {\partial \Theta_k \over \partial k} \right)^2
3583: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \;.
3584: \end{eqnarray}
3585:
3586: These results lead to Eq.~\ref{1d-E4} for
3587: $E^{(4)}$. In terms of elliptic
3588: integrals, this quantity is written
3589: %
3590: \begin{eqnarray}
3591: \label{1d-E4.a}
3592: E^{(4)} &=& \frac{37\left(1 + A^2\right)^2}{64\pi} {\cal I}_{-{11 \over 2}}
3593: - \frac{\left(1 + A^2 \right)}{32\pi} \left[ 18 \left( 1 + A^2 \right) + 25 \right]
3594: {\cal I}_{-{9 \over2}}
3595: + \frac{1}{64\pi} \left[ 48 \left(
3596: 1 + A^2 \right) + 17 \right] {\cal I}_{-{7 \over 2}} \nonumber \\
3597: && - \frac{1}{4\pi}{\cal I}_{-{5
3598: \over 2}}\;.
3599: \end{eqnarray}
3600: %
3601:
3602: %.......................................................................
3603:
3604: \subsection{DAPE formulation}
3605:
3606: We now apply the DAPE expressions obtained in Sec.~\ref{discr}
3607: to our 1D-TB model. The first-order valence state is given by
3608: %
3609: \begin{eqnarray}
3610: \label{1d-str1-discr}
3611: && P_{ck_j} \left[ H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right]
3612: P_{ck_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle =
3613: - {i \over 2\Delta k} P_{ck_j}
3614: \left[ \vphantom{\sum_n^N} \left.\left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \left\langle
3615: u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle - \left.\left| u_{v k_{j-1}
3616: }^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \left\langle u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)}
3617: \right.\right\rangle \right]
3618: \nonumber\\
3619: && \; = - {i \over 2\Delta k} \left.\left| u_{ck_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3620: \left[ \vphantom{\sum_n^N} \left\langle u_{ck_j}^{(0)}
3621: \left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \left\langle u_{vk_{j+1}}^{(0)}
3622: \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle - \left\langle u_{c k_j}^{(0)}
3623: \left| u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \left\langle u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)}
3624: \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \right]\;.
3625: \end{eqnarray}
3626: %
3627:
3628: Using Eq.~\ref{1d-eigstate}, this expression becomes
3629: %
3630: \begin{eqnarray}
3631: \label{v1-discr}
3632: \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle = {i \over 2 \Delta k \Delta\varepsilon_j }
3633: \sin\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j-1}\right)
3634: \cos\left(2\Theta_j - \Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j-1}\right)
3635: e^{-i \Delta \alpha_j} \left.\left| u_{ck_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle\;;
3636: \end{eqnarray}
3637: %
3638: where we use a simplified notation $\Theta_{k_j}\rightarrow \Theta_j$
3639: (likewise for $\Delta \alpha$ and $\Delta \varepsilon$). From
3640: Eqs.~\ref{v1-discr} and \ref{E2-discr-nv}, we obtain
3641: Eq.~\ref{1d-E2-discr}.
3642:
3643: The second-order wavefunction is obtained from
3644: Eqs.~\ref{Pv-u2} and \ref{stern2-discr}. The Sternheimer
3645: equation is written
3646: %
3647: \begin{eqnarray}
3648: \label{1d-str2-discr}
3649: && P_{ck_j} \left[ H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right] P_{ck_j}
3650: \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle = - {i \over 2\Delta k}P_{ck_j}
3651: \left[\vphantom{\sum_n^N} \left.\left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle
3652: \left\langle u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle -
3653: \left.\left| u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle
3654: \left\langle u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3655: \right] \nonumber \\
3656: &&\; = - {i \over 2\Delta k} \left.\left| u_{ck_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3657: \left[\vphantom{\sum_n^N} \left\langle u_{c k_j}^{(0)}
3658: \left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle
3659: \left\langle u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle -
3660: \left\langle u_{c k_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle
3661: \left\langle u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3662: \right]\;.
3663: \end{eqnarray}
3664: %
3665:
3666: By combining Eqs.~\ref{1d-eigstate}, \ref{Pv-u2}, and \ref{v1-discr}, we arrive at
3667: %
3668: \begin{eqnarray}
3669: \label{v2-discr}
3670: P_{vk_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=&
3671: - {1 \over 8 \Delta k^2 \Delta\varepsilon_j^2}
3672: \sin^2 \left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j-1}\right)
3673: \cos^2 \left(2\Theta_j -\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j-1} \right)
3674: \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle \nonumber \\
3675: P_{ck_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=&
3676: \frac{e^{-i \Delta \alpha_j}}
3677: {4 \Delta k^2 \Delta\varepsilon_j}\left[
3678: {1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_{j+1}}
3679: \sin\left(\Theta_{j+2} - \Theta_j \right)
3680: \cos\left( 2\Theta_{j+1} -\Theta_{j+2} -\Theta_j \right)
3681: \cos^2\left( \Theta_{j+1}-\Theta_j \right) \right. \nonumber \\
3682: &&-{1 \over \Delta\varepsilon_{j-1}}\left.
