1: %\documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

2: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{amsfonts}

4: 

5: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\lbl}{\label}

11: \newcommand{\ptl}{\partial}

12: 

13: \def\mm#1{\mathrm{#1}}

14: \def\tm#1{\textrm{#1}}

15: \def\eq#1{(\ref{#1})}

16: \def\la{\langle}

17: \def\ra{\rangle}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

22: \newcommand{\ai}{\emph{ab initio }}

23: \newcommand{\dr}{$\rho$ }

24: 

25: \def\eq#1{(\ref{#1})}

26: \def\ket#1{\vert{#1}\rangle}

27: \def\bra#1{\langle{#1}\vert}

28: \def\br#1{\langle{#1}}

29: \def\ord#1{{\cal O}\left({#1}\right)}

30: \def\hf{\frac{1}{2}}

31: 

32: %\nofiles

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35: 

36: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}

37: 

38: \title{Projection method for rapid ab initio calculations of metals }

39: % Force line breaks with \\

40: \author{Abdelouaheb Kenoufi$^a$}\email{kenoufi@lpt1.u-strasbg.fr}

41: \author{Janos Polonyi$^{a,b}$}\email{polonyi@lpt1.u-strasbg.fr}

42: \affiliation{$^a$Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique, Universit\'e Louis

43: Pasteur\\

44: 3-5 rue de l'Universit\'e F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France}

45: \affiliation{$^b$Department of Atomic Physics, Lorand E\"otv\"os University,

46: Budapest, Hungary}

47: 

48: 

49: 

50: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

51:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: An improvement of the Energy Renormalization Group method is proposed for

55: systems with small gap, based on the projection methods developed by

56: H. Feshbach. It is tested for the ground state energy of the

57: one-dimensional tight-binding model.

58: \end{abstract}

59: 

60: \pacs{31.15.Ar,71.15.Dx}

61: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

62:                               %display desired

63: \maketitle

64: 

65: \section{Introduction}

66: The key point in the construction of fast, $\ord{N}$ numerical methods is

67: the gap in the excitation spectrum above the ground state which

68: renders the interactions short ranged. Systems without gap

69: display infrared singular, long range interactions which slow down

70: the convergence of the numerical algorithms. It seems natural to seek

71: different strategies to deal with the short and the long range quantum

72: fluctuations. In particular, one may use rapid numerical methods

73: for the short range fluctuations and treat the more difficult

74: long range sector with slower, more sophisticated method. Such

75: a mixed numerical algorithm is discussed in this paper.

76: 

77: The strategy of the renormalization group\cite{Wilson_1975} is a natural

78: candidate for the construction of such an algorithm. In fact, the

79: renormalization group is a systematic method to successively eliminate certain

80: degrees of freedom or fluctuation modes in such a manner that their impact on

81: the dynamics is accumulated in the effective theory which is constructed

82: for the remaining degrees of freedom. The algorithm proposed in this paper

83: consists of two steps. First, a rapid numerical method is applied for the 

84: elimination of the short range fluctuations. What is left is a dynamical problem

85: of the long range fluctuations described by an effective Hamiltonian.

86: This problem is dealt with in the second step of the algorithm by the 

87: diagonalization of the effective Hamiltonian.

88: 

89: The question of central importance for such a mixed method is the

90: relation between the total dimension of the Hilbert space and the

91: dimensionality of the linear space of the effective theory

92: where the exact diagonalization is performed. Let us denote by

93: $\cal E$ an intrinsic energy scale of the system and introduce

94: $N_>$ and $N_<$ as the number of modes with energy superior or

95: inferior of $\cal E$. One may call $N_>$ and $N_<$

96: ultraviolet and infrared cut-off. Our algorithm will be

97: $\ord{N_>^2}$ but will slow down as $N_<$ is

98: increased. Since $N_<$ growths with the size of the system

99: in the absence of gap and remains finite when the gap is present

100: our algorithm might be useful for systems with weak gap

101: or truly gapless models of finite size. The numerical efficiency

102: compared to other methods will be judged by the prefactor

103: of $N_>$ in the required computer time so long the system size or the

104: gap is kept fixed. We believe that this prefactor will be rather small

105: because the modes treated in this step are short ranged.

106: 

107: The traditional renormalization group method\cite{Wilson_1975}

108: consists of the repeated application of a three step procedure.

