--- abstract: | We formulate and implement Cyclic Density Functional Theory (Cyclic DFT) — a self-consistent first principles simulation method for nanostructures with cyclic symmetries. Using arguments based on Group Representation Theory, we rigorously demonstrate that the Kohn-Sham eigenvalue problem for such systems can be reduced to a fundamental domain (or cyclic unit cell) augmented with cyclic-Bloch boundary conditions. Analogously, the equations of electrostatics appearing in Kohn-Sham theory can be reduced to the fundamental domain augmented with cyclic boundary conditions. By making use of this symmetry cell reduction, we show that the electronic ground-state energy and the Hellmann-Feynman forces on the atoms can be calculated using quantities defined over the fundamental domain. We develop a symmetry-adapted finite-difference discretization scheme to obtain a fully functional numerical realization of the proposed approach. We verify that our formulation and implementation of Cyclic DFT is both accurate and efficient through selected examples. The connection of cyclic symmetries with uniform bending deformations provides an elegant route to the ab-initio study of bending in nanostructures using Cyclic DFT. As a demonstration of this capability, we simulate the uniform bending of a silicene nanoribbon and obtain its energy-curvature relationship from first principles. A self-consistent ab-initio simulation of this nature is unprecedented and well outside the scope of any other systematic first principles method in existence. Our simulations reveal that the bending stiffness of the silicene nanoribbon is intermediate between that of graphene and molybdenum disulphide — a trend which can be ascribed to the variation in effective thickness of these materials. We describe several future avenues and applications of Cyclic DFT, including its extension to the study of non-uniform bending deformations and its possible use in the study of the nanoscale flexoelectric effect. address: - 'Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A' - 'College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A' author: - 'Amartya S. Banerjee' - Phanish Suryanarayana title: 'Cyclic Density Functional Theory : A route to the first principles simulation of bending in nanostructures' --- Kohn-Sham Density Functional Theory, Cyclic symmetry group, Finite-differences, Bending deformations, Objective structures Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ In recent decades, quantum mechanical calculations using Kohn-Sham Density Functional Theory (Kohn-Sham DFT) [@HK_DFT; @KohnSham_DFT] have become the de facto workhorse of computational materials science. The pseudopotential plane-wave method (*Plane-wave DFT*) — perhaps the most widely used implementation of the Kohn-Sham theory — is currently available in a number of mature software packages [@Kresse_abinitio_iterative; @CASTEP_1; @Quantum_Espresso_1; @Gonze_ABINIT_1]. The Plane-wave DFT approach involves expanding the unknowns (e.g., the Kohn-Sham orbitals and the electron density) into a linear combination of plane-waves[^1], and subsequently carrying out various computations through the use of Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs) to seamlessly switch between quantities expressed on real space grids and their plane-wave expansion coefficients. Due to the periodic nature of plane-waves, Plane-wave DFT is well suited for the study of systems with translational symmetry. However, the study of structures which are non-periodic may require the use of large computational supercells [@Martin_ES], thereby rendering the method inefficient for such problems.[^2] A vast number of materials systems of interest today are non-periodic, but are associated with other physical symmetry groups. This includes for example, nanoclusters and molecules associated with point group symmetries, and helical nanostructures associated with screw transformation symmetries. The importance of such nanostructures associated with alternative (non-periodic) symmetries cannot be overstated. For instance, they are anticipated to exhibit unprecedented materials properties — particularly, collective properties such as ferromagnetism and ferroelectricity — in manners that are otherwise unavailable in the bulk phase [@James_OS]. Consequently, a substantial body of work has been devoted in recent years to the theoretical framework and mathematical classification of such structures[^3] [@James_OS; @DEJ_ObjForm]. Further, judicious use of the symmetries associated with these structures has been made in designing novel computational methods – both at the level of atomistic simulations [@Dumitrica_James_OMD; @dayal2010nonequilibrium; @aghaei2012symmetry] as well as electronic structure calculations [@My_PhD_Thesis; @banerjee2015spectral]. While the study of electronic properties of nanostructures associated with various non-periodic physical symmetries is of much scientific and technological interest in itself, an additional outcome of having access to computational methods specifically designed to exploit the underlying physical symmetries is that these methods allow one to study the associated deformation modes. In the setting of conventional Plane-wave DFT for example, the application of a homogeneous deformation to a periodic system still results in a structure with translational symmetry, and therefore the deformed system can be easily accommodated through a unit cell that has also been deformed in the same manner. On the other hand, it is far more difficult to account for non-homogeneous deformations such as bending and torsion in the periodic setting, whereby their study [@wei2012bending; @naumov2011gap] is likely to involve various complications, inaccuracies and inefficiencies. To the best of our knowledge, as far as atomistic systems are concerned, the connections between various physical symmetry groups and specific non-homogeneous deformation modes appears first in [@James_OS]. This idea has been subsequently exploited for simulating the effects of bending deformations by means of cyclic symmetry groups [@Dumitrica_James_OMD; @Dumitrica_Bending_Graphene; @ma2015thermal; @Pekka_Efficient_Approach; @Pekka_CNT_Bending; @Pekka_GNR_Bending; @Pekka_Revised_Periodic], and torsional deformations by means of helical symmetry groups [@Dumitrica_James_OMD; @zhang2008stability; @zhang2009electromechanical; @Pekka_Efficient_Approach; @kit2012twisting; @Pekka_Twisted_GNR; @Pekka_Revised_Periodic]. A pervasive issue with these aforementioned works however, is that the simulations in question have been carried out within the framework of interatomic potentials or tight binding methods (classical semi-empirical or Density Functional Tight Binding (DFTB)). The failure of these more approximate models in simulating various physical systems is well known [@ismail2000ab; @hauch1999dynamic; @cocco2010gap; @koskinen2009density; @naumov2011gap] and it has been understood for some time that access to a systematic self-consistent first principles simulation methodology would be highly desirable [@Pekka_Revised_Periodic; @James_OS; @My_PhD_Thesis]. However, such a computational methodology appears to have been out of reach prior to this work.[^4] In view of the above discussion, we formulate and implement Cyclic Density Functional Theory (Cyclic DFT) — a self-consistent first principles simulation method for cyclic nanostructures.[^5] Cyclic symmetries are ubiquitous in various clusters and molecular systems [@wiki_cyclic_compound; @hargittai2009symmetry; @willock2009; @go1973ring] (see Fig. \[fig:cyclic\_structures\] for some examples), and therefore the present methodology can be used to study a large variety of nanostructures from first principles in a systematic and efficient manner. Notably, even general point group symmetries associated with complex nanosystems usually contain cyclic groups as proper subgroups [@altmann1994point], which extends the scope of the various materials systems that can be studied with Cyclic DFT.[^6] Furthermore, due to the connections between cyclic symmetries with bending deformations in nanostructures (i.e., the idea that cyclic boundary conditions locally simulate the behavior of a system subjected to uniform bending), Cyclic DFT makes it possible to carry out systematic ab-initio simulations of nanostructures subjected to bending deformations. In particular, this opens up the possibility that electro-mechanical or other multi-physics coupling effects in nanostructures can be faithfully simulated from first principles by means of this novel framework. Broadly, the present contribution can be viewed as a particular flavor of so called Objective DFT [@My_MS_Thesis; @My_PhD_Thesis], i.e., a self-consistent first principles method for an atomistic or molecular system with a non-periodic symmetry (i.e., an *Objective Structure*). While Objective DFT is far more general and even allows systems associated with non-Abelian or non-compact symmetry groups to be simulated, it reduces to a particularly simple and efficient form for the case of cyclic structures, as we show in this work. Furthermore, the aforementioned connection of cyclic symmetries with the efficient simulation of bending deformations in nanostructures provides a compelling case as to why a thorough description of the theoretical and practical aspects of Cyclic DFT is warranted. Finally, Cyclic DFT can easily be extended to study systems of infinite extent (e.g., nanotubes, bending of nanosheets), which is beyond the scope of the spectral scheme originally presented in Objective DFT. This provides the motivation for the current work. ![Examples of cyclic structures from nanotechnology and chemistry.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_structures"></span>](./si_nano_dot.eps){width="50.00000%"} <span>.48</span> ![Examples of cyclic structures from nanotechnology and chemistry.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_structures"></span>](./C5.eps "fig:"){width="90.00000%"} $\quad$ <span>.48</span> ![Examples of cyclic structures from nanotechnology and chemistry.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_structures"></span>](./C6.eps "fig:"){width="90.00000%"} One of the key theoretical steps involved in the formulation of Cyclic DFT is the symmetry cell reduction of the Kohn-Sham equations posed on the entire cyclic structure to the fundamental domain (or cyclic unit cell) associated with the cyclic symmetry group. In order to accomplish this task, we use tools from Group Representation Theory to rigorously formulate and prove a Bloch theorem for cyclic structures (Theorem \[thm:Bloch\_Theorem\]). In addition, we perform a symmetry cell reduction of the electrostatics problem, the system's electronic ground-state free energy, and the Hellmann-Feynman forces on the atoms. Consequently, on every iteration in the Self-Consistent Field (SCF) method [@slater1974self], the reduction due to symmetry is expected to result in computational savings that varies in direct proportion to the cyclic group order of the system under study.[^7] An additional outcome of the Bloch theorem for cyclic structures is that it allows the Kohn-Sham eigenvalues associated with the cyclic structure to be presented in a manner similar to that of traditional band diagrams for periodic structures. As a result, the onset of instabilities and transitions in such systems can be more easily detected. We develop a symmetry-adapted finite-difference method to discretize the equations of Cyclic DFT resulting from the symmetry cell reduction. In addition to the systematic convergence properties and relative simplicity of this discretization strategy, it allows bending in nanostructures to be simulated more efficiently by allowing us to place finite-difference nodes only in regions of interest. Subsequently, we develop a completely functional numerical realization of the method using state of the art algorithms. Numerical experiments and comparison with benchmark calculations allow us to establish the accuracy and efficiency of our Cyclic DFT implementation. Further, these experiments reveal that the symmetry cell reduction not only results in the expected computational speed-up on every SCF step, but it also allows overall faster convergence of the SCF fixed-point iteration. As a consequence of these computational savings, highly accurate first principles simulations of cyclic systems containing many hundreds of atoms can be done quite routinely using even a serial implementation of Cyclic DFT. Finally, as a demonstration of how Cyclic DFT enables the study of materials properties from first principles, we simulate uniform bending deformations in a silicene nanoribbon and obtain its energy-curvature relationship. In particular, our simulations allow us to obtain the bending stiffness of this material in the linear Euler–Bernoulli regime and to compare our results with the bending stiffness of other two-dimensional materials that have been studied in the literature. The usage of first principles approaches in the mechanics of materials brings with it the hope that these techniques will enable engineers to understand the true atomistic dependence of constitutive laws. Our application of Cyclic DFT to directly evaluate the bending stiffness can be broadly viewed in this light and it motivates us to carry out more sophisticated simulations of this nature on other important nanomaterials systems in the near future.[^8] The rest of the paper is organized as follows.[^9] In Section \[Sec:Formulation\], we present the mathematical underpinnings and symmetry-adapted finite-difference discretization scheme that constitute Cyclic DFT. In Section \[Sec:Results\], we verify the accuracy and efficiency of Cyclic DFT, and then use it to study the uniform bending of a silicene nanoribbon. Finally, we provide concluding remarks in Section \[Conclusions\]. Formulation {#Sec:Formulation} =========== In this section, we describe the key aspects of Cyclic DFT. We begin by a formal discussion of cyclic groups and cyclic structures in Section \[Subsec:CyclicGroups\], and then discuss the Kohn-Sham theory for such structures in Section \[Subsec:KohnShamProblem\]. Next, we show how cyclic symmetry leads to an appropriate symmetry cell reduction of the Kohn-Sham problem in Section \[Subsec:CyclicBlochTheorem\], and pose the resulting equations on the fundamental domain in Section \[Subsec:CyclicDFTEq\]. Finally, we formulate a symmetry-adapted finite-difference discretization scheme for solving the cell problem in Section \[Subsec:FD\]. Cyclic groups and cyclic structures {#Subsec:CyclicGroups} ----------------------------------- Let $\calG$ denote a cyclic group of order $\mathfrak{N}$ generated by the single element $g$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \label{abstract_cyclic_group} \displaystyle\calG=\{g^0, g^1,g^2,\ldots,g^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Identifying $g^{\mathfrak{N}} = g^0 = e$ as the group identity element, we see that the inverse element of $g^{\gamma}\in \calG$ is the element $g^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma} \in \calG$. A physical realization of this abstract group[^10] can be obtained by considering a discrete group of rotations about a common axis. Let $(\bfe_1,\bfe_2,\bfe_3)$ represent the standard basis of $\rz^3$. Here, we form a faithful linear representation of $\calG$ on $\rz^3$ by using the following rotation matrices about $\bfe_3$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{rotation_cyclic_group} \displaystyle\{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}:\gamma=0,\ldots,\mathfrak{N}-1\} \quad\text{with}\quad \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}=\begin{pmatrix} \cos\frac{2\pi\gamma}{\mathfrak{N}} & -\sin\frac{2\pi\gamma}{\mathfrak{N}} & 0\\ \sin\frac{2\pi\gamma}{\mathfrak{N}} & \;\cos\frac{2\pi\gamma}{\mathfrak{N}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$ With this representation, the multiplication operation of the group simply becomes multiplication of the matrices $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}$. Henceforth, we will identify a cyclic group of order $\mathfrak{N}$ by the collection of matrices shown in Eq. \[rotation\_cyclic\_group\]; we will use $\Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$ to denote the collection of integers $\{0,1,\ldots,\mathfrak{N}-1\}$; and for any matrix $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \in \calG$ and set $S \subset \rz^3$, we will use $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}(S)$ to denote the set $\{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx : \bfx \in S \}$. Let $\calC \subseteq \rz^3$ be an open set with a regular boundary which is invariant under the action of the group $\calG$, i.e., for every $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned} \label{domain_invariance} \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}(\calC) = \calC\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the *symmetry cell* or *fundamental domain* or *cyclic unit cell* of $\calG$ in $\calC$ is a set $\calD_{\calG} \subset \calC$ such that: $$\begin{aligned} \bigcup_{\gamma}\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}(\calD_{\calG}) &= \calC\,, \label{fundamental_domain_1}\end{aligned}$$ and for every $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$ $$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}(\calD_{\calG}) \bigcap \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2}(\calD_{\calG}) &= \textrm{a set of Lebesgue measure }0, \textrm{ for } \gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2\,. \label{fundamental_domain_2}\end{aligned}$$ We will denote the boundary surfaces common to the original domain and the fundamental domain by $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{0} = \partial\calD_{\calG} \cap \partial\calC$, and those that are unique to the fundamental domain by $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{C} = \partial\calD_{\calG} \setminus \partial\calD_{\calG}^{0} $. For example, if $\calC$ is a finite cylinder with axis $\bfe_3$, the fundamental domain $\calD_{\calG}$ will be a sector of the cylinder with angle $2\pi / \mathfrak{N}$. Consider a finite collection[^11] of distinct points[^12] $\calP \subset \calD_{\calG}$, which we will denote by $\big\{ \bfx_{0,k} \big\}_{k=1}^{M_{\calP}}$. These points are representative of atomic positions within the fundamental domain and will be referred to as the *simulated points* or *simulated atoms*. A *cyclic structure*[^13] $\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}$ is the group orbit of a given cyclic group $\calG$ acting on the simulated atoms in $\calP$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{cyclic_structure} \displaystyle\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}=\bigcup_{\gamma}\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}(\calP)= \bigcup_{\gamma , k}\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We will represent a general atom of such a structure using the notation $\bfx_{\gamma,k} = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$. Further, we will denote the nuclear charge[^14] of the atom at position $\bfx_{0,k} \in \calP$ by $Z_k$. It follows from the cyclic symmetry of the structure that the atom at the position $\bfx_{\gamma,k} = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k}$ (for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$) also has nuclear charge $Z_k$. Kohn-Sham problem for cyclic structures {#Subsec:KohnShamProblem} --------------------------------------- A detailed formulation of the Kohn-Sham problem [@KohnSham_DFT] as it applies to the computation of the electronic and structural properties of a finite collection of atoms can be found in numerous references (e.g., see [@banerjee2015spectral; @Gavini_Kohn_Sham; @Phanish_SPARC_1]). In the present work, we are interested specifically in the first principles simulations of cyclic structures $\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}$, as have been defined in the previous subsection. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the system as a whole is charge neutral, i.e., there are a total of $\mathfrak{N}N_e$ electrons, where $N_{\text{e}} = - \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{M_\calP}Z_k$ represents the number of electrons in the fundamental domain.[^15] Consequently, we pose the Kohn-Sham equations in terms of $\mathfrak{N} N_{\text{s}}$ orbitals with $N_{\text{s}} > N_{\text{e}} / 2$ and $N_{\text{s}} \approx N_{\text{e}} / 2$.[^16] Additionally, we employ the local density approximation (LDA) [@KohnSham_DFT], thermalization via the Fermi-Dirac smearing [@Mermin_Finite_Temp], the local pseudopotential approximation [@Kohanoff], and the local reformulation of the electrostatics [@suryanarayana2014augmented; @Phanish_SPARC_1]. In the aforementioned setting, the Kohn-Sham equations in $\calC$ can be written as:[^17] \[Eqns:KS\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{KS_equations} K(\rho)\,\phi_i&=\lambda_i\,\phi_i\,,\;\innprod{\phi_i}{\phi_j}{\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)}=\delta_{ij}\;,\\ \label{KS_explain1} \text{where}\quad K(\rho)&=-\half \Delta + V_{\text{es}}(\rho, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) + V_{\text{xc}}(\rho)\;,\\ \label{KS_explain2} \text{with} \quad \rho(\bfx)&=2 \sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{N} N_{\text{s}}} f_i\abs{\phi_i(\bfx)}^2\,,\\ \label{poisson_problem} \text{and} \quad -\frac{1}{4\pi}\Delta V_{\text{es}} &= b + \rho\,. \\ \label{KS_explain3} \text{Here,} \quad f_i &= \left( 1 + \exp\left( \frac{\lambda_i - \lambda_f}{\sigma} \right) \right)^{-1}, \\ \label{KS_explain4} \text{with $\lambda_f$ s.t.} \quad &2\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{N} N_{\text{s}}} f_i = \mathfrak{N} N_{\text{e}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding boundary conditions are: \[Eqns:KS:BC\] $$\begin{aligned} \text{for} \,\,\, \bfx \in \partial\calC \,, \quad \phi_i(\bfx) &= 0 \,, \\ \rho(\bfx) &= 0 \,, \\ \text{and} \quad V_{\text{es}}(\rho(\bfx),\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{\rho(\bfy) + b(\bfy, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})}{\abs{\bfx-\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} \,. \label{Eqn:KS:BC:Ves} \end{aligned}$$ Above, $\rho$ is the electron density; $K(\rho)$ is the Kohn-Sham operator with eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ and eigenfunctions $\phi_i \in \mathsf{H}^1(\calC)$, commonly referred to as the Kohn-Sham orbitals; $V_{\text{es}}$ is the electrostatic potential [@Pask2005; @Gavini_Kohn_Sham; @suryanarayana2014augmented], written as the solution to the Poisson problem in Eqs. \[poisson\_problem\] and \[Eqn:KS:BC:Ves\]; $V_{\text{xc}}$ is the exchange-correlation potential; $\mathfrak{N} N_{\text{s}}$ is the total number of states[^18]; $0 \leq f_i \leq 1$ are the thermalized orbital occupations arising from the Fermi-Dirac smearing (Eq. \[KS\_explain3\]) with parameter $\sigma$; $\lambda_f$ is the Fermi level of the system, determined by the solution of Eq. \[KS\_explain4\] [^19]; and $b(\bfy, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) = \displaystyle \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} b_k(\bfy, \bfx_{\gamma,k})$ is the total nuclear pseudocharge density, with $b_k$ being the pseudocharge of the $k^{th}$ nucleus.[^20] Due to the finite extent of the system under study and its overall charge neutrality, zero-Dirichlet boundary conditions are prescribed on the Kohn-Sham orbitals $\phi_i$ [@wavefunc_decay1; @wavefunc_decay2; @banerjee2015spectral; @Gavini_Kohn_Sham]. It therefore follows from Eq. \[KS\_explain2\] that the electron density $\rho$ also obeys this boundary condition. The Dirichlet boundary conditions prescribed on $V_{\text{es}}$ are obtained by expressing the solution of Eq. \[poisson\_problem\] in terms of the Green's function of the Laplacian [@Phanish_SPARC_1].[^21] The self-consistent solution of the Kohn-Sham problem described by Eqs. \[Eqns:KS\] and \[Eqns:KS:BC\] leads to the electronic ground-state[^22] for the cyclic structure $\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}$. The nonlinear eigenvalue problem is typically solved using a fixed-point iteration with respect to either the electron density $\rho$ or the total effective potential $$\begin{aligned} \label{effective_potential} V_{\textrm{eff}}(\bfx) = V_{\textrm{es}}(\rho(\bfx), \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) + V_{{\textrm{xc}}}(\rho(\bfx)) \,,\end{aligned}$$ and this is commonly referred to as the SCF method [@slater1974self]. In each iteration of this method, the Poisson problem in Eqs. \[poisson\_problem\] and \[Eqn:KS:BC:Ves\] needs to be solved to calculate $V_{\textrm{eff}}$, and the lowest $\mathfrak{N}N_{\text{s}}$ eigenstates of the linearized Kohn-Sham operator: $$\begin{aligned} \label{linear_operator} \hamil = -\half \Delta + V_{\textrm{eff}}(\bfx)\end{aligned}$$ need to be determined to calculate $\rho$.[^23] The eigenfunctions of $\hamil$ are subjected to zero–Dirichlet boundary conditions, consistent with the Kohn-Sham orbitals. At the electronic ground-state, the system's free energy can be evaluated by means of a Harris-Foulkes [@harris1985simplified; @foulkes1989tight] type functional [@Phanish_SPARC_1]:[^24] $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \mathcal{F}({\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}}) =& \;2\sum_{i = 1}^{\mathfrak{N}N_{\text{s}}} f_i \lambda_i + \int_{\calC}\!\varepsilon_{\text{xc}} (\rho(\bfx)) \rho(\bfx) \, \mathrm{d \bfx} - \int_{\calC}\!V_{\text{xc}}(\rho(\bfx))\rho(\bfx)\,\mathrm{d\bfx} \\\nonumber &+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\calC}\!\big (b(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) - \rho(\bfx)\big) V_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) \, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\\nonumber &-\half \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calC}\!b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\, V_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\,\mathrm{d\bfx} \nonumber \\ &+ {2\,\sigma} \sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{N} N_{s}} \big( f_i \log f_i + (1-f_i) \log (1 - f_i) \big)\,, \label{Harris_Foulkes_Energy} \end{aligned}$$ where the first term is the so called Kohn-Sham band energy; the second and third terms arise from the exchange-correlation effects; the fourth and fifth terms arise due to electrostatic interactions and pseudocharge self energies, respectively; and the last term represents the free energy associated with the electronic entropy of the system. The corresponding Hellmann-Feynman force [@Finnis_book; @Parr_Yang; @Martin_ES] on the atom $\bfx_{\gamma,k}$[^25] can be written as [@suryanarayana2014augmented; @Phanish_SPARC_1]:[^26] $$\begin{aligned} \label{force_formula_1} \bff_{\bfx_{\gamma,k}} =- \pd{\mathcal{F}({\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}})}{\bfx_{\gamma,k}} = \int_{\calC}\!\nabla b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\big(V_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) - V_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) \big)\,\mathrm{d\bfx}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The problem of determining the equilibrium geometry[^27] of the cyclic structure can be stated as solving the minimization problem:[^28] $$\begin{aligned} \label{geometry_optimization_original} \infm{\{\bfx_{\gamma,k} \in \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}\}}{\mathcal{F}({\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}})}\,,\,\text{subject to}\;\bfx_{\gamma,k} = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k} \,,\, \text{for} \,\, \gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ For every atomic configuration that arises during this geometry optimization procedure, the electronic ground-state needs to be determined by solving the Kohn-Sham equations in Eqs. \[Eqns:KS\] and \[Eqns:KS:BC\], after which the corresponding free energy and atomic forces can be calculated using Eqs. \[Harris\_Foulkes\_Energy\] and \[force\_formula\_1\], respectively. Symmetry cell reduction of the Kohn-Sham problem for cyclic structures {#Subsec:CyclicBlochTheorem} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We now describe how the underlying symmetry of cyclic structures can be utilized to perform a symmetry cell reduction of the Kohn-Sham DFT problem described in the previous subsection to the fundamental domain. ### Reduction of the electron density {#Subsubsec:Symm:rho} A natural starting point is to make the assumption that the electron density $\rho$ inherits the symmetry of the cyclic structure. Thus, for (almost) every $\bfx \in \calC$ and for $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, we may write:[^29] $$\begin{aligned} \label{rho_symmetry} \rho(\bfx) = \rho(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfx)\,.\end{aligned}$$ This assumption is very similar in nature to that commonly used in crystal lattice calculations, wherein it is assumed that the electron density inherits the translational symmetry of the lattice [@Defranceschi_LeBris; @rhodes2010crystallography; @rohrer2001structure; @giustino2014materials]. Analogous to that case, it is conceivable that period doubling (i.e., cyclic group order halving in our case) charge density waves or Pierels instabilities [@peierls1955quantum; @gruner2000density; @kennedy2004proof] can occur in the system, leading to a structural transition and a breakdown of the assumption in Eq. \[rho\_symmetry\]. In such a case, a larger cyclic unit cell that corresponds to a lower group order needs to be employed. However, the study of such instabilities, including the detection of their onset as well as their physical consequences is beyond the scope of the present contribution and is a compelling topic for future research.[^30] ### Reduction of the effective potential {#Subsubsec:Symm:Veff} Let us now consider the consequences of the cyclic group invariance of the electron density (i.e., $\rho(\bfx) = \rho(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfx)$ for $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$) on the effective potential. First we observe: \[prop:PseudochargeDensity\]The following conditions hold for the pseudocharges and the corresponding potentials for a cyclic structure: 1. For any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, the nuclear pseudocharges $b_k(\cdot)$ and the corresponding pseudopotentials $V_k(\cdot)$ obey the conditions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{bk_condition} b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) & = b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma,k})\,,\\ \label{vk_condition} V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) &= V_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma,k})\,.\end{aligned}$$ 2. The total nuclear pseudocharge $$\begin{aligned} \label{Prop:Invariance_b} b(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) = \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) = \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \eta_k(\abs{\bfx - \bfx_{\gamma,k}})\end{aligned}$$ is invariant under $\calG$. <!-- --> 1. The radial symmetry of $b_k(\cdot)$ implies that $b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) = b_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})$, from which Eq. \[bk\_condition\] follows. Next, using the change of variables $\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfy = \bfz$, we get: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{b_k(\bfy, \bfx_{0,k})}{\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx-\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} = \int_{\calC}\!\frac{b_k(\bfy, \bfx_{0,k})}{\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx-\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} \\ &=\int_{\calC}\!\frac{b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfz, \bfx_{0,k})}{\abs{\bfx-\bfz}}\;\mathrm{d\bfz}\, = \int_{\calC}\!\frac{b_k(\bfz, \mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})}{\abs{\bfx-\bfz}}\; \mathrm{d\bfz} = V_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})\,,\label{Vk_calculation}\end{aligned}$$ from which Eq. \[vk\_condition\] follows. 2. We note that for any $\gamma,\gamma_1 \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, the rotation matrix $\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}$ acting on the point $\bfx_{\gamma_1,k}= \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}\bfx_{0,k}$ produces the point $\bfx_{\gamma_2,k} = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2}\bfx_{0,k}$, with $\gamma_2 = (\mathfrak{N}-\gamma+\gamma_1)\,\text{mod}\,\mathfrak{N}$. In this situation, if $\gamma$ is held fixed while $\gamma_1$ is allowed to cycle through the elements of $\Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, $\gamma_2$ also cycles through each element of $\Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, thus yielding the group orbit of $\bfx_{0,k}$ under $\calG$. Thus, we may write for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber b(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) &= \sum_{\gamma_1 = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \eta_k(\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx - \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}\bfx_{0,k}}) \\\nonumber &= \sum_{\gamma_1 = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \eta_k(\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx - \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\,\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N} - \gamma}\,\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}\bfx_{0,k}})\\\nonumber &= \sum_{\gamma_1 = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \eta_k(\abs{\bfx - \mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N} - \gamma}\,\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}\bfx_{0,k}})\\\nonumber &= \sum_{\gamma_2 = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \eta_k(\abs{\bfx - \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2}\bfx_{0,k}})\;, \textrm{with}\; \gamma_2 = (\mathfrak{N}-\gamma+\gamma_1)\,\text{mod}\,\mathfrak{N}\\\label{b_invariant} &= b(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the spherical symmetry of $\eta_k$ to arrive at the third equality. Next, we use the above result to show: \[prop:invariant\_potential\] The total effective potential $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \displaystyle V_{\emph{\textrm{eff}}}(\bfx) = V_{\emph{\textrm{es}}}(\rho(\bfx), \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) + V_{\emph{\textrm{xc}}}(\rho(\bfx))\end{aligned}$$ is invariant under $\calG$. It suffices to show that both the terms that constitute $V_{\textrm{eff}}(\bfx)$ are individually group invariant. The exchange-correlation potential $V_{{\textrm{xc}}}(\rho(\bfx))$ is invariant by virtue of the invariance of $\rho(\bfx)$. To show the invariance of the electrostatic potential, we recall that it can be written as $$\begin{aligned} V_{\text{es}}(\rho(\bfx),\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{\rho(\bfy) + b(\bfy, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})}{\abs{\bfx-\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, we may write $$\begin{aligned} V_{\text{es}}(\rho(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfx),\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{\rho(\bfy)+b(\bfy, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})}{\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx-\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} \nonumber \\ &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{\rho(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfz) + b(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfz, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})}{\abs{\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx-\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfz}}\; \mathrm{d\bfz} \nonumber \\ &= \int_{\calC}\!\frac{\rho(\bfz)+b(\bfz, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})}{\abs{\bfx-\bfz}}\; \mathrm{d\bfz} \nonumber \\ &= V_{\text{es}}(\rho(\bfx),\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the change of variables $\bfy = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfz$ and the invariance of the Lebesgue measure under rotations to arrive at the second equality. Further, we have used the invariance of $\rho$ (Eq. \[rho\_symmetry\]) and $b$ (Eq. \[Prop:Invariance\_b\]) to arrive at the third equality. As a consequence of the above results — specifically, the cyclic group invariance of $b(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})$ and $V_{\text{es}}(\rho(\bfx),\calS_{\cal_G, \calP})$ — the Poisson problem in Eqs. \[poisson\_problem\] and \[Eqn:KS:BC:Ves\] can be reduced to the fundamental domain, with cyclic boundary conditions on the surfaces $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}$. ### Reduction of the linear eigenvalue problem {#Subsubsec:EigProblem} We recall that in the every iteration of the SCF method, it is necessary to compute part of the spectrum associated with the linearized Kohn-Sham operator: $$\begin{aligned} \hamil = -\half \Delta + V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the effective potential $V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$ has been evaluated from the electron density calculated during the previous SCF iteration. Assuming that $V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$ is a continuous function,[^31] it can be shown that the operator $\hamil$ on $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$, with domain $\textrm{Dom}(\hamil) = \mathsf{H}^2(\calC) \cap \mathsf{H}^1_0(\calC)$, is an elliptic self-adjoint operator with a compact resolvent [@My_PhD_Thesis; @Evans_PDE; @Renardy_Rogers; @Kato]. Therefore, $\hamil$ has an increasing sequence of real eigenvalues, with the associated eigenfunctions[^32] forming an orthonormal basis of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$. Let us assume that the electron density calculated during the previous SCF iteration is group invariant.[^33] It follows from Proposition \[prop:invariant\_potential\] that the effective potential $V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$ in the current SCF iteration is also group invariant. This leads us to the following observation: \[prop:invariant\_operator\] With *$V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$* continuous over $\calC$ and group invariant, the operator $\hamil$ commutes with the action of the group $\calG$ on functions in $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$, i.e., for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, if *$T_\gamma : \mathsf{L}^2(\calC) \to \mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$* is an operator such that *$T_\gamma f(\bfx) \mapsto f\big((\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma})^{-1}\bfx\big)$*, then for any function *$f \in \textrm{Dom}(\hamil)$*, we have *$\hamil T_\gamma f = T_\gamma \hamil f$*. Since the function space $\textrm{C}^2_c(\calC)$ is dense in $\textrm{Dom}(\hamil)$, it suffices to verify this result for $f \in \textrm{C}^2_c(\calC)$. Using a change of variables calculation, it can be shown that the Laplacian operator commutes with rotations, and therefore with the operators $T_\gamma$. This combined with the group invariance of $V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$ establishes the required result. It can be shown that the collection of operators $\{ T_\gamma: \gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}\}$ form a faithful unitary representation[^34] of the group $\calG$ on the space $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ [@My_PhD_Thesis]. Proposition \[prop:invariant\_operator\] shows that the operator $\hamil$ is left invariant by these representations, i.e., we may write $T_\gamma \hamil (T_\gamma)^{-1} = \hamil$. In order to exploit this invariance property for further analysis, it becomes natural to use tools from the representation theory of finite groups [@My_PhD_Thesis; @Folland_Harmonic; @Barut_Reps]. We proceed to do so by first noting the following result (see Theorem 2.3.18 of [@My_PhD_Thesis], as well as [@Bossavit_Old; @Bossavit_New]) stated here without proof: For $\nu, \gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, let *$\chi_{\nu}(\gamma) = {\textrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}$* and let $$\begin{aligned} \label{peter_weyl_projectors} P^{\nu} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathfrak{N}}\sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}\overline{\chi_{\nu}(\gamma)}\,T_{\gamma} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathfrak{N}}\sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}{\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,T_{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ The operators $P^{\nu}$ are projection operators on $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$, and the ranges of these projectors $V^{\nu} = P^{\nu}\big(\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)\big)$ form closed, mutually orthogonal subspaces of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ for different values of $\nu$. The following direct sum decomposition holds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{direct_sum_subspaces} \mathsf{L}^2(\calC) = \bigoplus_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} V^{\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and further $f \in V^{\nu}$ if and only if it obeys the condition: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bloch_cyclic} T_{\gamma}f (\bfx) = f\big((\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma})^{-1}\bfx\big) = \chi_\nu(\gamma)f(\bfx)\,.\end{aligned}$$ \[lemma:rep\_theory\_result\] The complex scalars $\displaystyle \chi_{\nu}(\gamma) $ are the so called characters of the group $\calG$, and the projectors $P^{\nu}$ are the associated Peter-Weyl projectors [@Folland_Harmonic]. The range $V^{\nu}$ of each projector forms an invariant subspace of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ . A useful corollary of the above result follows immediately by looking at the case $\nu = 0$: For any given scalar function $f$ on $\calC$, the function $\displaystyle\sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} f(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfx)$ is group invariant. \[coro:group\_invariance\] The condition $T_\gamma \hamil (T_\gamma)^{-1} = \hamil$ implies that the subspaces $V^{\nu}$ are invariant subspaces for the operator $\hamil$ as well. This allows us to *block-diagonalize* $\hamil$ so that we may write: $$\begin{aligned} \hamil = \bigoplus_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \hamil^{\nu}\,, \label{block_diagonal_hamil}\end{aligned}$$ with each $\hamil^{\nu} = \hamil P^{\nu}$ denoting the projection of $\hamil$ onto the invariant subspace $V^{\nu}$. As a result, the eigenstates of $\hamil$ may be computed by solving each of the projected problems associated with $\hamil^{\nu}, \nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$. Consequently, the eigenfunctions of $\hamil$ obey the cyclic-Bloch condition shown in Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\]. We may summarize this discussion and rigorously establish the result as follows: \[Cyclic Bloch Theorem\] Given a potential *$V_\textrm{eff}(\bfx)$* which is continuous on $\calC$ and invariant under the cyclic group $\calG$, there exists a basis of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ such that every eigenstate $v$ of the operator *$\hamil = -\half \Delta + V_\textrm{eff}$* obeys the following condition (for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$): $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bloch_cyclic_in_theorem} v\big((\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma})^{-1}\bfx\big) = \chi_\nu(\gamma)v(\bfx) = {\textrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}} v(\bfx)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for some $\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$. Conversely, for every $\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, there exists at least one eigenvector of $\hamil$ obeying the above condition. \[thm:Bloch\_Theorem\] Since $\hamil$ commutes with each of the operators in $\{ T_\gamma: \gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}\}$, and since the projectors $P^{\nu}$ introduced in Eq. \[peter\_weyl\_projectors\] are linear combinations of the operators in $\{ T_\gamma: \gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}\}$, $\hamil$ also commutes with each of the projectors. This means that $\hamil$ leaves the range $V^{\nu}$ of each of the projectors invariant. This is because if $f \in V^{\nu}$, then $P^{\nu} f = f$ and further: $$\begin{aligned} P^{\nu} (\hamil f) = \hamil (P^{\nu} f) = \hamil f\,,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\hamil f \in V^{\nu}$. Note that this also implies that $\hamil$ leaves $(V^{\nu})^{\perp}$ — the orthogonal complement of $V^{\nu}$ — invariant as well. This can be easily checked by looking at the projection operator $\calI - P^{\nu}$ (with $\calI$ denoting the identity operator on $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$), which projects onto the orthogonal complement of $V^{\nu}$. The above conditions imply that $\hamil$ must have at least one eigenvector $v \in V^{\nu}$ for every $\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$. To establish this (for any $\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$), we first recall that the eigenvectors of $\hamil$ form a complete orthonormal basis set in $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$. Since $V^{\nu}$ is a closed subspace of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$, there exists an eigenvector $v$ of $\hamil$ which is not completely orthogonal to $V^{\nu}$. We write this eigenvector as $v = v_1 + v_2$ with $v_1 \in V^{\nu}, v_1 \neq 0$ and $v_2 \in (V^{\nu})^{\perp}$ . Subsequently, we have: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eigenvector_calc} \hamil v = \hamil (v_1 + v_2) = \lambda v = \lambda(v_1 + v_2)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\hamil v_1 - \lambda v_1 = \hamil v_2 - \lambda v_2$. Since $\hamil$ leaves both $V^{\nu}$ and its orthogonal complement invariant, the left hand side of this expression lies in $V^{\nu}$ while the right hand side lies in $(V^{\nu})^{\perp}$. Since $V^{\nu} \cap (V^{\nu})^{\perp} = \{0\}$, it must be that $\hamil v_1 = \lambda v_1$ and $\hamil v_2 = \lambda v_2$ and so, (possibly after an appropriate choice of basis of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$) $v_1 \in V^{\nu}$ and $v_2 \in (V^{\nu})^{\perp}$ are individual eigenvectors of $\hamil$, as required.[^35] Next, we observe that by suitable choice of an orthonormal basis of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$, every eigenvector of $\hamil$ can be made to lie in one of the subspaces $V^{\nu}$. To see this, we note that since the decomposition of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ into the invariant subspaces $V^{\nu}$ is exhaustive (Eq. \[direct\_sum\_subspaces\]), every eigenvector of $\hamil$ either lies in one of the subspaces $V^{\nu}$ or it can be written as a linear combination of eigenvectors from these subspaces. If the eigenstates of $\hamil$ are non-degenerate (i.e., there is no repeated eigenvalue), the second option is ruled out as follows: writing the eigenvector as $ v = \displaystyle \sum_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1} c_{\nu} v_{\nu}$, with $v_{\nu} \in V^{\nu}, c_{\nu} \in \cz$, a calculation similar to the one in the previous paragraph shows that each individual component $v_{\nu}$ must be an eigenvector as well (since $V^{\nu} \cap V^{\nu'} = \{0\}$ for $\nu \neq \nu'$). However, this would violate the orthogonality of the eigenvectors of $\hamil$ since $\innprod{v}{v_{\nu}}{} \neq 0$ unless $c_{\nu} = 0$. In the presence of degeneracies,[^36] any linear combination of the degenerate eigenstates from different invariant subspaces is still an eigenstate for $\hamil$. In this case, we may choose the basis vectors of $\mathsf{L}^2(\calC)$ appropriately so that the individual eigenstates from the different invariant subspaces (and not their linear combinations) are identified as the eigenvectors of $\hamil$. Finally, since every eigenvector $v$ of $\hamil$ lies in one of the invariant subspaces $V^{\nu}$, the condition in Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\_in\_theorem\] can be simply identified as the characterization of the subspaces presented in Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\], thus establishing the theorem.[^37] We may use the Cyclic Bloch theorem to reduce the physical domain of the eigenvalue problem associated with $\hamil$ from $\calC$ to the symmetry cell $\calD_{\calG}$. Roughly speaking, since every point in $\calC$ can be obtained as the action of a rotation matrix $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}$ (for some $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$) acting on a point in the fundamental domain $\calD_{\calG}$, it suffices to specify a function $f \in V^{\nu}$ (in particular, an eigenvector $v\in V^{\nu}$ of $\hamil$) using only the points within the fundamental domain, as long as boundary conditions consistent with Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\] are prescribed on $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}$. We summarize this result as follows:[^38] \[prop:invariance\_to\_BC\] Let $\bfx \in \partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}$ such that $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx \in \partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}$ for some $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$ and [^39] let *$\text{cl.}(\calD_{\calG})$* denote the (topological) closure of the fundamental domain. A function $f \in \big(V^{\nu} \cap \mathsf{H}^1_0(\calC) \big)$ if and only if the restriction of the function to *$\text{cl.}(\calD_{\calG})$*, denoted by *$\tilde{f} = f|_{\text{cl.}(\calD_{\calG})}$*, satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bloch_cyclic_restatement} \tilde{f}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx) = \overline{\chi_{\nu}(\gamma)} \, \tilde{f}(\bfx) = {\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{f}(\bfx)\,\,\,\, \text{for} \,\,\,\,\bfx \in \partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the function space $\textrm{C}_c^0(\calC)$ is dense in $\mathsf{H}^1_0(\calC)$, it suffices to work with such functions. If $f \in V^{\nu} \cap \textrm{C}_c^0(\calC)$, then it obeys Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\] for all $\bfx\in \calC$ and in particular on the surfaces $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{C} \subset \calC$. On the other hand, if $\tilde{f}$ is a continuous function defined over the fundamental domain such that it obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{0}$ and the condition in Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\_restatement\] on $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{C}$ for some $\gamma, \nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, we may define an extension $f$ of $\tilde{f}$ to all of $\calC$ as follows. For any $\bfy \in \calC$ (such that $\bfy$ does not lie on the axis $\bfe_3$) we may identify a point $\bfx \in \calD_{\calG}$ and a rotation matrix $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2}\in \calG$ such that $\bfy = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2} \bfx$. Then, we set $$\begin{aligned} \label{how_to_define_f} f(\bfy) = f(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_2} \bfx) = {\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma_2}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{f}(\bfx)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $f = 0$ on $\partial \calC$. The function $f$ defined this way is compactly supported on $\calC$ and is continuous across each of the surfaces $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}(\partial\calD_{\calG})$ for any $\gamma_1 \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$, by virtue of Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\_restatement\]. By the continuity of $\tilde{f}$ in the interior of $\calD_{\calG}$, $f$ is also continuous in the interior of $\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma_1}(\calD_{\calG})$. Thus, $f \in \textrm{C}_c^0(\calC)$. Further, Eq. \[how\_to\_define\_f\] implies that $f$ obeys Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\] and therefore by Lemma \[lemma:rep\_theory\_result\], $f \in V^{\nu}$. This establishes the sought result. As a consequence of the above result, the Cyclic Bloch Theorem may be reinterpreted to mean that the eigenstates of $\hamil$ can be obtained by solving $\mathfrak{N}$ independent eigenvalue problems associated with the operators $\hamil^{\nu}$ ($\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$) over the fundamental domain. Each problem corresponds to a projection of the original problem to one of the subspaces $V^{\nu}$, and therefore it obeys zero-Dirichlet and cyclic-Bloch (Eq. \[Bloch\_cyclic\_restatement\]) boundary conditions on the surfaces $\partial\calD_{\calG}^{0}$ and $\partial \calD_{\calG}^{C}$, respectively. Generically, each of these problems results in an infinite sequence of orthonormal eigenstates. It is worth noting that Theorem \[thm:Bloch\_Theorem\] represents an extension of the Bloch theorem used in classical solid state physics [@Ashcroft_Mermin; @Reed_Simon4; @Odeh_Keller] to cyclic structures. A further generalization of this result to the case of structures with more complex symmetries (or Objective Structures) can be found in the first author's thesis work [@My_PhD_Thesis; @My_MS_Thesis]. Theorem \[thm:Bloch\_Theorem\] appears in a somewhat more rudimentary form with certain key details omitted in @Sattlegger_Thesis. The gist of the result also appears in the physics literature [@Pekka_1; @Pekka_2] — however, only in the context of tight binding and not Kohn-Sham DFT — wherein the derivation follows a line of heuristic reasoning (aimed at guessing the correct extension of the classical Bloch Theorem), and therefore lacks the mathematical rigor adopted here. ### Consistency of the SCF method after symmetry cell reduction {#Subsubsec:ConsistencySCF} While performing the symmetry cell reduction of the linear eigenvalue problem, we have assumed that the electron density calculated during the previous SCF iteration is group invariant. It is therefore important to ensure that the electron density remains group invariant throughout the complete fixed-point iteration. To do so, we note that as a consequence of the reduction achieved by the Cyclic Bloch Theorem, the electron density in any SCF iteration can be calculated using the expression:[^40] $$\begin{aligned} \label{Eqn:rho:Bloch-cyclic} \tilde{\rho}(\bfx)&=2 \sum_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu}\abs{\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx)}^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}$ are the eigenfunctions of $\hamil^{\nu}$, and ${f}_i^{\nu}$ are the corresponding occupations obtained using the Fermi-Dirac smearing. An inspection of Eq. \[Eqn:rho:Bloch-cyclic\] reveals that the electron density calculated in any SCF iteration satisfies (for any $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$): $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\rho}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx) =2 \sum_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu}\abs{\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx)}^2 =2 \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu}\abs{{\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx)}^2 = 2 \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu}\abs{\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx)}^2 = \tilde{\rho}(\bfx)\,. \label{density_invariant_calc}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the extension of this density to the entire domain $\calC$ is continuous and is group invariant. Consequently, it follows from Proposition \[prop:invariant\_potential\] and Theorem \[thm:Bloch\_Theorem\] that the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian resulting from this density can once again be reduced to the fundamental domain with the aid of the cyclic-Bloch boundary conditions. This ensures that SCF iterations remain consistent provided one starts performing these iterations with an electron density that is group invariant. In principle, such an electron density may be generated by considering any $\rho' \in \textrm{C}_c^0(\calC)$ obeying $\displaystyle \int_{\calC}\rho'(\bfx) \, \mathrm{d\bfx}= \mathfrak{N}N_{\text{e}}$ and then constructing $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{0}(\bfx)= \frac{1}{\mathfrak{N}}\sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\rho'(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx)\,.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from Corollary \[coro:group\_invariance\] that the guess electron density $\rho_{0}$ is group invariant, and therefore its restriction to the fundamental domain serves as a suitable starting point. ### Reduction of the free energy and the atomic forces Having performed a symmetry cell reduction of the self-consistent Kohn-Sham equations, we now express the cyclic structure's free energy at the electronic ground-state, as well as the Hellmann Feynman forces on the atoms, in terms of quantities defined over the fundamental domain. To simplify the free-energy, we use the cyclic-Bloch reduction to rewrite the first (band energy) and last (electronic entropy energy) terms of Eq. \[Harris\_Foulkes\_Energy\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {E}_{\text{band}} &= 2\sum_{\nu =0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{i = 1}^{N_{\text{s}}} f_i^{\nu} \lambda_i^{\nu} \,, \\ {E}_{\text{entropy}} &= 2\,\sigma \sum_{\nu=0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{s}} \big( f_i^{\nu} \log f_i^{\nu} + (1-f_i^{\nu}) \log (1 - f_i^{\nu}) \big) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_i^{\nu}$ are the eigenvalues of $\hamil^{\michaelwilson@example.org. In addition, ${f}_i^{\nu}$ are the corresponding occupations obtained using the Fermi-Dirac smearing. The second, third, and fourth terms of Eq. \[Harris\_Foulkes\_Energy\] are integrals over the complete domain $\calC$ with integrands that are group invariant. Consequently, they can be reduced to the fundamental domain as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\calC}\!\varepsilon_{\text{xc}} (\rho(\bfx)) \rho(\bfx) \, \mathrm{d \bfx} &= \mathfrak{N} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\varepsilon_{\text{xc}} (\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)) \tilde{\rho}(\bfx) \, \mathrm{d \bfx} \,, \\ \int_{\calC}\!V_{\text{xc}}(\rho(\bfx))\rho(\bfx)\,\mathrm{d\bfx} &= \mathfrak{N} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!V_{\text{xc}}(\tilde{\rho}(\bfx))\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)\,\mathrm{d\bfx} \,, \\ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\calC}\!\big (b(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP})-\rho(\bfx)\big) V_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) \, \mathrm{d\bfx} &= \frac{\mathfrak{N}}{2} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\big (\tilde{b}(\bfx, \calP)-\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)\big) \tilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calP) \, \mathrm{d\bfx} \,.\end{aligned}$$ To see how the fifth term in Eq. \[Harris\_Foulkes\_Energy\], i.e., pseudocharge self energy term: $$\begin{aligned} {E}_{\text{self}}(\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) = \half \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calC}\!b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) \, V_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) \,\mathrm{d\bfx}\,,\end{aligned}$$ can be reduced to the fundamental domain, we recall Proposition \[prop:PseudochargeDensity\] (part 1), to write: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber {E}_{\text{self}}(\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) &= \half \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calC}\!b_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})\, V_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\\nonumber &= \half \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calC}\!b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\,V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\ \nonumber &= \half \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calC}\,\sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\, V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\ \nonumber &= \frac{\mathfrak{N}}{2} \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\, V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\ &= \frac{\mathfrak{N}}{2} \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\tilde{b}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\,\widetilde{V}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\, \mathrm{d\bfx}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the fourth equality is obtained by observing that each of the integrands in the previous expression are group invariant via Corollary \[coro:group\_invariance\]. Note that, $\tilde{b}_k$ and $\widetilde{V}_k$ are the restriction of $b_k$ and $V_k$ to the fundamental domain. Next, we consider the reduction of the atomic forces. As a consequence of the frame indifference of the free energy $\mathcal{F}({\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}})$, the Hellmann-Feynman force on the atom located at $\bfx_{\gamma,k} = \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma} \bfx_{0,k}$ is related to the force experienced by the corresponding atom ${\bfx_{0,k}} \in \calP$ within the fundamental domain $\calD_{\calG}$ through the relation:[^41] $$\begin{aligned} \label{force_equivariance} \bff_{\bfx_{\gamma,k}} = (\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma})^T\,\bff_{\bfx_{0,k}} = (\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma})\,\bff_{\bfx_{0,k}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{force_formula_revisited} \bff_{\bfx_{0,k}} = \int_{\calC}\!\nabla b_k(\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\big(V_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) - V_k(\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) \big)\,\mathrm{d\bfx}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $V_{\text{es}}$ is the solution of the Poisson problem in Eqs. \[poisson\_problem\] and \[Eqn:KS:BC:Ves\] at the electron density associated with the (electronic) ground-state . Therefore, it suffices to calculate the forces for only those atoms that are located within the fundamental domain, the expression for which can be rewritten in terms of quantities expressed over the fundamental domain as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{force_formula_first_term_rhs} \bff_{\bfx_{0,k}} &= \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\nabla b_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k})\big(V_{\text{es}}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx,\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) - V_k(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx, \bfx_{0,k}) \big)\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \nonumber \\ &= \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\nabla \tilde{b}_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k})\big(\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP) - \widetilde{V}_k(\bfx, \mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx_{0,k}) \big)\,\mathrm{d\bfx} \nonumber \\ &= \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\nabla \tilde{b}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\big(\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP) - \tilde{V}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) \big)\,\mathrm{d\bfx}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality is obtained by using cyclic boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber V_{\text{es}}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx,\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}) = V_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calS_{\cal_G, \calP})=\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and Proposition \[prop:PseudochargeDensity\] (part 1). Cyclic DFT: Kohn-Sham problem on the fundamental domain for cyclic structures {#Subsec:CyclicDFTEq} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We now summarize the formulation of Cyclic DFT developed in the previous subsections. After the symmetry cell reduction depicted in Fig. \[fig:cyclic\_cell\_reduction\], the Kohn-Sham equations on the fundamental domain $\calD_{\calG}$ can be written as (for $\nu \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{N}}$) \[Eqns:CyclicDFT:KS\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{Cyclic_DFT_1} \widetilde{K}(\tilde{\rho})\,\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}&={\lambda}_i^{\nu}\,\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}\;;\;\innprod{\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}}{\tilde{\phi}_j^{\nu}}{\mathsf{L}^2(\calD_{\calG})}=\frac{1}{\mathfrak{N}}\,\delta_{ij}\,,\\ \label{Cyclic_DFT_2} \text{where}\quad \widetilde{K}(\tilde{\rho})&=-\half \Delta + \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}} + {V}_{\text{xc}}(\tilde{\rho})\,,\\ \text{with}\quad \label{Cyclic_DFT_4} \tilde{\rho}(\bfx)&=2 \sum_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu}\abs{\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx)}^2\,,\\ \label{Cyclic_DFT_3} \text{and} \quad -\frac{1}{4\pi}\Delta \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}} &= \,(\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{b})\,,\, \tilde{b} = b|_{\calD_{\calG}}\,. \\ \label{Cyclic_DFT_5} \text{Here,} \quad {f}_i^{\nu} &= \left( 1 + \exp\left( \frac{{\lambda}_i^{\nu} - \lambda_f}{\sigma} \right) \right)^{-1},\\ \label{Cyclic_DFT_6} \text{with $\lambda_f$ s.t.} \quad &2 \sum_{\nu = 0}^{\mathfrak{N} - 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{s}}} {f}_i^{\nu} = \mathfrak{N} N_{\text{e}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding boundary conditions on $ \partial\calD_{\calG} = \partial\calD_{\calG}^{C} \cup \partial\calD_{\calG}^{0}$ are \[Eqns:CyclicDFT:KS:BC\] $$\begin{aligned} \text{for} \,\,\, \bfx \in \partial\calD_{\calG}^{C} \,, \quad \tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx) &= {\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx) \,, \label{Eq:CyclicDFT:phi_cyclicBlochBC} \\ \tilde{\rho}(\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx) &= \tilde{\rho}(\bfx) \,, \\ \text{and} \quad \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}} (\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfx \calP) &= \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP) \,. \label{Eq:CyclicDFT:Ves:cyclic} \\ \text{For} \,\,\, \bfx \in \partial\calD_{\calG}^{0} \,, \quad \tilde{\phi}_i^{\nu}(\bfx) &= 0 \,, \label{Eq:CyclicDFT:phi_zeroBC} \\ \tilde{\rho}(\bfx) &= 0 \,, \\ \text{and} \quad \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP) &= \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\frac{\tilde{b}(\bfy, \calP)+\tilde{\rho}(\bfy)}{\abs{\bfx-\mathfrak{R}^{\gamma}\bfy}}\; \mathrm{d\bfy} \,. \label{Eqn:SymmetryReducedBC_Ves}\end{aligned}$$ In each iteration of the SCF method in Cyclic DFT, the following linear eigenproblems (there are $\mathfrak{N}$ of them, one for each $\nu$): $$\begin{aligned} \label{Eq:CyclicDFT:linearEigenproblem} \left( -\frac{1}{2} \Delta + \widetilde{V}_{\text{eff}} \right) \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i} = \lambda_i^{\nu} \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i} \,, \quad \nu=0, 1, \ldots, \mathfrak{N}-1 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{effective_potential_reduced} \widetilde{V}_{\textrm{eff}}(\bfx) = \widetilde{V}_{\textrm{es}}(\tilde{\rho}(\bfx), \calP) + V_{{\textrm{xc}}}(\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)) \,,\end{aligned}$$ need to be solved for the lowest $N_s$ eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions. The eigenfunctions are subject to the cyclic-Bloch boundary conditions in Eq. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:phi\_cyclicBlochBC\] and zero-Dirichlet boundary conditions in Eq. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:phi\_zeroBC\]. The symmetry cell reduced electrostatic potential $\widetilde{V}_{\textrm{es}}$ is obtained by solving the Poisson equation in Eq. \[Cyclic\_DFT\_3\] subject to the cyclic boundary conditions in Eq. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:Ves:cyclic\] and Dirichlet boundary conditions in Eq. \[Eqn:SymmetryReducedBC\_Ves\]. At the electronic ground-state, the free energy *per unit cell* of the cyclic structure, i.e., the quantity $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(\calP) ={\mathcal{F}}({\calS_{\cal_G, \calP}})/\mathfrak{N}$, can be expressed in terms of quantities over the fundamental domain as:[^42] $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(\calP) =& \;\frac{2}{\mathfrak{N}}\bigg(\sum_{\nu =0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{i = 1}^{N_{\text{s}}} f_i^{\nu} \lambda_i^{\nu}\bigg) + \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\varepsilon_{\text{xc}} (\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)) \tilde{\rho}(\bfx) \, \mathrm{d \bfx} - \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!{V}_{\text{xc}}(\tilde{\rho}(\bfx))\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)\, \mathrm{d\bfx} \\\nonumber &+\frac{1}{2} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\big (\tilde{b}(\bfx, \calP)-\tilde{\rho}(\bfx)\big) \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx, \calP) \, \mathrm{d\bfx}-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1} \sum_{k = 1}^{M_{\calP}} \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\widetilde{V}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\,\tilde{b}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\,\mathrm{d\bfx}\\ &+ \frac{2\,\sigma}{\mathfrak{N}} \bigg(\sum_{\nu=0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{s}} \big( f_i^{\nu} \log f_i^{\nu} + (1-f_i^{\nu}) \log (1 - f_i^{\nu}) \big)\bigg)\,. \label{Harris_Foulkes_Energy_per_cell} \end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Hellmann-Feynman atomic force takes the form:[^43] $$\begin{aligned} \label{force_formula_FD} \bff_{\bfx_{0,k}} = \sum_{\gamma = 0}^{\mathfrak{N}-1}\mathfrak{R}^{\mathfrak{N}-\gamma}\int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!\nabla \tilde{b}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k})\big(\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(\bfx,\calP) - \widetilde{V}_k(\bfx, \bfx_{\gamma,k}) \big)\,\mathrm{d\bfx}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The problem of determining the equilibrium geometry[^44] of the cyclic structure as described by Eq. \[geometry\_optimization\_original\] can be reformulated as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{geometry_optimization_reduced} \infm{\{\bfx_{0,k} \in {\calP}\}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(\calP)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, it follows from Eq. \[force\_equivariance\] that if the atoms in the fundamental domain are in equilibrium, so is every other atom in the cyclic structure. ![Schematic of cyclic unit cell reduction.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_cell_reduction"></span>](./Fig_1.eps) \ <span>.45</span> ![Schematic of cyclic unit cell reduction.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_cell_reduction"></span>](./Fig_2.eps "fig:") $\quad$ <span>.45</span> ![Schematic of cyclic unit cell reduction.<span data-label="fig:cyclic_cell_reduction"></span>](./Fig_3.eps "fig:") Symmetry-adapted finite-difference discretization {#Subsec:FD} ------------------------------------------------- Having formulated the governing equations of Cyclic DFT, we now describe a discretization strategy. We fix $\calC$ to be an annular cylinder[^45] with axis $\bfe_3$, height $H$, inner radius $R_{\text{in}}$, and outer radius $R_{\text{out}}$. Let the cyclic structure have a symmetry group of order $\mathfrak{N}$. It follows that the fundamental domain $\calD_{\calG}$ is a sector of the annular cylinder with angle $2\pi / \mathfrak{N}$. To ensure that the resulting discretization scheme is compatible with the cyclic symmetry of the system, we work in cylindrical coordinates $(r,\vartheta,z)$. In this setting[^46], the linear eigenproblems in Eq. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:linearEigenproblem\] take the form: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber -\half \bigg(\hpd{\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r,\vartheta,z)}{r}{2} &+ \frac{1}{r} \pd{\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r,\vartheta,z)}{r} + \frac{1}{r^2}\hpd{{\tilde{\phi}}^{\nu}_i(r,\vartheta,z)}{\vartheta}{2}+ \hpd{\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}(r,\vartheta,z)}{z}{2}\bigg )\\ &+\widetilde{V}_{\text{eff}}(r,\vartheta,z)\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r,\vartheta,z) = \lambda_{i}^{\nu}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r,\vartheta,z)\,, \label{cylindrical_linear_eigen}\end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions (Eqs. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:phi\_cyclicBlochBC\] and \[Eq:CyclicDFT:phi\_zeroBC\]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{Bloch_BC_in_cylindrical_coordinates} \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r, \vartheta = \frac{2\pi}{\mathfrak{N}},z) &= {\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r, \vartheta = 0,z)\,,\\ \label{Dirichlet_BC_in_cylindrical_coordinates} \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r, \vartheta ,z = 0) = \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r, \vartheta ,z = H) &= \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r = R_{\text{in}}, \vartheta ,z) = \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r = R_{\text{out}}, \vartheta, z) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the Poisson equation in Eq. \[Cyclic\_DFT\_3\] can be written as: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber -\frac{1}{4 \pi} \bigg( \hpd{\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta,z)}{r}{2} &+ \frac{1}{r} \pd{\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta,z)}{r} + \frac{1}{r^2}\hpd{\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta,z)}{\vartheta}{2}+ \hpd{\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta,z)}{z}{2} \bigg) \\ &=\tilde{\rho}(r,\vartheta,z)+\tilde{b}(r,\vartheta,z) \,, \label{electrostatics_cylindrical_fd}\end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions (Eqs. \[Eq:CyclicDFT:Ves:cyclic\] and \[Eqn:SymmetryReducedBC\_Ves\]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{Electrostatic_BC_in_cylindrical_coordinates_1} \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta = 0 ,z) &= \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta = \frac{2\pi}{\mathfrak{N}},z)\,,\\ \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r = R_{\text{in}},\vartheta ,z) = \mathfrak{v}(r = R_{\text{in}},\vartheta ,z)\,&, \, \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r = R_{\text{out}},\vartheta ,z) = \mathfrak{v}(r = R_{\text{out}},\vartheta ,z)\,,\\\label{Electrostatic_BC_in_cylindrical_coordinates_2} \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r ,\vartheta ,z = 0) = \mathfrak{v}(r ,\vartheta ,z = 0)\,&, \,\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r,\vartheta ,z = H) = \mathfrak{v}(r ,\vartheta ,z=H)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, $\mathfrak{v}(r,\vartheta,z)$ denotes the quantity obtained by evaluation of Eq. \[Eqn:SymmetryReducedBC\_Ves\] at the point with cylindrical coordinates $(r,\vartheta,z)$. We discretize the equations of Cyclic DFT using the finite-difference method with a uniform grid spacing of $\Delta r$, $\Delta \vartheta$ and $\Delta z$ in the radial, angular and $\bfe_3$ directions, respectively. Specifically, we employ a finite-difference mesh that consists of the points $$\begin{aligned} \calM = \calM_{R} \times \calM_{\vartheta} \times \calM_{z}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\calM_{R}$, $\calM_{\vartheta}$, and $\calM_{z}$ represent the nodes in the radial, angular and $\bfe_3$ directions, respectively, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \calM_{R} &= \{R_{\text{in}},R_{\text{in}}+\Delta r,\ldots, R_{\text{in}} + (N_{r}-1)\Delta r = R_{\text{out}}\}\,,\\ \calM_{\vartheta} &= \{0,\Delta \vartheta,\ldots, (N_{\vartheta}-1)\Delta \theta = \frac{2\pi}{\mathfrak{N}}-\Delta \theta\}\,,\\ \calM_{z} &= \{0,\Delta z, (N_{z}-1)\Delta z = H\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $N_{r}$, $N_{\vartheta}$ and $N_{z}$ denotes the number of grid points in the corresponding directions. We index the nodes by the triplet of natural numbers $(k_r,k_{\vartheta},k_z)$, with $k_r \in \{1,2,\ldots, N_r\}$, $k_{\vartheta} \in \{1,2,\ldots, N_{\vartheta} \}$ and $k_{z} \in \{1,2,\ldots,N_{z}\}$, so that the grid point with the indices $(k_r,k_{\vartheta},k_z)$ refers to the physical point $(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \in \calM$. While discretizing the governing equations, we represent the values of the various fields involved by their values at the finite-difference nodes. This casts the infinite dimensional problem to one posed on a linear space of dimension $N_rN_{\vartheta}N_{z}$. We express the various derivatives in Eqs. \[cylindrical\_linear\_eigen\] and \[electrostatics\_cylindrical\_fd\] using high-order finite-differences: $$\begin{aligned} \label{higher_order_fd_1} \pd{f}{s}\bigg\vert_{s=s_{k_s}} &\approx \sum_{q=1}^{n_{o}} w_{q,1} \big(f{(s_{k_s+q})} - f{(s_{k_s-q})}\big)\, := D_sf(s_{k_s}),\\ \label{higher_order_fd_2} \hpd{f}{s}{2}\bigg\vert_{s=s_{k_s}} &\approx \sum_{q=0}^{n_{o}} w_{q,2} \big(f{(s_{k_s+q})} + f{(s_{k_s-q})}\big)\, := D^{2}_sf(s_{k_s})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the $s$-coordinate represents any one of the $r$, $\vartheta$ or $z$-coordinates. The weights appearing in the above equations can be written as [@suryanarayana2014augmented; @mazziotti1999spectral]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{fd_weights_1} {w}_{q,1} &= \frac{(-1)^{q+1}}{ (\Delta s) q} \frac{(n_{o}!)^2}{(n_{o}-q)! (n_{o}+q)!} \,, \,\, q=1, 2, \ldots, n_{o}\,,\\ \label{fd_weights_2} w_{0,2} &= - \frac{1}{(\Delta s)^2} \sum_{q=1}^{n_o} \frac{1}{q^2} \,, \\\label{fd_weights_3} w_{q,2} &= \frac{2 (-1)^{q+1}}{(\Delta s)^2 q^2} \frac{(n_{o}!)^2}{(n_{o}-q)! (n_{o}+q)!} \,, \,\, q=1, 2, \ldots, n_{o}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta s$ denotes the mesh spacing along the $s$-coordinate. With these weights, the finite-difference expressions in Eqs. \[higher\_order\_fd\_1\] and \[higher\_order\_fd\_2\] represent $2 n_{o}$-order accurate approximations, i.e., the error is $\mathcal{O}({\Delta s}^{2n_{o}})$. On approximating the derivatives using finite-differences, the eigenvalue equations in Eq. \[cylindrical\_linear\_eigen\] take the form: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber -\half\bigg(&D^{2}_r\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})+\frac{1}{r_{k_r}}D_{r}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})+ \frac{1}{r_{k_r}^2}D^{2}_{\vartheta}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\\ &+ D^{2}_{z}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\bigg )+\widetilde{V}_{\text{eff}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) = \lambda_{i}^{\nu}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_i(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\,. \label{discretized_KS_Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ During the application of the finite-difference stencils, any reference to grid points which do not lie in $\calM$ is resolved by using the discrete representation of the boundary conditions in Eqs. \[Bloch\_BC\_in\_cylindrical\_coordinates\] and \[Dirichlet\_BC\_in\_cylindrical\_coordinates\]: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= {\textrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}+N_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_{\vartheta} < 1 \,, \\ \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= {\textrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi \textrm{i} \nu \gamma}{\mathfrak{N}}}}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}-N_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_{\vartheta} > N_{\vartheta} \,, \\ \tilde{\phi}^{\nu}_{i}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= 0 \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_r \notin \{1,2,\ldots, N_r\} \,\, \text{or} \,\, k_z \notin \{1,2,\ldots, N_z\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, the Poisson equation in Eq. \[electrostatics\_cylindrical\_fd\] can be written in discrete form as: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber - \frac{1}{4 \pi} \bigg( D^{2}_r\,\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &+ \frac{1}{r_{k_r}} D_r\,\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) + \frac{1}{r_{k_r}^2}D^{2}_{\vartheta}\,\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\\ &+ D^{2}_z\,\widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \bigg) = \tilde{\rho}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})+\tilde{b}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with the discrete representation of the boundary conditions in Eqs. \[Electrostatic\_BC\_in\_cylindrical\_coordinates\_1\] and \[Electrostatic\_BC\_in\_cylindrical\_coordinates\_2\] being:[^47] $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}+N_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_{\vartheta} < 1 \,, \\ \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}-N_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_{\vartheta} > N_{\vartheta} \,, \\ \widetilde{V}_{\text{es}}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) &= \mathfrak{v}(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z}) \,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\,\,\, k_r \notin \{1,2,\ldots, N_r\} \,\, \text{or} \,\, k_z \notin \{1,2,\ldots, N_z\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The values of $\mathfrak{v}(r,\vartheta,z)$ are computed by means of direct numerical quadrature or using a multipole expansion in cylindrical coordinates [@cohl1999compact; @wiki_cylindrical_multipole]. The evaluation of the electronic ground-state free energy via Eq. \[Harris\_Foulkes\_Energy\_per\_cell\] and the atomic forces via Eq. \[force\_formula\_FD\] requires a recipe for evaluating integrals over the fundamental domain. To this end, we employ the quadrature rule: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \int_{\calD_{\calG}}\!f(\bfx)\,\mathrm{d\bfx} &= \int_{r=R_{\text{in}}}^{R_{\text{out}}}\!\int_{\vartheta=0}^{\frac{2\pi}{\mathfrak{N}}}\!\int_{z=0}^{H}f(r,\vartheta,z)\,r\,\mathrm{dr\,d\vartheta\,dz} \\ &\approx \sum_{k_r=1}^{N_r}\sum_{k_{\vartheta}=1}^{N_{\vartheta}}\sum_{k_z=1}^{N_z}f(r_{k_r},\vartheta_{k_{\vartheta}},z_{k_z})\,r_{k_r} \Delta r\, \Delta \vartheta \Delta z\,. \label{integration_discrete}\end{aligned}$$ The numerical evaluation of the gradient operator for computation of the atomic forces merits further consideration. Since the
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1605'}