Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry

A comparison of geometric methods with other methods for the characterization of density matrices

John E. Harriman

Published Dec 1, 1977• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Some recently developed geometric methods for characterizing the subset of density matrices within the space of Hermitian matrices are compared with methods commonly used for the approximate characterization of reduced density matrices. The decomposition of a density matrix into components in terms of the reducing basis set is compared with decomposition in terms of representations of U(r).

DOI
10.1002/qua.560120607

Related papers

Geometry of density matrices. II. Reduced density matrices and N representability

John E. Harriman

The reduction of density matrices defined with respect to a finite basis set is considered. A basis set can be introduced into the vector space of Hermitian matrices acting on functions of the coordinates of $p$ particles for each value of $p$. An analogy with the construction of spin eigenfunctions is used to obtain a particular basis set called the reducing basis. Reduction of one of these basis elements is either one to one or maps into the origin. Any element in the preimage of a density matrix can thus be resolved into two components, one uniquely determined by the density matrix and the other arbitrary within a certin subset. A restatement of the $N$-representability problem is given, and two sufficient conditions and one necessary condition for $N$ representability are given in terms of distances and norms.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1978•84 citations

Geometry of density matrices. IV. The relationship between density matrices and densities

John E. Harriman

The relationship between densities and density matrices is explored in the case of a finite-basis-set expansion. The space of one-electron density matrices can be divided into two orthogonal subspaces with elements in one of them in one-to-one correspondence with densities. A component in the other does not contribute to the density. The set of densities is convex but there may be densities which cannot be obtained from a density matrix. The matrix of a local potential has a component only in the first subspace, and any such matrix can be obtained from a local potential. It is possible for Hamiltonian matrices differing by the matrix of a local potential to have a common ground-state eigenvector, so a Hohenberg-Kohn theorem cannot always be established. When it can, the explicit local potential with a given ground-state density can be formally obtained when appropriate conditions are satisfied. The details of the decomposition of the space of matrices and of subsequent developments depend on linear-dependency relationships among basis-set products, and are thus basis-set dependent.

Physical Review A•Feb 1, 1983•74 citations

Geometry of density matrices. I. Definitions, N matrices and 1 matrices

John E. Harriman

Density matrices defined with respect to a finite basis set are considered as elements in a vector space. A basis set is introduced in the space whose elements are Hermitian matrices. By a suitable transformation of the basis, one component only will contribute to the trace, so the space of unit trace matrices is a translated linear subspace. The positivity constraint is then examined in terms of distance from a multiple of the unit matrix, which is in the interior of the set of density matrices. The boundary of this set is shown to lie between two concentric hyperspheres. The set whose elements are $N$-representable 1 matrices has similar properties.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1978•105 citations

Density matrices, reduced density matrices, a geometric investigation of their properties, and applications to density functional theory

John E. Harriman

Springer eBooks•Apr 6, 2008•4 citations

Geometry of density matrices. VI. Superoperators and unitary invariance

Mark E. Casida, John E. Harriman

Abstract We examine and compare ways of dividing into subspaces the space whose elements are density matrices or other operators for the class of model problems defined by a finite one‐particle basis set. One method of decomposition makes the significance of the subspaces apparent. We show that this decomposition is also complete, in the group‐theoretic sense, for the group of unitary transformations of the set of one‐electron basis functions. The irreducible subspaces are labeled by particle number and by an additional integer we call the reduction index. For spaces of particle‐number‐conserving operators, all subspaces with the same reduction index are isomorphic, and an analogous isomorphism exists for non‐particle‐number‐conserving cases. The general linear group also plays a key role, and we introduce the term “canonical superoperators” to characterize those superoperators which commute with this group. When an appropriate basis set is chosen for the matrix spaces, the supermatrices corresponding to these superoperators have a particularly simple form: a block structure with the only nonzero blocks being multiples of unit matrices. The superoperators of interest can be constructed in terms of two operators, , and these two have been expressed simply in terms of creation and annihilation operators. When only real orthogonal transformations of the basis are considered, a further decomposition is possible. We have introduced superoperators associated with this decomposition.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Aug 1, 1986•19 citations

Some Properties of the Reduced Density Matrix

Chongming Yang

Two conjectures made in a previous paper are proved. A further remark is made concerning the largest eigenvalue of the reduced density matrices.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Mar 1, 1963•10 citations
Abstract Some recently developed geometric methods for characterizing the subset of density matrices within the space of Hermitian matrices are compared with methods commonly used for the approximate characterization of reduced density matrices. The decomposition of a density matrix into components in terms of the reducing basis set is compared with decomposition in terms of representations of U(r).
The reduction of density matrices defined with respect to a finite basis set is considered. A basis set can be introduced into the vector space of Hermitian matrices acting on functions of the coordinates of ppp particles for each value of ppp. An analogy with the construction of spin eigenfunctions is used to obtain a particular basis set called the reducing basis. Reduction of one of these basis elements is either one to one or maps into the origin. Any element in the preimage of a density matrix can thus be resolved into two components, one uniquely determined by the density matrix and the other arbitrary within a certin subset. A restatement of the NNN-representability problem is given, and two sufficient conditions and one necessary condition for NNN representability are given in terms of distances and norms.
The relationship between densities and density matrices is explored in the case of a finite-basis-set expansion. The space of one-electron density matrices can be divided into two orthogonal subspaces with elements in one of them in one-to-one correspondence with densities. A component in the other does not contribute to the density. The set of densities is convex but there may be densities which cannot be obtained from a density matrix. The matrix of a local potential has a component only in the first subspace, and any such matrix can be obtained from a local potential. It is possible for Hamiltonian matrices differing by the matrix of a local potential to have a common ground-state eigenvector, so a Hohenberg-Kohn theorem cannot always be established. When it can, the explicit local potential with a given ground-state density can be formally obtained when appropriate conditions are satisfied. The details of the decomposition of the space of matrices and of subsequent developments depend on linear-dependency relationships among basis-set products, and are thus basis-set dependent.
Density matrices defined with respect to a finite basis set are considered as elements in a vector space. A basis set is introduced in the space whose elements are Hermitian matrices. By a suitable transformation of the basis, one component only will contribute to the trace, so the space of unit trace matrices is a translated linear subspace. The positivity constraint is then examined in terms of distance from a multiple of the unit matrix, which is in the interior of the set of density matrices. The boundary of this set is shown to lie between two concentric hyperspheres. The set whose elements are NNN-representable 1 matrices has similar properties.
Abstract We examine and compare ways of dividing into subspaces the space whose elements are density matrices or other operators for the class of model problems defined by a finite one‐particle basis set. One method of decomposition makes the significance of the subspaces apparent. We show that this decomposition is also complete, in the group‐theoretic sense, for the group of unitary transformations of the set of one‐electron basis functions. The irreducible subspaces are labeled by particle number and by an additional integer we call the reduction index. For spaces of particle‐number‐conserving operators, all subspaces with the same reduction index are isomorphic, and an analogous isomorphism exists for non‐particle‐number‐conserving cases. The general linear group also plays a key role, and we introduce the term “canonical superoperators” to characterize those superoperators which commute with this group. When an appropriate basis set is chosen for the matrix spaces, the supermatrices corresponding to these superoperators have a particularly simple form: a block structure with the only nonzero blocks being multiples of unit matrices. The superoperators of interest can be constructed in terms of two operators, , and these two have been expressed simply in terms of creation and annihilation operators. When only real orthogonal transformations of the basis are considered, a further decomposition is possible. We have introduced superoperators associated with this decomposition.