Lagrange parameter

Because the constraint terms depend only linearly on the differentiation variables, the Lagrange parameters do not contribute to the second derivatives. From (5.14), we can... 

The quantity els, defined formally in equ. (7.65) as a quantity proportional to the Lagrange parameter Alsls, represents the binding energy of a ls-electron in helium. This can be shown if equ. (7.66a) is multiplied on the left-hand side by Pls(r) and then integrated over dr. This gives... 

Rearranging, after using the fact that the Lagrange parameter is a scalar... 

The constant p, the chemical potential, is a Lagrange parameter that is introduced to ensure proper normalization, as in Hartree-Fock theory. At this stage, Kohn and Sham noted that Eq. (3.36) is the Euler equation for noninteracting electrons in the external potential V ff. Thus, finding the total energy and the density of the system of electrons subject to the external potential V is equivalent to finding these quantities for a noninteracting system in the potential Veir- Such a problem can in principle be solved exactly, but we have to know E and the potential V c-The one-particle problem can be solved as ... 

Proof The proof of this statement differs from the original argument of Mermin for the thermal ensembles in an important way when applied to the density operators D and D defined above. Unlike the Mermin proof for thermal ensembles, we cannot use the same Lagrange parameter to characterize both ensembles in general and are different parameters which we use as subscripts in the foregoing to indicate this dependence. 

Here we manipulated the left side of the inequality by using the corresponding definition and the Lagrange parameter associated with the Hamiltonian operator H. For the sake of clarity, we have here exhibited the parameter dependence of the appropriate ensemble density operators along with those associated with the respective minimum free energies and entropies corresponding to the two Hamiltonians. 

The study of large amplitude collective motion at finite temperature is now reduced to the study of an energy surface obtained from a CHF calculation with four Lagrange parameters. Two of them (Ai, A2) are of dynamical nature and represent the force and velocity fields needed to describe collective motion in a given mode. The other two T, p) embody the thermal constraints on the motion. The numerical determination of these surfaces is quite feasible with realistic Hamiltonians. One result is the function H(P, Q, S, N) which, for constant S, N, yields the trajectory of isentropic motion as the line of constant H in the phase space of P and Q. For small amplitudes near an equilibrium point with values P = 0,Q = qq the surface can be expanded up to quadratic terms as... 

The minimum free energy resulting from corresponds to a constant and homogeneous field a = rge " whose overall phase is set to zero. The minimum conditions lead to self-consistent equations for the amplitude and the Lagrange parameter A in terms of the mean-field expectation values. They are evaluated by introducing quasiparticle states created by ( y = ) which diagonalize to... 

The function (9.13) is called the Lagrar e Junction and the variables X are Lagrange multipliers or Lagrange parameters. 

Clearly, the values of the Lagrange parameters change sign in both cases. 

The seminal idea on which active set methods are based is rather simple and is the same, albeit with several variants, as the one adopted in the Attic method as well as in the Simplex method for linear programming starting from a point where certain constraints are active (all the equality constraints and some inequality constraints), we search for the solution to this problem as if all the constraints are equalities. During the search, it, however, may be necessary to insert other inequality constraints that were previously passive and/or remove certain active inequality constraints as they are considered useless based on their Lagrange parameters. The procedure continues until KKT conditions are fulfilled. 

The most appealing alternative was proposed by Fletcher (1987). Fletcher demonstrated that if we know the exact values of the Lagrange parameters, Xj, it should be possible to use a merit function that avoids the Maratos effect. This option will be considered in Section 12.2.4. Unfortunately, the exact values of 2 are unknowns in a generic iteration and only their estimations are available therefore, the Maratos effect could also arise with such a function. 

Fletcher has demonstrated that the Maratos effect is avoided if the exact values of Lagrange parameters, Ij, are inserted into the function (12.23). 

The main advantage of using this function is that unconstrained or bounded-constraint optimization programs can be exploited (although iteratively to estimate the Lagrange parameters Xj). 

Lagrange parameter estimations are very useful in assessing the solution achieved. 

The selection of Lagrange parameters to be used at a certain iteration is generally performed based on this important theoretical result (Fletcher, 1987). 

The exact value of the Lagrange parameters can be estimated from the results of the previous calculation... 

It is dear that this rdation allows the estimation of the Lagrange parameters in the new iteration as follows ... 

Mathematically, the BE distribution differs from the FD one just by a sign in the denominator, yet with deep consequences in the physical interpretation, as it will be seen below. We know that the determination of Lagrange parameters is based on the evaluation of entropy variation at the energy variation, in the absence of the variation of the total numbers of particles - for determination, respectively when the total number of particles slightly varies - for a determination. 

---