109: The first step is the blocking, the elimination of certain

110: variables from the system. This is usually achieved by

111: the lowering of the ultraviolet cut-off, the highest energy the

112: fluctuations may reach in the system. The second step is the

113: construction of the effective theory for the remaining modes.

114: Finally, in the third step which gave the name of the procedure,

115: one performs a rescaling of the energy or other scales of the effective

116: theory in order to restore the original ultraviolet cut-off.

117: This last step is not always necessary.

118: 

119: There have already been a proposal in the literature for a partial implementation

120: of this idea, the so called energy space renormalization

121: group\cite{BHG_1997_3,BHG_1998}, realizing the blocking and the

122: rescaling steps. In order to render this scheme systematical

123: one can not be content with the naive elimination of the unwanted

124: modes, the restriction of the Hamiltonian into a subspace, but should

125: realize the second step as well, the accumulation of the effects of the

126: excluded directions within the subspace retained. For this purpose we

127: use a projection method developed in nuclear physics\cite{HF_1962,Rau_1996,Muller_Rau_1996}.

128: 

129: In sec. \ref{dmf}, we expand the density matrix formalism, which is the

130: foundement of \ai algorithms.

131: The locality principle and its use in linear-scaling methods are presented in

132: sec. \ref{np}.

133: An exemple of such algorithm, the so called Fermi Operator Expansion is

134: presented in section \ref{lsa}. In the last section

135: we develop a Numerical Renormalization Group method in Hilbert Space around

136: the Fermi level and propose an improvement inspired by projection method.

137: 

138: 

139: 

140: \section{Density matrix formalism}\lbl{dmf}

141: In the framework of Density Functional Theory (DFT)

142: \cite{HK_1964,K_1965,Cap_2003}, particularly in the Kohn-Sham

143: scheme \cite{K_1965}, rapid \ai calculation methods

144: allowing linear scaling or near-linear scaling computation time have been

145: developed recently \cite{G_1999,WJ_2002}. Most of the rapid \ai algorithm

146: is based on the one-particle reduced density matrix \dr which is

147: assumed to be a projector on the subspace spanned by the

148: low-lying occupied states according to the \emph{auf bau} principle :

149: \beqn

150: \rho &=&

151: \sum\limits_{i}f_{\infty,\mu}(\epsilon_{i})\ket{\psi_{i}}\bra{\psi_{i}}\nn \\

152: &=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N/2}\ket{\psi_{i}}\bra{\psi_{i}}

153: \eeqn

154: where $N$ denotes the number of electrons and

155: $(\epsilon_{i},\ket{\psi_{i}})$ is an eigenfunction of the

156: Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian $H$ and $f_{\beta}$ is defined as the

157: Fermi-Dirac distribution function at the inverse temperature $\beta$,

158: \be

159: f_{\beta,\mu}(\epsilon)=\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta(\epsilon-\mu)}}.

160: \ee

161: The form $H=\sum\limits_{i}\epsilon_{i}\ket{\psi_{i}}\bra{\psi_{i}}$

162: allows us to write the density matrix as

163: \beqn\lbl{ff}

164: \rho &=& f_{\infty,\epsilon_{F}}(H)\nonumber\\

165: &=&\Theta(\epsilon_{F}-H)

166: \eeqn

167: $\Theta$ being the Heaviside function.

168: The average energy and the particle number can be written as

169: \be

170: E_{BS}=\sum\limits_{i,j}\rho_{ij}H_{ji}

171: \ee

172: and

173: \be

174: N=2\sum\limits_{i,j}\rho_{ij}S_{ji}

175: \ee

176: where the density matrix is given in a localized orbital basis

177: \be\lbl{rang}

178: \rho=\sum\limits_{ij}\rho_{ij}\ket{\phi_i}\bra{\phi_j}

179: \ee

180: and $H_{ij} = \bra{\phi_{i}}H\ket{\phi_{j}}$,

181: $S_{ij}=\br{\phi_{i}}\ket{\phi_{j}}$.

182: 

183: 

184: 

185: \section{Principle of "nearsightedness"}\lbl{np}

186: This principle states \cite{K_1959,JC_1964,K_1993} that the matrix

187: elements of the one-electron density matrix are negligible beyond

188: the distance $ca$ where $a$ is the lattice spacing,

189: \be\lbl{dmd2}

190: \vert i-j \vert>c \Rightarrow \rho_{ij}\simeq 0,

191: \ee

192: giving

193: \be\lbl{enp2}

194: E_{BS}\simeq2\sum\limits_{i}\sum\limits_{max(0,i-c)<j<min(N,i+c)}\rho_{ij}H_{ji}.