3683: \sin\left(\Theta_j -\Theta_{j-2}\right)
3684: \cos\left( 2\Theta_{j-1} -\Theta_{j-2} -\Theta_j \right)
3685: \cos^2\left( \Theta_j - \Theta_{j-1} \right)
3686: \vphantom{\sum_n^N}\right] \left.\left| u_{ck_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \,.
3687: \end{eqnarray}
3688: %
3689:
3690: Eqs.~\ref{v1-discr} and \ref{v2-discr}, combined with
3691: Eq.~\ref{E4-discr}, lead to an analytic expression for $E^{(4)}$.
3692:
3693: %.....................................................................
3694:
3695: \subsection{PEAD formulation}
3696:
3697: Here, we apply the PEAD expressions from Sec.~\ref{sec:pt-P} to the
3698: model system. The zero-field overlap matrix, \mbox{$S^{(0)}\left( k_j,
3699: k_{j+1} \right) = \left\langle u_{vk_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{vk_{j+1}}^{(0)}
3700: \right.\right\rangle$} is
3701: %
3702: \begin{eqnarray}
3703: \label{1d-S0}
3704: S^{(0)}\left( k_j, k_{j+1} \right) =
3705: e^{i\left(\alpha_{v_{j+1}}-\alpha_{v_j}\right)}
3706: \cos\left(\Theta_{j+1}-\Theta_j \right)\;.
3707: \end{eqnarray}
3708: %
3709: Note that for this model, $S$ is a 1$\times $1 matrix, and hence
3710: the inverse overlap matrix is simply
3711:
3712: \begin{eqnarray}
3713: \label{1d-Q}
3714: Q\left( k_j, k_{j+1} \right) = \frac{1}{S^{(0)}\left( k_j, k_{j+1} \right)}
3715: =\frac {e^{ - i\left(\alpha_{v_{j+1}}-\alpha_{v_j}\right)}}
3716: {\cos\left(\Theta_{j+1}-\Theta_j \right)}\;.
3717: \end{eqnarray}
3718:
3719: From Eq.~\ref{stern1-P}, the first-order Sternheimer equation
3720: reads
3721: %
3722: \begin{eqnarray}
3723: \label{P1d-str1}
3724: P_{ck_j} \left[ H_{k_j}^{(0)} - \varepsilon_{vk_j}^{(0)} \right]
3725: P_{ck_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle =
3726: - P_{ck_j} {i \over 2\Delta k} \left[ \vphantom{\sum_n^N}
3727: \left.\left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle Q\left( k, k_{j+1} \right) -
3728: \left.\left| u_{v k_{j-1} }^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle Q\left( k, k_{j-1} \right)
3729: \right]\;.
3730: \end{eqnarray}
3731: %
3732: Using Eq.~\ref{1d-eigstate}, we obtain
3733: %
3734: \begin{eqnarray}
3735: \label{P1d-v1}
3736: \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle =
3737: \frac{i e^{- i \Delta \alpha_j}} {2 \Delta k \Delta\varepsilon_k}
3738: \left.\left| u_{ck}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle
3739: \left[\vphantom{\sum_n^N} \tan\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_j \right)
3740: -\tan\left(\Theta_{j-1} - \Theta_j \right)\right] \;.
3741: \end{eqnarray}
3742: %
3743:
3744: To obtain the second-order wavefunctions, we need the first-order term
3745: for the overlap matrix $S^{(1)}(k_j, k_{j+1}) = \left\langle u_{v
3746: k_j}^{(0)} \left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(1)} \right.\right\rangle + \left\langle u_{v k_j}^{(1)}
3747: \left| u_{v k_{j+1}}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle$. Thanks to Eqs.~\ref{1d-eigstate}
3748: and \ref{P1d-v1}, we have
3749: %
3750: \begin{eqnarray}
3751: \label{1d-S1}
3752: S^{(1)}\left( k_j, k_{j+1} \right) &=& \frac{i e^{i
3753: \left(\alpha_{v_{j+1}} - \alpha_{j}\right)}}{2\Delta k}
3754: \sin \left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_j\right)
3755: \left[\frac{\tan\left(\Theta_{j+2} -\Theta_{j+1}\right) -
3756: \tan\left(\Theta_{j} -\Theta_{j+1}\right)}{\Delta\varepsilon_{j+1}}~+
3757: \right. \nonumber\\
3758: &&\left.\frac{\tan\left(\Theta_{j+1} -\Theta_{j}\right) -
3759: \tan\left(\Theta_{j-1} -\Theta_{j}\right)}{\Delta\varepsilon_{j}}\right]\,.
