Renormalization procedures

Our renormalization procedure is internally consistent in that the physical value of the tunneling amplitude depends on the scaling variable—the bare coupling Aq—only logarithmically. This bare coupling must scale with the only quantum scale in the problem—the Debye frequency, as pointed out in the first section. 

Formally, this procedure is correct only for spectra that are linear in the frequency, that is, spectra whose line positions are caused by the Zeeman interaction only, and whose linewidths are caused by a distribution in the Zeeman interaction (in g-values) only. Such spectra do exist low-spin heme spectra (e.g., cytochrome c cf. Figure 5.4F) fall in this category. But there are many more spectra that also carry contributions from field-independent interactions such as hyperfine splittings. Our frequency-renormalization procedure will still be applicable, as long as two spectra do not differ too much in frequency. In practice, this means that they should at least be taken at frequencies in the same band. For a counter-example, in Figure 5.6 we plotted the X-band and Q-band spectra of cobalamin (dominated by hyperfine interactions) normalized to a single frequency. To construct difference spectra from these two arrays obviously will generate nonsensical results. 

This error was originally approximated by an iterative purification renormalizing procedure, focusing on rendering the 2-RDM and the 2-HRDM positive-semide-finite and correctly normalized [19]. 

Until now the focus has been on the construction algorithms for the 3- and 4-RDMs and the estimation of the A errors. However, the question of how to impose that the RDMs involved as well as the high-order G-matrices be positive must not be overlooked. This condition is not easy to impose in a rigorous way for such large matrices. The renormalization procedure of Valdemoro et al. [54], which was computationally economical but only approximate, acted only on the diagonal elements. 

RDM. The results for each spin block of the 4-RDM are presented in Tables II-V. It should be mentioned that, before carrying the comparison with the FCI 4-RDM, the renormalization procedure previously mentioned was applied. 

This equation has at least two exact solutions. Thus, both the set of RDM s obtained in a Hartree-Fock HF) calculation and that obtained from a FCI one fulfill exactly this effective one-body equation. Unfortunately, the iterative method sketched above converged to the HF solution in all the cases tested. This may be due to the fact that in our algorithm, the correlation effects are estimated through a renormalization procedure, which may not be sufBciently accurate in the first order case. To improve this aspect is one of the motivations of our present line of work. 

We remind the reader that according to the common renormalization procedure the electric charge is defined as a charge observed at a very large distance. 

These are iterative procedures that allow the calculation and the Green s function matrix elements without explicit diagonalization of the Hamiltonian [18]. In the present case the Hamiltonian is factorized into double chains, and the renormalization method can be conveniently and efficiently applied, since its implementation simply requires the handling and the inversion of small matrices of rank two. For more details and elaboration of the renormalization procedures, see, for example, Ref. [23]. 

The results of two previous nonperturbative calculations of this correction are also presented in Table 1 and in Fig. 2. A comparison exhibits a good agreement of the present calculation with the results of Mallampalli and Sapirstein [4] and a strong deviation from the results of Goidenko et al. [5]. One of the possible reasons for this discrepancy may be, to our opinion, a noncovariant renormalization procedure used by Goidenko et al. which could provide some spurious contributions in this case. We discuss this topic in more detail in Appendix I. 

I. Goidenko, G. Plunien, A. Nefiodov, S. Zschocke, L. Labzowsky, and G. Soff No regularization corrections to the partial-wave renormalization procedure, hep-ph/0006220... 

For instance, in the SLSP model, a HSR may be obtained by taking into account both the self-similarity of the percolating cluster and the scale invariance of the cluster size distribution function (71). By utilizing the renormalization procedure [213], in which the size L of the lattice changes to a new size Lc with a scaling coefficient b = Lc/L, the relationship between the distribution function of the original lattice and the lattice with the adjusted size can be presented as w(s, sm) = bd nDw(s, sm), where s = s D and sm = smD. 

Taking into account (81) and the scaling laws (74), (75), it is easy to show that when sm > oo the validity of the renormalization procedure is similar to the condition that the extension coefficient bH must be a constant,... 

In order to answer this question, a significant source of statistical correlation arising from mutation paths that visit a particularly advantageous mutant more than once must be considered. In the perturbation theory these paths are represented by products of factors involving the mutant replication rates, and it is necessary to remove the strong correlation that arises between these factors where repeated indices are present in order to obtain a tractable statistical analysis of convergence. The Watson renormalization procedure [29], the application of which to the steady-state quasi-species is summarized in Appendix 7, accomplishes just this [30]. The cost is a consecutive modification of the denominator, which may however be simplified to good approximation, as in Eqn. (A7.5). 

Calculating the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian in this basis set gives a sparse, real, and symmetric M(N) x M(N) matrix at order N. By systematically increasing the order N, one obtained the lowest two eigenvalues at different basis lengths M(N). For example, M(N) = 946 and 20,336 at N = 20 and 60, respectively [11]. The symmetric matrix is represented in a sparse row-wise format [140] and then reordered [141] before triangularizations. The Lanczos method [142] of block-renormalization procedure was employed. 

If 72(z) had. in contrast, possessed secular terms, then as t oo it would be impossible to choose an e small enough to maintain the perturbative nature of the correction—necessitating a renormalization procedure. 

This is a fair comparison because the maps have the same stability properties x, is a superstable fixed point for both of them. Please notice that to obtain Figure 10.7.2b, we took the second iterate of f and increased r from / (, to / ,. This r-shifting is a basic part of the renormalization procedure. 

Renormalization approach to intermittency functional version) Show that if the renormalization procedure in Exercise 10.7.8 is done exactly, we are led to the functional equation... 

Our working hypothesis is that all A have small values and may be taken into account through a renormalization procedure which will be described in detail later on. 

In the practice our approximating methods for high order RDM s approach differ from theirs on the way in which the A term is evaluated. They infer it from a Green s function diagram and we correct this error through a renormalization procedure which is described in some detail later on. 

The difference between and the full renormalized potential is a well-behaved function that is evaluated numerically. The interest in the renormalization procedure is now mainly a theoretical one as formal results regarding screening and other thermodynamic parameters can be obtained this way. Results applicable to both pure one-component fluids or mixtures can be obtained. The numerical solution of integral equations, such as the SSOZ and CSL equations, for sites with charge interactions should no longer use the renormalization method but rather the method we are about to describe. 

Regularization Corrections to the Partial-Wave Renormalization Procedure ... 

We can also formulate this in a different manner and say that the self-consistent field procedure plays a crucial role in 4-component theory because it serves to define the spinors that isolate the n-electron subspaces from the rest of the Fock space. In this manner it determines in effect the precise form of the electron-electron interaction used in the calculations. Both aspects are a consequence of the renormalization procedure that was followed when fixing the energy scale and interpretation of the vacuum. The experience with different realizations of the no-pair procedure has learned that the differences in calculated chemical properties (that depend on energy differences and not on absolute energies) are usually small and that other sources of errors (truncation errors in the basis set expansion, approximations in the evaluation of the integrals) prevail in actual calculations. 

---