Newton optimization for the Multiconfiguration Self Consistent Field method at the basis set limit: closed-shell two-electron systems
Extracted source text · arXiv 2506.12906
\documentclass[11pt, reqno]{amsart}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{latexsym}
%\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[final]{hyperref}
%\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, linkcolor=blue, anchorcolor=blue, citecolor=red, filecolor=blue, menucolor=blue, pagecolor=blue, urlcolor=blue}
%\usepackage{showkeys}
\usepackage[]{enumerate}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{bbm}
%\usepackage{fourier}
\usepackage[english]{babel} % To obtain English text with the blindtext package
\usepackage{blindtext}
%\usepackage{showkeys}
%\usepackage[]{enumerate}
%\usepackage{fourier}
\usepackage[nohyperlinks,nolist]{acronym}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}%
\newcommand{\major}{\cellcolor{blue!100}}
\newcommand{\minor}{\cellcolor{blue!25}}
%
% Packages that may be needed
%
\usepackage{graphicx} % Handles figures
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % We want æøå
\usepackage{amsmath}
%\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{cmap}
\usepackage{ulem}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{fancybox}
\usepackage{relsize}
\usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage{subcaption}
%\usepackage{libertine}
%\usepackage[libertine]{newtxmath}
%\usepackage{array}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta, decorations.markings}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.18}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\topmargin -0.4in
\textheight 9.4in
\textwidth 6.5 in
\oddsidemargin 0.0in
\evensidemargin 0.0in
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\renewcommand{\d}{\, \mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\Lmin}{L_{\mathrm{min}}}
\newcommand{\Lmed}{L_{\mathrm{med}}}
\newcommand{\Lmax}{L_{\mathrm{max}}}
\newcommand{\Nmin}{N_{\mathrm{min}}}
\newcommand{\Nmed}{N_{\mathrm{med}}}
\newcommand{\Nmax}{N_{\mathrm{max}}}
\newcommand{\FT}{\,\, \widehat{} \,\,}
\newcommand{\stFT}{\,\, \widehat{} \,\,}
\newcommand{\init}{\vert_{t = 0}}
\newcommand{\biginit}{\big\vert_{t = 0}}
\newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
\newcommand{\Abs}[1]{\left\vert #1 \right\vert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\vert #1 \vert}
\newcommand{\bigabs}[1]{\bigl\vert #1 \bigr\vert}
\newcommand{\Bigabs}[1]{\Bigl\vert #1 \Bigr\vert}
\newcommand{\biggabs}[1]{\biggl\vert #1 \biggr\vert}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\Vert #1 \right\Vert}
\newcommand{\fixednorm}[1]{\Vert #1 \Vert}
\newcommand{\bignorm}[1]{\bigl\Vert #1 \bigr\Vert}
\newcommand{\Bignorm}[1]{\Bigl\Vert #1 \Bigr\Vert}
\newcommand{\Sobnorm}[2]{\norm{#1}_{H^{#2}}}
\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\T}{\mathbb{T}}
\newcommand{\Innerprod}[2]{\left\langle \, #1 , #2 \, \right\rangle}
\newcommand{\innerprod}[2]{\langle \, #1 , #2 \, \rangle}
\newcommand{\biginnerprod}[2]{\bigl\langle \, #1 , #2 \, \bigr\rangle}
\newcommand{\japanese}[1]{\left\langle \, #1 \, \right\rangle}
\newcommand{\angles}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
\newcommand{\bigangles}[1]{\big\langle #1 \big\rangle}
\newcommand{\define}[1]{\textbf{\emph{#1}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\area}{area}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}
\DeclareMathOperator{\dist}{dist}
\DeclareMathOperator{\divergence}{div}
\DeclareMathOperator{\esssup}{ess\ sup}
\DeclareMathOperator{\id}{Id}
\DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}
\DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}
\DeclareMathOperator{\dv}{div}
\DeclareMathOperator{\interior}{int}
\DeclareMathOperator{\vol}{vol}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
\DeclareMathOperator{\supp}{supp}
\DeclareMathOperator{\trace}{tr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sech}{sech}
\DeclareMathOperator{\erf}{erf}
\DeclareMathOperator{\erfc}{erfc}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Dom}{Dom}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Span}{Span}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\res}{res}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{remarks}{Remarks}
\newtheorem*{plainremark}{Remark}
\newtheorem*{plainremarks}{Remarks}
\input{acronyms}
\title
[
Multi-configurational optimization
]
{
Newton optimization for the Multiconfiguration Self Consistent Field method at the basis set limit: closed-shell two-electron systems.
%On multi-configurational optimization for two-electron systems
}
\author[Dinvay]{Evgueni Dinvay}
\author[Vikhamar-Sandberg]{Rasmus Vikhamar-Sandberg}
\author[Frediani]{Luca Frediani}
\email{ evgueni.dinvay@uit.no }
\address
{
Department of Chemistry
\\
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
\\
PO Box 6050 Langnes
\\
N-9037 Tromsø
\\
Norway
}
\date{\today}
%\subjclass[2010]{35Q53, 35Q60, 60H15} %, 35Q55, 35A01, 35Q20, 35G25, 35D99
\begin{document}
\begin{abstract}
%
%
The multiconfiguration self-consistent-field (MCSCF) method is revisited with the specific focus on the two electron systems for simplicity.
A wave function is represented as a linear combination of Slater determinants.
Both orbitals and coefficients of this configuration interaction expansion are optimized following the variational principle making use of the Newton optimization technique.
It reduces the MCSCF problem to solving a particular differential Newton system, which can be discretized with multiwavelets and solved iteratively.
%
%
\end{abstract}
\keywords{
Schrödinger equation, energy optimization, MCSCF, multiwavelets.
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{comment}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Where so submit}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This work \cite{Dinvay_MCSCF2025} should go to in the following order
\begin{itemize}
\item
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical
\item
{Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics}
\item
Journal of Computational Physics
\item
Journal of Mathematical Chemistry
\item
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
\end{itemize}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{comment}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We present the first implementation of the Newton optimization for the \ac{MCSCF} method within the framework of \ac{MRA} using \acp{MW}.
Multiconfigurational treatments are required to capture correlation effects. At the same time, it is well known that optimizing \ac{MCSCF} wavefunctions is challenging and it is widely recognized that the most effective method is a Newton optimization scheme.
In traditional methods, this is achieved by expressing the energy in terms of the configurational expansion coefficients and the basis-set coefficients and then computing the second derivatives. Within a multiwavelet framework one operates in a virtually infinite basis set and the approach must therefore be revised, by introducing a Lagrangian and by solving the Newton equations for the Lagrangian gradient.
For this prototype study we limit ourselves to the simple case of two-electron closed-shell system, but the method can in principle be extended to an arbitrary number of electrons and any spin symmetry.
We show that this method effectively allows to perform \ac{MCSCF} calculations of both ground and excited states within the framework of \ac{MRA}.
Here, we note that this adaptive discretization technique is particularly useful in computational chemistry,
where it effectively handles the singular Coulomb interaction between an electron and the nucleus,
as well as the resulting cusp in orbitals
\cite{
Frediani_Fossgaard_Fla_Ruud,
Harrison_Fann_Yanai_Gan_Beylkin2004,
Jensen_Saha_elephant2017,
Yanai_Fann_Gan_Harrison_Beylkin2004}.
Moreover, its success in chemistry applications is largely due to the approximation of the resolvent:
\begin{equation}
\label{resolvent_approximation}
H(\mu)
=
\left( - \Delta + \mu^2 \right)^{-1}
\approx
\sum_{j} c_j e^{t_j \Delta}
\end{equation}
based on the heat semigroup \cite{Harrison_Fann_Yanai_Beylkin2003}.
Multiresolution quantum chemistry is rapidly evolving,
and we refer readers to a comprehensive review for a broader perspective \cite{Bischoff2019}.
An overview of the latest advancements will also appear in
an upcoming paper \cite{Tantardini_Dinvay_Pitteloud_Gerez_Jensen_review2024}.
We use the Lagrangian formalism for the constrain minimization of \ac{MCSCF}.
This is rather uncommon in the field, since all the stationary points
of the Lagrangian $\mathcal L$ are saddle points.
On the other hand,
it allows us to introduce the Green's function in the problem naturally.
As a result, one can rewrite the differential Newton system in the integral form.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Notations}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Throughout the text we
use the following notations $\varphi, \varphi_i, \delta \varphi_i$
for functions from $L^2 \left( \mathbb R^3 \right)$,
that are referred to as orbitals.
In this paper the focus is on closed shell two electron systems.
Therefore, a Slater determinant associated to a spatial orbital $\varphi_m$
is denoted by
\(
\left| m \overline{m} \right \rangle
,
\)
implying spin up and down.
The single electron energy operator is denoted by
\[
h
=
- \frac 12 \Delta + V_{\text{nuc}}
.
\]
The following standard \cite{Szabo_Ostlund} notations
\begin{equation*}
(i|h|j)
=
\int
\varphi_i(x) h \varphi_j(x)
dx
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
(ij|kl)
=
\int
\frac 1{|x - y|}
\varphi_i(x) \varphi_j(x)
\varphi_k(y) \varphi_l(y)
dxdy
\end{equation*}
are extensively in use.
Very often in the text
one encounters a convolution of the form
\[
J (i \delta k)
=
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_i \delta \varphi_k)
\]
that is a function in $L^2 \left( \mathbb R^3 \right)$.
In computational chemistry literature,
it is normally associated with either Coulomb or exchange operators,
which justifies the choice of a such notation.
Finally,
we write shortly
\[
R_i
=
\left(
- \frac {c_i^2}2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{ii}
\right) ^{-1}
=
\frac 2{c_i^2} H
\left(
\sqrt{ - \frac {2 \varepsilon_{ii}}{c_i^2} }
\right)
,
\]
where the so called orbital energies $\varepsilon_{ii}$ are negative.
These numbers $\varepsilon_{ii}$ will be always assumed negative,
and so lying in the resolvent set of the kinetic energy operator.
During numerical simulations it may happen at some iterations, that this condition is violated.
In that case it would mean that the iterative procedure is far from convergence,
and that it is safe to flip the sign
by multiplying the corresponding incorrect orbital energies $\varepsilon_{ii}$ by $-1$.
As it will be clear below,
this is in line with the level shift of Hessian in Newton's method.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Newton scheme for SCF of a two electron system}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Here we consider a simpler problem of application of Newton optimization
for search of Hartree-Fock solution.
It turns out to be a saddle point in the Lagrangian formalism, of course.
We want to see if (shifted) Newton iterations converge to the Hartree-Fock solution.
The total energy
\[
E(\varphi)
=
2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11)
\]
Introduce the Lagrangian
\[
\mathcal L
=
E - 2 \varepsilon \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\]
and consider
\[
\Innerprod
{
\nabla \mathcal L ( \varphi, \varepsilon )
}
{
( \delta \varphi, \delta \varepsilon )
}
=
d \mathcal L ( \varphi, \varepsilon ) ( \delta \varphi, \delta \varepsilon )
=
d E (\varphi) (\delta \varphi)
-
4 \varepsilon \int \varphi \delta \varphi - 2 \delta \varepsilon \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\]
Therefore, the gradient has the coordinates
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi}
&=
4
\left(
h + J(11)
-
\varepsilon
\right)
\varphi
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon}
&=
- 2 \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The shifted Newton equation
\begin{equation*}
( d \nabla \mathcal L ( \varphi, \varepsilon ) + 4 \lambda)
( \delta \varphi, \delta \varepsilon )
=
-
\nabla \mathcal L ( \varphi, \varepsilon )
, \quad
\lambda \geqslant 0
,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\frac 14 d \nabla \mathcal L ( \varphi, \varepsilon )
( \delta \varphi, \delta \varepsilon )
=
\begin{pmatrix}
h \delta \varphi
-
\varepsilon \delta \varphi
+
J(11) \delta \varphi
+
2 J(1 \delta 1) \varphi
-
\delta \varepsilon \varphi
\\
-
\int \varphi \delta \varphi
\end{pmatrix}
.
\end{equation*}
The self consistent form
consists of the following two equations
\begin{equation}
\tag{Energy}
\begin{pmatrix}
\norm{\varphi}^2
&
-\lambda
\\
\lambda
&
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\int \varphi \delta \varphi
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
( \delta 1 |h - \varepsilon| 1 )
+
3 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
( 1 |h - \varepsilon| 1 )
+
( 11 | 11 )
\\
\frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\tag{Energy}
\begin{pmatrix}
\norm{\varphi}^2
&
\varepsilon - \lambda
\\
\lambda
&
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\int \varphi \delta \varphi
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
( 1 |h - \varepsilon| 1 )
+
( 11 | 11 )
\\
\frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\delta \varphi
=
-
\varphi
+
\left(
-\frac{\Delta}2 - \varepsilon + \lambda
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
(\delta \varepsilon + \lambda) \varphi
-
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\left(
\delta \varphi
+
\varphi
\right)
-
2 J (1 \delta 1) \varphi
\right)
\end{equation*}
that we can solve iteratively.
In fact, a direct use of these two equations leads to very slow convergence.
One can speed it up slightly by using DIIS as an inner loop.
However, to make it faster than other methods, one has to normalize $\varphi$
after each update.
Shift $\lambda > 0$ with every step normalization, spoils the convergence as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\lambda \ll 1$
affecting insignificantly;
\item
$\lambda \sim 1$
leading to divergence;
\item
$\lambda \gg 1$
slowly convergence to a poor result;
\end{itemize}
Without normalization: only $\lambda \ll 1$ preserve convergence.
