The In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group at Finite Temperature

Abstract

The study of nuclei at finite temperature is of immense interest for many areas of nuclear astrophysics and nuclear-reaction science. A variety of ab initio methods are now available for computing the properties of nuclei from interactions rooted in Quantum Chromodynamics, but applications have largely been limited to zero temperature. In the present work, we extend one such method, the In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group (IMSRG), to finite temperature. Using an exactly-solvable schematic model that captures essential features of nuclear interactions, we show that the FT-IMSRG can accurately determine the energetics of nuclei at finite temperature, and we explore the accuracy of the FT-IMSRG in different parameter regimes, e.g., strong and weak pairing. In anticipation of FT-IMSRG applications for finite nuclei and infinite matter, we discuss differences arising from the choice of working with the canonical and the grand canonical ensembles. In future work, we will apply the FT-IMSRG with realistic nuclear interactions to compute nuclear structure and reaction properties at finite temperature, which are important ingredients for understanding nucleosynthesis in stellar environments, or modeling reactions of hot compound nuclei.

I Introduction

Efforts to describe the properties of atomic nuclei based on nuclear forces that are rooted in Quantum Chromodynamics have made significant progress in recent decades. So-called ab initio nuclear many-body calculations have been performed for hundreds of nuclei up to the $Z\sim 50$ region, and results for even heavier nuclei are published with increasing frequency [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The main challenge for most of the methods that are used in these kinds of calculations is the sheer size of the many-body Hilbert spaces, which need to encompass tens or hundreds of nucleons and their degrees of freedom, as modeled by a chosen single-particle basis. The dimension of the many-body basis scales as $\binom{N}{A}$ with the number of (indistinguishable) particles $A$ and single-particle states $N$, hence exact solutions of the (stationary) nuclear Schrödinger equation through diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix are only feasible for nuclei of mass $A\leq 20$. In order to efficiently study heavier nuclei from first principles, it is necessary to develop methods to approximate the solution to the many-body problem in polynomial time. Several such methods have been developed that can extract properties of specific energy eigenstates, most frequently the ground state (see, e.g., [1] and references therein).

The common first step in a large number of many-body approaches is the construction of a reference state for the many-body basis via a Hartree-Fock (HF) calculation (see, e.g., [10]). Hartree-Fock is a variational method to approximate the ground state of a many-body Hamiltonian as a single Slater determinant by constructing an optimal single-particle basis that minimizes the energy at the mean field level. The HF solution then serves as the basis for so-called beyond mean-field methods, which improve the approximation of the ground state in a systematic fashion and converge to the exact solution in a well-defined way. Approaches like many-body perturbation theory (MBPT) or the non-perturbative Coupled Cluster (CC) and Self-Consistent Green’s Function (SCGF) methods have been very successful in approximating solutions to the nuclear many-body problem (see [1, 11, 12] and references therein).

The beyond mean-field method we will focus on in this work is the In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group (IMSRG) [13, 14, 15, 1]. The IMSRG applies a continuous unitary transformation to the Hamiltonian, with the goal of extracting the ground state energy (or potentially the energy of a selected excited state, see [16]). Its variants have been used with great success in the prediction of ground state and excited state properties in a wide range of nuclei [14, 15, 17, 18, 6, 7, 8, 19].

Thus far, applications of the IMSRG and other modern beyond-mean field methods for finite nuclei have been limited to zero temperature, although ab initio studies of infinite matter at finite temperature based on modern nuclear interactions have been performed with a number of methods (see [20] and references therein). Extensions of mean-field methods, e.g., the Finite Temperature HF (FT-HF) and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (FT-HFB) [21, 22, 23], and beyond mean-field methods like Shell-Model Monte Carlo [24, 25] have been developed decades ago, but they rely on schematic Hamiltonians or effective interactions whose parameters are fitted to data. More recently, several groups have studied nuclear ground-state properties and their response using non-relativistic and relativistic energy density functionals as input [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31].

In this work, we present the formalism for the finite-temperature extension of the IMSRG (FT-IMSRG), and assess its performance using an exactly solvable schematic model [32]. Our goal is to set the stage for ab initio calculations of nuclear properties, decay and reaction rates at finite temperatures. They are important ingredients for understanding nucleosynthesis processes in hot, stellar environments [33, 34], or reactions involving hot compound nuclei, e.g., neutron-induced fission [35]. Such efforts will be aided by the IMSRG’s capabilities for tracking how correlations are resummed into effective in-medium interactions, akin to the spirit of nuclear Density Functional Theory (DFT) [14, 36]. This will allow us to link the aforementioned finite-temperature DFT work and ab initio methodology, and provide insight into the successes and failures of either approach.

Our discussion of the FT-IMSRG is organized as follows. In Section II, we present a summary of the IMSRG at zero temperature, before describing our implementation of FT-HF in Section III.1 and the FT-IMSRG flow equations in Section III.2. In Section IV, we assess the performance of the FT-IMSRG: We introduce our schematic model in Section IV.1 and present results for a system of four fermions in eight single-particle states in Section IV.2, before discussing larger systems in Section IV.3. In Section IV.4, we compare results obtained by working in the canonical and grand canonical ensembles, respectively. In Section IV.5, we demonstrate the computation of free energy from the FT-IMSRG results. Finally, we conclude in Section V. Appendix A provides additional details on the calculation of occupation numbers in the canonical and grand-canonical ensembles.

II Zero-Temperature IMSRG

The first step in setting up a zero-temperature IMSRG calculation is the choice of a reference state $|\Phi\rangle$ [14], e.g., a HF Slater determinant serving as a first approximation to the system’s ground state. A complete many-body basis can then be constructed from $|\Phi\rangle$, its 1-particle-1-hole excitations, its 2-particle-2-hole excitations, and so on. The goal of the IMSRG is to continuously apply a unitary transformation $U(s)$ to the Hamiltonian in order to decouple $|\Phi\rangle$ from its excitations as $s\rightarrow\infty$. This is shown schematically in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: A schematic view of IMSRG decoupling [14]. The many-body Hamiltonian is depicted in blocks, with the reference state $|\Phi\rangle$ and its 1-particle-1-hole excitations, 2-particle-2-hole excitations, and 3-particle-3-hole excitations (see text). During the IMSRG flow, the reference state is decoupled from its excitations.

