Zhandos Moldabekov1,2, Jan Vorberger2, Tobias Dornheim1,2. 1. Center for Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), D-02826 Görlitz, Germany. 2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), D-01328 Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
We explore a new formalism to study the nonlinear electronic density response based on Kohn-Sham density functional theory (KS-DFT) at partially and strongly quantum degenerate regimes. It is demonstrated that the KS-DFT calculations are able to accurately reproduce the available path integral Monte Carlo simulation results at temperatures relevant for warm dense matter research. The existing analytical results for the quadratic and cubic response functions are rigorously tested. It is demonstrated that the analytical results for the quadratic response function closely agree with the KS-DFT data. Furthermore, the performed analysis reveals that currently available analytical formulas for the cubic response function are not able to describe simulation results, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively, at small wavenumbers q < 2qF, with qF being the Fermi wavenumber. The results show that KS-DFT can be used to describe warm dense matter that is strongly perturbed by an external field with remarkable accuracy. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that KS-DFT constitutes a valuable tool to guide the development of the nonlinear response theory of correlated quantum electrons from ambient to extreme conditions. This opens up new avenues to study nonlinear effects in a gamut of different contexts at conditions that cannot be accessed with previously used path integral Monte Carlo methods.
We explore a new formalism to study the nonlinear electronic density response based on Kohn-Sham density functional theory (KS-DFT) at partially and strongly quantum degenerate regimes. It is demonstrated that the KS-DFT calculations are able to accurately reproduce the available path integral Monte Carlo simulation results at temperatures relevant for warm dense matter research. The existing analytical results for the quadratic and cubic response functions are rigorously tested. It is demonstrated that the analytical results for the quadratic response function closely agree with the KS-DFT data. Furthermore, the performed analysis reveals that currently available analytical formulas for the cubic response function are not able to describe simulation results, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively, at small wavenumbers q < 2qF, with qF being the Fermi wavenumber. The results show that KS-DFT can be used to describe warm dense matter that is strongly perturbed by an external field with remarkable accuracy. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that KS-DFT constitutes a valuable tool to guide the development of the nonlinear response theory of correlated quantum electrons from ambient to extreme conditions. This opens up new avenues to study nonlinear effects in a gamut of different contexts at conditions that cannot be accessed with previously used path integral Monte Carlo methods.
Quantum linear response
theory (LRT) has been actively developed
since the formulation of the foundations of quantum mechanics and
has become one of the most fundamental theories for the computation
of various properties.[1] At the same time,
the ongoing development of technological and, along with it, experimental
capabilities has resulted in the need for a theory that captures phenomena
beyond the linear response regime. Specific examples include plasmonics,[2,3] optics,[4,5] and more recently warm dense matter (WDM)[6,7]—an extreme state that occurs in astrophysical
objects[8,9] and that is also relevant for technological
applications.[10−13]However, in contrast to the LRT, the foundations of a quantum
theory
of the nonlinear response (NLRT) at finite wavenumbers is far from
being established even for simple model systems such as a free electron
gas.[14,15] In this regard, the lack of a reliable theoretical
foundation makes the ab initio simulation an indispensable tool to
guide the development of the NLRT. This was demonstrated recently
for WDM by performing path integral quantum Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations.[16,17] However, while these results are exact, the fermion sign problem[18,19] limits their application to moderate levels of quantum degeneracy.
In contrast, the thermal Kohn–Sham density functional theory
(KS-DFT) method[20] does not suffer from
this limitation. Indeed, it has become standard practice to study
the linear electronic response[21,22] based on the KS orbitals.
In this work, we explore a new KS-DFT based approach to the nonlinear
electronic response of arbitrary materials. First, this methodology
allows us to compute higher-order (meaning quadratic, cubic, etc.
with respect to the perturbation amplitude) response functions, with
the only approximation being given by the choice of the exchange–correlation
(XC) functional. In addition, we can straightforwardly estimate the
validity range of LRT, which is highly important in its own right.As a particular example, we apply this approach to the free electron
gas[14,15]—the archetypical model system with general
relevance for numerous applications in condensate matter physics and
high-energy-density science. From a many-particle physics perspective,
we note that it is imperative to first develop a NLRT for this general
free electron gas model, before applying the NLRT to specific cases.In this context, thermal KS-DFT[20] constitutes
the method of choice because it allows calculations over large temperature
ranges covering the strongly to partially degenerate regimes. Moreover,
we note that the general nature of our present NLRT approach makes
it directly useable for high-T DFT methods,[23,24] including orbital-free formulations.[25] Since the free electron gas model and the NLRT have important applications
in WDM,[6,26] we start from relatively high temperatures
relevant for laboratory astrophysics[27−29] as well as astrophysical
models,[9] inertial confinement fusion,[10] and the synthesis of new materials at extreme
conditions.[11−13] At these parameters, we can benchmark KS-DFT results
against available PIMC results.[6,16,17] In addition, we consider lower temperatures down to the electronic
ground state that are relevant for condensed matter physics.It is convention to give the temperature T and
density n0 of the free electron gas using
the reduced temperature θ = T/TF (with TF being the Fermi
temperature) and the mean inter-particle distance in a.u., rs = (4πn0/3)1/3. For example, a rather loose definition of the WDM regime
corresponds to temperatures 0.1 ≲ θ ≲ 10 and densities
0.5 ≲ rs ≲ 10.The
prospect of the observation of nonlinear phenomena in WDM has
triggered an active investigation of the nonlinear density response
properties of the free electron gas by Dornheim et al.[16,17,30] using the ab initio PIMC method.[18,31] The focus of these PIMC studies was the static density response
of WDM at temperatures θ ≥ 1. The main reason for not
considering lower temperatures was the aforementioned fermion sign
problem,[18] which results in an exponential
increase in the computation time with decreasing temperature. Although
there are other quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods that have different
domains of applicability, such as the configuration PIMC approach,[32,33] the permutation blocking PIMC method,[34,35] and a phaseless
auxiliary-field QMC technique,[36] there
are always parameters at which QMC methods encounter significant difficulties.