It is not surprising,
since in the case of a single determinant with two closed-shell electrons,
we have exactly one saddle point and no extrema for Lagrangian.
Finally, we remark
\begin{equation}
\tag{Energy}
\begin{pmatrix}
\norm{\varphi}^2
&
\varepsilon
\\
0
&
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\int \varphi \delta \varphi
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
( 1 |h - \varepsilon| 1 )
+
( 11 | 11 )
\\
\frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi}^2 - 1 \right)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\delta \varphi
=
-
\varphi
+
\left(
-\frac{\Delta}2 - \varepsilon
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
\delta \varepsilon \varphi
-
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\left(
\delta \varphi
+
\varphi
\right)
-
2 J (1 \delta 1) \varphi
\right)
\end{equation*}
If each time after finding a solution to Newton's equation we normalize the orbital,
then
\(
\int \varphi \delta \varphi = 0
\)
and
\[
\delta \varepsilon
=
( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
( 1 |h| 1 )
+
( 11 | 11 ) - \varepsilon
.
\]
Moreover, $\varepsilon$ can be reset before running Newton's inner loop as
\(
\varepsilon
=
( 1 |h| 1 )
+
( 11 | 11 )
,
\)
which is in line with the Hartree-Fock equation.
Then the Newton's system simplifies to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \varepsilon
&
=
( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
,
\\
\delta \varphi
&
=
-
\varphi
+
\left(
-\frac{\Delta}2 - \varepsilon
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
\delta \varepsilon \varphi
-
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\left(
\delta \varphi
+
\varphi
\right)
-
2 J (1 \delta 1) \varphi
\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Thus accepting the result of its first iteration
$\delta \varphi = 0 \mapsto \delta \varepsilon = 0 \mapsto \delta \varphi$
as an approximate solution,
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\varphi
+
\delta \varphi
=
-
\left(
-\frac{\Delta}2 - \varepsilon
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\varphi
\right)
,
\end{equation*}
that is a very well established simple scheme \cite{Harrison_Fann_Yanai_Gan_Beylkin2004, Frediani_Fossgaard_Fla_Ruud}.
This demonstrates usefulness of the Green's function
and explains the success of multiwavelets in computational chemistry.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Two configurations}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Before considering the general multi determinant problem,
we would like to focus on the simplest possible case of
linear combination of two determinants $\left| 1 \overline{1} \right \rangle$
and $\left| 2 \overline{2} \right \rangle$,
as it is formulated in \cite{Szabo_Ostlund}.
The corresponding CI coefficients satisfy
\[
c_1^2 + c_2^2 = 1
\]
and the spatial orbitals $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ are orthonormalized.
The amount of variables can be reduced by introducing an angle $\theta$,
so that $c_1 = \cos \theta$ and $c_2 = \sin \theta$.
As the Hartree-Fock theory gives the dominating configuration,
one anticipates the angle $\theta$ to be small.
The total energy has the form
\[
E(\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta)
=
\cos^2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
\sin^2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
+
\sin 2\theta
(12|12)
.
\]
Introduce the Lagrangian
\[
\mathcal L
=
E - 2 \sum_{i, j = 1}^2 \varepsilon_{ij} \left( \int \varphi_i \varphi_j - \delta_{ij} \right)
\]
with symmetric matrix $\varepsilon$.
It is necessary to impose its symmetry,
because we have only 3 orthogonality restrictions on the orbitals.
An \ac{MCSCF} wave function corresponds to the global minimum of the energy,
and so a stationary point of $\mathcal L$,
namely, a solution of the equation $\nabla \mathcal L = 0$.
The gradient consists of the variational derivatives
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac 14 \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_1}
=
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
\frac 14 \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_2}
=
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the partial derivatives with respect to
\(
\theta, \varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{22}, \varepsilon_{12}
.
\)
In particular,
$\theta$-derivative:
\[
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \theta} (\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta)
=
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \theta} (\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta)
\]
where
\[
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \theta} (\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta)
=
- \sin 2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
\sin 2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
+
2 \cos 2\theta
(12|12)
.
\]
This brings us to the following system of integro-differential equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
=
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
+
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
=
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
+
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
complemented by
\[
- \sin 2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
\sin 2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
+
2 \cos 2\theta
(12|12)
=
0
\]
and by the orthonormality condition.
It is very difficult problem demanding advance numerical techniques to be exploited.
It is commonly known \cite{Helgaker_Jorgensen_Olsen}
that the Newton's optimization is the most suitable method here.
We introduce
\[
\mathcal R( \varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta, \varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{22}, \varepsilon_{12} )
=
\left(
\frac 14 \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_1}
,
\frac 14 \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_2}
,
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \theta}
,
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_1 - 1
,
\int \varphi_2 \varphi_2 - 1
,
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\right)^T
\]
acting in
\(
L^2 \left( \mathbb R^3 \right) ^2 \times \mathbb R^4
.
\)
Now for a given $w = w_n$ we solve the Newton's equation
\[
d \mathcal R(w) \delta w
=
- \mathcal R(w)
\]
with respect $\delta w$.
This is a linear equation that we solve iteratively.
Note that in a basis type method one could potentially invert the Jacobian,
though for this the basis size should be prohibitively small.
Then the update is $w_{n + 1} = w_n + \delta w$.
\[
d \mathcal R_i(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_i(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\ldots
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_i } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
, \quad
i = 1, 2
,
\]
where the first partial derivative is applied to $\delta \varphi_1$ as a linear operator in $L^2$,
and the last partial derivative is a function multiplied by the scalar $\delta \varepsilon_{12}$.
The differential of first component
\(
d \mathcal R_1(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_1(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_1)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
,
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_1(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
,
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
\]
and the rest
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{11}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{22}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{22}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
=
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\]
Similarly,
\(
d \mathcal R_2(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_2(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
,
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_2(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
2 c_2^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_2 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
,
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
\]
and the remaining terms
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{11}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{22}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{22}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
=
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\]
The differential of third component
\(
d \mathcal R_3(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
- 4 \sin 2 \theta
( (\delta 1 |h| 1) + (\delta 11|11) )
+
4 \cos 2\theta
(\delta 12|12)
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
4 \sin 2 \theta
( (\delta 2 |h| 2) + (\delta 22|22) )
+
4 \cos 2\theta
(1\delta 2|12)
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_3 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
(
- 2 \cos 2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
2 \cos 2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
-
4 \sin 2\theta
(12|12)
)
\delta \theta
\]
Finally,
\[
d \mathcal R_4(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_4(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
2 \int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_1
\]
\[
d \mathcal R_5(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_5(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
2 \int \varphi_2 \delta \varphi_2
\]
\[
d \mathcal R_6(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_6(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_6(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
\int \delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2
+
\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2
\]
\subsection{Algorithm}
Firstly,
$\delta \theta$ is defined
as
\(
\delta \theta
=
\Theta(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, w)
\)
by
\[
\delta \theta
=
-
\left(
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_3 } {\partial \theta} (w)
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_2
+
\mathcal R_3(w)
\right)
\]
Secondly,
$\delta \varepsilon_{ij}$ are defined
by
\(
\delta \varepsilon_{ij}
=
\mathcal E_{ij}(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\)
that we introduce as follows.
We rewrite the first two lines of the Newton's system as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
+
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
+
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
+
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
=
F(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
+
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
+
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
+
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
=
G(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Multiplying and integrating these equations by $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$,
we obtain four equations in $\mathbb R$.
Then we exclude $\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_1$ and $\int \varphi_2 \delta \varphi_2$
using the fourth and the fifth Newton equations.
Finally, complementing these four equations by the sixth Newton equation
we obtain the following system
\begin{equation}
\label{energy_update_system}
\begin{pmatrix}
\norm{\varphi_1}^2
&
0
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
0
&
\varepsilon_{12}
\\
0
&
\norm{\varphi_2}^2
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
\varepsilon_{12}
&
0
\\
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
0
&
\norm{\varphi_2}^2
&
\varepsilon_{11}
&
0
\\
0
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
\norm{\varphi_1}^2
&
0
&
\varepsilon_{22}
\\
0
&
0
&
0
&
1
&
1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
\\
\int \delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\\
\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\int F \varphi_1 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{11} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_1}^2 \right)
\\
\int G \varphi_2 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{22} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_2}^2 \right)
\\
\int F \varphi_2 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{12} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_2}^2 \right)
\\
\int G \varphi_1 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{12} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_1}^2 \right)
\\
- \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
We search for orthonormal orbitals $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$.
Therefore, the determinant of this system
should stay
close to $- \varepsilon_{11} - \varepsilon_{22}$ during each Newton's update.
In particular, the matrix should be invertible for each Newton's iteration $w = w_n$.
\begin{multline}
\int F \varphi_1
=
c_1^2 ( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 c_1^2 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 12 )
+
2 c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_1^2 - \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 1 ) + ( 11 | 11 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{11} \norm{\varphi_1}^2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int F \varphi_2
=
c_1^2 ( \delta 1 |h| 2 )
+
c_1^2 ( \delta 12 | 11 )
+
2 c_1^2 ( \delta 11 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 22 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 22 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 2 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_1^2 - \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 2 ) + ( 11 | 12 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 22 )
-
\varepsilon_{11} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \norm{\varphi_2}^2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int G \varphi_2
=
c_2^2 ( \delta 2 |h| 2 )
+
3 c_2^2 ( \delta 22 | 22 )
+
2 c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_2^2 + \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 2 |h| 2 ) + ( 22 | 22 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{22} \norm{\varphi_2}^2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int G \varphi_1
=
c_2^2 ( \delta 2 |h| 1 )
+
c_2^2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 22 )
+
2 c_2^2 ( \delta 22 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 1 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_2^2 + \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 2 ) + ( 12 | 22 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 11 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{22} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \norm{\varphi_1}^2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_1)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
+
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
2 c_2^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_2 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
\\
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\\
+
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1^2
\left(
h + J (11)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
J (12)
\varphi_2
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
+
c_1^2
\left(
h + J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_2^2
\left(
h + J(22)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
\\
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
J (12)
\varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\\
+
c_2^2
\left(
h
+ J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1^2
\left(
- \frac 12 \Delta + V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
- \frac 12 \Delta + V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
c_2^2
\left(
- \frac 12 \Delta + V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
- \frac 12 \Delta + V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_1
=
0
\end{multline}
Finally, we rewrite these two equations in the self consistent form
\begin{multline}
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{11}
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
c_1^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
\\
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
1
-
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
\right)
\varphi_1
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
\\
+
\left(
-
\frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{22}
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
c_2^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
1
+
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
\right)
\varphi_2
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_1
=
0
\end{multline}
Thus
\begin{multline}
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{11}
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
\left(
1
-
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
- \varepsilon_{11}
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
c_1^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\left(
\varepsilon_{11} \frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
+
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\left(
-
\frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{22}
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
\left(
1
+
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
- \varepsilon_{22}
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
+
c_2^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
+
\left(
\varepsilon_{22} \frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_1
=
0
\end{multline}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \varphi_1
=
-
\left(
1
-
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
\right)
\varphi_1
-
R_1 \mathfrak F_1
\\
\delta \varphi_2
=
-
\left(
1
+
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
\right)
\varphi_2
-
R_2 \mathfrak F_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_1
=
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
-
(
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
+
\varepsilon_{12}
)
\varphi_2
-
\left(
\varepsilon_{11} \frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
+
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\left(
c_1^2
\delta \varphi_1
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\varphi_1
\right)
+
J (12)
(
c_1 c_2
\delta \varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
\varphi_2
)
\\
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
\end{multline*}
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_2
=
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
-
(
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
+
\varepsilon_{12}
)
\varphi_1
+
\left(
\varepsilon_{22} \frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\left(
c_2^2
\delta \varphi_2
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\varphi_2
\right)
+
J (12)
(
c_1 c_2
\delta \varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
\varphi_1
)
\\
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
\end{multline*}
Iterative Newton procedure fits into two loops.
The inner loop is associated with solving Newton's equation at a given Newton step.
One can use simple iteration or DIIS acceleration over unknown $x = (\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2)$ as
\[
\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2 = 0
\mapsto
\delta \theta
\mapsto
\delta \varepsilon_{ij}
\mapsto
\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2
\mapsto
\ldots
.
\]
It is terminated when either $\norm{x_{n+1} - x_n}$
or the residual is smaller than a given tolerance, depending on $\varepsilon_{\text{mra}}$
for multiwavelet discretization.
The outer loop corresponds to the Newton step
\(
w \mapsto w + \delta w
.
\)
Newton's method is sensible to the choice $w_0$ of an initial guess.
Therefore, a trust radius technique or a level shifting (described in the next section)
should guide each iteration $w_n \mapsto w_{n + 1}$,
which does not lead to the decrease of energy.
Alternatively, for the first couple of iterations one can intervene to the Newton's procedure,
in order to direct it in the right way:
by setting $\varepsilon_{22}^{n+1} = 10 * (\varepsilon_{22}^n + \delta \varepsilon_{22})$.
This trick is related to the level-shifting.
At the beginning orbital energy matrix is initialized by $\varepsilon_{ij}^0 = - \delta_{ij}$.
The orbitals of an initial point $w_0$ can be formed from $1s, 2s$ orbitals
of the corresponding ion, He$^+$ or H2$^+$, for example.
