To advance the foundation of one-particle reduced density matrix functional theory (1RDMFT), we refine and relate some of its fundamental features and underlying concepts. We define by concise means the scope of a 1RDMFT, identify its possible natural variables, and explain how symmetries could be exploited. In particular, for systems with time-reversal symmetry, we explain why there exist six equivalent universal functionals, prove concise relations among them, and conclude that the important notion of v-representability is relative to the scope and choice of variable. All these fundamental concepts are then comprehensively discussed and illustrated for the Hubbard dimer and its generalization to arbitrary pair interactions W. For this, we derive by analytical means the pure and ensemble functionals with respect to both the real- and complex-valued Hilbert space. The comparison of various functionals allows us to solve the underlying v-representability problems analytically, and the dependence of its solution on the pair interaction is demonstrated. Intriguingly, the gradient of each universal functional is found to always diverge repulsively on the boundary of the domain. In that sense, this key finding emphasizes the universal character of the fermionic exchange force, recently discovered and proven in the context of translationally invariant one-band lattice models.
I. INTRODUCTION
The v-representability problem plays a pivotal role in functional theory, especially from a historical point of view: The Hohenberg–Kohn theorem1–3 proves the existence of a universal functional on the set of exactly those densities that correspond to pure ground states. The same holds true for Gilbert’s generalization4 to non-local external potentials v and the corresponding domain of one-particle reduced density matrices (1RDMs). Particularly, the problem of understanding which 1RDMs are v-representable has been perceived as too complex, and the relaxation of the functional’s domain to the set of N-representable 1RDMs was vital for the development of 1RDM-functional theory (1RDMFT).5,6 Yet, the relaxation of the domain first to pure N-representable5 and then to ensemble N-representable 1RDMs6 comes at a cost that has been underestimated so far. As it is illustrated in Fig. 1, reducing the complexity of the functional’s domain, in turn, increases the difficulty of deriving functional approximations. To be more specific, by resorting to Levy’s pure state 1RDMFT, one includes in the constrained search formalism unphysical N-particle quantum states that never occur in nature as ground states. Hence, resorting to our intuition about ground state physics becomes less effective, and fitting approaches need to be extended beyond the solution of ground state problems. Circumventing then according to Valone, the resulting highly intricate pure state N-representability constraints (generalized Pauli constraints)7–9 necessitates the implementation of non-linear positivity conditions on the N-particle ensemble states. In particular, compelling evidence has recently been provided that the complexity of the generalized Pauli constraints is merely shifted from the functional’s domain to the universal functional itself.10 These unpleasant consequences of reducing the domain’s complexity and the recent development of machine learning techniques call for a more thorough assessment of the original 1RDMFT approach by Gilbert with an emphasis on the v-representability problem and its complexity.
Picking one’s poison in 1RDMFT (qualitative consideration): By changing the employed variant of 1RDMFT (Gilbert, Levy, or Valone), the complexity is interchanged to some degree between the functional’s domain and the task of deriving functional approximations (see text for more details).
Picking one’s poison in 1RDMFT (qualitative consideration): By changing the employed variant of 1RDMFT (Gilbert, Levy, or Valone), the complexity is interchanged to some degree between the functional’s domain and the task of deriving functional approximations (see text for more details).
The main goal of this work is to elaborate on the v-representability problem and its relation to other fundamental features and concepts in 1RDMFT. Accordingly, we complement all the recent theoretical investigations of 1RDMFT11–32 and hope that our insights could guide the intense development of novel functionals and their implementations.33–51 To achieve this, as a first key achievement, we introduce the so-called scope of a functional theory. This novel concept will be vital for our general understanding since it identifies a functional variable in a concise way. By focusing then on time-reversal symmetric Hamiltonians, we make a crucial observation with far-reaching consequences: the notion of v-representability is relative and depends, in complete analogy to 1RDMFT, on the scope, the variable, and the optional reductions of the constrained search to pure and real-valued quantum states. By recalling a well-known geometric interpretation of the Legendre–Fenchel transformation, we establish a fruitful connection between the notion of v-representability and the form of the universal functional. This clearly demonstrates that several crucial concepts in 1RDMFT are connected. In order to discuss and illustrate all these fundamental concepts, we then solve by analytical means the Hubbard dimer and its generalization to arbitrary pair-interactions. The former has been widely used in density functional theory (DFT) and 1RDMFT to illustrate conceptual aspects and test functionals for larger lattice systems.10,33,52–66 In particular, we show that 1RDMs that are not v-representable with respect to real-valued Hamiltonians indeed become v-representable if a complex-valued Hilbert space is considered. The comparison of our work to previous ones53,61 also demonstrates that the scope of questions in 1RDMFT that allow for analytical and, thus, fully conclusive answers has been underestimated so far.
