Abstract
Why do variational electron-correlation methods such as truncated configuration-interaction methods tend to be non-size-consistent (non-size-extensive)? Why are size-consistent (size-extensive) methods such as Møller–Plesset perturbation and coupled-cluster methods non-variational? We conjecture that the variational and size-consistent properties are mutually exclusive in an ab initio electron-correlation method (which thus excludes the Hartree–Fock and density-functional methods). We analyze some key examples that support the truth of this conjecture.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Szabo A, Ostlund NS (1989) Quantum chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York
Helgaker T, Jørgensen P, Olsen J (2000) Molecular electronic-structure theory. Wiley, Chichester
Shavitt I, Bartlett RJ (2009) Many-body methods in chemistry and physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bartlett RJ, Noga J (1988) Chem Phys Lett 150:29
Robinson JB, Knowles PJ (2011) J Chem Phys 135:044113
March NH, Young WH, Sampanthar S (1967) The many-body problem in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hirata S (2011) Theor Chem Acc 129:727
Goldstone J (1957) Proc R Soc Lond A 239:267
Hirata S, Keçeli M, Yagi K (2010) J Chem Phys 133:034109
Hirata S, Keçeli M, Ohnishi Y-Y, Sode O, Yagi K (2012) Annu Rev Phys Chem 63:131
Ceperley DM, Alder BJ (1980) Phys Rev Lett 45:566
Hammond BL, Lester WA Jr., Reynolds PJ (1994) Monte Carlo methods in ab initio quantum chemistry. World Scientific, Singapore
Luchow A, Anderson JB (2000) Annu Rev Phys Chem 51:501
Kalos MH, Whitlock PA (2008) Monte Carlo methods. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Kolorenč J, Mitas L (2011) Rep Prog Phys 74:026502
Willow SY, Kim KS, Hirata S (2012) J Chem Phys 137:204122
Willow SY, Kim KS, Hirata S (2013) J Chem Phys 138:164111
Willow SY, Hermes MR, Kim KS, Hirata S (2013) J Chem Theory Comput 9:4396
Cooper B, Knowles PJ (2010) J Chem Phys 133:234102
Hirata S, Ohnishi Y (2012) Phys Chem Chem Phys 14:7800
Foresman JB, Head-Gordon M, Pople JA, Frisch MJ (1992) J Phys Chem 96:135
Hirata S (2005) J Chem Phys 122:094105
Bartlett RJ, Musiał M (2007) Rev Mod Phys 79:291
Purvis III GD, Bartlett RJ (1982) J Chem Phys 76:1910
Arponen J (1983) Ann Phys 151:311
Pal S, Prasad MD, Mukherjee D (1983) Theor Chim Acta 62:523
Pal S, Prasad MD, Mukherjee D (1985) Theor Chim Acta 68:125
Haque A, Kaldor U (1986) Int J Quantum Chem 29:425
Kutzelnigg W (1998) Mol Phys 94:65
Xian Y (2005) Phys Rev B 72:224438
Nakatsuji H, Hirao K (1978) J Chem Phys 68:2053
Sharp RT, Horton GK (1953) Phys Rev 90:317
Talman JD, Shadwick WF (1976) Phys Rev A 14:36
Görling A (1999) Phys Rev Lett 83:5459
Ivanov S, Hirata S, Bartlett RJ (1999) Phys Rev Lett 83:5455
Hirata S, Ivanov S, Grabowski I, Bartlett RJ, Burke K, Talman JD (2001) J Chem Phys 115:1635
Shiozaki T, Valeev EF, Hirata S (2009) Annu Rep Comp Chem 5:131
Kong LG, Bischoff FA, Valeev EF (2012) Chem Rev 112:75
Sinanoǧlu O (1962) J Chem Phys 36:3198
Emery V (1958) Nucl Phys 6:385
Brueckner KA (1955) Phys Rev 100:36
Langhoff SR, Davidson ER (1974) Int J Quantum Chem 8:61
Davidson ER, Silver DW (1977) Chem Phys Lett 52:403
Siegbahn EM (1978) Chem Phys Lett 55:386
Duch W, Diercksen GHF (1994) J Chem Phys 101:3018
Meissner L (1996) Chem Phys Lett 263:351
Meissner L, Grabowski I (1999) Chem Phys Lett 300:53
Gordon MS, Fedorov DG, Pruitt SR, Slipchenko LV (2012) Chem Rev 112:632
Chan GKL, Sharma S (2011) Annu Rev Phys Chem 62:465
Chan GKL, Head-Gordon M (2003) J Chem Phys 118:8551
Ghosh D, Hachmann J, Yanai T, Chan GKL (2008) J Chem Phys 128:144117
Kutzelnigg W (1981) Chem Phys Lett 83:156
Kutzelnigg W (1982) J Chem Phys 77:3081
Foulkes WMC, Mitas L, Needs RJ, Rajagopal G (2001) Rev Mod Phys 73:33
Booth GH, Grüneis A, Kresse G, Alavi A (2013) Nature 493:365
Bartlett RJ (1981) Annu Rev Phys Chem 32:359