%
Initial guess for $\theta \in (- \pi / 4, 0) \cup (0, \pi / 4)$ can be taken from
\(
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \theta} (\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta) = 0
,
\)
provided $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ are given, as follows
\[
\tan 2 \theta
=
\frac
{
2 (12|12)
}
{
2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) - 2(2 |h| 2) - (22|22)
}
.
\]
Overall, the complete Newton procedure can be
schematically described by Figure \ref{Newton_optimisation_figure}.
The two orbital \ac{MCSCF} for the helium atom results in the coefficients
$c_1 = 0.99793, c_2 = -0.06430$, associated to $\theta = -0.06435$,
and orbitals symmetric with respect to origin,
shown in Figure \ref{ground_helium_orbitals_figure}.
The corresponding total energy is $-2.87799$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
{helium_orbitals.pdf}
}
\caption
{
Two determinants ground state of the helium atom
with the coefficients $c_0 = 0.99793$ and $ c_1 = -0.06430$, correspondingly.
The corresponding total energy is $-2.87799$.
}
\label{ground_helium_orbitals_figure}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Symmetric hessian and shift}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In the previous section we did not bother to define $\mathcal R(w)$
so the operator $d \mathcal R(w)$ is symmetric.
However, the hermitian property of the second derivative is important
for introducing the Levenberg–Marquardt damping $\lambda \geqslant 0$.
The Lagrangian is defined by
\[
\mathcal L
=
\frac 14 E - \frac 12 \sum_{i, j = 1}^2 \varepsilon_{ij} \left( \int \varphi_i \varphi_j - \delta_{ij} \right)
\]
with symmetric matrix $\varepsilon$ and variational derivatives
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_1}
=
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\\
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_2}
=
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $c_1 = \cos \theta$ and $c_2 = \sin \theta$.
The derivatives with respect to scalars are
\[
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \theta}
=
- \frac 14 \sin 2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
\frac 14 \sin 2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
+
\frac 12 \cos 2\theta
(12|12)
\]
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{11}}
&=
- \frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi_1}^2 - 1 \right)
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{22}}
&=
- \frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi_2}^2 - 1 \right)
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{12}}
&=
- \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We introduce
\[
\mathcal R( \varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta, \varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{22}, \varepsilon_{12} )
=
\nabla \mathcal L
=
\left(
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_1}
,
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_2}
,
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \theta}
,
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{11}}
,
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{22}}
,
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{12}}
\right)^T
\]
acting in
\(
W
=
L^2 \left( \mathbb R^3 \right) ^2 \times \mathbb R^4
.
\)
Now for a given $w = w_n \in W$ we solve the shifted Newton's equation
\[
( d \mathcal R(w) + \lambda )
\delta w
=
- \mathcal R(w)
, \quad
\lambda \geqslant 0
,
\]
with respect $\delta w \in W$.
This is a linear equation that we solve iteratively
and accelerating with DIIS.
The Jacobian $d \mathcal R(w)$ equals to the Hessian $d \nabla \mathcal L(w)$.
Then the update is $w_{n + 1} = w_n + \delta w$.
\[
d \mathcal R_i(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_i(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\ldots
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_i } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
, \quad
i = 1, 2
,
\]
where the first partial derivative is applied to $\delta \varphi_1$ as a linear operator in $L^2$,
and the last partial derivative is a function multiplied by the scalar $\delta \varepsilon_{12}$.
The differential of first component
\(
d \mathcal R_1(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_1(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
c_1^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_1)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{11} \delta \varphi_1
,
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_1(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
,
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_1^2
\right)
\varphi_1
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
\]
and the rest
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{11}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{22}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{22}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_1 } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
=
-
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
\]
Similarly,
\(
d \mathcal R_2(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_2(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
,
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_2(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
c_2^2
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
2 c_2^2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\delta \varphi_2 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{22} \delta \varphi_2
,
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\left(
h + \frac 1{|x|} * \varphi_2^2
\right)
\varphi_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
\left(
\frac 1{|x|} * (\varphi_1 \varphi_2)
\right)
\varphi_1
\]
and the remaining terms
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{11}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{22}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{22}
+
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_2 } {\partial \varepsilon_{12}} (w) \delta \varepsilon_{12}
=
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
\]
The differential of third component
\(
d \mathcal R_3(w) \delta w
\)
consists of
\[
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
-
\sin 2 \theta
( (\delta 1 |h| 1) + (\delta 11|11) )
+
\cos 2\theta
(\delta 12|12)
\]
\[
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
\sin 2 \theta
( (\delta 2 |h| 2) + (\delta 22|22) )
+
\cos 2\theta
(1\delta 2|12)
\]
\[
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_3 } {\partial \theta} (w) \delta \theta
=
\left(
-
\frac 12 \cos 2 \theta
( 2(1 |h| 1) + (11|11) )
+
\frac 12 \cos 2 \theta
( 2(2 |h| 2) + (22|22) )
-
\sin 2\theta
(12|12)
\right)
\delta \theta
\]
Finally,
\[
d \mathcal R_4(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_4(w) \delta \varphi_1
=
- \int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_1
\]
\[
d \mathcal R_5(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_5(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
- \int \varphi_2 \delta \varphi_2
\]
\[
d \mathcal R_6(w) \delta w
=
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_6(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_6(w) \delta \varphi_2
=
-
\int \delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2
-
\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2
\]
This finishes the detailed description of the Newton equation.
Now we want to rewrite it in the self-consistent form,
which will be suitable for an iterative procedure.
\subsection{Self-consistent form}
We rewrite the Newton equation in the form
\[
(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2)^T
=
\mathbb F( \delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2; w )
,
\]
where
\(
w = ( \varphi_1, \varphi_2, \theta, \varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{22}, \varepsilon_{12} )
\)
is fixed at each Newton step,
as follows.
Firstly,
$\delta \theta$ is defined
as
\(
\delta \theta
=
\Theta(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, w)
\)
by
\[
\delta \theta
=
-
\left(
\frac {\partial \mathcal R_3 } {\partial \theta} (w)
+
\lambda
\right) ^{-1}
\left(
\partial_{\varphi_1} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_1
+
\partial_{\varphi_2} \mathcal R_3(w) \delta \varphi_2
+
\mathcal R_3(w)
\right)
\]
Secondly,
$\delta \varepsilon_{ij}$ are defined
by
\(
\delta \varepsilon_{ij}
=
\mathcal E_{ij}(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\)
that we introduce as follows.
We rewrite the first two lines of the Newton's system as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \varepsilon_{11} \varphi_1
+
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
+
(\varepsilon_{11} - \lambda) \delta \varphi_1
+
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
=
F(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
+
\delta \varepsilon_{22} \varphi_2
+
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
+
(\varepsilon_{22} - \lambda) \delta \varphi_2
=
G(\delta \varphi_1, \delta \varphi_2, \delta \theta, w)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Multiplying these equations by $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$ and then integrating,
we obtain four equations in $\mathbb R$.
We exclude $\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_1$ and $\int \varphi_2 \delta \varphi_2$
using the fourth and the fifth Newton equations.
Finally, complementing these four equations by the sixth Newton equation
we obtain the following system
\begin{multline}
%\label{energy_update_system}
\begin{pmatrix}
\norm{\varphi_1}^2
+
(\varepsilon_{11} - \lambda) \lambda
&
0
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
0
&
\varepsilon_{12}
\\
0
&
\norm{\varphi_2}^2
+
(\varepsilon_{22} - \lambda) \lambda
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
\varepsilon_{12}
&
0
\\
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
0
&
\norm{\varphi_2}^2
&
\varepsilon_{11} - \lambda
&
0
\\
0
&
\int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
&
\norm{\varphi_1}^2
&
0
&
\varepsilon_{22} - \lambda
\\
0
&
0
&
- \lambda
&
1
&
1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
\\
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
\\
\int \delta \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\\
\int \varphi_1 \delta \varphi_2
\end{pmatrix}
\\
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\int F \varphi_1 - \frac 12 (\varepsilon_{11} - \lambda) \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_1}^2 \right)
\\
\int G \varphi_2 - \frac 12 (\varepsilon_{22} - \lambda) \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_2}^2 \right)
\\
\int F \varphi_2 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{12} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_2}^2 \right)
\\
\int G \varphi_1 - \frac 12 \varepsilon_{12} \left( 1 - \norm{\varphi_1}^2 \right)
\\
- \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{multline}
We search for orthonormal orbitals $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$.
Therefore, the determinant of this system
should stay
close to $- \varepsilon_{11} - \varepsilon_{22}$ during each Newton's update,
provided $\lambda = 0$.
In particular, the matrix should be invertible for each Newton's iteration $w = w_n$.
\begin{multline}
\int F \varphi_1
=
c_1^2 ( \delta 1 |h| 1 )
+
3 c_1^2 ( \delta 11 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 12 )
+
2 c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_1^2 - \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 1 ) + ( 11 | 11 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{11} \norm{\varphi_1}^2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int F \varphi_2
=
c_1^2 ( \delta 1 |h| 2 )
+
c_1^2 ( \delta 12 | 11 )
+
2 c_1^2 ( \delta 11 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 22 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 22 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 2 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_1^2 - \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 2 ) + ( 11 | 12 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 22 )
-
\varepsilon_{11} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \norm{\varphi_2}^2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int G \varphi_2
=
c_2^2 ( \delta 2 |h| 2 )
+
3 c_2^2 ( \delta 22 | 22 )
+
2 c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_2^2 + \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 2 |h| 2 ) + ( 22 | 22 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 12 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{22} \norm{\varphi_2}^2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\int G \varphi_1
=
c_2^2 ( \delta 2 |h| 1 )
+
c_2^2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 22 )
+
2 c_2^2 ( \delta 22 | 12 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( \delta 12 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 2 | 11 )
+
c_1 c_2 ( 1 \delta 1 | 12 )
\\
+
(
c_2^2 + \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
)
(
( 1 |h| 2 ) + ( 12 | 22 )
)
+
(
c_1 c_2 + \delta \theta \cos 2\theta
)
( 11 | 12 )
-
\varepsilon_{22} \int \varphi_1 \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \norm{\varphi_1}^2
\end{multline}
It is left to rewrite the $L^2$-equations as
\begin{multline}
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{11}
+
\lambda
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
\left(
1
-
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_1^2}2 \Delta
- \varepsilon_{11}
+
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
c_1^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_2
-
\left(
(
\varepsilon_{11}
-
\lambda
)
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
+
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(11)
\right)
\varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_2
=
0
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\left(
-
\frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
-
\varepsilon_{22}
+
\lambda
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
+
\left(
1
+
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
\right)
\left(
- \frac {c_2^2}2 \Delta
- \varepsilon_{22}
+
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (12)
\delta \varphi_1
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
+
c_2^2
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\delta \varphi_2
\\
-
\delta \varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
-
\varepsilon_{12} \varphi_1
+
\left(
(
\varepsilon_{22}
-
\lambda
)
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
-
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
J (12)
\varphi_1
=
0
\end{multline}
Finally,
introducing
\[
R_i^{\lambda}
=
\left(
- \frac {c_i^2}2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{ii} + \lambda
\right) ^{-1}
=
\frac 2{c_i^2} H
\left(
\sqrt{ \frac {2 (\lambda - \varepsilon_{ii})}{c_i^2} }
\right)
=
\frac 2{c_i^2} H
\left(
\mu_i
\right)
=
\frac 2{c_i^2}
\left(
- \Delta + \mu_i^2
\right) ^{-1}
\]
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \varphi_1
=
-
\left(
1
-
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
\right)
\varphi_1
-
R_1^{\lambda} \mathfrak F_1^{\lambda}
\\
\delta \varphi_2
=
-
\left(
1
+
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
\right)
\varphi_2
-
R_2^{\lambda} \mathfrak F_2^{\lambda}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_1^{\lambda}
=
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_2
-
(
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
+
\varepsilon_{12}
)
\varphi_2
-
\left(
(
\varepsilon_{11}
-
\lambda
)
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_1^2}
+
\delta \varepsilon_{11}
+
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_1
\\
+
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J (11)
\right)
\left(
c_1^2
\delta \varphi_1
+
\left(
c_1^2
- \delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\varphi_1
\right)
+
J (12)
(
c_1 c_2
\delta \varphi_2
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
\varphi_2
)
\\
+
2 c_1^2
J (1 \delta 1)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
\end{multline*}
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_2^{\lambda}
=
-
\varepsilon_{12} \delta \varphi_1
-
(
\delta \varepsilon_{12}
+
\varepsilon_{12}
)
\varphi_1
+
\left(
(
\varepsilon_{22}
-
\lambda
)
\frac {\delta \theta \sin 2\theta}{c_2^2}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{22}
-
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_2
\\
+
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(22)
\right)
\left(
c_2^2
\delta \varphi_2
+
\left(
c_2^2
+
\delta \theta \sin 2\theta
\right)
\varphi_2
\right)
+
J (12)
(
c_1 c_2
\delta \varphi_1
+
(
c_1 c_2
+
\delta \theta
\cos 2 \theta
)
\varphi_1
)
\\
+
2 c_2^2
J (2 \delta 2)
\varphi_2
+
c_1 c_2
J (\delta 12)
\varphi_1
+
c_1 c_2
J (1 \delta 2)
\varphi_1
\end{multline*}
For $\lambda = 0$
the final Newton system obviously coincides with
the system derived in the previous section.
The importance of defining the Newton's function consistently,
namely, as $\mathcal R = \nabla \mathcal L$,
is obvious,
provided one uses the Levenberg–Marquardt damping $\lambda \geqslant 0$
or any other special technique tailored for Newton's optimization.