195: \ee

196: 

197: The decay of the density matrix $\rho$ in real-space depends on the

198: material. For systems with gap the

199: decay is exponential \cite{K_1959,JC_1964,K_1993,K_1995,IB}

200: \be

201: \rho(\vec{r},\vec{r}')=e^{-\alpha\vert\vec{r}-\vec{r}'\vert}

202: \ee

203: where $\alpha\sim\sqrt{\Delta\epsilon_{gap}}$ for the tight-binding limit and

204: $\alpha\sim a_{lattice}\cdot\Delta\epsilon_{gap}$ for the weak-binding limit.

205: For systems with no gap the decay of \dr is algebraic at zero

206: temperature\cite{IB,GI_1998,MYS}

207: \be

208: \rho(\vec{r},\vec{r}')=k_{F}\frac{\cos(k_{F}\vert\vec{r}-\vec{r}'\vert)}{\vert\vec{r}-\vec{r}'\vert^{2}}

209: \ee

210: Such an algebraic decay reflects the presence of long range correlations

211: and prevents linear-scaling in the numerical calculations.

212: The electron states tend to be more localized for disordered systems

213: and the matrix elements of the density matrix decay faster with

214: the distance\cite{Anderson,K_1996}.

215: 

216: 

217: 

218: \section{Fermi Operator Expansion}\lbl{lsa}

219: The polynomial expansion of \dr in Chebychev polynomials, the so called

220: Fermi Operator Expansion\cite{G_1994,G_1995,G_1998} is an important ingredient

221: of rapid algorithms.

222: 

223: Chebychev polynomials are defined by the recursion formula

224: \beqn\lbl{recursion}

225: T_{0}(x)&=&1\nn\\

226: T_{1}(x)&=&x \\

227: T_{n+2}(x)&=&2xT_{n+1}(x)-T_{n}(x)\nn

228: \eeqn

229: for $-1\le x\le1$. It is easy to see that actually

230: $T_{n}(x)=\cos(n\arccos x)$.

231: We use the functional form \eq{ff} in order to fit \dr

232: with a Chebychev polynomials up to order $p$,

233: \be

234: \rho_\beta=f_{\beta,\mu}(H)\simeq\sum\limits_{i=0}^pa_i(\beta_s,\mu_s)T_i(H_s)

235: \ee

236: where $H_s$ is the dimensionless Hamiltonian scaled and shifted into

237: the interval $[-1,1]$,

238: \beqn

239: H_{s}&=&\frac{H-\bar{E}}{\Delta E}\nn\\

240: \bar{E}&=&\hf[\min(spec(H))+\max(spec(H))]\\

241: \Delta E&=&\hf[\max(spec(H))-\min(spec(H))]\nn

242: \eeqn

243: and $\beta_{s}=\beta\Delta E$, $\mu_{s}=(\mu-\bar{E})/\Delta E$.

244: The smallest and largest eigenvalue of $H$ can be computed by using the

245: Lanczos method which scales linearly with the size of the matrix.

246: The projection coefficients

247: \be

248: a_n(\beta_s,\mu_s)=\frac{2-\delta_{n0}}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi}\cos (n

249: \theta)\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta_{s}(\cos \theta-\mu_{s})}}d\theta

250: \ee

251: will be computed numerically by means of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).

252: The particle number conservation fixes the value of the Fermi energy level

253: $\epsilon_F$ found by solving Eq. \eq{rang}.

254: 

255: The accuracy of Fermi Operator Expansion can be estimates by recalling that

256: one truncates the Chebychev polynoms $T_n$ of Eq. \eq{recursion}

257: in such a manner that only the matrix elements $(T_{n}(H))_{ij}$ with

258: $\vert i-j\vert\le c$ are retained. The computation time will be of

259: order $pc^2N=O(N)$. It can be shown \cite{BHG_1997_1,BHG_1997_2}

260: that the order of the Chebychev expansion should be

261: \be

262: p\simeq\frac{2}{3}(d-1)\beta_s=\frac{2}{3}(d-1)\beta\Delta E

263: \ee

264: for the accuracy $10^{-d}$ of the expansion coefficients $\{a_{i}\}$.

