Page 2 of 2
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:21 am
by burkzdemir
Mo pseudopot attached.
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:22 am
by burkzdemir
S pseudopot attached.
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:52 pm
by Daniele Varsano
Dear Burak,
I have reproduced your problem. In the next days, we will investigate what is causing the problem.
Best,
Daniele
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:06 pm
by Daniele Varsano
Dear Burak,
I've inspected a bit your problem, the problem was present for the screening of some q points and then propagated in the whole GW calculation. Even if not 100% sure, the problem was caused by the occupation numbers obtained with the use of very large smearing. Repeating the ground state calculations by using
Code: Select all
occupations='smearing', smearing='gaussian', degauss=0.001,
it seems to run smoothly. Actually I've not performed a full GW calculation but I've seen that the problem disappeared in the screening of one of the q points that were previously failing. I encourage you to repeat the GW calculation after computing the ground state (scf and nscf) with the smearing set as above. If you still encounter problems, please report.
Not related to your problem: Note that in your GW input the size of the screening was set to 1RL, note that this is a parameter that needs to be converged.
Best,
Daniele
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:27 am
by andrea marini
Dear Burak,
if, as Daniele reported, the NaN is not a Yambo bug then...that it is a physical NaN.
Are you sure the PPA works for your system? I encourage you to go trough the theory and see where the NaN could come from.
In the early days of Yambo, the code was applied to metallic systems where, indeed, the PPA fails because of the appearance of low energy plasmonic states. Is this your case also?
Andrea
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:45 pm
by burkzdemir
Dear Andrea,
Yes, indeed the system is metallic with low plasma frequency.
Regards,
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:32 pm
by Daniele Varsano
Dear Burak,
note anyway that the NaN appeared in the evaluation of the dielectric function, so before evaluating the plasmon-pole coefficients.
You can have a try to calculate QP correction using the plasmon-pole model by considering reducing your smearing parameter in QE, anyway, as warned by Andrea for this kind of system the PP approximation can breakdown.
Best,
Daniele
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:31 am
by Davins
What's usually the breakdown point of the PP approximation for this kind of system?
Cheers
Re: NaN E-E0 result for Mg
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:47 am
by Daniele Varsano
Dear Davins,
please sign your post with your name and affiliation, this is a rule of the forum and you can do once for all in the user profiele preferences.
As commented by Andrea, in metals you can experience failure of the PP approximations becuase of the appearance of low energy plasmonic peak in the dielectric function. Anyway, there also cases where it works reasonably well.
Best,
Daniele