To do this, we first express the Hamiltonian as

$$\hat{H}=\hat{K}+\hat{V}=\sum_{pq}K_{pq}a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{pqrs}V_{pqrs}a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\,.$$ (1)

Here, we use $\hat{K}$ for the kinetic energy to avoid confusion with the temperature later on, and we adopt chemistry conventions for labeling the HF single-particle states, where $a,b,\ldots$ refer to unoccupied (particle) states, $i,j,\ldots$ to occupied (hole) states, and $p,q,\ldots$ run over the entire basis. Next, we introduce normal-ordering with respect to the reference state $|\Phi\rangle$, defined by

$$\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}\}\equiv a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}-\langle\Phi|a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}|\Phi\rangle=a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}-\rho_{pq},$$ (2)

where $\langle\Phi|a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}|\Phi\rangle$ is also called the (Wick) contraction of $a_{p}^{\dagger}$ and $a_{q}$, which is equal to the one-body density matrix $\rho_{pq}$ of the reference state. In the HF basis, this density matrix is diagonal,

$$\rho_{pq}^{\textrm{HF}}=n_{p}\delta_{pq},$$ (3)

and its eigenvalues, the occupation numbers $n_{p}$, are $1$ when the $p^{\rm th}$ single-particle state is occupied in the reference state (hole state) and $0$ when the $p^{\rm th}$ single-particle state is unoccupied in the reference state (particle state). A detailed description of this normal ordering scheme, including the normal ordering of general A-body operators, can be found in [14, 15].

We then write the Hamiltonian in terms of normal-ordered operators:

$$\hat{H} =\hat{E}+\hat{f}+\hat{\Gamma}$$

$$=E+\sum_{pq}f_{pq}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}\}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{pqrs}\Gamma_{pqrs}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\}.$$ (4)

The 0-, 1-, and 2-body parts of the normal-ordered Hamiltonian are respectively given by

$$E =\sum_{p}K_{pp}n_{p}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{pq}V_{pqpq}n_{p}n_{q}$$ (5)

$$f_{pq} =K_{pq}+\sum_{p}V_{prqr}n_{r}$$ (6)

$$\Gamma_{pqrs} =V_{pqrs},$$ (7)

which can be derived directly from the n-body normal ordering in [14]. We see that $E$, $f$, and $\Gamma$ now depend on the “medium” via the dependence on the occupation numbers of the reference state. We note that

$$E=\langle\Phi|\hat{H}|\Phi\rangle,$$ (8)

making $E$ the expectation value of energy in the reference state. When we evolve the Hamiltonian as shown in Fig. 1, $E$ will evolve towards an exact eigenvalue of $\hat{H}$ (up to truncation effects), which is usually the desired ground-state energy. In the present work, we only deal with schematic models which include one- and two-body interactions in the initial Hamiltonian. Three-body interactions in the initial Hamiltonian can also be accounted for in the normal ordered 0-, 1-, and 2-body terms, see [14, 15].

The IMSRG flow is defined through the operator differential equation

$$\frac{d}{ds}\hat{H}(s)=[\hat{\eta}(s),\hat{H}(s)]$$ (9)

where the generator $\hat{\eta}$ is a function of the Hamiltonian that is chosen to induce the wanted behavior out of the IMSRG flow, as will be discussed below. We note that for this flow to be unitary, the generator must be anti-Hermitian. Plugging the Hamiltonian (1) and a similarly structured $\hat{\eta}$ into the flow equation (9) at $s=0$, we immediately find that the commutator includes three-body operators. These and further higher-rank contributions to the Hamiltonian will be induced by the IMSRG flow as we evolve. In order to close the system of flow equations, we truncate operators at the normal-ordered two-body level, in the so-called normal-ordered two-body (NO2B) approximation. We then have the IMSRG(2) flow equations:

$$\frac{dE}{ds} =\sum_{pq}(n_{p}-n_{q})\eta_{pq}f_{qp}$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{pqrs}\eta_{pqrs}\Gamma_{rspq}n_{p}n_{q}\bar{n}_{r}\bar{n}_{s}$$ (10)

$$\frac{df_{pq}}{ds} =\sum_{r}(1+P_{pq})\eta_{pr}f_{rq}$$

$$+\sum_{rs}(n_{r}-n_{s})(\eta_{rs}\Gamma_{sprq}-f_{rs}\eta_{sprq})$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{rst}(n_{r}n_{s}\bar{n}_{t}+\bar{n}_{r}\bar{n}_{s}n_{t})(1+P_{pq})\eta_{tprs}\Gamma_{rstq}$$ (11)

$$\frac{d\Gamma_{pqrs}}{ds} =\sum_{t}\bigg{[}(1-P_{pq})(\eta_{pt}\Gamma_{tqrs}-f_{pt}\eta_{tqrs})$$

$$\qquad-(1-P_{rs})(\eta_{tr}\Gamma_{pqts}-f_{tr}\eta_{pqts})\bigg{]}$$

$$+\sum_{tu}\bigg{[}\frac{1}{2}(1-n_{t}-n_{u})(\eta_{pqtu}\Gamma_{turs}-\Gamma_{pqtu}\eta_{turs})$$

$$\qquad+(n_{t}-n_{u})(1-P_{pq})(1-P_{rs})\eta_{tpur}\Gamma_{uqts}\bigg{]}.$$ (12)

Here, $\bar{n}_{p}=1-n_{p}$ is the hole occupation number, and $P_{pq}$ is an operator which switches the $p$ and $q$ indices in subsequent expressions. Naively, with a single-particle basis size $N$, these equations scale computationally as $\mathcal{O}(N^{6})$, but by differentiating between particle and hole states, it is possible to reduce this to $\mathcal{O}(N_{p}^{4}N_{h}^{2})$, were $N_{p}$ and $N_{h}$ are respectively the number of particle and hole states [16].

There are several generators that can be used to get the desired decoupling. We seek to decouple the reference state and its particle-hole excitations, which means we want to suppress the so-called “off-diagonal” matrix elements of the form

$$\langle\Phi|\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a_{i}\}|\Phi\rangle=f_{ai}$$ (13)

and

$$\langle\Phi|\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a^{\dagger}_{b}a_{j}a_{i}\}|\Phi\rangle=\Gamma_{abij}.$$ (14)

To achieve this [14, 15], we use a generator of the form

$$\hat{\eta} =\hat{\eta}^{\textrm{1B}}+\hat{\eta}^{\textrm{2B}}$$

$$=\sum_{ai}\eta_{ai}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a_{i}\}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{abij}\eta_{abij}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a^{\dagger}_{b}a_{j}a_{i}\}$$

$$\qquad-\textrm{H.c.},$$ (15)

where $\eta_{ai}$ and $\eta_{abij}$ are related respectively to the off-diagonal matrix elements we seek to eliminate, $f_{ai}$ and $\Gamma_{abij}$.