265: If the system has an HOMO-LUMO gap $\Delta E_{gap}$ and

266: \be

267: \beta\ge\frac{2\log_{10}d}{\Delta E_{gap}}

268: \ee

269: then

270: \be

271: p\ge\frac{4(d-1)\Delta E\log_{10}d}{3\Delta E_{gap}}.

272: \ee

273: Since the range of correlations in the density matrix is bounded,

274: \be

275: range(\rho)\le p~c\simeq \frac{2}{3}c(d-1)\beta\Delta E

276: \ee

277: the correlations grows with the inverse temperature for gapless systems

278: and the linear-scaling methods are rendered inapplicable.

279: 

280: 

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: 

285: 

286: \section{Energy Renormalization Group}\lbl{erg}

287: We present now a renormalization group method in the energy space in order

288: to treat systems with small gap. In the original version of this

289: method\cite{BHG_1997_3,BHG_1998} one starts with a series of

290: inverse temperatures $\beta_n\to\infty$ and the corresponding

291: density matrices $\rho_n$ which tend to be concentrated around the

292: Fermi level as $n\to\infty$. This alone would not represent any

293: improvement as far as the numerical difficulties of obtaining

294: the density matrices are concerned. But the density matrices are

295: constructed in decreasing subspaces ${\cal H}_n\supset{\cal H}_{n+1}$

296: where ${\cal H}_{n+1}$ is span by the eigenvectors of $\rho_n$ with

297: large eigenvalues.

298: 

299: This algorithm is modified in order to implement the blocking

300: in energy space. First a common chemical potential is introduced

301: for each temperature which is adjusted at the end of the

302: computation to dial the desired particle number. This modification

303: is needed to clear the way for the blocking. The Hamiltonians

304: were simply truncated in the original algorithm as their subspaces

305: were restricted. In order to retain the dynamics of the excluded

306: dimensions we employ a method developed in Nuclear Physics\cite{HF_1962}

307: which yields an exact, $\ord{N^2}$ algorithm.

308: 

309: 

310: 

311: 

312: \subsection{Blocking in the Hilbert pace}

313: A geometric series of inverse temperatures $\beta_n=q^n\beta_0$

314: is introduced for $q>1$ together with the corresponding

315: density matrices $\rho_{n,\mu}=f_{\beta_n,\mu}(H)$.

316: The zero temperature expectation value of an observable $A$ is written as

317: a telescopic series

318: \be \lbl{somme}

319: \la A\ra=\mm{Tr(\rho_{\infty,\mu}A)}

320: =\sum\limits_n\mm{Tr(\Delta_{n,\mu}A)}.

321: \ee

322: where

323: \be

324: \Delta_{n,\mu}=\rho_{n,\mu}-\rho_{n-1,\mu}\nn,~~~

325: \Delta_{0,\mu}=\rho_{0,\mu}.

326: \ee

327: Each term in this equation corresponds to a more restricted energy subspaces

328: centered at the Fermi energy level as $n$ is increased. The localization

329: in the energy leads to delocalized states in real space in the

330: absence of disorder.

331: The ground state is approached by the telescopic summation

332: by zooming onto the Fermi level and the corresponding density matrix

333: projects on more and more extended states.

334: 

335: The order of the Chebychev expansion $p$ is chosen to be

336: independent of $n$ and the coefficients obtained by FFT are

337: \be

338: a'_m(\beta_n,\mu)=\la\Delta_{n,\mu},T_m\ra

339: \ee

340: where

341: \be

342: \Delta_{n,\mu}=f_{\beta_n,\mu}(H_n)-f_{\beta_{n-1},\mu}(H_n).

343: \ee

344: 

345: \begin{figure}[!h] \begin{center}

346: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=8cm]{erg1.ps}

347: \caption{\lbl{fig:figure1}Spectral representation of $\rho_n$ and

348: $\Delta_n$.}

349: \end{center} \end{figure}

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: 

354: \subsection{Fixed-point}

355: The convergence of the telescopic series can be expressed as the existence

356: of a fixed point of the blocking in the energy space for energy dependent

357: operators. In fact, let us suppose that a continuous operator $A$ is

358: commuting with the Hamiltonian $H$ and can be diagonalized in a basis of

359: eigenvectors of $H$. We can then express its expectation value by means

360: of $\rho$ as

361: \beqn

362: \mm{Tr}(\Delta_{n+1,\mu}A)&=&\int d\epsilon\ A(\epsilon)

