Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Constrained-path auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo for coupled electrons and phonons

Joonho Lee, Shiwei Zhang, and David R. Reichman
Phys. Rev. B 103, 115123 – Published 15 March 2021

Abstract

We present an extension of constrained-path auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (CP-AFQMC) for the treatment of correlated electronic systems coupled to phonons. The algorithm follows the standard CP-AFQMC approach for description of the electronic degrees of freedom while phonons are described in first quantization and propagated via a diffusion Monte Carlo approach. Our method is tested on the one- and two-dimensional Holstein and Hubbard-Holstein models. With a simple semiclassical trial wave function, our approach is remarkably accurate for ω/(2dtλ)<1 for all parameters in the Holstein model considered in this study where d is the dimensionality, ω is the phonon frequency, t is the electronic hopping strength, and λ is the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling strength. In addition, we empirically show that the autocorrelation timescales as 1/ω for ω/t1, which is an improvement over the 1/ω2 scaling of the conventional determinant quantum Monte Carlo algorithm. In the Hubbard-Holstein model, the accuracy of our algorithm is found to be consistent with that of standard CP-AFQMC for the Hubbard model when the Hubbard U term dominates the physics of the model, and is nearly exact when the ground state is dominated by the electron-phonon coupling scale λ. The ap- proach developed in this work should be valuable for understanding the complex physics arising from the interplay between electrons and phonons in both model lattice problems and ab initio systems.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
1 More
  • Received 28 December 2020
  • Accepted 18 February 2021

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115123

©2021 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Joonho Lee1,*, Shiwei Zhang2,3,†, and David R. Reichman1,‡

  • 1Department of Chemistry, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA
  • 2Center for Computational Quantum Physics, Flatiron Institute, New York, New York 10010, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187, USA

  • *jl5653@columbia.edu
  • szhang@flatironinstitute.org
  • drr2103@columbia.edu

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 103, Iss. 11 — 15 March 2021

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Born-Oppenheimer potential energy surfaces in units of t for the two-electron and two-site Holstein model: (a) ω=t, λ=0.1, and g=0.447t and (b) ω=t, λ=1, and g=1.414t. The minimum in (a) is E=2.40t at (X1=0.63, X2=0.63), while the two minima in (b) are E=8.25t at (X1=3.90, X2=0.10) and (X1=0.10, X2=3.90), respectively.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Error in the total energy in units of t for the two-site two-electron Holstein model as a function of ω for various λ values: (a) CSMP2, (b) LFPT2, and (c) AFQMC results. For λ=0.1, LFPT2 energy errors lie outside the plotted range. In (c), for λ0.5 AFQMC/TP(11) results are shown, while for λ=0.1 we present AFQMC/S results. Note the different vertical scales in (c).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Total energy per site in units of t for the 20-site 20-electron 1D Holstein model as a function of ω for various values of λ: (a) λ=0.1 results, (b) λ=0.3 results, (c) λ=0.8 results, and (d) λ=2.0 results. Note that all error bars for AFQMC are too small to be seen on the plotted scales, DMRG reference values are unavailable for ω<0.8 when λ=0.8 and all values of ω when λ=2.0, and AFQMC/TP(11) is not presented for λ=0.1 because the results for this trial wave function are nearly identical to those of AFQMC/S. The inset shows energy differences from DMRG for AFQMC/S (blue) and AFQMC/TP(11) (red) (EAFQMCEDMRG).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Total energy per site in units of t for the 4×4 2D Holstein model at half-filling as a function of ω for various λ values: (a) λ=0.1 results, (b) λ=0.3 results, (c) λ=0.5 results, and (d) λ=2.0 results. Note that all error bars of CP-AFQMC/S are too small to be seen on the plotted scales, The inset shows energy differences between CP-AFQMC/S and DMRG (EAFQMCEDMRG), for ω0.8 when λ<2.0 where DRMG results are available.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Log-log plot of autocorrelation time τac/Δτ and phonon frequency ω/t for λ=0.1 and 1.0 for the 4×4 2D Holstein model. The black dotted lines are linear fits for each curve. For λ=0.1, the slope is 0.9876 with R2=0.9993 and for λ=1.0, the slope is 0.8617 with R2=0.9942.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    The total energy per site in units of t for the 20-site 1D Hubbard-Holstein model at half-filling with U=4t as a function of λ for various ω values: (a) ω=0.1, (b) ω=0.4, (c) ω=1.0, and (d) ω=2.0. Note that all error bars of CP-AFQMC are too small to be seen on the plotted scales. Note that the DMRG results are unavailable for ω=0.1 and 0.4 as well as for λ>2.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    Error in total energy per site compared to DMRG in units of 0.001t for the 20-site 1D Hubbard-Holstein model at half-filling with U/t=4 as a function of ω for various λ values: (a) λ=0.1 results and (b) λ=1.0 results. The black dotted line in (a) indicates the electronic CP-AFQMC energy error (i.e., λ=0.0). In (b), DMRG energies are only available for ω=1.0,1.5,2.0.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    Total energy per site in units of t for the 4×4 2D Hubbard-Holstein model with U/t=4 as a function of ω: (a) ω=0.1 results at half-filling, (b) ω=2.0 results at half-filling, (c) ω=0.1 results at 18 hole doping, and (d) ω=2.0 results at 18 hole doping. Note that all error bars of CP-AFQMC are too small to be seen on the plotted scales.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review B

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×