Quantum phase transitions in one-dimensional nanostructures: a comparison between DFT and DMRG methodologies
T Pauletti1, M Sanino1, L Gimenes1
1Institute of Chemistry, São Paulo State University, Francisco Degni 55, Araraquara, 14800-090, São Paulo, Brazil.
Density functional theory (DFT) and density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) methods were compared for predicting electronic properties of nanostructures. DFT shows higher deviations for superlattices and confined insulating phases, while DMRG offers better accuracy in these complex systems.
Area of Science:
- Quantum Chemistry
- Computational Materials Science
- Condensed Matter Physics
Background:
- Accurate prediction of electronic structure in nanostructures is a significant challenge in quantum chemistry.
- Density functional theory (DFT) and density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) are key computational methods for electronic correlation.
- Comparing DFT and DMRG provides insights into their performance for diverse molecular systems.
Purpose of the Study:
- To comparatively analyze ground-state energies, density profiles, and entanglement entropies using DFT and DMRG.
- To evaluate the performance of DFT and DMRG for homogeneous, superlattice, and confined nanostructures.
- To identify the strengths and limitations of each method across different electronic phases (metal, insulator, metal-insulator transition).
Main Methods:
- Density functional theory (DFT) calculations using the Kohn-Sham scheme and BALDA approach.
- Integration of the numerical Bethe-Ansatz (BA) solution for homogeneous density functional within LDA.
- Density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) implemented with ITensor library based on matrix product states (MPS) ansatz.
Main Results:
- For homogeneous systems, DFT deviations decrease with chain size, with a clear hierarchy.
- For superlattices, DFT precision decreases with increased impurity numbers in the unit cell.
- DFT performs better for metallic phases in confined chains; higher deviations are observed for Mott and band-insulator phases.
Conclusions:
- The relative accuracy of DFT and DMRG depends significantly on the nanostructure's complexity and electronic phase.
- DFT exhibits limitations in accurately describing superlattices and confined insulating systems.
- DMRG provides a more reliable approach for complex nanostructure electronic property predictions where DFT struggles.
More Related Videos
08:55Methods of Ex Situ and In Situ Investigations of Structural Transformations: The Case of Crystallization of Metallic Glasses
Published on: June 7, 2018
13:56Probe Type II Band Alignment in One-Dimensional Van Der Waals Heterostructures Using First-Principles Calculations
Published on: October 12, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Two-Dimensional (2D) NMR: Overview
The first step is the preparation period, during which nucleus A is excited with a radiofrequency pulse....
¹H NMR: Interpreting Distorted and Overlapping Signals
As Δν decreases and the signals move closer, the doublets appear increasingly distorted. The intensities of the inner lines increase at the cost of those of the outer lines as the signals are...