This paper is structured as follows: In Sec. II, we refine and relate important conceptual aspects of 1RDMFT and, in particular, provide a comprehensive discussion of v-representability. All these fundamental aspects are then illustrated and discussed for the Hubbard dimer in Sec. III, and its generalization to arbitrary pair-interaction is discussed in Sec. IV.
II. FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS OF 1RDMFT
In this section, we introduce in detail the conceptual aspects of 1RDMFT required for the analytic study of the Hubbard dimer model in Sec. III and its generalization in Sec. IV. On the one hand, this means to recall well-known concepts and, on the other hand, to refine them and to introduce new ones. A prime example for the latter will be the definition of the scope of a functional theory and a rigorous argument that identifies the related natural variables.
A. Pure and ensemble universal functionals
B. Optional reductions: Real vs complex
In this section, we present another key result of our work. First, we recall that time-reversal symmetric systems could be described by real-valued quantum states. We then explain that this symmetry effectively simulates a binary degree of freedom, which, in turn, introduces in pure state 1RDMFT a certain degree of mixedness through the constrained search formalism. As a consequence, the choice of a natural variable is not unique, and the same holds true for the definition of the universal functional.
In our case of N-fermion quantum systems with conventional time-reversal symmetry, we may apply the above reasoning to both the one-particle Hamiltonian h1 (here as an operator on the one-particle Hilbert space ) and to the Hamiltonian and its individual parts acting on the N-fermion Hilbert space . In practice, these two applications can be made compatible, and in particular, the former one implies the latter: For the class of all one-particle Hamiltonians h1 on , we introduce an orthonormal reference basis with respect to which all h1 take the form of real-valued matrices. The basis then induces the orthonormal reference basis of Slater determinants with respect to which the total Hamiltonian H and its parts h ≡ h(h1), W are real-valued. Actually, the latter would also be true for any basis whose elements are real-valued linear combinations of Slater determinants (e.g., spin-configuration states).
Overview of some of our conceptual key results: Optional choices can be made in case of real-valued Hamiltonians (conventional time-reversal symmetry): First, one may follow the paradigm of irreducibility and reduce the functional’s variable from the full complex-valued 1RDM to , and second one may then restrict in addition the constrained search to real-valued N-particle quantum states. The relation among the six possible functionals is explained in Fig. 3.
Overview of some of our conceptual key results: Optional choices can be made in case of real-valued Hamiltonians (conventional time-reversal symmetry): First, one may follow the paradigm of irreducibility and reduce the functional’s variable from the full complex-valued 1RDM to , and second one may then restrict in addition the constrained search to real-valued N-particle quantum states. The relation among the six possible functionals is explained in Fig. 3.
Illustration of the relations between the six universal functionals introduced in the text and listed in Fig. 2. They hold for any system of arbitrary size, which exhibits conventional time-reversal symmetry (see text for more details).
Illustration of the relations between the six universal functionals introduced in the text and listed in Fig. 2. They hold for any system of arbitrary size, which exhibits conventional time-reversal symmetry (see text for more details).
C. General discussion of the -representability problem
1. Variants of -representability problem
As another key result of this work, the application of these general considerations to 1RDMFT for Hamiltonians (3) with a (conventional) time-reversal symmetry leads to four different meaningful notions of pure state v-representability. As it is illustrated in Fig. 4, the chosen scope might be either the complex- or real-valued one-particle Hamiltonians h. In the case of the latter, one may restrict the 1RDM to its real-part γ according to (10) and then optionally consider only real-valued N-fermion states in the constrained search formalism (6). This again demonstrates that the notion of pure state v-representability is a relative concept. Moreover, in analogy to DFT (see, e.g., Refs. 75 and 76), one may even allow for mixed ground states in (14) for degenerate Hamiltonians. In turn, this yields in the same fashion as for pure state v-representability four notions of ensemble state v-representability. In principle, the resulting eight sets could be denoted by , , where the tilde indicates that the set refers to rather than γ. By definition, 1RDMs , and analogously for , are referred to as being real/complex pure/ensemble v-representable. In Secs. III C and IV B, however, we will simplify those symbols to just since it will be always clear from the context to which of the eight sets we are actually referring to.