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers and colleagues who read our manuscript and challenged the conjecture with many incisive questions, which became the basis of the Appendix. We are particularly indebted to Dr. David Ceperley for pointing out some of our misconceptions about QMC. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and not necessarily shared by these colleagues. S.H. thanks Nicolaus Copernicus University for the financial support for his visit at its Institute of Physics in Toruń, where this work has been performed. S.H. is also supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under award number DE-FG02-11ER16211. I.G. is supported by Polish Committee for Scientific Research MNiSW under Grant No. N N204 560839. S.H. is a Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar and a Scialog Fellow of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dedicated to Professor Thom Dunning and published as part of the special collection of articles celebrating his career upon his retirement.
Appendix: Questions and answers
Appendix: Questions and answers
In the following, we list questions, many of which are from the reviewers and colleagues who have read a version of this paper and challenged the conjecture. We offer our answers to these questions. The answers are increasingly speculative as we go down the list, and some may not have the rigor normally expected in a scientific paper. It is our hope that this serves as a basis of a fuller discussion and the ultimate proof or disproof of the conjecture.
Q: What is the difference between size consistency and size extensivity?
A: There is none, as regard to a method that computes the total energy in the ground state; they are synonymous and are based on one and the same diagrammatic criterion [7, 8]. One of the authors has extensively discussed the inadequacy of the supermolecule criterion often associated with the term “size consistency” in the past.
Q: Is DFT size consistent and variational?
A: No. DFT is not diagrammatically size consistent, but its energy is extensive, which can be shown as follows. An exchange-correlation energy per unit cell in a crystal is written as \(\int f[\rho(\user2{r})] \hbox{d}\user2{r}\), where the domain of integration is one unit cell and f is the so-called exchange-correlation functional of electron density ρ. When one increases the volume of the crystal under the periodic boundary condition without changing ρ, the exchange-correlation energy per unit cell remains the same, which means that it is thermodynamically intensive. This, in turn, proves the extensivity of the total energy, assuming that the rest of the energy expressions are formally the same as in HF and are extensive.
DFT is not variational, but merely stationary, according to our adopted definitions of these terms [4]. This is because its energy can go below the full CI energy in the same basis set. An exception is the optimized effective potential (OEP) method [32, 33], which is diagrammatically size consistent and variational; OEP is sometimes viewed as the exact-exchange DFT [34–36]. It does not describe any electron correlation and is, therefore, not a counterexample of the conjecture.
Q: Is the Hylleraas functional size consistent and variational?
A: No. The Hylleraas functional [37, 38] (see also the Sinanoǧlu equation [39]) is given by
where \(\hat{H}_0\) and \(\hat{H}_1\) are the zeroth-order Hamiltonian and perturbation operator in the Møller–Plesset partitioning, \(\hat{T}_2\) is a two-electron excitation operator, and \(\Upphi_0\) is the HF reference wave function. The coefficients in \(\hat{T}_2\) are determined variationally so as to minimize E, which can be easily shown to be the energy of second-order MP (MP2) [37, 38]. Being MP2, the Hylleraas functional is size consistent, but not variational. Extending the variational space spanned by \(\hat{T}_2\) is equivalent to enlarging the basis set. In this sense and considering the fact that an MP2 energy can be lower than the full CI energy, we contend that the Hylleraas functional is only stationary [4].
