1: % \documentclass[aps,pra,preprint,tightenlines,showkeys,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[aps,pra,twocolumn,tightenlines,showkeys,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{longtable}

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: 

9: \title{Convergence of an $s$-wave calculation of the He ground state.}

10: \author{J.Mitroy}

11: \email{jxm107@rsphysse.anu.edu.au}

12: \affiliation{Faculty of Technology, Charles Darwin University, Darwin NT 0909, Australia}

13: \author{M.W.J.Bromley}

14: \email{mbromley@physics.sdsu.edu}

15: \affiliation{Department of Physics, San Diego State University, San Diego CA 92182, USA}

16: \author{K.Ratnavelu}

17: \email{kuru052001@gmail.com}

18: \affiliation{Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia}

19: 

20: \date{\today}

21: 

22: \begin{abstract}

23: 

24: The Configuration Interaction (CI) method using a large Laguerre 

25: basis restricted to $\ell = 0$ orbitals is applied to the

26: calculation of the He ground state.  The maximum number of orbitals 

27: included was 60.  The numerical evidence suggests that the energy 

28: converges as $\Delta E^N \approx A/N^{7/2} + B/N^{8/2} + \ldots$ 

29: where $N$ is the number of Laguerre basis functions.  The 

30: electron-electron $\delta$-function expectation converges as 

31: $\Delta \delta^N \approx A/N^{5/2} + B/N^{6/2} + \ldots$ 

32: and the variational limit for the $\ell = 0$ basis is estimated 

33: as $0.1557637174(2)$ $a_0^3$.  It was seen that extrapolation of 

34: the energy to the variational limit is dependent upon the basis 

35: dimension at which the exponent in the Laguerre basis was optimized. 

36: In effect, it may be best to choose a non-optimal exponent if one 

37: wishes to extrapolate to the variational limit. An investigation 

38: of the Natural Orbital asymptotics revealed the energy converged 

39: as $\Delta E^N \approx A/N^{6} + B/N^{7} + \ldots$ while the 

40: electron-electron $\delta$-function expectation converged as 

41: $\Delta \delta^N \approx A/N^{4} + B/N^{5} + \ldots$.  The

42: asymptotics of expectation values other than the energy showed 

43: fluctuations that depended on whether $N$ was even or odd.  

44: 

45: \end{abstract}

46: 

47: \pacs{31.10.+z, 31.15.Pf, 31.25.Eb }

48: \keywords{helium, ground state, configuration interaction, Laguerre type orbitals, basis set convergence}

49: 

50: \maketitle

51: 

52: \section{Introduction}

53: 

54: There have been a number of studies of the convergence of the 

55: configuration interaction (CI) expansion of the helium ground state 

56: \cite{carroll79a,hill85a,kutzelnigg92a,decleva95a,jitrik97a,ottschofski97a,sims02a,bromley06a}  

57: following the pioneering work of Schwartz \cite{schwartz62a}.   

58: These studies have investigated the convergence of the energy with

59: respect to the number of partial waves included in the wave function 

60: and also with respect to the dimension of the radial basis.

61: 

62: It has been known since 1962 \cite{schwartz62a} that the energy 

63: converges slowly with respect to $J$, the maximum angular momentum 

64: of any orbital included in the CI expansion.  In particular the 

65: leading term to the energy increment is known to behave as 

66: % 

67: \begin{equation} 

68: \Delta E^{J}  =  \langle E \rangle^J - \langle E \rangle^{J-1} \sim  \frac{A_E}{(J+{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})^4}  \label{pE1} \\   

69: \end{equation} 

70: %

71: at high $J$.  Later work 

72: \cite{carroll79a,hill85a,kutzelnigg92a,decleva95a,ottschofski97a} 

73: showed that the energy increments can be written more generally as 

74: %

75: \begin{equation} 

76: \Delta E^J = \frac{A_E}{(J+{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})^4} 

77:    + \frac{B_E}{(J+{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})^{5}}

78:    + \frac{C_E}{(J+{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})^{6}} + \ldots \ , 

79: \label{Eseries} 

80: \end{equation} 

81: % 

82: where explicit expressions for $A_E$ and $B_E$ exist, namely  

83: %

84: \begin{eqnarray} 

85: A_E &=& -6\pi^2 \int |\Psi(r,r,0) |^2 r^5 dr = -0.074 226  \label{AE} \\  

86: B_E &=& -\frac{48 \pi}{5} \int |\Psi(r,r,0) |^2 r^6 dr = -0.030 989  \label{BE} \ .  

87: \end{eqnarray} 

88: %

89: No expressions for $C_E$ exist. The numerical values in eqs.~(\ref{AE}) 

90: and (\ref{BE}) are obtained from close to exact wave functions 

91: \cite{hill85a}. 

92: 

93: However, the convergence with respect to $J$ represents only one

94: aspect of the convergence problem.  Just as important is the 

95: convergence with respect to the dimension of the radial basis $N$,

96: for a given $J$. How do the increments to $E$ with increasing 

97: $N$ 

98: %

99: \begin{eqnarray} 

100: \Delta E^{N} & = & \langle E \rangle^N - \langle E \rangle^{N-1}    \nonumber \\  

101:            & \sim & \frac{A'_E}{N^p} + \frac{B'_E}{N^{p+t}} + \frac{C'_E}{N^{p+2t}} + \ldots \ , \label{pEN}    

102: \label{ENseries} 

103: \end{eqnarray} 

104: %

105: behave?  In effect, what are the values of $p$ and $t$?   This aspect 

106: of the CI expansion is not as well understood as the convergence with 

107: $J$ and  there have been no studies equivalent in sophistication to 

108: those of Schwartz \cite{schwartz62a}, Hill \cite{hill85a} and  

109: Kutzelnigg and collaborators \cite{kutzelnigg92a,ottschofski97a}.

110: Some attention has been given to the radial convergence of the 

111: hydrogen atom in gaussian basis sets \cite{kutzelnigg94a}.   

112: The seminal investigation of Carroll and collaborators concluded

113: that $p \approx 6$ for a natural orbital (NO) basis 

114: \cite{lowdin56a,carroll79a}.  This result has been quite influential, 

115: and can be regarded as ultimately motivating the use of principal 

116: quantum number expansions to 

117: extrapolate energies to the infinite basis limit from correlation 

118: consistent basis sets \cite{klopper99a}.  More recently, Goldman 

119: performed a regression analysis to give $p \approx 5.7$ for a 

120: NO basis and $p \approx 3.8$ for a Slater basis with a common 

121: exponent \cite{goldman95a}.   

122: 

123: \begingroup

124: \begin{table*}[bth]

125: \caption[]{ Comparison of different CI calculations of the 

126: $s$-wave model of the He atom ground state.   The expectation 

127: value of the electron-electron $\delta$-function (in $a_0^3$) 

128: is denoted as $\langle \delta \rangle$.  The data in the 

129: $\langle E \rangle^M$ and $\langle E \rangle^{60}$ columns are 

130: the energies (in hartree) with $N=M$ and $N=60$ basis sets 

131: respectively.  The data in the $\langle E^{\infty} \rangle$ 

132: and $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ columns are obtained by   

133: doing an explicit calculations with $N = 60$ and then adding

134: in the $60 \to \infty$ correction assuming an $A/N^{-p}$ 

135: asymptotic form.  

136: }

137: \label{Hetab1}

138: \vspace{0.2cm}

139: \begin{ruledtabular}

140: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}

141: $M$ & $\lambda_{M}$  & $\langle E \rangle^M$ & $\langle E\rangle^{60}$ &  $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ & $\langle \delta \rangle^M$ &  $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ \\ \hline   

142:  10 & 3.07   &  -2.879 022 691 296 &  -2.879 028 727 964   & -2.879 028 7667  &  0.155 922 600 334 &  0.155 763 879  \\

143:  20 & 4.80   &  -2.879 028 507 141 &  -2.879 028 754 899   & -2.879 028 7671  &  0.155 789 345 524 &  0.155 763 796  \\

144:  30 & 6.45   &  -2.879 028 726 601 &  -2.879 028 761 447   & -2.879 028 7672  &  0.155 772 304 341 &  0.155 763 771  \\

145:  40 & 8.04   &  -2.879 028 756 467 &  -2.879 028 763 935   & -2.879 028 7673  &  0.155 767 637 040 &  0.155 763 760  \\

146:  50 & 9.57   &  -2.879 028 763 441 &  -2.879 028 765 118   & -2.879 028 7670  &  0.155 765 847 239 &  0.155 763 757  \\

147:  60 & 11.10  &  -2.879 028 765 650 &  -2.879 028 765 650   & -2.879 028 7661  &  0.155 765 002 122 &  0.155 763 860 \\

148: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Decleva {\em et al} \cite{decleva95a}}  &  -2.879 028 767 289 \\ 

149: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Goldman {\em et al} \cite{goldman95a}}  &  -2.879 028 767 319 \\ 

150: \end{tabular} 

151: \end{ruledtabular}

152: \end{table*}

153: \endgroup

154: 

155: The radial basis sets used for the configuration interaction or 

156: many body perturbation theory treatments of atomic structure 

157: can be broadly divided into two classes.  In the first

158: class, one defines a box and a piece-wise polynomial (e.g a spline) 

159: is used to define the radial dependence of the wave function in the

160: interior of the box.  The properties of the radial basis are

161: determined by the size of the box, the number of knot points, and 

162: where they are located.  The other approach typically expands the 

163: wave function in terms of a basis of functions with a convenient 

164: analytic form, examples would be an evenly tempered set of Slater 

165: type orbitals (STOs) \cite{kutzelnigg92a,sims02a} (this type of 

166: basis set is often optimized 

167: with respect to a couple of parameters used to defined a sequence 

168: of exponents) or a set of Laguerre type orbitals (LTOs) 

169: \cite{shull55a,holoien56a,bromley02a}.  

170: 

171: The two most recent examples of these two approaches are the calculations 

172: by Decleva {\em et al} (B-splines) \cite{decleva95a} and Sims and Hagstrom 

173: (Slater basis) \cite{sims02a} which are the biggest calculations

174: of their respective type.  The B-spline calculation has given estimates

175: $\Delta E^{J}$ increments that are believed to be accurate to within 

176: $10^{-8}$ hartree or better.  One of the reasons this accuracy is 

177: possible is that $\Delta E^{J}$ varies smoothly as the number of knot

178: points is adjusted.  This made it possible to obtain reasonable 

179: estimates of the infinite basis limit.  Their estimate of the $s$-wave

180: limit was accurate to better than 10$^{-9}$ hartree.   Achieving this 

181: extreme level of accuracy was not possible when using the Slater basis 

182: \cite{sims02a} since linear dependence issues made it problematic to 

183: expand their radial basis to completeness. Indeed, resorting to REAL*24

184: arithmetic still resulted in an error of $4 \times 10^{-6}$ hartree.  

