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

Spin‐free quantum chemistry. XXIV. Freeon many‐body theory

F. A. Matsen

Published Jul 1, 1987• 12 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract We present the freeon, singlet, unitary group formulation of many‐body theory as an alternative to the particle‐number‐conserving, spin‐projected, fermion, second‐quantized formulation. It is based on the generator‐state‐approach (GSA) developed in part 23 of this series. We develop C1, perturbation, coupled‐cluster, and random‐phase theories.

DOI
10.1002/qua.560320109

Related papers

Spin‐free quantum theory. XXV. The unitary‐group formulation of fermion many‐body theory

F. A. Matsen

Abstract The fermion unitary group formulation (UGF) of many‐body theory is based on the unitary group U(2n) where n is the number of freeon orbitals. This formulation, which conserves particle‐number but not spin, is isomorphic to the particle‐number‐conserving, second‐quantized formulation (SQF). In UGF we derive the familiar diagrammatic algorithm for matrix elements, M(Y) = (−1)H+L where H and L denote the numbers of hole lines and loops in the diagram D(Y) of M(Y). The unitary group derivation is considerably simpler than is the conventional, second‐quantized derivation that employs time‐dependence, Wick's theorem, normal‐order, and contractions. In neither fermion UGF nor SQF is spin conserved. We carry out in UGF the spin‐projection (symmetry adaptation to SU(2)) of the fermion vectors and obtain with a spin‐free Hamiltonian the same matrix elements as with the freeon UGF (part 24 of this series). The fermion unitary group formulation for a spin‐free Hamiltonian should be regarded as an alternate path to spin‐free quantum chemistry.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Jul 1, 1987•6 citations

Spin‐Free quantum chemistry. XVIII. The unitary group formulation of the many‐electron problem

F. A. Matsen

Abstract The representation of an N‐electron Schrödinger Hamiltonian on an orthonormal, spin‐free (freon) orbital product space is exactly modeled by a second‐degree polynomial in the infinitesimal generators of the unitary group. Symmetry adaptation of the orbital product space with respect to the symmetric group yields Gel'fand states which provide base for irreducible represntations of the unitary group. These exist in closed form as, in consequence, does the representation of the model Hamiltonian in this same basis. We retain as physical only those states characterized by tableaux with no more than two columns for which the spin labelling is one‐half the difference in the lengths of the two columns. The unitary group formulation is equivalent to standard, number‐conserving, second‐quantized, many‐body theory.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•May 1, 1976•34 citations

A unitary group formulation of many‐body theory: The spin‐shift formalism

Barry Tennant Pickup, Atri Mukhopadhyay

Abstract This paper lays the algebraic foundation of a unitary group approach to many‐body theory. We define a set of second quantized spin‐shift operators which are used to construct spin‐adapted many‐electron configuration functions. We investigate the particle‐hole transformation, normal ordering, and contraction of spin shifts. This gives an orbital Wick's theorem reflecting the permutational structure of the states spanning the irreducible representations of the spatial unitary group. We study the spinless Hamiltonian, and the relationship between spin shifts and unitary group generators.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Jul 1, 1984•13 citations

A unitary group formulation of many‐body theory: Diagram systematics and use of the spin shifts

Atri Mukhopadhyay, Barry Tennant Pickup

Abstract This paper shows that the spin‐shift formalism developed in B. T. Pickup and A. Mukhopadhyay [Int. J. Quantum Chem. 26, 101 (1984)] supports a one‐component diagrammatics which has a systematics akin to that in the spin‐orbital many‐body theory. The diagrams are neither Goldstone nor Yutsis type, and characterize the chain U(2R) ⊃ U(R)⊗SU(2) on which the spin‐shift formalism is based. Accordingly, while the lines in such diagrams are labeled by the orbital indices, the diagram structure adequately reflects the irreducible representation of the group U(R). In this sense the paper presents a unitary group approach to the natural generalization of the usual many‐body theory for the spin‐adapted cases. A set of very simple rules is derived; their similarity with the corresponding rules in the ordinary many‐body theory and practical utility are discussed in connection with (a) matrix elements over many‐electron spin states and (b) closed‐ and open‐shell many‐body perturbation theory. A possibility of integral‐driven many‐body perturbation theory for open‐shells is indicated. Connections of this formalism with others are also discussed.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Jul 1, 1984•10 citations

Spin‐free quantum electronic structure: Its second quantization and para‐Fermionics

