4.7 Article

Interpretation of multiple solutions in fully iterative GF2 and GW schemes using local analysis of two-particle density matrices

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 155, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0055191

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0019374]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0019374] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iterative Green's function methods can lead to multiple solutions for simple molecular systems due to non-linear equations, while a detailed analysis of these molecular solutions has not been conducted before. This study utilizes two-particle density matrices to investigate the charge resonance and covalent characters of these solutions, providing necessary information for effective magnetic Hamiltonian construction. The obtained Hamiltonian parameterizations are compared to previous wave-function calculations using GW and GF2 calculations for simple molecules and transition metal complexes.
Due to the presence of non-linear equations, iterative Green's function methods can result in multiple different solutions even for simple molecular systems. In contrast to the wave-function methods, a detailed and careful analysis of such molecular solutions was not performed before. In this work, we use two-particle density matrices to investigate local spin and charge correlators that quantify the charge resonance and covalent characters of these solutions. When applied within the unrestricted orbital set, spin correlators elucidate the broken symmetry of the solutions, containing necessary information for building effective magnetic Hamiltonians. Based on GW and GF2 calculations of simple molecules and transition metal complexes, we construct Heisenberg Hamiltonians, four-spin-four-center corrections, and biquadratic spin-spin interactions. These Hamiltonian parameterizations are compared to previous wave-function calculations. Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据