Our novel and more systematic perspective on 1RDMFT reveals that v-representability is a relative concept: it refers to the scope (set of variables h1) and the choice of the corresponding conjugate variable. For time-reversal invariant systems, this yields in the context of 1RDMFT four variants, , , and , where the latter may involve complex or real-valued N-fermion ground states.
Our novel and more systematic perspective on 1RDMFT reveals that v-representability is a relative concept: it refers to the scope (set of variables h1) and the choice of the corresponding conjugate variable. For time-reversal invariant systems, this yields in the context of 1RDMFT four variants, , , and , where the latter may involve complex or real-valued N-fermion ground states.
2. Relation between -representability and universal functional
We first recall that according to the last line of Eq. (6), the calculation of the ground state energy E(h) through 1RDMFT can be interpreted (up to minus signs) as a Legendre–Fenchel transformation of the universal functional.10 This and all the following comments made in this section are equally valid for all universal functionals shown in Fig. 2, and thus, we introduce the simplified symbol to represent any of them. As it is illustrated in Fig. 5, there is a simple geometric interpretation of the Legendre–Fenchel transformation and the calculation of E(h), respectively:10 The underlying minimization means nothing else than shifting the hyperplane defined by Tr1[h1γ] = const upward until it touches the graph of the functional . The corresponding intercept with the vertical axis coincides (up to a minus sign) with the ground state energy E(h), and the horizontal coordinate of the touch point is the corresponding ground state 1RDM. In case the graph of is not convex or contains flat parts, there are corresponding h1 leading to more than one touch point. This, in turn, means that the corresponding Hamiltonian H(h) has a degenerate ground state space and, thus, can lead according to the sequence (14) to more than one ground state 1RDM. For instance, in the exemplary case of , the ground state 1RDM is unique, whereas for , the hyperplane touches at two distinct points indicated by the black dots. In particular, all 1RDMs between the two red dashed lines are not pure state v-representable since they cannot be obtained as touch points with the graph of for any choice of the one-particle Hamiltonian. Accordingly, the notion of pure state v-representability is strongly linked to the form and more specifically the non-convexity of the pure functional : A 1RDM γ is pure state v-representable if and only if the pure functional and its lower convex envelop (the corresponding ensemble functional) coincide at that point γ, i.e., . In particular, this also means that the existence of not pure state v-representable sets of 1RDMs is tightly bound to the presence of ground state degeneracies.10
Schematic illustration of the energy minimization and pure state v-representability for the pure universal functional , which is defined on the set (red and blue). The red area between the two red dashed lines depicts the set of non-pure state v-representable 1RDMs (see text for more details).
Schematic illustration of the energy minimization and pure state v-representability for the pure universal functional , which is defined on the set (red and blue). The red area between the two red dashed lines depicts the set of non-pure state v-representable 1RDMs (see text for more details).
The same reasoning actually applies also in the context of ensemble 1RDMFT, yet with one crucial difference. Since the ensemble functional is convex, any 1RDM in the interior of the domain is ensemble state v-representable. This is in striking contrast to 1RDMs on the boundary of . For instance, for arbitrary translationally invariant one-band lattice models,18 the so-called fermionic exchange force (or Bose–Einstein condensation force for bosons25,77,78) repels the 1RDM from the boundary (and in pure 1RDMFT). Hence, 1RDMs on the boundary of the functional’s domain are not pure/ensemble state v-representable, except for the non-generic case of a vanishing prefactor of the exchange force. Although there is little doubt that these implications are valid also for non-translationally invariant models—compelling evidence follows from the work in Refs. 79–81—no rigorous proof has been found so far. It will therefore be one of the crucial contributions of our work to confirm the existence of the fermionic exchange force for the class of all generalized Hubbard dimer models.
III. HUBBARD DIMER WITH ON-SITE INTERACTION—SINGLET SUBSPACE
In the following, we provide an analytical discussion of the six universal functionals introduced in Sec. II B for the Hubbard dimer with on-site interaction. In particular, to complement the results obtained in Ref. 61, we derive analytically the functional , namely, by exploiting geometric aspects of the set of density matrices. Finally, we discuss the relations among the functionals and relate our findings to the concept of v-representability, as it has been outlined in Sec. III C.
