Since the form of PN is the same as that occurring in the statistical mechanics of the classical gas (replace f 2 ( r ij ) by exp[- V ( r ij /kT ]), we can use the same integration techniques that are used in the classical problem. W. L. McMillan, 1965 Summary Building on the random walk methods developed in the previous chapter, we show how to compute properties of many-body trial wavefunctions using a random walk. This method, called variational Monte Carlo, is the simplest stochastic quantum many-body technique. Whereas mean-field methods are usually limited to single determinants, variational Monte Carlo can treat any correlated trial function, as long as its values are computable. We discuss how to optimize such trial wavefunctions, how to compute their momentum distribution, how to use non-local pseudopotentials, how to compute excited states, and how to correct for the finite size of the simulation cell. Deterministic quantum methods have difficulties. For example, the Hartree–Fock method assumes the wavefunction is a single Slater determinant, neglecting correlation. If one expands as a sum of determinants, it is very difficult to have the results size-consistent since the number of determinants needed will grow exponentially with the system size. As we have seen, the DMFT method introduced in Ch. 16 assumes locality. In Ch. 6 we discussed general properties of many-body wavefunctions. Using Monte Carlo methods, we can directly incorporate correlation into a wavefunction, without having to make any further approximations other than the form of the correlation factors. In many cases the energy and other properties are very close to the exact results. Some of the usual restrictions on the form of the many-body wavefunction are not an issue in variational Monte Carlo. The most important generalization of the HF wavefunction is to put correlation directly into the wavefunction via the “Jastrow” factor. At next order, one can use the “backflow” wavefunction, in which correlation is also built into the determinant. The variational Monte Carlo method (VMC) was first used by McMillan [44] to calculate the ground-state properties of superfluid 4 He. One of the key problems at that time was whether the observed superfluid properties were a consequence of Bose condensation.
Since the form of PN is the same as that occurring in the statistical mechanics of the classical gas (replace f 2 ( r ij ) by exp[- V ( r ij /kT ]), we can use the same integration techniques that are used in the classical problem. W. L. McMillan, 1965 Summary Building on the random walk methods developed in the previous chapter, we show how to compute properties of many-body trial wavefunctions using a random walk. This method, called variational Monte Carlo, is the simplest stochastic quantum many-body technique. Whereas mean-field methods are usually limited to single determinants, variational Monte Carlo can treat any correlated trial function, as long as its values are computable. We discuss how to optimize such trial wavefunctions, how to compute their momentum distribution, how to use non-local pseudopotentials, how to compute excited states, and how to correct for the finite size of the simulation cell. Deterministic quantum methods have difficulties. For example, the Hartree–Fock method assumes the wavefunction is a single Slater determinant, neglecting correlation. If one expands as a sum of determinants, it is very difficult to have the results size-consistent since the number of determinants needed will grow exponentially with the system size. As we have seen, the DMFT method introduced in Ch. 16 assumes locality. In Ch. 6 we discussed general properties of many-body wavefunctions. Using Monte Carlo methods, we can directly incorporate correlation into a wavefunction, without having to make any further approximations other than the form of the correlation factors. In many cases the energy and other properties are very close to the exact results. Some of the usual restrictions on the form of the many-body wavefunction are not an issue in variational Monte Carlo. The most important generalization of the HF wavefunction is to put correlation directly into the wavefunction via the “Jastrow” factor. At next order, one can use the “backflow” wavefunction, in which correlation is also built into the determinant. The variational Monte Carlo method (VMC) was first used by McMillan [44] to calculate the ground-state properties of superfluid 4 He. One of the key problems at that time was whether the observed superfluid properties were a consequence of Bose condensation.