Approximately, the problematic domain for QMC methods corresponds
to θ < 1 and rs ≳ 2.[33,36,37]On the other hand, the
parameter range corresponding to densities rs ≳ 2 and temperatures 0.01 ≲θ
< 1 is highly important for numerous applications. Recently, it
was shown that the static nonlinear density response functions of
the electron gas can be used for the construction of advanced kinetic
energy functionals required for orbital-free density functional theory
(OF-DFT)-based simulations[38,39] with applications at
ambient[40] and extreme conditions.[41,42] Additionally, nonlinear density response functions can extend quantum
fluid models (quantum hydrodynamics and time-dependent OF-DFT) beyond
the weak perturbation regime.[43−48] Moreover, static nonlinear density response functions are needed
for the systematic improvement of effective pair interaction models
for WDM[49−52] and liquid metals.[53−55] Finally, Moldabekov and co-workers[56,57] have recently suggested to deliberately probe the nonlinear regime
in X-ray Thomson scattering experiments[58] as an improved method for the inference of plasma parameters such
as the electronic temperature. However, these applications remain
in their infancy since the NLRT of correlated electrons is significantly
less developed compared to the LRT.[37] One
of the reasons is that the derivations in the NLRT are much more mathematically
involved.[59−61] In fact, the NLRT is burdened with easy-to-make-mistake
mathematical tasks and poorly converging integrals. Therefore, the
ab initio calculation of the NLRT properties across parameter ranges
is required not only to describe certain phenomena but also to guide
and test new theoretical developments.The key goal of this
work is to demonstrate the high value of KS-DFT
to study the nonlinear density response across temperature regimes
as an alternative to much more expensive—for certain parameters
even prohibitively expensive—QMC simulations. This is achieved
by developing and testing the KS-DFT based methodology for the analysis
and investigation of the higher order static density response functions.
Therefore, first of all, we show that KS-DFT can be effectively used
to compute static nonlinear density response properties of correlated
electrons at low temperatures (θ ≲ 1) and is able to
reproduce available PIMC results at θ = 1. Second, we provide
an analysis of the available theoretical results for the diagonal
parts of quadratic and cubic response functions by combining the KS-DFT
simulation of correlated electrons, the KS-DFT calculations with the
XC functional set to zero, and recently developed machine learning
(ML) representation of the local field correction (LFC) of the free
electron gas.[62,63] This confirms the high accuracy
of the analytical results for the quadratic response function and
reveals the significant deficiency of the available analytical results
for the cubic response function. Finally, we are able to show the
change in the characteristic features of the NLRT functions on the
way from moderately to strongly degenerate regimes.The paper
is organized as follows: in Section , we provide the theoretical background of
the studied NLRT characteristics; in Section , we give the description of the performed
simulations; the new results are presented and discussed in Section ; and the paper
is concluded by summarizing the main findings and providing an outlook
over future investigations in Section .
Theory
First, we
briefly discuss the state-of-the-art theory of the static
nonlinear density response functions. Along with that, we establish
the terminology used throughout the paper. In general, the definition
of the NLRT functions follow from the perturbative expansion of the
density n(r) around its unperturbed
value n0(r).[16,59,60] Specifically, we consider the
response of the uniform electron gas to an external harmonic perturbation,[6,64]V(r) = 2Acos(q·r), with amplitude A and
wavenumber q. In this case, the Fourier expansion of
the density distribution reads[16]where we have introduced the density perturbation
components in Fourier space ⟨ρ̂⟩. The
latter quantity is essentially the density perturbation in k space induced by an external perturbation with amplitude A and wavenumber q.From eq , we see
that ⟨ρ̂⟩ has non-zero components at multiples
of the perturbing field wavenumber, that is, at k = ηq with η being an integer number. We
refer to ⟨ρ̂η⟩ at η = 1, η
= 2, and η = 3 as density perturbations at the first, second,
and third harmonics, respectively. Next, using the density response
⟨ρ̂⟩, we arrive at the following definitions
of the density response functions[16,64,65]where χ(1) (q) is
the linear response function, χ(1,cubic) (q) is the cubic response function at the first harmonic,
χ(2) (q) is the quadratic response
function, and χ(3) (q) is the cubic
response function at the third harmonic. Evidently, eqs –4 are given by expansions in terms of the perturbation amplitude A and are accurate up to the third order. While the density
response is only given by a single term at the wavenumber of the original
