1 / 28

280 likes | 429 Views

Coupled Electron-Ion Monte Carlo Study of Hydrogen Fluid. Kris Delaney, David Ceperley University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Carlo Pierleoni Universita del l’Aquila, l’Aquila, Italy. Supported by NSF DMR 04-04853 and NSF DMR 03-25939 ITR. Overview. Features of hydrogen fluid

Download Presentation
## Coupled Electron-Ion Monte Carlo Study of Hydrogen Fluid

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Coupled Electron-Ion Monte Carlo Study of Hydrogen Fluid**Kris Delaney, David Ceperley University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Carlo Pierleoni Universita del l’Aquila, l’Aquila, Italy Supported by NSF DMR 04-04853 and NSF DMR 03-25939 ITR**Overview**• Features of hydrogen fluid • Simulation Method: • The CEIMC approach • Choosing and sampling the ensemble • Energy differences with noise • The trial wavefunction • Simulating phase transition in finite systems • Results • Plasma phase transition • Finite-size error assessment • Conclusions**Why Hydrogen?**• Important in planetary science and high-pressure physics • Most abundant element • Theoretically clean: • 1 electron and 1 proton per atom • No pseudopotential required • A rich variety of properties, including: • Metal-insulator transition in fluid • Possible liquid-liquid phase transition • Possibility of superconducting and superfluid phases • Equation of state not yet fully described**Features of Hydrogen Fluid**• Current phase diagram: • Open problems: • Liquid-liquid phase transition • Shape of melt curve • Possibility of quantum fluid**The CEIMC Approach**• Assume Born-Oppenheimer (BO) valid: • Separates electronic and ionic degrees of freedom • Electronic subsystem adiabatically remains in ground-state • May split system into two coupled Monte Carlo simulations: • Classical or quantum (PI) simulation for ions at finite T • T=0K QMC for electrons**The CEIMC Approach**• Assume Born-Oppenheimer (BO) valid: • Separates electronic and ionic degrees of freedom • Electronic subsystem adiabatically remains in ground-state • May split system into two coupled Monte Carlo simulations: • Classical or quantum (PI) simulation for ions at finite T • T=0K QMC for electrons**The CEIMC Approach**• Assume Born-Oppenheimer (BO) valid: • Separates electronic and ionic degrees of freedom • Electronic subsystem adiabatically remains in ground-state • May split system into two coupled Monte Carlo simulations: • Classical or quantum (PI) simulation for ions at finite T • T=0K QMC for electrons • BO good for T<<TF(~150,000K)**Choice of Ensemble**• For thermodynamic observables, first generate ionic configurations to a phase-space probability distribution of some ensemble. • All ensemble averages equivalent in thermodynamic limit • Far from simulation regime • Careful choice required • Use constant T: energy fluctuates in exchange with environmental heat bath. • Use constant N: theoretical simplicity, especially in wavefunction generation. • Choices: NPT or NVT.**The NVT Ensemble**• We choose NVT for these studies • Pros: • Algorithmically simple • Fewer computations per MC step than NPT • Cons: • May bias transitions involving crystalline phases if simulation cell doesn’t conform OK for fluid studies • Doesn’t capture density fluctuations beyond length-scale of simulation cell: NPT or mVT (GCE) would. Must monitor error due to finite cell size**NVT Partition Function**• The NVT partition function for classical ions is: • Monte Carlo: • The momentum part is analytically soluble: • Sample only configuration space, not phase-space. • Generate samples according to: • Metropolis: • Propose uniform move in 3D box. • Accept according to: Spatial configuration of ions BO energy difference of ion configurations S,S’**The CEIMC Approach**• Assume Born-Oppenheimer (BO) valid: • Separates electronic and ionic degrees of freedom • Electronic subsystem adiabatically remains in ground-state • May split system into two coupled Monte Carlo simulations: • Classical or quantum (PI) simulation for ions at finite T • T=0K QMC for electrons • BO good for T<<TF(~150,000K)**QMC Energy Differences**• Compute DU(S,S’) with either VMC or RQMC • RQMC: projector-based method with no mixed-estimator • More accurate than VMC • Unbiased for energy differences. • Finite-size errors on energy difference are reduced by using twist-averaged boundary conditions • Improves electron kinetic energy part of DU • Does not improve potential energy error • Remaining issues: • Estimate of DU will have a statistical uncertainty • A fast and accurate trial function is required**Dealing with Noise**• 3 Approaches: • Run QMC for longer. DU noise lower • Reduce noise through correlated sampling methods • Tolerate noise with modified acceptance criterion • Correlated Sampling: • Direct energy difference; noise often large compared with DU • Importance sampling; QMC walker (R) samples combination of S1,S2**Penalty Method**• Metropolis acceptance