Approximation fixed-node

Dilfusion and Green s function QMC calculations are often done using a fixed-node approximation. Within this scheme, the nodal surfaces used define the state that is obtained as well as ensuring an antisymmetric wave function. 

Although the previous discussion has focused on ground states, the DMC method can also be applied to the calculation of electronically excited states. This is most simply achieved using the fixed-node approximation. Note that the ground state of a fermion system is itself an excited state. It is the lowest antisymmetric state of the system. 

Equation 3 obviously adds ajpraximations. These include the usual effective potential assumptions (frozen core, etc.) in addition to the localization shown in the equation. However in one sense it is a trade-off in that the local potential effectively eliminates the fixed node approximation in the core region. 

We discuss now the choice of the spin orbitals. The spin-orbitals are conceptually more important than the pseudopotential because they provide the nodal structure of the trial function. With the fixed node approximation in RQMC, the projected ground state has the same nodal surfaces of the trial function, while the other details of the trial function are automatically optimized for increasing projection time. It is thus important that the nodes provided by given spin-orbitals be accurate. Moreover, the optimization of nodal parameters (see below) is, in general, more difficult and unstable than for the pseudopotential parameters [6]. 

The ground state wavefunction of a bosonic system is positive everywhere, which is very convenient in a Monte Carlo context and allows one to obtain results with an accuracy that is limited only by practical considerations. For fermionic systems, the ground-state wave function has nodes, and this places more fundamental limits on the accuracy one can obtain with reasonable effort. In the methods discussed in this chapter, this bound on the accuracy takes the form of the so-called fixed-node approximation. Here one assumes that the nodal surface is given, and computes the ground-state wavefunction subject to this constraint. 

For both bosonic systems and fermionic systems in the fixed-node approximation, G has only nonnegative elements. This is essential for the Monte Carlo methods discussed here. A problem specific to quantum mechanical systems is that G is known only asymptotically for short times, so that the finite-time Green function has to be constructed by the application of the generalized Trotter formula [6,7], G(r) = limm 00 G(z/m)m, where the position variables of G have been suppressed. 

A problem with the matrix elements we dealt with up to now is that in the limit p1 or p- x all of them reduce to matrix elements involving the dominant eigenstate, although symmetries might be used to yield other eigenstates besides the absolute dominant one. However, if symmetries fail, one has to employ the equivalent of an orthogonalization scheme, such as, discussed in the next section, or one is forced to resort to evolution operators that contain, in exact or in approximate form, the corresponding projections. An example of this are matrix elements computed in the context of the fixed-node approximation [18], discussed in Section VI.A.2. Within the framework of this approximation, one considers quantities of the form... 

As was shown above, the true fixed-node Green function vanishes outside the nodal pocket of the trial wavefunction. However, since we are using an approximate Green function, moves across the nodes will be proposed for any finite x. To satisfy the boundary conditions of the fixed-node approximation, these proposed moves are always rejected. 

Hence we find the best wavefunction consistent with an assumed set of nodes. The nodes are not exactly known except for the simplest systems. However, we can also go beyond the fixed-node approximation, as will be mentioned later. 

P is a permutation of atoms with the same spin and necessarily must be even because of the restriction [V"(R) is the potential energy] [23]. The exact density matrix will then appear both on the left-hand side of Eq. (5) and implicitly in the restriction on the right-hand side of Eq. (6). This implies that there exists a restriction which does not have a fermion sign difficulty. In the fixed-node approximation, a trial density matrix is used for the restriction on the right-hand side of Eq. (6). 

In order to maintain the wave function antisymmetry, the diffusion QMC is normally used within the fixed node approximation, i.e. the nodes are fixed by the initial trial wave function. Unfortunately, the location of nodes for the exact wave function is far from trivial to determine, although simple approximations such as HF can give quite reasonable estimates. The fixed node diffusion QMC thus determines the best wave function with the nodal structure of the initial trial wave function. If the trial wave function has the correct nodal structure, the QMC will provide the exact solution to the Schrodinger equation, including the electron correlation energy. It should be noted that the region near the nuclei contributes most to the statistical error in QMC methods, and in many apphcations the core electrons are therefore replaced by a pseudopotential. 

The first description of QMC is attributed to E. Fermi in a classic paper by Metropolis and Ulam [2]. Some years later, Kalos [3] proposed Green s Function QMC which was applied to the calculation of the ground state of three- and four-body nuclei. In retrospect this paper was indicative of the versatility of QMC for studies of nuclear, condensed matter as well as atomic and molecular systems. It remained for Anderson [4] to make the initial significant foray into atomic and molecular systems in the mid-seventies. These classic papers introduced the fixed-node approximation and served as a bellwether for the DMC described below. 

Today, the most important QMC method for molecules is the diffusion quantum Monte Carlo method (DMC). It has been presented in the review articles mentioned above and in detail in the monograph by Hammond et al Here only an overview is given without mathematical rigor. A mathematical analysis of the DMC method, and in particular of its fixed-node approximation, has recently been published by Cances et al. ... 

The exponential growth of statistical error has generally prevented solution of the electronic Schrddinger equation for methods that do not impose the fixed-node approximation. The exceptions to this general statement are currently confined to small atoms and molecules, and they deserve mention. 

This approach was generalized and improved by adaptation of directed updates [28], to reduce the correlation time in path sampling, and a worm algorithm to sample expectation values of off-diagonal observables [29], In addition, a strategy was introduced to improve upon the fixed-node approximation see Sect. 18.4. Applications included the one-dimensional Heisenberg model and the fermionic Hubbard model. 

---