perturbation within LRT, the consideration of nonlinear effects leads
to a richer picture including the excitation of higher-order harmonics.In the ideal Fermi gas approximation, the linear response function
χ0(1) is
given by the (temperature-dependent) Lindhard function.[66] On the same level of description, Mikhailov
expressed the ideal quadratic response function χ0(2) (q) and ideal cubic response function at the third harmonic χ0(3) (q) in terms of the Lindhard function[65,67]Next, on the mean-field level,
usually called RPA, the results
for χ(2) (q) and χ(3) (q) can be obtained by taking into account screening
on the level of the linear response and dropping quadratic or higher
order corrections to screening[16]andFinally, some electronic correlation
effects beyond the mean-field
level can be taken into account using a LFC G(k) in the denominator[16]andSimilarly, the screened eqs –10 take into
account electronic XC on the basis of the LRT. However, contrary to
the case of the LFC in the linear response function, the insertion
of the LFC here cannot give an exact result as further terms are missing. Equations and 10 are easy-to-compute solutions for the case of a harmonically
perturbed electron gas since the static LFC at the parameters of interest
is readily available from a ML representation, which is based on QMC
simulation results.[62,63]Finally, we note that there
are no satisfactory analytical results
for the ideal cubic response function at the first harmonic χ0(1,cubic) (q). Nevertheless, there is a formal relation between χ0(1,cubic) and the
cubic response function of correlated electrons, which follows from
perturbative analysis based on the Green function method[16]Note that the mean-field result
for the cubic response function
at the first harmonic follows from eq by setting G = 0In this work, we use the KS-DFT method to compute the set
of density
response functions defined by eqs –4 and subsequently verify
the quality of the KS-DFT results by comparing with PIMC results at
θ = 1. Then, we use KS-DFT results to analyze the analytical
approximations given by eqs –10 in the wide range of parameters
inaccessible for QMC methods. This allows us to unambiguously assess
the importance of the negligible higher order (nonlinear) screening
and LFC effects.
Simulation Details
The computational workflow consists of four main steps: First,
the thermal KS-DFT simulations[20] of the
free electron gas perturbed by an external field V(r) = 2Acos(q·r)
are performed for different A and q values;
second, the wave functions from KS-DFT simulations are used to compute
the total density distribution along the direction of the wave vector q; third, the density perturbation components in k space ⟨ρ̂⟩ are computed using eq ; and finally, the density
response functions are found by fitting data for ⟨ρ̂⟩ using eqs –4.To begin with, we consider a strongly correlated
electron gas with rs = 6 at θ =
1 and rs = 5 at θ = 0.01. At rs =
6, we compare the results with the available finite temperature PIMC
data for the linear and nonlinear density response functions.[16] At rs = 5, we compare
with diffusion quantum Monte Carlo (DMC) results for the linear density
response function computed by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore.[64] Furthermore, we investigate a metallic density
with rs = 2 at three different values
of the degeneracy parameter, θ = 1, θ = 0.5, and θ
= 0.01. In this case, we also benchmark results against PIMC data
at θ = 1 and compare with the linear density response function
from the DMC simulations at θ = 0.01.The KS-DFT simulations
of the free electron gas were performed
using the GPAW code,[68−71] which is a real-space implementation of the projector augmented-wave
method. The number of particles in the main simulation box varied
in the range from 14 to 66. Accordingly, the main cubic cell size
is defined by rs and N as L = rs(4/3πN)1/3. The direction of the perturbation is set
to be along the z-axis. Due to periodic boundary
conditions, the value of the perturbation wavenumber of the external
harmonic field is defined by the reciprocal lattice vectors of the
main simulation cell q = η × 2π/L, with η being a positive integer number. We used
a Monkhorst-Pack[72] sampling of the Brillouin
zone with a k-point grid of Nk × Nk × Nk total points, with Nk =
12 at rs = 2 and Nk = 8 at rs = 6 and rs = 5. The calculations were performed using a plane-wave
basis where the cutoff energy has been converged to 800 eV at θ
= 1 and rs = 2 and to 440 eV at the rest
of the rs and θ values. The number
of orbitals is set to Nb = 500 at rs = 2 and θ = 1 with the smallest occupation
number fmin ≲ 10–7. We set Nb = 240 at rs = 6 and θ = 1 and Nb = 140 at rs = 2 and θ = 0.5 (fmin ≲ 10–6). At θ
= 0.01, we set Nb = 70 for N = 66 particles and Nb = 2 N for N = 20 and N = 14 particles
(with fmin = 0).At rs = 2, the perturbation amplitudes
are set in the range from A = 0.01 to A = 0.1 with a step of ΔA = 0.03 (here, A is in Hartree atomic units). At rs = 6 and rs = 5, the perturbation
amplitudes are in the range from A = 0.002 to A = 0.017 with the step ΔA = 0.005.