The Hylleraas functional is often used as a basis of explicitly correlated MP2 (MP2-F12) [37, 38], in which the action of \(\hat{T}_2\) yields,
with \(F^{ab}_{kl} = \langle ab | F_{12}| kl \rangle\), where F 12 is an explicit function of inter-electronic distance r 12 such as \(\exp(-\gamma r_{12})\). See Ref. [37] for the definition of \(\hat{Q}_{12}\), which is unimportant here. The functional is made stationary with respect to {t ab ij }, {t kl ij }, and γ to approach the MP2 energy in the complete-basis-set limit, which is not an upper bound of the full CI energy. It is, therefore, still not a counterexample of the conjecture. Note that two-electron basis functions such as r 12 or \(\exp(-\gamma r_{12})\) can only couple two electrons at a time and span the same space the two-electron excitation operator does. Hence, they cannot fundamentally alter the non-variationality or size consistency of MP2.
In the same token, a method using a single-determinant wave function multiplied by a Jastrow factor (an exponential of a function of electron--electron and electron--nucleus distances) should have the same characteristics as the projection or variational CC regarding variationality and size consistency. It cannot, therefore, simultaneously achieve size consistency and variationality, as we have seen in Sect. 3. It has been documented [26, 40] that nuclear calculations using a Jastrow factor do not have the upper-bound property and are, therefore, not variational according to our definition of the term. This is known as the “Emery difficulty” [26, 40].
Q: Can a size-consistency correction to a variational method restore size consistency?
A: There are size-consistency corrections to non-size-consistent methods such as CISD [41–46] and MRCI [45, 47]. These corrections, some related to Padé approximants [45], can “minimize” size-consistency errors and render the methods “approximately” size consistent, which means they are not size consistent. They may also be non-variational because the energies are not expectation values any more.
Q: Is local basis CI size consistent and variational?
A: A truncated CI method combined with an embedded-fragment scheme [48] can obviously yield an extensive total energy, giving a false impression that the method is simultaneously variational and size consistent. It is not variational because the energy thus obtained, which is not the energy expectation value in the global wave function, has no reason to be an upper bound of the exact energy of the whole molecule except in a special circumstance such as when there is no interaction between fragments. A counterexample for a special circumstance is, however, not a counterexample.
Another example of a variational local basis method is the generalized valence bond method. It is equivalent to MCSCF [1], which is not size consistent. Yet another example of a variational method that can employ a variety of bases including spatially local ones is the density matrix renormalization group method [49]. The underlying approximations in its wave functions are, however, often full CI [50] and CASSCF [51], neither of which is a counterexample, as explained in Sect. 2.
We have, however, been unable to generalize the definition of variationality in this conjecture to encompass all spaces including the determinant space and one-particle basis set. Classes of methods such as the Fock-space perturbation theory of Refs. [52, 53] are not easily subjected to this conjecture, though no claim seems to have been made that it is simultaneously size consistent and variational.
Q: If the conjecture is correct, how have variational methods been successfully applied to solids?
A: With a scalable algorithm running on a supercomputer, variational methods, which cannot be size consistent if the conjecture is correct, can still be applied to sufficiently large systems to address problems of condensed matter [11, 54, 55] including the issue of strong electron correlation in solids. The conjecture does not contradict this. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect a size-consistent method to be more accurate and efficient (these two properties are interchangeable) for solids than a similar non-size-consistent method; the development strategy emphasizing size consistency championed by Bartlett [56] has been successful in quantum chemistry despite the fact that it usually deals with relatively small molecules. In fact, the question of mutual exclusion and the conjecture emerged as a result of our desire to obtain size-consistent methods for strong correlation in solids. If a diagrammatically size-consistent method (that may or may not be variational) exists that can describe strong correlation in solids, we expect it to outperform the existing methods that are not size consistent. If a size-consistent method that works well for strong correlation is shown not to exist, it may even imply different size dependence of the strongly correlated portion of the energy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hirata, S., Grabowski, I. On the mutual exclusion of variationality and size consistency. Theor Chem Acc 133, 1440 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00214-013-1440-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00214-013-1440-y