… as suggested by Fermi, the time-independent Schrödinger equation … can be interpreted as describing the behavior of a system of particles each of which performs a random walk, i.e., diffuses isotropically and at the same time is subject to multiplication, which is determined by the value of the point function V. N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, 1949 Summary In the projector quantum Monte Carlo method, one uses a function of the hamiltonian to sample a distribution proportional to the exact ground-state wavefunction, and thereby computes exact matrix elements of it. An importance sampling transformation makes the algorithm much more efficient. In this chapter we introduce and develop the diffusion Monte Carlo method, which involves drifting, branching random walks. For any excited state, including any system with more than two electrons, one encounters the sign problem, limiting the direct application of these algorithms for most fermion systems. Instead, by using approximate fixed-node or fixed-phase boundary conditions, one can achieve efficiency similar to variational Monte Carlo. We also discuss the application of the projector method in a basis of Slater determinants. In this chapter, we discuss a different quantum Monte Carlo method, projector Monte Carlo (PMC). This general method was first suggested by Fermi [1049]; see the quote at the start of this chapter by two of the inventors of the Monte Carlo method. An implementation of PMC was tried out in the early days of computing [1050]. Advances in methodology, in particular importance sampling, resulted in a significant large-scale application: the exact calculation of the ground-state properties of 256 hard-sphere bosons by Kalos, Levesque, and Verlet [1051] in 1974. Calculations for electronic systems and the fixednode approximation were introduced by Anderson [1052, 1053]. One of the most important projector MC algorithms, the diffusion Monte Carlo algorithm with importance sampling for fermions, was used to compute the correlation energy of homogeneous electron gas by Ceperley and Alder [109] in 1980; the resulting HEG correlation energy was crucial in the development of density functional calculations. Types and properties of projectors In this method, a many-body projector G ( R , R ) = Ĝ is repeatedly applied to filter out the exact many-body ground state from an initial state; the operation of the projector is carried out with a random walk, hence the name of this class of methods.
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.
Introduction In Chapters 1 to 4 we studied methods for solving the Schrödinger equation for many-electron systems. Many of the techniques described there carry over to other quantum many-particle systems, such as liquid helium, and the protons and neutrons in a nucleus. The techniques which we discussed there were, however, all of a mean-field type and therefore correlation effects could not be taken into account without introducing approximations. In this chapter, we consider more accurate techniques, which are similar to those studied in Chapter 10 and are based on using (pseudo-)random numbers – hence the name ‘Monte Carlo’ for these methods. In Chapter 10 we applied Monte Carlo techniques to classical many-particle systems; here we use these techniques for studying quantum problems involving many particles. In the next section we shall see how we can apply Monte Carlo techniques to the problem of calculating the quantum mechanical expectation value of the ground state energy. This is used in order to optimise this expectation value by adjusting a trial wave function in a variational type of approach, hence the name variational Monte Carlo (VMC). In the following section we use the similarity between the Schrödinger equation and the diffusion equation in order to calculate the properties of a collection of interacting quantum mechanical particles by simulating a classical particle diffusion process. The resulting method is called diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC).
… a general method, suitable for electronic computing machines, of calculating the properties of any substance which may be considered as composed of interacting individual molecules. N. Metropolis et al. , 1953 Summary Quantum Monte Carlo methods have been very useful in providing exact results, or, at least, exact constraints on properties of electronic systems, in particular for the homogeneous electron gas. The results are, in many cases, more accurate than those from other quantum many-body methods, and provide unique capabilities and insights. In this chapter we introduce the general properties of stochastic methods and motivate their use on the quantum many-body problem. In particular, we discuss Markov chains and the computation of error estimates. The methods that we introduce in the next four chapters are quite different from those in Parts II and III: stochastic or quantum Monte Carlo methods. In stochastic methods, instead of solving deterministically for properties of the quantum many-body system, one sets up a random walk that samples for the properties. Historically the most important role of QMC for the electronic structure field has been to provide input into the other methods, most notably the QMC calculation of the HEG [109], used for the exchange– correlation functional in DFT. A second important role has been as benchmarks for other methods such asGW. There are systems for which QMC is uniquely suited, for example the Wigner transition in the low-density electron gas, see Sec. 3.1. In this chapter we introduce general properties of simulations, in particular Markov chains, and error estimates. In the following chapters we will apply this theory to three general classes of quantum Monte Carlo algorithms, namely variational (Ch. 23), projector (Ch. 24), and path-integral Monte Carlo (Ch. 25); Ch. 18 already introduced the QMC calculation of the impurity Green's function used in the dynamical mean-field method.We note that there are a variety of other QMC methods not covered in this book. Simulations First let us define what we mean by a simulation, since the word has other meanings in applied science. The dimensionality of phase space (i.e., the Hilbert space for a quantum system) is large or infinite. Even a classical system requires the positions and momenta of all particles, and, hence, the phase space for N classical particles has dimensionality 6 N .
Variational quantum Monte Carlo (VMC) method applied to interacting electron systems has played a pivotal role for the studies of electronic states of atoms, molecules and condensed matters. First, the many-body wave functions optimized by the VMC method provide good guiding functions in more accurate, diffusion quantum Monte Carlo (DMC) calculations for identical systems. Second, the VMC calculations themselves can give a good upper bound for the exact ground-state energy of many-electron systems when an appropriate form for the variational wave function is employed. In addition to a conventional form for the variational wave function that is expressed by the product of the Jastrow factor and the single Slater determinant, recent investigations have found that the expression in terms of many Slater determinants can provide a very accurate description of electronic states, especially for intrinsically multi-reference systems, which corresponds to the configuration interaction (CI) expansion method in conventional quantum chemistry. Although the CI method needs an extremely large number of expansion coefficients as variational parameters, the number of parameters can be reduced efficiently by using an idea of (molecular) orbital pair correlations. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the feasibility and usefulness of this idea within the framework of VMC method with the Jastrow–Slater wave function, where the ground state of a water molecule is investigated as a test case. In this study we rely on a variational wave function composed of a product of the Jastrow and Slater parts as 1⁄4 J S; ð1Þ
It is shown from first principles that, in spite of the large interatomic forces, liquid 4 He should exhibit a transition analogous to the transition in an ideal Bose–Einstein gas. The exact partition function is written as an integral over trajectories, using the space-time approach to quantum mechanics. R.P. Feynman, 1953 Summary In this chapter we discuss imaginary-time path integrals and the path-integral Monte Carlo method for the calculation of properties of quantum systems at non-zero temperature. We discuss how Fermi and Bose statistics enter, and how to generalize the fixed-node procedure to non-zero temperature. We then discuss an auxiliary-field method for the Hubbard model. The path-integral method can be used to perform ground-state calculations, allowing calculations of properties with less bias than the projector Monte Carlo method. We also discuss the problem of estimating real-time response functions using information from imaginary-time correlation functions. In previous chapters we described two QMC methods, namely variational QMC and projector (diffusion) QMC. Both of these methods are zero temperature, or, more properly, are formulated for single states. In this chapter we discuss the path-integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) method, which is explicitly formulated at non-zero temperature. Directly including temperature is important because many, if not most, measurements and practical applications involve significant thermal effects. One might think that to do calculations at a non-zero temperature we would have to explicitly sum over excited states. Such a summation would be difficult to accomplish once the temperature is above the energy gap, because there are so many possible many-body excitations. In addition, the properties for each excitation are more difficult to calculate than those for the ground state. As we will see, path-integral methods do not require an explicit sum over excitations. As an added bonus, they provide an interesting and enlightening window through which to view quantum systems. However, the sign problem, introduced in the previous chapter, is still present for fermion systems. The fixed-node approximation is used again. An advantage of PIMC is the absence of a trial wavefunction. As a result, quantum expectation values, including ones not involving the energy, can be computed directly. For the expert, the lack of an importance function may seem a disadvantage; without it one cannot push the simulation in a preferred direction.