These values of the perturbation amplitudes used for the calculation
of the density response functions were found empirically guided by
the requirement Δn/n0 ≪ 1 and by testing the validity of eqs –4. Examples
of the dependence of the density perturbation ⟨ρ̂⟩ on A and the application of eqs –4 are illustrated in the Appendix.The
XC functional in our KS-DFT simulations is the local density
approximation (LDA) in the Perdew–Zunger parametrization.[73] Recently, it was demonstrated for θ =
1 that commonly used GGA functionals such as PBE,[74] PBEsol,[75] AM05,[76] and the meta-GGA functional SCAN[77] are not able to provide a superior description compared to LDA in
the case of the free electron gas perturbed by an external field with
fixed wavenumber q when Δn/n0 < 1.[78,79] We do not aim to further
study this problem in this work. Therefore, we do not consider other
types of XC functionals beyond LDA.In addition to the LDA-based
calculations, we performed simulations
with zero XC functional [to which we refer to as DFT (RPA)]. This
allows us to obtain exact results for the density response on the
mean-field level. The value of this type of KS-DFT calculations allows
us to assess the accuracy of the corresponding theoretical mean-field
expressions given in eqs and 8. Furthermore, once the analytical results
have been verified, the KS-DFT calculations on the mean-field level
can be combined with the LFC to compute a highly accurate response
function. We demonstrate that this is the case for the quadratic response
function and the cubic response function at the first harmonic using eqs and 11.
Results
Strongly Correlated Hot
Electrons
We start the discussion of our simulation results
by considering
the strongly correlated electron gas with the density parameter rs = 6 and at the reduced temperature θ
= 1. This corresponds to WDM generated in evaporation experiments.[80] At these parameters, we can benchmark the KS-DFT
calculations against previous PIMC calculations.[6,16]
Linear Density Response in the WDM Regime
First, we
verify that our KS-DFT calculations provide accurate
data for the linear static density response function χ(1) (q), which allows us to systematically analyze
and exclude the possibility of finite size effects.[81] We start this analysis by comparing the linear static density
response function computed using KS-DFT with the exact analytical
results on the mean-field level and with χ(1) of
the correlated electron gas computed using the exact data for the
LFC.[62]In Figure , we present the KS-DFT results computed
using N = 14 electrons. In this case, the cell size
is L = 12.335 Å, and the accessible values of
the wavenumbers are multiples of qmin ≃
0.8427qF.
Figure 1
Linear static density response function
at rs = 6 and θ = 1.
Linear static density response function
at rs = 6 and θ = 1.From Figure , first
of all, we see that the linear density response function computed
using KS-DFT with zero XC functional, χ̃RPA(1), accurately reproduces the
exact random phase approximation (RPA) result for the static linear
response function,where v(q) = 4π/q2 and χ0(1) (q) is the Lindhard function. This shows
that finite size effects in
our KS-DFT calculations with as few as 14 electrons is negligible
in the considered case. For completeness, we note that this is consistent
with previous findings of PIMC simulations at similar conditions.[62]Second, we combine the density response
function computed using
the KS-DFT with zero XC functional, χ̃RPA(1), with the LFC to find the
linear density response function of correlated electronswhere G(q) is computed using the ML representation of the
LFC.[62]From Figure , we
see that χ̃LFC(1) (q) [labeled as DFT(RPA)
+ LFC] is in excellent agreement with the exact value computed using
the Lindhard functionwhere after the second equality, we used eq to express χLFC(1) (q) in terms of χRPA(1) (q).Note that eq follows
from eq after the
substitution χ̃RPA(1) → χRPA(1) and χ̃LFC(1) → χLFC(1).Now,
after verifying that our calculations are not affected by
the finite size effect, we compare the LDA-based KS-DFT calculations
of the linear density response function, χ̃LDA(1) (q), with the exact result χLFC(1) (q). From Figure , we see that χ̃LDA(1) (q) is in good agreement with χLFC(1) (q) at q < 2qF (with qF being the Fermi wavenumber) and exhibits significant disagreements
at q > 2qF. To understand
this finding, we recall that the LDA corresponds to the long wavelength
approximation of the LFC with GLDA = γk2, where γ is defined by the compressibility
sum rule.[82] This approximation is applicable
at q ≲ qF and
increasingly deviates from the exact result with the increase in the
wavenumber beyond 2qF.[78] Note that all χ̃LDA(1) (q), χ̃LFC(1) (q), and χLFC(1) (q) tend to χRPA(1) (q) in the
limit of large wavenumbers since the screening factor dominates over
XC effects in this limit. This can be seen from eqs and 15, where the
LFC is suppressed by the factor q–2.The insights that we have gained considering χ̃RPA(1), χ̃(1) (q), and χ̃LDA(q) will help us understand the KS-DFT results for the higher-order
nonlinear density response functions discussed in the next subsection.
Furthermore, we use a tilde over a symbol to differentiate response
functions calculated using KS-DFT from the theoretical definitions.
Nonlinear Density Response in the WDM Regime
Our new results for the nonlinear density response functions at rs = 6 and θ = 1 are presented in Figure . In particular,
the left panel shows the results for the quadratic response function
(defined by eq ), the
middle panel presents data for the cubic response function at the
first harmonic (the cubic term in eq ), and the right panel shows the results for the cubic
response function at the third harmonic (defined by eq ).
Figure 2
Nonlinear static density response functions
at rs = 6 and θ = 1. Left: quadratic
response function
at the second harmonic. Middle: cubic response function at the first
harmonic. Right: cubic response function at the third harmonic. We
note that analytical results for the cubic response function at the
first harmonic are presently not available.