185: 

186: In some investigations of the convergence properties of the CI expansion

187: for the helium atom \cite{bromley06a} and mixed electron-positron systems 

188: \cite{mitroy06a} it became apparent that a better understanding of the 

189: issues that influence the convergence of the radial basis was desirable.

190: For example, it was apparent that the dimension of the radial basis

191: should be increased  as $J$ increases in order to ensure the successive 

192: $\Delta E^{J}$ increments are computed to the same relative accuracy 

193: \cite{kutzelnigg99a,mitroy06a,bromley06a}.  In addition, it was readily 

194: apparent that extrapolation of the radial LTO basis to the $N \to \infty$ 

195: limit was not straightforward.  

196: 

197: In this work, we investigate the radial convergence of the CI expansion 

198: for a more manageable model of the helium atom with the orbitals restricted 

199: to the $\ell = 0$ partial wave.   The linear dependence issues that are 

200: such a problem for a Slater basis are eliminated by choosing the radial 

201: basis to consist of LTOs \cite{goldman89a,bromley02a}, (formally, the 

202: LTO basis spans the same space as the common exponent Slater basis, 

203: i.e. $r^{n_i} \exp(-\lambda r)$).  We note in passing the previous

204: work of Hol{\o}ein \cite{holoien56a} who also investigated the convergence

205: of a (small) LTO basis for an $s$-wave model of helium.   Initially, 

206: we examine the merits of using an LTO basis with the exponent optimized 

207: to the basis dimension.  The nature of the asymptotic expansion for 

208: the energy increments is then deduced.  Finally, the density matrix for our

209: best wave function is diagonalized and the convergence properties of 

210: the natural orbital expansion are also determined.  As part of this

211: analysis, attention is also given to the convergence of the

212: electron-electron coalescence matrix element since it arises in 

213: calculations of the two-electron relativistic Darwin correction 

214: \cite{halkier00a} and electron-positron annihilation \cite{mitroy02b}.   

215: 

216:                                    

217: \section{The $s$-wave energy for helium}

218: 

219: The non-relativistic hamiltonian for the $^1S^e$ ground state of 

220: helium 

221: %

222: \begin{equation} 

223: H  =  - \sum_{i=1}^{N_e} \left( \frac {1}{2} \nabla_{i}^2 + \frac{2}{r_i} \right) 

224: + \frac{1}{r_{12}} \ , 

225: \end{equation} 

226: %

227: is diagonalized in a basis consisting of anti-symmetric products of 

228: single electron orbitals 

229: %

230: \begin{eqnarray}

231: |\Psi;S=0 \rangle = \sum_{i,j} c_{ij} \: \mathcal{A}_{12} \:

232:      \langle {\scriptstyle \frac12} \mu_i {\scriptstyle \frac12} \mu_j|0 0 \rangle                                                                                                  

233:    \phi_i({\bf r}_1) \phi_j({\bf r}_2)  .

234: \label{wvfn}

235: \end{eqnarray}

236: %

237: The functions $\phi({\bf r})$ are single electron orbitals

238: Laguerre functions with the radial form  

239: %

240: \begin{equation}

241: \chi _\alpha (r)=N_\alpha r^{\ell} \exp (-\lambda _\alpha r)

242: L_{n_\alpha -\ell - 1}^{(2\ell +2)}(2\lambda _\alpha r) \ ,

243: \label{LTO}

244: \end{equation}

245: %

246: where the normalization constant is

247: %                                                                              

248: \begin{equation}

249: N_\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{(2\lambda_\alpha) (n_\alpha-\ell-1)!}

250: {(\ell+n_\alpha+1)!}} \ .

251: \label{LTOnorm}

252: \end{equation}

253: %

254: The function $L_{n_\alpha-\ell-1}^{(2\ell +2)}(2 \lambda _\alpha r)$ is 

255: an associated Laguerre polynomial that can be defined in terms of a 

256: confluent hypergeometric function \cite{abramowitz72a,bromley02a,bromley02b}.

257: In the present work $\ell$ is set to zero.  The basis can be characterized 

258: by two parameters, $N$, the number of LTOs, and $\lambda$ the exponent 

259: characterizing the range of the LTOs.  It is normal to use a common 

260: exponent, $\lambda$ and when this is done the basis functions form 

261: an orthogonal set.  The exponent can be optimized to give the lowest

262: energy and when this is done  one can define $\lambda_M$ 

263: to be the value of optimal $\lambda$ for a basis

264: of dimension $M$.  The value of $\lambda_M$ was seen to increase $M$ 

265: increased.      

266: 

267: Calculations for basis sets with $\lambda_M$ optimized for dimensions 

268: of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 have been performed.  The optimal exponents 

269: are listed in Table \ref{Hetab1} along with the energy for those

270: values of $M$.   The calculations were expedited by using the result that

271: the two-electron Slater integrals for any $\lambda$ are related to 

272: each other by a very simple scaling relation. Accordingly, the list of

273: Slater integrals could be generated once (by numerical integration

274: using gaussian quadrature \cite{bromley02a}) for a given $\lambda$, and

275: then recycled by rescaling for calculations at different $\lambda$

276: (refer to Appendix B).

277: Calculations with $N$ ranging from 1 to 60 have been 

278: performed for the six values of $\lambda_M$ listed in Table \ref{Hetab1}.  

279: The dimension of the hamiltonian for the largest calculation was 1830.  

280: The quantities listed in the tables and the text are given in atomic units.

281: The most precise energy for the helium $s$-wave model is that of Goldman

282: \cite{goldman94a,goldman95a} who used a basis written in terms of

283: $r_{<}$, $r_{>}$ co-ordinates to obtain an energy of 

284: $E = -2.879 028 767 319 214$ hartree.

285:  

286: \subsection{Use of quadruple precision arithmetic}

287: 

288: The present calculations were all performed with quadruple

289: precision arithmetic.  It was only possible to get energies

290: precise to 13 significant digits for the largest calculations 

291: when double precision arithmetic was used.  This was caused 

292: by roundoff error gradually accumulating during the course

293: of the rather extensive calculations and the 13 digits appears 

294: to be the limit that can be achieved for double precision 

295: arithmetic (some experimentation revealed that the last 2 

296: digits of the 15 double precision digits were sensitive to 

297: different Fortran compilers and even the optimization options 

298: of those compilers).  The analysis requires investigation of 

299: the energy differences of eq.~(\ref{ENseries}), and these

300: energy differences can be rather small (e.g. 

301: $\Delta E^{60} = 1.5 \times 10^{-10}$ hartree for the 

302: $\lambda_{60}$ basis).  The fluctuations caused by roundoff

303: did have a noticeable impact on the parameters derived from

304: these energy differences at large $N$. These fluctuations

305: were removed once quadruple precision arithmetic was adopted.   

306: 

307: \section{Simple power law decay}

308: 

309: All observable quantities can be defined symbolically as  

310: %

311: \begin{equation}

312: \langle X \rangle^{N} = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \Delta X^{n} \ ,  

313: \label{XN1}

314: \end{equation}

315: %

316: where $\Delta X^{n}$ is the increment to the observable that occurs

317: when the basis dimension is increased from 

318: $n - 1$ to $n$, e.g.     

319: %

320: \begin{equation}

321: \Delta X^{n} = \langle X \rangle^{n} - \langle X \rangle^{n-1} \ . 

322: \label{XN2}

323: \end{equation}

324: %

325: Hence, one can express the limiting value formally as  

326: %

327: \begin{equation}

328: \langle X \rangle = \langle X \rangle^{N}  + \sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty} \Delta X^{n} \ .  

329: \label{XN3}

330: \end{equation}

331: % 

332: The first term on the right hand side will be determined by explicit 

333: computation while the second term will be estimated.  Obtaining an 

334: estimate of the remainder term does require some qualitative knowledge of

335: how the $\Delta X^{N}$ terms decay with $N$.  For example,  previous 

336: computational investigations indicate that the natural orbital decomposition 

337: leads to a $\Delta E^{N} \approx N^{-6}$ dependence \cite{bunge70a,carroll79a}.  

338: As far as we know, there have not been any detailed investigations of the 

339: $N$ dependence of a Laguerre basis.  

340: 

341: A useful way to analyze the convergence is to assume the increments 

342: obey a power law decay of the form

343: %

344: \begin{equation}

345: \Delta X^{N}  \sim  \frac{A_X}{N^p} \ ,      

346: \label{Xpdef} 

347: \end{equation}

348: %

349: and then determine the value of $p$ from two successive 

350: values of $\Delta X$ using 

351: %

352: \begin{equation}

353: p =   \ln \left(  \frac {\Delta X^{N-1}}{\Delta X^N} \right) \biggl/   

354:       \ln \left( \frac{N}{N-1} \right) \ .  

355: \label{pdef} 

356: \end{equation}

357: 

358: \begin{figure}[bth] 

359: \centering

360: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure1.eps}

361: \caption[]{

362: The exponents $p_E$ as a function of $N$ for the $s$-wave 

363: calculations of the He ground state.  The different curves

364: were obtained from the LTO basis sets with the exponents listed 

365: in Table \ref{Hetab1}. 

366: }

367: \label{pEHe}

368: \end{figure}

369: 

370: Figure \ref{pEHe} plots the exponent derived from the energy increments

371: for six different values of $\lambda_M$.   The succession of

372: curves show that $p_E$ tends to peak at values larger than 10 at an

373: intermediate $N$ and then shows a tendency to decrease.  The value at

374: $N = 60$ was $p_E \approx 3.7$ for the most of the curves shown in figure

375: \ref{pEHe}.

376: 

377: The salient point to be extracted from Figure \ref{pEHe} is that 

378: the value of $p_E$ for a given $\lambda_{M}$ at $N = M$ is quite 

379: different from the asymptotic value, e.g. the value of $p_E$ for 

380: the $\lambda_{20}$ curve is much larger at $N = 20$ than it is 

381: at $N = 60$. This is quite an 

382: annoying result.  Ideally, one would like to perform the largest 

383: calculation with the exponent optimized for that dimension basis.  

