exciton binding energy

Anything regarding the post-processing utility (e.g. excitonic wavefunction analysis) is dealt with in this forum.

Moderators: Davide Sangalli, andrea marini, Daniele Varsano

User avatar
Daniele Varsano
Posts: 3838
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: exciton binding energy

Post by Daniele Varsano » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:54 pm

Dear Samaneh,
I have already answered you in a previous post.
Calculate the dynamical dielectric function at the level of theory you desire (RPA, TDDFT, HF, BSE), and look at the zero energy value.
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/

samaneh
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:03 am

Re: exciton binding energy

Post by samaneh » Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:05 pm

Dear Daniele,
Yes I found it.
Thanks
S. Ataei, PhD student at University of Tehran, Iran.

Reza_Reza
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:13 pm
Location: France

Re: exciton binding energy

Post by Reza_Reza » Mon Apr 22, 2024 6:14 pm

Dear Daniele,

I computed the optical absorption for a 1D system. However, the energy of the peaks on my plot of the optical absorption is wrong. ( plot "o-ev_GW_3.alpha_q1_diago_bse_TEST" u 1:2 w l)
when i plot with (plot "o-ev_GW_3.alpha_q1_diago_bse_TEST" u 1:4) it seems correct.


I attached the report and output files. (Since we can add three attachments, I write the excitonic energies here.)

# Maximum Residual Value = 0.38730E+01
#
# E [ev] Strength Index
#
-0.124014705 0.999999940 1.00000000
0.15619701 0.33847322E-09 2.0000000
0.258908361 0.122013018E-1 3.00000000
0.47375387 0.92644096E-11 4.0000000
0.502913177 0.894569885E-2 5.00000000
0.74984646 0.16381771E-11 6.0000000
0.778735518 0.653948821E-2 7.00000000
0.81744349 0.54038078E-12 8.0000000
1.0005046 0.85885682E-11 9.0000000
1.02878881 0.522387633E-2 10.0000000
1.1728863 0.41521029E-12 11.000000
1.1996268 0.93699465E-10 12.000000
1.2272360 0.25179446E-12 13.000000
1.2286303 0.96458583E-12 14.000000
1.25555646 0.440468034E-2 15.0000000
1.2989506 0.13916714E-11 16.000000
1.3741199 0.52030075E-10 17.000000
1.4155179 0.37175178E-12 18.000000
1.4333268 0.28858803E-10 19.000000
1.4381497 0.11025027E-10 20.000000
1.46215904 0.393986190E-2 21.0000000
1.4740620 0.11227375E-11 22.000000
1.5333049 0.88010932E-10 23.000000
1.6097236 0.26518143E-11 24.000000
1.6208855 0.90077832E-11 25.000000
1.6253181 0.28864687E-10 26.000000
1.65039110 0.400217436E-2 27.0000000
1.6764745 0.59737519E-11 28.000000
1.7230855 0.52400878E-09 29.000000
1.7903579 0.21673523E-09 30.000000
1.8104832 0.97735570E-10 31.000000


Best,

Reza
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Reza - Postdoc
CNRS

User avatar
Daniele Varsano
Posts: 3838
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: exciton binding energy

Post by Daniele Varsano » Tue Apr 23, 2024 6:16 am

Dear Reza,

what do you mean by "wrong" and "right"?
The fourth column is the independent particle spectrum, with excitations corresponding to Ec-Ev and the onset in the position of the gap.
In the second column you have the result of the BSE and you get a binding energy larger than the gap, resulting in a negative excitation (instability), the spectrum is negative for positive energy because of the time-ordering. It is up to you to check if it is physical or not. I suggest you to check the convergence parameter both in GW and in BSE, in particular the k point sampling.


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/

Reza_Reza
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:13 pm
Location: France

Re: exciton binding energy

Post by Reza_Reza » Fri May 10, 2024 5:45 pm

Dear Daniele,

I did my calculation using larger k-points. However, the optical absorption shape is strange and not compatible with the exciton energy range. I attached the needed files for analysis.
When I increase the k points from 50 to 70, the size of the band gap is similar in both cases.

Best,

Reza
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Reza - Postdoc
CNRS

Post Reply