It is worth to point out,
that as long as $\lambda$ is small,
\(
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(ii)
-
\lambda
\right)
\varphi_i
\approx
\left(
V_{\text{nuc}}
+
J(ii)
\right)
\varphi_i
.
\)
Therefore,
the damping affects directly only the diagonal orbital energies $\varepsilon_{ii}$.
In fact,
one can use a different $\lambda_i$ for every energy $\varepsilon_{ii}$.
This justifies the trick of controlling and correcting the sign of $\varepsilon_{ii}$
during numerical simulations,
from the abstract optimization perspective.
Keeping this in mind below, we omit the use of the damping in the formulas.
In actual simulations we modify energies diagonal orbital energies $\varepsilon_{ii}$,
as long as we encounter a positive value or if Newton's step fails providing a lower energy value.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{General case}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The wave function is represented as a sum of $M + 1$ closed shell determinants
\[
\Psi = \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m \left| m \overline{m} \right \rangle
\]
Then the total energy takes the quadratic form
\[
E
=
\left \langle
\Psi
\left| \widehat H \right|
\Psi
\right \rangle
=
\sum_{k, m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_k c_m
,
\]
where the energy matrix elements are
\[
H_{km}
=
\left \langle
k \overline{k}
\left| \widehat H \right|
m \overline{m}
\right \rangle
=
2 \delta_{km} (k|h|m)
+
(km|km)
\]
Introduce the Lagrangian
\[
\mathcal L
=
\frac 14 E
-
\frac 14 \varepsilon \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
-
\frac 12 \sum_{i, j = 0}^M \varepsilon_{ij} \left( \int \varphi_i \varphi_j - \delta_{ij} \right)
\]
with symmetric matrix coefficients $\varepsilon_{ij}$.
It is a function of
\(
\varphi_0, \ldots, \varphi_M,
\varepsilon,
c_0, \ldots, c_M
\)
and $\varepsilon_{ij}$ with $i \leqslant j$.
We calculate its gradient as follows.
Firstly, the variational derivatives
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
&
=
c_k^2
h \varphi_k
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
J(km)
\varphi_m
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon}
&
=
-
\frac 14 \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
&
=
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon c_k
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{kk}}
&=
- \frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi_k}^2 - 1 \right)
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
&=
- \int \varphi_i \varphi_j
, \quad
0 \leqslant i < j \leqslant M
.
\end{align}
Now let us calculate the Hessian $d \nabla \mathcal L$.
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\partial_{\varphi_j}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta \varphi_j
=
c_k^2
h \delta \varphi_k
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
+
J(km)
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
,
\end{equation}
where
\(
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\)
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
=
0
\]
\[
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\frac{\partial}{\partial c_j}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta c_j
=
2 c_k \delta c_k
h \varphi_k
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
\]
\[
\sum_{0 \leqslant i \leqslant j \leqslant M}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta \varepsilon_{ij}
=
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
,
\]
where we extended the orbital energy update by symmetry.
Summing these equalities we obtain
\begin{multline}
\tag{LHS1}
d
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta w
=
c_k^2
h \delta \varphi_k
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
+
J(km)
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
2 c_k \delta c_k
h \varphi_k
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\end{multline}
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS2}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon}
\delta w
=
-
\frac 12 \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m \delta c_m
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\partial_{\varphi_j}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta \varphi_j
=
2 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial {\varepsilon}}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta \varepsilon
=
-
\frac 12 \delta \varepsilon c_k
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\frac{\partial }{\partial c_j}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta c_j
=
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} \delta c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon \delta c_k
\end{equation*}
Summing these equalities we obtain
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS3}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta w
=
2 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
-
\frac 12 \delta \varepsilon c_k
+
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} \delta c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon \delta c_k
\end{equation}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS4}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{kk}}
\delta w
=
- \int \varphi_k \delta \varphi_k
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS5}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
\delta w
=
-
\int \delta \varphi_i \varphi_j
-
\int \varphi_i \delta \varphi_j
, \quad
0 \leqslant i < j \leqslant M
.
\end{equation}
The right hand side is $- \nabla \mathcal L$.
This finishes the detailed description of the Newton equation.
Now we want to rewrite it in the self-consistent form,
which will be suitable for an iterative procedure.
\subsection{Self-consistent form}
We rewrite the Newton equation in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{general_self_consistent_newton}
\delta \varphi_k
=
\mathbb F_k( \delta \varphi_0, \ldots, \delta \varphi_M; w )
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\end{equation}
where
\(
w = ( \varphi_1, \ldots, \varepsilon_{M-1,M} )
\)
is fixed at each Newton step,
as follows.
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & c_0 & \cdots & c_M
\\
c_0 & & &
\\
\vdots & & \varepsilon - H &
\\
c_M & & &
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\delta c_0
\\
\vdots
\\
\delta c_M
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
- \frac 12 \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
\\
f
\end{pmatrix}
\]
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \mathbf{c}^T
\\
\mathbf{c} & \varepsilon - H
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\delta \mathbf c
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
- \frac 12 \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
\\
f
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where:
\(\mathbf{c} = (c_0, c_1, \dots, c_M)^T\) is a column vector,
\(\varepsilon - H\) is an \((M+1) \times (M+1)\) matrix.
Here
\[
f_k
=
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_m
-
\varepsilon c_k
+
4 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
2 \sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
2 \sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
\]
Introduce the matrix
\begin{multline*}
F_{kj}
=
\int
\left(
d
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta w
+
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
\right)
\varphi_j
=
c_k^2 ( \delta k |h| j )
\\
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
( \delta k m | j m )
+
( k \delta m | j m )
+
( j \delta m | k m )
\right)
+
2 c_k \delta c_k ( k |h| j )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
(
c_k \delta c_m + \delta c_k c_m
)
( j m | k m )
\\
+
c_k^2 ( k |h| j )
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
( j m | k m )
-
\underbrace{
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \int \varphi_j \varphi_m
}_{
= \varepsilon_{jk}
}
\end{multline*}
\begin{comment}
The same matrix, but {\bf python} friendly:
\begin{multline*}
F_{kj}
=
c_k^2 ( \delta k |h| j )
+
c_k^2 ( k |h| j )
-
\varepsilon_{kj}
+
2 c_k \delta c_k ( k |h| j )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_k
c_m
( \delta k m + k \delta m | j m )
\\
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\left(
(
c_k c_m
\delta \varphi_m
+
( c_k \delta c_m + \delta c_k c_m + c_k c_m )
\varphi_m
)
\varphi_j | k m
\right)
\end{multline*}
\end{comment}
So far the derivation of the self-consistent form was generic.
In order to simplify the equations we will assume from now on,
that the orbitals are normalized as
\(
\int \varphi_j \varphi_m = \delta_{jm}
.
\)
Note that this normalization is needed to accelerate the Newton optimization,
as we have seen above.
This also simplifies the equations for the orbital energy updates $\delta \varepsilon_{kj}$
into the following matrix form
\[
X + \mathcal E Y = F
,
\]
where $\mathcal E = ( \varepsilon_{kj} )$,
$X = ( \delta \varepsilon_{kj} )$ is symmetric
and $Y = \left( \int \delta \varphi_j \varphi_k \right)$ is antisymmetric.
As long as the spectra of $\mathcal E$ and $- \mathcal E$ are disjoint,
there exist a unique solution $X$.
For this it is enough to have all the eigenvalues of $\mathcal E$ being negative.
One naturally anticipates the orbital energies to be negative.
%
%
Taking the transpose of both sides
and accounting for $X^T = X$, $Y^T = -Y$
one obtains
\[
X - Y \mathcal E^T = F^T
.
\]
Now, we add and subtract the original equation in order to simplify to two separate equations:
$$ 2X = (F + F^T) - \mathcal E Y + Y \mathcal E^T, $$
%
$$ \mathcal E Y + Y \mathcal E^T = (F - F^T). $$
The equation for $Y$ is a Sylvester equation,
which can be solved by the Bartels–Stewart algorithm
implemented in many software packages.
Its computational cost is $\mathcal O \left( M^3 \right)$ arithmetical operations,
that can be viewed negligible.
Once $Y$ is found, we solve for $X$:
$$ X = \frac{1}{2} (F + F^T + \mathcal E Y^T + Y \mathcal E^T). $$
This ensures that $X = ( \delta \varepsilon_{kj} )$ remains symmetric.
The second matrix $Y$ is not needed by itself.
\begin{comment}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We want to solve the equation:
$$ X + E Y = F $$
where:
$X$ is symmetric: $X^T = X$,
and $Y$ is antisymmetric: $Y^T = -Y$.
{\bf Step 1: Split into Symmetric and Antisymmetric Parts}
Taking the transpose of both sides:
$$ X^T + Y^T E^T = F^T. $$
Using the properties of $X$ and $Y$, we rewrite:
$$ X + (-Y) E^T = F^T. $$
Now, we add and subtract the original equation:
$$ (X + X) + E Y - Y E^T = F + F^T, $$
$$ (X - X) + E Y + Y E^T = F - F^T. $$
These simplify to two separate equations:
$$ 2X = (F + F^T) - E Y + Y E^T, $$
$$ E Y + Y E^T = (F - F^T). $$
{\bf Step 2: Solve for $Y$}
The equation for $Y$:
$$ E Y + Y E^T = (F - F^T) $$
is a Sylvester equation, which can be solved using scipy.linalg
{\bf Step 3: Solve for $X$}
Once $Y$ is found, we solve for $X$:
$$ X = \frac{1}{2} (F + F^T - E Y + Y E^T). $$
This ensures that $X$ remains symmetric and $Y$ remains antisymmetric.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{comment}
It is left to precondition the first $M + 1$ equations in the Newton system
\[
d
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta w
+
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
=
0
\]
as follows
\begin{multline*}
\left(
- \frac { c_k^2 }2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\delta \varphi_k
+
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\left(
- \frac { c_k^2 }2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\left(
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\varepsilon_{kk}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
\\
+
c_k^2
V_{\text{nuc}}
\left(
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\delta \varphi_k
\right)
-
\sum_{\substack{m=0 \\ m \ne k}}^M
\left(
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
+
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
J(km)
(
\varphi_m + \delta \varphi_m
)
\\
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
\right)
=
0
\end{multline*}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
\label{self_consistent_update}
\delta \varphi_k
=
-
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\varphi_k
-
R_k \mathfrak F_k
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_k
=
\left(
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\varepsilon_{kk}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
c_k^2
V_{\text{nuc}}
\left(
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\delta \varphi_k
\right)
\\
-
\sum_{\substack{m=0 \\ m \ne k}}^M
\left(
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
+
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\right)
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
J(km)
\left(
(
\delta c_k
c_m
+
c_k
\delta c_m
+
c_k
c_m
)
\varphi_m
+
c_k
c_m
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
\right)
\end{multline*}
and the convolution operator $R_k$ is defined as above.
This finishes the description of $\mathbb F_k$ in \eqref{general_self_consistent_newton}.
\subsection{Numerics}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
{h2_orbitals.pdf}
}
\caption
{
Three determinants ground state of the hydrogen molecule
with the coefficients
$c_0 = 0.99253, c_1 = -0.10718$ and $ c_2 = -0.05829$, accordingly.
The corresponding energy is $-1.15949$.
}
\label{ground_h2_orbitals_figure}
\end{figure}
The default calculation settings: maximum 15 iterations for the inner loop
related to the treatment of each Newton's equation.
We use DIIS with maximum 3 previous iterations.
The initial trust radius is set to 1.0
and modified by dividing in two every time the new iteration results in a bigger energy value.
In addition, we modify the diagonal values of the orbital energies by multiplying by 10.
We initialize the orbital energy matrix by $\mathds{1}$ at the beginning.
One may reset the orbital energy matrix back to $-\mathds{1}$
at the end of the first few iterations,
in order to avoid unwanted saddle points.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3, >=Stealth]
% Compute points with math
\pgfmathsetmacro{\xA}{0.3 * pi}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\yA}{cos(deg(\xA))}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\xB}{\xA + 1.9}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\yB}{\yA + 0.0}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\xC}{0.61 * pi}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\yC}{cos(deg(\xC))}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\xD}{1.11 * pi}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\yD}{cos(deg(\xD))}
% Draw the constraint surface: y = cos(x), approximately from 0 to pi
\draw[thick, domain = 0.05 * pi : 1.2 * pi, smooth, variable=\x]
plot ({\x}, {cos(deg(\x))})
node[above left] at (0.5, 1.0) {constrain surface};
% Coordinates
\coordinate (A) at (\xA, \yA);
\coordinate (B) at (\xB, \yB);
\coordinate (C) at (\xC, \yC);
\coordinate (D) at (\xD, \yD);
% Points and arrows
\fill (A) circle (0.8pt);
\fill (B) circle (0.8pt);
\fill (C) circle (0.8pt);
\fill (D) circle (0.8pt);
\node[below left] at (A) {$\left( \varphi^{(n)}, c^{(n)} \right)$};
\draw[->, thick] (A) -- (B) node[midway, sloped, above] {Newton};
\draw[->, thick] (B) -- (C) node[midway, sloped, above] {L\"owdin};
\draw[->, thick] (C) -- (D) node[midway, sloped, above] {$\varphi = \text{const}$};
\node[below right] at (D) {$\left( \varphi^{(n+1)}, c^{(n+1)} \right)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption
{
Newton energy optimization step.
}
\label{Newton_optimisation_figure}
\end{figure}
After each iteration the state is normalized using L\"owdin transform.