384: Then the specific form of the power law decay would be estimated 

385: by analyzing the energies obtained from a series of slightly 

386: smaller calculations.  This information would subsequently be used to 

387: estimate the energy or other expectation value in the variational

388: limit.  However, this is not possible since

389: the energy increments will not have achieved their asymptotic 

390: form.

391: 

392: \begin{figure}[th] 

393: \centering

394: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure2.eps}

395: \caption[]{

396: The extrapolated $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit for the He ground 

397: state energy for different values of $\lambda_M$.   

398: The exact $s$-wave energy is taken from the $J = 0$ calculation 

399: of Goldman \cite{goldman95a}. 

400: }

401: \label{HeEinf}

402: \end{figure}

403: 

404: Although there are problems in using an optimized exponent, it 

405: may still be possible to analyze a sequence of energies from a 

406: calculation with a non-optimized exponent and thereby estimate

407: the variational limit.  Assuming that the increments obey 

408: eq.~(\ref{Xpdef}), one can write  

409: %

410: \begin{equation}

411: A_X =   N^p \ \Delta X^{N} \ , 

412: \label{AEdef} 

413: \end{equation}

414: %

415: and thus the $n>N$ remainder term 

416: %

417: \begin{equation}

418: \sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty} \frac{A_X}{N^p } \approx  \frac{A_X}{(p-1)(N+{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})^{p-1} }  \ .

419: \label{remainder}

420: \end{equation}

421: %

422: can be derived from $\langle X \rangle^{N-2}$, $\langle X \rangle^{N-1}$ 

423: and $\langle X \rangle^{N}$ \cite{bromley06a,mitroy06a}.    

424: %

425: When this remainder was evaluated in this work, the first 10000 terms 

426: of the sum over $n$ were computed explicitly.  Then the approximate 

427: relation eq.~(\ref{remainder}) was used. 

428: 

429: Figure \ref{HeEinf} shows the estimated variational limit as a function

430: of $N$ for the $\lambda_i$ listed in Table \ref{Hetab1}.  An explicit 

431: calculation including $N$ LTOs was initially performed to determine 

432: $\langle E \rangle^{N}$. Then eq.~(\ref{remainder}) was used to estimate

433: the remainder and hence deduce the variational limit.  The variational

434: limits in Table \ref{Hetab1} were extracted from the calculations with

435: $N = 60$.   The exact variational limit can be predicted to the 9th digit 

436: after the decimal point.  The most inaccurate estimate of the 

437: variational limit is that from the $\lambda_{60}$ calculation.   

438: So the calculation that is explicitly optimized at $N = 60$, 

439: (i.e. with $\lambda_{60}$), and gives the best energy at $N = 60$, 

440: gives the worst estimate of the variational limit!    

441: 

442: A CI calculation of the Li$^+$ ground state restricted to the

443: $\ell = 0$ partial wave was also performed to check whether the 

444: conclusions above were peculiar to He.  Once again, the exponent 

445: $p_E$ was approximately 3.7 at $N = 60$ and the convergence pattern 

446: for $N < M$ was distorted by optimization of the exponent. 

447: 

448: \begin{figure}[th] 

449: \centering

450: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure3.eps}

451: \vspace{0.1cm}

452: \caption[]{

453: The estimated exponents $p_{\delta}$ as a function of $N$ for the 

454: LTO calculations of the He ground state $\langle \delta \rangle$.

455: The different curves were obtained with the LTO basis sets  

456: listed in Table \ref{Hetab1}. 

457: }

458: \label{pdHe}

459: \end{figure}

460: 

461: \section{The $\delta$-function expectation value} 

462: 

463: Part of the motivation for the present study is to gain a better

464: understanding of how to perform CI calculations for mixed 

465: electron-positron systems.   Apart from the energy, the next most 

466: important expectation value for a positronic system is the 

467: electron-positron annihilation rate \cite{mitroy02b}.  The 

468: annihilation rate is 

469: proportional to the expectation of the electron-positron delta 

470: function, and has the inconvenient property that it is even more 

471: slowly convergent than the energy \cite{bromley02a,bromley02e}.  

472: Accordingly, the convergence of the electron-electron 

473: $\delta$-function is investigated using the methodology 

474: previously used for the energy.   The only independent investigation 

475: of this quantity for an $s$-wave model of helium was by Halkier  

476: {\em et al} \cite{halkier00a} who obtained 0.155786 $a_0^3$.   

477: 

478: \begin{figure}[th] 

479: \centering

480: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure4.eps}

481: \vspace{0.1cm}

482: \caption[]{

483: The convergence of $\langle \delta \rangle$ for the He ground state 

484: as a function of $N$.  The absolute value of the difference of the 

485: extrapolated $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit subtracted from $0.1557637174$ 

486: $a_0^3$ is plotted.       

487: }

488: \label{Hedinf}

489: \end{figure}

490: 

491: Figure \ref{pdHe} tracks the behavior of the exponent $p_{\delta}$ 

492: derived from eq.~(\ref{pdef}). It can be seen that $p_{\delta}$ achieves 

493: values exceeding 10 before it decreases to its asymptotic values.  

494: The present calculations give $p_{\delta} \approx 2.6$ at $N=60$ 

495: although $p_{\delta}$ is still exhibiting a slow but steady decrease.  

496: 

497: Although distortions in the convergence pattern are still present,

498: they are less severe than the energy since the successive 

499: $\Delta \delta^N$ increments are larger.  As a 

500: rule, $p_{\delta}$ was at least 10$\%$ larger than 2.6 at $N = M$.

501: A choice of $N \ge (M\!+\!10)$ would generally lead to $p_{\delta}$ 

502: being in the asymptotic region. 

503: 

504: Figure \ref{Hedinf} shows the estimated variational limit of 

505: $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ as a function of $N$ for the six 

506: different values of $\lambda_M$ listed in Table  \ref{Hetab1}.   

507: An explicit calculation including $N$ LTOs was initially performed, 

508: then eq.~(\ref{remainder}) was used to estimate the variational limit.   

509: A variational limit of $\langle \delta \rangle = 0.1557637174(2)$ $a_0^3$ 

510: (see later discussion) was assumed for plotting purposes.  The notable

511: feature is that the $\lambda_{60}$ estimate of the limit at $N = 60$ 

512: is one of the least accurate. 

513: 

514: \section{A closer look at the asymptotic power laws} 

515:   

516: Figures \ref{pEHe2} and \ref{pdHe2} show the behavior of the $p_E$ and 

517: $p_\delta$ versus $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ for values of $N$ greater than 

518: 16.  Curves are not shown for all the $\lambda_M$ exponents.  In some

519: cases, the values of $p_\delta$ did not fall within the plotting window.  

520:    

521: The notable feature to be gleaned from both set of curves is the essentially 

522: linear behavior $p_{\rm delta}$ with respect to $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ for 

523: values of $N$ greater than 16 and a visual inspection suggests that the 

524: limiting exponents is $p_{\delta} = 2.5$.  The purely visual evidence

525: that the lowest order term of $p_E$ is $O(N^{-1/2})$ is not as compelling 

526: as that for $p_{\rm delta}$, but by analogy with this form has been

527: assumed and subjected to extensive testing.

528: 

529: More substantial evidence is

530: provided by a fit of the $p$ vs $N$ data to an inverse power series 

531: of the form      

532: %

533: \begin{eqnarray} 

534: p &=& p_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_p} \frac{p_i}{\sqrt{N^{i}}} \ .   

535: \label{panalysis} 

536: \end{eqnarray} 

537: % 

538: What we have done is fit $(N_p+1)$ successive $p_E$ or $p_{\delta}$ 

539: values to eq.~(\ref{panalysis}) for the $\lambda_{10}$ data sequence.

540: The results of those fits are given in Table \ref{Nlimits}. 

541: 

542: Using a 4 or 5 term fits (and 6 term fit in the case of $p_E$) 

543: results in limiting exponents very close to either 3.5 

544: (for $p_E$) or 2.5 (for $p_{\delta}$).    

545: These estimates were also reasonably stable.  For example,

546: the value of $p_E$ for a 5-term fit for a data sequence 

547: terminating at $N = 50$ (as opposed to $N = 60$ in Table  

548: \ref{Nlimits}) was 3.4970.   

549: 

550: \begingroup

551: \begin{table}[bth]

552: \caption[]{ Results of using 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 term inverse power series

553: (corresponding to $N_p = 1, 2, 3, 4$ and 6) 

554: to determine the limiting value of the exponents and the energy

555: and $\delta$-function (in $a_0^3$).  The results for the LTO

556: data sequences were taken from the largest calculations for the 

557: $\lambda_{10}$ exponents.  The results for the NO data sequences 

558: were extracted at $N = 20$ while those for the energy optimized LTO

559: sequence were determined at $N = 30$. Data entries with an asterisk, 

560: $^*$, were obtained using a weighted average (as described in the text) 

561: due to fluctuations depending on whether the $N$ was even or odd.  