363: \Delta_{n+1,\mu}(\epsilon)\nn \\

364: &=&\frac{\beta_n}{\beta_{n+1}}\int d\epsilon\ A

365: \left(\epsilon\frac{\beta_n}{\beta_{n+1}}\right)\Delta_{n,\mu}(\epsilon)\\

366: &=&\frac{\beta_n}{\beta_{n+1}}\mm{Tr}\left(\Delta_{n,\mu}

367: A\left(\cdot\frac{\beta_n}{\beta_{n+1}}\right)\right)\nonumber

368: \eeqn

369: This expression allows us to rescale the operator $A$ around the Fermi-level

370: by the factor $\beta_{n+1}/\beta_n$ and to keep $\Delta_{n,\mu}$ unchanged.

371: Since $A$ is a continuous operator the iteration of this step obviously

372: leads to a fixed-point,

373: \be

374: \mm{Tr}(\Delta_{n+1,\mu}A)-\mm{Tr}(\Delta_{n,\mu}A)\to0

375: \ee

376: as $n\to\infty$.

377: 

378: \subsection{Projection}

379: The identification of the subspaces proceeds by the construction of

380: the projectors $P_n:\mathcal{H}_n\to\mathcal{H}_{n+1}$.

381: We introduce first the following pseudo-projectors constructed by means

382: of the Chebychev expansion

383: \be

384: G_n=\frac{\ptl\rho_{n,\mu}}{\ptl\mu}=\beta_n\rho_{n,\mu}(1-\rho_{n,\mu})

385: \ee

386: Once the series $\{G_n\}$ is found another set of matrices $\{C_n\}$

387: is formed. The columns of $C_n$ are basis vectors of $\mathcal{H}_{n+1}$

388: by means of a heuristic version of the singular value decomposition with

389: column pivoting\cite{BHG_1997_3,BHG_1998,GVL_1996}. Since the

390: dynamics of the excluded dimensions is retained in our case this choice

391: is a less sensitive step of the algorithm then in the original

392: version and influences the sparsity of the resulting density matrices only.

393: As the next step, the overlap matrices $S_n=C_n^*C_n$ are constructed.

394: Finally, the projectors are given as $P_{i}=C_{i}S_{i}^{-1}C_{i}^{*}$.

395: $S_i^{-1}$ can actually be obtained as $S_{i}^{-1/2}=\lim_{k\to\infty}A_k$

396: by the help of the algorithm\cite{Lar}

397: \beqn\lbl{larin_1}

398: A_k&=&\frac{1}{2}(3A_k-A_kB_kA_k)\nn\\

399: B_k&=&\frac{1}{2}(3B_k-B_kA_kB_k)

400: \eeqn

401: with $A_0=-\sqrt\alpha\cdot\openone$, $B_0=-\sqrt\alpha \cdot S_{i}$

402: and $\alpha=1/\max\limits_{j,k}|(S_{i})_{jk}|$.

403: The projected Hamiltonian is of the form

404: \be

405: H_{n+1}^{ERG}=S_n^{-\hf}C_n^*H_nC_nS_n^{-\hf}

406: \ee

407: 

408: \begin{figure}[!h]

409: \begin{center}

410: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=8cm]{erg2.ps}

411: \caption{\lbl{fig:figure2}Spectral representation of $G_{i}$ and

412: $\Delta_{i}$.}

413: \end{center}

414: \end{figure}

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: \begin{table*}

419: \begin{ruledtabular}

420: \caption{\lbl{table1} Relative errors of energy computations for different size of systems with $\beta_{0}=5$, $q=10$ and with a Chebychev

421: expansion $p=10$}

422: 

423: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}

424: $N$&$E_{Exact}$&$E_{ERG}$&$E_{HF}$&$Error_{ERG}$&$Error_{HF}$&$Error_{ERG}-Error_{HF}$\\

