Parameter-free calculation of response functions in time-dependent density-functional theory

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 91, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 564021-564024

  Sottile, Francesco ^a   Olevano, Valerio ^a   Reining, Lucia ^a  

^a LABORATOIRE DES SOLIDES IRRADIÉS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXCITONS; FREQUENCIES; OPTICAL CORRELATION; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION;

RESPONSE FUNCTIONS;

LIGHT ABSORPTION;

EID: 0041917414     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. See, e.g., L. Hedin and S. Lundqvist, Solid State Phys. 23, 1 (1969).
2. L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, 796 (1965); G. Strinati, H. J. Mattausch, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B 25, 2867 (1982).
3. L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, 796 (1965); G. Strinati, H. J. Mattausch, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B 25, 2867 (1982).
4. G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Rev. Mod Phys. 74, 601 (2002), and references therein.
5. W. Hanke and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 387 (1979).
6. E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984); E. K. U. Gross and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2850 (1985).
7. E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984); E. K. U. Gross and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2850 (1985).
8. See, e.g., G. F. Bertsch et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, 7998 (2000).
9. A. Zangwill and P. Soven, Phys. Rev. A 21, 1561 (1980).
10. P. L. de Boeij et al., J. Chem. Phys. 115, 1995 (2001).
11. Y. H. Kim and A. Görling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 096402 (2002).
12. L Reining et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 066404 (2002).
13. S. Botti et al., (to be published).
14. R. Del Sole et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 045207 (2003).
15. G. Vignale and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2037 (1996).
16. Y. H. Kim and A. Görling, Phys. Rev. B 66, 035114 (2002).
17. A. Görling and M. Levy, Phys. Rev. A 50, 196 (1994).
18. (0) are avoided, for example using the singular value decomposition [17].
19. W. H. Press et al., Numerical Recipies (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
20. P. Lautenschlager et al., Phys. Rev. B 36, 4821 (1987).
21. 2 and then solve a linear system in order to obtain the head of X, which turns out to be more efficient and numerically more stable than using matrix inversions.
22. S. Logothetidis and J. Petalas, J. Appl. Phys. 80, 1768 (1996).
23. A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. B 32, 6255 (1985).
24. Although Eq. (1) is more complicated than a simple RPA calculation, already in the present nonoptimized form (which naturally follows from the derivation), one has the clear advantage of not having to diagonalize or to invert the BSE Hamiltonian, which gives much more flexibility.
25. G. Adragna, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Roma Tor Vergata, 2003; G. Adragna, R. Del Sole, and A. Marini (unpublished).
26. G. Adragna, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Roma Tor Vergata, 2003; G. Adragna, R. Del Sole, and A. Marini (unpublished).