562: }

563: \label{Nlimits}

564: \vspace{0.2cm}

565: \begin{ruledtabular}

566: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}

567: $N_p$ & $p_0$  & $p_1$  & $A_X$ &  $\langle X \rangle^{\infty}$  \\ \hline   

568:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{LTO data sequence: $\lambda_{10}$ basis} \\  

569:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle E \rangle$} \\  

570:  1 &   3.4310  & 2.0481  & -0.00182 & -2.879 028 767 0519  \\

571:  2 &   3.5121  & 1.1301  & -0.00225 & -2.879 028 767 3496  \\

572:  3 &   3.4978  & 1.1267  & -0.00212 & -2.879 028 767 3154  \\

573:  4 &   3.4988  & 1.0958  & -0.00215  & -2.879 028 767 3196  \\

574:  5 &   3.5012  & 1.0032  & -0.00215  & -2.879 028 767 31920  \\

575:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle \delta \rangle$} \\ 

576:  1 &   2.4809 &  0.9444   & -0.00535  & 0.155 763 7540   \\ 

577:  2 &   2.4975 &  0.6872   & -0.00562  & 0.155 763 7156  \\

578:  3 &   2.5024 &  0.5760   & -0.00560  & 0.155 763 7172 \\

579:  4 &   2.4989 &  0.6810   & -0.00559  & 0.155 763 7174  \\

580:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{NO data sequence} \\  

581:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle E \rangle$} \\  

582:  1 &   5.9916  & 2.7712  & -0.2959  &  -2.879 028 767 3054  \\

583:  2 &   5.9971  & 2.5553  & -0.2995  &  -2.879 028 767 3176  \\

584:  3 &   5.9959  & 2.6256  & -0.2996  &  -2.879 028 767 3177  \\

585:  4 &   5.9671  & 4.7513  & -0.2999  &  -2.879 028 767 3179  \\

586:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle \delta \rangle$} \\ 

587:  1 &   3.9973     &  1.620$^*$ & -0.1957  &  0.155 763 7197  \\ 

588:  2 &   3.9980$^*$ &  1.681$^*$ & -0.1962$^*$  &  0.155 763 7177$^*$  \\

589:  3 &   3.9997$^*$ &  1.599$^*$ & -0.1963$^*$ &  0.155 763 7175$^*$  \\

590:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{Energy optimized LTO data sequence} \\  

591:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle E \rangle$} \\  

592:  1 &   5.6562  & 149.13  & -1.543  &  -2.879 028 767 3333  \\

593:     \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle \delta \rangle$} \\ 

594:  1 &   3.8093$^*$     &  0.3839$^*$ & -0.3879$^*$  &  0.155 763 7191$^*$  \\ 

595: \end{tabular} 

596: \end{ruledtabular}

597: \end{table}

598: \endgroup

599: 

600: 

601: The validity of the series, eq.~(\ref{panalysis}) immediately  

602: suggests that the asymptotic forms for $\Delta E^N$ are   

603: %

604: \begin{eqnarray} 

605: \Delta E^N &=& \frac{A_E}{N^{7/2}} + \frac{B_E}{N^{8/2}} + \frac{C_E}{N^{9/2}} + \ldots  

606: \label{Eseries2} \\ 

607: \Delta \delta^N &=& \frac{A_{\delta}}{N^{5/2}} + \frac{B_{\delta}}{N^{6/2}} + \frac{C_{\delta}}{N^{7/2}} + \ldots 

608: \label{dseries} 

609: \end{eqnarray} 

610: % 

611: (In Appendix A it is demonstrated that an exponent variation of 

612: $p = p_0 + B/\sqrt{N}$ arises from an inverse power series in 

613: $\Delta X^N$ with a leading term of $B/N^{p_0}$ and with the power increasing 

614: by $\sqrt{N}$ for successive terms).  Although eqs.~(\ref{Eseries2}) 

615: and (\ref{dseries}) are best described as a conjecture, the 

616: numerical evidence in support of the conjecture will be

617: seen to be strong.  

618: 

619: The applicability and utility of eqs.~(\ref{Eseries2}) and (\ref{dseries})

620:  was tested by fitting these equations to $\langle E \rangle^N$ and 

621: $\langle \delta \rangle^{N}$  values and then using eq.~(\ref{remainder}) 

622: to determine the $N \to \infty$  limits for the individual terms.  Asymptotic 

623: series with up to 5-terms (i.e. $N_p = 4$) were also investigated.

624: 

625: \begin{figure}[th] 

626: \centering

627: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure5.eps}

628: \caption[]{

629: The exponents $p_E$ as a function of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ for the $s$-wave 

630: calculations of the He ground state.  The different curves were obtained 

631: from the LTO basis sets with the exponents listed 

632: in Table \ref{Hetab1}. 

633: }

634: \label{pEHe2}

635: \end{figure}

636: 

637: Figure \ref{HeEinf3} shows $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ for the 

638: $\lambda_{10}$ basis using the asymptotic series of different 

639: lengths  to estimate the $N \to \infty$ correction.  It is noticeable 

640: that all the representations of eq.~(\ref{Eseries2}) exhibit 

641: better convergence properties than eq.~(\ref{Xpdef}) and the 6-term 

642: representation has the best convergence characteristics for $N>30$.  

643: (It should be noted that the 3-, 4-, 5- and 6- term extrapolations to 

644: $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ exhibited fluctuations of order 10$^{-5}$ 

645: to 10$^{-9}$ hartree when the calculation was performed in double

646: precision arithmetic).  The increasingly better convergence 

647: characteristics as $N_p$ increases is consistent with  

648: eq.~(\ref{Eseries2}) being the asymptotic form describing the

649: energy convergence with respect to a LTO basis.  The estimated

650: $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ limits at $N = 60$ for the various 

651: asymptotic expressions are given in Table \ref{Nlimits}.  The 6-term

652: estimate was $\langle E \rangle^{\infty} = -2.879 028 767 31920$ 

653: hartree which agrees with the value of Goldman, namely 

654: $E  = -2.879 028 767 31921$ by $1 \times 10^{-14}$ hartree.  The

655: precision of the extrapolated value exceeds the precision 

656: of raw $\langle E \rangle^{60}$ energy by a factor of 1,000,000! 

657: This improvement is best placed in perspective by noting 

658: that the $\lambda_{10}$ calculation would have to be extended

659: to $N \approx 10^6$ to achieve the same level of precision.

660: 

661: This extreme accuracy is not reproduced if one uses other 

662: forms for the asymptotic series.  For example, making the

663: choice $\Delta E^N = A_E/N^{4} + B_E/N^5 + \ldots$ results

664: in much poorer estimates of $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$.  Using

665: a 4-term series for the $\lambda_{10}$ basis set for this 

666: asymptotic series gave  

667: $\langle E \rangle^{\infty} = -2.879 028 802 777$ hartree

668: which is in error by $3.5 \times 10^{-7}$ hartree.  

669: 

670: The ability to accurately predict $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ using 

671: eq.~(\ref{Eseries2}) has been tested for other values of $\lambda$.  

672: Making the choice $\lambda = \lambda_{20}$ gave 

673: $\langle E \rangle^{\infty} = -2.879 028 767 31919$ hartree when the 

674: 6-term series was used to make the extrapolation.  In summary, there 

675: is strong numerical evidence that eq.~(\ref{Eseries2}) correctly 

676: describes the convergence of the energy with $N$.   

677: 

678: \begin{figure}[th] 

679: \centering

680: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure6.eps}

681: \vspace{0.1cm}

682: \caption[]{

683: The estimated exponents $p_{\delta}$ as a function of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ 

684: for the LTO calculations of the He ground state $\langle \delta \rangle$.

685: The different curves

686: were obtained from the LTO basis sets with the exponents listed 

687: in Table \ref{Hetab1}. 

688: }

689: \label{pdHe2}

690: \end{figure}

691: 

692: The slower convergence of the electron-electron $\delta$-function as

693: $\Delta \delta ^N \approx A/N^{5/2}$ means that the ability to 

694: extrapolate to the $N \to \infty$ limit is even more important in

695: obtaining accurate expectation values.    

696: Figure \ref{Hedinf3} shows the $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ 

697: estimates for the $\lambda_{10}$ basis while using eq.~(\ref{Xpdef}) 

698: and eq.~(\ref{dseries}) to describe the large $N$ limiting behavior.  

699: It is noticed that the convergence improved as $N_p$ increased 

700: as long as $N$ was sufficiently large.  Choosing $N > (M+10)$ 

701: would seem to be sufficient for 2-term or 3-term fits to 

702: eq.~(\ref{dseries}).  The specific numerical estimates of 

703: $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ for various extrapolations at 

704: $N = 60$ are given in Table \ref{Nlimits}.  The 5-term fit gave 

705: $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty} = 0.155 763 7174$ $a_0^3$.  

706: Given that  $\langle \delta \rangle^{60}$ for the $\lambda_{10}$ 

707: basis was 0.155 772 7974 $a_0^3$, the improvement in precision 

708: from the 5-term expansion corresponds to 4-5 orders of magnitude.   

709: This result is not specific to the $\lambda_{10}$ basis.  Usage 

710: of the $\lambda_{20}$ basis resulted in an estimate of 

711: $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty} = 0.155 763 7175$ $a_0^3$.

712: Given these results it would seem reasonable to assign a value 

713: of $0.155 763 7174(2)$ $a_0^3$ to $\langle \delta \rangle$.  

714: This is the value that was adopted as the ``exact'' value when 

715: plotting Figures \ref{Hedinf}  and \ref{Hedinf3}.    

716: 

717: \begin{figure}[th] 

718: \centering

719: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure7.eps}

720: \vspace{0.1cm}

721: \caption[]{

722: The extrapolated $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit for the He ground 

723: state energy obtained from the different asymptotic expansions.  

724: The energy sequence from the $\lambda_{10}$ was used. 

725: The exact $s$-wave energy as given by 

726: the calculation of Goldman {\em et al} \cite{decleva95a} is

727: subtracted from the energy.   

728: }

729: \label{HeEinf3}

730: \end{figure}

731: 

732: \begin{figure}

733: \centering

734: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure8.eps}

735: \vspace{0.1cm}

736: \caption[]{

737: The extrapolated $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit for the He ground 

738: state $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ for the different 

739: extrapolation methods applied to the $\lambda_{10}$ basis as 

740: described in the text.  

741: }

742: \label{Hedinf3}

743: \end{figure}

744: 

745: The more sophisticated extrapolations shown in Figure \ref{Hedinf3}   

746: exhibit even-odd fluctuations at the lower values of $N$ and 

747: led us to omit consideration of a 6-term fit. These

748: fluctuations are believed to arise from structural features

749: of the helium ground state for reasons outlined in the next 

750: section.       

751:   

752: \section{Convergence of a Natural Orbital basis}

753: 

754: The asymptotic form of the energy for a wave function written in terms 

755: of its natural orbital decomposition \cite{shull55a,lowdin56a,carroll79a} 

756: has also been re-examined for s-wave helium.  First a very large 

757: calculation of the ground state wave function with a basis of 70 LTOs 

758: ($\lambda = 11.10$) was performed.  The one electron density matrix 

759: was then diagonalized and the resulting natural orbitals were

760: used to define a new orbital basis ordered in terms of decreasing  

761: ground state occupancy.   In its natural orbital form, the

762: wave function for a $^1S^e$ state is written    

763: %

764: \begin{eqnarray}

765: |\Psi \rangle = \sum_{i} d_{i} \: \mathcal{A}_{ij} \:

766:      \langle {\scriptstyle \frac12} \mu_i {\scriptstyle \frac12} \mu_j|0 0 \rangle                                                                                                  

767:     \phi_i({\bf r}_1) \phi_i({\bf r}_2)  \; .