Nonlinear static density response functions
at rs = 6 and θ = 1. Left: quadratic
response function
at the second harmonic. Middle: cubic response function at the first
harmonic. Right: cubic response function at the third harmonic. We
note that analytical results for the cubic response function at the
first harmonic are presently not available.First of all, we observe that the LDA XC functional-based calculations
are generally in good agreement with the PIMC results at q < 2qF and overestimate the considered
nonlinear density response functions at q > 2qF. The reason for this behavior of the LDA-based
calculations is the inaccuracy of the LFC incorporated in the LDA
at q > 2qF as it has
been discussed in Section above.Next, from the left panel of Figure , we see that KS-DFT
calculations with XC set to zero
[i.e. DFT(RPA)] are in excellent agreement with the theoretical RPA
curve for the quadratic response function. This confirms the high
quality of the analytical result eq in the WDM regime. In the case of the cubic response
function at the third harmonic, as shown in the rightmost panel of Figure , we observe that eq is accurate at q > 2qF but overestimates
the
response at q < 2qF. Note that the LDA-based KS-DFT results, the KS-DFT calculations
without XC, DFT(RPA), and the PIMC results all have positive sign
at q < qF, while the
theoretical curves fail to capture the change in the sign of the cubic
response function at the third harmonic with decrease in wavenumber.Let us next combine the KS-DFT data for the quadratic response
computed with zero XC functional, χ̃RPA(2) (q), with
the LFC. For that, we express χLFC(2) (q) via χRPA(2) (q) using eqs and 9. Then, we perform substitutions χ̃LFC(2) (q) → χLFC(2) (q) and χ̃RPA(2) (q) →
χRPA(2) (q). As the result, we have the following relationwhere χ̃0(1) (q) can be extracted from
χ̃RPA(1) (q) asComparing the results calculated using eq with the PIMC data,
we conclude that the
relationship (eq ) is
fulfilled with high accuracy.Similarly, we derive the connection
between χ̃LFC(1,cubic) (q) and χ̃RPA(1,cubic) (q) using eqs and 12 and replacing χLFC(1,cubic) (q) → χ̃LFC(1,cubic) (q) and χRPA(1,cubic) (q) → χ̃RPA(1,cubic) (q). As the
result, we findUsing χ̃RPA(1,cubic) (q) obtained from
KS-DFT simulations with zero XC and the LFC computed using the ML
representation,[62] we have found that eq reproduces the PIMC
results in the entire range of the wavenumbers as it can be seen from
the middle panel of Figure . It is only the availability of χ̃RPA(1,cubic) (q) that allows us to estimate the cubic response at the
first harmonic with PIMC accuracy as no analytical theory for χ0(1,cubic) currently
exists.To further explore the combination of the KS-DFT calculations
with
zero XC functional and the ML representation of the LFC, we next analyze
the quality of the theoretical result (eq ) for the cubic response at the third harmonic.
Using eqs and 10 and replacing χLFC(3) (q) by χ̃LFC(3) (q) and χRPA(3) (q) by χ̃RPA(3) (q), we arrive at
the following relation between χRPA(3) (q) computed using
the KS-DFT calculations with zero XC functional and the LFCThe comparison of χ̃LFC(3) (q) with the PIMC
results
is presented in the right panel of Figure . From this figure, we see that χ̃LFC(3) (q) significantly deviates from the PIMC data at q < 2qF. This means that the relation
(eq ) does not provide
an adequate description of the correlated electron gas. This is expected
since we have already demonstrated above that the RPA result (eq ) is inadequate at q < 2qF. Therefore, the description
of the screening on the mean-field level must first be improved to
describe the actual system.
Strongly
Correlated and Strongly Degenerate
Electrons
Next, we investigate the strongly degenerate case
with rs = 5 and θ = 0.01. In this
regime, we are able to verify our KS-DFT calculations by comparing
with the accurate DMC calculations of the linear static density response
function, χ(1), by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore.[64]Additionally, we further assess possible
finite size effects at low temperature by comparing the simulation
results for N = 14 particles to the results computed
using N = 20, N = 38, and N = 66 particles. In this case, the cell size is L = 10.28 Å (for N = 14), L = 11.577 Å (for N = 20), L = 14.34 Å (for N = 38), and L = 17.236 Å (for N = 66). Correspondingly,
the accessible values of the wavenumbers are multiples of qmin ≃ 0.8427qF (for N = 14), qmin ≃
0.74822qF (for N = 20), qmin ≃ 0.604qF (for N = 38), and qmin ≃ 0.50qF (for N = 66).
Linear Density Response in the Limit of
Strong Degeneracy
In Figure , we present results for the static linear density
response function. Evidently, the results for χ̃RPA(1) computed using
different numbers of particles accurately reproduces the exact mean-field
level result χRPA(1), eq . Furthermore,
at all considered numbers of particles, the combination of χ̃RPA(1) with the LFC
using eq allows us
to reproduce the exact result given by eq . Therefore, the reduction of the number
of particles from N = 66 to N =
38, then to N = 20, and further to N = 14 does not lead to a deterioration of the quality of the data
for χ̃RPA(1). This confirms the remarkable convergence of the KS-DFT
simulations for as few as N = 14 particles.
Figure 3
Comparison
of the DMC data by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore[64] with DFT results for the linear response function
at rs = 5 and θ = 0.01.