A simple yet effective generator is the so-called White generator [14, 37]

$$\hat{\eta}^{\textrm{W}} =\sum_{ai}\frac{f_{ai}}{\Delta_{ai}}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a_{i}\}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{abij}\frac{\Gamma_{abij}}{\Delta_{abij}}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a^{\dagger}_{b}a_{j}a_{i}\}$$

$$\qquad-\textrm{H.c.},$$ (16)

where

$$\Delta_{ai} =\langle\Phi|\{a^{\dagger}_{i}a_{a}\}\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a_{i}\}|\Phi\rangle-\langle\Phi|\hat{H}|\Phi\rangle$$

$$=f_{aa}-f_{ii}-\Gamma_{aiai}$$ (17)

is the unperturbed energy difference between the reference state and its p-h excitation, and

$$\Delta_{abij} =\langle\Phi|\{a^{\dagger}_{i}a^{\dagger}_{j}a_{b}a_{a}\}\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a^{\dagger}_{b}a_{j}a_{i}\}|\Phi\rangle-\langle\Phi|\hat{H}|\Phi\rangle$$

$$=f_{aa}+f_{bb}-f_{ii}-f_{jj}+\Gamma_{abab}+\Gamma_{ijij}$$

$$\qquad-\Gamma_{aiai}-\Gamma_{bjbj}-\Gamma_{ajaj}-\Gamma_{bibi}$$ (18)

is the unperturbed energy difference between the reference state and its 2p-2h excitation. A variation, the White arctan generator,

$$\hat{\eta}^{\textrm{arctan}} =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ai}\arctan\left(\frac{2f_{ai}}{\Delta_{ai}}\right)\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a_{i}\}$$

$$+\frac{1}{8}\sum_{abij}\arctan\left(\frac{2\Gamma_{abij}}{\Delta_{abij}}\right)\{a^{\dagger}_{a}a^{\dagger}_{b}a_{j}a_{i}\}$$

$$\qquad-\textrm{H.c.}$$ (19)

is useful in cases where the energy denominators $\Delta_{ai}$ and $\Delta_{abij}$ become small [15, 37]. Using either of these generators keeps the overall computational scaling of the IMSRG at $\mathcal{O}(N_{p}^{4}N_{h}^{2})$.

Finally, we note that the IMSRG can determine observable quantities besides energy. Given any operator $\hat{O}$ written in the HF basis

$$\hat{O} =\hat{O}^{\textrm{1B}}+\hat{O}^{\textrm{2B}}$$

$$=\sum_{pq}O^{\textrm{1B}}_{pq}a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}+\sum_{pqrs}O^{\textrm{2B}}_{pqrs}a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r},$$ (20)

the IMSRG flow equation for $\hat{O}$ is

$$\frac{d}{ds}\hat{O}(s)=[\hat{\eta}(s),\hat{O}(s)].$$ (21)

The normal ordering (Eqs. (5)–(7)) remains unchanged, just replacing $\hat{K}$ and $\hat{V}$ with $\hat{O}^{\textrm{1B}}$ and $\hat{O}^{\textrm{2B}}$ respectively. The normal-ordered flow equations (Eqs. (II)–(II)) also remain unchanged, replacing $E$, $\hat{f}$ and $\hat{\Gamma}$ with the normal-ordered zero-, one- and two-body parts of $\hat{O}$ respectively. Note that the generator is the same generator used by the Hamiltonian flow, calculated based on the Hamiltonian’s normal-ordered matrix elements, hence Eqs. (9) and (21) must be solved concurrently. Alternatively, one can use the so-called Magnus operator formulation of the IMSRG to extract a parameterization of the unitary transformation, which can then be used to construct any $\hat{O}(s)$ at a later time [38, 14].

III Finite-Temperature IMSRG

III.1 Finite-Temperature Hartree-Fock

We first describe our implementation of finite-temperature HF (FT-HF) [39, 23, 40]. Zero-temperature HF attempts to find a single Slater determinant that minimizes the energy of the system. In the finite-temperature case, we will attempt to find the thermal ensemble that minimizes the system’s free energy

$$F=E-\frac{S}{\beta}.$$ (22)

Here, $S$ is the entropy and $\beta\equiv 1/k_{B}T$ is the inverse temperature. To do this, we will no longer be able to simply use occupation numbers of 0 and 1, and therefore there is no sense in talking about particles and holes. Instead, the occupation number $n_{p}$ represents the average number of nucleons occupying the $p^{\rm th}$ single-particle state. For fermions, which must obey the Pauli exclusion principle, this is equivalent to the probability that, upon measurement, there will be a nucleon occupying the $p^{\rm th}$ single-particle state. Thus, we maintain that $0\leq n_{p}\leq 1$ and $\sum n_{p}=A$ where $A$ is the total number of nucleons.

We begin by expressing the Hamiltonian

$$\hat{H}=\hat{k}+\hat{v}=\sum_{\alpha\beta}k_{\alpha\beta}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha}a_{\beta}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}v_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha}a^{\dagger}_{\beta}a_{\delta}a_{\gamma}\,,$$ (23)

where we use Greek indices to indicate a general working basis of single-particle states. We will then define the effective single-particle (HF) Hamiltonian $\hat{f}$, starting with the ansatz

$$\hat{f}^{(0)}=\hat{k}.$$ (24)

We diagonalize $\hat{f}$, yielding eigenvalues $\{\epsilon_{p}\}$ and eigenstates that define a unitary similarity transformation $\hat{u}$.

Then, we calculate the free-energy minimizing occupation numbers assuming $A$ independent fermions with energy levels $\{\epsilon_{p}\}$. This can be done in either the canonical or grand-canonical ensembles — additional details are described in Appendix A. In summary, while the canonical ensemble is best-suited for a finite nucleus, calculating occupation numbers in the canonical ensemble scales exponentially with the size of the many-body basis because we need to perform traces over the ensemble. For realistic applications of the FT-IMSRG, we must resort to the grand canonical ensemble, where the calculation of occupation numbers merely scales linearly with the single-particle basis size. This comes with a loss of accuracy, which will be quantified in Section IV.4. When $A$ becomes large, however, the grand canonical ensemble occupation numbers approach those of the canonical ensemble, as the relative deviation of particle number in the grand canonical ensemble behaves as $1/\sqrt{A}$ (see [41]).

