<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Dear Soumyadeep,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately I cannot open the input file "LiFeAs-0GPa.scf". Could you please share it via Google Drive or Dropbox? Is you system magnetic, metallic?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The value of U is very sensitive to the type of localized functions which are used, so we have Wannier in cRPA vs atomic/ortho-atomic in LRT. That may make a big difference, I think.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Another aspect, comparison of methods cRPA vs constrained DFT (LRT). There were some attempts to obtain same U with these two methods, but nobody <span>succeeded</span> to so far, to the best of my knowledge. In particular, here is an important paper concerning
this issue: Phys. Rev. B 74, 125106 (2006). In Fig. 2 of this paper you can see that cRPA gives the value of U which is very sensitive to the fact which electrons are allowed to screen the d-d interactions. So in your case, I would try to understand how U
was computed with cRPA (if the authors provide enough details in the publication which you cited), i.e. which electrons were allowed to screen. In the LRT approach instead, there is no this kind of choice which electrons are allowed to screen: when one perturbs
e.g. d electronic states of Fe then all other electrons in the system are allowed to screen (this is done via the self-consistent solution of modified Kohn-Sham equations). To conclude, comparing cRPA with LRT is not an easy task (at least I do not know any
publication which clearly makes such a comparison, apart from the one which I mentioned above).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>Iurii<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="x_Signature">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,"EmojiFont","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols">
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080">--<br>
Dr. Iurii Timrov<br>
Postdoctoral Researcher<br>
<font color="808080"><font face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif"></font></font></font></div>
<font color="808080"></font>
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080">STI - IMX <font color="808080">
<font face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif">- THEOS</font></font></font><font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080"> and NCCR - MARVEL<br>
</font></div>
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080"><font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080">Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL<font color="808080"><font face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif">)</font></font></font><br>
</font></div>
<font color="808080"></font>
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<font size="3" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif" color="808080">CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland<br>
+41 21 69 34 881</font></div>
<div name="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<a href="http://people.epfl.ch/265334" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">http://people.epfl.ch/265334</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Soumyadeep <soumyadeep@rrcat.gov.in><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 12, 2019 12:56:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Quantum ESPRESSO users Forum<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timrov Iurii<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [QE-users] hp.x code overestimates Hubbard U value</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Dear Iurii,<br>
Thanks you very much for the detailed explanation.<br>
<br>
>> ..."U" lies between 3.0-3.5 eV...<br>
The determined value of U is calculated using cRPA method - Wannier <br>
function basis - Norm conserving PP's <br>
(<a href="https://journals.jps.jp/doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.79.044705">https://journals.jps.jp/doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.79.044705</a>).<br>
<br>
When I do it using LRT I get almost doubled? I have checked it w.r.t <br>
different PP/Exchange-correlation functional here is the results,<br>
NCPP --> 6.43, USPP --> 6.85, PBESOL --> 6.81, PAW --> 6.83<br>
<br>
> different oxidation states<br>
I think oxidation state is same in both cases. Fe^2+ for Fe-besed <br>
superconductors<br>
<br>
> What is important is to use U (for calculations of band structure, <br>
DOS, phonons, etc.) with the same parameters which which it was <br>
computed.<br>
Yes agreed. First of all I like to calculate it for reported values in <br>
literature then apply it for my calculations.<br>
<br>
Input files are attached (NCPP) for your consideration, that may help <br>
you to find out my mistakes. I am just a beginner of such calculation <br>