In addition, CI coefficients are optimized after the orthonormalization,
see Figure \ref{Newton_optimisation_figure}.
These two sub-steps are very cheap comparing to solving Newton's system.
The converged result for the two orbital \ac{MCSCF} for the helium atom
with the multiwavelet threshold $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-5}$ is
$c_0 = 0.99793, c_1 = -0.06430$
and orbitals symmetric with respect to origin,
shown in Figure \ref{ground_helium_orbitals_figure}.
The corresponding total energy is $-2.87799$.
%
%
It is worth to compare with \cite{Nakashima_Nakatsuji},
where the authors report a ground state energy for Helium of -2.90372438136211 a.u. using their free iterative complement interaction (ICI) method.
This result agrees with other high-precision calculations \cite{Aznabaev_Bekbaev_Korobov}.
It's worth noting that while this is a theoretical calculation,
it's considered extremely accurate
and is often used as a benchmark for experimental measurements and other theoretical methods.
For H2 molecule we refer to \cite{Kolos_Wolniewicz}:
the equilibrium internuclear distance $R_{\text{nuc}} = 1.4010784$,
the nuclear repulsion corrected total energy $E_{\text{el}} + 1/R_{\text{nuc}}$ is -1.17447.
These values are treated as the reference in the current work.
%Hylleraas Variational Methods: Sims and Hagstrom (2006) extended Kolos-Wolniewicz's
%approach with larger basis sets (7,034 terms), achieving
In \cite{Sims_Hagstrom2006} the total energy of
$-1.174475931399$ hartree
at equilibrium $R_{\text{nuc}} = 1.4011$ is reported.
%improving precision by 4 orders of magnitude \cite{Sims_Hagstrom2006}.
Our 3 configurations result is the energy $-1.15949$
with the coefficients $c_0 = 0.99253, c_1 = -0.10718$ and $ c_2 = -0.05829$.
The corresponding \ac{MCSCF} orbitals are shown in Figure \ref{ground_h2_orbitals_figure}.
The \ac{MCSCF} approximation approaches the corresponding exact wave function
very slowly with the increase of determinants,
see Figures \ref{ground_helium_error_figure}, \ref{ground_h2_error_figure}.
For comparison we also included the calculations with B3LYP functional.
The DFT method provides a lower value than $E_{\text{exact}}$ for He,
and a higher value than $E_{\text{exact}}$ for H2.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
{helium_ground_error.pdf}
}
\caption
{
Convergence of \ac{MCSCF} to the exact ground state energy
$E_{\text{exact}} = -2.90372$.
}
\label{ground_helium_error_figure}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
{h2_ground_error.pdf}
}
\caption
{
Convergence of \ac{MCSCF} to the exact ground state energy
$E_{\text{exact}} = -1.17447$.
}
\label{ground_h2_error_figure}
\end{figure}
It is worth to notice, that we didn't rely on any chemical intuition
in order to choose proper initial guesses for the two quantum systems we regarded.
Instead, we first ran single electron calculations starting with orbitals
combining randomly localized gaussian functions.
The converged ionic simulations were later used for
initialization of
the Newton treatment of \ac{MCSCF}.
We follow the same initial guess strategy for the excited states, considered below.
Alternatively, one can use spherical harmonics appearing in hydrogen-like atoms.
However, it is not clear how this initialization approach could be extended to bigger molecules.
Therefore, we stick to the randomized initial calculations.
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$M + 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\xi = 0.001$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\xi = 0.0001$} \\
\cline{2-7}
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-4}$
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-5}$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-6}$}
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-7}$
& \textemdash \\
\hline
1 & -2.861637 & -2.861637 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
2 & -2.877938 & -2.877939 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
3 & -2.884660 & -2.884661 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & -2.891217 & -2.891218 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
5 & -2.897616 & -2.897617 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
6 & -2.897528 & -2.898449 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
7 & -2.898373 & -2.898987 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
8 & -2.898981 & -2.899520 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
9 & -2.899607 & -2.900050 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
10 & -2.899560 & -2.900412 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
11 & -2.900310 & -2.900772 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
12 & -2.900962 & -2.901076 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
13 & -2.901371 & -2.901431 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
14 & -2.901633 & -2.901768 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
15 & -2.901795 & -2.901853 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & -2.901867 & -2.901933 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
17 & -2.901858 & -2.901993 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
The ground state energy of helium for various amounts of determinants $M + 1$,
potential smoothing $\xi$, and threshold $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}}$.
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$M + 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\xi = 0.001$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\xi = 0.0001$} \\
\cline{2-7}
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-4}$
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-5}$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-6}$}
& $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}} = 10^{-7}$
& \textemdash \\
\hline
1 & -1.133572 & -1.133620 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
2 & -1.152028 & -1.152165 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
3 & -1.159493 & -1.159611 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & -1.164626 & -1.164900 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
5 & -1.169877 & -1.170035 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
6 & -1.170407 & -1.170540 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
7 & -1.170915 & -1.170957 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
8 & -1.171287 & -1.171334 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
9 & -1.171381 & -1.171421 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
10 & -1.171893 & -1.171894 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
11 & -1.172166 & -1.172166 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
12 & -1.172237 & -1.172246 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
13 & -1.172475 & -1.172524 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
14 & -1.172555 & -1.172580 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
15 & -1.172800 & -1.172847 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & -1.172845 & -1.172897 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
17 & -1.172852 & -1.172910 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
The ground state energy of the hydrogen molecule for various amounts of determinants $M + 1$,
potential smoothing $\xi$, and threshold $\varepsilon_{\text{MRA}}$.
}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Excited states}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{comment}
The first excited singlet state
\[
\Psi_1 = \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m \left| \phi_m \overline{\psi_m} \right \rangle
\]
can be found from
the minimization of $E(\Psi_1)$ subject to
the orthogonality $\Psi_1 \perp \Psi_{\text{ground}}$.
Note that the total spin is the same as for the ground state,
but functions $\phi_m$ and $\psi_m$ can be different
and not necessarily orthogonal to each other.
Noticing
\[
\left \langle
\left. \phi_m \overline{\psi_m} \right| \varphi_n \overline{\varphi_n}
\right \rangle
=
\int \phi_m \varphi_n
\int \psi_m \varphi_n
\]
we deduce the constrain
\[
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{ground}}}
c_m c_n^{\text{ground}}
\int \phi_m \varphi_n
\int \psi_m \varphi_n
=
0
\]
Orthonormalization of the excited determinants reads as
\[
\left \langle
\left. \phi_m \overline{\psi_m} \right| \phi_n \overline{\psi_n}
\right \rangle
=
\int \phi_m \phi_n
\int \psi_m \psi_n
=
\delta_{mn}
\]
Then the total energy takes the quadratic form
\[
E
=
\left \langle
\Psi_1
\left| \widehat H \right|
\Psi_1
\right \rangle
=
\sum_{k, m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_k c_m
,
\]
where the energy matrix elements are
\[
H_{mn}
=
\left \langle
\phi_m \overline{\psi_m}
\left| \widehat H \right|
\phi_n \overline{\psi_n}
\right \rangle
=
\int \phi_m \phi_n
(\psi_m |h| \psi_n)
+
\int \psi_m \psi_n
(\phi_m |h| \phi_n)
+
( \phi_m \phi_n | \psi_m \psi_n )
\]
We consider the cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M = 0$ and an open shell model, meaning that $\phi$ and $\psi$ are different;
\item $M > 0$ and a closed shell model, meaning that $\phi_m = \psi_m$ for all $m$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Open shell}
\subsection{Closed shell}
\end{comment}
The first excited singlet state can be approximated as a sum of $M + 1$ closed shell determinants
\[
\Psi
=
\sum_{m = 0}^M c_m \left| m \overline{m} \right \rangle
.
\]
With the additional constrain, corresponding to the orthogonality of $\Psi$
to the ground state $\Psi_{\text{ground}}$,
the new Lagrangian takes the form
\[
\mathcal L
=
\frac 14 E
-
\frac 14 \varepsilon \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
-
\frac 12 \sum_{i, j = 0}^M \varepsilon_{ij} \left( \int \varphi_i \varphi_j - \delta_{ij} \right)
-
\frac 12 \lambda
\sum_{m, n = 0}^{M, M^{\text{gr}}} c_m c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
\]
with symmetric matrix coefficients $\varepsilon_{ij}$.
It is a function of
\(
\varphi_0, \ldots, \varphi_M,
\varepsilon,
c_0, \ldots, c_M
,
\)
$\varepsilon_{ij}$ with $i \leqslant j$ and $\lambda$.
We calculate its gradient as follows.
%
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
&
=
c_k^2
h \varphi_k
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
J(km)
\varphi_m
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon}
&
=
-
\frac 14 \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
&
=
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon c_k
-
\frac 12 \lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{kk}}
&=
- \frac 12 \left( \norm{\varphi_k}^2 - 1 \right)
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
&=
- \int \varphi_i \varphi_j
, \quad
0 \leqslant i < j \leqslant M
.
\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \lambda}
&=
-
\frac 12
\sum_{m, n = 0}^{M, M^{\text{gr}}} c_m c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
\end{align}
Now let us calculate the Hessian $d \nabla \mathcal L$.
\begin{multline}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\partial_{\varphi_j}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta \varphi_j
=
c_k^2
h \delta \varphi_k
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
+
J(km)
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
\\
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
,
\end{multline}
where
\(
k = 0, \ldots, M
.
\)
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
=
0
\]
\[
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\frac{\partial}{\partial c_j}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta c_j
=
2 c_k \delta c_k
h \varphi_k
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} \delta c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\]
\[
\sum_{0 \leqslant i \leqslant j \leqslant M}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta \varepsilon_{ij}
=
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
,
\]
where we extended the orbital energy update by symmetry.
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta \lambda
=
-
\delta \lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\]
Summing these equalities we obtain
\begin{multline}
\tag{LHS1}
d
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta w
=
c_k^2
h \delta \varphi_k
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
+
J(km)
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
2 c_k \delta c_k
h \varphi_k
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
-
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\\
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} \delta c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
\delta \lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_k c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\end{multline}
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS2}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon}
\delta w
=
-
\frac 12 \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m \delta c_m
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\partial_{\varphi_j}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta \varphi_j
=
2 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}}
\left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right)
\int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial {\varepsilon}}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta \varepsilon
=
-
\frac 12 \delta \varepsilon c_k
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j = 0}^M
\frac{\partial }{\partial c_j}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta c_j
=
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} \delta c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon \delta c_k
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial {\lambda}}
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta \lambda
=
-
\frac 12 \delta \lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
\end{equation*}
Summing these equalities we obtain
\begin{multline}
\tag{LHS3}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial c_k}
\delta w
=
2 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
-
\frac 12 \delta \varepsilon c_k
+
\frac 12
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} \delta c_m
-
\frac 12
\varepsilon \delta c_k
\\
-
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}}
\left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right)
\int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
\frac 12 \delta \lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
\end{multline}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS4}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{kk}}
\delta w
=
- \int \varphi_k \delta \varphi_k
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS5}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}}
\delta w
=
-
\int \delta \varphi_i \varphi_j
-
\int \varphi_i \delta \varphi_j
, \quad
0 \leqslant i < j \leqslant M
,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tag{LHS6}
d
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial \lambda}
\delta w
=
-
\sum_{m, n = 0}^{M, M^{\text{gr}}} c_m c_n^{\text{gr}}
\left( \int \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right)
\int \delta \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
\frac 12
\sum_{m, n = 0}^{M, M^{\text{gr}}} \delta c_m c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
.
\end{equation}
The right hand side is $- \nabla \mathcal L$.
This finishes the detailed description of the Newton equation.
Now we want to rewrite it in the self-consistent form,
which will be suitable for an iterative procedure.
\subsection{Self-consistent form}
We rewrite the Newton equation in the form \eqref{general_self_consistent_newton}
where
\[
w = ( \varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_M, \varepsilon, c_0, \ldots, \varepsilon_{M-1,M}, \lambda )
\]
is fixed at each Newton step,
as follows.
%
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & \mathbf{c}^T
\\
0 & 0 & \mathbf{v}^T
\\
\mathbf{c} & \mathbf{v} & \varepsilon - H
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \varepsilon
\\
\delta \lambda
\\
\delta \mathbf c
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
- \frac 12 \left( \sum_{m = 0}^M c_m^2 - 1 \right)
\\
-
\langle \mathbf c, \mathbf v \rangle
-
2
\sum_{m, n = 0}^{M, M^{\text{gr}}} c_m c_n^{\text{gr}}
\left( \int \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right)
\int \delta \varphi_m \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\\
f
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where
\(\mathbf{c} = (c_0, c_1, \dots, c_M)^T\)
and
\(\mathbf{v} = (v_0, v_1, \dots, v_M)^T\)
are column vectors with
\[
v_k
=
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right) ^2
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
,
\]
\(\varepsilon - H\) is an \((M+1) \times (M+1)\) matrix.
Here
\begin{multline*}
f_k
=
\sum_{m = 0}^M
H_{km} c_m
-
\varepsilon c_k
-
\lambda v_k
+
4 c_k (\delta k | h | k )
+
2 \sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( \delta k m | k m )
+
2 \sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m ( k \delta m | k m )
\\
-
2
\lambda
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}}
\left( \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \right)
\int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
, \quad
k = 0, \ldots, M
\end{multline*}
The matrix $F$ and the Sylvester equation are defined exactly as above.