ratio is biased if DU has noise • Adjust using “Penalty Method”: • Satisfy detailed balance on average • If DU is Gaussian distributed (CLT) acceptance ratio becomes • Tolerates noisy estimates of energy differences • Extra rejections through noise. • In practice, s estimated → further terms • J. Chem. Phys. 110, 9812 (1999) • Correlated sampling methods still important noise lowered fewer noise rejections**Trial Wavefunction**• BO energy is defined as: • Approximation for Y. Choose Slater-Jastrow: • The {fi}s obey a single-particle equation • Veff can be: • Some parameterized potential. Parameters optimized with EVMC. Fast, but free parameters • Full self-consistent Kohn-Sham potential with approximate Vxc (eg, LDA, GGA) No free parameters, but slow • Choices: • RPA • Optimizable: • 1-body • 2-body • Choices: • Analytic backflow • Gaussian orbitals • (molecular configurations) • DFT-LDA • Optimizable OEP bands where**Trial Wavefunction: PW basis**• We employ a plane-wave basis to represent the single-body Hamiltonian: • Fourier transform of potential is often possible analytically. For example, OEP potential in PBCs: Cell structure factor. The only S-dependence**Trial Wavefunction: Cusp**• Solve for {fi} in plane-wave basis (PWs) • Many basis functions, few {fi} band-by-band iterative diagonalization • Sampling eln-ion cusp difficult with PWs: coefficients decay slowly with wavevector magnitude • Remove eln-ion cusp from {fi} using RPA on the incomplete FFT grid. • Cusp is returned analytically in Jastrow term. No basis error. • High-K less important. Truncate basis-set after removal. Each Slater determinant much faster.**CEIMC Summary**• Propose move S→S’ • Compute new Y(S’) • Expand h in plane-wave basis • Diagonalize h • Iterate for new h if DFT-LDA • Cusp removal + basis truncation • Compute DU(S,S’) • Correlated sampling • VMC or RQMC (fixed node) • TABC – typically 216 twists, 15,000 total electron moves • Accept/reject • Penalty method • Repeat to sample Boltzmann distribution • Typically 8,000--20,000 moves needed**Optimizing OEP**• Choose an electron-nuclear potential including effective screening with free parameters: • Yukawa • Gaussian • Yukawa + Gaussian • …? • Variationally optimize free potential parameters (eg. Yukawa screening) • Either on each CEIMC nuclear move (slow!) • A variety of static nuclear configurations, including: • Crystals • Disordered • Molecular + non-molecular states • Range of densities • Try to discover parameter trends**Potential Optimization**• Parameters optimized for molecular & non-molecular crystals, and disordered systems at densities ranging from rs=1-4 • Bare Coulomb interaction was always optimal or near-optimal**Wavefunction Test**• Test wavefunctions on static crystals: • Veff = Bare Coulomb or DFT-LDA • Pure Gaussian orbitals • Backflow • Variational principle: lowest energy best wavefunction**Simulating Phase Transitions**• 1st-order phase-transitions hard to locate precisely: • Finite-size cell: periodic correlations suppress interface between pure phases close to transition; forces system into a metastable state. • Finite simulation time: probability of changing from one phase to another is related to DF (Helmholtz F for NVT) and height of barrier. • Result: hysteresis; signature of first-order transition. • Higher order transitions: usually no hysteresis . • Close to a critical point: • System behaviour is singular • Fluctuations in density become unbounded. • Finite-cell simulations more unreliable, especially NVT.**The Plasma Phase Transition**• Study nature of transition from molecular to non-molecular fluid using CEIMC • Simulations at T=2000K with P=50-200GPa**Results (DU from VMC)**• Simulation details: • 32 atoms, NVT ensemble • T = 2000K • P = 50 – 200 GPa • VMC for DU • 216 twist angles • Circles: simulations started from molecular fluid • Crosses: from non-molecular fluid Clear hysteresis**Results (DU from RQMC)**• Simulation details: • 32 atoms, NVT ensemble • T = 2000K • P = 50 – 200 GPa • RQMC for DU • 216 twist angles • Circles: simulations started from molecular fluid • Crosses: from non-molecular fluid No hysteresis**Molecular Order Parameter**• Molecular order parameter, l, defined as: • VMC: Hysteresis; probably 1st order. • RQMC: No hysteresis; continuous transition.**Finite-Size Error Assessment**VMC RQMC • Pronounced finite-size error • Consistent with first order behaviour • No significant finite-size error • Consistent with continuous transition Circles: 32-atom cell Crosses: 54-atom cell**Conclusions**• More accurate solution of Hamiltonian changes the nature of the transition from molecular to non-molecular fluid • VMC results indicate first-order at T=2000K • Compatible with CPMD but at different pressure • RQMC results indicate continuous transition at T=2000K • FSE not large for PPT, even when 1st order. No long-range nucleation. • Future work: • Investigate metallization of fluid • Effects of quantum nuclei

More Related