Comparison
of the DMC data by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore[64] with DFT results for the linear response function
at rs = 5 and θ = 0.01.To get a picture about the quality of the LDA-based calculations,
we compare χ̃LDA(1) with the DMC results by Moroni et al.[64] and with χLFC(1) computed using the ML representation
of the LFC by Dornheim et al.[62] Despite
the fact that the LDA is designed to describe only the long wavelength
limit of the LFC, we observe that in the strongly degenerate case,
the LDA-based KS-DFT calculations provide high-quality results for
the linear density response function with a level of accuracy similar
to the ground-state QMC calculations.
Nonlinear
Density Response in the Limit
of Strong Degeneracy
After successfully testing the accuracy
of our KS-DFT simulations on the linear density response function,
we analyze results for the higher order density response functions
presented in Figure . In the left panel, we see that χ̃RPA(2) is in excellent agreement
with χRPA(2) and that χ̃LFC(2) also reproduces χLFC(2). This confirms the correctness
of the analytical results for the quadratic response function given
by eqs and 9 in the limit of strong degeneracy. The LDA-based
data χ̃LDA(2) provides an adequate description of the quadratic response
function and captures the effect of the stronger response when XC
effects are included compared to the mean-field level results χRPA(2) and χ̃RPA(2). Certain quantitative
disagreements between χ̃LDA(2) and χLFC(2) can be understood by noting that accurate
data for LFC (beyond LDA) is needed to correctly describe the quadratic
response. In fact, Dornheim et al.[57] recently
pointed out that the quadratic response is directly related to three-body
correlations, which explains this sensitivity to XC effects.
Figure 4
NLRT functions
at rs = 5 and θ
= 0.01. Left: quadratic response function at the second harmonic.
Middle: cubic response function at the first harmonic. Right: cubic
response function at the third harmonic. We note that analytical results
for the cubic response function at the first harmonic are presently
not available.
NLRT functions
at rs = 5 and θ
= 0.01. Left: quadratic response function at the second harmonic.
Middle: cubic response function at the first harmonic. Right: cubic
response function at the third harmonic. We note that analytical results
for the cubic response function at the first harmonic are presently
not available.The middle panel of Figure presents data for the cubic
response at the first harmonic.
Compared to the partially degenerate case with θ = 1, the results
exhibit a much sharper peak and much stronger response at 1.5qF < q < 2qF. At these wavenumbers, the difference between χLFC(1,cubic) and
χ̃LDA(1,cubic) are most likely a direct consequence of the fact that the cubic
response depends on the fourth power of the LFC, meaning that any
deviations from the correct response in the first order gets amplified
when a higher-order response is considered.The right panel
of Figure shows the
cubic response at the third harmonic. In this case,
the theoretical result for the response at the mean-field level given
by eq , χRPA(3), fails to
reproduce the exact data χ̃RPA(3). This extends the conclusion that eq fails to correctly describe
the screened response from the WDM regime considered earlier to the
case of strong degeneracy. As a consequence, being built upon eq , the LFC result χLFC(3) defined by eq also does not provide
the correct description of the cubic response of the correlated electron
gas at the third harmonic. This makes the analysis based on the comparison
of χ̃LFC(3) and χ̃LDA(3) less meaningful. Since the LDA is an approximation
to the true XC effects, χ̃LDA(3) cannot be considered to be the exact
result. Nevertheless, it provides the correct quantitative outcome.
Particularly, we see from the right panel of Figure that XC effects lead to a stronger response
of the system compared to χRPA(3). We stress that χ̃RPA(3) is still the
exact ab initio result for the cubic response on the mean-field level.
Therefore, it can be used to verify theoretical derivations. Once
a more accurate theoretical result for χRPA(3) that includes nonlinear screening
effects that are negligible in eq is derived, the correct way to include the LFC should
directly follow.
Free Electron Gas at Metallic
Density
As a particularly important regime from the point
of view of applications,
we next consider rs = 2, which is a characteristic
metallic density. In this case, we investigate three different values
of the degeneracy parameter, namely, θ = 1, θ = 0.5, and
θ = 0.01. For θ = 1, we have performed series of calculations
with N = 14, N = 20, and N = 34. At θ = 0.5, we have considered N = 14 and N = 34 particles. At θ = 0.01, we
have performed simulations with N = 14, N = 20, N = 38, and N = 66 particles.
In agreement with the calculations in the strongly correlated case,
there is no noticeable finite size effect for rs = 2 at these numbers of particles.
Linear
Density Response
In Figure , we present results
for the linear density response function at rs = 2 and compare the KS-DFT data with PIMC results and with
χLFC(1) at θ = 1 in the left panel. We observe that the LDA-based
results χ̃LDA(1) are in good agreement with both the PIMC data and χLFC(1). At θ
= 0.5, too, we find good agreement of χ̃LDA(1) with χLFC(1) as it can
be seen from the middle panel of Figure . In the limit of θ → 0, we
compare χ̃LDA(1) with the DMC data by Moroni et al.[64] as well as with χLFC(1). Evidently, the LDA-based KS-DFT simulations
provide an accurate description of the linear density response function
in the strongly degenerate case too. We note that KS-DFT is more accurate
in particular for q > 2qF compared to the previously considered case of rs = 6 due to the reduced impact of electronic XC effects
at the higher density.
Figure 5
Linear static density response function for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ = 0.5
(the
middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).