Douglas J. Klein

Abstract First, the spin‐free formulation of electronic structure is reviewed within the standard first‐quantized framework, with special attention to its manner of correspondence to the standard antisymmetrized space‐spin (ASspin) formulation. Second, within this first‐quantized framework, note is made of some “discrepancies” in the correspondence, for example, regarding mismatches of symmetry‐related degeneracies. Third, a novel second‐quantized spin‐free formulation is introduced to overcome these “discrepancies,” and so achieve a one‐to‐one correspondence between ASspin wave functions and second‐quantized spin‐free wave functions. Yet further, this second‐quantized spin‐free description enables the identification of electrons as “para‐Fermions,” at least in the nonrelativistic limit of spin‐free interactions. From the point of view of elementary particle physics, a rather complete picture of the behavior of para‐Fermions emerges with electrons as a proxy, and so suggests that in fact para‐Fermions would be difficult to distinguish from ordinary Fermions, at least in this nonrelativistic limit or with but few such particles. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2011

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Dec 15, 2009•4 citations

Introduction

Isaiah Shavitt, Rodney J. Bartlett

Scope The book focuses primarily on many-body (or better, many-electron) methods for electron correlation. These include Rayleigh–Schrödinger perturbation theory (RSPT) , particularly in its diagrammatic representation (referred to as many-body perturbation theory , or MBPT ), and coupled-cluster (CC) theory; their relationship to configuration interaction (CI) is included. Further extensions address properties other than the energy, and also excited states and multireference CC and MBPT methods. The many-body algebraic and diagrammatic methods used in electronic structure theory have their origin in quantum field theory and in the study of nuclear matter and nuclear structure. The second-quantization formalism was first introduced in a treatment of quantized fields by Dirac (1927) and was extended to fermion systems by Jordan and Klein (1927) and by Jordan and Wigner (1928). This formalism is particularly useful in field theory, in scattering problems and in the study of infinite systems because it easily handles problems involving infinite, indefinite or variable numbers of particles. The diagrammatic approach was introduced into field theory by Feynman (1949a,b) and applied to many-body systems by Hugenholtz (1957) and by Goldstone (1957). Many-body perturbation theory and its linked-diagram formalism were first introduced by Brueckner and Levinson (1955) and by Brueckner (1955), and were formalized by Goldstone (1957). Other important contributions to the methodology, first in field theory and then in the theory of nuclear structure, are due to Dyson (1949a,b), Wick (1950), Hubbard (1957, 1958a,b) and Frantz and Mills (1960). Applications to the electronic structure of atoms and molecules began with the work of Kelly (1963, 1964a,b, 1968), and molecular applications using finite analytical basis sets appeared in the work of Bartlett and Silver (1974a, b).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 6, 2009•26 citations
Abstract We present the freeon, singlet, unitary group formulation of many‐body theory as an alternative to the particle‐number‐conserving, spin‐projected, fermion, second‐quantized formulation. It is based on the generator‐state‐approach (GSA) developed in part 23 of this series. We develop C1, perturbation, coupled‐cluster, and random‐phase theories.
Abstract The fermion unitary group formulation (UGF) of many‐body theory is based on the unitary group U(2n) where n is the number of freeon orbitals. This formulation, which conserves particle‐number but not spin, is isomorphic to the particle‐number‐conserving, second‐quantized formulation (SQF). In UGF we derive the familiar diagrammatic algorithm for matrix elements, M(Y) = (−1)H+L where H and L denote the numbers of hole lines and loops in the diagram D(Y) of M(Y). The unitary group derivation is considerably simpler than is the conventional, second‐quantized derivation that employs time‐dependence, Wick's theorem, normal‐order, and contractions. In neither fermion UGF nor SQF is spin conserved. We carry out in UGF the spin‐projection (symmetry adaptation to SU(2)) of the fermion vectors and obtain with a spin‐free Hamiltonian the same matrix elements as with the freeon UGF (part 24 of this series). The fermion unitary group formulation for a spin‐free Hamiltonian should be regarded as an alternate path to spin‐free quantum chemistry.
Abstract The representation of an N‐electron Schrödinger Hamiltonian on an orthonormal, spin‐free (freon) orbital product space is exactly modeled by a second‐degree polynomial in the infinitesimal generators of the unitary group. Symmetry adaptation of the orbital product space with respect to the symmetric group yields Gel'fand states which provide base for irreducible represntations of the unitary group. These exist in closed form as, in consequence, does the representation of the model Hamiltonian in this same basis. We retain as physical only those states characterized by tableaux with no more than two columns for which the spin labelling is one‐half the difference in the lengths of the two columns. The unitary group formulation is equivalent to standard, number‐conserving, second‐quantized, many‐body theory.