425: \hline

426: 256& 93.39 &95.44& 91.58& 2.20 &1.94& 0.26 \\

427: 384& 139.90& 142.95 &139.09& 2.18 &0.58& 1.60 \\

428: 512& 186.41& 190.47& 186.61& 2.18 &0.10 &2.07  \\

429: 640 &232.93& 237.98& 234.12& 2.17 &0.51 &1.66  \\

430: 768 &279.44& 285.50& 281.63& 2.17 &0.79 &1.38  \\

431: 896 &325.95& 333.01& 329.15& 2.17 &0.98 &1.19  \\

432: 1024& 372.47& 380.52& 376.66& 2.16 &1.13 &1.04  \\

433: 1152 &418.98& 428.04& 424.17& 2.16 &1.24 &0.92  \\

434: 1280 &465.49& 475.55& 471.69& 2.16 &1.33 &0.83  \\

435: 1408& 512.00& 523.06& 519.20& 2.16 &1.41 &0.75  \\

436: 1536 &558.52& 570.58& 566.72& 2.16 &1.47 &0.69  \\

437: 1664& 605.03& 618.09& 614.23& 2.16 &1.52 &0.64  \\

438: 1792& 651.54& 665.60& 661.74& 2.16 &1.57 &0.59  \\

439: 1920 &698.05& 713.12& 709.26& 2.16 &1.60 &0.55  \\

440: 2048 &744.57& 760.63& 756.77& 2.16& 1.64& 0.52 \\

441: \end{tabular}

442: \end{ruledtabular}

443: \end{table*}

444: 

445: 

446: Up to now we have excluded certain directions of the Hilbert

447: space which are supposed to be less important from the point

448: of view of the ground state dynamics. In order to perform

449: the analogue of the Kadanoff-Wilson blocking we have to construct

450: an effective Hamiltonian\cite{HF_1962,Rau_1996} $H_{n+1}$ in

451: the restricted space with the same dynamics around the Fermi level as

452: those of $H_n$,

453: \beqn\label{fesbach}

454: H_{n+1}&=&S_n^{-\hf}C_n^*\left(H_n+H_nQ_n\frac{1}{\mu-Q_nH_nQ_n}Q_nH_n\right)\nn\\

455: &&\times C_nS_n^{-\hf}\\

456: &=&H_{n+1}^{ERG}+S_n^{-\hf}C_n^*H_nQ_n\frac{1}{\mu-H_nQ_nH_n}Q_nH_nC_nS_n^{-\hf}\nn

457: \eeqn

458: where $Q_n=1-P_n$. The exclusion of directions from the Hilbert space

459: renders the finding of the projection of the eigenvectors of the original

460: Hamiltonian into the restricted space a nonlinear problem. This

461: complication appears as a nonlinear dependence of the eigenvector

462: equation in the restricted space on the eigenvalue. The energy eigenvalue

463: was replaced by the Fermi level, $\mu$, in the 'self-energy',

464: the second term on right hand side of Eq. \eq{fesbach}.

465: The inverse in the right hand side can be obtained

466: by the well-known \emph{Schultz's} or \emph{Hotelling's}

467: method\cite{NR,Householder,PanReif} as $(\mu-H_n)^{-1}=\lim_{j\to\infty}X_j$

468: where

469: \be\lbl{pr_1}

470: X_j=X_{j-1}[2\openone-(\mu-H_n)X_{j-1}]

471: \ee

472: with the initial-guess \cite{PanReif}

473: $X_0=(\mu-H_n)^*/\sum\limits_{j,k}(\mu-H_n)_{jk}^2$.

474: 

475: The calculation ends when the dimension of the

476: subspace is sufficiently small for explicit diagonalization.

477: 

478: One can introduce approximations which render the method $\ord{N}$.

479: One possibility is the note that $X_j$ of Eq. \eq{pr_1} converges

480: quadratically and the order of 30 iterations, a value independent

481: of the system size was always sufficient in our numerical test. Another

482: possibility is based on the adjustment of the chemical potential at the

483: end of the computation. This circumstance allows us to make the replacement

484: \be\label{approx}

485: \frac{1}{\mu-Q_nH_nQ_n}\to\frac{1}{\mu}

486: \ee

487: in Eq. \eq{fesbach} where $\mu$ will include the 'average'

488: of $Q_nH_nQ_n$ within ${\cal H}_n$. Such a simplification is

489: more acceptable for large $n$ where $\mm{dim}{\cal H}_n$ is

490: not too large and the evolution is slow.

491: 

492: 

493: 

494: 

495: 

496: \subsection{Numerical test}

497: We considered a lattice of $2N$ sites in one dimension with nearest

498: neighbor interaction described by the Hamiltonian\cite{Atkins_Friedman}

499: \be\label{hamnd}

500: H=2\sum\limits_ia_i^+a_i-\sum\limits_{<i,j>}a_i^+a_j

501: \ee

502: at half filling. Being the simplest model for the conducting band electrons the matrix elements 

503: of the density matrix, computed in the appendix for half-filling, show

504: metal-like decrease with the distance.\\ 

505: Table \ref{table1} shows the results of energy calculations with the

506: algorithm of Eq. \eq{fesbach} for different sizes.