Using the occupation numbers $n_{p}$ and the previously mentioned unitary transformation, we iteratively construct the one-body density matrix

$$\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(i)}=\sum_{p}n_{p}^{(i)}u_{\alpha p}^{(i)}u_{\beta p}^{(i)}\,,$$ (25)

as well as a new $\hat{f}$ and HF energy $E$ using

$$f_{\alpha\beta}^{(i+1)} =k_{\alpha\beta}+\sum_{\gamma\delta}v_{\alpha\gamma\beta\delta}\rho_{\gamma\delta}^{(i)}$$ (26)

$$E^{(i+1)} =\sum_{\alpha\beta}k_{\alpha\beta}\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(i)}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}v_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\rho_{\alpha\gamma}^{(i)}\rho_{\beta\delta}^{(i)}.$$ (27)

Note that in the case of a diagonal density matrix (which will occur if $\hat{f}$ is diagonal), these equations resemble the normal ordering of Eqs. (5) and (6).

We summarize the process below:

1. Diagonalize $\hat{f}$, yielding eigenvalues $\{\epsilon_{p}\}$ and a unitary transformation $\hat{u}$.

2. Calculate the occupation numbers $n_{p}$ based on the eigenvalues $\{\epsilon_{p}\}$.

3. Construct the density matrix via Eq. (25).

4. Construct a new $\hat{f}$ and HF energy $E$ using Eqs. (26) and (27).

We repeat these steps until the energy $E$ is converged, which we define to be the case once

$$\frac{\left|E^{(i+1)}-E^{(i)}\right|}{A}\leq 10^{-5}.$$ (28)

Finally, we transform the Hamiltonian (Eq. (23)) to the HF basis (Eq. (1)), using the eigenvalues $\{n_{p}\}$ and eigenstates $\{U_{p}\}$ of the final density matrix:

$$K_{pq}=\sum_{\alpha\beta}U^{*}_{p\alpha}k_{\alpha\beta}U_{\beta q}.$$ (29)

and

$$V_{pqrs}=\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{*}_{p\alpha}U^{*}_{q\beta}v_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U_{\gamma r}U_{\delta s}.$$ (30)

III.2 The FT-IMSRG Flow

The FT-IMSRG flow has two key differences from the zero-temperature IMSRG described in Section II. First, our reference is no longer a Slater determinant, but a reference ensemble given by FT-HF. We take the normal-ordered Hamiltonian in the HF basis to be given by Eqs. (5)–(7), but using the occupation numbers given by FT-HF. Note that this represents an exact re-writing of the Hamiltonian when working in the grand canonical ensemble, but is only approximate when working in the canonical ensemble. This is because in the latter case, Wick’s theorem picks up correction terms that have no analogs in the zero-temperature version, see [42]. Since these correction terms scale exponentially with the number of single-particle basis states, we presently omit them in our canonical ensemble calculations. Our results presented in Section IV imply that, at least for the schematic model studied here, this is a reasonable approximation. In future work, we will explore if the corrections laid out in [42] can be cast into the generalized normal-ordering formalism of Mukherjee and Kutzelnigg[43]. In this way, it might be possible to remove the current approximations in our FT-IMSRG canonical ensemble calculations by switching over to something that resembles a finite-temperature extension of the multi-reference IMSRG [15, 1].

The interpretation of the energy $E$ must also be adapted. Eq. (8) still holds, but $E$ is to be interpreted as the internal energy of the reference ensemble. Additionally, expectation values are taken to mean

$$\langle\hat{O}\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\hat{\rho}\hat{O}\right),$$ (31)

where $\hat{O}$ is any many-body operator and $\hat{\rho}$ is the statistical operator of the FT-HF reference ensemble. The FT-IMSRG flow equations are identical to Eqs. (II)-(II), once again using the occupation numbers from FT-HF. The evolution of other observables also remains the same.

The second key difference involves the generators to be used. Since we cannot distinguish between particles and holes, in our decoupling scheme we seek to suppress all expectation values of the form

$$\langle\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}\}\rangle=\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}f_{pq}$$ (32)

and

$$\langle\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\}\rangle=\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}n_{s}\Gamma_{pqrs},$$ (33)

in analogy to the off-diagonal matrix elements (13),(14) of the zero-temperature formulation. Analogously to the zero-temperature case, we look for generators of the form

$$\hat{\eta} =\sum_{pq}\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}\eta_{pq}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}\}$$

$$\hphantom{=}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{pqrs}\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}n_{s}\eta_{pqrs}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\}-\textrm{H.c.}$$ (34)

The energy denominators used in our generators will also become

$$\Delta_{pq} =\langle\{a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{p}\}\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}\}\rangle-\langle\hat{H}\rangle$$

$$=\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}\left(\bar{n}_{p}f_{pp}-n_{q}f_{qq}-\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}\Gamma_{pqpq}\right)$$ (35)

and

$$\Delta_{pqrs} =\langle\{a^{\dagger}_{r}a^{\dagger}_{s}a_{q}a_{p}\}\hat{H}\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\}\rangle-\langle\hat{H}\rangle$$

$$=\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}n_{s}\bigg{(}\bar{n}_{p}f_{pp}+\bar{n}_{q}f_{qq}-n_{r}f_{rr}-n_{s}f_{ss}$$

$$\qquad+\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}\Gamma_{pqpq}+n_{r}n_{s}\Gamma_{rsrs}-\bar{n}_{p}n_{r}\Gamma_{prpr}$$

$$\qquad-\bar{n}_{q}n_{s}\Gamma_{qsqs}-\bar{n}_{p}n_{s}\Gamma_{psps}-\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}\Gamma_{qrqr}\bigg{)}.$$ (36)

To determine the appropriate generator to use, we insist that in the low-temperature limit (where the occupation numbers become 0 and 1), our generator approaches a zero-temperature generator. If we naively attempt to generalize the White generator to finite-temperature, we will find that due to the occupation factors $\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}$ and $\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}n_{s}$ appearing in both the numerators and denominators, we will be left with many nonzero and potentially divergent generator matrix elements for non-ph or -pphh entries. To address this problematic behavior, we use the arctan variant of the generator

$$\hat{\eta} =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{pq}\bar{n}_{p}n_{q}\arctan\left(\frac{2f_{pq}}{\Delta_{pq}}\right)\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{q}\}$$

$$+\frac{1}{8}\sum_{pqrs}\bar{n}_{p}\bar{n}_{q}n_{r}n_{s}\arctan\left(\frac{2\Gamma_{pqrs}}{\Delta_{pqrs}}\right)\{a^{\dagger}_{p}a^{\dagger}_{q}a_{s}a_{r}\}$$

$$\qquad-\textrm{H.c.}$$ (37)

which does behave properly in the low-temperature limit.

