Configuration interaction representation

This is the configuration-interaction representation. It is antisymmetric in all the coordinates and spins. Antisymmetry is a requirement for all iV-electron states. 

The configuration-interaction representation of the lower-energy states of an atom is the IV-electron analogue of the Sturmians in the hydrogen-atom problem. We choose an orbital basis of dimension P, form from them a subset of all possible A/ -electron determinants pk),k = 0,Mp, and use these determinants as a basis for diagonalising the IV-electron Hamiltonian. It may be convenient first to form symmetry configurations kfe) from the pfe). 

Fig. 11.6 shows the noncoplanar-symmetric differential cross sections at 1200 eV for the Is state and the unresolved n=2 states, normalised to theory for the low-momentum Is points. Here the structure amplitude is calculated from the overlap of a converged configuration-interaction representation of helium (McCarthy and Mitroy, 1986) with the observed helium ion state. The distorted-wave impulse approximation describes the Is momentum profile accurately. The summed n=2 profile does not have the shape expected on the basis of the weak-coupling approximation (long-dashed curve). Its shape and magnitude are given quite well by... 

The next step might be to perform a configuration interaction calculation, in order to get a more accurate representation of the excited states. We touched on this for dihydrogen in an earlier chapter. To do this, we take linear combinations of the 10 states given above, and solve a 10 x 10 matrix eigenvalue problem to find the expansion coefficients. The diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian matrix are given above (equation 8.7), and it turns out that there is a simplification. 

As far as the molecular calculation is concerned, the use of an ab initio method is necessary for an adequate representation of the open-shell metastable N (ls2s) + He system with four outer electrons. The CIPSI configuration interaction method used in this calculations leads to the same rate of accuracy as the spin-coupled valence bond method (cf. the work on by Cooper et al. [19] or on NH" + by Zygelman et al. [37]). 

The HF (Hartree-Fock) Slater determinant is an inexact representation of the wavefunction because even with an infinitely big basis set it would not account fully for electron correlation (it does account exactly for Pauli repulsion since if two electrons had the same spatial and spin coordinates the determinant would vanish). This is shown by the fact that electron correlation can in principle be handled fully by expressing the wavefunction as a linear combination of the HF determinant plus determinants representing all possible promotions of electrons into virtual orbitals full configuration interaction. Physically, this mathematical construction permits the electrons maximum freedom in avoiding one another. 

At this point we are sufficiently equipped to consider briefly the methods used to approximate the wave functions constructed in the restricted subspace of orbitals. So far the only approximation was to restrict the orbital basis set. It is convenient to establish something that might be considered to be the exact solution of the electronic structure problem in this setting. This is the full configuration interaction (FCI) solution. In order to find one it is necessary to construct all possible Slater determinants for N electrons allowed in the basis of 2M spin-orbitals. In this context each Slater determinant bears the name of a basis configuration and constructing them all means that we have their full set. Then the matrix representation of the Hamiltonian in the basis of the configurations ( >K is constructed ... 

---