Linear static density response function for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ = 0.5
(the
middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).The comparison of χ̃RPA(1) with χRPA(1) that is also presented in Figure confirms the high
accuracy of the KS-DFT results for the description of the linear response
function on the mean-field level across temperature regimes. As a
consequence, χ̃LFC(1) is in an excellent agreement with χLFC(1) over the entire
wavenumber range.
Quadratic Density Response
The
results for the quadratic response function at rs = 2 are shown in Figure . The quadratic response χ̃LDA(2) closely reproduces
both the PIMC data and χLFC(2) at θ = 1 as it is demonstrated in
the left panel of Figure . The agreement between χ̃LDA(2) and χLFC(2) somewhat deteriorates with
the decrease in the temperature from θ = 1 to θ = 0.5
and further to θ = 0.01. This is shown in the middle and right
panels of Figure .
Nevertheless, the LDA, which is an XC functional purely based on the
uniform electron gas model, provides an overall impressively accurate
description of the quadratic response function at all considered wavenumbers
of the perturbation.
Figure 6
Quadratic static density response function for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5
(the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).
Quadratic static density response function for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5
(the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).Similarly, the discussed cases of the strongly
coupled electrons,
χ̃RPA(2) and χRPA(2) are in close agreement with each other at θ = 1, θ =
0.5, and θ = 0.01. This is a clear illustration of the high
accuracy of the theoretical result eq for the mean-field description. Consequently, we find
almost the same result using χ̃LFC(2) and χLFC(2).From comparing amplitudes of
the quadratic response function in Figure at different temperatures,
one can see that the response of the system at the second harmonic
becomes stronger upon decreasing the temperature of the electrons.
For example, the decrease in the temperature from the partially degenerate
case (θ = 1) to the strongly degenerate case (here represented
by θ = 0.01) leads to an increase in the maximum value of the
quadratic response function by a factor of 2.5. For comparison, the
amplitude of the linear response function increases about two times
with the decrease in the temperature from θ = 1 to θ =
0.01 at the same conditions.
Cubic
Density Response at the First Harmonic
Let us next investigate
the cubic response function at the first
harmonic, which is shown in Figure . The comparison with the PIMC data at θ = 1
is provided in the left panel of Figure . From this comparison, it is evident that
the LDA-based KS-DFT calculations are able to provide a very accurate
description of the cubic response at rs = 2 and θ = 1 as they are in good agreement to both the PIMC
data and χ̃LFC(1,cubic). This is an indication that the relation
(eq ) holds since
χ̃LFC(1,cubic) is computed using the KS-DFT data χ̃RPA(1,cubic) and the LFC according
to eq .
Figure 7
Cubic static
density response function at the first harmonic for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5 (the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).
Cubic static
density response function at the first harmonic for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5 (the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).Decreasing the electronic temperature leads to
a substantial increase
in the amplitude of the cubic response function at the first harmonic.
This is visible from the comparison of the amplitudes of the cubic
response at θ = 1 (left), at θ = 0.5 (middle), and at
θ = 0.01 (right) in Figure . For example, the maximum of the cubic response function
at the first harmonic at θ = 0.01 is about 16 times larger than
at θ = 1. The consequences of this remarkable behavior are discussed
in more detail in Section .
Cubic Density Response
at the Third Harmonic
Finally, we present the results for
the cubic response at the third
harmonic in Figure , and the left panel depicts the comparison with PIMC data at θ
= 1. Evidently, the LDA-based calculations χ̃LDA(3) are in good
agreement with the latter. Next, χRPA(3) overestimates the strength of response
compare to χ̃RPA(3) at q < qF. In contrast to the response at stronger coupling (rs = 6 and θ = 1), at rs = 2, we do not see the change in the sign of the cubic
response at the third harmonic upon increasing the wavenumber from
small q < qF to large q > qF values. However, this
behavior is restored with a decrease in the temperature to θ
= 0.5 as it is clearly visible in the middle panel of Figure . Importantly, such behavior
at θ = 0.5 is not captured by the analytical results given in eqs and 10. At q < 1.5qF, this leads to a significant disagreement between the analytical
result in the mean-field level approximation, eq , and the exact result computed using zero
XC in the KS-DFT simulations. However, in the limit of strong degeneracy
depicted in the right panel of Figure , eq again provides the qualitatively correct result by reproducing the
change in the sign of the corresponding response function but remains
in quantitative disagreement with χ̃RPA(3) in the vicinity of the positive
maximum and the negative minimum. These disagreements between eq and the DFT (RPA) results
could be caused by the approximation of the screening on the linear
response level in eq as it was shown by Dornheim et al.[16]
Figure 8
Cubic
static density response function at the third harmonic for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5 (the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).
Cubic
static density response function at the third harmonic for rs = 2 at θ = 1 (the left panel), at θ
= 0.5 (the middle panel), and at θ = 0.01 (the right panel).Interestingly, despite the poor performance of eq , the agreement between
χ̃LDA(3) and χ̃LFC(3) is rather
good at all considered temperature regimes. This is explained by the
fact that XC effects are less pronounced compared to the above considered
strongly correlated cases.
Conclusions
and Outlook
In this work, we have explored a new methodology
for the study
of the nonlinear electronic density response based on KS-DFT. As a
particular example, we have investigated the free electron gas model
and demonstrated that the KS-DFT method is an effective and valuable
tool for the investigation of various nonlinear electronic density
response functions across temperature regimes. This conclusion is
important for parameters where QMC methods experience significant
difficulties or fail to converge at all due to the fermion sign problem.