Finally, we note that as we are no longer able to distinguish between particles and holes, the computational scaling of the FT-IMSRG is returned to $\mathcal{O}(N^{6})$.

III.3 Particle Number Variance

One of the complications of using a thermal reference ensemble as opposed to a Slater determinant reference state is that the ensemble can run over states with different particle numbers, and the particle number variance $\Delta A=\langle\hat{A}^{2}\rangle-\langle\hat{A}\rangle^{2}$ may be nonzero.

We have

$$\hat{A}=\sum_{p}a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}$$ (38)

and thus

$$\hat{A}^{2} =\sum_{pq}a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{q}=\sum_{pq}\left(a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{q}a_{p}+\delta_{pq}a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}\right)$$

$$=\sum_{pq}a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{q}a_{p}+\sum_{p}a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}.$$ (39)

We can then normal order the above operators:

$$\hat{A}=\sum_{p}n_{p}+\sum_{p}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}\}=A+\sum_{p}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}\}$$ (40)

and

$$\hat{A}^{2} =\sum_{p}(n_{p}-n_{p}^{2})+\sum_{pq}n_{p}n_{q}+\sum_{p}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}\}$$

$$\qquad+\sum_{pq}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{q}a_{p}\}$$ (41)

$$=\sum_{p}\bar{n}_{p}n_{p}+A^{2}+\sum_{p}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p}\}+\sum_{pq}\{a_{p}^{\dagger}a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{q}a_{p}\}.$$ (42)

This means that

$$\langle\hat{A}\rangle=A$$ (43)

and

$$\langle\hat{A}^{2}\rangle=A^{2}+\sum_{p}\bar{n}_{p}n_{p},$$ (44)

so that

$$\Delta A=\langle\hat{A}^{2}\rangle-\langle\hat{A}\rangle^{2}=\sum_{p}\bar{n}_{p}n_{p}.$$ (45)

While it appears that this result is in full generality, the canonical ensemble is defined such that $\Delta A=0$. In fact, there are corrections to Wick’s theorem for the canonical ensemble [42] which enforce the condition $\Delta A=0$. As explained above, the evaluation of these corrections is impractical because of their scaling with the many-body basis, and we neglect them at present.

Finally, we note that Eq. (40) holds in both ensembles, and we can use it to determine the IMSRG flow of $\hat{A}$ by calculating $[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]$. At $s=0$, the zero-body part is

$$[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]^{0B}=\sum_{pq}(n_{p}-n_{q})\eta_{pq}\delta_{pq}=0,$$ (46)

the one-body part is

$$[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]^{1B}_{pq} =\sum_{r}(1+P_{pq})\eta_{pr}\delta_{rq}-\sum_{rs}(n_{r}-n_{s})\delta_{rs}\eta_{sprq}$$

$$=\eta_{pq}+\eta_{qp}=0$$ (47)

due to the anti-Hermiticity of $\hat{\eta}$, and the two-body part is

$$[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]^{2B}_{pqrs} =-\sum_{t}\left((1-P_{pq})\delta_{pt}\eta_{tqrs}-(1-P_{rs})\delta_{tr}\eta_{pqts}\right)$$

$$=-\left(\eta_{pqrs}-\eta_{qprs}+\eta_{pqrs}-\eta_{pqsr}\right)=0.$$ (48)

This implies that the there is no change to $\hat{A}$ from the initial derivative at $s=0$, especially no induced two-body (or higher-rank) contribution. This also means that $\hat{A}$ remains a pure one-body operator through the evolution, so Eqs. (46)–(48) will be valid for any $s$ and we see that

$$\frac{d}{ds}\hat{A}=[\hat{\eta}(s),\hat{A}]=0\,.$$ (49)

Using this result, it is easy to prove that

$$[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}^{2}]=\hat{A}[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]+[\hat{\eta},\hat{A}]\hat{A}=0.$$ (50)

Thus, the average particle number as well as the particle number variance are invariant under the FT-IMSRG flow, and entirely determined by the reference ensemble.

IV Results

IV.1 The P3H Hamiltonian

To test the FT-IMSRG, we employ the pairing-plus-particle-hole (P3H) model, which is exactly solvable and qualitatively captures important features of nuclear interactions [32]. We work with single particle states $\{(\alpha,\sigma)\}$ where $\alpha=1,2,3,...,N/2$ is the principal quantum number and $\sigma=+,-$ represents the spin.

The P3H Hamiltonian is governed by the parameters $\delta$, $g$, and $b$, and, in the notation of Eq. (23), has the one- and two-body parts

$$\hat{k}_{\textrm{P3H}}=\delta\sum_{\alpha\sigma}(\alpha-1)a^{\dagger}_{\alpha\sigma}a_{\alpha\sigma}$$ (51)

and

$$\hat{v}_{\textrm{P3H}} =-\frac{g}{2}\sum_{\alpha\beta}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha+}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha-}a_{\beta-}a_{\beta+}$$

$$\quad-\frac{b}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\neq\beta}\bigg{(}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha+}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha-}a_{\beta-}a_{\gamma+}$$

$$\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad+a^{\dagger}_{\gamma+}a^{\dagger}_{\beta-}a_{\alpha-}a_{\alpha+}\bigg{)}.$$ (52)

Here, $\delta$ is the (constant) spacing between single-particle energy levels, $g$ is the strength of pairing interaction, and $b$ controls the strength of pair-breaking, particle-hole type excitations. The structure of the eigenstates will be driven by the competition between the pairing and pair-breaking interactions, as well as the ratios $g/\delta$ and $b/\delta$, i.e., the ability of the interaction terms to overcome the level spacing. Because of the latter observation, we set $\delta=1$ for the remainder of this paper, without loss of generality. We will express $g$, $b$, and other energies in units of $\delta$, and express $\beta$ in units of $\delta^{-1}$.