3760: \end{eqnarray}
3761: %
3762:
3763: Plugging the above results for $Q$, $S^{0}$, $S^{(1)}$,
3764: $u_{vk}^{(0)}$, and $u_{vk}^{(1)}$ in Eqs.~\ref{Pv-u2} and \ref{stern2-P} we get
3765: %
3766: \begin{eqnarray}
3767: \label{P1d-v2}
3768: P_{vk_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=&
3769: - {1 \over 8 \Delta k^2 \Delta\varepsilon_j^2}
3770: \left.\left| u_{vk}^{(0)}\right.\right\rangle \left[\tan\left(\Theta_{j+1}-\Theta_j\right)
3771: -\tan\left(\Theta_{j-1}-\Theta_j\right)\right]^2 \nonumber \\
3772: P_{ck_j} \left.\left| u_{vk_j}^{(2)} \right.\right\rangle &=&
3773: \left.\left| u_{ck_j}^{(0)} \right.\right\rangle \frac{e^{-i \Delta \alpha_j}}
3774: {4\Delta^2\!k \Delta\varepsilon_j}\left\{
3775: \frac{\left[1+\tan^2\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_j \right)\right]
3776: \left[\tan\left(\Theta_{j+2} - \Theta_{j+1} \right) -
3777: \tan\left(\Theta_{j} - \Theta_{j+1} \right)\right]}{\Delta\varepsilon_{j+1}}
3778: \right. +\nonumber\\
3779: &&\frac{\left[1+\tan^2\left(\Theta_{j-1} - \Theta_j \right)\right]
3780: \left[\tan\left(\Theta_{j-2} - \Theta_{j-1} \right) -
3781: \tan\left(\Theta_{j} - \Theta_{j-1} \right)\right]}{\Delta\varepsilon_{j-1}}
3782: +\nonumber\\
3783: &&\left.\frac{\left[\tan^2\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_j \right) -
3784: \tan^2\left(\Theta_{j-1} - \Theta_j \right)\right]
3785: \left[\tan\left(\Theta_{j+1} - \Theta_{j} \right) -
3786: \tan\left(\Theta_{j-1} - \Theta_{j-1} \right)\right]}{\Delta\varepsilon_{j}}
3787: \right\}\;.
3788: \end{eqnarray}
3789:
3790: As in the DAPE case, from these expressions for $u^{(1)}_{vk_j}$ and
3791: $u^{(2)}_{vk_j}$ follows the PEAD analytic form for $E^{(4)}$.
3792:
3793:
3794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3795: \begin{figure}[t]
3796: \centering{
3797: \vspace{0.25cm}
3798: \caption{The phase $\gamma_k$ in the trial wavefunctions for the 1D
3799: model. $\gamma_k$ changes by $2\pi$ over a small interval $\Delta k$
3800: centered at an arbitrary $k$-vector in the Brillouin zone. The
3801: position of the jump, $\langle k \rangle$, is indicated in the figure by
3802: the vertical dotted line.}
3803: \label{gamma-k}
3804: }
3805: \end{figure}
3806: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3807: \begin{figure}[t]
3808: \centering{
3809: \vspace{0.25cm}
3810: \caption{The function $\cos \gamma_k$, which differs from 1 over an interval
3811: $\Delta k$ in the Brillouin zone.}
3812: \label{cos-gamma}
3813: }
3814: \end{figure}
3815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3816: \begin{figure}[t]
3817: \centering{
3818: \vspace{0.25cm}
3819: \caption{The percentual error $\left[ E^{(2)}_{discr.} -
3820: E^{(2)}_{exact}\right]/E^{(2)}_{exact}$ in the evaluation of the
3821: second-order change in energy for 1D model using the DAPE and the PEAD
3822: formulations, with a 20 $k$-point sampling of the Brillouin zone. The
3823: hoping parameter varies over the [0,1] interval.}
3824: \label{e2fig}
3825: }
3826: \end{figure}
3827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3828: \begin{figure}[t]
3829: \centering{
3830: \vspace{0.25cm}
3831: \caption{The percentual error $\left[ E^{(4)}_{discr.} -
3832: E^{(4)}_{exact}\right]/E^{(4)}_{exact}$ in the evaluation of the
3833: second-order change in energy for 1D model using the DAPE and the PEAD
3834: formulations, with an 80 $k$-point sampling of the Brillouin zone. The
3835: hoping parameter varies over the [0,1] interval.}
3836: \label{e4fig}
3837: }
3838: \end{figure}
3839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3840:
3841: \end{document}
3842:
3843:
3844:
3845:
3846:
3847:
3848:
3849: