Dear developers,
I performed GW calculations for a two-dimensional magnetic material with both ONCV and DOJO pseudopotentials. The DFT band structure and QP corrections were apparently the same for both pseudopotentials (figure 1,2). But when I did the GW-BSE calculations, the absorption spectrum obtained from the ONCV pseudopotential was completely correct, while the absorption spectrum obtained from the DOJO pseudopotential was wrong (figure 3). However, when I performed GW-BSE calculations with scissor for DOJO pseudopotentials, the correct absorption spectrum was obtained (figure 4).
Is there a way to solve this problem? Because I want to perform GW-BSE calculations for a material whose scf calculations do not converge with ONCV pseudopotentials, while they converge easily with DOJO pseudopotentials.
The r-setups of GW-BSE calculations with full GW for both pseudopotentials are attached.
Thanks and Regards,
Mitra Helmi
DOJO pseudopotentials
Moderators: myrta gruning, andrea marini, Daniele Varsano, Conor Hogan
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:53 pm
DOJO pseudopotentials
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by 8813204602 on Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mitra Helmi,Ph.D student
Ferdowsi university of Mashhad
Mashhad,Iran
Ferdowsi university of Mashhad
Mashhad,Iran
- Daniele Varsano
- Posts: 3838
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: DOJO pseudopotentials
Dear Mitra,
at first glance there are some differences between the two calculations:
1) Different number of k points
2) Slightly different lattice constants
3) Different number of QP corrections
4) Different QP gap (about 0.1 eV of difference)
As a first test, I would compare the two calculations using the same parameters.
Looking at your QP corrections, it seems that the scissor operator approximation here does not apply.
Best,
Daniele
at first glance there are some differences between the two calculations:
1) Different number of k points
2) Slightly different lattice constants
3) Different number of QP corrections
4) Different QP gap (about 0.1 eV of difference)
As a first test, I would compare the two calculations using the same parameters.
Looking at your QP corrections, it seems that the scissor operator approximation here does not apply.
Best,
Daniele
Dr. Daniele Varsano
S3-CNR Institute of Nanoscience and MaX Center, Italy
MaX - Materials design at the Exascale
http://www.nano.cnr.it
http://www.max-centre.eu/
S3-CNR Institute of Nanoscience and MaX Center, Italy
MaX - Materials design at the Exascale
http://www.nano.cnr.it
http://www.max-centre.eu/