<U|V> overlap integral of two many-electron determinant wave functions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the overlap integral of two many-electron determinant wave functions, represented as <U|V> = Det{<ui|vj>}. It is confirmed that this method can yield the correct sign for the overlap, as the determinant of a square matrix is related to the product of singular values and a phase factor. However, there is concern that this approach does not account for the occupation and order of orbitals, leading to an overlap value of 1, which fails to reflect the probability of electron transfer between the two sets of orbitals. The conversation highlights the need for a more nuanced calculation that considers orbital occupation. Overall, the method discussed may require adjustments to accurately represent electron transfer probabilities.
limorsj
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

If we let U and V be two single determinant wave functions built up of spin orbitlas ui and vj respectively, will the overlap between them be as follows:

<U|V> = Det{<ui|vi>}

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not the third thread you make with exactly the same question. Your question has been answered in the thread in the Quantum Physics forum.
 
cgk said:
This is not the third thread you make with exactly the same question. Your question has been answered in the thread in the Quantum Physics forum.

Dear cgk,

According to your answer in another forum I can calculate the SAB by computing a singular value decomposition (SVD) of the occupied orbital overlap Socc. However, I would be very glad to know if the SAB can also be calculated by
SAB=<U|V> = Det{<ui|vj>},

Thank you for your support
 
I think so, yes. This would even get the sign right. Note that for a square matrix (as you have here) the determinant is equal to the product of singular values multiplied by a phase factor (since if SAB = U diag(sig) V (i.e., a SVD, with U and V unitary), then det(SAB) = det(U diag(sig) V) = det(U) det(diag(sig)) det(V) = e^{i phi} det(diag(sig)) = e^{i phi} prod{sig_i}, since unitary matrices have determinants with absolute value 1).
 
cgk said:
I think so, yes. This would even get the sign right. Note that for a square matrix (as you have here) the determinant is equal to the product of singular values multiplied by a phase factor (since if SAB = U diag(sig) V (i.e., a SVD, with U and V unitary), then det(SAB) = det(U diag(sig) V) = det(U) det(diag(sig)) det(V) = e^{i phi} det(diag(sig)) = e^{i phi} prod{sig_i}, since unitary matrices have determinants with absolute value 1).[/QUOT

Thank you very much
 
cgk said:
I think so, yes. This would even get the sign right. Note that for a square matrix (as you have here) the determinant is equal to the product of singular values multiplied by a phase factor (since if SAB = U diag(sig) V (i.e., a SVD, with U and V unitary), then det(SAB) = det(U diag(sig) V) = det(U) det(diag(sig)) det(V) = e^{i phi} det(diag(sig)) = e^{i phi} prod{sig_i}, since unitary matrices have determinants with absolute value 1).
Dear cgk,

Thank you very much for your kind answers. I was wondering whether you could help me again... I calculate the SAB of the two slater determinants. I have two sets of molecular orbitals, in both sets I have equivalent orbitals, just in different energy order and different electrons occupation. Since using SAB=<U|V> = Det{<ui|vj>} does not take into account the occupation or the order of the orbitals (changing the order will just change the sign of the determinant value), I get actually SAB=1... It seems not to calculate what I need...since SAB should reflect the probability of electron transfer between this two sets...
p.s. for my calculation I take only the occupied orbitals (I have one singly and the other doubly occupied).

Thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K