IV.2 Four Particles in Eight States

We first consider the case of four fermions in eight possible single-particle states (i.e., $A=4$, $N=8$). The many-body basis will have dimension 70, so the exact solution can be easily computed for comparison. Note that for this section, occupation numbers will be computed in the canonical ensemble so that the FT-IMSRG can be tested with the most accurate FT-HF input possible.

Fig. 2 plots $E$ versus $\beta$ for different coupling strengths. In general, the FT-IMSRG significantly improves the FT-HF results in accuracy. Particularly at low temperatures (high $\beta$), the FT-IMSRG results are extremely close to the exact internal energies.

Figure 2: Internal energy versus inverse temperature with $A=4$ and $N=8$ for $g=0.3$, $b=-0.1$ (left) and $g=-0.1$, $b=-0.4$ (right). The bottom panels show the low-temperature range, $\beta\geq 5.0$. The FT-IMSRG results (blue) are much closer to the exact results (orange) than the FT-HF results (green) are. The FT-IMSRG results successfully replicate the behavior of the exact results at low temperatures.

As would be expected, the FT-IMSRG performs best for weak coupling in the Hamiltonian (i.e. low $|g|$ and $|b|$). For $|g|,|b|\leq 0.5$, the FT-IMSRG results consistently demonstrate good agreement with the exact results. This can be seen in Fig. 3. At lower temperature, we see strong agreement for the widest range of parameters. Interestingly, the performance of the FT-IMSRG is weakest at mid-range temperatures, around $\beta=1$. While it still improves upon the FT-HF results in this temperature range, to achieve a similar accuracy to that achieved at lower temperatures, further improvements to the FT-IMSRG truncation scheme would be necessary (see, e.g., [44, 45, 46] for recent discussions.)

Figure 3: Relative error in internal energy in parameter space for various inverse temperatures with a logarithmic color scale. Shades of red denote less than 1% error. The FT-IMSRG results display the most accuracy for lower temperatures and parameters of lower magnitude.

When $|g|$ and $|b|$ become too large, specifically when they are of opposite sign, the FT-IMSRG frequently diverges (shown in deep blue in Fig. 3). This is because positive $g$ encourages pairing, and negative $b$ discourages pair-breaking, and vice versa, leading to a mutual reinforcement.

The relative error of the internal energy as a function of $\beta$ is shown on a logarithmic plot for various coupling strengths in Fig. 4. Once again, we see the strong agreement between the FT-IMSRG and the exact results, which is strongest with weaker coupling and lower temperatures. The less smooth results in the bottom panel are likely due to numerical complications that arise from the pair-breaking term of the Hamiltonian. The relative errors seen here are comparable to those of Finite-Temperature Coupled Cluster for similar schematic models (see, e.g., [47, 48]).

Figure 4: Relative error in internal energy versus inverse temperature for $b=0$ (top) and $b=0.2$ (bottom) with various values of $g$ on a logarithmic scale. The FT-HF results are shown with dotted lines and the FT-IMSRG results are shown with solid lines. In all cases, the FT-IMSRG results show a significant improvement compared to the FT-HF results, with better results for weaker coupling.

We also show plots of the correlation energy

$$E_{\textrm{corr}}=E-E_{\mathrm{HF}}$$ (53)

versus the pairing strength $g$ for different $\beta$ and $b$ values in Fig. 5. Interestingly, at higher temperatures, more deviations are observed for negative $g$ (attractive pairing), and at lower temperatures, more deviations are observed for positive $g$ (repulsive pairing). This trend is apparent in Fig. 3 as well. The behavior at low temperature can be explained from the fact that the IMSRG(2) is known to under count a subset of fourth-order perturbation theory contributions by a factor of $1/2$, see [46, 14]. Higher temperatures weaken the effects of heavily-favored pairing, but exacerbate the effects of heavily-disfavored pairing so that the interaction cannot be fully accounted for by the IMSRG. This leads to the behavior we observe in the correlation energies as temperature increases.

Figure 5: Correlation energy versus $g$ for various values of $b$ and $\beta$. At low temperature, the FT-IMSRG results (blue) and exact results (orange) are in great agreement. Weaker coupling in both $b$ and $g$ produce more accurate FT-IMSRG results.

It is also informative to look at how the FT-IMSRG decouples the many-body Hamiltonian matrix at different temperatures (recall the decoupling behavior of the zero-temperature IMSRG shown in Fig. 1). In Fig. 6, we show this for the example of a pure pairing Hamiltonian with $g=0.5$, as well as the same Hamiltonian when a pair-breaking term is added with $b=0.2$. The normal-ordered pieces of the Hamiltonian after the FT-IMSRG flow are de-normal ordered and used to build the full many-body Hamiltonian matrix. At low temperatures, the FT-IMSRG decouples only the lowest-energy states as is the case in the zero-temperature IMSRG, while at higher temperatures the FT-IMSRG decouples many more states. However, this comes at the cost of truncation error. After computing the eigenvalues of these matrices, we compare the exact free energies. At $\beta=20$ (very low temperature), the truncation error is under 0.25% for the pure-pairing Hamiltonian, and under 0.55% once the pair-breaking interaction is added. At higher temperature, with $\beta=2$, the truncation error is about 0.86% for the pure-pairing Hamiltonian, but grows to a little less than 3% once the pair-breaking interaction is added. These truncation errors can help explain the decrease in the FT-IMSRG’s accuracy at high temperatures.

Figure 6: The full 70$\times$70 many-body Hamiltonian matrix for $A=4$ and $N=8$ and two sets of parameters. We compare the unevolved Hamiltonian at zero temperature ($\beta\to\infty$, row), to the FT-IMSRG evolved Hamiltonian for $\beta=20$ (middle row), and for $\beta=2$ (bottom row). Darker colors correspond to matrix elements with larger absolute values, and matrix elements with a value of zero are shown in white. At low temperatures, the FT-IMSRG decouples only the lowest-energy states, while at higher temperatures the FT-IMSRG decouples many more states.