768: \label{wvfnno}

769: \end{eqnarray}

770: %

771: The natural orbital expansion is usually ordered in terms of

772: decreasing $|d_i|$.   

773:  

774: Table \ref{NOtab} gives $\langle E \rangle$ and $\langle \delta \rangle$ 

775: for the sequence of increasingly larger NO expansions.  For these 

776: calculations, the generated NOs were added successively and 

777: $\langle E \rangle^N$ and $\langle \delta \rangle^N$ computed once 

778: the hamiltonian was diagonalized.  The

779: calculations were taken up to a maximum NO expansion length of

780: 20.  The LTO basis of dimension 70 was not large enough to give

781: a precise representation of the NOs beyond that point.  The energies 

782: in the table are expected to be accurate estimates of the 

783: ``exact'' NO energy for all digits with the possible exception 

784: of the last two.  The energies in Table \ref{NOtab} are 

785: slightly lower than the  previous tabulations of the $s$-wave NO 

786: energies by Carroll {\em et al} \cite{carroll79a} and Goldman 

787: \cite{goldman95a}.  We treat the NO orbitals merely as a

788: particularly optimal set of orbitals to input into a CI

789: calculations.  So unlike Carroll {\em et al} and Goldman 

790: the configuration space is not restricted to only include

791: $\phi_i({\bf r}_1) \phi_i({\bf r}_2)$ type configurations.  

792: It should be noted that we have also done some calculations

793: using the pure NO configuration space and when this is done

794: the energies agree with those of Carroll {\em et al} and 

795: Goldman to all digits.   The $\langle \delta \rangle^N$ 

796: values in Table \ref{NOtab} are expected to approximate  

797: those of the ``exact'' basis to about to 10 digits. 

798: 

799: Figure \ref{pNOHe} shows the variation of $p_E$ and $p_{\delta}$ 

800: versus $1/N$ for a sequence of increasingly larger NO calculations 

801: up to $N = 20$.  The visual inspection of the $p_X$ vs $1/N$ 

802: curve immediately suggests that $p_E = 6 + A/N + \ldots$ and    

803: $p_{\delta} = 4 + A/N + \ldots$.  The supposition has been

804: confirmed by doing fits to the asymptotic form 

805: %

806: \begin{eqnarray} 

807: p &=& p_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N_p} \frac{p_i}{N^{i}} \ ,  

808: \label{panalysis2} 

809: \end{eqnarray} 

810: % 

811: for increasingly larger values of $N_p$.  The results for $p_0$ 

812: and $p_1$ are given in Table \ref{Nlimits}.  The present calculations 

813: give $p_0$ values of 5.992, 5.997 and 5.996  (the 5-term series which gave

814: $p_0 = 5.967$ is likely to be more susceptible to small imperfections 

815: in the NOs).   A least-squares fit to the function  $p_E = p_0 + p_1/N^t$ 

816: over the $N \in [11,20]$ interval gave $p_0 = 6.0005$ and $t = 1.070$.  

817: A least-squares fit to the function  $p_{\delta} = p_0 + p_1/N^t$ 

818: over the $N \in [11,20]$ interval gave $p_0 = 3.992$ and $t = 0.9174$.  

819: A small even-odd ripple was present in the $p_{\delta}$ vs $N$ graph.  

820: 

821: \begin{figure}[th] 

822: \centering

823: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure9.eps}

824: \vspace{0.1cm}

825: \caption[]{

826: The estimated exponents $p_E$, $p_{\delta}$ and $p_r$ as a function of 

827: $\frac{1}{N}$ for the NO expansion of He ground state. The value

828: of $p_r$ shows strong even-odd oscillations.   

829: }

830: \label{pNOHe}

831: \end{figure}

832: 

833: The linear variation of $p_X$ vs $1/N$ indicates the asymptotic

834: series 

835: %

836: \begin{eqnarray} 

837: \Delta E^N &=& \frac{A_E}{N^{6}} + \frac{B_E}{N^{7}} + \frac{C_E}{N^{8}} + \ldots  

838: \label{NOEseries} \\ 

839: \Delta \delta^N &=& \frac{A_{\delta}}{N^{4}} + \frac{B_{\delta}}{N^{5}} + \frac{C_{\delta}}{N^{6}} + \ldots 

840: \label{NOdseries} 

841: \end{eqnarray} 

842: for the variation of the $\Delta E^N$ and $\Delta \delta^N$ with $N$.   

843: The $O(N^{-6})$ variation of $\Delta E^N$ has been known since the

844: work of Carroll {\em et al} \cite{carroll79a}.   The present

845: calculations give a more precise determination of the exponent.  

846: The value of $p \approx 5.7$ previously reported by 

847: Goldman \cite{goldman95a} can be discounted.

848: Besides giving the leading order term with increased 

849: precision, the present calculations also demonstrate the order of the 

850: next term in the asymptotic series is $O(N^{-7})$ and thereby strengthen

851: the justification of asymptotic series based on expansions of the

852: principal quantum number \cite{klopper99a}.  

853: 

854: The best NO estimate of $\langle E \rangle^{\infty}$ in Table \ref{Nlimits} 

855: was about an order of magnitude less accurate than that obtained from 

856: the LTO calculation.   This was not unexpected since the values of 

857: $\langle E \rangle^N$ in Table \ref{NOtab} are not the ``exact'' NO 

858: energies, merely very good estimates of these energies.  Also, use of

859: the NO basis inevitably means a more complicated calculation, and so

860: it is more likely to be affected by round-off errors and discretization

861: errors in the numerical quadratures.     

862: 

863: The coefficient of the leading order term for $\Delta E$ was -0.2999 

864: hartree  which is a bit larger in magnitude than the value initially 

865: given by Carroll {\em et al} \cite{carroll79a}, namely -0.24 hartree.

866: This level of agreement is acceptable given the fact that Carroll 

867: {\em et al} actually use a slightly different $A_E/(N-1/2)^{-6}$ 

868: functional form (and do not allow for higher order terms) and

869: extract the value of $A_E$ at $N \approx 10$ which is too 

870: low to extract the asymptotic value of $A_E$ (the value of 

871: $A_E$ varies by more than 10$\%$ between $N = 10$ and $N=20$ 

872: for a single-term asymptotic formula).  The precision of the 

873: Carroll {\em et al} calculation is also less than that

874: of the present calculation (they obtained -2.879028765 hartree as 

875: their variational limit).     

876: 

877: The leading order term for the variation of $\Delta \delta^N$ with $N$

878: was $O(N^{-4})$.  This dependence is consistent with earlier work of 

879: Halkier {\em et al} \cite{halkier00a} who found that the variation of 

880: $\Delta \delta^X$ with $X$ to be $O(X^{-2})$ where $X$ is the principal

881: quantum number of the natural orbital. When analyzing this set of data

882: it was discovered that there were regular fluctuations in the derived 

883: parameters as a function of $N$ as the analysis was made more

884: sophisticated.  When the 3-term approximation to eq.~(\ref{panalysis}) 

885: was used the value of $p_0$ oscillated between 3.94 and 4.06 

886: depending on whether $N$ was even or odd (the oscillations in 

887: $p_1$ were more marked).  The oscillations became larger for the

888: 4-term fit, here it was found that the $p_0$ typically flipped

889: between 3.4  and 4.6.  The actual values given in Table \ref{Nlimits} 

890: were obtained by weighted average, e.g.    

891: $p_0 = 0.25 p_0(N\!=\!19) + 0.50 p_0(N\!=\!20) + 0.25p_0(N\!=\!21)$.  

892: 

893: These oscillations are most likely due to the physical properties

894: of the basis set expansion of the He ground state.  It has been known

895: for a long time that treating the two electrons as an inner and

896: outer electron can lead to a better description of the radial

897: correlations \cite{shull56a,sims02a}.   With the electrons having a 

898: tendency to separate into inner and outer radial orbitals the

899: possibility does exist that achieving this separation might be

900: slightly easier or harder if there are an even or odd number

901: of NOs.  It must be recalled that NOs themselves are objects 

902: that depend on the electron dynamics. The convergence of the 

903: mean electron-nucleus distance, i.e.  $\langle r \rangle$ 

904: was also examined and the convergence pattern  was quite 

905: irregular.  Defining $p_r$ using eq.~(\ref{pdef}) results in the

906: strongly oscillating plot of $p_r$ vs $1/N$ observed in Figure 

907: \ref{pNOHe}.  The oscillations disappear if $\langle r \rangle^N$ 

908: for only even $N$ (or only odd $N$) are used in a slightly 

909: modified version of eq.~(\ref{pdef}) and one finds the leading 

910: order term in $\Delta r^N$ is $O(N^{-6})$.  It should be

911: noted that similar even-odd fluctuations have also been 

912: observed in high precision calculations using correlated 

913: basis sets \cite{schiff65,drake99a,klopper99a}.

914: 

915: \begingroup

916: \begin{table}[bth]

917: \caption[]{ The term by term energy and $\langle \delta \rangle$

918: -function (in $a_0^3$) expectation values for the NO basis.

919: }

920: \label{NOtab}

921: \vspace{0.5cm}

922: \begin{ruledtabular}

923: \begin{tabular}{lcc}

924: $N$ & $\langle E \rangle^N$  & $\langle \delta \rangle^N$   \\ \hline   

925:   1 &   -2.861 531 101 7265   &    0.190 249 652 529   \\

926:   2 &   -2.877 929 200 9378   &    0.161 369 548 453   \\

927:   3 &   -2.878 844 196 5241   &    0.157 747 352 993   \\

928:   4 &   -2.878 980 288 7909   &    0.156 661 432 897   \\ 

929:   5 &   -2.879 012 046 8823   &    0.156 240 259 959   \\

930:   6 &   -2.879 021 844 0177   &    0.156 045 264 861   \\

931:   7 &   -2.879 025 501 6647   &    0.155 943 428 536   \\                 

932:   8 &   -2.879 027 069 6581   &    0.155 885 238 797   \\ 

933:   9 &   -2.879 027 815 8906   &    0.155 849 654 582   \\  

934:  10 &   -2.879 028 201 2549   &    0.155 826 694 126   \\ 

935:  11 &   -2.879 028 413 7401   &    0.155 811 228 411   \\      

936:  12 &   -2.879 028 537 3691   &    0.155 800 434 791   \\               

937:  13 &   -2.879 028 612 5987   &    0.155 792 675 857   \\               

938:  14 &   -2.879 028 660 1493   &    0.155 786 956 341   \\

939:  15 &   -2.879 028 691 2007   &    0.155 782 648 350   \\

940:  16 &   -2.879 028 712 0592   &    0.155 779 342 132   \\

941:  17 &   -2.879 028 726 4219   &    0.155 776 762 792   \\

942:  18 &   -2.879 028 736 5303   &    0.155 774 721 119   \\

943:  19 &   -2.879 028 743 7842   &    0.155 773 084 071   \\

944:  20 &   -2.879 028 749 0810   &    0.155 771 756 198   \\

945: \end{tabular} 

946: \end{ruledtabular}

947: \end{table}

948: \endgroup

949: 

950: The asymptotic behavior of the natural orbital configuration coefficients 

951: were also determined.  The coefficients are the $d_i$ in eq.~(\ref{wvfnno}).