One can compute
\begin{multline*}
F_{kj}
=
c_k^2 ( \delta k |h| j )
+
c_k^2 ( k |h| j )
-
\varepsilon_{kj}
+
2 c_k \delta c_k ( k |h| j )
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_k
c_m
( \delta k m + k \delta m | j m )
\\
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\left(
(
c_k c_m
\delta \varphi_m
+
( c_k \delta c_m + \delta c_k c_m + c_k c_m )
\varphi_m
)
\varphi_j | k m
\right)
\\
-
\lambda c_k
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\int \varphi_j \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
(
\lambda \delta c_k
+
\delta \lambda c_k
+
\lambda c_k
)
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\int \varphi_j \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\end{multline*}
for $k, j = 0, \ldots, M$.
It is left to precondition the first $M + 1$ equations in the Newton system
\[
d
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
\delta w
+
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \varphi_k}
=
0
\]
as follows
\begin{multline*}
\left(
- \frac { c_k^2 }2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\delta \varphi_k
+
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\left(
- \frac { c_k^2 }2 \Delta - \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\left(
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\varepsilon_{kk}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
\\
+
c_k^2
V_{\text{nuc}}
\left(
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\delta \varphi_k
\right)
-
\sum_{\substack{m=0 \\ m \ne k}}^M
\left(
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
+
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
\delta c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
\delta c_m J(km) \varphi_m
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
J(km)
(
\varphi_m + \delta \varphi_m
)
\\
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
\right)
\\
-
\lambda c_k
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
(
\lambda \delta c_k
+
\delta \lambda c_k
+
\lambda c_k
)
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
=
0
\end{multline*}
Finally, we arrive to \eqref{self_consistent_update} with
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak F_k
=
\left(
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\varepsilon_{kk}
-
\delta \varepsilon_{kk}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
c_k^2
V_{\text{nuc}}
\left(
\left(
1
+
\frac{ 2 \delta c_k }{c_k}
\right)
\varphi_k
+
\delta \varphi_k
\right)
\\
-
\sum_{\substack{m=0 \\ m \ne k}}^M
\left(
\varepsilon_{km} \delta \varphi_m
+
\delta \varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
+
\varepsilon_{km} \varphi_m
\right)
+
\sum_{m = 0}^M
J(km)
\left(
(
\delta c_k
c_m
+
c_k
\delta c_m
+
c_k
c_m
)
\varphi_m
+
c_k
c_m
\delta \varphi_m
\right)
\\
+
c_k
\sum_{m = 0}^M
c_m
\left(
J(\delta km)
\varphi_m
+
J(k \delta m)
\varphi_m
\right)
\\
-
\lambda c_k
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \delta \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
-
(
\lambda \delta c_k
+
\delta \lambda c_k
+
\lambda c_k
)
\sum_{n = 0}^{M^{\text{gr}}} c_n^{\text{gr}} \varphi_n^{\text{gr}} \int \varphi_k \varphi_n^{\text{gr}}
\end{multline*}
and the convolution operator $R_k$ is defined as above.
This finishes the description of $\mathbb F_k$ in \eqref{general_self_consistent_newton}.
It is left to describe the excited L\"owdin step (see Appendix),
and the CI coefficient minimization:
\begin{equation*}
PHP c = \varepsilon c
,
\end{equation*}
where the projection has the elements:
\begin{equation*}
P_{km}
=
\delta_{km}
-
\frac{ v_k v_m }{ \norm{v}^2 }
.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Numerics}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
{h2_orbitals_excited.pdf}
}
\caption
{
Three determinants excited state of the hydrogen molecule
with the coefficients
$c_0 = 0.76103, c_1 = -0.64796$ and $ c_2 = -0.03128$, accordingly.
The corresponding energy is $-0.68989$.
}
\label{excited_h2_orbitals_figure}
\end{figure}
For He atom high accuracy excited states were computed in \cite{Aznabaev_Bekbaev_Korobov}.
The first excited singlet state has the energy
$-2.14597404605441741580502897546192$, that serves as a reference.
Impressively,
our method gives the energy $-2.14350$ for two determinants
associated to coefficients $c_0 = 0.75880, c_1 = -0.65132$
and $M^{\text{gr}} = 5$ corresponding to 6 configurations in the ground state.
For H2 molecule we calculate the first closed shell excited state
at the same internuclear distance $R_{\text{nuc}} = 1.4010784$ as above.
Using 6 configurations in the ground state for the constrain,
we report the energy $-0.68844$ for two configurations with
$c_0 = 0.76135, c_1 = -0.64834$
and the energy $-0.69028$ for 5 determinants with
$c_0 = 0.76125, c_1 = -0.64732, c_2 = -0.03140, c_3 = 0.01669, c_4 = 0.01461$.
The orbitals can be observed in Figure \ref{excited_h2_orbitals_figure}.
In this case we do not have a high precision energy value, which one could use as a reference,
but some close values were reported in
\cite{Cances_Galicher_Lewin2006, Silkowski_Zientkiewicz_Pachucki2021}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\appendix
\section{L\"owdin transformation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Given a set of linearly independent orbitals $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N \in L^2$
and a non-zero vector $(a_1, \ldots, a_N) \in \mathbb R^N$,
we want to transform them in a way that the new orbitals
$\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_N \in L^2$ and coefficients $b_1, \ldots, b_N \in \mathbb R$
satisfy a particular constrain, while been kept as close as possible to the original ones.
The latter we formalize as the minimization of the distance
\begin{equation}
\label{distance_minimization}
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\norm{ \psi_n - \phi_n}^2
+
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\Abs{ b_n - a_n}^2
.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Ground state constrain}
We impose the following conditions
\[
\langle \psi_k, \psi_n \rangle
=
\delta_{kn}
, \quad
\sum_n b_n^2 = 1
\]
on the unknowns $\psi_n, b_n$,
which naturally appear in the ground state MCSCF problem.
And we want to minimize the distance \eqref{distance_minimization}
to the given fixed orbitals $\phi_n$ and coefficients $a_n$.
It turns out that the well-known symmetric L\"owdin orthonormalisation
is the unique solution of this minimization problem \cite{Carlson_Keller}.
Here we re-derive it making use of the Lagrangian formalism.
Firstly, one may easily notice that accounting for the imposed constrain
the objective functional can be simplified.
In other words, the minimization problem is equivalent to the maximization of
\[
\mathcal F(\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_N, b_1, \ldots, b_N)
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left(
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
+
a_n b_n
\right)
,
\]
as pointed out in \cite{Mayer2002}, where one can also find an alternative instructive derivation.
Introducing the Lagrangian
\[
\mathcal L
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left(
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
+
a_n b_n
\right)
-
\frac 12 \sum_{i, j = 1}^N \varepsilon_{ij}
\left( \langle \psi_i, \psi_j \rangle - \delta_{ij} \right)
-
\frac 12 \beta
\left(
\sum_{n = 1}^N b_n^2 - 1
\right)
\]
with symmetric matrix $\varepsilon = ( \varepsilon_{ij} )$
and computing its gradient,
we arrive to the equations
\[
\phi_k
-
\sum_{n = 1}^N \varepsilon_{kn} \psi_n
=
0
\]
%
\[
a_k
-
\beta b_k
=
0
\]
describing stationary points of the functional $\mathcal L(\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_N, b_1, \ldots, b_N)$.
The obtained equations on orbitals are decoupled from the equations on the coefficients,
because they are restricted independently.
The first system implies that the original orbitals $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N$ belong to
the span of $\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_N$.
Therefore,
recalling that by the assumption the original orbitals $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N$ are linearly independent
we deduce that the matrix $\varepsilon$ is invertible.
The inverse matrix $\varepsilon^{-1}$ is also symmetric, since the corresponding Lagrange multipliers
were introduced symmetrically.
Thus
\[
\psi_m
=
\sum_{k = 1}^N \left( \varepsilon^{-1} \right)_{mk} \phi_k
\]
and from the second system we obtain
\[
b_k
=
\frac 1{\beta}
a_k
.
\]
Note that $\beta$ cannot be zero,
otherwise it would violate the non-zero condition imposed on the vector $(a_1, \ldots, a_N)$.
Finally, the Lagrange multipliers can be found from the ground state constrain as
\[
\delta_{mn}
=
\langle \psi_m, \psi_n \rangle
=
\sum_{k, l = 1}^N
\left( \varepsilon^{-1} \right)_{mk}
\left( \varepsilon^{-1} \right)_{nl}
\langle \phi_k, \phi_l \rangle
=
\left( \varepsilon^{-1} S \varepsilon^{-T} \right)_{mn}
=
\left( \varepsilon^{-1} S \varepsilon^{-1} \right)_{mn}
,
\]
with $S_{kl} = \langle \phi_k, \phi_l \rangle$,
and
\[
1
=
\norm{b}^2
=
\frac 1{\beta^2}
\norm{a}^2
.
\]
It leads to $\varepsilon^2 = S$ and $\beta^2 = \norm{a}^2$.
As we will shortly see, $\mathcal F$ achieves a maximum, provided
the signs of $\varepsilon$ and $\beta$ are set as $\varepsilon = \sqrt S$ and $\beta = \norm a$.
The obtained transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{standard_lowdin_orthonormalisation}
\psi
=
S^{-1/2} \phi
, \quad
b = a / \norm a
\end{equation}
is the standard L\"owdin orthogonalisation.
It is left to show that the obtained stationary point \eqref{standard_lowdin_orthonormalisation}
is indeed a maximum.
By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality
\[
\sum_{n = 1}^N
a_n b_n
\leqslant
\norm a \norm b
=
\norm a
\]
for any real vector $b$ with $\norm b = 1$.
Moreover, the equality is achieved if and only if $a, b$ are linearly dependent,
which in this case is equivalent to $b = a / \norm a$.
It shows that the euclidean part of $\mathcal F$
is strictly bounded from above by its value
at the stationary point \eqref{standard_lowdin_orthonormalisation}.
The corresponding functional inner product part of $\mathcal F$
is estimated,
firstly,
by restricting to the span of the original orbitals $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N$.
In other words, we suppose that the new orthonormalised functions $\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_N$
can be obtained by a matrix transformation
\(
\psi = \alpha \phi
\)
of coordinates $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N$.
Obviously, the matrix $\alpha$ is invertible.
From the normalization constrain we deduce
\[
S = \alpha^{-1} \alpha^{-T}
\]
and so the Lagrange multiplier matrix $\varepsilon$ is related to $\alpha$ as
\[
\varepsilon
=
\sqrt S
=
\sqrt{ \alpha^{-1} \alpha^{-T} }
=
\Abs{ \alpha^{-1} }
.
\]
Therefore,
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
=
\sum_{n, m = 1}^N
\alpha_{n, m} S_{n, m}
=
\trace (\alpha S)
=
\trace \left( \alpha^{-1} \right)
\leqslant
\norm{ \alpha^{-1} }_1
=
\trace \Abs{ \alpha^{-1} }
\\
=
\trace \varepsilon
=
\trace (\varepsilon^{-1} S)
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left \langle \phi_n, \left( \varepsilon^{-1} \phi \right)_n \right \rangle
,
\end{multline*}
where we have used the well-known relation
for nuclear operators,
in this particular case for the matrix $\alpha^{-1}$,
between the trace and the norm \cite{Birman_Solomjak}.
It proves the statement in the span of the original orbitals.
Finally, in the general case one can project each orbital $\psi_k$ onto $\Span \phi$ and its
orthogonal complement with the projections $P$ and $Q$, correspondingly,
as
\[
\psi_k = P \psi_k + Q \psi_k
,
\]
where the functions $P \psi_k$ can be obtained from the transformation
\(
P \psi = \alpha \phi
.
\)
Thus the orthonormalisation constrain
\[
\delta_{nm}
=
\langle \psi_n, \psi_m \rangle
=
\sum_{k,l}
\alpha_{nk} \alpha_{ml} S_{kl}
+
\langle Q \psi_n, Q \psi_m \rangle
\]
leads to
\[
\mathds{1}
=
\alpha S \alpha^T + F
\]
with the overlap matrix $F$
%$F_{nm} = \langle Q \psi_n, Q \psi_m \rangle$
satisfying $0 \leqslant F \leqslant \mathds{1}$.
Indeed, for any vector $x \in \mathbb R^N$ we have
\[
\langle Fx, x \rangle
=
\sum_{n,m} F_{nm} x_n x_m
=
\sum_{n,m} \langle Q \psi_n, Q \psi_m \rangle x_n x_m
=
\norm{
Q \left( \sum_n x_n \psi_n \right)
}^2
\leqslant
\norm{
\sum_n x_n \psi_n
}^2
=
\norm{x}^2
\]
implying the bounds on $F$.
Hence
\[
\varepsilon^2
=
S
=
\alpha^{-1} (\mathds{1} - F) \alpha^{-T}
\]
and so
\[
\varepsilon
=
\sqrt S
=
\sqrt{ \alpha^{-1} \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } \left( \alpha^{-1} \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } \right)^T }
=
\Abs{ \alpha^{-1} \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } }
.
\]
As above we estimate
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\langle \phi_n, P \psi_n \rangle
=
\trace (\alpha S)
=
\trace \left( \alpha^{-1} (\mathds{1} - F) \right)
\leqslant
\norm{ \alpha^{-1} (\mathds{1} - F) }_1
\\
\leqslant
\norm{ \alpha^{-1} \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } }_1
\norm{ \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } }
\leqslant
\trace \varepsilon
=
\trace (\varepsilon^{-1} S)
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left \langle \phi_n, \left( \varepsilon^{-1} \phi \right)_n \right \rangle
,
\end{multline*}
where we used the norm estimate
\(
\norm{ \sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } }
\leqslant
1
\)
following from
\[
\norm{
\sqrt{ \mathds{1} - F } x
}^2
=
\langle (\mathds{1} - F) x, x \rangle
\leqslant
\norm{x}^2
\]
holding true for any vector $x \in \mathbb R^N$, obviously.