Abstract This paper lays the algebraic foundation of a unitary group approach to many‐body theory. We define a set of second quantized spin‐shift operators which are used to construct spin‐adapted many‐electron configuration functions. We investigate the particle‐hole transformation, normal ordering, and contraction of spin shifts. This gives an orbital Wick's theorem reflecting the permutational structure of the states spanning the irreducible representations of the spatial unitary group. We study the spinless Hamiltonian, and the relationship between spin shifts and unitary group generators.
Abstract This paper shows that the spin‐shift formalism developed in B. T. Pickup and A. Mukhopadhyay [Int. J. Quantum Chem. 26, 101 (1984)] supports a one‐component diagrammatics which has a systematics akin to that in the spin‐orbital many‐body theory. The diagrams are neither Goldstone nor Yutsis type, and characterize the chain U(2R) ⊃ U(R)⊗SU(2) on which the spin‐shift formalism is based. Accordingly, while the lines in such diagrams are labeled by the orbital indices, the diagram structure adequately reflects the irreducible representation of the group U(R). In this sense the paper presents a unitary group approach to the natural generalization of the usual many‐body theory for the spin‐adapted cases. A set of very simple rules is derived; their similarity with the corresponding rules in the ordinary many‐body theory and practical utility are discussed in connection with (a) matrix elements over many‐electron spin states and (b) closed‐ and open‐shell many‐body perturbation theory. A possibility of integral‐driven many‐body perturbation theory for open‐shells is indicated. Connections of this formalism with others are also discussed.
Abstract First, the spin‐free formulation of electronic structure is reviewed within the standard first‐quantized framework, with special attention to its manner of correspondence to the standard antisymmetrized space‐spin (ASspin) formulation. Second, within this first‐quantized framework, note is made of some “discrepancies” in the correspondence, for example, regarding mismatches of symmetry‐related degeneracies. Third, a novel second‐quantized spin‐free formulation is introduced to overcome these “discrepancies,” and so achieve a one‐to‐one correspondence between ASspin wave functions and second‐quantized spin‐free wave functions. Yet further, this second‐quantized spin‐free description enables the identification of electrons as “para‐Fermions,” at least in the nonrelativistic limit of spin‐free interactions. From the point of view of elementary particle physics, a rather complete picture of the behavior of para‐Fermions emerges with electrons as a proxy, and so suggests that in fact para‐Fermions would be difficult to distinguish from ordinary Fermions, at least in this nonrelativistic limit or with but few such particles. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2011
Scope The book focuses primarily on many-body (or better, many-electron) methods for electron correlation. These include Rayleigh–Schrödinger perturbation theory (RSPT) , particularly in its diagrammatic representation (referred to as many-body perturbation theory , or MBPT ), and coupled-cluster (CC) theory; their relationship to configuration interaction (CI) is included. Further extensions address properties other than the energy, and also excited states and multireference CC and MBPT methods. The many-body algebraic and diagrammatic methods used in electronic structure theory have their origin in quantum field theory and in the study of nuclear matter and nuclear structure. The second-quantization formalism was first introduced in a treatment of quantized fields by Dirac (1927) and was extended to fermion systems by Jordan and Klein (1927) and by Jordan and Wigner (1928). This formalism is particularly useful in field theory, in scattering problems and in the study of infinite systems because it easily handles problems involving infinite, indefinite or variable numbers of particles. The diagrammatic approach was introduced into field theory by Feynman (1949a,b) and applied to many-body systems by Hugenholtz (1957) and by Goldstone (1957). Many-body perturbation theory and its linked-diagram formalism were first introduced by Brueckner and Levinson (1955) and by Brueckner (1955), and were formalized by Goldstone (1957). Other important contributions to the methodology, first in field theory and then in the theory of nuclear structure, are due to Dyson (1949a,b), Wick (1950), Hubbard (1957, 1958a,b) and Frantz and Mills (1960). Applications to the electronic structure of atoms and molecules began with the work of Kelly (1963, 1964a,b, 1968), and molecular applications using finite analytical basis sets appeared in the work of Bartlett and Silver (1974a, b).