507: It has been reported\cite{BHG_1997_3,BHG_1998} that the CPU time of the

508: ERG method scales as $N\ln^2N$. The computation of Eq. \eq{fesbach}

509: which was done by applying the approximation \eq{approx}

510: does not change this result since it contains matrix multiplications only. 

511: 

512: \section{Conclusion}

513: A new application of the renormalization group method is presented in

514: this work. This method is designed to retain the dynamics of modes excluded

515: from the computation and was developed for the path integral.

516: But it is an ideal tool to improve systematically the truncations

517: of the Hilbert space committed in the operator formalism, too.

518: As an example the improvement of the Energy Renormalization Group

519: was presented. Here the Kadanoff-Wilson blocking is performed

520: in energy space and the effects of the directions of the Hilbert

521: space lost by the truncation is retained. Therefore the dimension

522: of the linear space is reduced but the physics which can be described

523: by states within the reduced space remained the same. As long as the ground

524: state and the low lying excitations are kept in the linear spaces

525: constructed in this sequence the salient features of the model

526: can be described in a systematical and more economical manner.

527: 

528: The elimination of dimensions makes the eigenvalue equation

529: nonlinear in the eigenvalues, an effect which is well known in

530: many-body theory. In fact, say the self energy of a particle

531: receives a complicated, energy dependent contribution from

532: 'virtual', particle-number changing processes which leave

533: from and return to the one-particle sector of the Fock space.

534: We employed a widely

535: used approximation which becomes exact for the ground state

536: and the low lying excitations, the replacement of the

537: energy eigenvalue by the Fermi level in the self-energy.

538: The computational need of the resulting method is $\ord{N^2_>}$

539: with a prefactor which growth with the volume. Nevertheless

540: we find this result remarkable since systems with small gap can

541: safely be treated by exact diagonalization in a low dimensional

542: subspace.

543: 

544: We employed a further simplification of the effective Hamiltonian

545: in our numerical test. We replaced the part of the Hamiltonian

546: which belongs to the eliminated directions and appears in the self-energy

547: by a 'mean-operator' which is proportional to the identity. This

548: approximation is supposed to become exact for the ground state and

549: the low lying excitations of a Fermi-liquid. The method

550: is $\ord{N_>\ln^2N_>}$ when this simplification is used.

551: 

552: Our method was tested numerically in the case of the one dimensional

553: tight binding model. The ground state energy improved and a

554: reduction of its {\em error} by 25\% was found compared to the

555: original algorithm for $N=2048$.

556: 

557: The main question left open by the present work is the dependence

558: of the computational requirement on $N_<$, the physical size of the system,

559: and the explorations of alternative approximations which ultimately

560: speed up the algorithm in this respect.

561: 

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: \begin{acknowledgments}

567: We thank Jean Richert, Jacques Harthong, Xavier Blanc and Claude Demangeat for useful and

568: interesting discussions.

569: \end{acknowledgments}

570: 

571: 

572: \appendix

573: 

574: \section{One-particle density matrix}

575: This Appendix contains some details of the computation of the density

576: matrix for the tight binding model of Eq. \eq{hamnd} at half filling.

577: 

578: The matrix of eigenvectors corresponding to the $N$ lowest eigenvalues of $H$

579: is given by

580: \be

581: C_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N+\frac{1}{2}}}\sin\bigg(\frac{\pi \mu \nu}{2N+1}\bigg).

582: \ee

583: for $1\le\mu\le2N$, and $1\le\nu\le N$. The reduced density matrix

584: \be

585: \rho=CC^{*}

586: \ee

587: is a projector with the diagonal matrix elements

588: \be

589: \rho_{\mu\mu}=\hf.

590: \ee

591: If $\mu$ and $\nu$ have same parities, i.e $\mu-\nu$ ia even then

592: $\rho_{\mu\nu}=0$. For $\nu=\mu+2k+1$

593: \be

594: \rho_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{4N+2}\left[\frac{(-1)^{k}}{\sin\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{2k+1}{2N+1}}

595: -\frac{(-1)^{\mu+k}}{\sin\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\mu+k+\frac{1}{2}}{2N+1}}

596: \right].