This completes the proof of the minimization property
of the L\"owdin transform \eqref{standard_lowdin_orthonormalisation}.
For an alternative rigorous exposition we refer to \cite{Carlson_Keller}.
\subsection{Excited state constrain}
We want to maximize
\[
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left(
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
+
a_n b_n
\right)
\]
where $\phi_n, a_n$ with $n = 1, \ldots, N$ are fixed given values.
The unknowns $\psi_n, b_n$ satisfy the following constraints
\[
\langle \psi_k, \psi_n \rangle
=
\delta_{kn}
, \quad
\sum_n b_n^2 = 1
\]
and
\[
\sum_{n = 1}^N \sum_{m = 1}^M b_n c_m
\langle \psi_n, g_m \rangle ^2
=
0
,
\]
where $g_m, c_m$ with $m = 1, \ldots, M$ are fixed given and normalized as
\[
\langle g_l, g_m \rangle
=
\delta_{lm}
, \quad
\sum_m c_m^2 = 1
.
\]
We introduce the Lagrangian
\[
\mathcal L
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\left(
\langle \phi_n, \psi_n \rangle
+
a_n b_n
\right)
-
\frac 12 \sum_{i, j = 1}^N \varepsilon_{ij}
\left( \langle \psi_i, \psi_j \rangle - \delta_{ij} \right)
-
\frac 12 \beta
\left(
\sum_{n = 1}^N b_n^2 - 1
\right)
-
\frac 12 \lambda
\sum_{n = 1}^N \sum_{m = 1}^M b_n c_m
\langle \psi_n, g_m \rangle ^2
\]
with symmetric matrix $\varepsilon = ( \varepsilon_{ij} )$
and compute its gradient
\[
\frac{ \delta \mathcal L}{ \delta \psi_k }
=
\phi_k
-
\sum_{n = 1}^N \varepsilon_{kn} \psi_n
-
\lambda b_k
\sum_{m = 1}^M c_m \langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle g_m
\]
%
\[
\frac{ \partial \mathcal L}{ \partial b_k }
=
a_k
-
\beta b_k
-
\frac 12 \lambda
\sum_{m = 1}^M c_m
\langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle ^2
\]
Thus the unknowns $\psi_n, b_n$,
the symmetric matrix $\varepsilon = ( \varepsilon_{ij} )$
and scalars $\beta, \lambda$
satisfy the following system
\begin{align*}
\phi_k
-
\sum_{n = 1}^N \varepsilon_{kn} \psi_n
-
\lambda b_k
\sum_{m = 1}^M c_m \langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle g_m
&=
0
\\
a_k
-
\beta b_k
-
\frac 12 \lambda
\sum_{m = 1}^M c_m
\langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle ^2
&=
0
\\
\langle \psi_i, \psi_j \rangle
&=
\delta_{ij}
\\
\sum_{n = 1}^N b_n^2
&=
1
\\
\sum_{n = 1}^N \sum_{m = 1}^M b_n c_m
\langle \psi_n, g_m \rangle ^2
&=
0
\end{align*}
It is possible to reduce the problem to the finite dimensional space
by searching for $\psi_n$ in the span of $\phi_n, g_m$ as
\[
\psi_k
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N A_{kn} \phi_n
+
\sum_{m = 1}^M B_{km} g_m
.
\]
Therefore we need to find the matrices $A, B, \varepsilon$ and scalars $\beta, \lambda$.
Define
\[
\Phi_{kl}
=
\langle \phi_k, \phi_l \rangle
, \quad
k, l = 1, \ldots, N
\]
%
\[
G_{ml}
=
\langle g_m, \phi_l \rangle
, \quad
m = 1, \ldots, M
, \quad
l = 1, \ldots, N
\]
These overlap matrices are fixed and given.
Then
\[
\langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N A_{kn} G_{mn}
+
B_{km}
\]
and
\[
\langle \psi_k, \phi_l \rangle
=
\sum_{n = 1}^N A_{kn} \Phi_{nl}
+
\sum_{m = 1}^M
B_{km} G_{ml}
.
\]
We want to maximize
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^N
\left(
\langle \phi_k, \psi_k \rangle
+
a_k b_k
\right)
=
\sum_{k = 1}^N
\left(
\sum_{n = 1}^N A_{kn} \Phi_{nk}
+
\sum_{m = 1}^M B_{km} G_{mk}
+
a_k b_k
\right)
\]
The orthonormality constrain is imposed on the overlap:
\[
\langle \psi_k, \psi_l \rangle
=
\sum_{n, n' = 1}^N A_{kn} A_{ln'} \Phi_{nn'}
+
\sum_{m = 1}^M
B_{km} B_{lm}
+
\sum_{n = 1}^N
\sum_{m = 1}^M
(
A_{kn} B_{lm}
+
A_{ln} B_{km}
)
G_{mn}
.
\]
Finally, orthogonality to the ground state reads
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n = 1}^N \sum_{m = 1}^M b_n c_m
\left(
\sum_{n' = 1}^N A_{nn'} G_{mn'}
+
B_{nm}
\right) ^2
=
0
\end{equation*}
The optimization was implemented using the \texttt{scipy.optimize.minimize} routine with method \texttt{SLSQP}, subject to nonlinear equality constraints:
orthonormality of $\psi_n$, unit norm of the scalar vector $b_n$, and a bilinear orthogonality condition involving the functions $g_m$. We set the initial guess as
\[
A^{(0)} = I_N, \quad B^{(0)} = 0, \quad \text{and} \quad \| b^{(0)} \| = 1.
\]
To ensure convergence, we increased the maximum number of iterations to 10,000 and reduced the function tolerance to $10^{-12}$.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Some alternative old ideas}
We define the Lagrangian
\begin{multline*}
\mathcal{L}(A, B, b)
= \operatorname{Tr}(A F^\top) + \operatorname{Tr}(B G^\top) + a^\top b
- \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr} \left[ \varepsilon (AFA^\top + AGB^\top + BG^\top A^\top + BB^\top - I) \right]
\\
- \frac{1}{2} \beta ( \| b \|^2 - 1 )
- \frac{1}{2} \lambda \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{m=1}^M b_n c_m Q_{nm}^2
\end{multline*}
where
\[
Q = AG + B, \qquad Q_{nm} = \sum_{i=1}^N A_{ni} G_{im} + B_{nm}.
\]
\paragraph{Gradient with respect to \(A\):}
\[
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A}
=
F
- \varepsilon A F
- \varepsilon B G^\top
- \lambda \, ( (b \circ (Q \circ Q)) c^\top ) G
\]
Here \( \circ \) denotes the elementwise (Hadamard) product, and the last term comes from the derivative of the nonlinear constraint with respect to \( A \), using the chain rule on \( Q = AG + B \).
\paragraph{Gradient with respect to \(B\):}
\[
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial B}
=
G
- \varepsilon B
- \varepsilon A G
- \lambda \, (b \circ (Q \circ Q)) c^\top
\]
\paragraph{Gradient with respect to \(b\):}
\[
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial b}
=
a - \beta b
- \frac{1}{2} \lambda \sum_{m=1}^M c_m (Q \circ Q)_{:,m}
\]
The last term is a vector with entries
\[
\left[ \sum_{m=1}^M c_m Q_{1m}^2, \ldots, \sum_{m=1}^M c_m Q_{Nm}^2 \right]^\top.
\]
This optimization problem \emph{can be reformulated as a nonlinear system of quadratic equations} in the matrix variables \( A \), \( B \), and the vector \( b \), plus Lagrange multipliers \( \varepsilon \), \( \beta \), and \( \lambda \). So rather than solving it via optimization algorithms like gradient ascent or augmented Lagrangian, one can aim to \emph{solve this system of equations directly}.
\bigskip
\textbf{Structure of the System.}
We summarize the system to be solved (with \( Q = AG + B \)):
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Stationarity conditions:}
\begin{align*}
\phi_k
&=
\sum_{n=1}^N \varepsilon_{kn} \psi_n
+
\lambda b_k \sum_{m=1}^M c_m \langle \psi_k, g_m \rangle g_m
\end{align*}
Substituting \( \psi_k = \sum_n A_{kn} \phi_n + \sum_m B_{km} g_m \), and projecting onto \( \{ \phi_n \}, \{ g_m \} \), yields equations for \( A, B \).
\begin{align*}
a_k &= \beta b_k + \frac{1}{2} \lambda \sum_{m=1}^M c_m Q_{km}^2
\end{align*}
\item \textbf{Constraints:}
\begin{align*}
A F A^\top + A G B^\top + B G^\top A^\top + B B^\top &= I \\
\sum_{n=1}^N b_n^2 &= 1 \\
\sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{m=1}^M b_n c_m Q_{nm}^2 &= 0
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
\textbf{Conclusion: Solving as a Polynomial System.}
We now have a system of algebraic equations (mostly quadratic) in:
\begin{itemize}
\item Variables: \( A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} \), \( B \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times M} \), \( b \in \mathbb{R}^N \)
\item Lagrange multipliers: \( \varepsilon \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} \), \( \beta, \lambda \in \mathbb{R} \)
\end{itemize}
This is a polynomial system, e.g.:
\begin{itemize}
\item \( A_{kn} \) appear quadratically in the orthogonality and gradient equations.
\item \( B_{km} \) appear quadratically via \( Q \).
\item \( b_k \) appear linearly and quadratically.
\end{itemize}
Such systems can in principle be solved by:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Symbolic methods}: e.g., Gröbner bases, if \( N, M \) are small.
\item \emph{Numerical solvers}: e.g., Newton-Raphson, homotopy continuation (\texttt{Bertini}, \texttt{HomotopyContinuation.jl}), or optimization over algebraic varieties.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Numerical Strategy for \( M, N \lesssim 100 \).}
For problems of moderate size (e.g., \( N, M \leq 100 \)), the system of equations arising from the stationarity conditions and constraints is a structured quadratic system that can be efficiently solved numerically.
Recommended approaches include:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Newton-type solvers} for nonlinear systems with custom Jacobians.
\item \textbf{Homotopy continuation}, which solves polynomial systems by deforming from a known system:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{HomotopyContinuation.jl} (Julia)
\item \texttt{Bertini} (C/C++)
\item \texttt{PHCpack} (Fortran/C)
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Exploiting problem structure:} the equations have low degree (mostly quadratic), and the orthonormality constraints imply that \( A, B \) lie on a Stiefel manifold, which allows optimization on manifolds using packages like \texttt{pymanopt} (Python).
\end{itemize}
Symbolic solvers (e.g., via Gröbner bases) become computationally infeasible at these dimensions, but numerical algebraic geometry provides a robust alternative.
\textbf{Definition.}
The \emph{Stiefel manifold} \( \mathrm{St}(k, n) \) is the set of all \( n \times k \) real matrices with orthonormal columns:
\[
\mathrm{St}(k, n) := \left\{ X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k} \mid X^\top X = I_k \right\}
\]
Each element of \( \mathrm{St}(k, n) \) corresponds to an ordered orthonormal \( k \)-frame in \( \mathbb{R}^n \).
\textbf{Examples.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \mathrm{St}(1, n) = S^{n-1} \), the unit sphere in \( \mathbb{R}^n \)
\item \( \mathrm{St}(n, n) = O(n) \), the orthogonal group
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Application.}
If vectors \( \psi_1, \dots, \psi_N \) are constrained to be orthonormal, the matrix \( \Psi = [\psi_1^\top; \dots; \psi_N^\top] \) lies on a Stiefel manifold. Optimization over such a constraint can be performed using Riemannian optimization methods.
\textbf{Optimization routines available in Python.}
Python offers a wide variety of optimization tools for different problem types:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{General-purpose optimization (SciPy):}
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{scipy.optimize.minimize} — supports many algorithms such as BFGS, L-BFGS-B, SLSQP, trust-constr.
\item \texttt{scipy.optimize.least\_squares} — nonlinear least squares with trust-region methods.
\item \texttt{scipy.optimize.root} — root-finding solvers.
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Convex optimization:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{cvxpy} — symbolic formulation of convex problems, supports multiple solvers (ECOS, SCS, OSQP, MOSEK).
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Machine learning optimizers:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{torch.optim}, \texttt{tf.keras.optimizers} — first-order optimizers (Adam, SGD, RMSprop, etc.)
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Manifold optimization:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{pymanopt}, \texttt{geoopt} — optimization over Stiefel, Grassmann, and other manifolds.
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Other libraries:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{nlopt} — local and global optimization.
\item \texttt{optuna}, \texttt{nevergrad} — black-box and hyperparameter optimization.