and don't think without my mistake such large difference can occur <br>
though U is not an universal parameter.<br>
<br>
with many thanks and best regards<br>
Soumyadeep<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12-09-2019 14:35, Timrov Iurii wrote:<br>
> Dear Soumyadeep,<br>
> <br>
> Hubbard U is not a universal parameter. If you compute Hubbard U from<br>
> first principles, e.g. using linear response theory (LRT) [PRB 71,<br>
> 035105 (2005); PRB 98, 085127 (2018)] then the value of U depends on<br>
> many factors:<br>
> <br>
> - Manifold of localized functions (atomic, ortho-atomic, Wannier,<br>
> etc.);<br>
> <br>
> - Pseudopotentials;<br>
> <br>
> - Oxidation state;<br>
> <br>
> - Exchange-correlation functional (LDA, PBE, PBEsol, etc.);<br>
> <br>
> - Environment (e.g. U for Mn-3d in MnO and BiMnO3 is not exactly the<br>
> same).<br>
> <br>
> For example, check the paper by H. Kulik and N. Marzari, J. Chem.<br>
> Phys. 129, 134314 (2008). In particular, check the appendix in this<br>
> paper, and you will see that U is very sensitive to the oxidation<br>
> state.<br>
> <br>
> Another aspect is whether U was computed in "one-shot" or<br>
> "self-consistently". If you want to learn more about the<br>
> self-consistent U, I recommend these papers: H. Hsu et al., PRB 79,<br>
> 125124 (2009); C. Ricca et al., PRB 99, 094102 (2019); M. Cococcioni<br>
> and N. Marzari, PRM 3, 033801 (2019).<br>
> <br>
>> ..."U" lies between 3.0-3.5 eV...<br>
> <br>
> Where do these values come from? Are they empirical? Or were they<br>
> computed with cRPA? Please note that comparing U is not very<br>
> meaningful (in my understanding), especially if you do not specify how<br>
> it was determined. As I wrote above, the value of U computed from<br>
> first principles depends on many factors. So if you compute it using<br>
> different methods (LRT vs cRPA), different localized functions (atomic<br>
> vs Wannier), different oxidation states, etc. then you will not get<br>
> the same U. What is important is to use U (for calculations of band<br>
> structure, DOS, phonons, etc.) with the same parameters which which it<br>
> was computed.<br>
> <br>
> I recommend to have a look at the hands-on about calculation of U<br>
> using Quantum ESPRESSO (hp.x code):<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://agenda.ethernet.edu.et/event/33/">https://agenda.ethernet.edu.et/event/33/</a><br>
> <br>
> Hope this helps! If something is not precise in my explanations, it<br>
> would great if other experts correct me.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Iurii<br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Dr. Iurii Timrov<br>
> Postdoctoral Researcher<br>
> <br>
> STI - IMX - THEOS and NCCR - MARVEL<br>
> <br>
> Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)<br>
> <br>
> CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland<br>
> +41 21 69 34 881<br>
> <a href="http://people.epfl.ch/265334">http://people.epfl.ch/265334</a><br>
> <br>
> -------------------------<br>
> <br>
> FROM: users <users-bounces@lists.quantum-espresso.org> on behalf of<br>
> Soumyadeep <soumyadeep@rrcat.gov.in><br>
> SENT: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:35:37 PM<br>
> TO: Users<br>
> SUBJECT: [QE-users] hp.x code overestimates Hubbard U value<br>
> <br>
> Dear QE users,<br>
> <br>
> I am getting a overestimated value of Hubbard parameters using hp.x<br>
> <br>
> executable of Quantum Espresso. My material is iron based<br>
> superconductors (LiFeAs) for which "U" lies between 3.0-3.5 eV, but<br>
> using this code I get it around 6.4-6.5 eV.<br>
> <br>
> Can anyone find out possible mistakes?<br>
> <br>
> with many thanks and best regards<br>
> Soumyadeep<br>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Soumyadeep Ghosh,<br>
> Senior Research Fellow,<br>
> Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI),<br>
> Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore, India-452013<br>
> Mob: (+91)9424664553<br>
> User Lab: 0731244-2580<br>
> Email: soumyadeepghosh35@gmail.com, soumyadeep@rrcat.gov.in<br>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX<br>
> (<a href="http://"></a>www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso [1])<br>
> users mailing list users@lists.quantum-espresso.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users">https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Links:<br>
> ------<br>
> [1] <a href="http://www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso">http://www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX <br>
> (<a href="http://www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso">www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso</a>)<br>
> users mailing list users@lists.quantum-espresso.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users">https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>