952: Assuming that the $d_i$ scale as an inverse power series, 

953: $d_i \approx A_d/i^p_{\rm NO}$ gives 

954: %

955: \begin{equation}

956: p_{\rm NO} =   \ln \left(  \frac { d_i^{N}}{d_{i-1}^N} \right) \biggl/   

957:       \ln \left( \frac{i}{i-1} \right) \ .  

958: \label{pNOdef} 

959: \end{equation}

960: %

961: A fit of $p$ to $i$ using the formula   

962: %

963: \begin{eqnarray} 

964: p_{\rm NO} &=& p_0 + \frac{p_1}{i} + \frac{p_2}{i^2} \ ,   

965: \label{pNOanalysis} 

966: \end{eqnarray} 

967: % 

968: gave values of $p_0$ that ranged from 3.998 to 4.003 for

969: successive fits to the 3 previous values for $i$-values 

970: between 12 and 20 for the $\lambda_{60}$ basis.  It was 

971: found that    

972: %

973: \begin{eqnarray} 

974: d_i \approx \frac{0.362}{i^4} + \frac{0.589}{i^5} + \frac{1.492}{i^6} \ ,   

975: \end{eqnarray} 

976: % 

977: at $i = 20$.  Carroll {\em et al} obtained the result   

978: $d_i \approx \frac{0.271}{(i-1/2)^4}$ \cite{carroll79a}.

979: %

980: 

981: \section{Convergence of an Optimized basis}

982: 

983: In this section the convergence properties of the LTO basis which 

984: is energy optimized at each $N$ are studied.  Developing the 

985: sequence of exponents $\lambda_M$ that gave the lowest energy 

986: for a LTO basis of dimension $M$ was tedious.  Defining 

987: $\delta \langle E \rangle$ and $\delta \langle \delta \rangle$ 

988: as the differences in $\langle E \rangle$ and 

989: $\langle \delta \rangle$ arising from an imprecisely known 

990: $\lambda_M$, one has the relations  

991: %

992: \begin{eqnarray} 

993: \delta \langle E \rangle & \approx & A (\delta \lambda)^2 \\  

994: \delta \langle \delta \rangle & \approx & B (\delta \lambda)  \ .   

995: \end{eqnarray} 

996: % 

997: The quadratic dependence of $\delta \langle E \rangle$ with respect 

998: to  $\delta \lambda$ does make it easier to generate the sequence 

999: of $\langle E \rangle^N$ values.  But this quadratic dependence upon

1000: $\delta \lambda$ does make it harder to determine $\lambda_M$

1001: since the energy only depends weakly on $\lambda$ in the vicinity 

1002: of the minimum.  Since $\delta \langle \delta \rangle$ depends 

1003: linearly on $\delta \lambda$, any imprecision in $\lambda_M$ 

1004: impacts the  precision of the $\langle \delta \rangle^N$ sequence

1005: more severely.

1006: 

1007: Some specific data can be used to put this in perspective.  The 

1008: $\lambda_M$ for $M = 1,\ldots,30$ have been determined to a 

1009: precision for $10^{-6}$ for the calculations reported in this 

1010: section.  These gave an energy that was accurate to $10^{-18}$ 

1011: hartree for the $M=15$ calculation, but $\langle \delta \rangle$ 

1012: was only known to a precision of $10^{-11}$ $a_0^3$.  Determination of 

1013: $\langle \delta \rangle$ to a precision of $10^{-15}$ $a_0^3$ would 

1014: require fixing $\lambda_M$ with an accuracy of $10^{-10}$ which 

1015: would necessitate an energy given to a accuracy of $10^{-26}$ hartree.  

1016: 

1017: The behavior of $p_E$ and $p_{\delta}$ vs $N$ was sufficiently 

1018: complicated that an initial least squares fit to the equation

1019: $p = p_0 + p_1/N^t$ was performed for $N \in [18,30]$.  The

1020: results of the fit gave 

1021: %

1022: \begin{eqnarray} 

1023: p_E &=& 5.6562 + \frac{15.69}{N^{2.7326}}  \\   

1024: p_{\delta} &=& 3.8093 - \frac{0.3832}{N^{0.5438}}  \ .    

1025: \label{panalysis3} 

1026: \end{eqnarray} 

1027: %

1028: The distinctive aspect about the fit is the difference in the leading 

1029: terms of the inverse power series for $p_E$ and $p_{\delta}$.   

1030: Figure \ref{pOPTHe} shows that variation of $p_E$  for the optimized 

1031: LTO basis as a function of $1/N^{2.7326} $ up to $N = 30$.  The

1032: plot of $p_{\delta}$ is tending to curl up for the smallest values

1033: of $1/N^{2.7326}$ because it is not linear in $1/N^{2.7326}$.

1034:  

1035: \begin{figure}[th] 

1036: \centering

1037: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{figure10.eps}

1038: \vspace{0.1cm}

1039: \caption[]{

1040: The estimated exponents $p_E$ and $p_{\delta}$ as a function of 

1041: $N^{-2.7326}$ for the optimized basis.  The variation of 

1042: $p_{\delta}$ with $N^{-2.7326}$ is not expected to be 

1043: linear.

1044: }

1045: \label{pOPTHe}

1046: \end{figure}

1047: 

1048: Another notable feature of Figure \ref{pOPTHe} were the oscillations in 

1049: $p_E$ and $p_{\delta}$ for even and odd values of $N$.  Oscillations

1050: in $p_{\delta}$ were previously seen for the NO sequence but the

1051: $p_{\delta}$ oscillations in Figure \ref{pOPTHe} are more pronounced 

1052: than those in Figure \ref{pNOHe}.  Some of the values in Table 

1053: \ref{Nlimits} were given using the 3-point averaging used previously 

1054: for the Natural Orbital sequence.  

1055: 

1056: The asymptotic analysis to determine the variational limits were

1057: performed with the following series  

1058: %

1059: \begin{eqnarray} 

1060: \Delta E^N &=& \frac{A_E}{N^{5.6562}} + \frac{B_E}{N^{8.3888}}   

1061: \label{Eseries3} \\ 

1062: \Delta \delta^N &=& \frac{A_{\delta}}{N^{3.8093}} + \frac{B_{\delta}}{N^{4.3531}} \ . 

1063: \label{dseries2} 

1064: \end{eqnarray} 

1065: %

1066: The results of the analysis are given in Table \ref{Nlimits}.  

1067: The energy is predicted with an accuracy of $10^{-10}$ hartree

1068: while $\langle \delta \rangle^{\infty}$ is given to an accuracy 

1069: of 10$^{-8}$ $a_0^3$.  Equations (\ref{Eseries3}) and 

1070: (\ref{dseries2}) were not worth extending to include more 

1071: terms.  The power of the next term in eq.~(\ref{Eseries3}) is 

1072: not obvious (refer to the Appendix A) and the oscillations in 

1073: $p_{\delta}$ to a certain extent negate the value of 

1074: extending eq.~(\ref{dseries2}) to include additional terms

1075: (even if we knew what those terms were!). 

1076: 

1077: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1078: 

1079: Results of a sequence of CI calculations of the He ground state 

1080: with an $\ell = 0$ basis have been presented.  This can be regarded

1081: as the simplest model of a real atom that has a correlation cusp.

1082: The energy dependence of the LTO basis was $\Delta E \approx O(N^{-7/2})$.

1083: This rather slow convergence rate can be improved by fitting a 

1084: succession of $\langle E \rangle^N$ values to the inverse power 

1085: series $\Delta E^J = A_E/N^{-7/2} + B_E/N^{-8/2} + \ldots$ and 

1086: estimating the $N \to \infty$ limit.  It ultimately proved 

1087: possible after adopting quadruple precision arithmetic, to 

1088: reproduce the known energy in this model to an accuracy of 

1089: $1 \times 10^{-14}$ hartree.  The specific choice of the 

1090: asymptotic series should be regarded as conjecture supported 

1091: by numerical evidence.  More definite proof would require the 

1092: calculations to be extended to $N > 100$.  The common exponent 

1093: of the LTO basis should not be chosen to optimize the energy 

1094: for the largest calculation since this results in a distorted

1095: convergence pattern.   In effect, optimizing the LTO exponent 

1096: for $N$ LTOs, and then using the $(N\!-\!3)$, $(N\!-\!2)$,

1097: $(N\!-\!1)$ and $N$ energies to determine the coefficients of 

1098: a 3-term expansion to eq.~(\ref{Eseries2}) will give an inaccurate 

1099: estimate of the energy correction needed to achieve the 

1100: variational limit.  Any extrapolation would seem to require 

1101: that $N$ (the number of LTOs) should exceed $M$ (the basis 

1102: dimension at which $\lambda$ was optimized) by about ten or more.  

1103: This conclusion holds for both the energy and electron-electron 

1104: $\delta$-function.  The very slow $O(1/N^{5/2})$ convergence of

1105: $\langle \delta \rangle$ was also circumvented by the use of

1106: the $N \to \infty$ corrections.  

1107: 

1108: The examinations of the convergence rate for an NO basis set 

1109: revealed a faster convergence.  The NO basis converged

1110: as $O(N^{-6})$ with the next term being $O(N^{-7})$.  The present

1111: determinations of the convergence rates are more rigorous than

1112: those of Carroll {\em et al} \cite{carroll79a}.  One surprising

1113: result was the slight even-odd oscillation in the convergence

1114: of the inter-electronic $\delta$-function.  Examination of the

1115: $\langle r \rangle$ revealed noticeable even-odd oscillations

1116: in $p_{r}$.    The presence of these ripples could complicate 

1117: determination of the variational limit of expectation values other

1118: than the energy.  It was possible to extrapolate the energy of

1119: a 20 orbital NO basis to the variational limit with an accuracy 

1120: of about $10^{-12}$ hartree.     