A. Recap of the derivation of
To keep our paper self-contained, we recap in this section the derivation of the universal functional for real-valued wave function as it was already derived, e.g., in Refs. 56 and 61. Furthermore, similar concepts will be required in Sec. III B to derive the universal functional for complex-valued wave functions by analytical means.
Illustration of the set of pure and ensemble N-representable real-valued 1RDMs γ = (γ11, γ12) and their polar coordinates R and φ.
Illustration of the set of pure and ensemble N-representable real-valued 1RDMs γ = (γ11, γ12) and their polar coordinates R and φ.
The universal functional (left) and (right) for the Hubbard dimer with U = 1.
B. Analytic derivation of universal functionals for complex-valued wave functions
The key result (28) already resembles an important conclusion of our work: Whenever one adds “unnecessary” degrees of freedom to in the constrained search formalism of Levy, one simulates effectively a certain degree of mixedness. Indeed, since the interaction W does not depend on the extra degrees of freedom, one can trace them out again and obtain a mixed state on due to the possible entanglement between the extra degrees of freedom and those of . In case of a sufficiently small-dimensional N-fermion Hilbert space (as in the case of the Hubbard dimer), this even yields the entire set of density operators and accordingly Valone’s constrained search formalism. We also would like to stress that the derivation of Eq. (28) does not require any knowledge of the interaction under consideration and is merely based on the dimensionality of the singlet subspace and the geometry of the set of density operators. In particular, this means that the proof of Eq. (28) is equally valid for the generalized Hubbard dimer in Sec. IV.
We present the relations among various functionals derived in this section in Fig. 8.
Illustrations of various relations between the six universal functionals for the Hubbard dimer and its generalizations (see text for more details).
Illustrations of various relations between the six universal functionals for the Hubbard dimer and its generalizations (see text for more details).
C. Discussion of v-representability
Equipped with the six universal functionals derived in Sec. III B, we now turn toward the v-representability problem and apply the general concepts introduced in Sec. II C to the asymmetric Hubbard dimer defined in Eq. (15). For this, we first recall the distinction between pure state and ensemble state v-representability from Sec. II C.
Illustration of the non-v-representable subregions (green) of the set (gray and green) for the two universal functionals (left) and (right).
Illustration of the non-v-representable subregions (green) of the set (gray and green) for the two universal functionals (left) and (right).
For both and , all points on the boundary of , except the two points (γ11, γ12) = (0, 0), (1, 0), are neither real nor complex pure state v-representable, as a direct result of the fermionic exchange force.18 Since we are going to calculate this force for the asymmetric Hubbard dimer with generic interactions in Sec. IV C containing (15) as a special case, we skip its derivation here.
To discuss the last of the three pure functionals, we observe that is not convex. This implies directly according to Sec. II C 2 that some of the complex pure state N-representable 1RDMs are not complex pure state v-representable. To clarify this aspect, let us now consider a 1RDM γ, which is not real pure state v-representable but complex pure state v-representable. Then, it follows that the 1RDM obtained from the minimization in Eq. (11) has a non-zero imaginary part.
Since the three ensemble functionals , and are convex, all 1RDMs in the interior of the respective functional’s domain are ensemble v-representable as anticipated in Sec. II C 2. In analogy to and , the 1RDMs at the boundary of the functional’s domain are not ensemble v-representable [except for (γ11, γ12) = (0, 0), (1, 0)] due to the fermionic exchange force. As explained in Sec. II C, the 1RDMs that are not pure but ensemble state v-representable correspond to degenerate ground states.
IV. GENERALIZED HUBBARD DIMER-SINGLET SUBSPACE
Exact closed expressions for universal 1RDM-functionals of model systems, such as the ordinary Hubbard dimer, are quite rare but then frequently used to illustrate conceptual aspects of 1RDMFT.10,33,53–56,61 It is therefore one of the main achievements of this paper to derive analytically some of the universal functionals (in particular, ) for the Hubbard dimer with generalized pair-interactions W. This will also allow to confirm conclusively that the subsets of non-v-representable 1RDMs strongly depend on the interaction W between the particles as it has been proposed in Ref. 53 based on numerical investigations.
A. Derivation of
Illustration of the universal functional and next to it the corresponding pure state v-representable 1RDMs (gray) as well as two two-dimensional slices of for different values of U, V (X = 0). The 1RDMs that are not pure state v-representable are marked in green. The dashed lines in the second column depict the values of γ12 and γ11 that were fixed in the respective plots in the third and fourth column.
