With the ability to solve the many-body Schrödinger equation accurately, in principle all physics and chemistry could be derived from first principles. However, exact wave functions of realistic and interesting systems are in general unavailable because they are non-deterministic polynomial-hard to compute (Troyer, 2005). This implies that we need to rely on approximations. The variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method is widely used for ground state studies, but requires a trial wave function ansatz which must trade off between efficiency and accuracy. The method also has many common features with machine learning algorithms, and as neural networks have shown impressive power as function approximators, the idea is to use a neural network as the trial wave function guess. For fermionic systems, like electronic structure systems, the wave function needs to obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. This is typically achieved using a Slater determinant. As a neural network hardly can model this feature, our approach is to replace the single-particle functions in the Slater determinant with restricted Boltzmann machines, getting the RBM ansatz. In addition, we add further correlations via so-called Jastrow factors (Drummond, 2004). The de facto standard trial wave function ansatz for electronic structure calculations is the Slater-Jastrow ansatz, which was implemented as a reference. Our primary focus is on closed-shell circular quantum dots, where we compute the ground state energy and electron density of two-dimensional systems with up to 90 electrons and three-dimensional systems with up to 70 electrons. The energy obtained by the RBM ansatz was reasonably close to experimental results, and it gradually became closer as we added more complex correlation factors. For our most complicated Jastrow factor, the energy was found to be lower than the energy provided by the Slater-Jastrow ansatz for small dots, but for larger dots it was slightly higher. However, the one-body density profile reveals that the RBM ansatz gives more distinctly located electrons compared to the Slater-Jastrow ansatz. This can be explained by the way the RBM ansatz models the correlations. From the two-body density profile, we also observe that the repulsive interactions get more significant as we add a Jastrow factor. Based on the electron densities and the energy distribution between kinetic and potential energy, it is certain that the various methods provide different electron configurations. For low-frequency dots, the electron density becomes more localized with an additional radial peak compared to high-frequency dots. This is reminiscent of what is known as Wigner localization (Ghosal, 2007). The computational time consumption was found to be favorable for the RBM ansatz for small systems and the Slater-Jastrow ansatz for large systems. This can be explained by the exploding number of variational parameters in the RBM ansatz as the system sizes increase. The RBM ansatz with Jastrow factors were notably more computationally intensive than the other ansätze, and evidently, there is no reason to use the simplest Jastrow factor when more complicated Jastrow factors are available.With the ability to solve the many-body Schrödinger equation accurately, in principle all physics and chemistry could be derived from first principles. However, exact wave functions of realistic and interesting systems are in general unavailable because they are non-deterministic polynomial-hard to compute (Troyer, 2005). This implies that we need to rely on approximations. The variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method is widely used for ground state studies, but requires a trial wave function ansatz which must trade off between efficiency and accuracy. The method also has many common features with machine learning algorithms, and as neural networks have shown impressive power as function approximators, the idea is to use a neural network as the trial wave function guess. For fermionic systems, like electronic structure systems, the wave function needs to obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. This is typically achieved using a Slater determinant. As a neural network hardly can model this feature, our approach is to replace the single-particle functions in the Slater determinant with restricted Boltzmann machines, getting the RBM ansatz. In addition, we add further correlations via so-called Jastrow factors (Drummond, 2004). The de facto standard trial wave function ansatz for electronic structure calculations is the Slater-Jastrow ansatz, which was implemented as a reference. Our primary focus is on closed-shell circular quantum dots, where we compute the ground state energy and electron density of two-dimensional systems with up to 90 electrons and three-dimensional systems with up to 70 electrons. The energy obtained by the RBM ansatz was reasonably close to experimental results, and it gradually became closer as we added more complex correlation factors. For our most complicated Jastrow factor, the energy was found to be lower than the energy provided by the Slater-Jastrow ansatz for small dots, but for larger dots it was slightly higher. However, the one-body density profile reveals that the RBM ansatz gives more distinctly located electrons compared to the Slater-Jastrow ansatz. This can be explained by the way the RBM ansatz models the correlations. From the two-body density profile, we also observe that the repulsive interactions get more significant as we add a Jastrow factor. Based on the electron densities and the energy distribution between kinetic and potential energy, it is certain that the various methods provide different electron configurations. For low-frequency dots, the electron density becomes more localized with an additional radial peak compared to high-frequency dots. This is reminiscent of what is known as Wigner localization (Ghosal, 2007). The computational time consumption was found to be favorable for the RBM ansatz for small systems and the Slater-Jastrow ansatz for large systems. This can be explained by the exploding number of variational parameters in the RBM ansatz as the system sizes increase. The RBM ansatz with Jastrow factors were notably more computationally intensive than the other ansätze, and evidently, there is no reason to use the simplest Jastrow factor when more complicated Jastrow factors are available.

Jan 1, 20190 citations

Low-density phase diagram of the three-dimensional electron gas

Sam Azadi, N. D. Drummond

Variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo methods are employed to investigate the zero-temperature phase diagram of the three-dimensional homogeneous electron gas at very low density. Fermi fluid and body-centered cubic Wigner crystal ground-state energies are determined using Slater-Jastrow-backflow and Slater-Jastrow many-body wave functions at different densities and spin polarizations in finite simulation cells. Finite-size errors are removed using twist-averaged boundary conditions and extrapolation of the energy per particle to the thermodynamic limit of infinite system size. Unlike previous studies, our results show that the electron gas undergoes a first-order quantum phase transition directly from a paramagnetic fluid to a body-centered cubic crystal at density parameter ${r}_{\text{s}}=86.6(7)$ , with no region of stability for an itinerant ferromagnetic fluid.Variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo methods are employed to investigate the zero-temperature phase diagram of the three-dimensional homogeneous electron gas at very low density. Fermi fluid and body-centered cubic Wigner crystal ground-state energies are determined using Slater-Jastrow-backflow and Slater-Jastrow many-body wave functions at different densities and spin polarizations in finite simulation cells. Finite-size errors are removed using twist-averaged boundary conditions and extrapolation of the energy per particle to the thermodynamic limit of infinite system size. Unlike previous studies, our results show that the electron gas undergoes a first-order quantum phase transition directly from a paramagnetic fluid to a body-centered cubic crystal at density parameter ${r}_{\text{s}}=86.6(7)$, with no region of stability for an itinerant ferromagnetic fluid.

arXiv:2201.08743Physical review. B./Physical review. BJun 23, 202231 citations

{r}_{\text{s}}=86.6(7)

, with no region of stability for an itinerant ferromagnetic fluid.