IV.3 Increasing Particle Number and Basis Size

We now turn to cases with larger values of $A$ and $N$, once again computing occupation numbers in the canonical ensemble. In Fig. 7, we show a the relative error in internal energy in parameter space at $\beta=5.0$ and various values for $A$ and $N$. We see a similar pattern to before, where weaker couplings generally lead to better agreement between the FT-IMSRG and exact energies.

Figure 7: Relative error in internal energy in parameter space for $\beta=5.0$ and various values of $A$ and $N$ with a logarithmic color scale. Shades of red denote less than 1% error. The FT-IMSRG results display the most accuracy for higher $A$ and lower $N$.

In the plots on the left of Fig. 7, we show the case where the single-particle states are half-filled. Other than convergence issues for some parameters at $A=8$ and $N=16$, these plots are quite similar to each other. We see improvement in the FT-IMSRG’s accuracy for nearly all parameters when $N$ is fixed and $A$ increases. When $N$ is increased for fixed $A$, however, the relative error increases slightly for most parameters. This can be understood by noting that the P3H interactions are analogous to unregulated delta function potentials, since the two-body matrix elements do not fall off in strength as the number of single particle states $N$ is increased. Therefore, increasing $N$ effectively makes the interactions “harder”, resulting in larger errors. Unsurprisingly, this effect is much more pronounced for stronger couplings in the Hamiltonian. Note that in applications of the FT-IMSRG to nuclei, $N$ will be increased with a fixed $A$ to converge the result with respect to the basis size. In contrast, for the P3H model the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit is not well-defined without renormalization.

The behavior of the FT-IMSRG error with respect to changing $A$ and $N$ can be seen clearly in Fig. 8, which plots the relative error versus $\beta$ on a logarithmic scale for various values of $g$, $b$, $A$, and $N$. We see a significant increase in the FT-IMSRG’s accuracy as $A$ is increased, and a smaller decrease in its accuracy as $N$ is increased. The FT-IMSRG typically improves on the FT-HF results, except for a few instances at high temperature/low $\beta$, which likely result from truncation errors. For the pure pairing interaction in the top row, the results are nearly identical as $N$ is increased – this is because the pure pairing interaction couples fewer single-particle states than when the pair-breaking interaction is added [49]. It is also notable in the bottom two rows that as $N$ is increased, the errors appear to converge from below to a fixed value. Since we would expect the error to converge from above as $N$ increases, we suspect that this behavior is caused by the use of the zero-range interaction. We will revisit this result in the future with a renormalized zero-range interaction.

Figure 8: Relative error in internal energy versus inverse temperature on a logarithmic scale for various values of $g$, $b$, $A$, and $N$. The FT-HF results are shown with dotted lines and the FT-IMSRG results are shown with solid lines.

IV.4 Comparing the Canonical and Grand Canonical Ensembles

As mentioned previously, while it is a more accurate description of nuclei at finite temperature, the canonical ensemble is too computationally expensive to use for general realistic applications, but we can compute the canonical occupation numbers for the P3H model. Thus, we can explore the differences between the FT-HF/FT-IMSRG results for references built in the canonical and grand canonical ensembles for different model parameters to gain some insight for future applications.

Figure 9 shows the relative difference between the canonical and grand canonical results for both FT-HF and FT-IMSRG. The differences are very similar in both methods, which is not surprising given that the choice of ensemble primarily affects the values of the occupation numbers prodcued by the FT-HF, which then serve as input for the FT-IMSRG, but remain unchanged during the flow. As a comparison of the center and bottom rows shows, the differences seem to be slightly more pronounced in FT-IMSRG than in FT-HF, which is likely the result of truncation effects.

As expected, there is a noticeable decrease in the difference between the ensembles upon increasing $A$ (see Sec. III and [42]). Changing $N$, however, has a significantly smaller effect on the comparison between the ensembles. This suggests that, as expected, the two ensembles will become equivalent in the thermodynamic limit, where $A$ and $N$ both become very large. For systems with $A\geq 8$, it seems safe to use the grand canonical ensemble, but for systems with fewer particles, this approximation does introduce an error in the 1-10% range.

Figure 9: Relative difference between the canonical ensemble and grand canonical ensemble results versus inverse temperature on a logarithmic scale, using the same parameters as Fig. 8. The FT-HF results are shown with dotted lines and the FT-IMSRG results are shown with solid lines. Increasing $A$ brings the canonical and grand canonical results significantly closer together, while decreasing $N$ only does this slightly.

With all of this discussion, it is worth recalling that FT-IMSRG in the grand canonical ensemble does produce more accurate results than FT-HF in the grand canonical ensemble when compared to exact results. Thus, the FT-IMSRG remains successful as a post-HF method even in this approximation.

IV.5 Entropy and Free Energy

Finally, we calculate entropy and free energy, quantities of much thermodynamic interest, from the FT-HF and FT-IMSRG results. Following the general idea of [48], we compute the entropy via integration. After running the FT-IMSRG for different values of $\beta$, we can express the internal energy as a function $E(\beta)$. This can be inverted to give $\beta$ as a function $\beta(E)$. We then have

$$S(\beta)=\int_{E(\infty)}^{E(\beta)}\beta^{\prime}(E^{\prime})dE^{\prime}.$$ (54)

Since the integrand $\beta(E)$ would be infinite in the zero-temperature limit, but the FT-IMSRG energy is insensitive to variations of $\beta$ in this regime, we use $E(\infty)\approx E(10)$, which gives an excellent (and controllable, if necessary) approximation.

Fig. 10 shows the relative error in entropy for both FT-HF and FT-IMSRG, going back to the $A=4,N=8$ model. Notice that the $E(\infty)\approx E(\beta_{\mathrm{max}})$ scheme necessitates a 100% error in the entropy at $\beta=\beta_{\mathrm{max}}$, which is seen in the figure. Outside of $\beta$ close to 10, the entropy calculations for both FT-HF and FT-IMSRG hover around 5-10% error, except for the case of weak coupling. This is very similar to what was found for Finite-Temperature Coupled Cluster calculations [47].

Figure 10: Relative error in entropy versus inverse temperature for $A=4$ and $N=8$ with various values of $g$ and $b$ on a logarithmic scale. The FT-HF results are shown with dotted lines and the FT-IMSRG results are shown with solid lines. The 100% error at $\beta=10$ is a result of assuming $E(\infty)=E(10)$ in the integration limits of Eq. (54). Entropy results are more accurate for weaker coupling, and the difference between FT-IMSRG and FT-HF in terms of entropy is generally small.