1121: 

1122: The convergence rate of the optimized LTO basis was $O(N^{-5.6562})$

1123: with the next term being $O(N^{-8.3888})$.  The degree of uncertainty

1124: in both of these exponents is much larger than for the fixed $\lambda$

1125: LTO sequence or the NO sequence.  The extremely tedious nature 

1126: of the $\lambda$ optimization, combined with the lack of knowledge

1127: about the nature of the asymptotic series beyond the first two 

1128: terms, make this extrapolation a less attractive proposition.    

1129: The noticeable even-odd oscillation in $p_{\delta}$ and even 

1130: $p_E$ further render the method even more unattractive. 

1131: The implications of this behavior are not confined to the present 

1132: work.  For example, it is likely that correlated exponential 

1133: basis sets composed of functions with            

1134: %

1135: \begin{eqnarray} 

1136: \xi(r_1,r_2,r_{12}) &=& r_1^i r_2^j r_{12}^m \exp(-\lambda r_1) 

1137: \exp(-\lambda r_2) \label{hyllerass} 

1138: \end{eqnarray} 

1139: %

1140: could also exhibit complicated convergence patterns since $\lambda$ 

1141: is often energy optimized as the basis dimension is increased in size  

1142: \cite{yan05a}.    Consequently, it would not be surprising for  

1143: estimates of the $N \to \infty$ energy correction for variational 

1144: calculations on systems using a Hylleraas basis to be unreliable. 

1145: For example, Yan and coworkers have estimated the variational limit 

1146: in a high precision calculation of PsH using a Hylleraas type basis 

1147: \cite{yan99a}.  Their estimated energy correction for the PsH ground 

1148: state energy (only $9.6 \times 10^{-8}$ hartree) was too small by 

1149: at least a factor of three \cite{mitroy06d}.  

1150: 

1151: One of the main motivations for the present study was to gain insight

1152: into solving the problems associated with the very slow convergence of 

1153: CI calculations for mixed electron-positron systems 

1154: \cite{bromley02a,bromley02b,mitroy02a,mitroy06a}.  In effect, the 

1155: problem is to determine the complete basis set limit 

1156: \cite{petersson88a,klopper99a,tarczay99a} for these exotic systems.  

1157: The slow $O(N^{-7/2})$ convergence of the energy for an LTO basis set

1158: is greatly improved by the adoption of extrapolation schemes.  Using 

1159: the $N=10$ energy for the $\lambda_{10}$ basis and the best extrapolation 

1160: of the $N=60$ calculation in Table \ref{Nlimits} as two reference points, 

1161: one deduces an effective convergence rate of $O(N^{-10})$.  

1162: The penalty associated with the use of the extrapolation

1163: formulae is the necessity to use quadruple precision arithmetic 

1164: if 3 or more terms are retained in the inverse power series

1165: (note, a 3-term series for $\Delta \delta^N$ was numerically 

1166: stable in double precision arithmetic).  The need to use

1167: the quadruple precision arithmetic is caused by the very

1168: small size of the $\Delta E^N$ increments and the impact of

1169: round-off error on the fit to the inverse power series.       

1170: One somewhat ironic feature is that it is necessary to use

1171: a basis that is {\em not} energy optimized so that the 

1172: extrapolation to the variational limit can be done reliably.  

1173: 

1174: 

1175: \begin{acknowledgments}

1176: 

1177: The authors would like to thank Shane Caple and Roy Pidgeon  

1178: of CDU for providing access to extra computing resources,

1179: and Bill Morris of SDSU for computational support.

1180: We would also like to thank David Bosci of Hewlett-Packard (Darwin)  

1181: for giving us access to a demonstration Itanium workstation.      

1182: 

1183: \end{acknowledgments}

1184: 

1185: \appendix 

1186: \section{Analysis of the $p$-dependence} 

1187: 

1188: Let us demonstrate that an asymptotic series  

1189: %

1190: \begin{equation} 

1191: \Delta X^N = \frac{A}{N^{q}} + \frac{B}{N^{q+t}}  \ldots 

1192:  = \frac{A}{N^{q}}\left(1 + \frac{C}{N^{t}}  \ldots \right)  

1193: \label{XNseries} 

1194: \end{equation} 

1195: (with $C = B/A$) leads to $p = q + F/N^t$ when $p$ is defined

1196: from successive $\Delta X^N$ increments by   

1197: %                                                                                        

1198: \begin{equation}

1199: p =   \ln \left(  \frac {\Delta X^{N-1}}{\Delta X^N} \right) \biggl/

1200:       \ln \left( \frac{N}{N-1} \right) \ .

1201: \end{equation}  

1202: %                                                                                        

1203: Substituting $\Delta X^N$ and $\Delta X^{N-1}$ from 

1204: eq.~(\ref{XNseries}) gives   

1205: %

1206: \begin{equation} 

1207: p  = \ln \left( \frac{ \frac{A}{(N-1)^{q}}\left(1 + \frac{B}{(N-1)^{t}}\right) }

1208:                  { \frac{A}{N^{q}}\left(1 + \frac{B}{N^{t}}\right) } \right)

1209: \biggl/ \ln \left( \frac{N}{N-1} \right) \ . 

1210: \label{dummy} 

1211: \end{equation} 

1212: %

1213: The logarithm in the numerator can be split into two terms 

1214: %

1215: \begin{eqnarray} 

1216: \ln \left( \frac{\Delta X^{N-1}}{\Delta X^N} \right) =    

1217: q \ln \left( \frac{N}{N-1} \right) +  

1218: \ln \left(  \frac{ 1\! + \! \frac{C}{(N-1)^{t}}} 

1219: { 1\! + \! \frac{C}{N^{t}}} \right) 

1220: \label{pdepend} 

1221: \end{eqnarray} 

1222: The first term conveniently cancels with the denominator

1223: to give $q$.  The argument of the second term can be expanded   

1224: %

1225: \begin{eqnarray} 

1226:  \frac{ 1\! + \! \frac{C}{(N-1)^{t}}} 

1227: { 1\! + \! \frac{C}{N^{t}}} \! \! & \approx & \! \!    

1228:  \left( 1\! + \! \frac{C}{N^{t}}  + \! \frac{tC}{N^{t+1}} \right)  

1229:  \left(  1\! - \! \frac{C}{N^{t}} \!  + \! \frac{C^2}{N^{2t}} \right)  \nonumber \\    

1230: \! \! & \approx & \! \! 1 + \frac{tC}{N^{t+1}} + \ldots      

1231: \end{eqnarray} 

1232: %

1233: Using $\ln(1+x) \approx x$ leads to   

1234: \begin{eqnarray} 

1235: \ln \left(  \frac{ 1\! + \! \frac{C}{(N-1)^{t}}} 

1236: { 1\! + \! \frac{C}{N^{t}}} \right)  & \approx &  \frac{tC}{N^{t+1}}  \ .   

1237: \label{pdepend2} 

1238: \end{eqnarray} 

1239: %

1240: The denominator is simplified using 

1241: $\ln(N/(N-1)) = \ln(1 + 1/(N-1)) \approx 1/N $ to finally give 

1242: %

1243: \begin{eqnarray} 

1244:  p = q + \frac{tC}{N^{t}} + \ldots   

1245: \label{pNseries} 

1246: \end{eqnarray} 

1247: %

1248: as required.  If eq.~(\ref{XNseries}) has successive terms

1249: where the power increments by $t = 1$ or $t = 1/2$ indefinitely,

1250: then this leads to a corresponding series, eq.~(\ref{pNseries}) 

1251: that also have powers that respectively increment by $1$ or $1/2$ 

1252: indefinitely.   This is not necessarily true for arbitrary $t$ in 

1253: eq.~(\ref{XNseries}).

1254: 

1255: \section{Scaling of the 2-electron integrals} 

1256: 

1257: The most time-consuming part of the calculation was the generation 

1258: of the electron-electron and annihilation matrix elements.  However,

1259: the expense of this was greatly reduced by generating an initial

1260: set of integrals for a given $\lambda$, and then using a scaling

1261: factor to generate the integral lists for other values of $\lambda$.         

1262: 

1263: The basic integral that has to be done is 

1264: %

1265: \begin{eqnarray} 

1266: R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda)  &=& \iint  dr_1 \ dr_2 \ N_a(\lambda) N_b(\lambda) \nonumber \\ 

1267:     & \times & N_c(\lambda) N_d(\lambda)  f_a(\lambda r_1)  f_b(\lambda r_2) \nonumber \\

1268:     & \times & V(r_1,r_2)   f_c(\lambda r_1)  f_d(\lambda r_2)   

1269: \label{basicR}  

1270: \end{eqnarray} 

1271: %

1272: All integrals can be defined in terms of $R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda=1)$. 

1273: Consider the integral (\ref{basicR}) and make the transformation   

1274: $\lambda r = u$.  Therefore $r_1 = u_1/\lambda$ and 

1275: $r_2 =u_2/\lambda$. Similarly $dr_1 = du_1/\lambda$ and 

1276: $dr_2 = du_2/\lambda$ and therefore 

1277: %

1278: \begin{eqnarray} 

1279: R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda)  &=& \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \iint  du_1 \ du_2 N_a(\lambda) 

1280: N_b(\lambda) \nonumber \\ 

1281:              & \times & N_c(\lambda) N_d(\lambda)  f_a(u_1)    

1282:  f_b(u_2) \nonumber \\ 

1283:             & \times & V(r_1,r_2)   f_c(u_1)    f_d(u_2)   

1284: \label{basicR2}  

1285: \end{eqnarray} 

1286: From eq.~(\ref{LTOnorm}),  $N_a(\lambda) = \lambda^{1/2} N_a(\lambda=1)$, so   

1287: \begin{eqnarray} 

1288: R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda) & = &  \iint du_1 \ du_2 N_a(1) N_b(1) \nonumber \\

1289:     &\times &   N_c(1) N_d(1)  f_a(u_1)    f_b(u_2) \nonumber \\ 

1290:     & \times & V(r_1,r_2)   f_c(u_1)    f_d(u_2)   

1291: \label{basicR3}  

1292: \end{eqnarray} 

1293: The scaling for the electron-electron repulsion integral is 

1294: $|{\mathbf r}_1 - {\mathbf r}_2|^{-1} = \lambda |{\mathbf u}_1 - {\mathbf u}_2|^{-1}$.  Hence

1295: \begin{eqnarray} 

1296: R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda)  =  \lambda R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,1) \ ,      

1297: \label{eescale}  

1298: \end{eqnarray} 

1299: for the electron-electron integral.  When the operator is the $\delta$-function,

1300: one uses the result  

1301: $\delta{(\mathbf r}_1 - {\mathbf r}_2) = \lambda \delta({\mathbf u}_1 - {\mathbf u}_2)$ 

1302: to give 

1303: \begin{eqnarray} 

1304: R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,\lambda)  =  \lambda R(n_a,n_b,n_c,n_d,1)  \ .      