\item \texttt{jaxopt} — differentiable optimization in JAX.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Algorithm steps in Python pseudocode:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Input:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Known inner product matrices: \(\Phi\), \(G\)
\item Vectors: \(a_n\), \(c_m\)
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Define the total matrix of inner products between \(\psi_k\):}
\[
\langle \psi_k, \psi_n \rangle
=
(A \Phi A^\top + A G^\top B^\top + B G A^\top + B B^\top)_{kn}
\]
\item \textbf{Objective function:}
\[
J(A, B, b)
=
\sum_{k = 1}^N \left[
\left(A \Phi\right)_{kk}
+
a_k b_k
\right]
\]
\item \textbf{Constraints:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \(\langle \psi_k, \psi_n \rangle = \delta_{kn}\)
\item \(\sum_n b_n^2 = 1\)
\item \(\sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{m=1}^M b_n c_m (\ldots + B_{nm})^2 = 0\)
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Use} \texttt{scipy.optimize.minimize} \textbf{with method} \texttt{"SLSQP"} \textbf{and Jacobians (if available)}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Spherical harmonics}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{equation*}
A_m(x, y)
=
\sum_{p = 0}^m
\begin{pmatrix}
m
\\
p
\end{pmatrix}
x^p y^{m - p}
\cos
\left(
(m - p) \frac {\pi}2
\right)
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
B_m(x, y)
=
\sum_{p = 0}^m
\begin{pmatrix}
m
\\
p
\end{pmatrix}
x^p y^{m - p}
\sin
\left(
(m - p) \frac {\pi}2
\right)
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_l^m(z)
=
\left(
\frac{ (l - m)! }{ (l + m)! }
\right)
^{1/2}
\sum_{k = 0}^{ \lfloor (l - m) / 2 \rfloor }
(-1)^k
2^{-l}
\begin{pmatrix}
l
\\
k
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
2l - 2k
\\
l
\end{pmatrix}
\frac{ (l - 2k)! }{ (l - 2k - m)! }
r^{2k}
z^{l - 2k - m}
\end{equation*}
Then for $m > 0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
r^l
\begin{pmatrix}
Y_{l,m}
\\
Y_{l,-m}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\sqrt{ \frac{2l + 1}{2\pi} }
\Pi_l^m(z)
\begin{pmatrix}
A_m
\\
B_m
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and for $m = 0$:
\begin{equation*}
r^l Y_{l,0}
=
\sqrt{ \frac{2l + 1}{4\pi} }
\Pi_l^0(z)
\end{equation*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Declarations}
The CRediT taxonomy of contributor roles \cite{Allen2014-rd,Brand2015-qc} is applied.
The ``Investigation'' role also includes the ``Methodology'', ``Software'', and ``Validation'' roles.
The ``Analysis'' role also includes the ``Formal analysis'' and ``Visualization'' roles.
The ``Funding acquisition'' role also includes the ``Resources'' role.
The contributor roles are visualized in the following authorship attribution matrix,
as suggested in Ref.~\cite{authorship-attribution}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Levels of contribution: \textcolor{blue!100}{major}, \textcolor{blue!25}{minor}.}
\label{tbl:contribs}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline\hline
& ED & RVS & LF \\ \hline
Conceptualization & \major & \minor & \\
Investigation & \major & \minor & \\
Data curation & \major & & \\
Analysis & \major & \minor & \\
Supervision & \major & & \\
Writing -- original draft & \major & & \\
Writing -- revisions & \major & & \\
Funding acquisition & & & \major \\
Project administration & \major & & \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vskip 0.05in
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.}
{
We acknowledge support from the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence scheme (Hylleraas centre, 262695), through the FRIPRO grant ReMRChem (324590), and from NOTUR -- The Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science through grant of computer time (nn14654k).
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{acm}
\bibliography{bibliography}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\begin{acronym}
\acro{AO}{atomic orbital}
\acro{API}{Application Programmer Interface}
\acro{AUS}{Advanced User Support}
\acro{BEM}{Boundary Element Method}
\acro{BO}{Born-Oppenheimer}
\acro{CBS}{complete basis set}
\acro{CC}{Coupled Cluster}
\acro{CTCC}{Centre for Theoretical and Computational Chemistry}
\acro{CoE}{Centre of Excellence}
\acro{DC}{dielectric continuum}
\acro{DCHF}{Dirac-Coulomb Hartree-Fock}
\acro{DFT}{density functional theory}
\acro{DKH}{Douglas-Kroll-Hess}
\acro{EFP}{effective fragment potential}
\acro{ECP}{effective core potential}
\acro{EU}{European Union}
\acro{FFT}{Fast Fourier Transform}
\acro{GGA}{generalized gradient approximation}
\acro{GPE}{Generalized Poisson Equation}
\acro{GTO}{Gaussian Type Orbital}
\acro{HF}{Hartree-Fock}
\acro{HPC}{high-performance computing}
\acro{Hylleraas}[HC]{Hylleraas Centre for Quantum Molecular Sciences}
\acro{IEF}{Integral Equation Formalism}
\acro{IGLO}{individual gauge for localized orbitals}
\acro{KB}{kinetic balance}
\acro{KS}{Kohn-Sham}
\acro{LAO}{London atomic orbital}
\acro{LAPW}{linearized augmented plane wave}
\acro{LDA}{local density approximation}
\acro{MAD}{mean absolute deviation}
\acro{maxAD}{maximum absolute deviation}
\acro{MM}{molecular mechanics}
\acro{MCSCF}{multiconfiguration self consistent field}
\acro{MPA}{multiphoton absorption}
\acro{MRA}{multiresolution analysis}
\acro{MSDD}{Minnesota Solvent Descriptor Database}
\acro{MW}{multiwavelet}
\acro{NAO}{numerical atomic orbital}
\acro{NeIC}{nordic e-infrastructure collaboration}
\acro{KAIN}{Krylov-accelerated inexact Newton}
\acro{NMR}{nuclear magnetic resonance}
\acro{NP}{nanoparticle}
\acro{NS}{non-standard}
\acro{OLED}{organic light emitting diode}
\acro{PAW}{projector augmented wave}
\acro{PBC}{Periodic Boundary Condition}
\acro{PCM}{polarizable continuum model}
\acro{PW}{plane wave}
\acro{QC}{quantum chemistry}
\acro{QM/MM}{quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics}
\acro{QM}{quantum mechanics}
\acro{RCN}{Research Council of Norway}
\acro{RMSD}{root mean square deviation}
\acro{RKB}{restricted kinetic balance}
\acro{SC}{semiconductor}
\acro{SCF}{self-consistent field}
\acro{STSM}{short-term scientific mission}
\acro{SAPT}{symmetry-adapted perturbation theory}
\acro{SERS}{surface-enhanced raman scattering}
\acro{WPREL}[WP1]{Work Package 1}
\acro{WPROP}[WP2]{Work Package 2}
\acro{WPAPP}[WP3]{Work Package 3}
\acro{WP}{Work Package}
\acro{X2C}{exact two-component}
\acro{ZORA}{zero-order relativistic approximation}
\acro{ae}{almost everywhere}
\acro{BVP}{boundary value problem}
\acro{PDE}{partial differential equation}
\acro{RDM}{1-body reduced density matrix}
\acro{SCRF}{self-consistent reaction field}
\acro{IEFPCM}{Integral Equation Formalism \ac{PCM}}
\acro{FMM}{fast multipole method}
\acro{DD}{domain decomposition}
\acro{TRS}{time-reversal symmetry}
\acro{SI}{Supporting Information}
\acro{DHF}{Dirac--Hartree--Fock}
\acro{MO}{molecular orbital}
\end{acronym}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{authorship-attribution}
{Researchers are embracing visual tools to give fair credit for work on
papers}.
\newblock
\url{https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/researchers-embracing-visual-tools-contribution-matrix-give-fair-credit-authors-scientific-papers}.
\newblock Accessed: 2021-5-3.
\bibitem{Allen2014-rd}
{\sc Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., and Altman, M.}
\newblock Publishing: Credit where credit is due.
\newblock {\em Nature 508\/} (2014), 312--313.
\bibitem{Aznabaev_Bekbaev_Korobov}
{\sc Aznabaev, D.~T., Bekbaev, A.~K., and Korobov, V.~I.}
\newblock Nonrelativistic energy levels of helium atoms.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. A 98\/} (Jul 2018), 012510.
\bibitem{Birman_Solomjak}
{\sc Birman, M.~S., and Solomjak, M.~Z.}
\newblock {\em Spectral Theory of Self-Adjoint Operators in Hilbert Space},
vol.~5 of {\em Mathematics and Its Applications (Soviet Series)}.
\newblock Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, 1987.
\newblock Translated from the Russian by S. Khrushchëv and V. Peller.
\bibitem{Bischoff2019}
{\sc Bischoff, F.~A.}
\newblock Chapter one - computing accurate molecular properties in real space
using multiresolution analysis.
\newblock In {\em State of The Art of Molecular Electronic Structure
Computations: Correlation Methods, Basis Sets and More}, L.~U. Ancarani and
P.~E. Hoggan, Eds., vol.~79 of {\em Advances in Quantum Chemistry}. Academic
Press, 2019, pp.~3--52.
\bibitem{Brand2015-qc}
{\sc Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., and Scott, J.}
\newblock Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and
credit.
\newblock {\em Learn. Publ. 28\/} (2015), 151--155.
\bibitem{Cances_Galicher_Lewin2006}
{\sc Cancès, {\'E}., Galicher, H., and Lewin, M.}
\newblock Computing electronic structures: A new multiconfiguration approach
for excited states.
\newblock {\em Journal of Computational Physics 212}, 1 (2006), 73--98.
\bibitem{Carlson_Keller}
{\sc Carlson, B.~C., and Keller, J.~M.}
\newblock Orthogonalization procedures and the localization of wannier
functions.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. 105\/} (Jan 1957), 102--103.
\bibitem{Frediani_Fossgaard_Fla_Ruud}
{\sc Frediani, L., Fossgaard, E., Flå, T., and Ruud, K.}
\newblock Fully adaptive algorithms for multivariate integral equations using
the non-standard form and multiwavelets with applications to the poisson and
bound-state helmholtz kernels in three dimensions.
\newblock {\em Molecular Physics 111}, 9-11 (2013), 1143--1160.
\bibitem{Harrison_Fann_Yanai_Beylkin2003}
{\sc Harrison, R.~J., Fann, G.~I., Yanai, T., and Beylkin, G.}
\newblock Multiresolution quantum chemistry in multiwavelet bases.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on
Computational Science\/} (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003), ICCS'03,
Springer-Verlag, p.~103–110.
\bibitem{Harrison_Fann_Yanai_Gan_Beylkin2004}
{\sc Harrison, R.~J., Fann, G.~I., Yanai, T., Gan, Z., and Beylkin, G.}
\newblock {Multiresolution quantum chemistry: Basic theory and initial
applications}.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics 121}, 23 (11 2004),
11587--11598.
\bibitem{Helgaker_Jorgensen_Olsen}
{\sc Helgaker, T., J{\o}rgensen, P., and Olsen, J.}
\newblock {\em Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory}.
\newblock Wiley, 2000.
\bibitem{Jensen_Saha_elephant2017}
{\sc Jensen, S.~R., Saha, S., Flores-Livas, J.~A., Huhn, W., Blum, V.,
Goedecker, S., and Frediani, L.}
\newblock The elephant in the room of density functional theory calculations.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 8}, 7 (2017),
1449--1457.
\newblock PMID: 28291362.
\bibitem{Kolos_Wolniewicz}
{\sc Kolos, W., and Wolniewicz, L.}
\newblock Improved theoretical ground‐state energy of the hydrogen molecule.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics 49}, 1 (07 1968), 404--410.
\bibitem{Mayer2002}
{\sc Mayer, I.}
\newblock On löwdin's method of symmetric orthogonalization.
\newblock {\em International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 90}, 1 (2002),
63--65.
\bibitem{Nakashima_Nakatsuji}
{\sc Nakashima, H., and Nakatsuji, H.}
\newblock Solving the schrödinger equation for helium atom and its
isoelectronic ions with the free iterative complement interaction (ici)
method.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics 127}, 22 (12 2007), 224104.
\bibitem{Sims_Hagstrom2006}
{\sc Sims, J.~S., and Hagstrom, S.~A.}
\newblock High precision variational calculations for the born-oppenheimer
energies of the ground state of the hydrogen molecule.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics 124}, 9 (03 2006), 094101.
\bibitem{Silkowski_Zientkiewicz_Pachucki2021}
{\sc Siłkowski, M., Zientkiewicz, M., and Pachucki, K.}
\newblock {\em Chapter Twelve - Accurate Born-Oppenheimer potentials for
excited $\Sigma+$ states of the hydrogen molecule}, vol.~83 of {\em Advances
in Quantum Chemistry}.
\newblock Academic Press, 2021, pp.~255--267.
\bibitem{Szabo_Ostlund}
{\sc Szabo, A., and Ostlund, N.~S.}
\newblock {\em Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic
Structure Theory}, revised~ed.
\newblock Dover Publications, New York, 1989.
\newblock Revised Edition.
\bibitem{Tantardini_Dinvay_Pitteloud_Gerez_Jensen_review2024}
{\sc Tantardini, C., Dinvay, E., Pitteloud, Q., Gerez~S., G.~A., Jensen, S.~R.,
Wind, P., Remigio, R.~D., and Frediani, L.}
\newblock Advancements in quantum chemistry using multiwavelets: Theory,
implementation, and applications.
\newblock \emph{In preparation}, 2024.
\bibitem{Yanai_Fann_Gan_Harrison_Beylkin2004}
{\sc Yanai, T., Fann, G.~I., Gan, Z., Harrison, R.~J., and Beylkin, G.}
\newblock {Multiresolution quantum chemistry in multiwavelet bases: Analytic
derivatives for Hartree–Fock and density functional theory}.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics 121}, 7 (2004), 2866--2876.
\end{thebibliography}