<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Thanks a lot Nicola and Paolo.<br><br></div>Paolo, is there some quick fix for the bug?<br><br></div>With regards,<br><br></div>Prasenjit<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 August 2017 at 21:17, Paolo Giannozzi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:p.giannozzi@gmail.com" target="_blank">p.giannozzi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>There is a problem with reduced-cutoff calculations (using ecutfock < 4*ecutwfc) and k-points. Thank you for reporting this<br><br></div>Paolo<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Prasenjit Ghosh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:prasenjit.jnc@gmail.com" target="_blank">prasenjit.jnc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Dear all,<br><br></div>We are doing
calculations for my system (PbI2) with hybrid functionals (using the ACE
algorithm) and norm conserving pseudopotentials. Presently we are
performing this calculations using scalar relativistic non-conserving
pseudopotentials for Pb and I. The pseudopotentials have been generated
by me using PBE functionals. I have tested these (at the level of GGA)
and it can reproduce well the lattice parameters and electronic
bandstructure of a range of different compounds (from metallic Pb to
ionic PbI2 and CsPbBr3).<br><br></div>When we perform the hybrid
calculations using GAU-PBE, we find that the total energy differs when
we use 1 core and 4 cores. The energy difference is about 0.23 Ry.
However, for both the cases, the standard GGA-PBE calculations give same
results (total energy). Even the band gap with GAU-PBE (using 1 and 4
cores) are same. A look into the output file suggests that the
difference comes from <br>-averaged Fock potential + Fock energy. <br><br></div>Since
I have generated the pseudopotential, I thought that there might be
some issue with this. Hence to cross check, I downloaded the
normconserving pseudopotentials for Pb and I from <a href="http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/Pseudopotentials" target="_blank">http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/<wbr>Pseudopotentials</a>
(pbe.0.3.1.tgz). For these two pseudopotentials also the total energies
(1 core vs 4 cores) differ. The input files, pseudopotential files and
the output files can be downloaded from the link given below:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.iiserpune.ac.in/~pghosh/QE/" target="_blank">http://www.iiserpune.ac.in/~pg<wbr>hosh/QE/</a></div><div><br></div><div>These results are reproducible on different machines, using different compilers (eg. gfortran vs intel).<br><br></div>I
think that there is a bug in the code, particularly the part where the
contributions to total energy from EXX is collected. If the developers
can suggest where exactly to look for in the code, I can give it a try
to sort it out.<br><br></div>With regards,<br><br></div>Prasenjit.<span class="m_-1901003628794280044HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_-1901003628794280044m_271540822837167201gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">PRASENJIT GHOSH,<br>IISER Pune,<br>Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan<br>Pune, Maharashtra 411008, India<br><br>Phone: <a href="tel:+91%2020%202590%208203" value="+912025908203" target="_blank">+91 (20) 2590 8203</a><br>Fax: <a href="tel:+91%2020%202589%209790" value="+912025899790" target="_blank">+91 (20) 2589 9790</a></div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pw_forum mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pw_forum@pwscf.org" target="_blank">Pw_forum@pwscf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pwscf.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/pw_forum</a><br></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_-1901003628794280044gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche,<br>Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy<br>Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222<br><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pw_forum mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pw_forum@pwscf.org">Pw_forum@pwscf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pwscf.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/pw_forum</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">PRASENJIT GHOSH,<br>IISER Pune,<br>Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan<br>Pune, Maharashtra 411008, India<br><br>Phone: +91 (20) 2590 8203<br>Fax: +91 (20) 2589 9790</div></div>
</div>