In this work, all implementations of projection methods are based on the GWT,
which allows for deriving compact and numerically tractable expressions for off-diagonal
matrix elements between Slater determinants. For an arbitrary Slater determinant
,
by
we
denote the one that is rotated in space, gauge space, or isospace, for the angular-momentum,
particle-number, or isospin restoration, respectively. Hereafter, we focus our attention
on the AMP, but the presented ideas and methodology can be rather
straightforwardly generalized to the particle-number [5] or isospin projections.
In order to bring forward the origin of singularities in energy kernels [1,2,3],
it is instructive to recall principal properties
of the standard GWT approach. Let us start with a one-body density-independent operator
. Its off-diagonal kernel (the matrix element
divided by the overlap), can be calculated
with the aid of GWT, and reads [4]:
The immediate conclusion stemming from
Eqs. (1)-(2) is that the overlaps, which appear
in the denominators of the matrix element and transition density matrix,
cancel out, and the matrix element
of an arbitrary one-body
density-independent operator
is free from singularities and
can be safely integrated, as in Eq. (3).
Let us now turn our attention to two-body operators. The most popular two-body effective interactions used in nuclear structure calculations are the zero-range Skyrme [8,9] and finite-range Gogny [10] effective forces. Because of their explicit density dependence, they should be regarded, for consistency reasons, as generators of two-body part of the nuclear EDF. The transition matrix element of the two-body generator reads:
Evaluating the transition matrix element, Eq. (5), with the aid of GWT, one obtains,
At variance with the one-body case discussed above, the integrand in
Eq. (10) is inversely proportional to the overlap, thus
containing potentially dangerous (singular) terms. The singularity
disappears only if the sums in the numerator, evaluated at angles
where the overlap
equals
zero, give a vanishing result; such a cancellation requires
evaluating the numerator without any approximations or omitted terms.
An additional singularity is created by the density dependence of the interaction.
If some approximation of the numerator is involved, the leading-order singularity goes as:
![]() |
(11) |
Thus, the GWT formulation of MR DFT is, in general, singular. In
fact, it is well defined only for
being a true interaction. An example of such an EDF generator is the
density-independent Skyrme interaction SV
, which is the SV
interaction of Ref. [18] with all the EDF tensor terms
included (these were omitted in the original definition of SV).
Interaction SV
was recently used to calculate the
isospin-symmetry-breaking corrections to superallowed
-decay by means of the isospin- and angular-momentum
projected DFT formalism [19].
Progress in development of projection techniques and difficulties in working out reliable regularization schemes for density-dependent interactions [2] increased the demand for density-independent effective interactions and stimulated vivid activity in this field resulting in developing density-independent zero-range [20,21] as well as finite-range [22] forces. The spectroscopic quality of these new forces is, however, still far from satisfactory. In addition, the technology of performing beyond-mean-field calculations with these novel interactions is being developed only now [23,24].
The pathologies arising in the GWT description of the two-body energy kernels come from uncompensated zeros of the overlap matrix. The central idea of this work is to cure the problem by replacing the calculation of projected matrix elements with higher-order quantities, which are regularized by multiplying the integrands with an appropriately chosen power of the overlap:
![]() |
(12) |
The proposed regularization scheme amounts to
replacing the calculation of matrix elements
, given in Eq. (10), by the calculation of an auxiliary
quantities defined as:
Finally, the regularized matrix elements
are determined be
requesting that the auxiliary quantities (13), calculated
before and after regularization are equal, that is,
Two variants of such a regularization scheme, dubbed linear
regularization (LR) and quadratic regularization (QR), corresponding
to, respectively, and
, are discussed below in
Secs. 2.2 and 2.3.
Jacek Dobaczewski 2014-12-06