Functional . | Domain of . | along ![]() | along ![]() |
---|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Functional . | Domain of . | along ![]() | along ![]() |
---|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
B. v-representability in the generalized Hubbard dimer
In this section, we solve the pure state v-representability problem for the generalized Hubbard dimer. According to Table I, the functional is not convex for most pairs of U and V. To further illustrate the pure state v-representability, we present next to each functional a plot of its domain indicating the 1RDMs γ, which are not pure state v-representable in green. The pure state v-representable 1RDMs are shown in gray. As shown by numerical means in Ref. 53, the non-v-representable regions depend on the interaction W and, thus, change as a function of the free parameters U, V. Recall that we set X = 0 in Table I since this will not affect any results or insights. In particular, a non-vanishing X does not modify the leading order of the exchange force discussed in Sec. IV C since the respective term in is linear in R. The two-dimensional slices of in Table I were obtained from by fixing γ11 = 0.5 in the third column and γ12 = 0.1 in the fourth column (counting from the left hand side). Despite the similarity to the schematic illustration in Fig. 5, it is, in general, not possible to infer v-representability of a 1RDM γ from a lower-dimensional slice of the functional. This manifests itself in the fact that v-representability is indeed a global property of the universal functional.
C. Exchange force
Intriguingly, the prefactor of the divergence for R → 0 contains crucial information about the microscopic details and, thus, provides insights into the system-specific properties: By considering different angles φ, one could apparently extract the values of the two coupling parameters U, V. It will be one of the promising future challenges to understand how this key finding generalized to larger systems, with an emphasis on the Coulomb interaction.
Finally, it is worth noticing that the prefactor in front of the divergence in (39) can only vanish for some boundary points if one of the ellipses describing the subsets of non-pure state v-representable 1RDMs touches it. Thus, those touch points are indeed pure state v-representable in the sense that they can be obtained as ground state 1RDMs of an, in this case degenerate, Hamiltonian H(h) = h + W. The same holds true in the context of ensemble v-representability.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Our work has advanced the foundation of one-particle reduced density matrix functional theory (1RDMFT) by refining, relating, and illustrating some of its fundamental features and underlying concepts.
In the first part, we have formalized the scope of a functional theory by identifying it with an affine space of Hamiltonians H(h) = h + W of interest. Addressing the ground state problem exclusively for that class of systems—as it is indeed done in each scientific subfield—leads immediately in virtue of the Rayleigh–Ritz variational principle to a universal functional. This more general perspective on functional theory has the advantage that the functional variable can be identified in a concise manner through the Riesz representation theorem. It is given by the unique Riesz vector, i.e., the simplest possible reduced state that still allows one to calculate the expectation value of any h. In particular, this reasoning also explains how the functional variable could be simplified if the one-particle Hamiltonian h exhibits further symmetries or, more generally, is restricted to a subspace. Due to its practical relevance, we applied these fundamental considerations to Hamiltonians with (conventional) time-reversal symmetry. This means nothing else than that the scope of the 1RDMFT is restricted to real-valued matrices h. Following our proposed paradigm of irreducibility based on Riesz’ representation theorem, this offers the opportunity to restrict the functional variable from the complex-valued 1RDM to its real part . In that case, one could even further reduce 1RDMFT by restricting the constrained search formalism to real-valued N-particle quantum states. These options and the choice between Levy/pure and Valone/ensemble 1RDMFT yields in total six equivalent universal functionals, which are all listed and characterized in Fig. 2. Most importantly, all these functionals are related to each other in concise mathematical terms according to Fig. 3.
In complete analogy to the functional theory, also the notion of v-representability is a relative concept. As it is illustrated in Fig. 4, it refers as well to the underlying scope, variable, and the choice between pure/ensemble and real/complex N-particle quantum states. Finally, in Sec. II C, we exploited the geometric interpretation of the Legendre–Fenchel transformation to relate the notion of v-representability to the form of the corresponding universal functional. To be more specific, the comparison of a universal pure and ensemble functional identifies the non-pure state v-representable 1RDMs in the interior of the domain, while generic points on the boundary are expected to be never v-representable due to the fermionic exchange force.
Due to the rigorous and more universal character of our approach, various definitions, insights, and findings could, in principle, also be translated into the context of density functional theory (DFT). When restricting the affine space of one-particle Hamiltonians to ht(v) ≡ t + v with fixed kinetic energy operator t and variable external potential v, our approach identifies immediately the particle density as the natural variable and, thus, establishes DFT. It is worth noting, however, that one of the conceptual facets of our work on 1RDMFT does not appear in DFT: Since the particle density is always real-valued by definition, the natural variable is unambiguous and the choice of referring to complex or real numbers would therefore affect only the functional but not its variable. In that sense, such considerations could complement related studies in DFT on v-representability and, in particular, the potential-density mapping.76,86,87
In the second part of our work, we then discussed and illustrated all these conceptual aspects for the ordinary Hubbard dimer model and a generalization thereof. In particular, the latter allowed us to systematically explore and confirm the striking dependence of various fundamental features on the pair-interaction W. For this, we first derived by analytical means closed formulas for all six universal functionals for the Hubbard dimer (cf. Fig. 2) and revealed concise relations among them (cf. Fig. 8). In particular, we proved the equivalence of the two functionals and (see Sec. III B), a relation that was conjectured by numerical means in Ref. 61. Since our proof is merely based on the geometry of quantum states and does not refer to any specific interaction, it is equally valid for the generalized Hubbard dimer in Sec. IV. This result leads to an important insight: adding “unnecessary” degrees of freedom in the constrained search formalism with pure states simulates a certain degree of mixedness. Indeed, since the interaction W is assumed to not depend on the extra degrees of freedom, one can trace them out, which, in turn, leads to a mixed state. Moreover, according to Sec. II C, the comparison of all six functionals then allowed us to solve each variant of the v-representability problem. For instance, since was found to be convex, all γ are complex-pure state v-representable, while the same is not true for the full complex-valued 1RDM .
For the generalized dimer, we could derive closed formulas for the four universal functionals that depend on the reduced variable , in particular, . All six universal functionals obey the same relations as for the ordinary dimer (cf. Fig. 8). The corresponding v-representability problems could therefore be solved again in a straightforward manner, and we confirmed conclusively by analytical means the strong influence of the pair interaction W on their solution. Intriguingly, the sets of non-pure state v-representable 1RDMs were found to rotate and change in size.
Finally, the closed formulas of the universal functionals allowed us to conclusively confirm the existence of the fermionic exchange force also for systems without translational symmetry. In particular, the prefactor of its universal diverging behavior at the boundary of the domain depends on W. This crucial observation, also in combination with our other findings on the v-representability problem, raises the following far-reaching questions in the context of larger quantum systems: (i) Which information about the system (W) does the diverging fermionic exchange force provide and would it be possible to experimentally access it? (ii) How does the position, shape, and topological structure of the set of non-v-representable 1RDMs reflect crucial features of the quantum system?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank E. K. U. Gross for inspiring discussions, C. L. Benavides-Riveros for helpful comments on the manuscript, and D. P. Kooi for bringing Ref. 66 to our attention. We acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. SCHI 1476/1-1) (A.Y.C., J.L., and C.S.), the Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (C.S.), and the International Max Planck Research School for Quantum Science and Technology (IMPRS-QST) (J.L.). The project/research is also part of the Munich Quantum Valley, which is supported by the Bavarian state government with funds from the Hightech Agenda Bayern Plus.
AUTHOR DECLARATIONS
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
Author Contributions
Julia Liebert: Formal analysis (lead); Investigation (lead); Validation (lead); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Adam Yanis Chaou: Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (supporting); Methodology (supporting); Validation (supporting). Christian Schilling: Formal analysis (supporting); Funding acquisition (lead); Investigation (supporting); Project administration (lead); Supervision (lead); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (lead).
DATA AVAILABILITY
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
APPENDIX A: PROOF OF FOR ON-SITE INTERACTION
APPENDIX B: DERIVATION OF FOR GENERIC INTERACTIONS
APPENDIX C: NON--REPRESENTABLE 1RDMs FOR THE GENERALIZED HUBBARD DIMER
REFERENCES
Although most applications of 1RDMFT in quantum chemistry so far restrict to time-reversal symmetric Hamiltonians, there are quite a few relevant systems that break that symmetry. The latter include the systems with external magnetic fields and velocity dependent forces, in general,88 and chiral cavities.89
Although we will distinguish in the following carefully between different variants of 1RDMFT according to Sec. II B, we will safely continue using the non-specific symbols . It will, namely, be clear from the context to which variant they refer to.