with&without truncation

Concerns issues with computing quasiparticle corrections to the DFT eigenvalues - i.e., the self-energy within the GW approximation (-g n), or considering the Hartree-Fock exchange only (-x)

Moderators: Davide Sangalli, andrea.ferretti, myrta gruning, andrea marini, Daniele Varsano

Post Reply
WEI Wei
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:04 am

with&without truncation

Post by WEI Wei » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:33 pm

Dear All,

I have done a QP calculation with box-shaped Coulomb interaction (yambo -c -g n -p p), it gave the first valence band and the first conduction band at one k point as:
----------------------------------------------------------------

K-point Band Eo E-Eo Sc(Eo)
... ...
1.00000 17.00000 -0.66979 -0.79705 1.23180
1.00000 18.00000 3.38593 1.79275 -2.39824
... ...
----------------------------------------------------------------
However, without the box-shaped Coulomb interaction (yambo -g n -p p), it gave:
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-point Band Eo E-Eo Sc(Eo)
... ...
1.00000 17.00000 -0.66979 -1.54338 2.06721
1.00000 18.00000 3.38593 1.01423 -3.22978
... ...
----------------------------------------------------------------

The result seems strange a little bit, i.e., truncated Conlomb interaction just shift the conduction and valence bands simultaneously and thus does not improve the band gap. So can you please tell me what was wrong with my calculation?
Thank you very much!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WEI Wei
Postdoctor
Institute of Electrochemistry
Ulm University
Germany
E-mail: dftwei@163.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
claudio
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:33 pm
Location: Marseille
Contact:

Re: with&without truncation

Post by claudio » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:39 pm

Dear WEI Wei

may you put in the forum the two inputs you used for the calculations,

claudio
Claudio Attaccalite
[CNRS/ Aix-Marseille Université/ CINaM laborarory / TSN department
Campus de Luminy – Case 913
13288 MARSEILLE Cedex 09
web site: http://www.attaccalite.com

WEI Wei
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:04 am

Re: with&without truncation

Post by WEI Wei » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:16 am

Dear Claudio,

Thank you for you reply!

yambo -c -g n -p p
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rim_cut # [R RIM CUT] Coulomb interaction
gw0 # [R GW] GoWo Quasiparticle energy levels
ppa # [R Xp] Plasmon Pole Approximation
HF_and_locXC # [R XX] Hartree-Fock Self-energy and Vxc
em1d # [R Xd] Dynamical Inverse Dielectric Matrix
RandQpts=1000000 # [RIM] Number of random q-points in the BZ
RandGvec=1 RL # [RIM] Coulomb interaction RS components
CUTGeo= "box z" # [CUT] Coulomb Cutoff geometry: box/cylinder/sphere
% CUTBox
0.000 | 0.000 | 25.056 | # [CUT] [au] Box sides
%
CUTRadius= 0.000000 # [CUT] [au] Sphere/Cylinder radius
CUTCylLen= 0.000000 # [CUT] [au] Cylinder length
EXXRLvcs= 13787 RL # [XX] Exchange RL components
% QpntsRXp
1 | 91 | # [Xp] Transferred momenta
%
% BndsRnXp
1 | 300 | # [Xp] Polarization function bands
%
NGsBlkXp= 400 RL # [Xp] Response block size
% LongDrXp
1.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | # [Xp] [cc] Electric Field
%
PPAPntXp= 27.21138 eV # [Xp] PPA imaginary energy
% GbndRnge
1 | 300 | # [GW] G[W] bands range
%
GDamping= 0.100000 eV # [GW] G[W] damping
dScStep= 0.100000 eV # [GW] Energy step to evalute Z factors
DysSolver= "n" # [GW] Dyson Equation solver (`n`,`s`,`g`)
%QPkrange # [GW] QP generalized Kpoint/Band indices
1| 91| 13|27|
%
%QPerange # [GW] QP generalized Kpoint/Energy indices
1| 91| 0.0|-1.0|
%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yambo -g n -p p
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gw0 # [R GW] GoWo Quasiparticle energy levels
ppa # [R Xp] Plasmon Pole Approximation
HF_and_locXC # [R XX] Hartree-Fock Self-energy and Vxc
em1d # [R Xd] Dynamical Inverse Dielectric Matrix
EXXRLvcs= 13787 RL # [XX] Exchange RL components
% QpntsRXp
1 | 91 | # [Xp] Transferred momenta
%
% BndsRnXp
1 | 300 | # [Xp] Polarization function bands
%
NGsBlkXp= 400 RL # [Xp] Response block size
% LongDrXp
1.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | # [Xp] [cc] Electric Field
%
PPAPntXp= 27.21138 eV # [Xp] PPA imaginary energy
% GbndRnge
1 | 300 | # [GW] G[W] bands range
%
GDamping= 0.100000 eV # [GW] G[W] damping
dScStep= 0.100000 eV # [GW] Energy step to evalute Z factors
DysSolver= "n" # [GW] Dyson Equation solver (`n`,`s`,`g`)
%QPkrange # [GW] QP generalized Kpoint/Band indices
1| 91| 13|27|
%
%QPerange # [GW] QP generalized Kpoint/Energy indices
1| 91| 0.0|-1.0|
%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WEI Wei
Postdoctor
Institute of Electrochemistry
Ulm University
Germany
E-mail: dftwei@163.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
Daniele Varsano
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: with&without truncation

Post by Daniele Varsano » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:48 am

Dear Wei Wei,
the use of the coulomb cutoff, by its nature, needs systematic tests.
The size of the cut radius/side depends on both the size of the system
and the supercell (i.e. the vacuum region).
Even if not well documented , it is extensively discussed in the forum.
If I'm not wrong in the case of the box, the zcut values have to be put,
around twice the size of your system (I have to check, and eventually correct it
as it is controintuitive), and next the vacuum have to be set accordingly.
I do not know the size of your system so I cannot say nothing about your inputs,
anyway be sure from the report, that the screening and HF are recalculated
and not just read when changing input.
moreover it works only on simple orthorhombic unit cells.

Cheers,
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/

WEI Wei
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:04 am

Re: with&without truncation

Post by WEI Wei » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:01 am

Dear Daniele,

Thank you very much for your comments!
I will test it in next days.

Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WEI Wei
Postdoctor
Institute of Electrochemistry
Ulm University
Germany
E-mail: dftwei@163.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post Reply