1305: \label{deltascale}  

1306: \end{eqnarray} 

1307:   

1308: % \bibliography{positron}

1309: 

1310: 

1311: \begin{thebibliography}{35}

1312: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1313: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1314:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1315: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1316:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1317: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1318:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1319: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1320:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1321: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1322: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1323: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carroll et~al.}(1979)\citenamefont{Carroll,

1326:   Silverstone, and Metzger}}]{carroll79a}

1327: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~P.} \bibnamefont{Carroll}},

1328:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.} \bibnamefont{Silverstone}},

1329:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.}

1330:   \bibnamefont{Metzger}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.}

1331:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4142} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

1332: 

1333: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hill}(1985)}]{hill85a}

1334: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~N.} \bibnamefont{Hill}},

1335:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}},

1336:   \bibinfo{pages}{1173} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

1337: 

1338: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kutzelnigg and Morgan~III}(1992)}]{kutzelnigg92a}

1339: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Kutzelnigg}} \bibnamefont{and}

1340:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Morgan~III}},

1341:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96}},

1342:   \bibinfo{pages}{4484} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).

1343: 

1344: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Decleva et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Decleva, Lisini, and

1345:   Venuti}}]{decleva95a}

1346: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Decleva}},

1347:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lisini}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1348:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Venuti}},

1349:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int.~J.~Quantum~Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1350:   \bibinfo{pages}{27} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jitrik and Bunge}(1997)}]{jitrik97a}

1353: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Jitrik}} \bibnamefont{and}

1354:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Bunge}},

1355:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1356:   \bibinfo{pages}{2614} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ottschofski and Kutzelnigg}(1997)}]{ottschofski97a}

1359: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Ottschofski}} \bibnamefont{and}

1360:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Kutzelnigg}},

1361:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{106}},

1362:   \bibinfo{pages}{6634} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sims and Hagstrom}(2002)}]{sims02a}

1365: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~S.} \bibnamefont{Sims}} \bibnamefont{and}

1366:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Hagstrom}},

1367:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int.~J.~Quantum~Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}},

1368:   \bibinfo{pages}{1600} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bromley and Mitroy}(2006)}]{bromley06a}

1371: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}}

1372:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1373:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int.~J.~Quantum~Chem.} p. \bibinfo{pages}{under review}

1374:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schwartz}(1962)}]{schwartz62a}

1377: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Schwartz}},

1378:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{126}},

1379:   \bibinfo{pages}{1015} (\bibinfo{year}{1962}).

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kutzelnigg}(1994)}]{kutzelnigg94a}

1382: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Kutzelnigg}},

1383:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int.~J.~Quantum~Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{31}},

1384:   \bibinfo{pages}{467} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{L{\"o}wdin and Shull}(1956)}]{lowdin56a}

1387: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~O.} \bibnamefont{L{\"o}wdin}}

1388:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shull}},

1389:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{101}},

1390:   \bibinfo{pages}{1730} (\bibinfo{year}{1956}).

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Klopper et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Klopper, Bak,

1393:   Jorgensen, Olsen, and Helgaker}}]{klopper99a}

1394: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Klopper}},

1395:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~L.} \bibnamefont{Bak}},

1396:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Jorgensen}},

1397:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Olsen}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1398:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Helgaker}},

1399:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Phys.~B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{32}},

1400:   \bibinfo{pages}{R103} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goldman}(1995)}]{goldman95a}

1403: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~P.} \bibnamefont{Goldman}},

1404:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}},

1405:   \bibinfo{pages}{3718} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shull and L{\"o}wdin}(1955)}]{shull55a}

1408: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shull}} \bibnamefont{and}

1409:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~O.} \bibnamefont{L{\"o}wdin}},

1410:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{23}},

1411:   \bibinfo{pages}{1362} (\bibinfo{year}{1955}).

1412: 

1413: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bromley and Mitroy}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{bromley02a}

1414: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}}

1415:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1416:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1417:   \bibinfo{pages}{012505} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}).

1418: 

1419: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hol{\o}ein}(1956)}]{holoien56a}

1420: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hol{\o}ein}},

1421:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{104}},

1422:   \bibinfo{pages}{1301} (\bibinfo{year}{1956}).

1423: 

1424: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitroy and Bromley}(2006)}]{mitroy06a}

1425: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}} \bibnamefont{and}

1426:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}},

1427:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},

1428:   \bibinfo{pages}{052712} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kutzelnigg and von Herigonte}(1999)}]{kutzelnigg99a}

1431: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Kutzelnigg}} \bibnamefont{and}

1432:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{von Herigonte}},

1433:   \bibinfo{journal}{Adv.~Quant.~Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{36}},

1434:   \bibinfo{pages}{185} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goldman}(1989)}]{goldman89a}

1437: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~P.} \bibnamefont{Goldman}},

1438:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{40}},

1439:   \bibinfo{pages}{1185} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Halkier et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Halkier, Helgaker,

1442:   Klopper, and Olsen}}]{halkier00a}

1443: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Halkier}},

1444:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Helgaker}},

1445:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Klopper}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1446:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Olsen}},

1447:   \bibinfo{journal}{Chem.~Phys.~Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{319}},

1448:   \bibinfo{pages}{287} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1449: 

1450: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitroy et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Mitroy, Bromley, and

1451:   Ryzhikh}}]{mitroy02b}

1452: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1453:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}},

1454:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~G.}

1455:   \bibnamefont{Ryzhikh}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Phys.~B}

1456:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{35}}, \bibinfo{pages}{R81} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abramowitz and Stegun}(1972)}]{abramowitz72a}

1459: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Abramowitz}} \bibnamefont{and}

1460:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{I.~E.} \bibnamefont{Stegun}}, eds.,

1461:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Handbook of Mathematical Functions}}

1462:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{US GPO}, \bibinfo{address}{Washington DC},

1463:   \bibinfo{year}{1972}),

1464:   \bibinfo{note}{{Natl.~Bur.~Stand.~Appl.~Math.~Ser.~55}}.

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bromley and Mitroy}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{bromley02b}

1467: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}}

1468:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1469:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1470:   \bibinfo{pages}{062505} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}).

1471: 

1472: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goldman}(1994)}]{goldman94a}

1473: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~P.} \bibnamefont{Goldman}},

1474:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},

1475:   \bibinfo{pages}{2547} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bunge}(1970)}]{bunge70a}

1478: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Bunge}},

1479:   \bibinfo{journal}{Theor.~Chima.~Acta} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}},

1480:   \bibinfo{pages}{126} (\bibinfo{year}{1970}).

1481: 

1482: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bromley and Mitroy}(2002{\natexlab{c}})}]{bromley02e}

1483: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.~J.} \bibnamefont{Bromley}}

1484:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1485:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

1486:   \bibinfo{pages}{062504} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{c}}).

1487: 

1488: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shull and L{\"o}wdin}(1956)}]{shull56a}

1489: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shull}} \bibnamefont{and}

1490:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~O.} \bibnamefont{L{\"o}wdin}},

1491:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{25}},

1492:   \bibinfo{pages}{1305} (\bibinfo{year}{1956}).

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schiff et~al.}(1965)\citenamefont{Schiff, Lifson,

1495:   Pekeris, and Rabinowitz}}]{schiff65}

1496: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Schiff}},

1497:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Lifson}},

1498:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~L.} \bibnamefont{Pekeris}},

1499:   \bibnamefont{and}

1500:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Rabinowitz}},

1501:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{140}},

1502:   \bibinfo{pages}{A1104} (\bibinfo{year}{1965}).

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Drake}(1999)}]{drake99a}

1505: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~W.~F.} \bibnamefont{Drake}},

1506:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Scr.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{T83}},

1507:   \bibinfo{pages}{83} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1508: 

1509: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yan}()}]{yan05a}

1510: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.~C.} \bibnamefont{Yan}},

1511:   \bibinfo{pages}{(unpublished)}.

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yan and Ho}(1999)}]{yan99a}

1514: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.~C.} \bibnamefont{Yan}} \bibnamefont{and}

1515:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~K.} \bibnamefont{Ho}},

1516:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

1517:   \bibinfo{pages}{2697} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1518: 

1519: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitroy}(2006)}]{mitroy06d}

1520: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}},

1521:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},

1522:   \bibinfo{pages}{054502} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitroy and Ivanov}(2002)}]{mitroy02a}

1525: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mitroy}} \bibnamefont{and}

1526:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~A.} \bibnamefont{Ivanov}},

1527:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.~Rev.~A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1528:   \bibinfo{pages}{042705} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Petersson et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Petersson, Malick,

1531:   Wilson, Ochterski, Montgomery, and Frisch}}]{petersson88a}

1532: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.} \bibnamefont{Petersson}},

1533:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~K.} \bibnamefont{Malick}},

1534:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~G.} \bibnamefont{Wilson}},

1535:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{Ochterski}},

1536:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Montgomery}},

1537:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~J.}

1538:   \bibnamefont{Frisch}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.}

1539:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{109}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10570}

1540:   (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

1541: 

1542: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tarczay et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Tarczay, Csazar,

1543:   Klopper, Szalay, Allen, and Schaefer~III}}]{tarczay99a}

1544: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Tarczay}},

1545:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Csazar}},

1546:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Klopper}},

1547:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Szalay}},

1548:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~D.} \bibnamefont{Allen}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1549:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~F.} \bibnamefont{Schaefer~III}},

1550:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.~Chem.~Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{110}},

1551:   \bibinfo{pages}{11971} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1552: 

1553: \end{thebibliography}

1554: 

1555: \end{document}

1556: 

1557: 

1558: