The confined helium atom; an Informational approach

C. R. Estañón∗1 , H. E. Montgomery Jr†2 , J. C. Angulo‡3 , and N. Aquino§4

1,4
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Av. San
Rafael Atlixco 186, Col. Vicentina, CP 09340 CDMX, México.
2
Chemistry Program, Centre College, 600 West Walnut Street, Danville, KY 40422-1394,
USA.
3
Departamento de Fı́sica Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad de Granada, Granada
18071, Spain, and Instituto Carlos I de Fı́sica Teórica y Computacional, Universidad de
arXiv:2305.07246v1 [quant-ph] 12 May 2023

Granada, Granada 18071, Spain.

May 15, 2023

Abstract
In this work we study the helium atom confined in a spherical impenetrable cavity by using infor-
mational entropies. We use the variational method to obtain the energies and wave functions of the
confined helium atom as a function of the cavity radius r0 . As trial wave functions we use one un-
correlated function and four functions with different degrees of electronic correlation. We computed
the Shannon entropy, Fisher information, Kullback–Leibler entropy, Disequilibrium, Tsallis entropy and
Fisher–Shannon complexity, as a function of the box radius r0 . We found that these entropic measures
are sensitive to electronic correlation and can be used to measure it. These entropic measures are less
sensitive to electron correlation in the strong confinement regime (r0 < 1 a.u.).

1 Introduction
Spatially confined quantum systems have become the subject of increasing attention because of the wide
variety of problems in physics and chemistry that can be modelled through them. Some of these problems are
atoms trapped in cavities, in zeolite channels, in fullerenes, the electronic structure of atoms and molecules
subjected to high external pressures, the behavior of the specific heat of a monocrystal solid under high
pressure [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], etc. This growing interest is also due to the fabrication of quantum systems
of nanometric sizes with potential technological applications such as in quantum wires, dots and wells [9, 10].

In 1937 Michels et. al. [11] studied the variation of the polarizability of the hydrogen atom subjected to
high external pressures. They proposed a model in which a hydrogen atom is confined inside an impenetrable
spherical cavity with the nucleus clamped in the center of a sphere of radius r0 . This model is known as
the confined hydrogen atom (CHA) [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Furthemore has been very successful, and electronic
properties of multi-electron atoms have been studied with it. This model has been extended to use cavities
of shapes other than spherical to study also atoms and molecules trapped inside cavities.

Confined helium–like atoms are the simplest confined many-electron atoms, consisting of a nucleus
with nuclear charge Z and two electrons. For this type of systems of two electrons, different methods
have been developed from time-independent perturbation theory up to Quantum Monte Carlo methods
[14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Most of these studies have been devoted
∗ carloscbiuam1@gmail.com
† ed.montgomery.jr@gmail.com
‡ angulo@ugr.es
§ naa@xanum.uam.mx

1
to the calculation of the ground state energy as a function of the confining radius. Recent work has addressed
the correlation energy due to the radial and angular contribution of trial wave functions [28, 29]. Subsequent
work has been devoted to the study of low energy excited states.

Information theory has been used in the study of one-, two- and three-dimensional (1D, 2D and 3D)
systems [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40], in free systems and in systems subject to spatial confinement. As
examples, we can mention the study of free and spatially confined hydrogen and helium atoms [41, 42, 43, 44].
As discussed in [45], in recent years a variety of complexity measures have been defined and applied to the
study of physical, biological, mathematical, computer science, etc. systems. These quantities are obtained
from probability density and expectation values,[46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 43]. Complexity measures are quantities
that are well-defined in any conjugate space.

Each complexity measure is directly related to information entropies and this allows us to determine
global or local features of the probability density; for example: a global-local measure is described by the
Fisher-Shannon complexity which relates the Shannon entropic power to the Fisher entropy, with the Fisher
entropy providing a local measure of the probability density and the Shannon entropic power providing a
global measure.

The work is organized as follows: In section 2 we briefly describe the confined helium system, its solution
by the variational method and the informational measures used in this work: the Shannon entropy, Fisher
information, Tsallis and Kullback–Leibler entropies, the disequilibrium and the Fisher-Shannon complexity.
In section 3 we discuss our results. Finally, in section 4 we give our conclusions.

2 Theoretical background
2.1 Confined helium atom; ground state energy, wavefunctions and its proba-
bility densities
The Hamiltonian of a helium–like atom confined in an impenetrable spherical box of radius r0 (in the infinite
nuclear mass approximation), in atomic units (~ = e = me = 1), is given by:
1 1
Ĥ = − ∇21 − ∇22 + V (~r1 , ~r2 ), (1)
2 2
where the first two terms on the right-hand side are the electron kinetic energies, and the potential energy
is given by:
(
− rZ1 − rZ2 + r112 , r1 , r2 < r0
V (~r1 , ~r2 ) = , (2)
∞, while r1 ≥ r0 or r2 ≥ r0
where r1 is the distance from the nucleus to electron 1, r2 is the distance from the nucleus to electron 2,
r12 = |~r1 − ~r2 | is the distance from electron 1 to electron 2 and Z = 2 is the nuclear charge for the helium
atom. Inside the spherical barrier r1 , r2 < r0 , the potential energy is formed by the Coulombic attractive
interaction between the electrons and the nucleus, and the repulsive interaction between the electrons.

In order to solve the problem of finding the energy eigenvalues it is convinient to define the Hylleraas
coordinates: s ≡ r1 + r2 , t ≡ −r1 + r2 and u ≡ r12 . The Hamiltonian of the confined helium atom, in the
sphere, in Hylleraas coordinates can be written as:

∂2 ∂2 ∂2 s(u2 − t2 ) ∂ 2
 
Ĥ = − 2
+ 2
+ 2
−2
∂s ∂t ∂u u(s2 − t2 ) ∂s∂u
t(s2 − u2 ) ∂ 2 4s ∂ 4t ∂ (3)
−2 − +
u(s2 − t2 ) ∂t∂u (s2 − t2 ) ∂s (s2 − t2 ) ∂t
2 ∂ s 1
− − 4Z 2 + .
u u∂u s − t2 u

2
 In this report we only study the ground state of the confined helium atom. To obtain the approximate
energy and its corresponding wave function, as a function of the box size r0 , we use the variational method.
We propose two types of trial wave functions: uncorrelated and correlated wave functions.

Uncorrelated wave function

According to the direct variational method the wave function is constructed as the wave function of the
free (unconfined) system times a cut-off function. The simplest wave function is given by the product
of two hydrogen–like wave functions, multiplied by the cut-off function (r0 − r1 )(r0 − r2 ) that makes the
wave function vanish at the confining surface of the spherical cavity. The uncorrelated wave function is the
following:

ψ0 = Be−α(r1 +r2 ) (r0 − r1 )(r0 − r2 ), (4)

which in Hylleraas coordinates it can be written as:
  
−αs s−t s+t
ψ0 (s, t, u) = Be r0 − r0 − , (5)
2 2
where α is a variational parameter.

Wave functions with electronic correlation

We used four wave functions that include electronic correlation. The trial wave functions in Hylleraas
coordinates are the following:

ψ1 (s, t, u) = Be−αs (1 + βu)χ(s, t, u; r0 ), (6)

ψ2 (s, t, u) = Be−αs (1 + βu + γt2 )χ(s, t, u; r0 ), (7)

ψ3 (s, t, u) = Be−αs (1 + βu + γt2 + δs2 )χ(s, t, u; r0 ), (8)

2
X
ψ4 (s, t, u) = B Cnlm e−αs sn tm u` χ(s, t, u; r0 ), (9)
n,m,`
s−t s+t



where n + m + l ≤ 2, χ(s, t, u; r0 ) = r0 − 2 r0 − 2 is the cut-off function, and α, β, γ, δ and Cnlm
are variational parameters.

Table 1: The ground state energy for uncorrelated and correlated wave functions as a function of confinement
radii r0 .
r0 (a.u.) E(ψ0 ) E(ψ1 ) E(ψ2 ) E(ψ3 ) E(ψ4 )
0.5000 22.9229 22.9043 22.8321 22.7765 22.7426
0.6000 13.4250 13.3986 13.3645 13.3421 13.3204
0.7000 7.9968 7.9642 7.9490 7.9382 7.9278
0.8000 4.6656 4.6282 4.6224 4.6201 4.6120
0.9000 2.5117 2.4706 2.4691 2.4706 2.4642
1.0000 1.0625 1.0186 1.0185 1.0214 1.0172
2.0000 -2.5284 -2.5797 -2.5976 -2.5994 -2.5977
3.0000 -2.7935 -2.8419 -2.8651 -2.8659 -2.8679
4.0000 -2.8301 -2.8763 -2.8955 -2.8960 -2.8981
5.0000 -2.8391 -2.8843 -2.9003 -2.9007 -2.9023
6.0000 -2.8425 -2.8871 -2.9015 -2.9018 -2.9029
10.0000 -2.8462 -2.8900 -2.9022 -2.9026 -2.9033
∞ -2.84766 -2.8911 -2.9024 -2.9027 -2.9036

3
Energy calculations
As we mentioned above we use the variational method to obtain the approximate energy and wave functions,
in this approach we minimize the energy functional

hψ|Ĥ|ψi
E= , (10)
hψ|ψi
with respect to the variational parameters, where Ĥ is the Hamiltonian in Hylleraas coordinates (eq.
(3)) and ψ = ψi , i = 0, ..., 4.
For the confined helium atom, different expressions [17, 51, 52] have been used to evaluate the integrals
involved in the energy functional; those expressions are equivalent and provide the same results. The
expression that we used to evaluate the integrals in the energy functional is the following [51]:

Z Z r0 Z s Z s
2
f dτ = 2π ds dt f (s, t, u)(s2 − t2 )udu
0 0 t
Z 2r0 Z 2r0 −s Z s (11)
2 2 2
+ 2π ds dt f (s, t, u)(s − t )udu
r0 0 t

where f can be either Ĥ or the probability density |ψ|2 . In this way we proceed to numerically evaluate
these expressions, the results can be seen in Table 1, as well as graphically in the Figure 1.

Quantum probability density

The one electron probability density is obtained by integrating over the coordinates of the other electron.
The probability density associated with the wave function ψ0 is given by

ρ0 (~r) = Be−2αr (12)

whereas for the wave functions ψ1 , · · · ψ4 the probability density is obtained by:

Z r Z r+r2
2π
ρi (~r) = dr2 r2 dr12 r12 ψ(r, r2 , r12 )2
r 0 r−r2
Z r0 Z r2 +r  (13)
2
+ dr2 r2 dr12 r12 ψ(r, r2 , r12 ) , i = 1, .., 4
r r2 −r

where: ψ(r, r2 , r12 ) is given by the equations (6), (7), (8) or (9) respectively.

The one electron probability density is normalized to unity as

Z
ρi (~r)d~r = 1. (14)

2.2 Informational approach

Shannon Entropy
The Shannon entropy [37, 53, 54, 55, 56] is a functional of the probability density ρ(~r) defined by:
Z
Sr = − ρ(~r) ln ρ(~r)d3~r. (15)

It quantifies the total extent of the density, it has also been used as a measure of localization-delocalization
of the electron. A smaller value of S corresponds to a more concentrated distribution, i. e., the particle
(electron) is more localized.

4
Figure 1: Energy variation for the helium atom with and without electronic correlation, varying the confine-
ment radius r0 .

Kullback-Leibler entropy
The Kullback-Leibler entropy [57, 47, 58, 55] for a continuous probability distribution ρ(~r), relative to a
reference distribution ρref (~r) is defined as follows:
Z
ρ(~r)
KL(ρ, ρref ) = ρ(~r) ln d~r (16)
ρref (~r)
where
Z Z
ρ(~r)d~r = ρref (~r)d~r = 1, (17)

in addition KL(ρ, ρref ) ≥ 0. It can be seen that ρ(~r) = ρref (~r) ⇔ KL(ρ, ρref ) = 0.

Disequilibrium
Similarly the disequilibrium [59, 60, 61] gives us a measure between two distributions, only in this case the
deviation is with respect to the equiprobability, also known as equilibrium state, it is determined as follows:
Z
D = ρ2 (~r)d~r. (18)

5
Tsallis entropy
In this section the Tsallis entropy for the confined helium atom is studied using a wave function with
electronic correlation in order to obtain a measure of the correlation intensity. The Tsallis entropy [62, 63,
64, 65, 66, 35, 67] is defined as follows:
 Z 
1
Sq ≡ 1 − ρq (~r)d~r . (19)
q−1
The Tsallis index q plays a crucial role in identifying the magnitude of correlations in a system. The q
value is around 1, but q 6= 1, in a correlated system. In the limit q → 1, Sq → Sr , i. e. the Shannon entropy
is recovered.

Fisher-Shannon complexity
Fisher-Shannon complexity measure for a probability density ρ is defined jointly by the Fisher information
Fr [ρ] and the Shannon entropic power. The Fisher information [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 54, 59, 75] is
a point-to-point measure of the electron cloud distribution since it is a gradient functional of ρ(~r) and in
configuration space is tightly connected to the kinetic energy due to its dependence on the gradient of the
distribution. It is interpreted as a measure of the tendency toward disorder, meaning that the larger this
quantity is, the more ordered the distribution will be. It is defined by:
Z ~ r)|2
|∇ρ(~
Fr [ρ] = d~r. (20)
ρ(~r)
The entropic Shannon power [61] guarantees the positivity of this quantity and is defined as follows:
1 2S[ρ]/3
J[ρ] = e . (21)
2πe
It is common to define Fisher-Shannon complexity [72, 73, 76] as follows:
1
CF S [ρ] = Fr [ρ] × J[ρ] = F [ρ]e2S[ρ]/3 . (22)
2πe
As a consequence of Stam’s inequality [77] this quantity satisfies the following inequality
1
CF S [ρ] ≥ 1 (23)
3
for any continuously differentiable probability density ρ. Moreover, this complexity measure is invariant
under scaling transformations and translations, and is a monotone measure [78].

3 Results and discussion

Shannon entropy
From Table 2 and Figure 2 we can see that in the confinement regime r0 > 1 a.u. the value of the Shannon
entropy for the uncorrelated density S(ρ0 ), is smaller than the value of the entropies S(ρi ),{i=1,2,3,4},
corresponding to the functions including electronic correlation.
Gadre et. al. [49] and Hô et. al. [79] used the Shannon entropy as a measure of the quality of the
basis set of a free molecular system. They constructed a wave function as an expansion in a certain basis,
observed that increasing the number of basis functions resulted in a better wave function, and that the
Shannon entropy increased as the quality of the wave function improved. Extending Gadre’s conjecture to
the wave functions used in this work, we can conclude that by increasing the number of Hylleraas functions
the quality of the wave function improves, i.e. it gets closer to the exact wave function.
Also from Figure 3 we can observe that the Shannon entropy values calculated with the electronically
correlated wave functions are higher than the Shannon entropy of the uncorrelated wave function, the more
correlation the wave function contains the higher the value of the Shannon entropy. This is more evident for
r0 greater than 2 a.u. Romera and Dehesa [72] point out that this is because electronic correlation produces
a dispersion of the electronic cloud, and therefore, the Shannon entropy increases.

6
 An entirely different situation occurs in the strong confinement regime where r0 < 1 a.u.. The value of
the Shannon entropy for the uncorrelated wave function S(ρ0 ), is smaller than S(ρ1 ), the Shannon entropy
associated with ψ1 , but is larger than the entropy values for the other correlated wave functions. If Gadre’s
conjecture could be applied to this situation we would conclude that the best wave function, of those used in
this report, would be ψ1 , and we could state that electronic correlation produces a spread in the electronic
probability density. We should mention that our calculation of the Shannon entropy, using the ψ1 function,
are in complete agreement with previously published results [52]. The other wave functions, with higher
correlation content, would make the electron density more compact, contrary to what is expected. It has
been shown [25, 27] that in the strong confinement regime the electron kinetic energy is so large that the
problem can be reasonably well treated by perturbation theory using uncorrelated wave functions, i.e. the
electron correlation is not so important in this regime. Therefore, a good description of the wave function is
obtained by the ψ1 function.

Table 2: Shannon entropy for different probability densities as a function of the confining radius r0 , and its
comparison with those reported by Sen [80].
r0 (a.u.) S(ρ0 ) S(ρ1 ) S(ρ2 ) S(ρ3 ) S(ρ4 ) ref. [80]
0.5000 -1.5142 -1.5129 -1.5181 -1.5181 -1.5257
0.6000 -0.9986 -0.9967 -1.0012 -1.0065 -1.0083
0.7000 -0.5696 -0.5670 -0.5708 -0.5747 -0.5767
0.8000 -0.2046 -0.2013 -0.2041 -0.2066 -0.2086
0.9000 0.1109 0.1148 0.1131 0.1123 0.1095 0.1515
1.0000 0.3867 0.3914 0.3910 0.3919 0.3874
2.0000 1.9117 1.9263 1.9587 1.9627 1.9548 2.0097
3.0000 2.3673 2.3902 2.4777 2.4803 2.4839 2.5241
4.0000 2.4906 2.5161 2.6229 2.6243 2.6381 2.6197
5.0000 2.5310 2.5571 2.6628 2.6642 2.6798 2.6651
6.0000 2.5481 2.5743 2.6768 2.6783 2.6883 2.7042
10.0000 2.5673 2.5937 2.6900 2.6919 2.7029 2.7106
∞ 2.5749 2.60159 2.6945 2.6967 2.7035 2.7117

Fisher Information
This quantity is a measure of the concentration of the probability density. Fisher information is a local
measure, which is very sensitive to variations of the probability density, even in small-sized regions. How-
ever, contrary to Shannon entropy, Fisher information decreases as r0 increases, as shown in the Figure 4,
indicating greater delocalization as r0 increases. The values of Fisher information as a function of r0 , for the
different wave functions, with and without correlation, are very similar.
In the region r0 > 1 a.u., the Fisher information values for the correlated wave functions are larger
than the corresponding value of the Fisher information for the uncorrelated wave function. In the strong
confinement regime r0 < 1 a.u., the Fisher information corresponding to the uncorrelated wave function
F (ρ0 ), is smaller than F (ρ1 ). However, F (ρ0 ), is larger than the Fisher information for the ψ2 , ψ3 and ψ4
wave functions, which contain more electron correlation than ψ1 . This behavior is most evident from Figure
5 where the difference of the Fisher information for the correlated functions and the Fisher information for
the uncorrelated wave function is shown. The difference between these values is entirely due to electronic
correlation. It can be seen from the graph that there is a well defined maximum value around r0 = 2 a.u.,
for the Fisher curves with higher correlation.

Kulback-Leibler entropy
The Kullback-Leibler (KL) entropy is a measure of the information that quantifies the amount of information
with by which the probability density ρ(~r) differs from the reference density ρ0 (~r). This measure is zero
when the probability density ρ(~r) is identical to the reference probability density ρ0 (~r). In other words,
this measure quantifies the similarity between the two probability densities. When the KL entropy is small
the probability densities ρ(~r) and ρ0 (~r) are similar, and when the KL entropy is large, the two probability

7
Figure 2: Shannon entropy for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with and without
electronic correlation. Where Si = S(ρi ), see Table 2, where i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.

densities are remarkably different. Figure 6 shows the KL entropy values for the electronically correlated
ρi (~r) densities with respect to the uncorrelated ρ0 (~r) reference density. Those values are entirely due to the
electronic correlation.
For values of r0 > 1 a.u., the KL entropy values increase with r0 , but even so the densities ρ1 (~r) and
ρ0 (~r) remain very similar. The KL entropies for the densities with greater correlation increase with r0 , and
have a maximum value near r0 = 4 a.u., and then decrease and tend asymptotically to the values of the
free case. In other words the Kullback-Liebler entropy varies with r0 and its highest value is found around
r0 = 4 a.u..
For r0 < 1 a.u., the KL entropy for ρ1 (~r) diminishes as r0 decreases. The KL entropies for ρi (~r),
i = 2 − 4, decrease as r0 decreases, and reach a minimum value and increase again, indicating that the
correlation decreases with r0 , reaches a minimum value at ∼ r0 = 1 a.u. and increases again.

Tsallis entropy
The analysis shown below is for ρ3 (~r), however, the behavior of Tsallis entropy for ρi (~r), (i = 1, 2 and
4) is very similar. The Tsallis entropy with a q value different from 1 has been used as a measure of the
electronic correlation [62]. Figure 7 shows the Tsallis entropy using a wave function without electronic
correlation, where values of q = 0.5,...,0.9 were used. It should be noted that this plot does not provide
correlation information. The Tsallis entropy curves have a maximum around 0.6 a.u. and this becomes more
pronounced as q approaches 1. We must remember that in the limiting case q → 1, Tsallis entropy becomes

8
 Figure 3: Shannon entropy difference S(ρi ) − S(ρ0 ), where i = 1, 2, 3, 4.

the Shannon entropy, shown in Figures 2 and 3.

On the other hand, Figure 8 shows the Tsallis entropy with electronic correlation for the same values of
q, here we can notice that as the confinement radius becomes smaller the correlation decreases, as expected,
since the kinetic energy is greater than the potential energy in the region of strong confinement. In addition,
we notice that the correlation is greater for q = 0.5 and as we increase the value of q the correlation
decreases. Finally, in Figure 9 we plot the difference: Tsallis entropy with correlation - Tsallis entropy
without correlation. On the other hand, the difference Sq (ρ3 ) − Sq (ρ0 ) is due completely to the correlation.

Fisher-Shannon complexity
The Fisher-Shannon complexity is a measure of the probability density distribution in a global-local form
that has been used as a measure of the correlation energy by Dehesa et. al. [72]. This interpretation makes
sense if we look at Figure 10, in which we notice that around r0 = 1.5 a.u. there is a minimum, which is
close to the value of r0 = 2 a.u., at which the maximum of the correlation energy was found by Wilson et. al.
[28]. For values of r0 < 1 a.u. the values of all curves are very similar. For r0 > 1 a.u. the Fisher-Shannon
complexities for the correlated wave functions are higher than for the uncorrelated wave function.

4 Conclusions
In this work we obtained the energies and wave functions of the helium atom confined in a spherical box
with impenetrable walls. We used the variational method and as trial wave functions we employed one
function without electronic correlation (ψ0 , Eq.(4)) and four functions with different degree of correlation
(Eqs. (5)-(8)). We constructed the probability densities of the five test functions and calculated the Shannon

9
Figure 4: Fisher information for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with and without
electronic correlation.

entropy, Fisher information, Kullback-Leibler entropy, Tsallis entropy and Fisher-Shannon complexity as a
function of the radius of the spherical box r0 .
We find that the behavior of all information measures, used in this work, is different in the regions r0 < 1 a.u.
(strong confinement region) and r0 > 1 a.u.. For each of the information measures, the difference between
the values obtained with a wave function with correlation ψi , (i=2-4) and with the uncorrelated function ψ0 ,
is entirely due to electronic correlation. All information measures show evidence of electronic correlation.
The electronic correlation is not constant but varies with r0 . The maximum value of the correlation measure
varies with the type of information measure used. For example, for Shannon entropy this maximum value is
reached around r0 = 4 a.u., while for Fisher information at r0 = 2 a.u., for Kullback-Leibler entropy at r0 = 4
a.u., while for the Tsallis entropy a minimum is observed around r0 = 0.6 a.u., and for the Fisher-Shannon
complexity the minimum is located around r0 = 1.6 a.u., which is close to the point r0 = 2 a.u., at which
Wilson et al. [28] find a higher correlation energy.

Acknowledgements
N.A. and C. E. would like to thank R. P. Sagar for his comment on an early version of this work. J.C.A.
belongs to the research group FQM-207, and gratefully acknowledges financial support by the Spanish
projects PID2020-113390GB-I00 (MICIN), PY20 00082 (ERDF-Junta de Andalucı́a), and AFQM-52-UGR20
(ERDF-University of Granada).

10
Figure 5: Fisher information for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with and without
electronic correlation.

11
Figure 6: Kullback-Leibler entropy varying the confinement radii r0 (KLi with i =1,2,3 and 4).

12
Figure 7: Tsallis entropy for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity without electronic correla-
tion for ρ3 .

13
Figure 8: Tsallis entropy for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with electronic correlation
for ρ3 .

14
Figure 9: Tsallis entropy for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with Sq (ρ3 ) − Sq (ρ0 )

15
Figure 10: Fisher-Shannon complexity for the helium atom confined in an impenetrable cavity with and
without electronic correlation.

16
References
[1] P. O. Fröman, S. Yngve, and N. Fröman. The energy levels and the corresponding normalized wave
functions for a model of a compressed atom. J. Math. Phys., 28(8):1813–1826, 1987.

[2] W. Jaskólski. Confined many-electron systems. Phys. Rep., 271(1):1–66, 1996.

[3] A. L. Buchachenko. Compressed atoms. J. Phys. Chem. B, 105(25):5839–5846, 2001.
[4] J. P. Connerade, V. K. Dolmatov, and P. A. Lakshmi. The filling of shells in compressed atoms. J.
Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 33(2):251, 2000.

[5] J. R. Sabin, E. Brändas, and S. A. Cruz, editors. Theory of Confined Quantum Systems. Academic
Press, Parts I and II, 2009.
[6] K. D. Sen, V. I. Pupyshev, and Montgomery Jr. HE. Exact relations for confined one-electron systems.
Adv. Quantum Chem., 57:25–77, 2009.

[7] K. D. Sen, editor. Electronic structure of quantum confined atoms and molecules. Springer, Switzerland,
2014.
[8] E. Ley-Koo. Recent progress in confined atoms and molecules: Superintegrability and symmetry break-
ings. Rev. Méx. Fis., 64(4):326–363, 2018.
[9] S. W. Koch. Semiconductor Quantum Dots, volume 2. World Scientific, 1993.

[10] P. Harrison and A. Valavanis. Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots: Theoretical and Computational Physics
of Semiconductor Nanostructures. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[11] A. Michels, J. De Boer, and A. Bijl. Remarks concerning molecular interaction and their influence on
the polarisability. Physica, 4(10):981–994, 1937.

[12] E. Ley-Koo and S. Rubinstein. The hydrogen atom within spherical boxes with penetrable walls. J.
Chem. Phys., 71(1):351–357, 1979.
[13] J. L. Marin and S. A. Cruz. Use of the direct variational method for the study of one-and two-electron
atomic systems confined by spherical penetrable boxes. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 25(21):4365,
1992.

[14] N. Aquino. The hydrogen and helium atoms confined in spherical boxes. Adv. Quantum Chem., 57:123–
171, 2009.
[15] KD Sen, VI Pupyshev, and HE Montgomery Jr. Exact relations for confined one-electron systems. Adv.
Quantum Chem., 57:25–77, 2009.

[16] Montgomery Jr. HE and K. D. Sen. Dipole polarizabilities for a hydrogen atom confined in a penetrable
sphere. Phys. Lett. A, 376(26-27):1992–1996, 2012.
[17] C. A. Ten Seldam and S. R. De Groot. On the ground state of a model for compressed helium. Physica,
18(11):891–904, 1952.

[18] B. M. Gimarc. Correlation energy of the two-electron atom in a spherical potential box. J. Chem.
Phys., 47(12):5110–5115, 1967.
[19] E. V. Ludeña. Scf hartree–fock calculations of ground state wavefunctions of compressed atoms. J.
Chem. Phys., 69(4):1770–1775, 1978.
[20] E. V. Ludeña and M. Gregori. Configuration interaction calculations for two-electron atoms in a spherical
box. J. Chem. Phys., 71(5):2235–2240, 1979.
[21] C. Joslin and S. Goldman. Quantum montecarlo studies of two-electron atoms constrained in spherical
boxes. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 25(9):1965, 1992.

17
[22] N. Aquino, A. Flores-Riveros, and J. F. Rivas-Silva. The compressed helium atom variationally treated
via a correlated Hylleraas wave function. Phys. Lett. A, 307(5-6):326–336, 2003.

[23] N. Aquino, J. Garza, A. Flores-Riveros, J. F. Rivas-Silva, and K. D. Sen. Confined helium atom low-
lying s states analyzed through correlated Hylleraas wave functions and the Kkohn-Sham model. J.
Chem. Phys., 124(5):054311, 2006.
[24] A. Flores-Riveros and A. Rodriguez-Contreras. Compression effects in helium-like atoms (Z= 1,..., 5)
constrained by hard spherical walls. Phys. Lett. A, 372(40):6175–6182, 2008.

[25] A. Flores-Riveros, N. Aquino, and Montgomery Jr. HE. Spherically compressed helium atom described
by perturbative and variational methods. Phys. Lett. A, 374(10):1246–1252, 2010.
[26] C. Laughlin and S. I. Chu. A highly accurate study of a helium atom under pressure. J. Phys. A:
Theor. Math. Phys., 42(26):265004, 2009.

[27] Montgomery Jr. HE, N. Aquino, and A. Flores-Riveros. The ground state energy of a helium atom
under strong confinement. Phys. Lett. A, 374(19-20):2044–2047, 2010.
[28] C. L. Wilson, Montgomery Jr. HE, K. D. Sen, and D. C. Thompson. Electron correlation energy in
confined two-electron systems. Phys. Lett. A, 374(43):4415–4419, 2010.

[29] N. Aquino. The role of correlation in the ground state energy of confined helium atom. In AIP
Conference Proceedings, volume 1579, pages 136–140, 2014.
[30] C. Le Sech and A. Banerjee. A variational approach to the Dirichlet boundary condition: application
to confined h-, he and li. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 44(10):105003, 2011.
[31] S. Bhattacharyya, J. K. Saha, P. K. Mukherjee, and T. K. Mukherjee. Precise estimation of the energy
levels of two-electron atoms under spherical confinement. Physica Scripta, 87(6):065305, 2013.
[32] T. D. Young, R. Vargas, and J. Garza. A Hartree-Fock study of the confined helium atom: Local and
global basis set approaches. Phys. Lett. A, 380(5-6):712–717, 2016.
[33] S. B. Doma and F. N. El-Gammal. Application of variational montecarlo method to the confined helium
atom. J. Theor. Appl. Phys., 6(1):1–7, 2012.
[34] A. Ben Hamza. Nonextensive information–theoretic measure for image edge detection. Journal of
Electronic Imaging, 15(1):013011–013011, 2006.
[35] A. F. Martins, P. M. Aguiar, and M. A. Figueiredo. Tsallis kernels on measures. In 2008 IEEE
Information Theory Workshop, pages 298–302. IEEE, 2008.

[36] A. F. Martins, N. A. Smith, E. P. Xing, P. M. Aguiar, and M. A. Figueiredo. Nonextensive information

theoretic kernels on measures. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(4), 2009.
[37] S. J. C. Salazar, H. G. Laguna, B. Dahiya, V. Prasad, and R. P. Sagar. Shannon information entropy
sum of the confined hydrogenic atom under the influence of an electric field. The European Physical
Journal D, 75(4):127, 2021.
[38] H. G. Laguna, S. J. Salazar, and R. P. Sagar. Information theoretical statistical discrimination measures
for electronic densities. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 60(7):1422–1444, 2022.
[39] S. J. Salazar, H. G. Laguna, and R. P. Sagar. Pairwise and higher-order statistical correlations in excited
states of quantum oscillator systems. The European Physical Journal Plus, 137(1):1–26, 2022.

[40] S. J. Salazar, H. G. Laguna, and R. P. Sagar. Phase-space quantum distributions and information
theory. Physical Review A, 107(4):042417, 2023.
[41] C. Martı́nez-Flores, M. A. Martı́nez-Sánchez, R. Vargas, and J. Garza. Free-basis-set method to describe
the helium atom confined by a spherical box with finite and infinite potentials. Eur. Phys. J. D, 75(3):1–
9, 2021.

18
[42] R. J. Yáñez, W. V. Assche, and J. S. Dehesa. Position and momentum information entropies of the
d-dimensional harmonic oscillator and hydrogen atom. Phys. Rev. A, 50:3065–3079, 1994.
[43] K. D. Sen, C. P. Panos, K. Ch. Chatzisavvas, and Ch. C. Moustakidis. Net Fisher information measure
versus ionization potential and dipole polarizability in atoms. Physics Letters A, 364(4-5):286–290,
2007.
[44] N. Aquino, A. Flores-Riveros, and J. F. Rivas-Silva. Shannon and Fisher entropies for a hydrogen atom
under soft spherical confinement. Physics Letters A, 377(32-33):2062–2068, 2013.
[45] K. D. Sen, editor. Statistical complexity: applications in electronic structure. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2011.
[46] M. Ho, V. H. Smith Jr., D. F. Weaver, C. Gatti, R. P. Sagar, and R. O. Esquivel. Molecular simi-
larity based on information entropies and distances. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling,
38(5):546–558, 1998.
[47] M. Ho, D. F. Weaver, V. H. Smith Jr., R. P. Sagar, and R. O. Esquivel. Calculating the logarithmic
mean excitacion energy from the Shannon information entropy of the electronic charge density. Phys.
Rev. A, 57:4512–4517, 1998.
[48] S. R. Gadre. Information entropy and Thomas-Fermi theory. Phys. Rev. A, 30:620–621, 1984.
[49] S. R. Gadre, S. B. Sears, S. J. Chakravorty, and R. D. Bendale. Some novel characteristics of atomic
information entropies. Phys. Rev. A, 32:2602, 1985.
[50] S. R. Gadre, R. J. Bendale, and A. P. Gejji. Analysis of atomic electron momentum densities: use
of information entropies in coordinate and momentum space. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 18:138–142,
1985.
[51] X. Y. Pan, V. Sahni, L. Massa, and K. D. Sen. New expression for the expectation value integral for a
confined helium atom. J. Theor. Comput. Chem., 965(1):202–205, 2011.
[52] W. S. Nascimento, M. M. de Almeida, and F. V. Prudente. Coulomb correlation and information
entropies in confined helium-like atoms. Eur. Phys. J. D, 2021.
[53] C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal,
27(3):379–423, 1948.
[54] I. Nasser and A. Abdel-Hady. Fisher information and Shannon entropy calculations for two-electron
systems. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(8):784–789, 2020.
[55] J. C. Angulo, J. Antolı́n, S. López-Rosa, and R. O. Esquivel. Jensen–Shannon divergence in conjugate
spaces: The entropy excess of atomic systems and sets with respect to their constituents. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(4):899–907, 2010.
[56] P. W. Lamberti and A. P. Majtey. Non-logarithmic jensen–Shannon divergence. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 329(1–2):81–90, 2003.
[57] S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
22(1):79–86, 1951.
[58] A Majtey, Pedro W Lamberti, Marı́a Teresa Martin, and A Plastino. Wootters’ distance revisited:
a new distinguishability criterium. The European Physical Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and
Plasma Physics, 32:413–419, 2005.
[59] C. R. Estañón, N. Aquino, D. Puertas-Centeno, and J. S. Dehesa. Two-dimensional confined hydrogen:
An entropy and complexity approach. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 120(11):e26192, 2020.
[60] R. López-Ruiz, J. Sañudo, E. Romera, and X. Calbet. Statistical complexity and Fisher-Shannon
information: Applications. Statistical Complexity: Applications in Electronic Structure, pages 65–127,
2011.

19
[61] R. López Ruiz and J. Sañudo. Statistical complexity. applications in electronic systems. J. Comput.
Sci., (ART-2015-95144), 2015.
[62] I. Nasser, C. Martinez-Flores, M. Zeama, R. Vargas, and J. Garza. Tsallis entropy: A comparative
study for the 1s2-state of helium atom. Phys. Lett. A, 392:127136, 2021.
[63] A. Vershynina. Coherence as entropy increment for Tsallis and Rényi entropies. Quantum Inf. Process.,
22(2):127, 2023.
[64] C. Tsallis. Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 52:479–
487, 1988.
[65] J. Antolı́n, S. López-Rosa, J. C. Angulo, and R. O. Esquivel. Jensen–Tsallis divergence and atomic
dissimilarity for position and momentum space electron densities. The Journal of Chemical Physics,
132(4):044105, 2010.
[66] J. C. Angulo, J. Antolı́n, S. López-Rosa, and R. O. Esquivel. Jensen–Tsallis divergence and atomic
dissimilarity for ionized systems in conjugated spaces. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli-
cations, 390(4):769–780, 2011.
[67] C. Tsallis. Computational applications of nonextensive statistical mechanics. Journal of Computational
and Applied Mathematics, 227(1):51–58, 2009.
[68] R. A. Fisher. Theory of statistical estimation. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 22:700–725, 1925.
[69] R González-Férez and JS Dehesa. Characterization of atomic avoided crossings by means of Fisher’s
information. The European Physical Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics, 32:39–
43, 2005.
[70] R. F. Nalewajski. Information Theory of Molecular Systems. Elsevier Science, New York, 2006.
[71] Sheila López-Rosa, Rodolfo O Esquivel, Juan Carlos Angulo, Juan Antolı́n, Jesús S Dehesa, and Nelson
Flores-Gallegos. Fisher information study in position and momentum spaces for elementary chemical
reactions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 6(1):145–154, 2010.
[72] E. Romera and J. S. Dehesa. The Fisher-Shannon information plane, an electron correlation tool. The
Journal of Chemical Physics, 120(19):8906–8912, 2004.
[73] J. C. Angulo, J. Antolı́n, and K. D. Sen. Fisher-Shannon plane and statistical complexity of atoms.
Physics Letters A, 372(5):670–674, 2008.
[74] M. A. Martı́nez-Sánchez, C. Martı́nez-Flores, R. Vargas, J. Garza, R. Cabrera-Trujillo, and K. D.
Sen. Ionization of many-electron atoms by the action of two plasma models. Physical Review E,
103(4):043202, 2021.
[75] C. R. Estañón, N. Aquino, D. Puertas-Centeno, and J. S. Dehesa. Cramér-Rao complexity of the
confined two-dimensional hydrogen. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 121(2):e26424, 2021.
[76] C. Vignat and J. F. Bercher. Analysis of signals in the Fisher-Shannon information plane. Physics
Letters A, 312(1-2):27–33, 2003.
[77] A. J. Stam. Some inequalities satisfied by the quantities of information of Fisher and Shannon. Infor-
mation and Control, 2(2):101–112, 1959.
[78] L. Rudnicki, I. V. Toranzo, P. Sánchez-Moreno, and J. S. Dehesa. Monotone measures of statistical
complexity. Phys. Lett. A, 380(3):377–380, 2016.
[79] Minhhuy Hô, Robin P Sagar, Vedene H Smith Jr., and Rodolfo O Esquivel. Atomic information
entropies beyond the Hartree-Fock limit. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics,
27(21):5149, 1994.
[80] K. D. Sen. Characteristic features of Shannon information entropy of confined atoms. J. Chem. Phys.,
123:074110, 2005.

20