597: \ee

598: 

599: In order to find rate of decrease of $\rho_{\mu\nu}$ we consider the

600: limit $N\to\infty$ but keep $\nu-\mu=2k$ fixed,

601: \be

602: \rho_{\mu,\mu+2k}\approx\frac{(-1)^{k}}{2k\pi}.

603: \ee

604: 

605: 

606: 

607: 

608: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

609: \bibitem{Wilson_1975}{K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 47}, 773 (1975)}

610: \bibitem{BHG_1997_3}{R. Baer and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 109}, 10159 (1998)}

611: \bibitem{BHG_1998}{R. Baer and M. Head-Gordon, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 15296 (1998)}

612: \bibitem{HF_1962}{H. Feshbach, Annals of Physics, {\bf 19}, 287-313 (1962)}

613: \bibitem{Rau_1996}{J. Rau, cond-mat/9607198, (1996)}

614: \bibitem{Muller_Rau_1996}{J. Muller, J. Rau, Phys. Lett. B 386 (1996) 274}

615: %\bibitem{Shankar_1994}{R. Shankar, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 66}, 129 (1994)}

616: \bibitem{HK_1964}{P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 136}, 864 (1964)}

617: \bibitem{K_1965}{W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 140}, 1133 (1965)}

618: \bibitem{Cap_2003}{K. Capelle, cond-mat/0211443, (2003)}

619: \bibitem{G_1999}{S. Goedecker, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 71}, 1085 (1999)}

620: \bibitem{WJ_2002}{S. Y. Wu, C. S. Jayanthi, Phys. Rep. {\bf 358}, 1 (2002)}

621: \bibitem{K_1993}{W. Kohn, Chem. Phys. Lett. {\bf 208}, 167 (1993)}

622: \bibitem{JC_1964}{J. des Cloizeaux, Phys. Rev. {\bf 135}, (1964);

623: ibid (1964) A698}

624: \bibitem{K_1959}{W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. {\bf 115}, 809 (1959)}

625: \bibitem{K_1995}{W. Kohn, Int. J. Quart. Chem. {\bf 56}, 229 (1995)}

626: \bibitem{IB}{S. Ismail-Beigi, T. Arias, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2127 (1999)}

627: \bibitem{GI_1998}{S. Goedecker and O. Ivanov, Solid State Commun. {\bf 105}, 665 (1998)}

628: \bibitem{MYS}{S. Ismail-Beigi, T. Arias, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2127 (1999)}

629: \bibitem{Anderson}{W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21} (1968) 13}

630: \bibitem{K_1996}{W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76} (1996) 3168}

631: \bibitem{G_1994}{S. Goedecker and L. Colombo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73} (1994) 122}

632: \bibitem{G_1998}{S. Goedecker, J. Comp. Phys. {\bf 118}, 261 (1998)}

633: \bibitem{G_1995}{S. Goedecker and M. Teter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 9455 (1995)}

634: 

635: %\bibitem{VKS_1996}{A. Voter, J. Kress, and R. Silver,

636: %Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 12733 (1996)}

637: %\bibitem{WN_1982}{S. R. White and R. M. Noack, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} (1982) 3487}

638: %\bibitem{White_1993}{S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 10345 (1993)}

639: \bibitem{BHG_1997_1}{R. Baer and M. Head-Gordon, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 3962}

640: \bibitem{BHG_1997_2}{R. Baer and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 107}, 10003 (1997)}

641: \bibitem{GVL_1996}{G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, \emph{Matrix computations},

642: 3rd ed., (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996), p. 591}

643: \bibitem{Lar}{V. B. Larin, Technichskaya Kibernetika {\bf 1}, 210 (1992)}

644: \bibitem{NR}{W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,

645: \em{Numerical Recipes in C++}, 2nd ed., 2001, p. 60}

646: \bibitem{Householder}{A. S. Householder, \emph{The theory of matrices in numerical analysis},

647: Dover Publications, Inc. New-York, 1975, p. 94}

648: \bibitem{PanReif} V. Pan, and J. Reif, \em{Proceedings of the Seventeenth

649: Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing}, 1985

650: \bibitem{Atkins_Friedman}{P.W Atkins and R.S Friedman, \emph{Molecular

651: Quantum Mechanics}, 3rd ed., (Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 267}

652: \end{thebibliography}

653: 

654: \bibliography{apssamp}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.

655: 

656: \end{document}

657: