The new u function is similar to one used earlier for the HEG by
Ortiz and Ballone [68, 69]. In common with
Ortiz and Ballone a spherically symmetric u function is chosen,
which is short ranged so that it need not be summed over simulation
cells. This u function folds in the long range behaviour of the
Jastrow factor in an approximate manner, and therefore it depends on the
size of the simulation cell as well as on the electron density of the
system. For each electron pair the separation vector is
reduced to its minimum length (by subtraction of supercell lattice
vectors) giving the vector between electron i and the nearest
periodic image of electron j. This reduction procedure is
illustrated in figure
.
Figure: Reduction
of the vector to its minimum length. The figure contains a
square simulation cell and just one of the periodic images in each
direction. The blue vector shows the original vector. The red vector
has been been reduced to its minimum length by subtraction of a
vertical and a horizontal lattice vector.
The precise form of the new u is different from that used by Ortiz and Ballone. It has certain advantages which will be described below. We demand that u obeys the following conditions:
The only condition that u(r) must satisfy for our QMC procedures to
work is condition (ii) given above. If this condition is not obeyed
then the kinetic energy estimator, ,
will have
-functions at the discontinuities, which will be missed by the
sampling procedure. To ensure continuity of the first derivative of
u(r) for r>0 it is required that
goes (almost
exactly) to zero at the surface of the sphere of radius
inscribed within the Wigner-Seitz cell of the simulation cell. For
, u(r) and
are set to zero. The cusp
conditions are imposed on the first derivative of u at
because this is a property of the exact
wavefunction. In contrast to Ortiz and Ballone, continuity of the
second derivative of u is not imposed. We write u(r) as
where is a fixed function and f contains the variable
parameters. f is expanded as a linear sum of some basis functions,
:
For the fixed part of u, the following form was chosen,
where F is chosen so that the cusp condition is obeyed and is
chosen so that
is effectively zero
. Typically
and A is fixed by the
plasma frequency[25]. The function
is chosen to give a
good description of the correlation so that the variable part of u
is small. For the variable part we choose
where B and the are variational coefficients,
is the lth
Chebyshev polynomial, and
so that the range is mapped into the orthogonality
interval of the Chebyshev polynomials, [-1,1]. The use of Chebyshev
polynomials rather than a simple polynomial expression improves the
numerical stability of the fitting procedure. The function f is the
most general polynomial expression containing powers up to
which satisfies the following conditions:
Condition (i) ensures that u(r) obeys the cusp conditions,
which are incorporated in . Addition of a constant to u(r)
changes the normalisation of the wavefunction but not its functional
form, and condition (ii) eliminates this unimportant degree of
freedom. Condition (iii) ensures continuity of the first derivative of
u at
.
To start the optimisation process we perform a VMC run to produce the
electron configuration data for the initial distribution as described in section
. For each
electron configuration, u(r) is summed over all distinct pairs of
electron coordinates i and j in the simulation cell (with the
separation vector reduced into the Wigner-Seitz simulation cell). For
each configuration the following summation is performed
Instead of storing the individual electron coordinates in each
configuration we store the , which is sufficient because the
functional form for u is linear in the variable parameters. This
reduces the storage and CPU time needed for the minimisation
procedure, which requires no further summations over the electron
coordinates when the values of the parameters,
, are
altered. The first and second derivatives of u, which enter the
expression for the energy, are dealt with in a similar
manner. These savings are very significant when dealing with a large
number of electrons in the simulation cell, and for the HEG we have
performed full minimisations with up to 338 electrons.