The Helmholtz free energy $F$ can then be calculated via Eq. (22). Fig. 11 shows the relative error in $F$ for both FT-HF and FT-IMSRG (once again with $A=4$ and $N=8$). We find that the FT-IMSRG calculation of $F$ significantly improves upon that of FT-HF, which is expected as this is heavily influenced by the accuracy of the internal energy calculations. Thus it is sensible that the relative error in $F$ resembles the relative error in $E$ (see Fig. 4).

Figure 11: Relative error in Helmholtz free energy versus inverse temperature for $A=4$ and $N=8$ with various values of $g$ and $b$ on a logarithmic scale. The FT-HF results are shown with dotted lines and the FT-IMSRG results are shown with solid lines. Beyond $\beta\approx 2$, the FT-IMSRG results are consistently more accurate than the FT-HF results.

The free energy is of significant importance because of its relationship to the partition function $Z$ itself:

$$\ln Z=-\beta F.$$ (55)

This allows most thermodynamic properties of interest to be computed solely in terms of $F$, $\beta$, and derivatives of $F$. As we have shown that the FT-IMSRG can accurately calculate $F$, it can be used to reliably calculate these ensemble averages.

V Conclusion

In this work, we have extended the IMSRG to finite temperature, and demonstrated that the FT-IMSRG is a useful tool for calculating properties of many-fermion systems at finite temperature. Using the schematic model pairing-plus-particle-hole model that captures essential features of nuclear interactions, we performed a thorough assessment of the properties of FT-HF and FT-IMSRG, setting the stage for realistic applications of the FT-IMSRG to nuclei. We found the best agreement between FT-IMSRG and exact solutions at low temperatures and with weak coupling in the Hamiltonian, but the FT-IMSRG produced highly accurate results for a wide range of parameters and temperatures, improving on FT-HF.

As we looked at models with various different particle numbers $A$ and single-particle basis sizes $N$, we showed that the FT-IMSRG results improve in accuracy with higher $A$. We then demonstrated that the choice between the canonical and grand canonical ensembles in the setup of the FT-HF optimized occupation numbers can have noticeable effects on the FT-IMSRG results, but these effects become significantly lessened as the particle number increases. Finally, we used the FT-HF and FT-IMSRG results to calculate entropy and free energy, showing that the FT-IMSRG produces accurate results.

As our next steps, we will perform FT-IMSRG calculations for atomic nuclei with modern nuclear interaction derived from chiral Effective Field Theory. We will investigate the evolution of nuclear structure features like the neutron driplines with increasing temperature, and compute reaction and decay rates that are relevant for understanding nuclear processes in stellar environments, including nucleosynthesis. In parallel, we will pursue the implementation of finite temperature in other IMSRG variants and IMSRG-based hybrid methods [15, 50, 17, 51, 52].

Appendix A Calculation of Occupation Numbers in the Canonical and Grand Canonical Ensembles

Suppose we have $A$ fermions, each able to occupy one of $N$ single-particle states, with energies $\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2},...,\epsilon_{N}$. By the Pauli exclusion principle, only one fermion may occupy any given state at a time, so the full many-body basis consists of $\binom{N}{A}$ states.

In the canonical ensemble, the number of particles is fixed at $A$, and the inverse temperature $\beta$ is fixed, since the system can exchange energy with its surroundings, which is at an inverse temperature $\beta$. This is the most natural way to describe nucleons bound in a nucleus.

We now wish to find occupation numbers $\{n_{i}\}$ such that the Helmholtz free energy (Eq. (22)) is minimized. Using Boltzmann factors, we have that the probability that the system is in the many-body state where the energy levels $\epsilon_{j_{1}},\epsilon_{j_{2}},...,\epsilon_{j_{A}}$ are occupied is [53]

$$\frac{e^{-(\epsilon_{j_{1}}+\epsilon_{j_{2}}+...+\epsilon_{j_{A}})\beta}}{\sum\limits_{k_{1},k_{2},...,k_{A}}e^{-(\epsilon_{k_{1}}+\epsilon_{k_{2}}+...+\epsilon_{k_{A}})\beta}}=\frac{e^{-(\epsilon_{j_{1}}+\epsilon_{j_{2}}+...+\epsilon_{j_{A}})\beta}}{Z_{A}},$$ (56)

introducing the partition function in the $A$-body system, $Z_{A}$. The occupation number $n_{i}$ is the sum of these probabilities for all many-body states in which the energy level $\epsilon_{i}$ is occupied. In the notation of [53], this can be conveniently written as

$$n_{i}=\frac{Z^{\setminus\{i\}}_{A-1}e^{-\epsilon_{i}\beta}}{Z_{A}},$$ (57)

where $Z^{\setminus\{i\}}_{A-1}$ is the partition function for $A-1$ fermions where the energy level $\epsilon_{i}$ is removed.

While this formula is simple, due to the presence of the partition functions, the computation time for calculating these occupation numbers scales exponentially as $\binom{N}{A}$. Thus, for realistic problems with a large number of single-particle states, evaluating these occupation numbers is not feasible.

In the grand canonical ensemble, particle number is no longer fixed, meaning the system can exchange particles with its surroundings. We then determine occupation numbers that minimize the grand potential

$$\Omega=F-\mu N$$ (58)

where $\mu$ is the chemical potential. Unlike in the canonical ensemble, a convenient formula exists for this: the Fermi-Dirac distribution

$$n_{p}=\frac{1}{1+e^{(\epsilon_{p}-\mu)\beta}}.$$ (59)

The chemical potential is determined to ensure that the expected value of the particle number is $A$, i.e.

$$\sum_{p}n_{p}=A.$$ (60)

In practice, one starts with an ansatz $\mu=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_{A+1}+\epsilon_{A})$, and iteratively updates $\mu$ until convergence is reached.

The benefit of employing the grand canonical ensemble is that it scales computationally as $N$, as opposed to the exponential scaling of the canonical ensemble. The drawback is that the premise – particle number being variable – does not physically represent the system; Eq. (60) only ensures that the expectation value of the particle number is $A$. For large $A$, the fluctuation in particle number behaves as $\sqrt{A}$, which becomes small compared to $A$ itself. However, in few-fermion systems, the two ensembles can have non-negligible differences, as demonstrated by our results.