This approximately corresponds to θ < 1 and rs ≳ 2.[33,36,37] A particularly effective method to gauge and guide the development
of new theoretical approaches is given by the KS-DFT simulation with
zero XC functional. This is due to the fact that theoretical models
of correlated electrons are built upon mean-field approximations,
in combination with the electronic LFC. Therefore, an accurate check
of the quality of the analytical results for the nonlinear density
response functions in the mean-field approximation is required to
build a reliable theory. The presented DFT-based methodology provides
such a tool in a wide range of parameters.As a demonstration
of the KS-DFT method-based analysis of the theoretical
results, we have considered the quadratic and cubic response functions
at different values of the density and degeneracy parameters. First
of all, we have confirmed the validity of the analytical results for
the quadratic response function (eqs and 9) for partially to strongly
degenerate electrons. This confirms and complements the earlier PIMC-based
analysis at θ ≥ 1.[16] Second,
it has been shown that the analytical results for the cubic response
function at the third harmonic (Eqs and 10) are quantitatively inaccurate
at q ≲ 1.5 qF for
all considered values of θ. Moreover, eqs and 10 are qualitatively
inadequate at θ = 0.5.The application of the KS-DFT method
to study the cubic response
at the first harmonic (as defined in eq ) has allowed us to observe a change of its characteristics
with the decrease in the temperature to θ < 1. We have revealed
that the decrease in the temperature from the partially degenerate
regime with θ ∼ 1 to the strongly degenerate regime (θ
≪ 1) leads to a significant increase in the maximum of the
cubic response at the first harmonic. Let us demonstrate the implication
of this finding for electrons at a metallic density, rs = 2. Using eqs –4 and the data presented in Figures –8, one can deduce that, at rs = 2, both the quadratic response and the cubic response at
the third harmonic remain inferior to the linear density response
function if the perturbation amplitude A < 1 at
all considered θ values and wavenumbers of the perturbation.
In contrast, the cubic response function at the first harmonic becomes
dominant over the linear response function if A >
0.8 at θ = 0.5 and if A > 0.36 at θ
=
0.01. The applicability of the perturbative analysis requires the
smallness of the higher order correction compared to the first order
term in eq . Therefore,
at θ ≪ 1, not the quadratic response but the cubic response
at the first harmonic leads to the strongest restriction on the applicability
of the nonlinear density response theory of free electrons with respect
to the perturbation amplitude.Another important finding is
that the LDA XC functional provides
a remarkably accurate description of the linear and nonlinear density
response at metallic density, rs = 2,
across the entire considered temperature range. This strongly indicates
that our new KS-DFT-based approach constitutes a reliable tool for
the investigation of the nonlinear density response both at ambient
conditions and in the WDM regime. At stronger coupling parameters, rs = 6 and rs = 5,
the LDA XC functional-based KS-DFT calculations of the correlated
electron gas provide qualitatively correct behavior but ought to be
considered with caution from a quantitative point of view.We
conclude this study by pointing out that the present methodology
is very general and can be directly applied to arbitrary materials;
the only approximation is given the choice of the XC-functional. In
particular, simulations including ions are much more problematic and
computationally expensive for the QMC methods compared to the considered
case of a free electron gas model. Therefore, the KS-DFT method is
particularly valuable for the multi-component systems. This proof
of concept of the capability of KS-DFT for the estimation of the NLRT
of an electron gas is thus a pivotal first step before extending our
considerations to real materials.
Authors: Ask Hjorth Larsen; Jens Jørgen Mortensen; Jakob Blomqvist; Ivano E Castelli; Rune Christensen; Marcin Dułak; Jesper Friis; Michael N Groves; Bjørk Hammer; Cory Hargus; Eric D Hermes; Paul C Jennings; Peter Bjerre Jensen; James Kermode; John R Kitchin; Esben Leonhard Kolsbjerg; Joseph Kubal; Kristen Kaasbjerg; Steen Lysgaard; Jón Bergmann Maronsson; Tristan Maxson; Thomas Olsen; Lars Pastewka; Andrew Peterson; Carsten Rostgaard; Jakob Schiøtz; Ole Schütt; Mikkel Strange; Kristian S Thygesen; Tejs Vegge; Lasse Vilhelmsen; Michael Walter; Zhenhua Zeng; Karsten W Jacobsen Journal: J Phys Condens Matter Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 2.333
Authors: Andrea L Kritcher; Damian C Swift; Tilo Döppner; Benjamin Bachmann; Lorin X Benedict; Gilbert W Collins; Jonathan L DuBois; Fred Elsner; Gilles Fontaine; Jim A Gaffney; Sebastien Hamel; Amy Lazicki; Walter R Johnson; Natalie Kostinski; Dominik Kraus; Michael J MacDonald; Brian Maddox; Madison E Martin; Paul Neumayer; Abbas Nikroo; Joseph Nilsen; Bruce A Remington; Didier Saumon; Phillip A Sterne; Wendi Sweet; Alfredo A Correa; Heather D Whitley; Roger W Falcone; Siegfried H Glenzer Journal: Nature Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 49.962